Lesson 2:
The Worship of Two Women
(Luke 1:39-56)

When one thinks of the women of the ancient world, our first emotional response is usually pity. This would even be true in the Jewish world of those days when our Lord added humanity to His deity and manifested Himself to men. There was so much that women could not do, or at least were not allowed to do. We might suspect that the limitations of biblical revelation, compounded by those of the culture, would have made womanhood a curse. The men assumed the leadership roles, especially in spiritual matters. The women seemed only fit for fixing meals and bearing children. Perhaps a few women, “blessed” by financial prosperity and social standing, may have been able to enjoy some of the benefits of the male world.

While there is some truth in the rather dismal picture which I have portrayed, it is not utterly so. We need by read the final chapter of the book of Proverbs to see that women, at least biblically, were given great privileges and responsibilities. The degree to which women were degraded was that to which their husbands and their culture stooped.

Luke is well-known for his high regard for women and for the prominence which he gives them in his two accounts. We find the first instance of his highlighting of women in our text in the first chapter of Luke’s gospel, where the spotlight is directed toward two godly women. The two women are Elizabeth, the soon-to-be mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother-to-be of Messiah, were truly great and godly women. Both were humble women of no social or economic standing. Elizabeth was the wife of an obscure priest. Both she and Zacharias were country people, who lived in an unnamed village in the hill country of Judah. The bore the added social stigma of having no children. No doubt in the minds of some they were being punished by God for some sin. Mary, too, was a humble peasant girl. She did not have any social standing due to her parentage or class, nor even the dignity of Elizabeth and Zacharias age. Yet the worship of both of these women is such that they are models for all true disciples of our Lord.

Before we begin to deal with our text, there are some introductory comments which may prove to be helpful. First, it should be noted that there are several things which Luke has not told us, which we might like to know, but will not find in this inspired account. These include the following:

Whether or not Mary was yet pregnant. There is no mention as to whether or not Mary was pregnant when she first arrived at the home of Elizabeth and Zachariah. Neither, Elizabeth, Mary, nor Luke refer to the fetus in Mary’s womb, while we are specifically told that John leaped in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting (Luke 1:41). It is my opinion is that Mary became pregnant during the time she way staying with Elizabeth and Zachariah. She would have been separated from Joseph, while at the same time being chaperoned by Elizabeth and Zachariah. This would serve as further testimony to the divine origin of the Christ-child.

Whether or not Elizabeth and Mary had any previous communication before Mary’s arrival. Elizabeth’s immediate response to Mary’s arrival might be explained by some previous communication between the two (e.g. writing to tell Elizabeth that she was coming and what the angel Gabriel had told her regarding her becoming the mother of Messiah). Luke does not tell us of any such communication, and the reader’s impression tends to be that there was no communication prior to her arrival, at least so far as Mary’s visitation by the angel. Luke does tell us that Mary “arose and went with haste to the hill country” (1:39), which would suggest that there was not sufficient time for any communication to have occurred.

Whether or not Mary was present when John was born. Luke ends this section (vv. 39-56) by informing us that Mary returned home after three months (v. 56). This would put her departure very close to the time of John’s birth, and reasons have been suggested for identifying the time of her departure either just before or just after the birth of John.

In all of these cases we must remember that Luke purposefully chose, under the guidance and control of the Holy Spirit, either to include or to exclude various details. The things which Luke does not tell us ought not to be our primary concern, to deal with them as “unsolved mysteries,” for which we must have an answer. Instead, we must focus on the things which Luke has included, for these point to the thrust of his argument. I must confess to you that I often become overly absorbed in what isn’t said, rather than to concentrate on what is reported.

Finally, there are those who would accept the rendering of some obscure manuscripts[1] and conclude that it was Elizabeth and not Mary, who was the composer of the “magnificat,”[2] the praise hymn of verses 46-55. The major reason for this position, in my opinion, is the similarity of the “magnificat” to the praise of Hannah in 1 Samuel chapter 2. Since Hannah’s circumstances more closely parallel those of Elizabeth, some have drawn the hasty conclusion that it was she, rather than Mary, who composed this hymn of praise. This is a very poorly supported theory, and one which can be rather quickly set aside.

Background

After indicating his purpose for writing this gospel in verses 1-4, Luke immediately commenced his account by introducing Zacharias, the father-to-be of John the Baptist. Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth were both descendants of Aaron (v. 5), and were “righteous in the sight of God” (v. 6). The did not have any children, however, and now that they were advanced in age, it would take a miracle for them ever to do so.

In the course of Zacharias’ priestly duties, it fell his lot to have the high privilege of offering the incense at the temple of the Lord (vv. 8-9). In the course of performing his duty, the angel Gabriel appeared to him while he was inside the holy place. Zachariah was told that his prayer (a prayer, I assume, for the coming of Messiah) had been answered, and that he and his wife would have the privilege and pleasure of bearing the son who would prepare the way for Messiah’s appearance (vv. 13-17). Zacharias’ faith wavered, and he consequently asked for some sign, some proof that the promise of the angel would be fulfilled. This brought a rebuke, and a temporary loss of speech, which nevertheless served as a sign to the people assembled at the temple that something very significant was about to happen. Zacharias returned home to his wife, who kept herself in seclusion for five months (vv. 24-25).

Six months later, Gabriel appeared to Mary, indicating to her that she would be the mother of Israel’s Messiah. She would, by the miraculous action of the Holy Spirit, become pregnant, and her holy child would be called the “Son of God” (v. 35). He would be the Son of the Most High, who would be given the throne of His father David, from which He would rule (vv. 32-33). Mary’s response was an elegant expression of faith:

“Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

The immediate faith and submission of Mary, a simple and very young peasant girl, to the will of God is contrasted with the hesitant request of Zachariah for a sign, a man who was a priest all his many years of life. Just as Mary’s response surpasses that of Zachariah, so the greatness of the miracle of the virgin birth of Messiah will exceed the miracle which produces a son for the elderly priest and his wife. And so, too, will the greatness of Messiah and His ministry surpass that of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Messiah.

 The Magnificence of Elizabeth

When Gabriel announced the miraculous virgin birth of Messiah through Mary to this young[3] peasant girl, he informed her of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, indicating that this was a sign of God’s ability to achieve the impossible Luke 1:36-37). While no instruction was given here, the inference was clear: Elizabeth would be an encouragement to Mary, and a woman who would understand what God was doing in the virgin’s life. Thus Mary quickly prepared and left to visit her relative living in an unnamed village[4] in the hill country of Judah (v. 39).

While Mary is clearly the principle character in this section, Elizabeth, her relative is also shown to be a remarkable women. We will begin by focusing on Elizabeth, as Luke does, and on her response to the arrival of Mary, the mother-to-be of Messiah. Several observations concerning Elizabeth’s response to the arrival of Mary will help us to grasp the magnificence of this woman, as I believe Luke intended us to do.

Characteristics of Elizabeth’s Praise

(1) Elizabeth seems to praise Mary before Mary has had any opportunity to explain anything to her. Mary left almost immediately for the home of Elizabeth and Zacharias, and the journey may have taken some time. So far as Luke’s account informs us, Mary was only told that her elderly relative had conceived in her old age, which testified to the fact that nothing was impossible for God (Luke 1:36-37). We aren’t told that the angel informed Mary that the child which was to be born to Elizabeth was to be the forerunner of Messiah. Mary may have wondered how Elizabeth would respond to the news she had to share. She may even have wondered whether or not to tell of her visit by the angel Gabriel.

One can speculate as to what Mary may have been thinking along the way to Elizabeth’s home. She may have been rehearsing what she would say to Elizabeth when she first saw her. If Mary had any such reservations, how quickly they were dispelled! The very moment she entered the house and gave a customary greeting, Elizabeth blessed Mary as the mother of her Lord.

(2) Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and her words were a divinely inspired utterance. Gabriel had informed Zacharias that the child would be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Now, it would appear that both mother and child were both filled with the Holy Spirit simultaneously. John “spoke” as it were by leaping in the womb (1:41), while Elizabeth seems almost to speak for John. One wonders how much that Elizabeth came directly from the Spirit of God, and how much originated from her own grasp of the Scriptures. We cannot say for certain, but we can affirm at this moment that all that she said was divinely inspired.

Not only did Elizabeth, in a sense, speak for John, she also spoke like John. We learn from the other gospel accounts that John was quick to acknowledge and proclaim the superiority of Christ (John 1:19-28), and thus to accept his secondary role as “forerunner” to the Messiah. He even encouraged his disciples to leave him and to follow Christ (John 1:35-37). Elizabeth also readily acknowledged the superior blessing bestowed on Mary, and rejoiced in it. Like mother, like son. I believe that Elizabeth is a prototype of her son in this regard.

(3) Elizabeth’s praise is not for her personal fulfillment and blessing in the bearing of a child, but in the blessing bestowed on her by the visit of Mary. Elizabeth’s proclamation does not focus on the blessing of the child which she will bear (John), but on the blessing of God in the arrival of Mary, who is to be the mother of the Messiah. In short, Mary is the focus, not Elizabeth. We will explore the basis for Elizabeth’s blessing of Mary later, but for now let us simply observe that the arrival of Mary is the occasion for Elizabeth’s praise, not the soon arrival of John.

(4) Elizabeth’s words served primarily as an encouragement to Mary. How encouraging the greeting of Elizabeth must have been to Mary. Rather than having to try to explain to Elizabeth what the angel had said to her about the virgin birth of her son, Messiah, Mary learned that Elizabeth already knew. Thus, Elizabeth’s praise served as further confirmation of Gabriel’s words. There were now two witnesses. Mary was totally free to share the details of the angel’s revelation, without any hesitation. Elizabeth already knew, believed, and rejoiced in the truth of God, spoken through Gabriel.

(5) Elizabeth praises God for much more than those things that Zachariah was told. When we look back at Luke’s report of what Zacharias was told by Gabriel, it was simply that the son God was giving him and his wife would be the forerunner of Messiah. There is no mention in this account of how Messiah will come to earth. How, then, did Elizabeth know that Jesus would be born of a virgin, and that the virgin was none other than her relative, Mary?

We must first very candidly admit that we are not told how Elizabeth learned what she affirmed by divine inspiration. It is my personal opinion, however, that she is no just a mere “mouthpiece” for the Holy Spirit, who has had no knowledge of what God was doing. I believe that Elizabeth knew from the Scriptures that Messiah would be both human and divine, and that He would be born of a virgin. With these things already known (albeit by the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the Scriptures), the Spirit of God informed Elizabeth, perhaps at that very moment, that Mary was the one through whom Messiah would be born.

(6) Elizabeth’s praise suggests that she may have possessed a greater depth of spiritual and scriptural insight than her husband. As we compare Luke’s account which introduces Zacharias, this elderly (and godly) priest is not put in nearly as favorable light as is his wife, Elizabeth. That which she speaks far surpasses what we are told Gabriel said to Zacharias. I am thus inclined to view this as Luke’s way of informing us that some women may very well surpass men spiritually. Indeed, I believe that Luke is telling us that wives are not restricted to the level of spirituality of their mate. Elizabeth’s praise surpasses Zachariah’s petition for a sign. Elizabeth’s words far surpass the revelation which we are told Gabriel gave to Zacharias. Women may be limited so far as their public ministry is concerned, but not so far as their spirituality and intimacy with God is concerned. Elizabeth is a magnificent woman of God, in Luke’s opinion.

Mary’s Magnificat

Mary seems immediately to respond to the praise of Elizabeth by offering her own praise to God. While we are not specifically told that Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit when she spoke these words, we may surely assume so. Perhaps there is a hint here that the words of Mary’s hymn are divinely inspired, but that the work is her composition, her work of praise and devotion, in response to the revelation of the angel. Elizabeth’s words are not as reflective, but seem almost to explode from her lips unexpectedly. While Elizabeth spoke with “a loud voice” (1:42), Mary is perhaps more sedate. Regardless, these are some of the most beautiful words in all the word of God. Let us ponder them.

(1) Mary’s psalm of praise reveals a repeated use of the terminology and theology of the Old Testament. Virtually every commentator agrees that Mary’s praise is dripping with Old Testament allusions and references. In contrast to the “psalm” of Jonah in Jonah chapter 2, which we have recently considered,[5] the psalm of Mary is a magnificent masterpiece. It not only employs the terminology of the psalms, but the theology. Mary dwells on the character of God, particularly His grace, which is bestowed on the humble and the oppressed. There is a also distinct parallel with the praise of Hannah in 1 Samuel chapter 2. The marginal references in our Bibles indicate the many other allusions and parallels. Some may question how a simple peasant-girl may have such a grasp of the Old Testament. Geldenhuys responds,

In discussing this hymn of praise, some critics have asked whether Mary had her Old Testament open before her when she uttered the song. They forget that all pious Israelites from their childhood days knew by heart songs from the Old Testament and often sang them in the home circle and at celebrations. Mary was steeped in the poetical literature of her nation, and accordingly her hymn also bears the unmistakable signs of it.[6]

(2) Mary’s praise begins with her grateful response to the grace God has shown to her, a humble servant of the Lord. In verses 46-49, Mary praises God for His mercy as expressed toward her. She rejoices in God, who is her Savior (v. 47). While this may not refer only to the saving work which Messiah will come to accomplish, surely it includes it. God looked upon her humble estate with compassion; consequently she will be esteemed blessed by all future generations (v. 48). God’s compassion on her has revealed both His power and His holiness (“Mighty One,” “holy is His name,” v. 49).

Mary does not in any way view herself as better or holier than anyone else. She views herself as a sinner who needs God’s salvation, and as a the Lord’s servant, whose humble estate is the occasion for His mercy and grace. There is no hint that she thinks God has chosen her to be the mother of Messiah due to her blessedness, but rather that her blessedness is the result of God’s sovereign and gracious choice to use her as His instrument. In verse 48 her blessedness is viewed as the result of God’s grace.

(3) In verse 50 Mary’s praise broadens, viewing God’s grace to her as a reflection of His gracious purposes for His chosen people, Israel. God has not just singled Mary out for blessing, leaving others in their miserable estate. Mary saw her blessing as but an illustration, one instance of God’s grace, which leads her to praise God for His grace to all those who fear Him, from one generation to generation. Mary thus presses from the specific to the general, from her personal benefits to the blessings which all of God’s people (those who “fear Him”) experience.

(4) In verses 51-55, Mary’s praise focuses on the faithfulness of God to His promises and His purposes, especially His covenant with Abraham and his descendants. If verse 50 spells out the principle that God blesses His people, from generation to generation, verses 51-55 give some specific ways in which this has and will be done.

We can see that the verbs in these verses are past perfect. The question which this raises is what is meant by the use of the a past tense. My opinion is that deliverances which are described have already been demonstrated in Israel’s history, to some degree, but that they will finally and fully be realized in the future, as a result of Messiah’s coming. Much, perhaps most, of these things will be fulfilled in the second coming of Messiah, rather than in His first coming. In His first coming, Messiah came to reveal God to men, and to accomplish eternal redemption for all who would believe. In His second coming, Messiah will come to “set things straight,” to bring justice to the earth and judgment to the wicked. The book of Revelation speaks much of these themes, and prophesies their fulfillment.

 (5) Mary’s praise serves as an encouragement to Elizabeth, just as Elizabeth’s praise was an encouragement to her. Many have observed the similarities of this Magnificat of Mary to the hymn of praise of Hanna in 1 Samuel chapter 2. It is so strong that some are tempted to view Elizabeth as the composer of the Magnificat, and not Mary. I believe that the similarity of the Magnificat to Hanna’s praise has the effect of encouraging Elizabeth, whose personal praise focuses on Mary, and not on her own joy in having a son in her old age. Thus there is a kind of criss-crossing effect in the praise of both women, for each expresses one’s personal praise, but edifies the other.

(6) Mary’s praise does not focus on the child she will bear, but on Father who is sending His Messiah. Geldenhuys has remarked,

It strikes us that Mary in this hymn does not utter a direct word in connection with the Son promised to her. Nevertheless she assumes throughout that He has indeed been promised her. Her whole hymn is inspired by this fact.[7]

It seems to me that this is a very significant fact. We would expect Mary to be taken with the fact that she will have a baby, and that this baby will be the Son of God. While this is certainly true, Mary chose to focus on what the child would be and accomplish as an adult, and not what her child would be as a child. In other words, Mary’s praise does not focus on the immediate blessedness of her having this child, but on the ultimate outcome of the coming of Messiah. She looks at the long range, not the short term. She views this event in terms of the distant past, in terms of the covenant promises of God, in terms of the history of Israel, where God’s mercy was shown on generation after generation, and in terms of the distant future, when at His second coming Messiah will set things straight. At this time the social order will under a radical and violent reversal. The lofty will be put down and the humble will be exalted (vv. 51-52). The hungry will be fed and the well-fed will be hungry. The poor will be helped, but the rich will be sent away (v. 53).

(7) Mary focused more on the results of Christ’s second coming than she did the first. When you ponder the specific results of Messiah’s incarnation as outlined in Mary’s “Magnificat” they have to do with what we know of as Christ’s second coming, more than with His first coming. I doubt that Mary way aware of the fact that Christ would come to earth twice, to achieve two distinct purposes. To press the matter further, I doubt that Mary understood that the redemptive purpose of Christ’s first coming would be accomplished by His death on a cross, death at the hands of wicked men. Even this is a manifestation of God’s grace, for at this early point in time such knowledge would only have caused Mary unnecessary and premature pain. Simeon’s words in chapter 2 (v. 35) allude to this pain, but do not explain what its cause will be. How gracious God is in what He does not tell us, as well in what He does.

(8) Mary’s theology, as reflected in her “Magnificat” is vastly superior to that of the scribes and Pharisees, who would become the arch enemies of our Lord. As I have studied Mary’s psalm of praise it occurred to me that her theology was like that of her Son, and likewise, that it was very different from that of the scribes and Pharisees. I will not pursue this in any detail here, but let me point out several areas of contrast between Mary’s theology, her understanding of the Old Testament, and that of the scribes and Pharisees. Mary did not mention the Law of Moses, the Mosaic Covenant, but only God’s promise to Abraham, the Abrahamic Covenant. Mary understood that Israel’s hope was rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, not in the Mosaic. The scribes and Pharisees seemed as though they could only think and talk in terms of the Law of Moses. Mary viewed all of God’s dealings in the light of His grace; the religious leaders only thought in terms of human works.

Mary understood the great themes of the Old Testament, such as God’s mercy and compassion, God’s concern for the poor and the helpless. These were the themes of the Old Testament prophets. They were not, however, the themes of the scribes and Pharisees. In His rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus constantly referred to these great themes, and to the fact that legalistic Judaism violated them (cf. Matthew 23). Mary also understood the purposes of God as a plan which He had been carrying out throughout Israel’s history. She viewed history in the light of this plan. The scribes and Pharisees, however, seemed only to grasp a few of the particulars, but missed the plan. They “strained the gnats” but they swallowed the camels. Mary grasped the “camels” and the religious leaders only grasped at the “gnats.”

 The Magnificence of Mary

There are those who have distorted the truth of God’s word about Mary, and rather than regarding her blessed above all women, have honored her as above mankind, worshipping her and praying to her as though she were on the level of deity, or even above Messiah. This is clearly seen to be in blatant disregard for the teaching of our text. Nevertheless, others have reacted to this error by failing to see this woman as a model disciple. I believe that Charles Talbert is correct in viewing Mary as a “model disciple.”[8] Let us consider some of the ways in which Mary provides us with a model of discipleship.

(1) Mary is a model disciple in her faith in the word of God, and in her submission to the will of God. Mary is not a model for disciples in being the mother of Messiah. It is true that Elizabeth blessed Mary as the mother of her Lord (1:42), and that future generations will bless her as such also (1:48). While this is true, this must be kept in its proper perspective. Our Lord was careful to show that being obedient to God’s will and His word were more important than being humanly related to Him:

And a multitude was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” And answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:31-35; cf. Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21).

In yet another text we read:

And it came about while He said these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice, and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it” (Luke 11:27-28).

While bearing the Messiah was a distinct privilege for Mary, that for which she is most highly praised is her faith and her obedience. This is evident in the blessing pronounced by Elizabeth, which subtly contrasts the belief of Mary with the unbelief of Zacharias:

“And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (Luke 1:45).

To press the matter of Mary’s obedience even further, Mary was not only obedient to the imperatives of God’s word, but also to the inferences of His word. The angel had not commanded Mary to go to the house of Elizabeth, but had only stated that Elizabeth was pregnant in her old age, which showed that nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:36-37). Mary got the point, however, and without having to be told to do so, went immediately to Elizabeth’s house, even though it was apparently some distance away and involved considerable inconvenience.

(2) Mary is a model disciple in the depth of her familiarity with the word of God. One cannot read the “Magnificat” of Mary without realizing that she has drawn deeply from the terminology and the theology of the Old Testament. Not only does she think biblically, she also expresses herself in biblical terms.

(3) Mary is a model disciple in her grasp of the grace of God, and in her gratitude toward God for bestowing grace on her. If there is any one concept which captures the spirit and the essence of God’s dealings with men it is the concept of grace. Mary’s “Magnificat” reveals the depth of her grasp of God’s grace, which is not only shown to her, but to all the people of God, and from generation to generation. Grace is the essence of true doctrine and the antidote to that which is false. As the writer to the Hebrews put it,

Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited (Heb. 13:9).

The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day were largely legalists, who focused on the letter of the law, but missed God’s grace in it. Not so with Mary.

(4) Mary is a model disciple in grasp of the social implications of the gospel. Peter momentarily forgot that the gospel is inseparably linked with certain social obligations, and thus Paul had to rebuke him (cf. Gal. 2:11-21). Mary understood that the good news of Messiah’s coming would result in great social reversals. In His ministry the Lord Jesus would expand on he social themes of Mary’s “Magnificat”:

And turning His gaze on His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied … But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry … ” (Luke 6:20-21a; 24-25).

 In the New Testament epistles, the apostles insist that Christians not conform to the evil social practices of their day, but live according to the social standards of the gospel, to which Mary referred, and which our Lord taught. Thus, James has some very strong words on the subject of discriminating against the poor and showing partiality to the rich (cf. James 2:1-13; 5:1-12).

(5) Mary is a model disciple in her grasp of the purposes and promises of God. Mary’s “Magnificat” focuses on much more than just her own blessing in the bearing of Messiah. Indeed, she does not focus on the child, per se, but on the results of the coming of Messiah. We know now that this includes both His first and His second comings. Mary has a great breadth of understanding. She looks backward, to the covenants which God has made with Abraham and with His people in the Old Testament. She looks forward to the ultimate righteousness which will be established when Messiah reigns on the throne of David. Mary has a good sense of history and a broad grasp of God’s purposes and promises. There is no provincialism to be found in her praise.

(6) Mary is a model disciple in her evident reflection and meditation on the things of God. All that we see in these few phrases of praise points to the fact that Mary meditated on the word and on the works of God. We have further corroboration of this from two other statements made by Luke:

But she was greatly troubled at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this might be (Luke 1:29, emphasis mine).

And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and He continued in to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart (Luke 2:51, emphasis mine).

Mary may not be all that some have held her to be, but she is a magnificent model of discipleship. She is a woman who grasps the Word of God, who meditates upon it, and who is obedient to it, both in its imperatives and in its inferences. She is a woman who had a good grasp of what God was doing in history and in society. Mary is a model disciple.

(7) Mary is a model disciple in that her praise was not only a personal expression of worship, but also was edifying to Elizabeth. We are led to the conclusion that Mary’s praise was spoken in the hearing of Elizabeth, just as Elizabeth’s praise was spoken to God, but for Mary’s benefit. In both cases, the praise of God spoken before others was done in such a way as to edify and encourage those who heard.

Conclusion

There are a number of ways in which the worship of these two women relate to contemporary Christians. As we conclude, let me suggest some specific applications of our text.

First, our text has much to teach us on the subject of women, their spirituality, and their worship. Modern society, as we know, has been “liberated” from the archaic, chauvinism of the ancient world. Even the church has made its concessions to the women’s liberation movement. Because of this, the practices of our church stand out, and are considered very offensive to many women, and some men. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that the principles of the New Testament church are as relevant and binding today as they were in Paul’s day.

The point I wish to make here is that the “restrictions” which the New Testament makes on women and their role in public worship are not detrimental to the spiritual life and development of women. Granted, the worship of these two women is not public, but private. Nevertheless, their praise was pleasing to God and it has been preserved for our edification.

The fact that the worship of these women was more restricted than that of men is no hindrance to their spiritual growth and development. Indeed, it would seem that in the case of Elizabeth, if not also Mary, her spirituality surpassed that of her husband. Elizabeth was not restricted to the level of spirituality of her husband, nor did the fact that the public expression of her worship was limited keep her from experiencing the greatest intimacy with her God.

The same principle applies on a different level. The fact that Zacharias was a “professional” priest and that his wife and Mary were but “lay” people did not in any way set Zacharias above the others. An aged priest has less faith than a young peasant girl, and thus Elizabeth’s blessing of Mary for her faith in God’s promise contains a mild rebuke for her doubting husband, who did not believe Gabriel’s words.

Second, the praise of Elizabeth and Mary provide us with a model for our own worship and praise. Mary and Elizabeth’s praise of God went much further than just gratitude for the gift of a child. Mary’s praise began with her own experience, but quickly linked this with God’s character and actions in the past (His ways) and then with His covenant and promises regarding the future.

How shallow our prayers and praise seem when compared with that of these two godly women. Our praise tends to be based almost exclusively on our pleasant and pleasurable experiences. Our praise tends to focus primarily on what God has done for us. We must seek to dwell much more on the character of God, of His covenant promises, and of His working in history, as well as in the future. The language of our praise should betray a continual soaking in the Scriptures and meditation on the terms and theology of the Bible.

Our praise during this Christmas season should especially be patterned after that of Mary, who did not focus on the tiny baby that she would soon hold in her arms, but in the God who sent Messiah and in the goal of His coming earth. This includes the immediate goal of redemption and salvation, but it especially includes the “setting right” of those things which are unjust and evil. These things are still future for us, as they were for Mary, for they will be accomplished at the second coming of our Lord.

Our praise, like that of Elizabeth and Mary, should not only seek to exalt God, but also to edify those who may hear it. Too often, I fear, we find ourselves performing before others, using our praise to speak to men, to convey some message to them, rather than to God. Mary’s praise was addressed to God, but in adoring God she also encouraged and edified Elizabeth, just as Elizabeth’s praise encouraged her. As the apostle Paul put it, “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26a).

Third, the account which Luke has provided us of Mary’s intimate worship, shared only with Elizabeth, should instruct and motivate us in the disciplines of discipleship. We should strive to be student’s of God’s Word, meditating on its terms and theology, seeking to be obedient to its imperatives and its implications.

Finally, we should strive to see beyond the birth of the baby to the end for which the child came—to restore and reconcile fallen men to God and to one another. While Christ’s coming meant more than saving men from their sins, this was the beginning, the prerequisite for all that He would accomplish.

The miracle of the virgin birth, which is the basis and the starting point of the praise of these two women, is analogous to the miracle of the new birth which every man, woman, and child must experience to have eternal life and to live the kind of life which our Lord requires.

There is a principle at work here in the first two chapters of Luke which can be found elsewhere in the Bible. This principle may be stated in this way:

A MIRACULOUS PERSON BEGINS WITH A MIRACULOUS BIRTH

Throughout the Old Testament, the miraculous ministries of God’s chosen instruments often began by a miraculous or unusual birth. The births of Abraham (Genesis 12-21), Samuel (1 Samuel 1 & 2), and Samson (Judges 13), are examples of such miraculous births. It is not at all surprising to find that the births of both John and Jesus are miraculous, for the lives of both are miraculous. While me cannot say that every miraculous life began with a miraculous birth, I think it is safe to say that every miraculous birth resulted in a miraculous life and ministry.

There are many today who seem to think that they can live according to the standards and principles of the Bible by setting their minds to it. This is not so. The Bible requires that men live a life which is miraculous, a life that is humanly impossible (cf. Romans chapter 7). There is only one way that this can ever happen, and that is by our experiencing a miraculous “new” birth. This is why the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be “born again,” even though he was a prominent teacher in Israel (cf. John chapter 3).

There are many nominal “Christians” who are tying to live an impossible (miraculous) life, yet who have not been miraculously “born again.” I fear some of you may be trying to live a miraculous life, but who have not had the prerequisite “new birth.” May I exhort you to experience this new birth through faith in Christ this very hour.

While some think that they will be a Christian by “trying harder to live a good life” they need to learn that becoming a Christian, being “born again” is illustrated by the birth of Mary’s child, while trying to be religious through good works is illustrated by the birth of John the Baptist. John the Baptist was born through the actions of Elizabeth and Zacharias, which God supernaturally brought to conception and birth. This is not the way men are saved, however. Salvation does not result from our efforts, which God miraculously blesses. Our salvation comes about in the same way that Mary’s baby was conceived—totally by the sovereign work of God, apart from any effort which Mary might make. God does the work of producing life in us, just as He brought about life in Mary. We but need to believe and to accept God’s work, but we must leave the working to Him, and not to ourselves. Salvation is God’s miraculous work in us, producing new life.

The Israelites felt that their physical link with Abraham was sufficient to save them, but they were wrong, and John would later challenge this false belief (Luke 3:8). As our Lord Himself said later, those who obey His word are His sisters, brothers, and mother. Physical relationship to Christ is not nearly so important as one’s spiritual relationship. What is your spiritual relationship to God?

! Lesson 3:
Why John Was Not Named “Little Zach”
(Luke 1:57-80)

Introduction

The matter of the names of children is very sensitive, so sensitive in fact, that I am reluctant to tell any stories about children being given unusual names. The names of children have different kinds of significance, depending upon the particular culture. In the “white” culture with which I am most familiar the only major consideration is that the name must “sound” right, match the sex of the child, and not have any unpleasant connotations. For example, my wife may suggest a particular name which I find unacceptable, only because I knew (or know) a person with that name, which gives the name a bad reputation.

In the culture of the Israelites, the name of a child was very significant. God sometimes changed the name of a person, such as changing the name of Abram to Abraham, of Sarai to Sarah, and of Jacob to Israel. At other times, God gave the name of the child before birth. Such is the case with both John and Jesus. The drama of our text has to do with a family argument over the name which was to be given the child of Zacharias and Elizabeth. When Gabriel informed Zacharias that he and his wife would have a child in their old age, the first thing he did was to instruct this priest as to what the child’s name would be:

“… your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John” (Luke 1:13).

It is not until the events of our text, which occur at the time of John’s circumcision, that this divinely given instruction causes any difficulty. Suddenly, the naming of John ends up in what appears to be a rather emotional issue, with Elizabeth standing her ground against an unnamed group of observer-participants, who are insisting that the boy be named after his father.

The question which we must bear in mind as we approach our study of this passage is, “Why would Luke bother to include the account of a family argument over the name of a child?” It is only in Luke’s Gospel that the births of John and Jesus are recorded. It is only in Matthew and Luke that any events in the early life of these two boys is recorded. Why, then, when there is so much that could have been reported about the early life of these two men, is this account selected by the author? I believe that this question provides us with the approach which will prove to be the key to understanding the interpretation and the application of our text. Our purpose in this study will be to try to understand what was taking place at the circumcision of John, and why Luke thought this event was worthy of being included in his history (and, as would become the case, the Bible). I believe that there are some very important principles to be learned here, which are as relevant to contemporary Christians as they were to John and his parents. Let is look to the Spirit of God to guide us in understanding this text as He meant us to.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our passage may be summarized as follows:

(1) The “Family Feud” Over the Name of John—vv. 57-66

·         a. Elizabeth and the relatives—vv. 57-61

·         b. Zacharias speaks up and gains his speech—vv. 62-64

·         c. Public impact of the incident—vv. 65-66

(2) Zachariah’s Psalm of Praise —vv. 67-79

·         a. Focus on Messiah & His ministry—vv. 67-75

·         b. Focus on John & his ministry—vv. 76-79

(3) Conclusion—John’s growth and development, in seclusion and solitude—v. 80

Overall, the passage of Scripture which we are studying falls into two major parts. The first segment deals with the “family feud” over the naming of John and its aftermath (vv. 57-66). The second segment records the praise of Zacharias, when the power of speech is once again given to him (vv. 67-79), with verse 80 summing up the early life of John as a concluding statement.

 A Brief Review of the Context

Luke’s gospel began with an introductory preface (vv. 1-4), which explained his reasons for writing this account even though a number of others had already done so. Immediately after his introduction, Luke begins to give an account of the births of both John and Jesus, inter-twined in a way which accurately reflected the historical reality of the interrelationship of the ministries of these two men. The birth of John, who is the forerunner of Christ, is announced first by Gabriel, to his parents, Elizabeth and Zacharias. Both are elderly, both are descendants of Aaron, and both are righteous in the Old Testament sense, living in accordance with the Law of Moses. Together, they have had no children.

While Zacharias was carrying out the privileged priestly task of offering incense in the holy place, Gabriel appeared to him, announcing the birth of a child to him and his wife, a child who was to be named John, and who would be the promised forerunner of Messiah, even as prophesied by Malachi, in the last prophecy of the last book of the Old Testament canon.

Out of doubt, Zacharias asked for a confirming sign, perhaps because he wanted some proof to offer those to whom he would have to make this announcement. He was rebuked by Gabriel, and was struck dumb. By his silence, rather than by his speech, Zacharias became a sign to the people, as he attempted to communicate with them by making signs. The people grasped the fact that Zacharias had seen a vision. No doubt there was a sense of wonder and expectation as a result of this.

Zacharias went back home (to his unnamed town) after completing his priestly duties, and his wife became pregnant, just as Gabriel had said. Elizabeth remained in seclusion for five months, and in her sixth month she was visited by Mary, who had just received the announcement from Gabriel that she was to bear the Messiah, who would be miraculously conceived in the womb of this virgin. The two expressed their marvelous grasp of God’s Word and of His work in their praises, and they fellowshipped together for three months, after which time Mary returned home, pregnant (or so it would seem).

Our text begins at this point. Elizabeth bears the promised “miracle child,” and her neighbors rejoice with her in this blessing. It is at the circumcision of the boy that his name will be given. Under normal circumstances, his name would unquestionably be Zacharias, but Elizabeth insisted that it must be John. The resolution of this standoff comes with the pronouncement of Zacharias, as it is written on a tablet.

A Family Feud: “Little Zach” or John
(1:57-66)

The “family feud” occurred at the time of John’s circumcision. We know that this ceremony took place on the child’s eighth day (Luke 1:59). Normally, it would seem that the father took the leading role in the ceremony, but since Zacharias was dumb, and perhaps deaf as well,[9] he seems to have been much less involved in the ceremony. The occasion may very well have taken place at the home of Zacharias and Elizabeth. We are told that “they” came to circumcise the child, and that “they” were going to call him Zacharias (1:59). I now understand this to mean that the people referred to by the term “they” are the same. A certain group of people came to the home of Zacharias and Elizabeth to witness and to take part in the circumcision ceremony (did a doctor or specialist come, who would perform the circumcision?). They same group seemed intent on naming the child Zacharias. I would understand that this group of people was composed of close friends and relatives, who would have had a personal interest in John’s circumcision. It would be something like a christening service today.

Somewhere in the ceremony, when the name of Zacharias was being given, Elizabeth interrupted, insisting that the child’s name was to be John. Since this was not the name of the father, nor was it the name of a relative,[10] there was a strong reaction to Elizabeth’s demands. Zacharias was made aware of the problem, and given the opportunity to decide upon the name of the child. If he had heard none of the “discussion” it would have been an even greater marvel to the assembled witnesses that he, too, chose the name John.

One of the first and strongest impressions we gain from these verses is the sense of the prominence of Elizabeth, and of her determination for her son to be named “John” rather than “Zacharias.” Her actions may well have been considered inappropriate by those who observed her. Thus, for Elizabeth to be outspoken and insistent may have shocked them as totally “out of place” for a woman. Nevertheless, Elizabeth did so, and Luke strongly implies that she was both godly and right in so doing.

The role of Zacharias is certainly more passive and silent than normal. Whether this was solely due to his divinely imposed physical limitations, or whether this reflects some natural reticence and hesitation is a point over which we may disagree. I am inclined to view Zacharias as the quiet, retiring type, who was neither aggressive nor outspoken. Elizabeth, on the other hand, seems to have been more outspoken, especially in those matters which she viewed as godly and right. When Zacharias is made aware of the dispute and when he is asked to “cast the deciding vote,” he writes that the name John will be given to his son. This was truly shocking to those who stood by.

Why was the naming of the child so important, and so emotional? And why was naming the child John such a bone of contention? The naming of the son after his father implied that this child would “walk in the steps of his father,” that he would carry on the father’s name, and thus his work as well. Had John been named “Little Zach,” he would have been expected to grow up as a priest, just like his father. He would thus have gone about with his father as he carried out his priestly duties, learning how to do things, just like his daddy did them.

To be named by any other name would have implied just the opposite. John would not follow in his father’s steps. He would not learn to do what his father did. He would not be a priest. This, of course, was precisely the case, and thus the reason for the name John. It isn’t the meaning of the name “John” which is so important, then, but the message implied by having any name other than Zacharias which is such an emotional issue. If many of those gathered at the circumcision ceremony were relatives, Elizabeth’s insistence that the boy be named John was to renounce the family, its work, and its perpetuation through the next generation.

When Zacharias wrote the words, “His name is John,” on that tablet, he once again was given the power of speech. At that moment, his tongue was loosed and he began to praise God. The record of the praise of Zacharias is delayed a few verses, so that Luke can parenthetically report the impact of these things on those who watched, and on those who heard from those who watched. Verses 65 & 66 thus report the “gospel by gossip” which was spread abroad the “hill country of Judea” (v. 65). As “strange events” began to pile up, all related to this child, John, the expectation of the people in the area began to grow. It is little wonder that John was thought by many to be the Messiah, a thought which John persisted to deny (cf. 3:15-17).

The statement, “For the hand of God was certainly with him” (v. 66), may indicate that there were a number of other unusual or miraculous incidents associated with John in his childhood which testified to his unusual origin and mission in life. Luke must be selective, and thus he gives us but this general statement, suggesting that much more could have been written. The outcome of all of these things was a sense of expectancy among the people of that area.

Note that God does not announce the coming of the King, or of His forerunner in the Temple (save for Simeon and Anna), nor in Jerusalem (save in the visit of Jesus to the Temple at age 12), but in the “hill country of Judea.” It is not to the mighty or to the religious elite, but to the humble that the announcements of the nearness of Messiah’s appearance are made. This is but a prototype of the ministry of John and of Jesus, who came not to the “healthy,” but to the “sick;” not to the “righteous,” but to sinners (cf. Luke 4:16-21; 6:20ff.; Mark 2:15-17).

Zacharias’ Psalm of Praise
(1:67-79)

Rather than to record the inspired praise of Zachariah precisely when it was spoken, Luke includes the parenthetical comments of verses 65 & 66 so that this psalm serves to conclude the section, as it summarizes the impact of John’s ministry, and of Messiah’s ministry, of whom he is the forerunner.

Zacharias’ psalm has two major sections. The first section, contained in verses 67-75, is praise directed toward Messiah, in the light of His ministry. In this section, Zacharias directs His praise toward God in the light of the benefits of Messiah’s ministry for the nation Israel. If Mary’s “Magnificat” majored on the social implications of Messiah’s appearance, Zacharias’ praise highlights the political blessings which the nation Israel will experience. Note the frequent emphasis on the nation Israel in these verses:

“the God of Israel”
“He has come … and redeemed His people”—v. 68

“for us”
“in the house of His servant David”—v. 69

“as He said through his holy prophets”—v. 70

“salvation from our enemies”—v. 71

“to show mercy to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant,
which He swore to our father Abraham”—vv. 72-73

“to rescue us from the hand of our enemies” “to enable us to serve Him”—v. 74

As I presently understand Luke’s gospel, everyone in his account who praises God for Messiah’s coming does so in the light of their own circumstances, and in the light of their own hopes and aspirations. Messiah’s ministry is many-faceted, like the many facets of an expensive gem. Each psalm of praise tends to focus on one facet, and all of them together point out the manifold blessings of God manifested through His Messiah.

The second section, contained in verses 76-79, focuses on the messenger, John, and on the impact of his ministry. As Zacharias was informed by Gabriel, John will be the forerunner of Messiah, whose task will be to prepare men and women for His coming, by preaching of sin and of forgiveness for sins. In both the praises of Mary and of Zacharias, there seems to be more emphasis on the results of the Christ’s second coming, than His first.

 Luke’s Conclusion
(1:80)

Verse 80 serves as the conclusion to Luke’s account of the birth and childhood of John the Baptist. In my opinion, it is the key to understanding our text:

And the child continued to grow, and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel (Luke 1:80).

Here, Luke gives us his reason for including the account of John’s childhood, even though his public ministry was to begin many years later. In addition, Luke here informs us as to his reason for including the account of the “family feud” in conjunction with the naming of John. Let me point out several important elements in this very brief concluding statement.

(1) This statement capsulizes and summarizes the entire period of John’s life prior to his public ministry. In less than 30 words, approximately 30 years of John’s life are characterized.

(2) This statement speaks of John’s physical, but especially of his spiritual growth during his growing-up years. Luke tells us that John “became strong in spirit.”

(3) This statement speaks of John’s preparation for public ministry. While John’s physical and spiritual growth is of great importance to his own walk with God, Luke’s purpose is to inform us that he was being prepared for the day of his public appearance, for the time of his public ministry as the forerunner of Messiah. In other words, John’s spiritual growth was essential for his spiritual ministry.

(4) Finally, and most importantly, Luke informs us that John was being prepared for his public ministry in solitude. John’s spiritual growth and development, Luke tells us, took place “in the deserts.”

I do not think that John’s living in the desert was incidental to his spiritual growth and development, but that it was a fundamental part of his growth process. Luke, as a meticulous and thoughtful historian, was a man who thought in terms of processes, and who saw history revealing a continuity, because behind it all God is bringing about His purposes and fulfilling His promises. Thus, for Luke, the ministries of John and Jesus did not commence at their public presentation, but at the time of the announcement of their births. Luke is concerned that we see the formulating factors in their ministries, which took place in their earliest years, as well as the ministries which resulted. And so while the other gospel writers begin with the public proclamation of John’s message, Luke begins with the angelic announcement of John’s birth, and with the experiences in John’s life which shaped him spiritually, in preparation for his ministry.

Luke informs us of several preparatory factors in the life of John, even in this very brief account of his birth and childhood. First, Luke tells us of John’s calling, as indicated by the announcement of Gabriel, before the child was even conceived. God’s purpose for John was announced, even before his conception, so that his parents might raise him in the light of those purposes, thus helping to prepare him for this ministry. Second, John was filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth, so that his spiritual growth would be enhanced, during his childhood, in preparation for his ministry. Finally, John was prepared for his ministry by being separated from his family, culture, and religious system.

John’s calling came prior to his birth

John’s early preparation is not something novel or unique. We will see from the next chapter of Luke that Jesus was also being prepared before and after his birth, for the ministry which God had called Him to perform. In the Old Testament, the accounts of men like Joseph, Samuel, David, and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), show that God was working in their early lives to prepare them for later ministry. Other texts, such as Psalm 139, indicate that God’s preparation begins in the womb. So, too, in the New Testament, Paul spoke of his calling before his birth (Gal. 1:11-17). He also reminded Timothy of the preparation which God had worked in his life through his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5-7).

Here, however, Luke makes a special point of the fact that John’s growth and development involved a separation, from his family, from his culture, and from the Jewish religious system, of which he could have been (indeed, should have been!) a priest, like his father.

Let me very quickly point out that I believe there were many positive contributions to John’s growth and development which came from his parents, family, society, and religious system. I believe that I see a great deal of Elizabeth (though not so much of Zacharias) in John. But this is not Luke’s emphasis. Luke chooses to emphasize the separation of John from his “world,” not his identification with it.

When he was given the name “John,” rather than “Zacharias” (“little Zach”), God was indicating to all who were involved that John would not be carrying on his father’s name, nor his work. Think of the ways in which John became very different from his father, which was symbolized by his non-family name. Zacharias was a priest; John was a prophet. John was a Nazarite; his father was not. Zacharias lived among the people; John lived in the solitude of the people. Zacharias was a part of the old religious system; John was not—he stood apart from it. Zacharias, as evidenced by his psalm of praise, spoke as an Israelite, but John, being somewhat removed from typical Israelite life and the religious system of the day, was able to see the errors which had developed:

“Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with your repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Luke 3:8).

Zacharias, as a part of the religious system, identified with it, while John was able to stand apart from it and to see its many errors and perversions (cf. John 1:19ff.). The boldness and clarity with which John spoke out against the evils of his day was, to a great extent, the result of John’s separation from the system and its sins, which he condemned. In contrast to Zacharias, who seemed reticent to speak, John spoke out boldly.

Thus, Luke would have the reader to know that separation from his society, even from his parents, played a key role in John’s preparation for ministry.

Conclusion

As we consider the preparation of John for his ministry, I believe that we find a very important principle underscored here, which is just as relevant to us and just as important in our preparation for ministry as it was for John. The principle is this: To represent Christ, we must stand apart from sin and from the world, which hates Him.

If there is one thing which characterized John it was that he was a man who was set apart. He was set apart by his calling before his birth, by his unusual birth, by his life as a Nazarite, by his name, and by his childhood spent in the desert, where he lived apart from his “world,” wore distinct clothing, and ate very different food. It was his separation from his “world” which facilitated his ability to see its sins, to stand firmly against them, and to speak out boldly in condemning them.

I believe that separation is just as essential for Christians today, if we would serve God as we should, and live up to our “calling.” Separation was essential for God’s people in the Old Testament. For example, we read,

“‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel’” (Exod. 19:5-6).

“‘For I am the LORD, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, to be your God; thus you shall be holy for I am holy’” (Lev. 11:45).

God chose Israel to represent Him, to reveal His holiness to the other nations. It was therefore necessary for the Israelites to stand apart from the evils of their day. They were not to live like the Canaanites or the other peoples. Thus, God gave them a special calling, a special covenant, and special commandments which, if obeyed, would set them apart from the nations.

This same holiness, this same separation, is required of New Testament saints as well:

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY” (1 Pet. 1:14-16).

For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is that you abstain from sexual immorality; … For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification (1 Thes. 4:3, 7).

Holiness in the life of the Christian, that is, separation from sin, is necessary for several reasons; Holiness is required if we are to represent and reflect a holy God to men. We cannot be God-like if we live in sin, but only if we live apart from sin. We must be holy, we must stand apart from sin in order to be sensitive to sin, to recognize it and to sense how evil and offensive it is to God. And we must stand apart from sin if we are to condemn it and to plead with others to forsake sin. John’s separation from sin was essential to his personal walk with God and to his ministry. So, too, our separation from sin is also essential.

There is, I believe, a sense in which John’s “separation” was unique, and not a pattern form every Christian. John’s separation was somewhat extreme, in that he was physically removed from his family, his society, and his religious heritage. There are still those today who would strive to be separate from the world by attempting to live in some remote place, away from people.

I do not think that our Lord has commanded Christians to be physically separated from others as the norm.[11] In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord taught that we should be “salt” and “light” (Matt. 5:10-16), both of which speak of our penetration into the world, rather than of our fleeing from the world. It is also said that such penetration with the gospel and holy living will likely result in persecution, which is the broader context of the passage (cf. Matt. 5:10ff.). Thus, our separation, while it should be as thorough in spirit as that of John, will manifest itself differently than John’s did. What is the nature of our separation? Let us briefly consider some of the biblical guidelines for New Testament holiness.

First, we must separate ourselves from sinful thinking. There is a sinful “mind,” a wrong way of looking at things and thinking about them. The natural “mind” is “set on the things of the flesh” and leads to death (Rom. 8:6) because it is hostile toward God (Rom. 8:7). Thus, we must be “renewed in the spirit of our mind” (Rom. 12:2), which to a large degree is done through intense and prolonged exposure to the Word of God.

Second, we must be separate from the sinful inclinations of our own fleshly desires. The seventh chapter of Romans deals with these, as does Galatians 5:19-21. The only way to overcome these inclinations and to live righteously is to “walk in the Spirit,” to walk according to the promptings and the power of the Holy Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1ff.; Gal. 5:16ff.).

Third, we must be separate from the world. Here, it is not by a physical removal, which is impossible by any means other than death (1 Cor. 5:9-10). We must be separate from the world by thinking differently, by recognizing its evil inclinations and solicitations, and by refusing to participate in any of its sins. We also find great encouragement and strength from the church, from a body of like-minded believers, who encourage us in practicing and persisting in righteousness (cf. Rom. 12:9-21; 13:8-14; 15:14; Heb. 10:19-25).

Finally, we must be separate by recognizing and removing ourselves from the sins of our family and even of our religion, which are not in keeping with the Word of God. The New Testament has much to say on these subjects, which time will not permit us to pursue in detail, but let me encourage you to study those texts which warn us about false teaching and teachers (e.g. 1 Tim. 4:1-5). Also, we should be mindful that even in the most godly of homes (such as that of Zacharias and Elizabeth) there is still sin and sinful patterns, which we should recognize as sin and put off, so that our lives will conform to the Word of God.

Let us be a separate people, so that we may represent a holy God to an unholy world.

! Lesson 4:
The Birth of the Messiah
(Luke 2:1-20)

Introduction

An elder friend and I somehow were reminded of an old joke this past week, which relates to our text. A curious bystander was watching a blacksmith with great interest. The blacksmith was hammering out a horseshoe. He had just finished with a shoe and had placed it aside to cool. Without thinking, the bystander picked it up to look at it more closely, and even more quickly put it down. With a twinkle in his eye, the blacksmith commented, “Hot, wasn’t it?” Not to be made light of, the observer responded, “Nope, it just doesn’t take me long to inspect horseshoes.”

On can say that it doesn’t take Luke very long to report on child births, either, gauging from the length of his account of the birth of our Lord Jesus.[12] And remember that Luke’s account of our Lord’s birth is the only inspired account recorded in the gospels. Neither Mark nor John deal with the births or the childhood days of either John the Baptist or Jesus, but begin with the commencement of John’s public ministry. Matthew tells us about the visitation of the angel to Joseph, prior to the birth of Jesus, which caused him to marry Mary, rather than to put her away privately, as he had originally intended. He also informs us about the visit of the magi, of Herod’s attempt to kill the baby, and of the flight of the holy family to Egypt until after Herod’s death. Matthew does not, however, tell us anything about the birth of our Lord, per se. Only Luke describes the events of our Lord’s birth. Thus, when we take note of Luke’s brevity, we see that the only account of Christ’s birth is also a very brief account. This is significant, as we shall seek to show at the end of the message.

Of all of the things which Luke could have told us about the birth of the Lord Jesus, he chose to give a very brief account of the factors which occasioned Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (the decree of Caesar, the census, the fact that the place of Joseph’s birth was Bethlehem), and how nearby shepherds came to witness the Messiah’s advent. These events, by virtue of the fact that they were chosen from many which could have been reported but were not, must be of considerable importance to Christians, especially Gentile believers, including ourselves. Let us seek to learn the meaning and the application of the Savior’s birth, as recorded only by Luke, the divinely inspired historian.

 The Structure of the Text

Luke chapter 2 has three major sections. Verses 1-20 depict the birth of Jesus, and the worship and witness of the shepherds. Verses 21-40 feature an account of the presentation of Jesus at Jerusalem, and the inspired testimony of Simeon and Anna. The third and final section of the chapter describes an incident which took place in Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old, at which time He remained in the Temple, His “Father’s house,” busy with His Father’s business (Luke 2:41-52).

Our text, Luke 2, verses 1-20, also has three divisions. Verses 1-7 explain the occasion for Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, and especially for the circumstances accompanying His birth, namely His being wrapped in strips of cloth and being placed in a cattle feeding trough. Verses 8-14 describe the angelic visitation of the shepherds as the occasion for the visit of the shepherds at the birth sight. Verses 15-20 report the shepherd’s visitation and their testimony after having seen the Savior.

The Setting

After the introduction of Luke’s gospel (1:1-4), Luke begins to intertwine the advent of both John the Baptist and Jesus, beginning with the announcements of their births, then their births, and finally some significant insight into a childhood event. The birth of John and the “family feud” over the naming of the child was the subject of our last study.

There are some intervening events reported by Matthew which also help us to understand what is taking place in our text. Matthew’s account of Joseph’s angelic visitation seems to occur shortly after Mary has returned to her home in Nazareth from the home of Elizabeth and Zacharias (cf. Luke 1:39-56). It is my opinion that Mary became pregnant through the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit during her stay with Elizabeth and her husband, Zacharias. On returning home she may have been nearly three months pregnant. Seeing her three months into her pregnancy must have been a great shock and disappointment to Joseph. It didn’t take any expert in biology to know that no woman had ever gotten pregnant by herself, and thus Joseph was forced to conclude that she had had sexual relations with another man. Divorce was unavoidable, Joseph knew, but he determined at least to do this privately, rather than to make a public spectacle of Mary.

It was at this point in time that the angel visited Joseph in a dream, Matthew tells us (Matt. 1:18-25), informing him that Mary had not had an illicit union, but that the child she was to bear was God incarnate, Immanuel. As a result of this revelation, Joseph took Mary as his wife, providing for her and protecting her, and later serving as the father of the miracle child she bore.

Mary became Joseph’s wife in a very different way, due to the nature of her pregnancy. Normally, a Jewish man and woman became husband and wife by their physical union. As a part of the wedding ceremony the husband and wife went into their tent, and emerged after the union was consummated sexually. Mary could not have had such a marriage ceremony, for Matthew has told us that they had no sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25). Thus, when Matthew refers to Mary and Joseph as being married, he speaks functionally, for from this time on they lived together as husband and wife. But when Luke speaks of this couple, on their way to Bethlehem, he speaks of them as though they were still engaged, and yet to be married. Leave it to a doctor to be so technical. He was technically right, however, for it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph consummated their marital union and became husband and wife in the precise sense.

 The Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem
(2:1-7)

Luke takes up the account of the birth of Jesus with a report of the conditions into which God’s Messiah was born, and the human reasons for them. These first 7 verses are very “secular” in appearance. There is no mention of the hand of God, nor of any particular “spiritual” activity. Indeed, the section ends with almost a note of human tragedy. To think of it, the Son of God, covered with rags and placed in a cattle feeding trough! How inappropriate, we might protest. How tragic! This might be so, apart from the “other side of the news,” which is found in verses 8-20. The very circumstances which seem to pathetic, so sad, are those which prove to be most significant. Let us first look at the secular side of the news, and then press on to the spiritual dimension.

Verses 1-3 provide a secular explanation for the pathetic plight of the Christ-child. Caesar had proclaimed a decree, which required a census, undoubtedly in preparation for a later taxation.[13] Registering for this census must have been a very painful act, not only because doing so was inconvenient, but because it was a reminder that while God’s people, Israel, were in the land of promise, they were not free; they were under the rule of a pagan power. A Roman law, made by a pagan potentate, compelled the Israelites to comply. The insistence of the Jews that they were subject to no one (John 8:33) is thus shown to be a blatant denial of a painful and sensitive fact.

Quite honestly, the information supplied in verses 1-3 is of little interest to the contemporary Christian reader. Who cares which Caesar was responsible for the census, or even that there was one? Who cares about Quirinius? In my opinion, Theophilus, the initial recipient did. The term “most excellent,” which Luke uses in chapter 1 (v. 3), is also used by Luke three times in Acts (23:26; 24:3; 26:25), each time in reference to a political official of high standing. This suggests that Theophilus, too, was a man of high political office. Luke’s information, while of little interest to us, must have been significant to Theophilus. Among other things, Luke was showing the historical roots of the Christian faith. Unlike the appearance of the other “gods” of false religions, whose appearance was couched in “once upon a time” terms, the coming of the Christ was a real event in real time.[14] The facts Luke has provided were important to a man whose faith was to have historical validity.

In the final analysis, the decree of Caesar was divinely intended to cause one couple to make a long difficult journey from their home town of Nazareth in Galilee to the place of their birth, Bethlehem in Judea. The ancient prophet had prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, a fact that was well known to the Jews:

And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, ‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER, WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL’” (Matt. 2:4-6, citing Micah 5:2).

Luke’s purpose, however, is not to emphasize the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, as Matthew would do, for his gospel is written to a Gentile, who is probably not familiar with the prophecies of the Old Testament. Luke’s purpose is to show the humble circumstances of the Messiah’s birth.[15] Thus, Luke informs us that Joseph and Mary made their way to Bethlehem, which would have been at least a three day journey of more than 60 miles. Nazareth was located in Galilee, to the north of Judea. As Luke informs us, the journey to Bethlehem was “upward” (“And Joseph also went up from Galilee,” 2:4) because Bethlehem was in the hills, just six miles south of Jerusalem, 100 feet higher, at an altitude of 2,704 feet. The journey was not an easy one, especially for a pregnant woman, nor was the occasion a happy one, for the census was undoubtedly a prelude to a tax and Mary and her husband would be far removed from friends and family[16] if the baby were to arrive while they were in Bethlehem.

Much of the imagery which has become a part of the Christmas and nativity tradition has been supplied by our “filling in the gaps” of Luke’s account. What we are told is that there was not room in the “inn,”[17] which resulted in the baby Jesus being wrapped in rags or strips of cloth and placed in a cattle feeding trough for a crib. We do not know that Jesus was born in a stable, or in a cave. The feeding trough could have been borrowed, so that the baby may have been born under the stars. Mary may have preferred the privacy. The trough would have provided a soft place for the babe to sleep and the strips of cloth, wrapped around the child, would have kept the cold out, especially if the holy family was “camped” in the open, out in the elements.

The Angelic Announcement
and the Late Night Visit of the Shepherds
(2:8-20)

So far as we have been informed by Luke, it would be difficult to see the hand of God in these events. Mary and Joseph appear only to be an unfortunate couple who are forced to make an undesired and unpleasant journey to Bethlehem, and it is there, tragically, that Mary gives birth, in the most miserable of circumstances. Our conclusion, if it must be made here, would likely be, “How sad!” “How pathetic!” “How unworthy of the Israel’s Messiah, the King of the Jews!”

The two key descriptive statements of Luke in verse 7 are now taken up, and their spiritual significance is pointed out in the verses which follow. Mary and Joseph just “happen” to be nearby a field in which some shepherds are tending their flocks. It may very well be, as some have suggested,[18] that these flocks were the animals which were raised to be sacrificed in Jerusalem. These shepherds would also be looked down upon by their countrymen. Shepherds, as you will recall, were “loathsome” to the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32; 46:34); they were also poorly thought of by their own brethren. Geldenhuys reminds us that,

“Shepherds were despised people. They were suspected of not being very careful to distinguish ‘mine’ and ‘thine’; for this reason, too, they were debarred from giving evidence in court” (Strack-Billerbeck, in loc.).”[19]

In spite of their poor reputation as a class of people, these shepherds seem to have been godly men, men who were looking for the coming of Israel’s Messiah. All the others of those who were directly informed of the birth of Messiah in Matthew and Luke were described as godly people, and so it would seem to be true of the shepherds as well. After all, news of His coming would not be “good news of a great joy” (v. 10) unless they were seeking Him. The haste of these shepherds to the place of Christ’s birth (vv. 15-16) also testifies to their spiritual preparedness and eagerness for the coming of Messiah. This is in contrast to the response of the Jerusalemites to the news of Messiah’s birth, as prophesied in their Scriptures and announced by the magi:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.” And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him (Matt. 2:1-3).

To these humble shepherds the angel of God appeared in a blaze of glory, which caused them to be greatly frightened. The angel assured them that he brought them good news, and told them of the birth of Messiah.[20] This was to be the cause for “great joy” for all the people. I take it that by this the angel meant that all people, all the nations, and not just Israel, would benefit from His birth. Suddenly, the angel was joined by a host, an army, of angels, singing a song of peace.[21] Here was divine confirmation of the angel’s announcement.

The angel had promised a sign to the shepherds. The sign was that they would find the child wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a cattle feeding trough (v. 12). The sign was not designed to convince the shepherds of the truth of the angelic announcement. Surely the splendour of the angel, compounded by that of the heavenly host, was convincing enough. I believe that this “sign” was for the purpose of identification. From Matthew’s account of the Bethlehem slaughter (Matt. 2:16-18), it is apparent that there were a number of babies in Bethlehem at the time. The way that they would recognize God’s Messiah was by His swaddling clothes and by His unusual “crib.” No other child would be found in such a setting.

And so the two most pathetic factors in the birth of our Lord, His “swaddling clothes” and His “cattle feeding trough bed,” prove to be the very things which set this child apart from all others, and which identify Him to the shepherds. But they do more than this; they also identify Messiah with the shepherds. One of the names of Messiah is “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” The circumstances of our Lord’s birth uniquely identified the Lord Jesus with the shepherds. The Lord seemingly had no roof over His head, no house to dwell in. Neither did the shepherds, who, we are told, slept under the stars, as they cared for their flocks (v. 8). Jesus was poor and of no reputation, as were they. And Jesus, who was to be both the sacrificial “Lamb of God” (cf. Isa. 53:4-6; John 1:29) and the “Good Shepherd” (cf. Ps. 23:1; Ezek. 34:23; John 10:14), identified with these shepherds by being found in a cattle feeding trough. Were they considered unclean by virtue of their contact with animals? So was He. What a beautiful picture of our Lord’s humiliation and identification with men, even the most humble of men, rejected and despised men.

Eagerly and with great haste (vv. 15-16) the shepherds went to Bethlehem, where they “found their way to Marry and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger.” I think it is important to recognize that the angel announced the birth and the location of Messiah not only so that the shepherds could witness this historic occasion, and to worship their King, but also so that they could tell others—be witnesses—of Messiah’s birth.

Think first of all of the impact of the shepherds arrival and announcement upon Mary and Joseph. Granted, they had both been told that the child, who was miraculously conceived in Mary’s womb, was the Messiah, the promised Savior. But it took years for this to be understood, just as it took years for the disciples to grasp who Jesus was. They continued to wonder and marvel at the things Jesus said and did, not putting everything together until after His death, burial, resurrection, and the promised coming of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 1l6:12ff.). So, too, Mary and Joseph must have been greatly surprised by the shepherds’ arrival and by the report they shared of the angelic announcement and choir. While all who heard this report wondered, Mary, in some special way, “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.” In computer terms, her data base of information continued to increase in size and she persistently was processing this material, as to its meaning and implications. I personally feel that it was the arrival of the shepherds which finally brought all the inconvenience and unpleasant circumstances of the birth of Jesus into its true spiritual light. What had once appeared to be only a sequence of unfortunate events, now is revealed to be the hand of God working through history to accomplish God’s will.

The testimony of the shepherds also had a great impact on the people in that area who were looking for God’s Messiah. Luke informs us that the shepherds “found their way” to Mary, Joseph, and the child, but how did this happen? We do not know exactly, but I can at least imagine how it might have occurred in such a way as to make Messiah’s arrival known to a great many people.

To me, the shepherds’ search for the baby Messiah in Bethlehem was like a scavenger hunt. The “clues” they were given were (1) that there was a newly born babe; (2) that the babe was a boy; and (3) that he was to be found in a cattle feeding trough, wrapped in strips of cloth. I can just imagine those shepherds, converging on the town of Bethlehem, in the middle of the night (vv. 8, 15-16), knocking on doors, seeking to find a child meeting these descriptions. One looking on the town from a distance could have seen the whole town progressively lit up, astir with the news which the shepherds brought. From every house where the baby was not found, there was probably another addition to the search party. Perhaps the entire town was awakened and engaged in the search before the babe was found. All of this served to make the news of the Christ-child’s birth known, as well as to create of mood of expectation and curiosity. At some of the homes, at least, there may have been the request to come back with news of where Messiah was found.

After the shepherds found the child and shared with Mary and Joseph what had happened, they probably retracted their steps through the town of Bethlehem, brings all the people up to date on what they had seen. Luke therefore tells us that “all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds” (v. 18). These shepherds, who belonged to a class of society banned from bearing testimony in the courtroom, were the ones God chose to bear witness to the birth of His Son. Why? Because, I suppose, God had always chosen the “weak and foolish” things of this world to confound the wisdom of the wise, and because ultimately it is not the messenger that matters, but the message itself. If Jesus came to bring salvation and deliverance to the poor, the oppressed, and the despised of this world, why not announce it by means of the despised and rejected? The apostles of our Lord were just such men (cf. Acts 4:13).

Conclusion

There are four lessons which I wish to underscore here, which I believe are taught in our text. Let us prayerfully consider what God has to say to us from this passage.

(1) The sovereignty of God in history. Luke is a historian, and his historical account of the birth of Christ surely seeks to demonstrate the sovereignty of God in history. In the first 7 verses of the text, everything is viewed solely through a “secular” grid. A pagan potentate makes a decree, and the Israelites comply with it by registering in the town of their birth. In the process, a pregnant woman is forced to make a long journey with her husband, and to bear the child far from home and without the conveniences of a home.

Luke then lifts the veil, showing us that all of these seemingly sad events occur in order that God’s Messiah might be born in the vicinity of some shepherds, and in conditions which set Him apart from all other babies in Bethlehem. These shepherds are guided to the Messiah by a divinely appointed angel and an angel choir, so that they serve to edify and encourage Mary and Joseph and to announce Messiah’s birth to all who live in that area.

You will note that no mention is made of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2 is specifically mentioned by Luke because the recipient of the account, Theophilus, is a Gentile, who probably holds a high-level political position. While Theophilus would not be particularly in the prophetic fulfillment aspect of the birth account of Luke, he would be greatly impressed to learn that God is sovereign, and thus able to achieve His purposes and fulfill His promises by means of pagan powers, even the highest political power of that day—Caesar. Theophilus would be very impressed by this fact, which Luke is careful to reveal.

(2) Luke provides us with a lesson in the communication of the gospel. Luke is writing an account of the gospel here, and in doing this very well he provides us with some lessons in communicating the gospel to others. Luke passed up the opportunity to highlight the fulfillment of Micah 5:2 because it would not have as much impact on his Gentile recipient as it would have had on a Jew. Luke emphasized the sovereignty of God over history and over a heathen king, which would have had a great impact on Theophilus. In what he has done and not done Luke teaches us that we dare not change the gospel, but we should carefully chose to focus on those details of the gospel which will have the greatest impact on our audience. Thus, the need for more than one gospel is once again apparent.

(3) Luke’s account of the birth of Christ reminds us of the principle of proportion. We have already pointed out that Luke alone records the details of our Lord’s birth. Only one gospel in four describes the birth of Christ, while all four carefully depict His death. To press this point further, only a very few verses describe the events surrounding the birth of Christ while several chapters of each gospel are devoted to a description of the arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. The principle of proportion teaches us that much time and space is devoted to what is most important, while little time and space is given to that which is of lessor import. On the basis of this simple principle we would have to conclude that the death of Christ is more important to the gospel writers than His birth. Why is this so? Because it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that saves us, not the babyhood of Christ. Granted, Christ had to take on human flesh before He could reveal God to men and save them, but it is His atoning work on the cross of Calvary that saves us.

Why, then, is the Christmas story so important to many today, even those who do not believe in Christ for salvation? Because, I fear, the babe in the manger is far less threatening than the Christ of the later gospels, who interprets and applies the Law, who condemns sin and who speaks of faith in His blood. The baby in the manger is sweet and cuddley, and “controllable.” The baby in the manger is a kind of “God in the box,” a God whom we are comfortable to approach, to think about, even to worship. But the Christ hanging on the cross is not a pretty picture, He is not one to whom we are drawn, who evokes in us warm and fuzzy feelings. Many have made much, too much, of the babe in the manger because this is the kind of “god” they wish to serve, a “god” who is weak, who is helpless, who needs us, rather than a God who is sovereign, and who demands our obedience, our worship, our all.

What kind of God do you serve, my friend? What is the Christ like whom you worship? Worshipping the “babe in the manger” is not enough, for this is only the way He came. The way He will be for all eternity is the way He is described by John in the book of Revelation:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, AND EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, EVEN THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM; AND ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH WILL MOURN OVER HIM. Even so. Amen (Rev. 1:4-7).

According to Revelation and the prophecies of the Bible, the Jesus who came the first time as a little baby, is coming again, as an avenger and as a righteous judge, to punish the wicked and to reward the righteous. This may not be the kind of Jesus you wish to think of or to serve, but it is the same Jesus that came to Bethlehem. His second coming will be vastly different from His first appearance. Then, He came to humble himself, to die on the cross, and to save. Next time, He comes to judge. Are you ready to face this Jesus, to fall before Him in worship? This is the Jesus of the manger. This is the coming King. I urge you to accept Christ as He came the first time, as your Savior, and then to wait for Him eagerly, to come the second time, to make things right, to establish His kingdom on earth, and to rule over all creation. Let us learn from Luke’s account that the babe in the manger is the Savior of the world, whom we must accept as our Savior.

(4) Finally, we learn that God’s purposes are often achieved through suffering, and that God’s purposes in our suffering are often not immediately apparent. All of the suffering, inconvenience, and discomfort that was occasioned by the decree of Caesar was not immediately recognized as the sovereign hand of a loving God, who was bringing about His purposes, in a way that was for the good of those who suffered. Let us learn from Mary and Joseph that those seemingly “secular” sufferings of life are most often instruments in the hand of God, which time or eternity will make clear to us.

! Lesson 5:
Psalm of Simeon
and the Announcement of Anna
(Luke 2:21-40)

 Introduction

I once heard the story of a monkey at the zoo, which had a Bible in one hand and a copy of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in the other. When asked by the zoo keeper what he was doing, the monkey responded, “I’m trying to decide whether I’m my brother’s keeper, or my keeper’s brother.”

I thought of this story in conjunction with Simeon, who would surely be perplexed at some of the things which he could read today. For example, can you imagine Simeon, a man whom we generally assume to be very advanced in age,[22] reading a book on the mid-life crisis? Regardless of the content of the book, I think that Simeon would find such reading incredible. In fact, I am not certain that people ever had mid-life crises until very recently (along with a number of other contemporary maladies). The mid-life crisis, as I understand it, generally comes upon people in their mid-life years because they find that the goals they have set for themselves (or which society has imposed on them) are not being met. The mid-life crisis comes because we see our strengths and potential waning and our goals slipping away unreached.

Simeon and Anna have much to so to our culture, and especially to Christians who are captive to it. The appearance of these two godly saints in the temple, where they recognize and proclaim Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, is the event which Luke chose to highlight as the most significant incident in Christ’s infancy, in addition to the visitation of the shepherds a few days earlier. Their faithfulness in looking for and hastening the coming of the Lord is indeed a rebuke and an encouragement to every Christian. Their goals and priorities and their persistent practice of righteousness are quite frankly in direct opposition to what our culture advocates. Indeed, they are also in opposition to the views and values most prominent and prevalent in our Christian culture. We would do well to ponder this passage, for if we were to follow the example of Simeon and Anna our goals would change, our lifestyles would simplify, and our mid-life crises would vaporize.

The Context

The first chapter of Luke’s gospel features the appearance of the forerunner of the Messiah, John the Baptist. Inter-twined with the account of the announcement of his birth and of selected events in his early life is the report of the visitation of Mary by the angel Gabriel, who informed her of the miraculous virgin conception of the child which would be born to her, Israel’s Messiah, the God-man and Mary’s sharing of this with Elizabeth. In verses 1-20 of chapter two Luke has recorded the birth of our Lord and of the angelic announcement of Christ’s birth to the shepherds, who hastened to see the holy child, wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a cattle feeding trough.

The rest of Luke chapter two describes two important incidents in the early life of our Lord, which both took place in the temple at Jerusalem, separated by twelve years. Verses 21-40 focus on Simeon and Anna, who recognize the infant Jesus as Israel’s promised Messiah, and who publicly praise God for this and proclaim this good news to those who are looking for the fulfillment of God’s promises to His people Israel. The final segment of the chapter takes place twelve years later, when Jesus accompanied His parents to Jerusalem, and then remained behind, about His Father’s business in His Father’s house.

The second chapter of Luke contains the only biblical account of the birth of Jesus. Matthew’s gospel supplies the only other biblical account of a childhood incident in the life of the Messiah. He records the arrival of the magi, the paranoia of Herod which caused him to kill the infants in Bethlehem in an effort to murder Messiah, and the flight of the holy family to Egypt, to preserve the child’s life. Bible scholars are not certain as to how the two biblical accounts, those of the magi in Matthew and of Simeon and Anna in Luke, are to be chronologically sequenced. It would appear that immediately after the birth of Jesus, the shepherds visited, that Jesus was soon thereafter circumcised, and then later presented at the temple, where Simeon and Anna appear. The family must have found more permanent lodging (cf. “house” in Matt. 2:11) in Bethlehem, where the magi arrived some time later on, perhaps as much as two years later (cf. Matt. 2:7, 16). The family then escaped to Egypt, and upon their return, they moved to Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem to fulfill the Scriptures (Matt. 2:19-23). Luke does not record some of these intervening events, but simply tells us that Jesus’ family returned to Nazareth (Luke 2:39), which is where most of the Messiah’s growing-up years would have been spent, prior to His visit to Jerusalem at age 12 (Luke 2:41ff.).

The Ceremonies

It may be well to distinguish the three ceremonies which are referred to in our text because we tend to jumble all of these into one event, rather than seeing them separately, both in time and in ritual. The first ceremony is that of circumcision, referred to in verse 21. This event probably took place where the family lived, and not at the temple. It occurred on the 8th day, as prescribed God directed Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14) and as prescribed by the law of Moses (Lev. 12:3). Associated with the circumcision was the giving of the name of the child (cf. Luke 1:59-63; 2:21).

The presentation of the first-born son is the second ceremony which our text reports.[23] This, too, was a requirement of the Law, which Luke cites:

“EVERY first-born MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD” (Luke 2:23; from Exodus 13:2, 12; cf. Num. 18:15-17).

From the context of the passage in Exodus we know that during the final plague which God brought upon Egypt, all the first-born of Egypt were slain, both man and beast, while the first-born of the Israelites (that is, those who applied the blood of the Passover Lamb to their door posts and lintel) lived. The redemption of the first-born was required because the first-born were spared by God and thus belonged to Him. When an Israelite family redeemed their first-born, they were acknowledging that this child belonged to God.

The redemption price for a first-born male Israelite a month or more old was set at five (sanctuary) shekels in Numbers 18:16. Apparently presentation of the first-born never occurred earlier than 31 days after birth.[24] Thus, the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother (the third ceremony), could be done on the same visit to the temple.[25]

The third ceremony was the purification of Mary, required by the Law after the birth of a child. In Leviticus chapter 12 we are told that a woman is ceremonially unclean after the birth of a child. For a boy child the woman is unclean for seven days (12:2), and unable to enter the sanctuary for another 33 days (12:4). For a girl child the time doubles. She is unclean for 14 days and unable to enter the sanctuary for 66 days (12:5). This means that Jesus would have been approximately six weeks old at the time of his presentation. The sacrifice of the two turtledoves indicates that Mary and Joseph were poor people, as this was a provision for the poor (Lev. 12:6-8).

It is the second ceremony, the presentation of Jesus at the temple, which is most prominent in Luke’s account (Luke 2:27). It is on this occasion that Simeon and Anna appear, to attest and announce that the baby Jesus is God’s Messiah, the Savior of the world.

The Circumcision of the Christ-Child (2:21)

The circumcision of the Christ-child is not prominent in the passage, but it is noteworthy. First, this record attests to the fact that the parents of our Lord “performed everything according to the Law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). Second, the circumcision of Christ parallels that of John, described earlier (Luke 1:59ff.). Finally, it was at the circumcision of Christ that His name was formally given. The name, Jesus, which had been specified before His birth, both to Joseph and to Mary:

“And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus” (Luke 1:31).

The Hebrew form of the name Jesus is “Jeshua” (cf. Joshua), derived by the combination of two root words, meaning “the Lord” and “to save.” Thus, the Jesus meant “the Lord is salvation.” I believe that the name Jesus, which Luke tells us was formally given the Savior at the time of His circumcision, was one of the indications to Simeon that this child, Jesus (the Lord’s salvation), was the promised Messiah. Thus Simeon says,

“For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation” [i.e. Jesus, the Lord’s salvation] (Luke 2:30).

The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple (2:22-38)

It is in conjunction with the presentation of Jesus at the temple that both Simeon and Anna appear, and speak words of divine inspiration, identifying the Christ-child as God’s Messiah. Let us consider these two noble saints in order to discover what it is about them which Luke finds worthy of a place of honor in this rare incident in his account of Christ’s childhood.

The Psalm[26] of Simeon
(2:22-35)

Simeon is a man that is something like the old testament character, Melchizedek, in that he suddenly appears out of nowhere. We are told very little about this man Simeon. We do not know from what tribe he is a descendent, although it would appear that he was an Israelite.[27] We know nothing about his family, whether he was married or had any children. We are told nothing about his occupation, but it does not appear that he was a priest, for he was directed of the Holy Spirit to go to the temple.

The only things we are told about Simeon are those things which matter most to God—things which pertain to his faith and his character, things while tell about his relationship with God. We are told that Simeon was righteous and devout (v. 25), which speak of his personal walk with God and his integrity among men.[28] He was further a man of faith and hope, for he “looked for the consolation of Israel,” an expression which summarizes the faith of the Old Testament saint in the promises of God concerning the restoration of Israel through the coming of her Messiah.

Finally, Simeon was a man who was filled by the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who had revealed to Simeon that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s Christ (v. 26), God’s Anointed One, Israel’s Messiah. It was also the Holy Spirit that directed Simeon to the temple on the particular day that Jesus’ parents brought Him to be presented to the Lord. Finally, in some unspecified way, it was the Spirit of God who revealed to Simeon that this child was indeed the Messiah. No doubt the name Jesus was one evidence, but there must have been further confirmation, for there were no doubt many sons given this special name.

The precise means by which Simeon was enabled to recognize this six-week old child as distinct from all others is not told us, for Luke is not so much interested that we know how He was recognized, but that He was identified by a godly man, a man filled with the Spirit of God, as the Lord’s Christ.

Recognizing Jesus to be the Messiah, this elderly man took the child in his arms and blessed God. After a lifetime of seeking Messiah, one can hardly imagine the joy that was Simeon’s at this moment in time. Think of it, a man who knew that God held him in the palm of His hand, now holds God in his arms! The all-powerful God is a tiny baby, seemingly without any power at all. Simeon’s words of praise express the deep joy that was his at this moment, a joy which so utterly filled and completed his life he was ready to die:

“Now Lord, Thou dost let Thy bond-servant depart[29] In peace, according to Thy word; For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation” (Luke 2:29-30a).

The salvation which Simeon saw, was not seen by him alone, however, and so he hastens to add that it is a salvation that will be seen and shared by many:

“For mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, Which Thou has prepared in the presence of all peoples, A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Thy people Israel” (Luke 2:30-32).

The things to which Simeon was a witness were not hidden from other men. Others may not have recognized them as the work of God, but all Jerusalem, we are told by Matthew, knew of the Messiah which the magi sought, but rather than to rejoice the people were “troubled” (Matt. 2:3). So far as we are told, no one from Jerusalem made the relatively easy trip to Bethlehem to see the holy child that was born, which was testified to by the star in the east.

While Simeon was a devout Jew, he did not view the Messiah’s coming as only for the benefit of Israel. The Messiah, as Israel’s King, who would “sit on the throne of His father David,” was Israel’s glory, but Messiah was also a “light of revelation to the Gentiles.” That is, Messiah came as God’s salvation to all men, not just to the Jews. This truth was taught in the Old Testament, and Simeon’s words seem to reveal his knowledge of such Old Testament prophecies of a salvation for Gentiles as well as for Israel. For example, consider these texts, with which Simeon was likely familiar, and to which he may have been alluding in his praise:

The LORD has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations. He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Ps. 98:2-3).

“I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the dungeon, And those who dwell in darkness from the prison. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give my glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.” Isa. 42:6-8 (cf. 49:6)

The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations; That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God (Isa. 52:10).

“Arise, shine; for your light has come, And the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness will cover the earth, And deep darkness the peoples; But the LORD will rise upon you, And His glory will appear upon you. And nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising” (Isa. 60:1-3).

Imagine the impact which the actions and affirmations of Simeon must have had on Joseph and Mary. Luke simply summarizes this with the words,

“And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him” (Luke 2:33).

Amazed. Little wonder. Surely there must have been times when the parents of Jesus wanted to say to those who saw Him and remarked, “Cute child,” “Listen, this is no ordinary child, this is the Savior of the World!” But it is quite another thing when a man who was probably a total stranger walks up and proclaims you child, a child who looks like any other six-week old boy, to be the Messiah of God.

Perhaps in response to the amazed look on the faces of Mary and Joseph, Simeon went on to bless them, and to direct a very specific prophecy to Mary:

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed—and a sword will pierce even your own soul—to the end that thoughts from hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35).

Did the fact that Simeon spoke only to Mary, while he blessed both Mary and Joseph indicate a veiled prophecy of Joseph’s death?[30] At least we see a striking accuracy in the words of Simeon.

Up to this point in time, all of the inspired utterances pertaining to the Lord Jesus have been very positive, speaking with reference to His ruling on David’s throne, setting right the things which are wrong, and bringing peace and salvation to men. But now Simeon unveils the other side of the story, which is also a part of the Old Testament prophecies, such as those of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53, prophecies of the rejection, crucifixion and death of Messiah, prophecies of His substitutionary atonement. Thus Simeon’s prophecy views the coming of Christ as revealing the hearts of men, and of dividing men, so that on account of Him some will rise[31] and some will fall. More pointedly, Simeon’s words prepare Mary for the grief she must suffer, as the rejection of Her Son by men will cause her to witness His death on the cross. Truly this will be a sword that will pierce her soul.

 The Announcement of Anna
(2:36-38)

Anna is a truly remarkable woman. While we are told less about what she actually said, we are given more information about her background than Simeon’s. Anna was an Israelite, of the tribe of Asher, one of the ten “lost tribes” of Israel, which were scattered in the Assyrian captivity. She was also a prophetess. She was a very aged woman, at least 84 years old, depending on how we understand Luke’s words. She was married for 7 years before her husband died, and had lived the rest of her life as a widow. Day and night she was in the temple, praying and fasting. For what was she praying and fasting? Luke does not tell us, but it is obvious that she, like Simeon, was looking for the coming of Messiah. I believe that Anna understood from the Old Testament that the “day of the Lord” was a day of divine judgment, and that Messiah would come to deal with Israel’s sin. Thus, her prayer and fasting was evidence of her mourning for the sins of Israel.

Consider the prayers and fasting of Anna in the light of these words from the prophet Joel:

Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, A day of darkness and gloom. A day of clouds and thick darkness… “Yet even now,” declares the LORD, Return to Me with all your heart, And with fasting, weeping, and mourning; And rend your heart and not your garments.” Now return to the LORD your God, For He is gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness, And relenting of evil. Who knows whether He will not turn and relent, And leave a blessing behind Him … (Joel 2:1-2a, 12-14a).

Anna was evidently a very godly woman, a woman who was very aware of Israel’s sins, a woman who was looking for and hastening the coming of Messiah. The details of Anna’s life are not given to satisfy our curiosity, but as clues to her character. I believe that Luke intended the reader to infer the incredible character of this woman by considering the details he has supplied. As a young widow, the natural thing for Anna to have done would be to remarry. She must have had many such opportunities. As a member of the lost tribe of Asher, there must have been a strong incentive to marry and bear children, since this tribe may have been in danger of extinction. Her greatest womanly contribution, as well as her womanly fulfillment, would seem to have been marriage and child-bearing. Nevertheless, she remained single, lived out her life in the temple, occupied with prayer and fasting.

Simeon had been divinely guided to the temple; Anna was nearly always there. Thus she “happened” to come upon the scene of Mary, Joseph, the baby Jesus and Simeon, just at the time Simeon was identifying the child as God’s Messiah. She, too, began giving thanks to God. More than this, she began to broadcast the good news to all those who were, like she and Simeon, looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. The fact that she was already known as a prophetess gave her testimony even greater impact.

 The Meaning and
Message of Simeon and Anna

Luke had many incidents which he could have recorded for Christians, yet he chose the presentation of Jesus and the proclamations of Simeon and Anna. What was his purpose in including this account in his divinely inspired record, where there would have to be compelling reasons for inclusion in Scripture? What was the message of this text to the saints of his day, and to us as well? Let us consider the purpose of this passage. We will begin by making several observations.

(1) The incident takes place in the temple. The presentation of Jesus would normally have occurred at the temple in Jerusalem, but there is special significance to His appearance at the temple, both at the time of his presentation and at the age of 12. The Old Testament prophets had spoken of the appearance of God’s Messiah at the temple:

“‘Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,’ says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 3:1).

Jesus’ first visit to the temple in Jerusalem, as recorded by John’s gospel (John 2:13-25), commenced with the cleansing of the temple, and with strong words of rebuke, just as one well acquainted with the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah’s appearance would have expected. Jesus’ first appearance at the temple, which occurred at the time of His presentation, was a very significant event.

(2) The inspired utterances of Simeon and Anna completely overshadowed the ceremony of Christ’s presentation. The occasion for the appearance of our Lord at the temple was His presentation, but nothing is actually said about this ceremony. We have no record here of the ritual, nor are we given the names of any of the priests involved in the ceremony. We are only told of Simeon and Anna, and of their proclamations. It is not the ceremony, the ritual of the presentation of Jesus which is most important, but the proclamation of these two saints.

(3) While the primary intent of Joseph and Mary was to fulfill the requirements of the Law pertaining to the birth of Jesus (cf. Luke 2:39), the purpose of the passage is to disclose two more divinely inspired proclamations of the identity of this child as God’s Messiah. The essence of the actions of Simeon and Anna was to identify the child as the Messiah, God’s Anointed One, God’s Salvation. Functionally, the utterances of Simeon and Anna informed the godly Israelites, those looking for the Messiah, that He had come.

(4) Simeon and Anna are highlighted for their godliness, and are described as model disciples, whom we should seek to imitate so far as their goals and priorities are concerned. Humanly speaking, Simeon and Anna had little to commend them. They were apparently not people of position or power. They were not the “shakers and movers” of that day. It is my personal opinion that to many of the officials of the temple, Simeon and Anna were looked upon as eccentrics, whose devotion was futile. After all, couldn’t these people do something useful, especially Anna, who was there every day, but only had time for prayer.

I am inclined to think that the religious officials looked even with disdain on people like Anna. She was always there, always under foot. And her kind of super-spirituality was probably viewed as creating an unspiritual environment. After all, if she was mourning over and confessing Israel’s sins, then she was backhandedly condemning the religious leaders. Since Anna was a widow, and the Lord condemned the religious leaders for taking advantage of widows (e.g. “you devour widows’ houses,” Matt. 23:14), Anna may well have been a victim of the religious leaders with whom she continually came in contact.

 Application to Contemporary Christians

There are many ways in which this text and particularly the lives of Simeon and Anna apply to contemporary Christian living. The first is as a reminder of what really matters in life. For Simeon, his occupation was not the most important thing, for we are not even told what his life’s work was. It was not even “full-time Christian service,” which some think to be the ultimate calling in life. What set Simeon apart for many others, including the religious leaders at the temple (none of them are so much as named in this account), was that he was a mean who trusted in God, who obeyed His Word, who looked for His kingdom, and who was indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit. What ultimately mattered in Anna’s life was not marriage or family, but faithfulness to God. The seemingly unproductive activities of prayer and fasting, proclamation and praise was, and still is, most important. The early church devoted itself to such activities (cf. Acts 2-4). The apostles made prayer and the proclamation of God’s Word the priority of their ministry (cf. Acts 6:1-6).

The coming of the kingdom of God was the one great hope, the one great motivation, the one great occupation of these two saints, and it should be ours as well. Our Lord taught us that we should pray,

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).

Peter also wrote,

“Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!” (2 Pet. 3:11-12).

And to which John adds,

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. And every one who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure (1 John 3:2-3).

The last book of the Bible is a record of the events which will occur in the last days, at which time the Lord will come and establish His eternal kingdom. His coming should be preoccupation of our lives. Anna holds very high God’s standards for singles, as well as holding high the great privilege and calling of the single life. We very quickly pass by Paul’s encouragement in 1 Corinthians 7 to consider the single life, but Anna is living testimony to the great contribution people can make who devote their lives to God. No wonder Paul can instruct the churches to financially support such women (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3-10).

This is not to say that everyone should attempt to imitate Anna, for so far as we know Simeon was a married man, perhaps a family man, who likely held a secular job and was thus much more involved in the workaday world. Nevertheless, his highest priority was loving and serving God, and so at the Spirit’s leading, he was a the temple, where he was enabled to recognize and proclaim God’s Messiah.

This passage reveals the quality of the life of the Christian, who has come to grips with death, and whose faith is in a God who raises the dead. Simeon was ready, perhaps even eager to die, for now that he had seen God’s Messiah, he was ready to leave his earthly dwelling behind, knowing that God’s promises were for the living and the dead. How sad it was this very week to hear the news reports of the well-known evangelist who said that God would take his life if 8 million dollars were not donated by this March. Why the frantic effort to stay alive if one’s faith is in God. Simeon was ready to face death because he had seen God’s Messiah; we should be ready to face death for in so doing we will see Him. As Paul himself wrote, citing the Old Testament, death no longer has any sting (1 Cor. 15:55; Hos. 13:14).

How eager are you to see the Messiah “face to face”? How do you confront the inevitability of death? Does life hold for you one single, dominating purpose? For the Christian, the Lord Jesus Christ is the focal point of life, the governing principle and priority of life. If you have not trusted in Him as God’s Messiah, I urge you to heed the testimony of Simeon and Anna, and to trust in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, the One who came to save all who would call upon Him, and to trust Him as God’s only means of salvation, by bearing your punishment on the cross of Calvary, and by rising from the dead.

! Lesson 6:
The Day Jesus Went AWOL
(Luke 2:39-52)

Introduction

Vacation time had come again and we were headed to the Northwest, where we would be visiting family and friends. It was a long trip, especially with five girls, and so much preparation was required. As usual, we worked late into the night, in fact early into the next morning, and finally loaded all the kinds into the car about 4 a.m. The kids were asleep in the back of the station wagon as we started to get under way. My wife suggested that we make one more “head count” before we left. Sure enough, we were one short. A trip back into the house revealed that one of the children had crawled out of car undetected and back into her own bed. It could have been hours down the road before we had realized our error.

I imagine that most of you could share a similar kind of story, about how a child or family member was left behind, or almost so. We may therefore tend to look at the account of our Lord’s absence from the family in that caravan as just another one of those kinds of “disaster,” the kind families talk about for years to come.

The story of Jesus’ absence is different in a number of significant ways.

First, let us remember that this is the only inspired, biblically recorded incident in the youthful years of our Lord. Matthew records the incident of the magi and the attempt of Herod to kill the baby Jesus, and the flight to Egypt, but other than this incident in the very young years of our Lord the account in Luke chapter 2 of the incident at the temple when our Lord was 12 there is no other biblical record of any incident in the growing up years of Jesus. It must be that Luke felt this story was very important indeed, to be the only childhood incident reported in his gospel.

Second, in this account are recorded the very first words of our Lord Jesus. Naturally, no words were recorded from the birth and infancy of Christ. Many of our Lord’s words were recorded from His later ministry. But the words of our Lord in this text are His first recorded words, and very important words they are indeed.

Third, this is the last time Joseph is ever mentioned in the life of our Lord. It is commonly felt that Joseph must have died sometime after this incident, before our Lord began His public ministry. It may well be that this last mention of Joseph is also a clue to the importance of our text, and of the incident it records.

Finally, the actions of our Lord, in the minds of His earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, appeared to be wrong. The words of Mary to Jesus clearly imply an assumption of His wrong-doing, and thus convey a gentle, but obvious rebuke. If this child were any person other than Jesus, we would all agree that He was wrong. What is it, then, that makes Jesus’ actions proper, when they would not have been for any other 12 year-old?

The “tension of the text” (that tension which grows out of the details of the text, and which proves to be the key to its interpretation) is to be found here. While we must grant that Jesus was without sin, how is it that His actions here, which were regarded as wrong by His parents, are not wrong? Why can Jesus’ actions not be wrong for Him, when they would have been wrong for any other Jewish (or Gentile for that matter) boy?

I must inform you that this is one of those “collie dog” texts. When I was growing up, we had a collie. Unlike a bulldog, which would just run straight up, look you in the eye, and bite you, our collie would sneak around behind you, very quietly, and then suddenly you would feel his teeth making contact with your hindermost parts. This story is like that. Initially the story seems to have little impact. Granted, it might say something important about Jesus, but that would appear to have little application to us. Watch out! This text will soon sneak up on you, and teach a most important lesson, with tremendous implications.

The Disappearance,
Discovery, and Declaration of Jesus 
(2:39-52)

The story is really very simple. The parents of our Lord had gone up to Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Passover, just as they had done every year (2:41-42).[32] It is not clearly stated, but I am of the impression that Jesus was taken along on throughout the years of His growing up. This year, He was twelve. Depending on the commentator you are reading, it was either at the age or 12 or of 13 that the Israelite lad was made a “son of the law.”[33] The pilgrims who made journey to Jerusalem and back would often travel together in caravans. Thus, family, friends, and other acquaintances from Nazareth and the surrounding area seem to have formed such a caravan.[34] The Feast having concluded, the caravan began the journey home, and among them were Mary and Joseph (with perhaps some of their children), but not Jesus.

Jesus was not discovered to be missing immediately. This was probably for several reasons. First, Jesus was an absolutely trustworthy and reliable child. As the Son of God, He was without sin, and thus His parents did not have the same concerns other parents might have. Also, the men and the women may have traveled in groupings which were separate. We are told that the women and children were often in front, with the men at the rear. Each of the parents might therefore have assumed that Jesus was with the other parent. Eventually, Jesus’ absence was noted, and after searching among those in the caravan and finding Him missing entirely, Mary and Joseph went back to Jerusalem, which may have been a day’s travel.

For three days they searched for the boy Jesus.[35] Some think that the three day search included the time required to search for Him in the caravan, as well as the time spent traveling back to Jerusalem. I am inclined to read Luke’s account as indicating a three day search took place, commencing at the time they arrived back at Jerusalem. This would indicate a long, intense, search, which would lead to growing concern and consternation, as well as growing frustration, which seems evident in the parents’ first response to Jesus, once He was found.

Finally, almost as a last resort it would seem, the parents looked for Jesus in the temple. And there He was, sitting in the midst of the teachers, busily engaged in conversation. His role was principally that of a learner and a listener, who asked many pertinent and penetrating questions. It is evident that He also gave some responses, for those nearby who overheard Him marveled at His answers.

Imagine yourself as one of the parents of Jesus at this point. Be very honest, now. Imagine your growing sense of concern as the time passed, and as the child was not found. Consider your fears intensifying as you recalled the absolute reliability of Jesus and His wisdom. And then when you find Him, seemingly aloof to all the consternation He has caused, discussing theology (perhaps as He often had done in Nazareth) in the temple. Admit it, now, you would be angry with Him, just as I would have been.

All the concern and anxiety and intensity caused by Jesus’ absence now turns, I believe, to frustration and anger. His mother scolds Him, gently perhaps (in front of the teachers and those looking on), but nevertheless her words are intended as a rebuke. At this moment in time, Mary may have almost entirely forgotten that Jesus was any different from any other child. All of the strange and wonderful things she was told and had seen, the things she “treasured in her heart” were probably momentarily overshadowed by her frustration. “How could you have done this to us, Jesus!” seems to be the essence of her first words. “Your father and I have been looking for you for days, and we were just about at our wits end.”

One would have expected the lad to have looked downward, stung by the rebuke and His foolishness and thoughtlessness. Such is not the case, however, for Jesus’ response shifts the focus from His error to their own. In response to the rebuke of His mother, there is the gentle rebuke of His own question. “Why would you have had to look for Me?” He seems to have said. “Would you not have known where you could find Me?” And perhaps pointedly in response to Mary’s reference to Joseph as His father, Jesus stated that He was in His Father’s house, just where the Son should have been.

There was no resolution, the reason being that neither Mary nor Joseph really grasped what was happening, nor what “their” Son, our Lord, had said. The incident ends with Mary (along with Joseph) once again perplexed at the events occurring in her life related to this child. All she could do was to place these things alongside the others she had previously experienced, waiting for that day when the meaning of all this would become clear. If the memory of the mysterious events of Jesus’ birth had begun to fade in the minds of Mary and Joseph, this incident would once again bring them vividly to mind.

The matter was over as quickly as it happened. Jesus went with them, back to Nazareth, to live with them, and in submission to their authority. Nevertheless, things would never be quite the same, I suspect. Jesus continued to grow, physically, spiritually, and socially. Years would pass until the public ministry of Jesus would begin, but during this time Jesus was continually growing, ever being prepared for the day of His public appearance as Israel’s Messiah. His sense of purpose and calling toward this destiny can be seen, even in this childhood incident.

What Does This Story Mean?

It is tempting to look at this text casually, without struggling to grasp its meaning. Remember, this is not just one of many stories we have heard of a misplaced child, it is Luke’s only account of an event in the growing-up years of Israel’s Messiah, our Savior. There are several ways in which this story can be explained. Let’s consider our options and then seek to determine which one points to the meaning of the text.

(1) Our first option is simply to take this as a kind of anecdote, an incident in the life of Christ with which we can all identify. If have already suggested that there are too many things each gospel writer could have said to think that a trivial incident would be included, if not significant to the gospel as a whole.

(2) A second, but unacceptable, option is to understand that Jesus was wrong to remain behind in Jerusalem, at least without informing His parents of what He was doing. Since Jesus was the Son of God, in whom there was no sin, then He cannot have done wrong here, even as a child.

(3) A third option is to view Jesus as a kind of “absent-minded” Messiah, who is so preoccupied with the temple and the Scriptures that He simply missed the Caravan, and was thus left behind. This seems to be the view of at least one commentator.[36] I know of several “absent-minded professor” stories from my years in seminary. One such story is about a professor who stood at his own back door, deep in thought, knocking for some time, without realizing that he had not yet gotten outside his own house and at the door of his neighbor, where he intended to go. Another story is told of the professor who drove his car to Houston, Texas, where he spoke, only to fly home, forgetting that he had driven there.

Jesus, it is suggested, was just caught up with “His Father’s business,” and the rebuke of His parents came as a shock. This is a bit hard to believe, however. I hardly think that an “absent-minded Jesus story” is fitting immediately after Luke’s comment that Jesus was increasing in wisdom. Jesus’ words indicate that He purposefully remained on in Jerusalem (“I had to be,…” v. 49). We know that Jesus was the oldest child, among several others (Matt. 13:55, 56), and thus He may have had the task of watching over them, and perhaps of getting them situated in the caravan. Also, when that first day in the temple came to an end, it was obvious that He was separated from His parents, yet He showed no concern, made no effort to be rejoined to them, and was apparently not looking for them. Absent-mindedness may not be sin, but it isn’t all that smart, either. Jesus was not absent-minded here.

(4) The fourth option is that Jesus’ parents were negligent, and were solely responsible for leaving Jerusalem without Jesus. How could they have left Jerusalem without Jesus? How could they have expected Him to assume such responsibility? This doesn’t square with the story, either. If Jesus had made this trip with His parents before (as I take it He did), then He must have been accustomed to the way it was done, He must have proven Himself capable on previous trips. An oversight on the parents’ part still does not explain the purposefulness of our Lord in remaining behind. Even if He had not succeeded in staying behind, He intended to do so, and without asking their permission or informing them of His intentions.

(5) Our final option is that Jesus was right in what He did, and that His parents were wrong in being angry with Him and rebuking Him. Jesus purposed to stay in Jerusalem, without His parents’ permission, and without informing them of His actions. The question is, why?

In the light of the rest of the life of Christ and of New Testament revelation, I believe that we can identify several reasons for Jesus’ actions, reasons which Mary and Joseph were not able to grasp at the moment.

First, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem to learn of God. I cannot explain how our Lord, who was fully God and fully man, needed to learn, needed to develop in His grasp of God’s Word, but I believe it to be true nonetheless. The verses which introduce and summarize this section make the growth of our Lord one of the highlights of the text:

And the Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him (Luke 2:40).

And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52).

It is much easier to believe that the Lord Jesus grew physically than it is to believe that He grew intellectually and spiritually, but the text tells us that He grew in all these ways. The interchange of our Lord and the teachers at the temple reveals both our Lord’s eagerness to learn (for He was asking questions and listening to them—the posture of a learner), and the depth of the wisdom He had already attained.

Second, it appears that Jesus remained in Jerusalem to learn from the teachers at the temple those things which His parents could not teach Him. There is a broad sense in which every person needs the ministry of others in the “body of Christ,” and thus parents surely cannot and should not jealously guard the teaching their child by keeping him or her from the ministry of others. Here, however, I believe something more involved is taking place. Jesus was in Jerusalem during the observation of the Passover (Luke 2:41). I an inclined to think that He was particularly interested in the meaning of the Passover, especially as it applied to Him. The teachers at the temple could answer our Lord’s question more academically, more objectively. Our Lord’s parents surely did not allow their minds to ponder the sacrifice of their own son. Jesus therefore remained in Jerusalem to learn from others what He could not learn from His parents.

Third, I believe that Jesus remained on in Jerusalem because He would not have been given permission to stay there. Think about it for a moment. What do you think Mary and Joseph would have said in response to this request: “Can I stay on in Jerusalem for a few days to discuss the Old Testament and theology with the leading teachers of Israel?” More than now, children were to be seen and not heard. I can’t imagine our Lord’s earthly parents giving Him permission to do what He needed to do. Thus, He did not ask them.

Finally, and most importantly, Jesus did not ask permission to stay on in Jerusalem because He was God. On one level, the level from which Mary and Joseph saw it, Jesus was but a young boy, a boy incapable of making such critical decisions, a boy who was not old enough to stay by Himself in Jerusalem, a boy who was too young to be discussing the Scriptures with the finest teachers in Israel. But while He was a human being, a 12 year-old boy, He was also God incarnate, just as the angel had said to Mary and Joseph years before (Matt. 1:20-25; Luke 1:32, 35). On the divine level, God did not need to have man’s permission to act any way He saw fit, nor was it required of God to explain His actions to man. Indeed, God is even free to do those things which cause men pain and consternation. It is only the fact that Jesus was fully God (as well as fully man) that explains how He could act as He did and not be wrong for so doing. If it were any other child, we would have sided with the parents, but since the child is the Son of God, we quickly acknowledge that He was right. Jesus, unlike any other 12 year-old in history, was God.

 The Purpose of the Passage

Hopefully we can now understand why Jesus did and said what He did in the incident at the temple. The question still remains, “Why did Luke record only this event in the childhood of our Lord? “What is so significant about this event which makes it worthy of becoming a part of the divine record of the life of Christ? The passage serves several important functions, as I currently understand it.

(1) The passage affirms both the humanity and the deity of our Lord. In Christ humanity is added to deity. Throughout the history of the church (beginning very early in church history), men have often emphasized one side of our Lord’s two natures (His deity and His humanity) at the expense of the other. One form of error (e.g. Docetism) tended to stress the deity of Christ, but to minimize His humanity. The other extreme (e.g. Adoptionism) stressed the humanity of Jesus, but minimized His full deity.

In Luke chapter 2 Luke emphasizes both the deity and the humanity of our Lord. That Jesus was fully human is evidenced by the fact that He was born and that He was a child, who grew and developed as any normal child would, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. Jesus stayed on at the temple to learn, not to teach[37] (although His answers to questions put to Him astounded those who witnessed this event). That Jesus was God is also evident in our text. The wisdom of Jesus is contrasted in this text with the ignorance of His parents, that is their inability to grasp who He was and why He acted as He did, even with the revelation about Him which they had been previously given. Jesus referred to God as His Father, and was in the temple because this was where a significant portion of “His Father’s business” was carried out. The amazement of those who witnesses His wisdom, as well as that of His parents, was further testimony to His uniqueness. That He could do and say what no other 12 year-old could have done and been right in so doing is also proof of His divinity. Whatever debates and disputes there would be in the history of the church, it must be agreed that Luke’s presentation of Christ was intended to represent Him as the God-man, even as a 12 year-old child.[38]

(2) Our passage reminds us of the principle of growth. In His perfect humanity, our Lord grew, physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. Jesus did not come to the earth and immediately begin to minister. We know from the gospel accounts that it Jesus would be nearly 30 years old or more before His public ministry commenced. The event at the temple occurred after 12 years of growth on the part of our Lord. His public ministry required another 18 years of growth.

 If it was necessary for God incarnate to grow and to mature, in preparation for His ministry, why is it that we are so interested in instant spirituality, instant maturity. There are those who would have us think that some momentous event, some spectacular spiritual experience, is the key to instant maturity and service. If it were not true of our Lord, it is not true for us either. We may have glorious and monumental experiences, but these do not produce instant growth or maturity. Let us not expect or demand more than our Lord Himself experienced. Even God did not hurry.

(3) Our text reminds us of the relationship between deity and sovereignty. Jesus could do what He did because He was God, and as God He was sovereign. His sovereignty entitled Him to do that which His parents did not approve of. His sovereignty entitled Him to rebuke them for their lack of faith and understanding (they should at least have understood from all they had been told that He would be in the temple). His sovereignty also entitled Him to do that which inconvenienced them and caused them considerable distress.

(4) Our text informs us of the relationship between sovereignty and authority. If Jesus was God, then He was also sovereign. If He was sovereign, then His authority was ultimate, and the parental authority of Mary and Joseph was of a much lessor type. The authority of Jesus, as God, far surpassed the authority of Mary and Joseph as parents. That is why Jesus could override and overrule parental authority. (Let me hasten to add, for any child who might wish to take this in the wrong way, that only the boy Jesus could do this, for only He was God.)

It is quite easy to justify the actions of Jesus in our text, and to wonder why Mary and Joseph could not have grasped what was happening. But let me suggest that you and I respond to the sovereignty of God in precisely the same way, and all too often. When God brings adversity into our lives, when He causes us agony and distress, we become angry, too. When He does things which we do not understand, we are frustrated and upset. We want God to explain His reasons and His purposes to us, just as Mary and Joseph expected Jesus to justify His actions.

Mary and Joseph were wrong because they forgot that as mere men (I speak generically) their authority was vastly outranked by the 12 year-old child God had temporarily placed in their custody. And though there was just this one incident reported in the childhood of our Lord when the authority and identity of Jesus were asserted (the text tells us that He returned with His parents and lived in submission to them after this, v. 51), He was fully God and thus could sovereignly act independently, if He chose to do so and if it were in accord with the Father’s will. Jesus reminded His parents that He was, first and foremost, the Son of God, in obedience to Him, and called to carry out “His Father’s business.” The time would come when Mary would probably not have permitted this “son” of hers to go to the cross, but this He must do, in obedience to His true Father.

Whenever you and I question the working of God in our lives, whenever we are angry (which we are usually to “spiritual” to admit) with God, we reveal that we have reversed the divine chain of authority. All to often we act as though God were to be in submission to our will, rather than to acknowledge that it is we who must submit to His, even if that brings pain, or inconvenience, of if we cannot understand what He is doing or why. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God means that God may act as He chooses, without having to explain His actions to man, or to ask our permission.

Job temporarily forgot this, and in the midst of his pain and suffering he began to question God. To do so was to forget, as James Dobson says, “who is in charge.” It was only when Job was reminded of God’s sovereignty that he quickly ceased his complaints and protests, and asked for forgiveness. Let us do likewise.

Application

We need to be very careful in the way we apply the teaching of this passage. For one thing, we need to distinguish between those things which are unique to our Lord, as Immanuel, God Incarnate, and those things in which our Lord is an example to all. A little probing of this may prove helpful. Let us do so by seeking to establish some principles from what we have learned, and then exploring their implications.

Only of our Lord could it be said that He was God and man, and thus able to act contrary to the permission and preferences of His parents, as He did by remaining on in Jerusalem. Our children dare not make Jesus the model for their actions in the sense that whenever they think their parents are wrong they are free to follow their own inclinations. The on-going submission of our Lord to His parents after this incident rule against such conclusions.

And yet there is a principle involved here, a principle which governed our Lords’ actions, and which should govern ours as well. The principle is this: If God is our Father, then our ultimate obedience must be to Him, and not to any earthly authority, when the two conflict.

When men choose to follow God, they must do so by following Him as the absolute, sovereign authority of their lives. When earthly authority directly commands them otherwise, they, in the words of the apostles, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Our Lord made this clear, I believe when He required that His disciples follow Him, above all other earthly attachments and authorities:

“For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luke 12:52-53).

Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:25-26; cf. also Mark 10:7:29-30; Luke 9:59-62).

This principle has application to parents, as well as to children. It means that those of us who have children must, like Mary and Joseph, recognize that God may be leading them in a way that is painful and even costly to us, but which is nevertheless His sovereign will. As such, we should not stand in the way of our children following God. Let us seek not to force our children to obey God against our instructions (implied or stated).

There is a second principle evident in our text: Nothing should hinder us from access to those things which contribute to our spiritual growth.

While I do not pretend to fully grasp how or why our Lord grew, it seems evident to me that being at the temple and having the opportunity to ask questions of the teachers was essential to the growth of our Lord. This was so important to Him that He found it necessary to act contrary to the wishes of His parents.

If our Lord’s growth was so important to Him, should our spiritual growth not be as important to us? Being at the temple, exposed to the teachers of that day, was one means of our Lord’s growth, among many others (exposure to the Scriptures, parental teaching, etc.). What means has God provided for our growth, which we should not allow other things to crowd out? I would suggest several for your consideration, to which you may be able to add others. The Scriptures are essential to our growth, so that nothing should keep us from them (Ps. 19:7-14; 119 [whole psalm]; Acts 20:32; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:14-17; Heb. 13:9; Jas. 1:21-22; 1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:2-4). So, too, is the edification and instruction provided by others in the body of Christ, which requires regular attendance and participation in the worship of the church (cf. Psalm 73:17; Rom. 14-15; 1 Cor. 12-14; Eph. 4:1-16; Heb. 10:23-25). Prayer is another vital means of fellowship with God and growth (Eph. 6:18; 1 Thes. 5:18). Finally, obedience to what we know to be the will of God is a key to our further growth (cf. Matt. 7:24-27; Mark 4:21-25). Nothing should keep us from these vital means of growth.

There is another principle which is valid and pertinent to the Christian life, which is evident here: It is extremely difficult for those who believe in the divine and the human to recognize the two without sacrificing one or the other.

The parents of our Lord struggled as to how to put together the facets of our Lord’s nature, His humanity and His deity. In our text, the humanity of Jesus had so dominated their thoughts that they forgot to reckon with His deity, which was the basis for Jesus’ actions and response to them.

God is somehow able to intertwine the human and the divine. Thus, in the outworking of His divine plan and promises, God was able to use the decree of a pagan potentate to arrange for the arrival of Messiah in Bethlehem, rather than in Nazareth. God will later use the religious leaders of Israel and the Roman government to bring about the substitutionary, sacrificial death of His Son.

More problematic to us is the way God intertwines the human and the divine in our own experience. You and I have the same struggle, I believe, in recognizing both the divine and the human elements in our Christian lives. One illustration of this is in maintaining the tension between the element of divine sovereignty, along with that of human responsibility. You see, the struggle of Mary and Joseph is not so unique as it might first appear. There is a kind of incarnation which is going on in the life of every Christian. Let us not deny the divine nor the human in what God is doing in our lives.

One final principle remains to be stated, which I believe is the key to the whole passage: The most important issue, which determines all else in life, is the answer to the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”

Establish the fact that Jesus Christ was fully God, as well as fully man, and everything in our text makes sense. It is easy to see why Jesus must be in His Father’s house, and at the same time easy to identify with the struggle this caused Mary and Joseph.

The acceptance or rejection of the Lord Jesus in His adult earthly life and ministry can be boiled down to the answer to but one question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” The rejection of Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, who engineered His death, is explained by the fact that they rejected His claim to be the Son of God (cf. John 8). They persisted to challenge His actions and teaching by demanding to know by what authority He was acting. Jesus, likewise, asked His disciples who He was (Matt. 16:13-15).

Grant the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and all else is but a logical outflow, all else that He said and did is reasonable, rational, undeniable. Reject this one fact and you must reject Him entirely. May I ask you, “Who is Jesus Christ?” Who do you think He is? The answer to this question will settle the matter of your eternal destiny, and will establish once and for all the matter of authority in your life. It will utterly rearrange your priorities and values. The answer is, “Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God Incarnate, who become a man and who dwelt among men to reveal God to them, to reveal their sin, and to pay the penalty for their sin by His death on the cross of Calvary. The answer to the identity of Christ also determines your identity, whether you are of your father, the devil (cf. John 8:31-47), or whether your Father is the God of the universe (Romans 8:12-17).

! Lesson 7:
John the Baptizer
(Luke 3:1-20)

 Introduction

A good friend of mine, Brady Pamplin, had the unique experience of growing up as the son of a county sheriff. His father who was the sheriff of Marlin County for many years, passed away this past year. It was at this time that Brady was told of an incident which had happened many years before. A gentleman who had been confined to a wheelchair for years told Brady about the first time he had met his father. There was a circus in town and he had gone. He had bought his ticket, but when he reached the gate he learned that his wheelchair wide to wide to pass through it. The circus people seemed unwilling to do anything to help. Sheriff Pamplin arrived on the scene at this moment, and sizing up the situation promptly kicked down the gate. That gate was never again put up, and the man went to the circuses from year to year without any difficulty.

Sheriff Pamplin, I fear, was one of the last of a dying breed of sheriff. The stories of such men are still swapped, but there seem to be few peace officers like these any more. I tend to think of John the Baptist as this kind of man, a unique man, with heroic qualities, and yet a man who was the last of a vanishing breed—the Old Testament prophet.

John the Baptist is not introduced to the reader of Luke’s gospel at the time his public ministry commenced, as is the case in all the other gospels. The first four chapters of Luke’s gospel intertwine the accounts of the announcements of the birth of both John and Jesus, along with significant childhood events. Thus, when we come to the ministry of John the Baptist in chapter 3 we are simply finding John to be in the spotlight, as he has been before, as the forerunner of the Messiah. Luke’s account is sort of like the old Huntley-Brinkley news program of years gone by. The camera and microphone continually switching from “Chet” to “David”: “Now back to you, David.” In our case, it is now back to John.

The ministries of John and Jesus are intertwined, but they are not identical. Both commence their ministry with the proclamation, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3;2; 4:17). Both men (or at least their disciples) baptized (John 3:22ff.). Indeed, at least two of John’s disciples became the disciples of our Lord (John 1:35-42). And, of course, many of those who were baptized by John became followers of the Lord Jesus (John 10:40-42; cf. Acts 18:24–19:7).

There were significant differences between John and his ministry and Jesus and His ministry and message. Almost without exception, it was John who stressed the differences between himself and Jesus, showing Jesus to be superior. John clearly distinguished their origin, as was made clear by Luke. Jesus was from above, while John was from below. Jesus was God, while John was but a man:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me’” (John 1:29-30; cf. 3:31-36).

Jesus was the bridegroom; John was the friend of the groom (John 3:29). While both baptized, the baptism of Jesus, John maintained, was greater (Matt. 3:11). Jesus was the Messiah; John was the forerunner of Messiah. John’s message stressed coming judgment, while Jesus spoke of forgiveness and salvation. The “tension of the text” comes here, however, for while John speaks of coming judgment, he does so as though the Messiah, the Lord Jesus will be the judge:

John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but He who is mightier than I is coming, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals;[39] He Himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fir. And His winnowing fork is in His hand to clean out His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:16-17).

John’s description of Jesus’ ministry here does not seem to square with our Lord’s words, as recorded in John’s gospel:

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:17).

“Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).

“You people judge according to the flesh; I am not judging any one” (John 8:15).

I believe that this tension between the ministry and message of John and that of Jesus is not only the tension of our text, but also the cause for John’s doubts, as revealed in his sending a delegation to Jesus, asking if He was indeed the Messiah (cf. Matt. 11:21-28; Luke 7:18-35). The resolution to this problem will provide us with the key to understanding the relationship of the ministries and messages of John and Jesus.

 The Approach of This Message

Our approach in this message will be to focus first on John the man, then on John as the last of the Old Testament prophets, and then to see how his ministry relates to Christ and the gospel of the New Testament. We will further explore the meaning of John and his ministry as recorded in this portion of Luke’s gospel. Finally, we will seek to discover the relevance of John to the lives of the modern day reader.

Our text can be understood as falling into the following divisions:

(1) The setting, vv. 1-2

(2) The message of John, vv. 3-6

(3) The meaning of John’s message, vv. 7-14

·         a. John and the Messiah, vv. 15-17

·         b. John’s ministry terminated, vv. 18-20

John the Man

I suppose that if I were to ask my children what they thought about John the Baptist after reading our text, their response could probably be summarized this way: “He was a rude, crude, dude!” It is very easy to categorize John as kind of weird, and certainly, it would seem, quite hostile! This, however, is to fail to view John as a prophet, and also to miss the greatness and the marvelous qualities of this unique individual. Let us begin, then, by considering John as a man.[40]

(1) John was a man of distinction. By this I mean that John was a very unique individual, a man who stood out from the crowd. This is evident in various ways. John was a Nazarite from birth, and thus his food was distinctive. John was also a “desert man” so that he ate wild locusts and honey, the food of the desert. John was a prophet, and so he dressed in the garb of Elijah the prophet.

(2) John was a popular and powerful preacher. Mark’s account of the commencement of John’s ministry makes it clear that John’s ministry was widely known and widely sought:

And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5).

Mark informs us that even Herod had enjoyed listening to John, even though the message of John struck hard at his own sins (Mark 6:20; cf. Luke 4:19). John may have been “a voice crying in the wilderness,” but many people heard this voice. John was a man like E. F. Hutton (at least as the T.V. commercials would have us believe): when he spoke, people listened.

We might be inclined to think that John’s popularity was like that of our Lord, a result of the miracles which He performed (cf. John 6:26). John informs us of a very significant fact, however:

And many came to Him [Jesus, at place where John commenced his ministry]; and they were saying, “While John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true” (John 10:41).

When you stop to think about it, there is not one instance in the gospels where we are ever told that John performed a miracle. John did not heal, like our Lord, so far as the text informs us. Those people who witnessed the ministry of Jesus, in the very place where John had formerly preached and baptized, testified that John “performed no sign.” This means that it was only John’s preaching that attracted the crowds. He must have been some preacher. (No doubt it was the messianic nature of his message which caused such excitement. John’s ministry seemed to give hope of the coming of the kingdom, as it was intended to do (cf. Luke 3:15-17).

It may not be saying enough to simply say John was a powerful preacher. It is probably more accurate to say that he was a powerful man. While it is true that Herod, as a politician, feared John because the people thought him to be a prophet (Matt. 14:5), Herod, as a pagan, feared John because he was a holy man:

For Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him (Mark 6:20).

(3) John was a man a great insight into the sinfulness of people and society. You might think that a man who lived in the remote places of the wilderness would have little grasp of what was going on in the “big city.” John’s ministry reveals that he was very much up to date with what was going on. John not only rebuked Herod for taking another man’s wife as his own,[41] he also rebuked Him for “all the wicked things he had done” (Luke 3:19). John was able to put his finger on the specific sin which most characterized the tax-gatherers, and of the soldiers as well (Luke 3:12-14).

(4) John was a man of integrity. John lived what he preached and preached what he lived. His message was not one that would “tickle the ears” of his audience, but he proclaimed it forthrightly and forcefully. He did not appeal to fleshly motives, nor did he hesitate to point out the implications of the message of repentance which he preached. He did not have a vacation retreat in the mountains (we can assume), nor a fat bank account, all the while telling others to share with the needy (cf. Luke 3:11).

(5) John was a man of prayer. I would not have immediately thought of John as a man of prayer, but why not. More and more I am coming to view proclamation and prayer as the priorities of our lives, especially those who are in positions of leadership (cf. Acts 6:1-6). I have frequently heard the request of the disciples, “Lord, teach us to pray,… ” but I have seldom heard the request finished. The disciples of our Lord, some of whom had been John’s disciples previously (John 1), asked, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.”

John was a man of prayer—a fact noted by the disciples of our Lord.

(6) John was a man of humility. John’s deep humility becomes particularly evident on several occasions. The first is when John’s ministry had become widely acclaimed and simultaneously messianic expectation had become intense. Note John’s response, as recorded by Luke:

Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he might be the Christ, John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but He who is mightier than I is coming, and I am not fit to tie the thong of His sandals; He Himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand to clean out His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:15-17).

How easy it would have been for John to hedge here, allowing the people to conclude he was the Messiah, without actually claiming to be. How easy for John to have gained financially, to have misused his role to bolster his ego. But John quickly set about to correct the misconceptions of the people, to focus their attention and devotion toward the Messiah, and not on himself.

The second occasion on which John’s humility became evident was after the appearance of Jesus, when His public ministry had commenced. Immediately His ministry began to overshadow John’s. His disciples were baptizing more than John’s, and His ministry was attracting more followers. John is at his finest hour here, as recorded in the last part of John chapter 3. What a giant John was. How graciously he accepted his role and rejoiced in the success of the Savior. He was, indeed, a man of deep humility.

As a man, John provides us with a model for ministry. His life was testimony to the fact that John believed with all his heart that, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

John the Baptist,
the Last of the Old Testament Prophets

John was a prophet whose ministry was rooted in the Old Testament. In the first place, the appearance and ministry of John was prophesied in the Old Testament:

A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain,[42] And the rugged terrain a broad valley; Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken” (Isaiah 40:3-5).

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the LORD of hosts. Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).

Our Lord made it clear to His disciples that John was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi:

And His disciples asked Him saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist (Matt. 17:10-13; cf. also Mark 9:11-13, Luke 1:17).

John did not merely fulfill Old Testament prophecy, he spoke as an Old Testament prophet. His message was the same message which the (other) Old Testament prophets had proclaimed. We can but briefly summarize the similarities between John’s proclamation and that of the other prophets, but a comparison of their messages (a worthwhile endeavor) will show that their messages and emphases were the same.

John spoke of the coming of the kingdom of God (e.g. Matt. 3:2), but he rather than speaking of it only as a time of blessing, he spoke of judgment, of “the wrath to come” (cf. Matt. 3:7). In a similar way, Joel foretold the coming of the “day of the Lord,” warning that it was to be a time of judgment for Israel, as well as for the nations (Joel 1:15; 2:1-3, etc.). There was also a promise of grace and compassion, for all who repented (Joel 2:12ff.).

John called upon his audience to share their material possessions with those in need: “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise” (Luke 3:11).

His words should have a familiar ring, for this is what the prophets of old had called upon Israel to do:

“Is this not the fast which I chose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then your light will break out like the dawn, And your recovery will speedily spring forth; And your righteousness will go before you; The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard (Isaiah 58:6-8).

John called upon Israel to show mercy to practice justice.

“Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:13, 14).

The prophet Malachi, as did the others, called upon the Old Testament saint to do likewise:

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien, and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:5).

John rebuked Herod for taking the wife of his brother (cf. Luke 3:19). His message could easily have been preached from this text in Malachi:

“And this is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?” Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Malachi 2:13-16).

The Meaning of John’s Preaching For Israel

John’s message was like that of the Old Testament prophets in a particularly important way. John and the Old Testament prophets spoke of the future, of the Kingdom of God, of the Messiah, and of “things to come” in two different ways. The prophets spoke of the coming of the Lord both as a time of judgment, and as a time of blessing. They spoke of Messiah both as the great King, who would reign from the throne of David, and as the Suffering Servant, who would die for the sins of the world. And, you will recall, that this was the cause for considerable interest and even agony on the part of the prophets. As Peter tells us,

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow (1 Pet. 1:10-11).

In the same way, John’s ministry contained these two themes, these two messages. One was of judgment, the other of God’s grace and salvation. The one was an exhortation to keep the Law of God, the other the promise that God would provide salvation apart from man’s keeping of the Law. The one message was that Israel must prepare the way for the Lord, the other was that the Lord would prepare the way for men.[43] Thus, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

When John spoke of Messiah’s coming, it was in either one of two senses: either as the judge, who would put down the wicked and establish His kingdom (which is still future for us), or as the “suffering Servant” who would die for Israel’s sins. It would soon become evident that Israel would not repent. Many of those who came to John for baptism left without ever entering the water (Luke 7:29-30). Thus, the kingdom of God was rejected, along with her King! All of this in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

John’s one ministry as a prophet—calling Israel to repentance and to the keeping of the Law—was a failure, as all other prophets had failed (cp. Matt. 23:29-39; Acts 7:52). It was thus with John’s ministry that the preaching of the Law, of the old covenant, ceased: “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, … ” (Luke 16:16).

From this point on, it is the new covenant, that of which the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah especially spoke of (Jer. 31:31-34), that is in view. Thus, the Messiah must come to suffer in the place of sinners, to be rejected by men, and to be smitten of God.

It was this transition, I believe, which was the source of John’s doubts, as recorded in Matthew 11:21-28 and Luke 7:18-35. John was hoping that Israel would repent, keep the Law, and that the promised blessings of the Law would come on Israel. With his own arrest, John began to see the failure of the old covenant, and thus he began to question his ministry and that of Messiah. Could he have been wrong? Why, then, was his ministry a failure? I personally believe that the answer which our Lord gave to the delegation sent from John provides the key.

“Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM” (Luke 7:23).

It is my opinion that these words are intended to focus John’s attention on the second, but less clear, phase of Messiah’s coming—to be the Savior of the world. Jesus’ ministry was not that of judgment, of overthrowing Israel’s enemies, but of ministry to the poor, the afflicted, the distressed. Jesus’ ministry was not of judgment, but of salvation. John needed to focus on this aspect of His ministry, not on that which would still later be evident, in His second coming. This, indeed, was that dimension of our Lord’s ministry which John himself introduced with the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John1:29).

John’s ministry should thus have demonstrated, once and for all, that the blessing of Israel, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, would never be achieved through the Mosaic Covenant, through the law-keeping of the nation Israel. Justification and blessing would only come by faith in the suffering, death, atonement, and resurrection of God’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

John’s ministry was to close, once and for all, that chapter in Israel’s history of the Mosaic Covenant, of law-keeping. No one had ever been saved by law-keeping, and neither would the kingdom of God ever be initiated because of it. Grace must replace law, the suffering of Messiah would provide a means of forgiveness and escape from the judgment of God. John’s ministry was intended to point this out, in a final and definitive way. John not only proclaimed, one final time, a call to repentance and law-keeping, but introduced the One through whom the law would be fulfilled, and through whom salvation and forgiveness would be accomplished. What privilege for John to end the one dispensation, and to introduce the other!

For Luke’s readers, the message was even more pointed. Luke was writing to a predominantly Gentile audience. In particular, Luke wrote to Theophilus (1:3). The question which a Gentile would want answered would be this: “How can a Jewish Messiah, fulfilling Jewish prophecies and promises, bring salvation to Gentiles?” Luke’s answer, supported by the ministry of John the Baptist, was this: “The Jewish system of law-keeping failed. It could not save Jews, nor can it save you. Thus, both Jews and Gentiles must be saved another way—through Christ.” This is precisely the apostolic answer of Peter, which Luke records in the book of Acts:

“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:10-11).

Ironically, Paul found it necessary to remind Peter of this when he compromised under pressure from Judaizers and separated himself from eating with Gentile Christians:

“Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

Thus, the failure of the Jews to keep the Law opened the door for God’s grace to provide a better way, the way of salvation by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ. Luke’s account of the failure of John’s ministry sets the stage for the grace of God to be made known through Christ’s first coming, death, burial, and resurrection.

Luke’s gospel reveals the rejection of Jesus as the King of Israel, and of the Law, as He taught it, and thus of the transition from Law to grace, from a “Jewish” religion to a universal (the church) religion. I will but briefly survey this, for our study of Luke will reveal it in much greater detail. In chapter 4 our Lord presented Himself as Israel’s Messiah, which received an immediate warm welcome (Luke 4:22), until Jesus went on to spell out what His ministry meant—including salvation for the Gentiles (Luke 4:23-27). This resulted in immediate and explosive anger, and an attempt to kill the Messiah (Luke 4:28-29). Thus, in chapter 5 (vv. 33-39) our Lord spoke of not putting “new wine” (the program of the new covenant) in old wineskins (the program of the old covenant). In chapter 7, the old covenant ministry of John is shown to be “inferior” to the new covenant ministry (7:28). As the gospel proceeds, the new covenant ministry of our Lord is more and more revealed, consummating in His death, burial and resurrection, instituting that covenant. So, too, Luke’s account of the book of Acts shows the fulfillment of John’s promise that Jesus would bring about a better baptism, a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, in Acts, especially chapters 18 (Apollos) and 19 (the 12 who had received John’s baptism), we see that once Christ’s sacrificial death had been made on men’s behalf, acceptance of John’s gospel was not sufficient. At best, John’s gospel looked forward to what Christ would do, as the “Lamb of God.” After Christ’s ascension, men were called on the believe in the Christ who had come, and to receive His baptism.

Luke’s account is unique among the other gospels in several ways. The meaning of John’s ministry in Luke’s account will, to some degree, be evident by those unique characteristics of his record. These three contributions can be seen by comparing Luke’s account of John with the other gospel writers:

(1) First, only Luke so specifically sets the ministry of John in its political and religious context. The first two verses of Luke 3 give us the key political and religious figures of that day. Perhaps Luke is suggesting to the reader that God’s revelation was not through political or even religious leaders, but through a humble desert man, John. The power of God was not introduced through the “power” brokers of the day. God’s power is quite distinct from man’s power. John, though a solitary figure, was a powerful man, not because of his position, but because of his message, and because of his divine calling. Here, perhaps, is the kind of “separation of church and state” which God practices. The fact that these men who are named are not a part of the revelation of Messiah may also be a reminder of Israel’s bondage, and of the sinfulness of her religious leaders, demonstrating the need not only for repentance, but also for divine deliverance.

(2) Second, Luke draws our attention to the masses, not to the leadership nor to the elite of the nation. While the first two verses focus on Israel’s “secular” (including the unbelieving religious leaders) leaders, the remaining verses highlight John’s message to the masses. It is the “multitudes” and the “people” (vv. 7, 10, 15) to whom we are told John spoke specifically, pointing out the particular sins they were practicing. And, you will note (Luke 7:29-30), that it was from this group that the greater portion of John’s followers came. Luke’s emphasis on the gospel to the poor and to the oppressed is evident here.

(3) Third, we find Luke’s account giving very specific emphasis to the material and monetary implications of the gospel. In speaking to the multitudes, including the soldiers and tax-gatherers, Luke informs us that John spelled out the proper use of money and power. It is little wonder that Luke’s gospel contains so many parables on the subject of money. The gospel will directly bear upon the use of our material goods.

The Meaning of John and His Message For Today

It might be thought that because John was “the last of the Old Testament prophets,” his life and ministry have little to say to 20th century Americans. This is far from the case. Both in his person and in his prophetic ministry, John has much to say to us today. As we conclude this message, let us seek to survey some of the ways this passage and this person relate to us.

(1) We have much to learn from the personal example and lifestyle of John the Baptist. The press has created the stereotype of a bearded “weirdo” carrying a sign, “Repent or Perish.” No doubt John the Baptist would be considered just such a person. John however, was a model man in many regards. John was a man who knew who he was (self-image?) and was thus committed to enhancing the ministry and person of Messiah, while at the same time diminishing his own role. He was a man who dared to be different, to stand apart and alone. He was a man who was not held captive by those sins which were characteristic of his day. In order to speak as boldly as he did, his life was even more rigorously guarded against any appearance of evil. Here was a man who life was as powerful as his words.

(2) We can also learn much from John’s ministry. While John’s ministry and message was to be replaced, there is much that we can learn from them. We can learn, for example, from the boldness of John in proclaiming his message. He did not hesitate to call sin sin, or to warn men of the coming judgment of God. For those of us who tend to be “wimpy” Christians (I include myself here), who are reticent to tell people they are sinners, who shy away from telling people there is a literal hell for all who do not trust in Christ, John’s boldness should serve as a rebuke. And note that it was his boldness in proclaiming God’s word that enhanced the power of his message. The gospel is, as Paul says, “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Let us therefore proclaim it boldly.

I should quickly add that John’s boldness and honesty was not hostility or anti-social behavior. There are some Christians who are angry people, who are looking for an excuse to attack others and to vent their anger. John’s life and ministry do not sanction this kind of behavior. What John did he did out of love for God and for man (the essence, you will recall, of the Law, cf. Matt. 22:37-39). Let us boldly confront men with their sin, with the judgment of God and with God’s offer of salvation. It is precisely these truths of which the Spirit of God will convince men (John 16:8).

John’s ministry made sin and salvation very personal. I often hear people say, “My relationship to God is a very personal thing.” In one sense, they are absolutely right, but generally this is an excuse not to talk with anyone about their beliefs. John made sin personal by confronting men with those sins of which they were guilty. Herod was confronted with his sins, as were the multitudes, the soldiers, and the tax-gatherers. Also, salvation was very personal. Each person had to repent of his sins and turn from his wicked ways. Each person needed to renounce any false basis for salvation (e.g. “we are Abraham’s seed,” Luke 3:8). Each person was called to make a definite commitment to righteousness and a definite break with sin.

Besides having a personal experience, John also required a public experience. John’s preaching was public, as was his exposure of sin. The baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was likewise public. The baptism of John was to be accompanied by a change in the life of the repentant individual, public evident to others, so that the sins of the past were to be left behind.

It is possible, my friend, that you know all the vital facts, about your sin, about the present and coming judgment of God, and about the righteousness of Christ and the salvation which He has made available to all men. And yet it is also possible that you have never made a personal, public commitment to Christ. If not, I urge you, just as John urged those men and women of long ago, to take a public stand, to acknowledge your sin, and to express your faith in Christ as your Savior. No one is saved by osmosis, by inheritance, or by mere knowledge, but by a personal commitment, a personal entrusting of yourself and your eternal future into the hands of Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, whose righteousness may be your own. Do it today!

What a beautiful example of ministry we see in John. He was content, better yet, his “joy was full” (John 3:29) to have played a role in turning men to Christ, of having men follow Christ and not himself. He was joyful to have his ministry terminate and Christ’s ministry to perpetuate. He was willing to be an instrument, and then to allow his ministry to pass away. How few ministries there are today which are joyfully allowed to die, having fulfilled their role.

While John and his ministry are, in one sense, history, may we seek to emulate the spirit and the motivation of this great saint of old, and may our ministries also be modeled after his.

! Lesson 8:
The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
(Luke 3:21-38; 1 Samuel 16:1-13; 2 Samuel 7:8-13)

 Introduction

A couple of years ago, we were having a great deal of trouble with our telephone system. With the breakup of “Ma Bell” everyone seemed to be placing the responsibility to fix the problem on another group. Finally, in frustration, I called a friend who works for the phone company, solely to find out who to call for help. In a matter of minutes there were supervisors on the line and things really began to happen. Soon, a supervisor from another part of town was at my office, solely to assure me that the repair man was on his way, and that the problem would be fixed, that night.

It began to dawn on me that my friend was a person of substantial influence and position in the phone company. When I asked the supervisor what my friend did in the company he responded, “When they call us, we drop whatever we’re doing and do what they say.” One’s position and one’s power has a lot to do with what he or she is able to accomplish.

So it was with our Lord Jesus Christ. From all outward appearances, our Lord was a person with no great power or station in life. He was born into a very poor family, as is evident by the circumstances of His birth. He was apparently a carpenter until the commencement of His public ministry. But at His baptism, there was a dramatic pronouncement from God Himself, which identified Christ as Israel’s King, and the descent of the Holy Spirit at this time endued Him with power to carry out His mission.

Tensions of the Text

Perhaps the major tension of this text has to do with the necessity of Christ’s baptism by John. You will recall that John emphatically stressed the superiority of the Messiah to himself. One evidence of this was the superiority of His baptism:

John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but He who is mightier than I is coming, and I am unfit to untie the thong of His sandals; He Himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Luke 3:16).

If John’s baptism was inferior to that of our Lord, then why did our Lord not baptize John, rather than have John baptize Him, just as John himself had protested in Matthew’s account?

A second tension has to do with the genealogy of our Lord. Not only does the genealogy differ from that of Matthew’s account, but it also is placed differently. Luke includes his genealogy just after the baptism of the Lord, and immediately prior to the beginning of His public ministry. Matthew’s account placed the genealogy at the beginning of his gospel.

The Approach of this Lesson

In this lesson we will seek to learn the meaning of the events of our Lord’s baptism, and also the significance of His genealogy, as placed in conjunction with His baptism by Luke. We will seek to understand the significance of these things in conjunction with the ministry of our Lord. We will also attempt to determine what Luke’s unique contribution is by means of his gospel. Finally, we shall seek to learn the meaning and the implications of our Lord’s baptism and genealogy for us as well.

 The Meaning of
“My Son” in the Old Testament

The key to understanding the baptism of our Lord is to be found in the technical meaning of the expression, “My son” in the Bible. It is directly related to the designation and appointment of the Israel’s king by God. Let us see how this concept of “sonship” is developed in the Old Testament.

1 Samuel 9 & 10

Israel’s first king was Saul. In spite of being forewarned of the high price of a king, the Israelites demanded a king, like all the other nations had (cf. 1 Sam. 8). God granted Israel’s request and it was the task of Samuel, the priest, to designate who the king would be. In 1 Samuel 9 & 10 the entire process is described in detail. Saul and his servant were out looking for his father’s lost donkeys, and eventually came upon Samuel, who anointed him with oil, designating him as Israel’s ruler (1 Sam. 10:1). Shortly thereafter, the Holy Spirit came upon Saul (10:6-13), empowering him for his task.

1 Samuel 16

Saul, due to his disobedience, was rejected as God’s king, and another was destined to be his replacement. Since it was not just Saul, but his dynasty that was rejected, it was necessary for God to designate through Samuel who the new king would be. The account of this designation is found in 1 Samuel chapter 16. After viewing all of David’s older brothers and learning that none of them were to be king, David was sent for and anointed in the presence of his brothers as Israel’s new king, at which time the Holy Spirit also came upon him (16:13).

2 Samuel 7

Later, God would make a covenant with the house (dynasty) of David, known as the Davidic Covenant:

“Now therefore you shall say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be ruler over My people Israel. And I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, and I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever”’“ (2 Sam. 7:8-16, emphasis mine).

Note well that the relationship between Israel’s king and God is described as the relationship between a father and a son: “I will be a father to him and will correct him with the rod of men … ” (v. 14). The statement, “You are My son,” then, becomes a technical expression to designate Israel’s king, as can be seen in the second Psalm:

“But as for Me, I have installed My King` Upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware’” (Psalm 2:6-9).

“In Thee I Am Well-Pleased”

Thus, the expression, “Thou art My beloved Son” designates Jesus as the king of Israel, Israel’s Messiah. At the announcement of His birth this was promised (1:32), and now God has declared it so. In addition, the expression, “in Thee I am well-pleased,” is also significant, underscoring the same truth. The words are intended to recall this passage in the prophecy of Isaiah:

“Behold My Servant, whom I uphold My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry out or raise His voice, Nor make His voice heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not be disheartened or crushed, Until He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law.” (Isa. 42:1-4)

In this prophecy, Israel’s Messiah, God’s Servant, is the One in Whom God delights, and He is also the One on Whom the Spirit will come (42:1).

The evidence is more than sufficient to indicate to any willing person that the declaration of the Father, along with the descent of the Holy Spirit, designated Jesus as the King of Israel, empowering Him for the task which was before Him. Like Samuel, John the Baptist was privileged to play a part in identifying the Lord Jesus as God’s King. As our Lord commenced His public ministry, the fact that He was the King of Israel was acknowledged. In the words of Nathaniel, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (John 1:49).

The Genealogy of Christ
(3:23-38)

The genealogy of our Lord immediately follows the brief account of our Lord’s baptism in the gospel of Luke. As we can see by comparing Luke’s genealogy with that of Matthew, there are considerable differences. They are not only placed in different locations in the gospel, but Luke’s genealogy runs from Christ back to Adam. Matthew’s runs from Abraham to Christ. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.

Luke’s genealogy ends with Adam, the “son of God” as the first ancestor. In one sense, Adam and Eve were to serve as “kings” over the creation, for they were created to “rule” over God’s creation (Gen. 1:26). Adam and Eve sinned, and their “rule” was greatly diminished. As the “second Adam,” Christ would come to reign over God’s creation as Israel’s king. Luke’s next event is the temptation of Christ, for it is after our Lord’s victory over Satan’s solicitations that He is shown to have the “right to reign.” The baptism of Christ identifies Christ as Israel’s king, and demonstrates that He has the Father’s appointment and the Spirit’s anointing. The genealogy shows that our Lord has the right lineage, that He is indeed of the “throne of David.” The temptation proves that our Lord has the godly character to reign. In every way, Luke shows our Lord to be qualified for the task He has been given.

It would seem that Luke’s gospel has uniquely established the “kingship of Christ” in a way that would be meaningful to his Gentile readers:

To Greco-Roman hearers of Luke’s narrative this would evoke echoes of the Roman use of the flight of birds of omen to discern the decrees of fate. For example, Plutarch in describing how Numa was chosen king after Romulus tells how Numa insisted that before he assumed the kingship his authority must first be ratified by heaven. So the chief of the augurs turned the veiled head of Numa toward the south, while he, standing behind him with his right hand on his head, prayed aloud and turned his eyes in all directions to observe whatever birds or other omens might be sent from the gods. when the proper birds approached, then Numa put on his royal robes and was received as the ‘most beloved of the gods.’ In such a thought-world the Lukan narrative would be viewed as an omen of Jesus’ status. Exactly what that status was can be discerned from the bird involved, a dove, and the interpreting voice from heaven.

In Mediterranean antiquity the dove was symbolic of ‘the beneficence of divinity in love, the loving character of divine life itself’ (E. R. Good enough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period [New York: Pantheon Books, 1953], VIII: 40-41).[44]

The Role of the Baptism
and Genealogy in Luke’s Gospel

In the first chapters of his gospel, which are unique in their detailed accounting of the events surrounding the births of Jesus and John the Baptist, Luke has already indicated that Jesus Christ was the “King of Israel.” In the baptism of Jesus, both the Father and the Spirit bear testimony to this. The genealogy shows that Jesus Christ is one with man, and that He is also of the lineage of David.

The remainder of the gospel will play out the response of Israel to the claim of Christ to be their King. In chapter four, Jesus presented Himself as the King, which was initially welcomed, but was then rejected when the fuller implications of His coming were explained (Luke 4:16:-30). Jesus presented Himself (just as the Old Testament prophets had) as the King who would come to deliver the oppressed and the downtrodden, including the Gentiles. This was simply too much for the Jews, who sought to kill Him after hearing of this (Luke 4:23-29).

In a variety of ways, Jesus spelled out the meaning of His kingship and of His kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount was a clarification of what the kingdom was to be like (Luke 6). The opposition began to grow in proportion to an awareness of what Christ’s kingdom was to be like. No one could deny that our Lord had power, but as His message began to be rejected, His power was attributed to Satan. To this our Lord responded, “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).

Christ’s power was proof of His claim to be Israel’s king. Ultimately, Israel rejected Her king. They even crucified Him on charges that He claimed to be their king (Luke 23:2), and rejected Him as their King by saying, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

Just as God bore witness to the fact the Jesus was the Son of God, Israel’s King, at His baptism, so He testified to His kingship by raising Him from the dead, and sitting Him at His right hand. When the Spirit came upon the newly born church at Pentecost, Peter preached, demonstrating that Jesus was the King of Israel, and that God had raised Him from the dead. Peter’s conclusion was forcefully proclaimed,

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).

King Jesus is now at the right hand of the Father, and He is going to return, to subdue His enemies and to establish His kingdom. It is no wonder that fear came upon the crowds and many professed Christ as their Savior and King on that day.

When the Jewish religious leaders forbade the followers of our Lord to preach the gospel, the church viewed this as a rebellion against Christ as Israel’s King. Their words reveal that they see these events as fulfilling the words of the psalmist in Psalm 2, which speaks of the Christ as God’s King:

“O Lord, it is Thou who DIDST MAKE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say, ‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD, AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST’” (Acts 4:24b-26).

Conclusion

The declaration of Jesus as Israel’s king has many implications for us, as well as for those who had to respond to the personal appearance and claims of our Lord in the days of the New Testament. Let us consider some of these areas of application as we conclude our lesson.

First, if Jesus Christ is God’s King, then we had better listen to him carefully, and do as He commands. I do not believe that the disciples heard the words spoken by the Father at the baptism of our Lord. My impression is that only John and Jesus heard them. Virtually the same words are spoken in the hearing of three of the disciples from the mount of transfiguration, and here it is very clear that these words are intended to encourage the disciples to listen to Jesus very carefully:

“This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; hear Him!”(Matt. 17:5).

The clear impact is this: If this is the Son of God, you had better “listen up”!

Peter says the same thing to his readers. If God’s words authenticated the words of Jesus, then Peter says that they also authenticated the apostolic preaching of the cross.

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”—and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 2 Pet. 1:16-19.

With this, the writer to the Hebrews is in agreement. He has written, For to which of the angels did He ever say, “THOU ART MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE”?

And again,

“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? … For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (Hebrews 1:5; 2:1-3a).

Second, Jesus Christ, the King, is coming again, to reward the righteous and to overcome His enemies. The message which Peter gave to His audience is applicable to us as well. Jesus Christ is God’s King. He is presently seated at the right hand of the Father, but He will come soon. His return is described in detail in the book of Revelation. There is no question as to whether or not He is returning. The only question is whether you await Him as your King, or whether He will come unexpectedly upon you as an enemy. I urge you to accept Him today. This is the message of the psalmist, when he speaks of the King and of our response to Him:

Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:12).

Finally, when Christ comes as King, all those who have trusted in Him will reign with Him. Not only is the Lord Jesus the Son of God, but all the saints are also known as the “sons of God,” who will reign with Him.

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God … For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of it own, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God … And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Romans 8:14, 19-21, 23).

He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son (Revelation 21:7).

May you be among that number, who are the sons of God, and who reign with Him forever.

Just as our Lord was baptized by the Spirit, designating Him as the Son of God, and empowering Him for His mission, so every true saint is baptized as well by His Spirit, and empowered to serve Him.[45]

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1 Timothy 6:13-16)

! Lesson 9:
The Temptation of Jesus
 Part I
(Luke 4:1-13)

I have never had an occasion to see stone turned into bread. I have, however, seen bread turned to stone. Years ago when my sister and I were in college, our college class at church had a special turkey dinner for the class. My wife-to-be and a friend fixed the turkey (leaving all the “parts” in that little bag inside). This was no disaster, and no one besides the preparers of the meal ever knew about it. The “dinner rolls” were another matter. My sister fixed one of my favorite recipes, a recipe which my mother (and my wife) have successfully used for many years. I can’t explain what happened to the rolls. They didn’t rise, but they also somehow came out of the oven petrified.

I can still remember the puzzled looks on the faces of those kids. They poked at the “things” with their forks. Some foolishly tried to break them in half. Eventually everyone gave up and left them alone. Sizing up the bewilderment of all I said aloud, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That seemed to break the tension and we all had a good laugh. I actually tried to save one of those petrified rolls for posterity.

Turning bread into stone was no miracle, only a mishap which gave us an occasion for a good laugh. In our text, our Lord Jesus Christ is challenged by Satan to turn stone into bread, a miracle indeed. This proposition is the first of a series of three “temptations” of our Lord by Satan, at the very outset of His public ministry. These are not the only temptations which occurred during that 40 day testing period, but they are the three which both Matthew (4:1-11) and Luke (4:1-13) record, and to which Mark (1:12-13) alludes. We must therefore conclude that these temptations are of significance to these writers, and thus to the gospel, and ultimately to us.

The Importance of the Temptation Account

There are several reasons why the temptation accounts are of importance to us. Let us consider these as we seek to prepare our hearts and minds for the instruction God has for us from our passage.

(1) First, the temptation accounts confront the student of the New Testament with some tensions within the biblical text. If our Lord taught the disciples to pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” (Matt. 6:13) why then did the Spirit lead our Lord into temptation, as our text indicates (cf. Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:1)? Furthermore, if James informs us that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13) and we know that Jesus was fully God, how then could He be tempted (the temptation accounts, cf. also Heb. 2:18; 4:15)?

(2) Second, from the standpoint of our Lord’s ministry and calling, His entire mission is contingent upon His victory over every temptation of Satan.[46] Jesus is being tested as the “Son of God,” Israel’s Messiah and King. To fail these tests would be to nullify all of God’s purposes and promises which were to be realized through the Son of God.

(3) Third, by studying the temptation of our Lord by Satan, we learn a great deal about our adversary, Satan. To know the mindset and the methods of our enemy, the Devil, we are forewarned and forearmed as to the temptations by which he will seek to destroy us. “… in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes” (2 Cor. 2:11).

In the three challenges and solicitations of Satan in the temptation accounts of Matthew and Luke we find the three primary avenues by which Satan seeks to make inroads into our lives so as to devastate our spiritual walk with God through Christ. Our survival as saints depends upon our knowing Satan and ourselves, and thereby putting on the “full armor of God” so as to be able to withstand his attacks:

Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm (Eph. 6:10-13).

(4) Finally, we see in our Lord’s successful resistance to Satan’s solicitations those very means which God has made available to us to withstand Satan’s attacks. Our Lord exemplifies the use of the Word of God in recognizing the error of Satan’s solicitations and the course of obedience to the will of the Father. Our Lord’s example in facing temptation is vital to every Christian who desires to live a life which is in conformity with the will and the word of God.

The Uniqueness of Our Lord’s Temptation

While Satan’s temptation of our Lord has much similarity to his attack against the Christian, it must be remembered that our Lord’s temptation was a unique event in history. It was Satan’s attempt to nullify the purpose of Christ’s first coming, to prevent the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth, where God’s will would be done, even as it is done in heaven. It was also the temptation of our Lord as God. The temptations of our Lord were those which could be pressed on one who was divine. Mere man could not be “tempted” to make stone into bread for this is something which only God can do. Satan’s temptation was direct and obvious. It was evident that Satan was the source of the temptation. Our temptations are more indirect, coming most often through the world and the flesh. Finally, our Lord’s temptation was unique in that He, unlike all of us, provided Satan with no “inner ally,” no “fallen flesh” to which Satan could appeal. There was no inner inclination to rebel against God and no inner desire to sin. For us it is entirely a different matter, as Romans chapter 7 makes abundantly clear.

We must recognize, then, that the term “temptation” is employed in two very different senses, which can be seen from the temptation of our Lord. Temptation is, on the one hand, a solicitation to sin, to do that which is contrary to the will and the word of God. Temptation is an attempt to cause a person to sin. Satan’s efforts at temptation always fall into this category. But “temptation” when viewed from God’s point of view is a “test,” an opportunity for one to be proven righteous. Thus, in the case of Job (cf. especially chapters 1 and 2) Satan sought to bring Job to the point of forsaking his faith, to the point of sinning, but God’s purpose was to deepen Job’s faith, as well as to demonstrate to Satan that Job’s love for God was not based upon the material blessings which God bestowed upon him. These two meanings of the same term have long been recognized by biblical scholars.[47]

We might therefore maintain that Jesus was “tempted” in two senses in our text. From the vantage point of Satan’s intended purpose, our Lord was tempted. Satan wished to prompt the “Son of God” to act in disobedience to the Father, thus terminating His ability to fulfill His mission. From the viewpoint of God, and the author (Luke), this was a “test” of Jesus Christ, proving Him to be suited and qualified to fulfill His mission as the Son of God.

The Testing of Our Lord
in the Context of Luke’s Gospel[48]

Luke has set out to depict the good news in a very orderly way (1:3), and thus we would expect him to have prepared us for the temptation of Christ in the context of his gospel. Both the deity and the humanity of the Lord Jesus have been documented. Jesus was prophesied to be born of a woman, but also a product of the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit (1:26-38). The account of His birth in chapter 2 shows this to have happened. That Jesus knew of His heavenly origin is evident by His presence in “His Father’s house” (1:41-51).

In chapter 3, John the Baptist began his public ministry, preparing the people for the coming of Messiah, who was greater than he. Besides the testimony of John, the Father and the Spirit bore witness to the identity of the Lord Jesus. The Father’s words, “Thou art My beloved Son … ” identified Him as the King of Israel, who would sit on the throne of His father David (cf. 1:32). The descent of the Holy Spirit was the enduement of power for this task. It was as the “Son of God” that Jesus was put to the test by Satan. Thus Satan’s two-fold challenge, “If you are the Son of God … ” (4:3, 9).

The genealogy of the Lord in Luke’s account immediately precedes His temptation. If the baptism of Christ showed Him to be the “Son of God,” the genealogy shows our Lord to be the “son of Adam” (3:38). Thus our Lord is both God and man. As man Jesus was both a descendent of David, but also a son of Adam. I believe that Luke is showing our Lord’s qualifications for His task of redeeming fallen man. As the “Son of God” and the “Son of man” Jesus could die in man’s place and provide an eternal redemption. The temptation of our Lord seems to be an effort to play the deity of our Lord against His humanity in such a way as to “divide and conquer.” Our Lord’s victory here shows that His perfect blend of humanity and deity are not at odds, and thus He is fit for the task God has given to Him to accomplish.

Two Assumptions
Which Need to be Challenged

There are two assumptions which are widely held by Christians which need to be challenged, and at least re-thought. The first is the assumption that our Lord was really “tempted” by the offers of Satan. Some hold that even though (better, because) our Lord had no inner inclination to sin He was greatly tried by Satan’s solicitations.[49] I do not personally see any hesitation on the part of our Lord, nor any great agony preceding His response to Satan. The agony which I do find in the Bible is that of our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemene, when He struggled with the reality of the wrath of God which He was about to experience. I realize that the writer to the Hebrews refers to the “temptation” of our Lord (2:18; 4:15), but I think that we must be careful to distinguish the way these offers would appeal to us from their appeal to the sinless Son of God.

The second assumption is that Satan’s words are to be accepted at face value. The Word of God describes Satan as the “father of lies” (John 8:44). Satan is, in psychological terminology, a pathological liar. Such persons lie whether or not it appears necessary, and even when it may prove detrimental. I am not at all certain that just because Satan claims to possess all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5-6) that he really does have the right to offer them to Christ. In my opinion, Satan is always offering others that which he does not possess. For example, he encouraged Adam and Eve to help themselves to the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thus to a new level of knowledge. Our Lord offers men what He possesses, what He has purchased (e.g. salvation by His blood), but Satan is always giving away what is not his. He is always offering to give away the “Brooklyn Bridge,” as it were.

Satan does not seem to be any more truthful or obedient in God’s presence than anywhere else. For example, Satan “demanded permission to sift Peter like wheat” (Luke 22:31). Satan’s sin has distorted his thinking and has warped his character and deeds, even when standing before God. I therefore urge you to be careful about believing anything Satan might say, even in the presence of God.

Our Approach

Our approach to the temptation of our Lord will be to study it in several segments. In this lesson we will focus on the setting of the temptation (Luke 4:1-2) and on the first temptation, to challenge to make bread of stone. We will analyze this temptation in terms of the setting (the occasion, the need), the mindset of Satan, the Lord’s response, and the scriptural principle underlying our Lord’s response. We will then seek to see how the principles which guided our Lord in His response can be found repeatedly in His teaching and ministry. Finally, we will seek to discover the forms in which this same temptation can be identified in our own culture, and how they should be dealt with.

The Setting of Christ’s Temptation
(4:1-2)

The temptation of our Lord took place “in the wilderness” (Luke 4:1). It was also in the wilderness that John grew up and ministered (1:80; 3:3-4). So, too, it was in the wilderness that Israel tempted God (Ps. 78:41, 56; 106:14). In contrast, it was in the idyllic setting of the garden that Adam and Eve were put to the test (Genesis 2 & 3). While the animals in the garden were tame, those in the wilderness were, according to Mark’s account, “wild beasts” (Mark 1:12-13).

While Matthew’s account highlights the fact that our Lord was led of the Holy Spirit to the wilderness, Luke wants his reader to understand that the Lord was Spirit led through the wilderness. In Luke’s words, the Son of God was “led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days.” Furthermore, Luke informs us that all this while our Lord was being tempted by the devil. The Lord went out to the wilderness to confront Satan, or at least to be confronted by him, and to return victorious. Even in His temptation our Lord is in control, not Satan. While Satan sought to undermine our Lord’s mission, God sought to underline it by having the Son of God emerge sinless as the second and last Adam.[50] Just as Adam brought sin upon the entire race, so the victory of Christ made salvation available to all who are in Him (cf. Rom. 5:12-21).

We should at least note that our Lord’s hunger in the wilderness was self-imposed. Our Lord fasted for forty days and nights (Matt. 4:2; Luke 4:2). If there were “wild beasts” around, it would have been possible for our Lord to have killed something to eat (e.g. a rabbit), or at least to have eaten locusts and wild honey, like His forerunner John (Matt. 3:4).

The “wilderness” setting is clearly intended to bring to mind the parallel situation of the nation Israel which wandered in the wilderness. Israel was in the wilderness 40 years, even as our Lord was in the wilderness for 40 days. Israel hungered even as our Lord did. In both cases God was testing man. In the case of Israel, they also put God to the test, demanding to be fed, and sometimes threatening to return to Egypt. Our Lord is the antitype of Israel (cp. Hos. 11:1; Matt. 2:15), fulfilling the will of God where Israel failed.

The three temptations which are recorded are Satan’s final attempt, at least in this campaign. There were, by inference (cf. Luke 4:13), many other temptations during those 40 days. These represent Satan’s “best shot,” his most powerful offers, in his mind at least. They also represent those temptations most “common to man,” those temptations which we are most likely and most frequently going to face.

The scene is therefore set. Jesus as the “second Adam” will be tempted of Satan and prevail. Jesus as the “true Israel” will be tested in the wilderness and return victorious. Thus the Son of God, Israel’s King, will be shown to be fit to fulfill His divinely ordained task, qualified by the declaration of God and the descent of the Holy Spirit, and by His proven holiness.

The First Temptation:
Make Stone into Bread
(4:3-4)

Jesus had fasted for 40 days. Our Lord was understandably hungry. More than just hunger is involved, however. We can miss a mere meal and feel a strong sense of hunger. Our Lord’s hunger, if prolonged, would inevitably lead to death, apart from divine intervention. Satan’s challenge that Jesus turn stone to bread[51] was one which sought to cause our Lord to bring about that divine intervention from His own power, that power which had just been bestowed upon Him through the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord’s condition was this, then. If He continued not eating, He would die. Thus, Satan challenged, He must act. Whether or not He must act as Satan had challenged, by miraculously converting stone to bread, is doubtful, for it would seem that there would have been other means of satisfying His need for nutrition.

Satan’s premise, on which he based his proposition, seems to be something like this:

NEED + POWER TO MEET THAT NEED = SATISFACTION OF THAT NEED

In other words, Satan could not conceive of our Lord having a vital need, having the power to satisfy that need, and not using His power to meeting the need. Surely one’s power could be used to meet one’s needs, especially a need so vital as life itself. Satan seems to be appealing to that basic human instinct of self-preservation.

Previously it seemed to me that Satan was advocating self-indulgence here, but if that were the case he would have called for “steak and ale,” not mere bread. Bread was a basic essential of life, not a luxury food item. It is not self-indulgence, then, but self-preservation which Satan is seeking to induce our Lord to accomplish through His divine power.

On the face of the matter, such an offer seems innocuous. After all, is there anything so wrong with meeting basic human needs? Not at all! Hunger is a need which our Lord would later meet in His public ministry. Did He not feed the 5,000, who were in the wilderness and without food (cf. Luke 9:10ff., esp. note v. 12)? For our Lord, serious hunger even justified setting aside normal rules. Thus He defended the fact that His disciples “harvesting” grain on the Sabbath by referring to the precedent of David, who met his hunger and that of his men by eating the “consecrated bread” (Luke 6:1-5).

What was the evil, then, which caused our Lord to resist Satan’s solicitation, and to continue to hunger, even though death might be the result? The answer was to be found in the Word of God itself. Jesus responded to Satan in the words of Deuteronomy: “MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE … ” (Deut. 8:3; Luke 4:4).

Our account does not complete the sentence, as does Matthew, with the words, “BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD” (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4).

This, I believe, is due to the fact that Luke’s gospel is written to a Gentile audience primarily, rather than to a Jewish one.

Jesus’ words must be understood in the light of the quotation from Deuteronomy, and from the context in which it was originally spoken. Israel was about to enter into the promised land and God was, through Moses, reminding His people of the basis on which His blessings would be bestowed in the land.

We have already noted the parallel which the gospel accounts draw between the experience of Israel in the wilderness and that of our Lord in the wilderness. Our Lord knew this best of all, and thus deals with His own situation in the light of God’s Word concerning the lessons which Israel should have learned from the experience of their forefathers. I believe that we can see a very clear logical argument in Luke’s account of our Lord’s response, based upon the book of Deuteronomy.[52]

First, our Lord understood that God uses deprivation to test man’s faith, as reflected by his obedience when doing so appears dangerous or even deadly. The verse which immediately precedes the words cited by our Lord reads,

“And you shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has lead you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not” (Deut. 8:2).

Second, our Lord understood that testing through deprivation is often God’s preparation for future blessing. In Deuteronomy God is referring to the lessons which God has taught Israel in order to prepare her for the blessings of the land. If Satan was subtly suggesting that hunger was inconsistent with divine presence and blessing, Jesus knew from Deuteronomy that it was the evidence of divine love and care, in preparation for blessing.

Third, our Lord refused Satan’s proposition, not because He could not achieve it, but because He should not do so. The only reason that Jesus did not make the stone into bread was because it would have been wrong to do so. Jesus had the power to change His circumstances, to satisfy His hunger, but He refused to employ it in such a fashion. It would be no test of our Lord’s character to make such a challenge as Satan had unless Jesus was capable of turning stone into bread.

Fourth, our Lord’s presence and His hunger in the wilderness, like that of Israel of old, was the will of God, the result of God’s leading. God made it abundantly clear to Israel that when they complained about their circumstances, they ultimately complained against God, for it was He who led them. If our Lord was hungry, indeed, if our Lord’s life was in danger, it was the will of God for it to be so. For our Lord to have acted as Satan proposed would have been an act of disobedience.

Fifth, the only motive for making the stone into bread would have been distrust regarding the goodness and the guidance of God. Ultimately, the only reason for our Lord’s disobedience (making the stone into bread) would have been unbelief—distrust of the Father’s care, of His goodness, of His divine provision. As I understand the Bible, unbelief is the ultimate root of most, if not all, disobedience. Satan caused Adam and Eve to doubt God’s goodness and to disbelieve His word concerning judgment for eating of the forbidden fruit. Israel grumbled against God in the wilderness and demanded that God prove Himself because they doubted His goodness and guidance. So it would have been in our Lord’s case as well.

Sixth, Life is more than mere physical survival and thus must be sustained by more than food. Luke stops after the words, “Man does not live by bread alone,” thus emphasizing the fact that life is more than a matter of food. Surely the Old Testament (not to mention the New Testament) makes this abundantly clear. God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit, yet they continued to live physically after their disobedience. We know that the death they experienced included physical death, but involved much more. So, too, life was much more than physical existence. Intimacy with God was one of the things which was lost, for the evening walks in the garden were ended, along with life in the garden.

In the early chapters of Deuteronomy, God reminded the Israelites that His blessing was contingent upon their obedience, and further clarified His blessings as including “long life”:

“And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, in order that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you” (Deut. 4:1).

“Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, ‘Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may lean to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children’” (Deut. 4:10).

“So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time” (Deut. 4:40; cf. 5:33; 6:2-3).

Life, then, is sustained by more than eating, but more importantly for the Israelites, it was sustained by obedience to God’s commandments. So it was for Adam and Eve as well. So much so is this true that sometimes true life is sustained by means of death. The Old Testament gradually unveils the truth that “life” with God extends beyond the grave. The promises God made to Abraham will still be fulfilled, and thus Abraham is not just a person of the past, but will be raised from the dead. Abraham had to trust God by being willing to sacrifice his only son, believing that God would continue life beyond his death (cf. Heb. 11:19).

This Temptation and the Gospel

This temptation struck at the very heart of the gospel, for the Lord Jesus had come to the earth in obedience to the will of the Father, to die on the cross for sinners, so that they might be forgiven and have eternal life:

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8).

The Old Testament sacrificial system taught the Israelites that life could be sustained by a blood sacrifice. Thus the sacrificial system put off the death penalty for sin. And the Lord Jesus, as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) was to be the sin-bearer, whose sacrificial death would bring life to all who were in Him.

Would Jesus save His own life, contrary to the will of His Father? Then He could not achieve eternal life for all men. Would Jesus act on His own behalf, distrusting and disobeying the Father? Then He would pursue the path of death, not life, for life requires obedience to God, even more than the feeding of the body. To have turned the stone into bread would have been to have turned from the path which led ultimately to the cross. Our Lord’s obedience to the Father and our salvation was on the line. Jesus’ rejection of Satan’s proposition meant that He was determined to accomplish the will of God, even unto death, which paradoxically, was the way to life, for Him and for all who are found in Him. The apostle Paul put it this way:

Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

To have exercised His divine power to meet His human needs would have meant the loss of His power to save. But as a result of our Lord’s obedience to the Father, He emerged not only sinless, but mighty to save. Immediately following His triumph over Satan’s temptations we are told,

… and they all were continually amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority (Luke 4:32).

And amazement came upon them all, and they began discussing with one another, and saying, “What is this message? For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits and they come out” (Luke 4:36).

The priority of the spiritual above the physical, of obedience to the Father’s will above mere existence shaped the teaching of our Lord. The result was that Jesus’ continually stressed the priority of man’s spiritual condition over his physical state. In Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that the hungry were blessed (6:21), while He pronounced woe upon those who were well-fed (6:23). The disciples were sent out without provisions (10:1ff.). The Lord’s Prayer included a petition for daily bread (11:3). Jesus taught that life was more than food (12:23).

Given the priority of the spiritual over the material, Jesus taught that men should “seek first the kingdom of God,” and that all of the other things—the necessities for physical life—would be added (12:31). Men should be laying up treasure in heaven, and not on earth (12:33).

In the final analysis, perhaps summing the whole matter up, Jesus taught that men must give up their lives in order to save them:

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:23-25).

It is therefore much more important to fear the One who can destroy the soul (the spiritual dimension of man) than the body (the physical):

“And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:4-5).

Self-preservation is a basic human instinct, but also one that is often contrary to trust in God. Throughout the Bible men got themselves into trouble by trying to save themselves. Abraham, in an effort to save his life, put his wife in the position to have been sexually violated. Abraham’s life was in God’s hands, and he did not need to fear. Furthermore, Abraham’s future rested in the child which he and Sarah were to bear. His self-saving acts threatened his life and his future. The ultimate test of Abraham’s faith was his willingness to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, through whom Abraham’s future and his blessings would be brought to pass. When Abraham was willing to obey God, even when it appeared that doing so would be the end of his future, Abraham was proven to be a man of faith and obedience.

The Meaning of the First
Temptation for Luke’s Gentile Readers

For Luke’s Gentile readers, the first temptation of our Lord had great relevance. The mindset of the Gentiles was that physical appetites were to be met if one had the power to do so. Thus, they were inclined toward indulgence, both in food and in sexual matters. Paul found it necessary to underscore the same priority of the spiritual over the physical as our Lord had taught. Paul wrote,

Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body (1 Cor. 6:13).

Thus, what one did with his body was a great spiritual significance. The spiritual ramifications of one’s bodily actions thus governed the satisfaction of one’s physical appetites.

The Meaning of
the First Temptation for Us

How significant that He who would not make bread to save His own life presented Himself to Israel as “the bread of life” (John 6:35). By believing in Him anyone may pass from death to life, they may find life in its fullest sense, not mere existence. Thus Jesus alone could claim to be the only way, the only truth, the only life (John 14:6). Satan has nothing to offer but crumbs, and even these are not his to give. Jesus Christ offers Himself to all who will believe in His, He offers Himself as the source of life eternal. If you have never trusted in Him, I urge you to experience the bread of life.

The first temptation of our Lord should instruct us that man has ultimately only one need—God. To know Him and to have fellowship is to possess life in its fullest, even if the path of following him leads to physical death. Satan is always attempting to create the false perception of other, more pressing, needs. Adam and Eve had everything one could ask for, and were kept from but one thing. Satan set about to convince Eve that this one forbidden fruit was her one greatest need, a need so great that she could disobey God to attain it.

How foolish, and yet this same deception is going on all about us, and even within us. I have recently read an excellent book by Tony Walter entitled, Need, The New Religion.[53] Walter’s thesis is that our culture has subtly re-defined “wants” as “needs,” and as such justified our whole-hearted pursuit of these things. I believe that Walter is correct. Satan has, once again, succeeded in focusing our attention on what we do not have, rather than on the sufficiency of God and the bounty of our relationship with Him.

Think about it for a moment. What characterizes your prayers, petition for what you do not have, or praise for what God is, for your blessings in Him. Don’t answer. I know all to well from my own experience. But God is enough. He is sufficient. To be found in Him is all we should want, or need. Even physical life should be gratefully set aside for the intimacy of knowing and obeying God. That is why Paul found it difficult to determine how he felt about the outcome of his trial (Phil. 1:19-26). If Christ is our life, our sufficiency, our all, then surely He should be our preoccupation, our highest priority. The materialism which dominates our society, even the church (e.g. the prosperity gospel) informs us that we have been led astray by Satan. Let our Lord’s priorities become our own.

Not only does our text lead us to the conclusion that death is not the end of life, it informs us that death is the way to life. The death of Christ became the way in which men could have eternal life. His death meant that He suffered and paid the penalty for our sins. By believing in Christ we become identified with His death, burial, and resurrection, which is symbolized by baptism (cf. Rom. 6:1ff.). But not only is death the way to life (dying in Christ to sin), it is, for the Christian, the way of life. We are taught that we must daily “take up our cross,” we must die to self-will and self-interest. The way of life is death to self. It is the way of the cross.

In the final analysis, the ultimate issue is our definition of “life.” For Satan, “life” was but mere physical existence. In order to maintain this kind of “life” it was necessary, according to Satan’s value system, to disobey the will of the Father, to act independently and in rebellion against God. Christ’s definition of “life” was life in its fullness, life in fellowship, harmony, and union with God. In order to maintain this kind of “life” our Lord found it necessary to obey God, even it that meant experiencing death.

What does “life” mean to you? The beer commercials (not to mention others) portray a very superficial view of life. For the Christian, Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). More than this, for the Christian, life is Christ (Phil. 1:21). May you experience this kind of life, and never settle for anything less, which is all Satan has to offer. To follow him is to pursue the path of death.

! Lesson 10:
The Temptation of Jesus
Part II
(Luke 4:5-8)

Introduction

Forty days have passed, during which Satan has tried nearly every kind of temptation (cf. Luke 4:1, 13). The final three temptations, as recorded by both Matthew and Mark (in differing order), are Satan’s “best shot” in my estimation. The first temptation was based upon the fact that our Lord had fasted 40 days and nights and was hungry. Satan sought to induce our Lord to use His divine power to convert stone to bread. Our Lord’s response, based upon the lesson which Israel was taught in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:3), was that life consisted of more than physical existence and was therefore sustained by more than food. Ultimately, life is living in union and fellowship with God, as Adam and had done prior to the fall. Death is separation from God. Life, then was sustained by obedience to every word of God. For our Lord to have acted independently of God by turning stone to bread would have been to doubt the word of God (specifically the declaration, “Thou are My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased,” Luke 3:22), and thus to have forfeited life, not sustained it.

Satan is now about to employ the second temptation. What is it that he is trying to avoid, or to accomplish in this temptation? I like to think of Satan as being something like the head of the CIA, having a host of “undercover agents” (demons, fallen angels, like himself), who constantly gather intelligence to further the cause of wickedness and rebellion against God. While Satan and his host are not omniscient (all-knowing), they have attained a great deal of data over the centuries. What is it that Satan knows, which motivates his actions in this text? Let us begin our lesson by considering what Satan had to have known, and thus what he would have been trying to accomplish by this temptation.

From Genesis 3:15, Satan learned that a woman would have a child which would spell his destruction:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Satan knew from the beginning of history that a man would come to destroy him. The genealogy of Luke shows the link between Jesus Christ and Adam, both of whom were “sons of God” (Luke 3:22, 38). I believe that Satan had rightly concluded that Jesus had come to destroy him. The demons knew so as well. They cried out,

“What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4:34).

As time went on Satan learned that although he wished to rule over the earth, God promised that the Messiah would come, and that He would rule in righteousness, and that His reign would be forever:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Gen. 49:10).

Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore god, Thy God, has anointed Thee With the oil of joy above Thy fellows (Ps. 45:6-7).

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (Isa. 9:6-7).

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever” (Dan. 2:44).

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13-14).

At the time of our Lord’s birth, the “kingship” of the Christ child was constantly stressed. The prophecies of Christ’s identity as Israel’s king could hardly have been missed by Satan’s intelligence-gathering force.

The prophecies which preceded our Lord’s birth identified Him as the King of Israel, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming King:

“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

 In the magnificat of Mary, this was again evident:

“For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name.…  He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble” (Luke 1:49, 52).

When the wise men arrived from the east, they asked,

“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him” (Matt. 2:2).

The answer of the scribes was a citation from the prophecy of Micah:

“‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER, WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL’“ Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6).

All of this indicates that Satan undoubtedly knew that Jesus was the “seed of the woman,” the “Son of God,” the King of Israel, the Messiah who had come to destroy him and to establish an everlasting righteous kingdom. Satan’s motivation is therefore not very difficult to determine: Stop our Lord at all costs! And if Jesus could not be defeated by Satan, perhaps an agreement could be negotiated, whereby an alliance could be established, and the “kingdom of Satan” could be shared.

Satan’s Power and Authority
—
What Does He possess?

I have previously suggested that Satan’s claims cannot be taken at face value, for Satan is a liar by nature (John 8:44). Thus, this statement of Satan must be carefully weighed:

“I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours” (Luke 4:6-7).

What does Satan possess? What can Satan give to another? Let us consider what the Bible tells us about Satan’s authority. Our Lord’s words in the Gospel of John are the most informative. Summed up, Satan is the “ruler of this world”:

“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I , if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31-32).

“I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go from here” (John 14:30-31).

“… and concerning judgment, because the ruler of the world has been judged” (John 16:11).

 The apostle Paul calls him the “god of this world”:

And if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

What does it mean for Satan to be the “god of this world” or the “ruler of the world”? It does not mean all that Satan claims in his words to our Lord in the second temptation. The right to rule the earth was given to man, not Satan. Adam and Eve were commissioned to rule God’s creation (Gen. 1:26). According to the psalmist, the rule of all creation still belongs to man:

What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas (Ps. 8:4-8).

Our Lord Jesus, as the “Son of Man” ultimately fulfills this task, but it is the task of man, not of Satan. Furthermore, the ultimate rule of the earth is God’s:

For the kingdom is the LORD’s, And He rules over the nations (Ps. 22:28).

The LORD has established His throne in the heavens; And His sovereignty rules over all (Ps. 103:19).

“Thou art the God, Thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth” (Isa. 37:16).

Daniel answered and said,

“Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan. 2:20-21a).

“This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: that you be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:24-25).

There is a time in the future, which is known as the period of the Great Tribulation, during which Satan will be given authority to rule, but this power is granted, within limits, and for a specified period of time:

And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, every one whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain … And he exercises all authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed … And there was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast might even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed” (Rev. 13:7-8, 12, 15).

Satan is the “ruler of this world” in the sense that he dominates fallen men through the power of sin and death, and through the instrumentalities of “the world” and “the flesh,” as well as through his direct intervention (“the devil”). He is not in control over kings and kingdoms, although he certainly influences them. Our Lord is the One who is in sovereign control of history, and of the nations, and thus the prophecies of the word of God are sure. God cannot predict the future if He does not control it.

Satan’s claim is only partially true, at best, and thus his offer is exceedingly hollow. It is worth noting that throughout the Bible Satan is continually offering others things which are not his own. He offers Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but it was not his to give. Our Lord, on the other hand, offers what He possesses, and the life which He offers is that which He has obtained at the cost of His own blood.

What Happened on that High Mountain?

Matthew’s account (and that of Luke in the King James Version, which I am inclined to accept as genuine) informs us that Satan led Jesus up a very high mountain. It was from this vantage point that he projected in some miraculous fashion “all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time” (Luke 4:5). Some are inclined to understand this miracle as one which took place in the mind of our Lord.[54] I am inclined to disagree for two reasons. First, I do not think that Satan had access into the mind of our Lord, or that he has direct access to implant such sequences into any mind. Second, I see no reason for him to have led our Lord to the top of a very high mountain to project a “mental movie.” This could just as well have been done from the place where the previous temptation was staged.

The expression, “in a moment of time,” is unique to Luke’s gospel, and I believe it serves as an important clue to what happened on that high mountain. Satan’s “moment in time movie” was a spectacular production that would have made Cecil B. DeMill (the producer of the movie, “The Ten Commandments”) weep. We may perhaps best relate to it by thinking in terms of that amazing production which was staged in the Los Angeles Coliseum at the concluding ceremonies of the Olympic games. It was a very dramatic, professionally produced presentation of the kingdoms of the world. The fact that it took place in but a brief moment added to its impact. Its brevity also enabled Satan to gloss over all of the gory aspects of the kingdoms of the world which would have made it possible for them to be scrutinized, and thus seen in their true light. These kingdoms were far from glorious and would have to be put down, set aside, destroyed, so that the kingdom of God could be established on the earth. Like a dishonest used car salesman, Satan made a hasty presentation, hoping that Jesus would not see the ugly flaws in his kingdom.

What was Satan Offering Our Lord?

Satan’s problem, as we have already noted, was that the coming of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom spelled the doom of Satan and the demise of his kingdom. Satan was desperately striving to save his own skin. Satan’s goal was thus to attempt to derail the establishment of the kingdom of God, the Messianic rule of Christ on the earth. Satan’s goal was to somehow persuade the Son of God to become his ally, rather than his arch-enemy, who would destroy him and his kingdom.

What “weakness” was Satan hoping to find in our Lord to which this particular offer might appeal? My premise is that Satan is projecting his own fallenness, his own weaknesses, on our Lord. He therefore expects that the same things which appeal to him will appeal to the Son of God. One of Satan’s primary ambitions is to “be in control.” The accounts of his fall in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 show that he was impressed with his position and power, but that he wanted more. Indeed, he was not content until he could be in full control. Since God was in control over him, he sought to elevate himself to the place where he possessed God’s power and control. I believe that Satan hoped to find that same compulsion to control, to be in charge, in our Lord, and thus he aspired to offer him a kingdom which was too tempting to refuse. Dominion and power and glory are those things which appeal to men who aspire to be in control. Satan was impressed by it, and so he hoped our Lord would be as well.

We know, especially from the second chapter of Philippians, that the things which Satan offered our Lord were the very things he left behind in heaven to come to earth to achieve redemption for mankind. These are also the very things which our Lord won by virtue of His obedience to the Father’s will, even unto death. In comparison with the dominion and power of the kingdom of God, Satan’s offer is indeed a paltry one.

Satan’s approach was to offer the Son of God the kingdoms of the earth, in place of the kingdom of God, which was not of this world (John 18:36). Satan seems to be acting on the premise that a king must have a kingdom to be a king. Satan’s kingdom (at least “his” from his own perspective) was already present, and, so far as his “presentation” had demonstrated, it was a splendid one, so why seek any other? Besides this, in order to attain the kingdom which the Old Testament promised, there would have to be a bloody battle. Why go to all that trouble when there was an easier way?

Satan owned the kingdoms of the world, and he could give them to whomever he wished, or so he claimed. Satan would gladly give them over to the Son of God for a very small concession on His part. All that He needed to do was to bow the knee to Satan in worship. It may have been a totally private act, carried out in a “moment of time.” What great benefit could come from such a small act.

Satan’s proposition offers what appears to be something of great value, for but a minimal cost. His merchandising methods make Madison Avenue look pale. Indeed, I think that Madison Avenue learned from Satan. His offer is like those we see on television all the time. You know, a beautiful diamel ring, which looks as though it is worth thousands of dollars they tell us. And while it could sell for thousands, a mere $19.95 will acquire it, for a limited time, of course, and until supplies run out. Along with the ring they will send us earrings, bracelets, pots and pans, knife sharpeners, and the kitchen sink. Such value, for so small a price. So Satan’s temptations have always appeared.

Our Lord’s Rejection of Satan’s Proposition

One of the amazing features of our Lord’s response to Satan is a remarkable brevity. Naturally, Luke has summarized each of the temptations. Nevertheless, it would seem that while Satan may have elaborated greatly and drawn out each solicitation to sin our Lord had little to say to Satan. The words of our Lord respond to Satan on only one point, and that point is the critical issue or principle involved. All other issues are not addressed. The reader should be able to discern these errors and Satan is not one to be corrected or converted, so that extensive correction would merely be a wasted effort. Satan, like the fool of Proverbs, does not rate a reasoned response, for he is set in his rebellion. Instead, Jesus gave but one reason for rejecting Satan’s offer: “YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY” (Deut. 6:13; Luke 4:8).

Satan had asked for only one thing, but that one thing was the most crucial act of all. He asked to be worshipped. No doubt Satan attempted to make this act of worship seem trivial. Perhaps it would be done in private, and for just a moment in time. Our Lord understood the importance of worship, however. It was important because worship was to be directed toward God alone. To worship Satan would have been a direct violation of God’s Word.

More than this, worship was a symbolic act, an act which implied and required further action. Worship was something like the act of signing one’s name on a piece of paper. This does not seem very important, unless that piece of paper is a bill of sale, a contract, a blank check, or enlistment papers for the army. Signing up for the army is a very easy act to perform, but once you arrive at boot camp you begin to realize all the implications of what you have done.

So it was with worship. Worship is an act which acknowledged that the person or thing bowed down to is greater than the worshipper. That which is worshipped is of greater worth, and has greater power and authority than the worshipper. Thus, the one who worships another must also serve him. The words, “AND SERVE HIM ONLY,” are added by our Lord, and are not a part of the text of Deuteronomy 6:13. They surely are implied by the context of Deuteronomy, however. Our Lord’s words inform Satan that He knew that an act of worship would have constituted Him a servant of Satan. Thus, by getting Jesus to worship him Satan would have made Jesus a subordinate, and would have preserved his freedom and prolonged his kingdom. Jesus, knowing these things, refused Satan’s proposition and let him know that He understood the implications of what he had proposed.

Our Lord’s kingdom could only be established by the defeat of Satan and his forces, not by submission to him through an act of worship. The kingdoms of this world have to be set aside before God’s kingdom can be established. Our Lord’s kingdom is not “of this world” (John 18:36), and thus to accept the kingdoms of this world would have been to have rejected God’s kingdom. Jesus’ refusal to fall down before Satan was, among other things, a declaration of war. Satan was an arch enemy. It was only by means of the cross of Calvary that Satan would be defeated and the kingdom of God could be established.

That our Lord clearly understood the difference between His kingdom and that of Satan can be seen in the gospels. Almost immediately in Luke (4:33ff.) Jesus began to wage war on Satan and his demonic forces (cf. also Luke 11:14-26). In the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Luke 6; Matt. 5-7), Jesus spelled out the vast difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men. Repeatedly, Jesus found it necessary to correct His disciples, whose thinking about our Lord’s kingdom more often were along the lines of the kingdoms of this world. As a result of His victory over Satan in this area, our Lord would only a little later say, “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father” (Matt. 11:27).

Satan is Indeed a Liar

In the book of Revelation we see that Satan will eventually get his wish, to reign upon the earth and to dominate the kingdoms of this world for a short period of time, a time which is known as the Great Tribulation (cf. Rev. 12ff.). It is through the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 13:1ff.) that Satan reigns and through whom he is worshipped. At long last his desires are realized. All through history, in my opinion, Satan is seeking those through whom he can reign, through whom he can be worshipped, and through whom he can set up his kingdom, when grated permission by God. The Great Tribulation will be Satan’s “reign for a day,” and when his character is fully revealed and he has served God’s purposes, he will be confined for a thousand years, and then finally cast into the lake of fire forever (Rev. 20). At this time the kingdom of God will be established on the earth, and our God Himself will reign (Rev. 21-22; cf. also 1 Cor. 15:24ff.).

Conclusion

Our text has a variety of applications to us. First and foremost, our Lord’s victory over this temptation again shows that He has the right to rule. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. It was His willingness to relinquish the glories of heaven and to suffer at the hands of men which made our salvation possible.

Second, this text reminds us of a principle which was applicable to our Lord and also applies to saints today: IN GOD’S ORDER, THE CROSS IS THE PATH TO THE CROWN. Satan offered a “crown” without a cross. God’s way was to establish His throne, His kingdom by means of the cross of Calvary. The cross is the means to the crown. Suffering is the pathway to glory. The Old Testament saints learned this lesson (cf. Hebrews chapter 11, cf. esp. vv. 24-25, 32-40). And so it is for New Testament saints as well:

For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; If we endure, we shall also reign with Him (2 Tim. 2:11b, 12a).

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps (1 Pet. 2:21).

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation (1 Pet. 4:12-13).

Third, we should learn from this text that unlike our Lord and like Satan, we have a desire to control which is so strong that we are willing to pay a high price to attain such control. While our Lord was willing to set aside His right to reign, so that He might pay the price for our sins, we are often willing to pay a high price to gain control or to keep control.

The issue of control, of having control and being in control is a very prominent one in the Scriptures. The scribes and Pharisees were jealous of our Lord for they recognized that they were losing control (cf. Matt. 7:29; 27:18). It was due to their fear of losing control that they constantly challenged Jesus as to His authority. The disciples, too, were overly concerned with being in control. They argued one with the other as to who was the greatest (Mark 9:33-34). They were concerned with who would to sit on the right and left hand of our Lord (Matt. 20:20-21). They wanted to use God’s power to destroy their enemies (Luke 9:51-56). They wanted to prohibit others from doing wonders in the name of Jesus (Mark 9:38). Jesus had to teach them that the greatest in the kingdom were to be servants of all, just as He was doing (Mark 10:42-45).

Throughout the New Testament we can see how the desire to exercise control can be used of Satan to promote sin. The Corinthians seemed to have a fixation on being in control, or of being in that group which had control, or of having a leader who was in control. Husbands are tempted to abuse their role as leaders by lording it over their wives, all in the name of biblical leadership (cf. Ephesians chapter 5). Elders can be tempted to lord it over the flock (cf. 1 Peter chapter 5). Individuals can seek to maintain control by standing up for their rights. Women can resist the order established by God in the home and in the church by seeking to gain control, to lead where they should not (cf. 1 Timothy 2; 1 Corinthians 11, 14). Let us beware of Satan’s attacks in the area of control.

Fourth, we should be instructed by our text concerning the character and tactics of Satan. Satan is a liar and a thief. He claims to own and he offers to give that which is not his. He glamorizes sin and he minimizes the high price which following him exacts.

Fifth, we should be reminded of the importance of worship. Worship is so important, Satan strove to attain it. Worship was so vital, it was the one point on which he responded to Satan. Whatever we worship we are obligated to serve. Worship establishes who is in control.

The worship of God is constantly under satanic attack. Satan seeks to pervert our worship in two ways. First, he seeks to re-direct our worship. He seeks to turn our worship from God to virtually anything else. Satan desires our worship, and is willing to be worshipped indirectly. When worship is directly to anyone or anything but God, it is ultimately the worship of Satan, in my opinion (cf. 1 Cor. 10:19-20).

If Satan cannot re-direct our worship, he will seek to reduce it to less than what it should be. Satan represented worship as a means to an end (“Worship me and all this will be yours.”) Our Lord saw worship as the end, the chief goal of man. Worship is our highest calling, our greatest privilege. Unfortunately, even when we are worshipping God, we often view worship as a means. We worship so that we will feel good, so that we will receive a blessing. We pray, not so much to praise God, but to petition Him for what we want. We read the Bible, not to adore Him, but to find promises which we might claim. Let us beware of worshipping God as a means, rather than as our highest goal.

! Lesson 11:
The Temptation of Jesus
Part III
(Luke 4:9-13)

Introduction

There are many things in this life that I consider tempting. One of the greatest temptations for me has to do with cars, horsepower, and speed. I have occasionally had a friend come by with a new car, hoping I would find out “how fast it would go.” For me, that is a real temptation. That is one of the primary reasons I have always driven older, slower cars (another is money). I am able to identify with the first two temptations of our Lord as well. The first temptation was in the area of food and hunger. Satan sought to tempt our Lord to satisfy His hunger by commanding a stone to become bread. This would have been no difficulty for our Lord, and it would have solved His problem of hunger.

The second temptation was in the area of power and control. If the first temptation had to do with physical “needs” which motivate men, the second had to do with the psychological “need” to exercise power and control over others. The prestige and power of “all the kingdoms of the world” were offered our Lord by Satan if He would but bow the knee in worship to him. Our Lord rejected this offer because man’s worship and service can only be directed toward God. Since the worship of Satan would have necessitated serving him, our Lord would have become his servant had He succumbed to this temptation.

Again I say that I can identify with the human (albeit fallen, oft times) desire for food and for power. The third temptation is one that has no immediate attraction at all. I have never felt the temptation to jump from a tall building. If I were standing on a very high place, my only temptation would be either to cling to some piece of the structure for fear of falling, or to crawl down as quickly as possible. How is it that Satan can suppose jumping from the pinnacle of the temple can be a tempting offer?

I would suggest to you that this offer could only have been tempting to the Son of God. If I were a bird, it would be a delight for me to leap from the high place, only to soar even higher when the winds provided lift for my wings. If I were but a man, there would only be the certainty of a very messy “splat” on the rocks below. But if one were indeed the Son of God, One with Whom the Father was well-pleased, One who had the assurance of His care and protection, then jumping might well be a tempting thought.

Have you ever watched a small child learn to trust its father? When my children were younger we would sometimes visit a swimming pool. With a little persuasion, I would entice one of the kids to jump into my arms in the pool. After a few experiences, no coaxing was needed. Indeed, the child would sometimes leap when I was not looking, bobbing to the surface (or perhaps being lifted to the surface) with the greatest of delight. It is not difficult to imagine that the Son of God could have felt the same way about jumping from the pinnacle of the temple.

Satan’s temptation of our Lord, then, is a back-handed admission on the part of the devil to the deity of Christ. Satan knew that proposing a leap from the heights of the pinnacle of the temple might only have an appeal to the Son of God. For anyone else, for any lesser being, it would only be a temptation to dramatically commit suicide. Thus Satan in this third and final temptation (as Luke records it) is tempting the Son of God as God. Only God, or at least someone very much assured of God’s protection, would contemplate a leap from the heights of the pinnacle of the temple.

As we come to this third temptation of our Lord, it is Satan’s final temptation, at least for the time being. We know from the final verse of this section, that other temptations would follow later:

And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time (Luke 4:13).

The purpose of this lesson will be to explore the third temptation of our Lord by Satan. We will seek to understand what it was that Satan was seeking to accomplish and why. We will also make an effort to determine why leaping from the temple would have been sin, and its results, had our Lord done so. We shall also explore the reason why our Lord gave Satan for refusing. Finally, we will endeavor to explore the ways in which jumping from the pinnacle of the temple may be performed by people today.

The Setting of the Temptation

Each of the three temptations takes place in a different setting. The first temptation occurred in the wilderness, the second was proposed from the top of a very high mountain, and the third temptation will take place in the “holy city,” Jerusalem, and on very high point of the temple.

Our Lord had no doubt been in Jerusalem on a number of occasions. His parents, Luke has informed us, went up there every year (Luke 2:41). To this point in the life of our Lord Luke has only recorded the incident which took place in the temple at Jerusalem when our Lord was 12 years old (cf. Luke 3:41-51). Even at this early age our Lord recognized that the temple was “His Father’s house” (3:49).

Satan must have led our Lord to Jerusalem for a particular reason. I believe it is safe to assume that he led the Lord Jesus to Jerusalem and to the temple, thinking that this would make his final temptation more appealing. Jesus has just been acclaimed the Son of God, the “King of Israel,” by the Father, at the time of His baptism. Jerusalem is the place where the king would reign. It is also the capital of the kingdom. Just as the “wailing wall” in Jerusalem today brings many memories of Israel’s glorious past, and inspires hope for her future, so Jerusalem and the temple were emotion-stirring places. Strong emotions must have stirred in our Lord as He passed through the streets of the holy city, being led on His to the temple, the scene of His final temptation of this series.

Jerusalem meant a great deal to an Israelite. Some Israelites swore by Jerusalem (Matt. 5:35). Our Lord also had a great feeling for the city of Jerusalem. He once said,

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Luke 13:34-35).

Later, our Lord would warn of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20ff.; 23:27-31). The kingdom of God will come to the earth with the arrival from heaven of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; chapter 21).

In addition, it was surely in Jerusalem that many devout (and many not-so-devout) saints lived who were waiting for the coming of Messiah and the commencement of His kingdom, people like Simeon and Anna, for example (cf. Luke 2:25ff.). These people would surely be the first to recognize the Messiah when He revealed Himself to men. If our Lord was to manifest Himself as Messiah, Jerusalem would be the place to do so, and the temple would be the one place in the city where He would most likely appear. The Old Testament prophets had spoken several times of His appearance in the temple:

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:1; cf. Micah 1:2-3).

It was in Jerusalem and on a very high place of the temple[55] that Satan’s final proposition was made.

“If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down from here; for it is written, ‘HE WILL GIVE HIS ANGELS CHARGE CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,’ and, ‘ON THEIR HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’” (Luke 4:9).

The challenge is clear. Satan dares, as it were, our Lord to jump from the pinnacle of the temple. Since our Lord has in the previous two temptations cited Scripture as the reason for His refusal of Satan’s solicitations, Satan this time cites Scripture himself, supposing that this will greatly enhance his position.

Satan’s Use of Psalm 91

Satan’s biblical citation comes from the text of Psalm 91. The psalm speaks of the safety and security of the one who takes refuge in God. We are told that the Jews of that day understood this psalm to be messianic in that the protection spoken of was specially that which Messiah would experience.

It is my opinion that Satan is a very poor student of Scripture. While Satan may have great intelligence, we know that the Scriptures cannot be understood apart from the divine illumination of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16). If the “natural man” cannot comprehend the things of God, how is it that we think Satan has such a thorough grasp of the word of God? I do not think that Satan is a very good student of Scripture, although I do believe that he “searches the Scriptures” in an effort to determine what God is doing.

I believe that Satan thought that the Psalm 91 was a messianic psalm, and thus that it could be cited as convincing proof of God’s protection and care of His Son, Israel’s Messiah. I further believe that Satan’s interpretation of this psalm was borrowed from the Jewish scholars, who held the view that the psalm was messianic. I also believe that Satan learned from the Jews their tradition that Messiah would manifest Himself to Israel by leaping from the pinnacle of the temple.

It is my conviction that Satan not only misapplied the passage he cited from psalm 91, but that he misinterpreted it as well. Satan may very well twist the truth, but in this instance, I do not believe that he knew the trust. Satan sought to buttress his final temptation with a passage of Scripture which he had misinterpreted and which he thus misapplied. It is not that he knew the true meaning of the text and twisted it as much as that he did not know the meaning of the text and thus misapplied it.

What, then, was the true meaning of Psalm 91? I believe that this psalm speaks of the safety of every saint who takes refuge in God, who looks to God for protection. More specifically, the safety which is spoken of here is the divinely provided protection from God’s wrath. The plagues and dangers here are not, in my opinion, the adversities and dangers of life, but the perils of the wicked in the outpouring of divine wrath. As the psalmist puts it, “You will only look on with your eyes, And see the recompense of the wicked” (Ps. 91:8).

The Psalm is not a promise of protection for Israel’s Messiah. Indeed, it is the opposite! It is the promise of protection from God’s wrath for all who take refuge in God. It is the salvation from judgment which the believer is assured of. From the “suffering Servant” passages in the Old Testament (e.g. Isa. 53) and the message of the New Testament, we know that it was the suffering of Messiah which provided the protection from the saint. It was because Christ bore the wrath of God on the cross of Calvary that men need not experience that wrath themselves. Thus the message of Psalm 91 is not a promise of protection for Messiah, but an implied reference to Messiah’s suffering the wrath of God on the sinner. If the psalm refers to God’s care for Messiah, it is with veiled reference to the resurrection of Messiah after He has died for the sins of men (cf. vv. 14-16). This was therefore a terrible proof text for Satan’s temptation.

Neither the Jews nor Satan had grasped the meaning of Psalm 91, and thus they failed to understand its application to Messiah. Our Lord understood it fully, and thus was not impressed by Satan’s offer. Just what was Satan offering our Lord? What did he hope to accomplish by enticing our Lord to jump from the pinnacle of the temple? This is what we shall now seek to discover.

The Nature of this Temptation

We can all agree on one thing: Satan was seeking to persuade the Lord Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the temple. But why? The answer to this question is not as obvious. I believe that there are several possible reasons, one or more of which may have been Satan’s purpose in this temptation:

(1) Satan was seeking to disqualify our Lord as Messiah. Had our Lord “put God to the test,” He would have sinned, thereby disqualifying Him to serve as Messiah.

(2) Satan was seeking to get our Lord to doubt the goodness and power of God, and thus to “Divide and Conquer.” The only reason for putting God to the test is doubt and unbelief. For Jesus to have jumped would have meant that He doubted God and thus found it necessary to test God’s love and care. Our Lord’s responses to the first two temptations indicated a firm faith in God, a faith which was willing to passively wait for God to bring about His will, rather than to independently bring it about by His own actions. Satan sought to turn passive faith into presumptive faith, a faith which forced God to act.

(3) Satan may have sought to bring about a premature introduction of Jesus as Messiah, ushering in the kingdom before He could destroy the evil one. Satan may well have learned that the Jews expected Messiah to manifest Himself by leaping from the temple. To persuade Him to prematurely manifest Himself, with divine power and deliverance, might have convinced the people of Jerusalem that He was Messiah, immediately ushering in the kingdom, and hopefully (from Satan’s point of view) eliminating the need to crush the head of Satan.

(4) Satan was seeking to kill the Messiah. In Genesis chapter 3, God had told Satan that the Messiah (the seed of the woman) would crush his head (3:15). He, on the other hand, would “bruise the heel” of the seed. From this point on, I believe that Satan sought to prevent the seed from being born, or to kill the seed once he was born. This helps to explain Satan’s opposition against Israel (through whom the seed would come) in the Old Testament period. Once the birth of Messiah has taken place, Satan is apparently behind the attempt of Herod to kill the child (cf. Matt. 2). In the end, it was Satan’s entering into Judas which brought about the scheme which resulted in the crucifixion of Jesus. Satan did not realize that “killing Messiah” was the divinely intended means of His bearing the sins of the world on the cross. My point here, however, is that Satan saw the killing of Messiah as the solution to the threat of Messiah and his kingdom.

Just how would Satan envision killing our Lord by persuading Him to leap from the pinnacle of the temple? I can think of several ways. First, acting presumptuously would be sin, and sin (as he knew well) brought death. Second, if our Lord were to jump from the pinnacle of the temple, he might not be saved, and thus would die. Finally, Satan’s angels might be employed to bring about the Messiah’s death. Satan has cited a passage which, according to his interpretation, views the angels as God’s instruments for protecting and rescuing Messiah. It is also the “fallen angels” who make up the lion’s share of Satan’s forces which oppose God. Thus it would seem to be Satan’s fallen angel forces which interfered with the heavenly messenger in Daniel chapter 10. Could it be that Satan hoped to convince Jesus to jump, and then to thwart an angelic deliverance by calling in his own angelic forces? Such a plot is not too devious for one so evil and cunning as Satan.

In one or more of these ways, I believe that Satan sought either to disqualify or to disarm Messiah, so that He would not be able to fulfill His mission, which was to destroy the evil one and to establish His kingdom on the earth.

Our Lord’s
Response to Satan’s Offer

Once again, our Lord did not respond by correcting every error in Satan’s theology and methodology.[56] He struck at the jugular vein of the matter, giving but one biblical response, one which terminated not only this temptation, but the entire session, which had lasted forty days. Our Lord’s response was a biblical one: “‘YOU SHALL NOT FORCE A TEST ON THE LORD YOUR GOD’” (Luke 4:12).

When Israel Tested God

The words which are Lord cited to Satan are found in Deuteronomy chapter 16, with a further descriptive statement: “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah (Deut. 6:16).

If we want to understand what it means to “put God to the test” we must learn how Israel put God to the test there. The account of this is found in the 17th chapter of the book of Exodus:

Then all the congregation of the sons of Israel journeyed by stages from the wilderness of Sin, according to the command of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD? But the people thirsted there for water; and they grumbled against Moses and said, “Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?” So Moses cried out to the LORD, saying, “What shall I do to this people? A little more and they will stone me.” Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pass before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand your staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD among us, or not?” (Exod. 17:1-7).

From this text we can identify certain actions which is called “putting God to the test.” Let us consider what some of the characteristics of testing God are, from this incident at Massah. Then let us seek to determine how the third temptation of our Lord was similar, and thus a testing of God.

Characteristics of Testing God

(1) The Israelites put God to the test because they felt God was failing to meet their needs and to fulfill His promise. The land to which God promised to bring His people was described as a land “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5). It was one thing not to have these things in abundance; it was quite another to lack water, a basic necessity for life. The Israelites had come to Rephidim and there was no water there. It would seem that Adam and Eve also disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree because they felt that the knowledge of good and evil was an unmet need, worthy of disobedience.

To put the matter a little differently, the Israelites put God to the test when they realized that God’s purposes and leading brought them into adversity, rather than ease and comfort. In the Israelites’ protest against Moses and God, they spoke of the “good old days” in Egypt and contrasted them with their present circumstances (Exod. 17:3). Life was better then, they protested. It was so good, in fact, that they threatened to go back.

(2) The Israelites put God to the test because they doubted God’s good will and good purposes for their lives. The Israelites accused God of leading them into the wilderness to put them to kill them and their children and their cattle (Exod. 17:3).

(3) The Israelites put God to the test by resisting God’s leadership. The people grumbled against Moses and argued with him, but ultimately they were resisting God.

(4) The Israelites put God to the test by insisting that God perform according to their expectations and demands. The Israelites put God to the test by determining His presence by His presents. The word of God was not sufficient, nor was God’s marvelous works for them in the past. They wanted God to act now, to give them what they wanted, when they wanted it, or they would refuse to acknowledge His presence among them. God’s presence among His people could only be proven by His on-going performance of miracles, so that none of their needs were unmet.

(5) The Israelites put God to the test by reversing the Father-Son relationship. Our Lord Jesus has just been designated as God’s “Son” at His baptism (Luke 3:22). As God’s Son, the Lord Jesus needed to be tested and proven, before He could be given all of the privileges of His sonship:

So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “THOU ART MY SON TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE”; just as He says also in another passage, “THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and who was heard because of His piety, although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation; being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-10).

There is a very clear principle underlying this passage, one which is clearly applied to all saints later in the book of Hebrews. Speaking to those who are chafing under minimal suffering, the writer says,

You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.” It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons (Heb. 12:4-8).

Israel was also, in a collective sense, God’s son:

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My first-born. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go, that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your first-born”’“ (Exod. 4:22-23).

Later on, through the prophet Hosea, God said of Israel: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son” (Hos. 11:1).

I believe it is a principle that the son must first be tested and proven, and then exalted to a position of prominence and power, by God Himself, in His own time. This was to be true of Israel, so that the adversities Israel experienced in the wilderness were God’s test, to see if the nation was fit to reign as God’s “son”:

“And you shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son” (Deut. 8:2-5).

Israel failed the test of “sonship” and our Lord Himself has been designated as God’s “Son,” who will establish the kingdom of God and rule over the earth. Satan’s temptation, while couched in terms that appear to be a challenge to prove His sonship, is really a solicitation to renounce it. As the “Son of God,” our Lord was to endure physical want, waiting for God to satisfy His needs. Satan challenged the Lord Jesus to meet the need Himself, by commanding a stone to become bread. The “son of God” was to be the instrument through which the whole world would worship God, yet Satan sought to entice our Lord to worship him, in order to possess a kingdom which was in rebellion against God. Finally, in this third test, the “Son of God” was to wait for the day when God Himself enthroned Him as the king. Satan sought to persuade the Savior to leap from the pinnacle of the temple, thus instituting a kingdom independently of the Father.

Sonship really was the issue of this temptation. Israel had failed to grasp what sonship entailed, or rebelled when they became aware of its price. Our Lord understood fully what sonship was all about, and thus each of His responses to Satan came from the one place in the Old Testament which most emphatically taught the meaning and implications of sonship.

What Satan is seeking to accomplish in the third temptation is even more bold, more evil, than that which happened at Massah. At Massah, Israel suffered from a genuine need of water. The need was not of their own making, but divinely brought about. They tested God by demanding that God meet the need in order to prove Himself worthy of their obedience and worship. In the temptation at the pinnacle of the temple, Satan is proposing that our Lord presumptuously create a need which forces God to intervene, based upon a text which was believed to teach that God would not allow any evil to happen to His Messiah.

There are times when one may be in danger due to the leading of God or to one’s obedience to the will of God. For example, Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, were in grave danger (death in the fiery furnace) because they refused to bow in worship of the golden image. Even though the danger was, as it were, beyond their control, they refused to place God in a position where He had to act a certain way:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16-18).

Conclusion

As we attempt to explore the relevance and application of our text to our own lives, let us remember that Christians are also, in a sense somewhat distinct from that of our Lord, “sons of God,” who are to reign with Christ (cf. Hos. 1:10; Rom. 8:19; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 1:6; 20:6). As “sons of God,” we are subject to testing and discipline (Heb. 12). We are also susceptible to the same temptations to which Adam and Eve and Israel (and virtually all mankind) have failed. Thus, the test of our Lord’s sonship is very relevant to “sons of God.”

The specific test of our Lord’s sonship was that of “putting God to the test.” Why is it wrong to test God? Let me suggest several reasons why putting God to the test is sin.

(1) It is a sin against our sonship and God’s sovereignty. The father-son relationship is one with a clearly defined chain of command. The father is in authority over the son. The son is to trust and obey the father. The son is to wait until that time when the father installs him as the king.

For a “son of God” to put God, the Father, to the test is to reverse the authority structure which God has established. It is to forget that it is God who is to test us, not we who are to test God. It is we who need proving, not God. It is we who should serve God, not God who is our servant, in the sense of viewing Him as standing by, every ready to do our bidding. It is He who directs us, not we who are to direct Him. Is this not the essence of God’s rebuke of Job? All too often, Christians are representing God as the servant of man, who is so eager to have followers that He is ready to do our bidding. Wrong! Sonship means that we are to obey, we are to serve, we are to suffer, if it pleases the Father.

Our Lord understood that the day of His enthronement was the prerogative of the Father (cf. Heb. 5:5). Thus, when pressed by His disciples concerning just when that day would be, our Lord left this matter in the Father’s hands, not His own (Matt. 24:36). The disciples continued to press to learn the time, even after our Lord’s resurrection, but our Lord responded, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority, … ” (Acts 1:7).

(2) It is a sin against love. Perfect love is inconsistent with fear (1 John 4:18), which is often the occasion when men seek to put God to the test. Israel feared that they would die in the wilderness. Love does not know fear. In addition to this, love does not doubt, but believes. The apostle Paul put it this way, “Love … bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Putting God to the test is not bearing, not believing, not hoping, and not enduring.

(3) It is a sin against faith. Faith is simply believing God. It is taking God at His word, and not demanding continual signs and proofs. Job put it this way: “Thou He slay me I will hope in Him” (Job 13:15).

Faith is rooted and grounded in the promises of God. Many of the promises of the Bible are the assurance of future blessings or events. By their very nature, they are not present realities. It is the abuse of God’s promises which is often the source of putting Him to the test. God promised He would bring Israel into a land of milk and honey, and they began to demand that God bless them now. As Israel and Satan (wrongly) understood Psalm 91, God promised to protect His Messiah from all harm and injury, and so he urged our Lord to force God to fulfill that promise then and there. This is all contrary to faith. The writer to the Hebrews reminds his readers that all of the Old Testament saints died without receiving the promises of God:

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect (Heb. 11:39-40).

Faith is believing in the promises of God, and waiting for God to fulfill them in His own time. Faith is enduring suffering, persecution, and adversity in the present, while looking forward to the promises of God. Putting God to the test is demanding the God bless us now, and remove all suffering from us.

When we put God to the test we are doubting not only the promises of God, but His presence among us. Remember those words of the Israelites, which constituted putting God to the test: “Is the LORD among us, or not?” (Exod. 17:7).

Our Lord has promised, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb. 13:5). He promised to be with us always, to the end of this age (Matt. 28:20). Putting God to the test betrays a wrong premise, that God’s presence is only evident in times of blessing and prosperity. This is a heresy of our own day, but it is not taught in the Bible. Many of the people of the Bible found God’s presence even more precious and real in times of distress:

Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For, behold, those who are far from Thee will perish; Thou hast destroyed all those who are unfaithful to Thee. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord God my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works (Ps. 73:25-28).

It is my personal opinion that presumption, that is “putting God to the test,” is a perversion of faith. It is faith taken too far. There is a fine line of distinction between trusting God and testing God. Testing God may very well be founded on the premise (faith) that God is able to do what He has promised, but is sinful in resisting God’s time table for fulfilling His promise. Trusting God involves receiving what God has presently provided, but waiting for what is yet future. Testing God is trying to force God to provide now what He has promised for later.

Putting God to the test is sin. On this we can all hopefully agree in principle. What does this mean in practice? How do we put God to the test in our culture? Let me suggest several possibilities, which may open the door to seeing some of the ways in which you are in danger of sinning in this area.

(1) Christians can put God to the test by acting on future promises as though they were present promises. The so-called “name it and claim it” Christians are sometimes (some might say often) guilty of claiming future promises as present realities, and thus the failure to be rich or healthy cannot be explained by the sovereign choice of God, but by one’s lack of faith, by one’s failure to possess God’s blessings. In such cases people are accused of sin for not “putting God to the test.” Let us remember that where there is one form of evil, Satan also has its opposite. Putting God to the test can have a very pious appearance, when in reality it is man’s demand that God jump through his own hoops.

Putting God to the test is often the result of our own impatience, of wanting now what God will give us later. Such impatience demands that God “hurry up” what He is doing. This is nothing new:

Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes, to those who say, “Let God hurry,` let him hasten his work so that we may see it. Let it approach, let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come, so we may know it” (Isa. 5:18-19).

(2) Wrongly responding to Adversity. It is often in times of adversity that our tendency to put God to the test becomes evident. We may very well place conditions on God, things which He must do for us in order for us to acknowledge that He is present with us, and for us to worship Him. Thus, if we are sick and God doesn’t heal us, we question His presence and His goodness. If God doesn’t make our marriage heaven on earth or cause our wayward child to act as we think he should, we begin to function as though God were not with us. In effect, we have put conditions on God, things which He must do, if we are to worship and serve Him. This is putting God to the test, in my opinion.

(3) We can put God to the test by living recklessly. There are some people who like to flirt with danger. Living on the ragged edge of survival, or death, or disaster is the thrill which keeps some of us going. Compulsive gamblers are often this way. Most Christians know better than to excuse gambling and so they do it in different ways, often sanctifying their recklessness by labeling it faith. “I couldn’t afford this car,” they tell us, “but I am trusting God to provide the payments.” Living by faith can lead us into danger, as Daniel and his three friends learned, but faith is always evidenced by obedience to God’s Word. Faith is not foolishness attributed to trusting God, it is trusting God and forsaking folly. Let us be on guard about seeking to do that which is foolish by calling our actions “a step of faith.” There are more than enough things to trust God to do, so that we do not need to lengthen the list of the impossible things we are looking to God to accomplish.

! Lesson 12:
The Temptation of Jesus
Part IV
(Luke 4:1-13)

Introduction

I grew up in a part of the country where there were a good number of deer, which meant that there were also a good number of deer hunters during hunting season. Some of these were “city slickers,” who knew nothing of deer or of hunting. Those of us who lived in the country resented the city folks coming out and hunting deer on our land, deer that we had fattened on our apples and vegetables all year long. Some of these “hunters” were dangerous, hunting and shooting in ways that damaged property and even took human life.

Because of this tension between the city folks and us country folk, there were always stories circulating about hunters. One such story (which may even have been true) was about the city dude who stopped at a country store to inquire what a deer looked like. Here was a hunter who didn’t even know what he was supposed to shoot at. This kind of ignorance caused farmers a great deal of trouble. I read a newspaper article about a farmer who painted the letters “C O W” on his cow, for fear that it would be shot, as many cattle have been during deer season.

Not knowing what you are looking for is even more dangerous when it comes to temptation. My first thought was to view temptation as being a solicitation to do what we know to be evil. Adam and Eve were tempted to do something which God had clearly indicated was evil. The foolish young man in Proverbs (chapter 7), who was seduced by “madam folly” was also enticed to do evil.

When you stop to think about it, Satan hardly needs to work at this kind of temptation. Because man is now a fallen creature, in rebellion against God and under the control of Satan through the lusts of the flesh and the fear of death, man needs little inducement to sin. In Romans chapter 7 Paul tells us that the Law is used of sin to promote evil. When the law prohibits sin, our rebellious nature wants to do exactly what the law has forbidden. When the law commands certain things to be done, our flesh has the inclination to disobey.

Consequently, the greatest, most dangerous form of temptation is that which entices men to do what is ultimately devastating and destructive, as though it were the doing of what was right. That which Satan sought to tempt our Lord to do was not represented as evil, but as good. Satan’s messengers not only appear as the wretched instruments of evil that they are, but also as “angels of light” (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14-15), promoting evil in the name of good.

I found an excellent illustration of this kind of deception this past week. A letter came in the mail. On the outside of the envelope were the words, in red ink, “sexually explicit ad.” On first thought one might be inclined to think kindly of these advertisers. After all, they have been so honest as to “warn” the reader of material which is offensive and objectionable. But on second thought this “warning” can be viewed as the “teaser,” the advertizers “hook,” appealing to one’s curiosity (at best), to tempt him to see what is to explicit.

You and I will undoubtedly never be tempted by Satan as our Lord was. We will probably never rate a personal appearance of Satan or his personal attention to us. More often than not, the temptation which comes our way will not be immediately apparent as a solicitation to do evil. Very often temptation comes to us as a “golden opportunity,” or the “chance of a lifetime.” Temptation comes in various forms, some of which appear to be pious. Thus, we must be very careful to define temptation, to be able to identify it, and then to know how to deal with it.

I am saying at the outset of this message that we not only need to learn how to deal with temptation, we also need to learn how to recognize temptation. This is true for several reasons. The first is that the fall of man has clouded man’s ability to distinguish evil from good. If Satan had been truthful in his temptation of Adam and Eve, recognizing temptation would be no problem for man. After all, did he not assure them that partaking of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would make them wise, just like God (Gen. 3:5)? Sin and Satan do not make sin readily apparent as much as they dull man’s perception of sin (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 2:11). It is our Lord Jesus Christ who, in His coming, has revealed sin (John 1).

The second reason why it is imperative for us to be able to recognize temptation is because most advertising is temptation. Hundreds of times a day we are bombarded with media solicitations to buy something. The methods used are almost identical with Satan’s techniques of temptation. Consequently we have become oblivious to the existence of “tempting” mechanisms and approaches. Indeed, we are almost inclined to expect to be tempted. We are conditioned to purchase that product whose manufacturers do the best job of tempting us to buy it. Consequently temptation is so common we do not even recognize it.

In this lesson we are going to attempt to draw together all of the particulars of the past three lessons and to come up with some overall conclusions and applications. First, we will seek to define temptation, and to identify some of its characteristics, so that we will be able to recognize it when it comes our way. Second, we will seek to clarify the ways in which our Lord’s temptation was like those of our own. Finally, we will identify some of the principles which governed our Lord’s response to Satan’s wiles, which are applicable to us as well.

What is Temptation?

When our Lord dealt with the solicitations of Satan He responded to them as the temptations they were. We will be greatly helped in our struggle with sin if we are able to recognize the temptations which come upon us as such. How can we recognize temptations? In the same way that our Lord did in our text. On what basis, then, did our Lord recognize each of these temptations as solicitations to sin? What are the earmarks of temptation? Our text suggests several characteristics of temptation.

(1) Our Lord identified Satan as the source of His temptations. We know that no temptation comes from God (James 1:13). We also know that Satan is a liar, a murderer, a deceiver, and a thief. Thus, whatever comes from Satan is going to be sinful in nature. Satan never prompts men to act righteously. He may prompt men to appear righteous, but He never promotes righteousness. Thus, we must always view the “offer” in terms of the offerer. Only good and perfect things come from God, the “Father of lights” (James 1:17). Only evil things come from Satan, the prince of darkness (Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:13).

As a further study, I recommend that you read through the book of Proverbs, where the wicked are portrayed as those who encourage their fellow-man to do evil (cf. for example, 1:10ff.). Satan, his demons, and those in this world under his control all are the sources of untold temptations.[57] The wicked cannot be the source of good, and thus we must always consider the source of the offer.

(2) Temptation is proposing any act which is inconsistent with the plans and purposes of God for that person. It is not just the wicked who can tempt us, as our Lord’s words to Peter make very clear:

“Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Matt. 16:23).

Peter rebuked our Lord for speaking of His suffering and death in Jerusalem. In seeking to turn our Lord from His destiny, Peter was but a mouthpiece for Satan, and thus was addressed as such. Temptation is that which prompts us to do that which is against God’s word and His will. Temptation is thus a solicitation to sin in general, but it is also an enticement to sin in particular, that is it seeks to divert us from what God has for us to be and to do. All three of Satan’s temptations were diversions from Messiah’s calling and ministry. Our Lord recognized them as such, and thus refused them.

(3) Temptation may prompt an action which has the appearance of godliness and righteousness, and may even seem to have a biblical basis. Satan’s final temptation in Luke’s account was one that was “biblically based,” at least in Satan’s mind. Temptation may very well be couched in biblical terminology. Temptation proposes, as it were, a biblical “lion in the road” (to use the terminology of Proverbs), which seems to compel a certain action.

(4) Temptation appeals to man to satisfy a need or a desire, but in a way that is displeasing to God. When Satan tempts men (whether directly or indirectly) he appeals to a human need or desire, which provides an incentive to fulfill it. Satan appealed to our Lord’s hunger, hoping that He would satisfy it in a way that would be sinful. So, too, it would seem, in the second temptation, he appealed to our Lord’s “need” as Messiah to have a kingdom.

(5) Temptation is an appeal to act independently of God and to pursue self-interest above God’s will. Commanding stone to become bread

would have been an independent act on the part of our Lord, for the purpose of satisfying His own needs, but independently of God. Temptation may challenge us to act (make stone into bread) when we should wait (for God to provide), or to be passive (bow the knee to Satan) when we should act (to aggressively attack Satan and His kingdom).

(6) Temptation often seeks to motivate disobedience by creating a doubt about God’s goodness or power, thus prompting one to act in his own behalf. The goodness of God is questioned by the challenge of Satan that our Lord make stone into bread, or to leap from the pinnacle of the temple.

(7) Temptation is an enticement to pursue God’s will and calling, but by motives or means which are inconsistent with that calling. Ostensibly, Satan was encouraging our Lord to pursue His calling and destiny as the “Son of God.” In reality, Satan was challenging our Lord to establish His kingdom by jumping from the pinnacle of the temple, to force God’s hand and to modify God’s timing. Satan would have our Lord attain His kingdom by worshipping him, rather than by worshipping and obeying God.

(8) Temptation proposes a short-cut, an easier way to reach our goals. Satan’s temptations propose some way in which man can meet his needs or goals, but with a lower price tag, with less pain and self-sacrifice. Temptation always seems to offer a big prize for a small price, a kingdom for a mere bowing of the knee, but there is always a higher, hidden cost. Temptation offers future rewards now; it trades the future for the present, pleasure for pain, and the seen for the unseen.

(9) Temptation thrives on falsehood, deception, and evasion. Temptation and truth are seldom found together. Temptation is always very selective about the facts it reveals, and most often it lies about the facts. Temptation tells men what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. It therefore minimizes the consequences of an evil act and maximizes the benefits. It promises the knowledge of good and evil, and it denies the penalty of death.

(10) Temptation is very frequently a solicitation to act immediately, hastily, without prayer, counsel, or deliberation. Every act which Satan proposed our Lord perform was an immediate one. That is, every temptation which is described is a temptation to act “now.” Our Lord was to command the stone to become bread now. He was to bow down to Satan in worship, and thus receive his kingdom now. He was also urged jump from the pinnacle of the temple now. Ultimately, sin in unreasonable, and thus Satan gives one little time to ponder his actions.

(11) Temptation usually appeals to our lower motives and instincts. We should not need to be tempted to buy life insurance. A person should hardly require convincing concerning their responsibility to provide for their loved ones. It is the carnival, with its virtually useless “goods” and services which require the “hawkers” and barkers. Temptation appeals to my greed, but truth appeals to grace. Temptation appeals to lust, but truth appeals to love.

(12) Temptation usually appeals to the person who feels the need to prove himself. The commercials appeal to the young man who feels the necessity of proving his masculinity, or to the woman who feels it necessary to prove her femininity. All three of Satan’s temptations were based on a challenge that Jesus prove that He was the Son of God. Note Satan’s big “if.”

In the final analysis, we can sum up the earmarks of temptation from three perspectives. From a Godward perspective, temptation solicits doubt as to God’s goodness, love, and power, leading to unbelief, disobedience, and misplaced worship. From a man-ward perspective, temptation encourages man to seek his own interests, to act on his own behalf, and to be independent and self-reliant. From a satanic perspective, temptation seeks to divert men from serving God to serving Satan.

Christ’s Temptations and Us

Christ’s victory over the temptations of Satan had various implications and applications. For Christ, emerging sinless from the temptations proved Him to be qualified as God’s Son to rule over the earth. It further proved Him to be the Lamb of God, without spot, and thus qualified to die for the sins of men. In my opinion, the temptation of our Lord served to clarify and to intensify His sense of calling and direction. He came forth from His testings full of the Spirit and power, and immediately began to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. In addition, He began to attack the kingdom of Satan, casting out demons, and begin acknowledged as the Son of God by them. They even acknowledged that He had come to destroy them (cf. Luke 4:31-34). For Israel, it proved the Lord Jesus to be her Messiah. He identified with the nation by reliving, as it were, Israel’s experience in the wilderness, but without sin or rebellion, as was the case with Israel.

But beyond this, in the temptation Christ identified with mankind, with men in general. In particular, we can say that He identified with us. The question is, “To what extent did He identify with man?”

The writer to the Hebrews expounds the meaning of our Lord’s temptation and testing perhaps more than any other New Testament writer. These two texts focus on the identification of our Lord with man in His temptation and testing:

Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God , to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted (Heb. 2:14-18).

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “THOU ART MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE”; just as He says also in another passage, “THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and who was heard because of His piety, although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation; being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 4:14–5:10).

In the first text we are told that our Lord identified with man by taking on human flesh, by becoming a partaker of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14). We are also told that “He had to be made like His brethren in all things” (2:17). What constitutes the “all things” of which the writer speaks?

The expression “all things” cannot include the sin nature of man and his being born in sin, for our Lord was both “without sin” and “without a sin nature.” As James put the matter, God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13). That is, when Satan “tempts” men, he finds within each and every man a natural inborn tendency to rebel against God. This is true both for the Christian (Romans 7) and the unbeliever (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:5-8; Eph. 2:1-3).

The key to the issue here may be found in the term “made.” Our Lord, says the writer, was created like His brethren in all things. Sin and the sin nature was not a matter of creation, but a matter of transmission. Our Lord was like man in every regard, in those matters which are determined by creation. No wonder Luke goes to such great detail to describe the unique and miraculous birth (creation) of our Lord.

The difference between our Lord’s lack of a sin nature and man’s innate inclination toward sin can be illustrated in this way. An alcoholic has a known and recognized predisposition toward alcohol. The mere hint of this substance can produce incredible temptation. A non-alcoholic is not affected by this substance in the same way, and thus can be in close proximity to it without great agony or temptation. So it is with Satan’s solicitations to sin. All men are, like the alcoholic, inclined toward sin and thus tempted by it. Thus, we must pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” Our Lord, on the other hand, has no such attraction, and thus the Spirit of God could lead Him into temptation and He could emerge victorious.

It is precisely because our Lord was free from sin that He could die as the sin-bearer of the world. On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews is intent upon stressing all the many ways in which our Lord did identify with mankind. In particular, I believe that our Lord identified with fallen man by taking on his weaknesses and limitations. That is, in our Lord’s temptation by Satan I believe that He chose to use none of His inherent powers of deity, but to emerge victorious from His temptation by utilizing the same resources which are available to every child of God. Just as we cannot withstand sin and Satan in our natural abilities, so in the setting aside of the use of His divine power, our Lord was required to utilize the same resources God has given us. The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes this temporary and voluntary “weakness” of our Lord when he says,

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for every one (Heb. 2:9).

Christ identified with man, took on man’s weaknesses and temporarily set aside the use of His innate power. The power by which He overcame Satan and carried out His ministry was that which He had in submission to the will and word of God and in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Thus Christ, although He did not have a sin nature, did experience the struggle with sin that man has in his humanity. He did not defeat Satan and resist temptation with His (intrinsic) divine power, but He defeated Satan by those same means which are provided for us—the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the worship of God.[58]

Conclusion

The first lesson which we can learn from our text is how to recognize temptation. Let me suggest some tests for temptation, based on the characteristics of temptation, pointed out earlier in this lesson:

(1) Who or what is the source of the offer? Can I trust the tempter? Is he or she a person of proven character? What do they have to gain?

(2) What are the long-term consequences of the proposed action? Do I get immediate pleasure or benefit, but at the cost of long-term benefits? Does the benefit endure, or does it quickly pass?

(3) To what motive or desire does the offer appeal?

(4) How does the proposed action square with God’s Word? Is there a biblical prohibition which forbids it? Is there a biblical imperative which commands it? Is it a matter of personal freedom or liberty?

(5) How does the proposal square with my goals and calling in life? With my priorities? With my values?

(6) How will the proposal impact my walk with God? Will it draw me closer to God? Will it cause me to be more dependent on Him? Will it enhance and enrich my worship? Will it strengthen my faith?

(7) What will it cost? What will the real, bottom-line cost be? What are the hidden costs? Who will pay the cost? Is the proposal one in which I gain at the expense of others, or one in which others gain at my expense (the biblical ideal)?

(8) Am I being hurried to act quickly, rather than to think the matter through carefully? Will the “deal” really not be available in the future? Why not?

(9) How much scrutiny and investigation is encouraged and/or allowed? Does the solicitor want me to check out the offer, or to act quickly?

(10) Am I considering this proposition because I feel that I need to prove something to someone?

In addition to these “temptation tests” our text provides us with a number of principles which relate to our daily lives:

Principle One:

It is not Sin to be Tempted. I know of many who agonize over temptation. Indeed, they should. You will remember that “righteous Lot” was vexed as he saw the sin around him. But while we should be vexed by temptation, we should not feel guilty about being tempted. If our Lord was tempted beyond that which any man has been tempted and was without sin, then we must conclude that being tempted is not a sin. What we do with that temptation can become a matter of sin.

Principle Two:

No Temptation is Beyond Our Ability to Resist. If you grant the premise that our Lord faced all of Satan’s temptations with the same divinely provided means which God has given every Christian and emerged triumphant, then we must conclude that there is no temptation which comes our way which is beyond of God-given capacity to resist. As Paul put the matter in his epistle to the Corinthians:

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it (1 Cor. 10:13).

In the first chapter of his first epistle, the apostle Peter says virtually the same thing, only in greater detail. He reminds his readers that God has, by His divine power, “granted to us every thing pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3). God needs to provide no more. The Christian simply needs to appropriate more of what God has already provided. He has given us His Word and His Spirit. As we are guided and governed by these provisions, we will experience victory over sin and temptation. There will not be perfection in this life, but there can and should be growth.

Perhaps you have heard someone attempt to justify their sin by saying something like this: “But I’m only a man.”

In this sense, so was our Lord, so far as the means He employed to deal with Satan’s best shots. So, too, were all the saints of the ages, who did resist sin and temptation.

Principle Three:

No Temptation is Permanently Overcome, Never Again to Occur or to Appeal to Us. Our Lord emerged from these temptations victorious, but just because our Lord prevailed does not mean that Satan threw up his hands and quit. Our text ends with these words:

And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time (Luke 4:13).

Some of the very same temptations can be found as the recorded life of our Lord continues in the gospels, sometimes on the lips of Jesus’ enemies, and sometimes even from the lips of His disciples (e.g. Matt. 16:23).

Principle Four:

No Temptation is Unique to Us, for Which There is not a Biblical Precedent or Principle. In 1 Corinthians 10:13 we are told that there is no temptation which will come our way except those which are common to man. No temptation is unique. Every temptation which we will ever face has been faced before, many times. Even the temptations of our Lord were not unique. For each temptation, our Lord found a parallel in principle in Israel’s history, and thus He could refute Satan by citing a biblical principle from an Old Testament text.

All too often I hear people justifying their actions by attempting to justify their particular situation and temptation as unique. In effect they are saying, “No one has ever faced the situation I am in, and if they had, they would have sinned, too.”

The writer to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tested in every area, and our account in Luke supports this (cf. Luke 4:2, 13). Since our temptations are not unique, Our Lord has faced it before (with the power God provides all His children), and the saints have faced them before, victoriously.

Principle Five:

The Biblical Antithesis and Antidote to Temptation is Exhortation. As I have thought about the matter of temptation it occurred to me that we can better understand it in the light of its opposite. What is it that is the antithesis of temptation? I believe that it is exhortation—encouragement. If temptation is the solicitation to do that which is wrong, exhortation is the encouragement to do what is right. This is one benefit which we have which our Lord did not. Even His closest disciples failed to grasp what God had called our Lord to do—to die as a criminal on a Roman cross, to bear the sins of men. Thus, rather than encourage our Lord, they, resisted the reality of His life’s calling. So it was that Peter rebuked our Lord for talking about His coming death in Jerusalem in Matthew 16.

The Bible frequently exhorts the saints to encourage one another:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:23-25).

And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another (Rom. 15:14).

Therefore encourage one another, and build up one another, just as you also are doing … And we urge your, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men (1 Thes. 5:11, 14).

Encouragement entails the Christian coming alongside another, warning him or her of the consequences of pursuing a path of sin, and urging that they pursue the path of righteousness. This is one of God’s divinely provided resources against sin.

Principle Six:

Our Lord Dealt with Temptation Positively, Rather than Negatively. I am not talking about the kind of “positive thinking” which is so popular today. Rather, I am stressing that Satan always seems to be striving to cause the saint to think negatively, to think in terms of what he or she cannot do, rather than in terms of the freedom God has given. Thus, rather than to point out all of the trees which God had given Adam and Eve to eat of Satan drew their attention to the one tree from which they could not eat. Every offer of Satan that our Lord declined, He declined because He was pursuing a higher, positive good. He did not think in terms of His hunger, but in terms of the superiority of His life in obedience to the word of God. Just as an Olympic athlete gladly gives up some things to attain a “better reward,” so our Lord viewed those things which Satan offered and He declined.

There is a final lesson to be learned from our text which is not immediately apparent, but which is vital to an understanding of the nature of the kingdom of which our Lord was appointed as King. The nature of our Lord’s kingdom is something like the operating system of a computer. The computer is a wonderful piece of equipment, but it has no value unless there is an operating system which defines how the various components of the computer are to work. The operating system must always be operating, even though it is not apparent to the user. Whether you are doing word processing, using a data base or a spread sheet, the operating system is quietly doing its work. Interfere with that operating system and the program is crashed. In the temptation of our Lord Satan was seeking to “crash the system,” to “terminate the program” of the kingdom of God. He was seeking to do so by changing the very principles on which the kingdom of God was based.

Put simply, Satan’s “operating system” is one that is based upon raw power and authority, while that of our Lord is based on love. Throughout the temptation of our Lord, Satan challenged Jesus to prove His sonship and to establish His kingdom by using His power, by forcing things to comply with His needs and wishes. That, of course, is precisely the way Satan operates. I have never heard of anyone who has become a follower of Satan because of love, but only because of power. Either they fear Satan’s power and serve him to appease him, or they want to have use of his power to benefit themselves.

Our Lord’s kingdom was not going to be based upon raw power, but on love. Christ was not going to compel men to be a part of His kingdom by the use of His force, but attract them to Himself and His kingdom by love. The Sermon on the Mount was, as it were, the “constitution of the kingdom.” Instead of retaliating, one must turn the other cheek. Instead of a kingdom composed of the rich and powerful, it was a kingdom of the meek, of peacemakers. The reason was simple: men would not enter into the kingdom on the basis of their merits (strength, wealth, power), but on the basis of the shed blood of the Messiah.

Our Lord’s disciples were often guilty of thinking in terms of power, rather than love, just like others. When our Lord was resisted, they wanted to use God’s power to wipe out their “enemies” (Luke 9:51-56). When the disciples thought about the kingdom, one of their principle concerns was what position of power they would hold (Mark 9:33ff.). When Jesus spoke of His own suffering and death, they resisted the thought (Matt. 16:21ff.).

Love, on the one hand, relinquishes power, but on the other love is itself the great power. The use of force simply prompts the other party to resist with equal or greater force. Love disarms the other party, and makes it easier for this person to change and to enter into a relationship of love and genuine fellowship. The power of sheer force quickly vanishes in the absence of the power broker, but the power of love lingers on, long after death.

I do not mean to represent force and love as complete opposites, totally incompatible with each other. I do mean to say that power or force must always be governed by love. In the kingdom of God, the power of God is directed by God’s love. Love may require the use of power or force, but force is most often employed without love.

I believe that the relationship between power and love is one of the most difficult issues of the Christian’s experience. The Corinthian saints were awe-struck with power, but they were lacking in love. The Corinthians were mesmerized by “charismatic,” persuasive, powerful, people. They thus took pride in who their leaders were. They prided themselves in the possessing certain gifts, which they assumed were evidence of greater spiritual power. The 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians underscored the superiority of love.

The church at Ephesus, as described in the second chapter of the book of Revelation (vv. 1-7) was marked by its purity and its perseverance, but it was rebuked for its lack of love. The entire Old Testament Law was summarized by two commandments, both of which were to love. The goal of Paul’s instruction was love (1 Tim. 1:5). That which marks out the disciples of our Lord is their love for one another (John 13:35). It was God’s love for the world which brought Jesus Christ into the world, to be rejected of men, and to die that men might be saved (John 3:16). Love is the one thing which Satan can not grasp, and which he sought to turn our Lord from. The basis of the kingdom of Satan is raw power and fear; that of our Lord is love, which casts out fear.

This view of the relationship between love and power enhances my understanding of a couple of difficult texts in the Bible. In Ephesians we read,

And, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

The explanations of this text are many. The question must be asked, “Why is it that fathers are viewed as being in danger of provoking their children to wrath, when mothers are not?” I think that the answer is that fathers tend to resort to power, to force, to authority, rather than to rely on love. “Don’t ask why, just do it!” “Because I told you so!” The easiest way of getting things done is to resort to raw power. But discipline and instruction is the product of love, not power (cf. Heb. 12). Notice that our Lord appealed to His disciples to obey Him out of love for Him (cf. John 15).

The same thing can be said with reference to this exhortation to husbands:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for not one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body (Eph. 5:28-30).

Why are wives not commanded to love their husbands, while husbands are commanded to love their wives? I think that the answer is that husbands have a higher authority, and thus are tempted to resort to their power, rather than to love as the guiding principle and moving force in their relationship with their wives. The biblical command for wives to submit in Ephesians 5 becomes a club in the hands of an unloving husband, who uses these texts to enhance his power and position, not to enhance his wife, as Christ has given Himself for His church.

It is my contention that Satan, somewhat like a computer “hacker,” was trying to “crash the program” which God had for His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Ultimately, he was trying to turn our Lord from the path of love (for God and man), submission (to the Father’s will) and service. It is my conviction that it is in these very areas that most Christians are tempted and fail. Let us seek to walk the path of love, by the power of God’s Spirit, to His glory.

! Lesson 13:
On Prophets and Popularity
(Luke 4:14-30)

Introduction

We have probably all heard the story of the man who purchased a horse that formerly belonged to a preacher. In order to make the horse go, the command, “Praise the Lord,” had to be given. To stop the horse, “Hallelujah!” was the instruction. The purchaser did all right in getting the horse started. “Praise the Lord!” he shouted. The horse took off at a full gallop. The problem was that the horse was headed for a cliff. “Whoa!” the man shouted, but to no avail. Suddenly he realized he had forgotten the command to stop the horse. Just in the nick of time he remembered. “Hallelujah!” The horse came to a stop at the very edge of the cliff, so that its new owner could look into the chasm below. The man began to feel a bit religious himself, and so with great excitement and relief he shouted, “Praise the Lord!”

The point of this well-worn story for us is that saying the wrong thing can get a person into a lot of trouble. There are a number of very public personalities that can testify to the truth of this statement. I can immediately think of several political figures, not to mention some religious leaders who have found their statements to have gotten them into a lot of trouble.

In the case of the fictitious rider, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying what appeared to be the wrong thing nearly got both tossed headlong over the edge of a cliff. The one critical difference with the statements of our Lord is that they were purposeful. Jesus did not suffer from a “slip of the tongue,” but from a careful and deliberate statement, made to the people with whom He had lived and worshipped as He grew up. The tension of the text is this WHY DID JESUS DELIBERATELY SABOTAGE HIS POPULARITY AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE HAD LIVED? Our study will provide us with the answer to this question.

The Approach of This Lesson

In this lesson we will begin by looking into the background of the Lord’s appearance at the synagogue in Nazareth. We will briefly survey the public ministry of our Lord up to this point, a ministry which was nearly a year in duration. We will then consider the unique situation our Lord found at Nazareth. Next, we will consider the text which our Lord cited, and the response to our Lord’s words by the people who heard Him. This will lead us to an analysis of our Lord’s response to His popularity among the people. We will especially focus on the misconceptions of the people and our Lord’s clarifications and teaching in the light of these. Finally, we will seek to explore the implications of the principle which undergirds the entire event, the principle that a prophet is never popular at home with his own people.

The Structure of the Text

Our text can be broken down into the following divisions:

(1) Verses 14-15—Galilean ministry summarized—Jesus’ preaching & popularity

(2) Verses 16-21—Jesus in the synagogue—Isaiah’s prophecy fulfilled

(3) Verse 22—The positive response of the people

(4) Verses 23-27—Jesus corrects misconceptions: prophets are never popular

(5) Verses 28-30—From praise to the precipice

Verses 14 and 15 summarize the ministry of our Lord in Galilee, which serves as a backdrop to His appearance at Nazareth. In verses 16-21 Luke has recorded the appearance of our Lord at the synagogue, His reading of a portion from the prophecy of Isaiah, and His astounding claim that this prophecy has been fulfilled in the hearing of His audience. The positive response of the people is described in verse 22, which is immediately challenged by our Lord in verses 23-27. The result is a near riot, where the people have every intention of killing our Lord by forcing Him over a precipice to His death.

The Preaching and Popularity of Jesus in Galilee
Luke 4:14-15

Our Lord did not appear at the synagogue in Nazareth immediately after His baptism and temptation, as one might suppose from reading only the gospel of Luke. Actually, nearly a year has passed since our Lord first was presented to Israel as the Messiah, introduced first by John the Baptist. Our Lord’s ministry in Galilee resulted in a growing popularity. The people of Nazareth had heard the reports of His preaching and power, and were eager to see what He could do in their midst (cf. Luke 4:23). Verses 14 and 15 of our text are a very concise summary of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, and its impact. Actually, there is very little record of the ministry of our Lord that first year of His public ministry, and what we do know comes to us from John’s gospel. Below is a summary of our Lord’s ministry, up to the time of His first appearance at Nazareth.

This chart informs us that before our Lord appeared at the synagogue in Nazareth, He had ministered publicly for about a year. During this year of ministry He had been introduced as the Messiah by John (John 1:19-34), called some (if not all) of His disciples (John 1:35-51), cleansed the temple in Jerusalem (John 2:13-22), talked with Nicodemus, a prominent Jewish teacher (John 3:1-21), and proclaimed the gospel in Samaria (John 4:4-42). When He returned to Galilee (John 4:43-45), He healed the nobleman’s son from a distance, the nobleman approaching Him in Cana, while his son was ill in Capernaum (John 4:46-54).

As reported by Luke (4:14-15), our Lord’s ministry in Galilee had been in the power of the Spirit (4:14). My assumption is that a number of miracles were performed, but they are not mentioned, nor are they emphasized. What is emphasized is the preaching ministry of our Lord in Galilee, and His prominence and popularity which resulted. Reports of our Lord’s ministry thus reached the people of Nazareth before He did. When He finally arrived, the level of anticipation and excitement was high.

Our Lord’s Arrival
and Announcement at Nazareth
(4:16-21)

Our Lord’s arrival at Nazareth, as recorded here by Luke, was His first public appearance, but not His last. There are two passages in Matthew and Mark, which initially appear to be parallel accounts, but which I believe are reports of a later, although similar, incident:

Matthew 13:53-58 And it came about that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:1-6 And He went out from there, and He came into His home town; and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.” And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them. And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching.

The similarities between Luke’s account of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth in chapter 4 and those of Matthew and Mark are evident. Several significant differences overshadow the similarities, at least in my opinion.[59] First, In Luke’s account, we are given the impression that virtually no miracles (save our Lord’s miraculous escape from the hostile crowd) took place, while the other texts indicate that a few miracles occurred. Second, in Luke’s account, the disciples are not mentioned, and appear not to be present with Him, while in the other (later) accounts, the disciples are present. Third, our Lord’s departure seems quite different in the accounts. Finally, the attitude of the people in Luke’s account is very positive and expectant, while in the other accounts, the people are skeptical and negative. Thus, while the expression, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” is similar, the meaning attached to it is different. The two different temple cleansings have similarities, but they are clearly two different events, one early in the ministry of our Lord (John 2:13-22), and the other just before His crucifixion (Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46).

This distinction between Luke’s Nazareth visitation and that of Matthew and Mark is an important one. If we did not see such a distinction, we would have to interpret Luke’s account in the light of the others, but since we understand the events to be distinct we can interpret the same essential statements (“Is this not Joseph’s son,” Luke 4:22; Matthew 13:55-57; Mark 6:3) differently. In Luke, the people are still very positive and Jesus’ power is a wonder, which they are striving to grasp. In Matthew and Mark’s accounts, the power of our Lord is a mystery, which they are compelled to explain (demonic possession is one such explanation, cf. Mark 3:22), because they do not wish to receive Him as the Son of God.

Imagine what it must have felt like to for our Lord to return to Nazareth, the place where He grew up. As a child who was born into a very humble home, Jesus may very well have suffered the scorn or rejection of other children, especially those who came from more influential or well-to-do families. As a child who never sinned, He would very likely have been rejected by His peers as a “goody goody,” by whatever terminology was used in those days. It must have been a very strange feeling to walk those familiar streets into Nazareth, streets He had walked for years, streets in which He had played as a child. In one sense, Jesus was coming home.

Jesus’ arrival at the synagogue, seems to be His first public appearance as Messiah in Nazareth. Jesus frequently taught in the synagogues,[60] and this is certainly not Jesus’ first visit to this synagogue, for it was in this town that He grew up.[61] It was this synagogue that Jesus must have frequented in the years he and His parents lived in Nazareth. From what Luke has already told us about our Lord’s discussion with the teachers in Jerusalem at the early age of 12 (Luke 2:41-51), we must be willing to consider the likelihood that Jesus did the same kind of thing with the Jewish teachers in the synagogue at Nazareth. Thus, Jesus would have been a very familiar face in that place. The question, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” may very well reflect the growing sense of recognition of this One whom they had seen so much in the past.

Synagogues were not a biblical innovation, that is they were not required by the Old Testament, but were rather the product of the captivity of Israel. Nevertheless, there is a fair bit of background information available as to how the synagogue service was conducted. For example, Shepherd writes:

“In the worship of the synagogues, which since the restoration from Babylonian captivity had played so large a part in Jewish life, there were three persons who participated: the reader, the interpreter, and the expounder or preacher. On the sabbath and certain festive occasions there were several readers. Two lessons were read: one the parashah was from the Law and the other called the haphtorah from the prophets. Two prayers preceded the first reading. When the selection from the Law had been read, Jesus, invited by the chief of the ten leading elders, took His place to read the lesson from the prophets. The Chazzan, or school-master clerk of the synagogue, took from the ark of painted wood the roll of the prophet Isaiah, and handed it to Him. In the chief seats before Him were the ten leading elders, and behind them ranged the congregation, the men on one side and the women on the other of a lattice division in the middle of the synagogue.”[62]

The Lord stood, which seems to indicate His desire to read. The scroll containing the prophecy of Isaiah was handed to Him. Whether or not He requested this scroll is not stated. He turned to the text in Isaiah, where these words were written:

“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE DOWNTRODDEN, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”

By and large, this citation is a quotation of Isaiah 61:1, although there is also a portion of Isaiah 58:6 as well.[63] It is doubtful in my mind that our Lord read only these words. I would imagine that Luke cited only these words, and that more were included in the Scripture reading. These verses contain the “heart” of the text which was read. The essence of these words, along with the statement of our Lord, is that the Messiah has come.

In our Lord’s reading and interpretation of this text in Isaiah, the Lord Jesus is claiming, on Old Testament grounds, to be Israel’s Messiah. This is based upon several areas of fulfillment. First, Jesus’ life and ministry was marked by the power of the Holy Spirit. Luke has emphasized the fact that our Lord was empowered and led of the Spirit, and our Lord does as well (cf. Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14). Second, the ministry of the Messiah, thus far was primarily that of proclamation, preaching. Note the emphasis in these verses on proclamation. Third, the ministry of Messiah which is described here is focused toward the poor, the distressed, the downtrodden. It is the needy who are in view here, those who are “sick” in Jesus’ words, not the “well” (cf. Mark 2:17). Finally, the ministry of the Messiah was not, as yet, that of bringing vengeance on the enemies of God. The citation from Isaiah stops just before this statement: “And a day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:2b).

Jesus had not come to condemn, but to save. Our Lord understood that His role as Messiah was to come twice, the first time to reveal God to men, and to provide a way of salvation. The second coming was to bring God’s judgment to the earth and to destroy His enemies. Our Lord’s use of this text in Isaiah reflects this distinction between His first coming as Messiah, and His second.

The People’s Response
(4:22)

The words of our Lord which were spoken in the synagogue at Nazareth were warmly welcomed. Listen to Luke’s description of the people’s response:

And all were speaking well of Him,[64] and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22).

Several things characterize this response. First, the people respond very positively to Jesus’ claim. There were no objections, no resistance, no apparent hesitancy. They spoke well of Jesus. Second, there was no clear grasp of what His words meant. I can almost see two members of the congregation which had gathered at the synagogue on that fateful day, whispering to each other. One might have said, “Wasn’t that a glorious message?” To which the other might have responded, “My, yes, but I wonder what He meant?” Luke informs us that the people wondered what Jesus meant by what He said. The words had a gracious tone, but their meaning was obscure. Third, the warm response to Jesus’ words was the result of a distorted concept of the Messiah and His ministry. I believe that the people had grandiose thoughts of what Jesus would do for them. In my opinion, they may have looked at the fact that Jesus was a home-town boy (“the son of Joseph”), and thus expected Him to do even greater things for them than He had done elsewhere. After all, wasn’t Jesus one of their own? Jesus came home, as it were, to a ticker tape parade, and was given the “key to the city.” Now, they expected great things of Him, and He knew it.

The Response
of Jesus to His Popularity
(4:23-27)

There is a proverb which very aptly indicates the significance of the praise of the people:

The crucible is for silver and the furnace for gold, And a man is tested by the praise accorded him (Prov. 27:21).

If our Lord was tested by the temptations of Satan in the wilderness, the praises of His home town peers was just as much a test of His character. Let us see how this works out to reveal the wisdom and perfection of our Lord.

It would seem that questions and discussion were normally in order after the Scriptures had been read and interpreted in the synagogue.[65] Either Jesus had no questions, or He did not give His audience an opportunity to ask them. Instead, Jesus posed the question which they were all thinking. Jesus knew the hearts of men, and He thus knew what His audience was thinking. He cut through the formalities and the niceties and got to the heart of the issue. He understood that His words were misunderstood, and so He set out the raise the critical issue with the question He posed.

And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself; whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your home town as well.’” And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his home town.” (Luke 4:23-24).

The proverb, “Physician, heal yourself,” is somewhat curious. Does it mean that the people expected Jesus success and status to be first evidenced by His own appearance, so that He was challenged to produce the trappings of success? A doctor would be expected to heal himself. A dentist would certainly have lovely teeth. One who was to bring blessings and prosperity to Israel would surely have all the earmarks of prosperity. This One who had come to them was none other than Jesus, the child who had grown up in their midst, the child of Joseph, a very humble man of meager means. If Jesus were the miracle worker that rumor indicated He was, surely He would quickly demonstrate His power, especially since He was one of their own.[66] The fact that Jesus was the son of Joseph was not yet viewed as a liability, as a hindrance to accepting Him. Rather, it was a claim to greater privilege and blessing than the other cities of Galilee had received through His ministry.

From a strictly human point of view, what a temptation it would have been to prove Himself to His fellow-Nazarethites, to His peers, especially if Jesus had not been the most popular child in His younger years (which I expect was the case). While He could have proven Himself by working many spectacular miracles—something Jesus would not do for Satan or for the people of Nazareth—He could at least keep His current popularity aflame by simply saying and doing nothing. He could keep the people guessing; He could continue to ride the wave of His success via the reports of His ministry elsewhere.

The principle that a prophet is never honored in his own country, by his own people meant that Jesus, if He were a true prophet, would not be received with open arms, or with bowed knee, but with rejection, like all of the other prophets. The only way that Jesus could be warmly and positively received by His peers was if they did not understand what Jesus meant by what He said, that they did not understand His claim to be Messiah, nor what kind of Messiah He would be. Jesus would not receive misguided praise and therefore He set out to correct their misconceptions of His messianic identity and mission. His words, recorded by Luke in verses 23-27, were intended to spell out what His messianic ministry would mean. This was no revelation, in the sense of informing the people of Israel something entirely new and unknown, for that which Jesus was about to say was a prominent theme of the prophets, and was in the near context of the Isaiah text from which He read in the synagogue.[67]

Jesus pointed out that if His ministry were correctly understood, He would be rejected like all the other prophets of Israel’s history. Prophets were not received by Israel, but spurned, persecuted, and even killed, and this without exception (cf. 1 Ki. 19:10; Jer. 35:15; 44:4-5; Acts 7:52). Jesus not only cited the principle that Israel’s prophets were never honored by their own people, He illustrated the fact by showing that the prophets were often more kindly treated by Gentiles, and that the Gentiles received blessings at their hands. He cited the case of Elijah’s stay with the Gentile widow at Zerephath (1 Ki. 17:9) and of the healing of Namaam, the Syrian (an enemy of Israel, indeed, a military leader of the army which was successfully attacking Israel (2 Ki. 5:1-14).

In both cases, the prophet of Israel brought blessings to Gentiles which the Jews, their own people did not receive. In both cases, the prophets were sent to Israel to condemn their sin and to pronounce divine judgment, and were largely rejected by their own people.

In the context of this description of Jesus’ return to His home town, Jesus is saying is simply refusing to fulfill their expectations because they are ill founded, based upon a false grasp of the Scriptures and a misconception about Messiah and His ministry. Jesus tested their enthusiasm and incurred their wrath by simply reminding His audience that He, like other prophets of Israel, had come to bring blessing not exclusively to the Jews, their own people, but to the Gentiles.

We may thus see why our Lord found it necessary to offend His audience with the truth, so that their sin would be exposed, as well as the nature and need for His coming as the sin-bearer of the world. But why did Jesus choose this issue, the blessing of the Gentiles, to provoke His listeners to action? Why this issue, rather than some other?

I believe that there are at least three reasons for our Lord raising the issue of the blessing of the Gentiles.

First, the blessing of the Gentiles is a prominent prophetic promise. As early as the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis chapter 12, God promised to bless the nations through Abraham. Frequently in the prophets God reiterated this truth. While Israel sought to thwart this purpose by their disobedience (e.g. Jonah), God purposed to bring it to pass, even if through Israel’s disobedience (cf. Romans 9-11).

Second, this was a pivotal issue, a matter of Jewish pride and self-righteousness, which had to be dealt with and set aside in order for Jews to experience God’s salvation. As John the Baptist indicated in the wilderness (Matt. 3:9) Paul insists in Romans (9:6), being a physical descendent of Abraham does not make one a true Israelite. Just as the Nazarethites thought that being a son of Joseph and a resident of their town gave them some leverage with Jesus, so they, as Jews, felt that being such gave them a monopoly on God’s blessings. The people of Nazareth were willing to view themselves as the “poor,” the “captives,” and the “downtrodden,” as depicted in Isaiah, but they were not willing to view themselves as “poor like the Gentiles,” “captives like the Gentiles,” or “downtrodden, like the Gentiles.” This was taxing their racial and religious pride too heavily. In effect, the people of Nazareth were saying this: “If I must identify with the heathen Gentiles in order to be blessed by Messiah, I will have nothing to do with such a Messiah.”

This is a very sensitive point, but a very crucial one. The Law did not bring a Jew any closer to God. Indeed, the Law simply prescribed a higher standard, which no one, including the Jews, could keep (cf. Rom. 2:17–3:20; Acts 15:8-11). The Jews persistently tried to modify the gospel so that the Gentiles would have to enter into the kingdom of God through the “Jewish gate,” that is by becoming a Jewish proselyte, by being circumcised, and by keeping the Law. In effect, they were insisting that Gentiles try to keep the law, which they as Jews had failed to do. Salvation was made possible through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. He is the only door, and through this door men must pass as sinners. The “works of the law” must be set aside as an unclean thing, as an offense to God, just as the heathen practices and beliefs of the Gentiles must be left behind. In order to enter into our Lord’s kingdom, the Jews had to become “like Gentiles,” lost and unclean. This was precisely the problem. They were proud and self-righteous. The extent of this pride is evidenced by the intensity of their reaction to Christ’s words.

Third, Luke’s gospel is written principally to and for Gentiles. The Gentile reader is going to read the gospel with this question in mind: “How can a Jewish Messiah, dying in fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures, obtain salvation for a Gentile?” The answer is simple: The rejection of the Messiah by the Jews made it possible for the Gentiles to be saved. This incident in the life of Christ evidences how strongly the Jews felt about keeping the Gentiles from receiving God’s blessings. In one sense, the Gentiles could rejoice at this sinful reaction of the Jews, for it opened to door to their salvation. Even the disobedience of Israel achieves the purposes of God!

A Strong Reaction
and a Miraculous Escape
(4:28-30)

The Nazarethites were furious. They, like the Jews later described by Luke in the book of Acts (13:46, 50; 22:21-22), violently reacted to Jesus’ words. Their aim was none less than murder. There was not even an attempt to “sanctify” their actions by trumping up false charges, as would happen at His trial and crucifixion. Anyone who would speak of the blessing of the Gentiles instead of the Jews was a traitor! He deserved to die! Now!

The crowd rushed Jesus from the synagogue and was pressing Him toward the precipice of a nearby cliff, causing Him to fall to His death. Jesus did not escape by fleeing, nor by “taking a back way out.” Instead, He walked through the midst of His opponents (4:30). Just as the waters of the Red Sea parted to allow Moses and God’s people to pass through, so the angry crowd parted to allow Jesus to pass through their midst, unharmed, untouched. This was the one and only miracle which they would witness. How tragic.

Conclusion

I believe that this incident in the life of our Lord has widespread implications for our own lives. Allow me to conclude by distilling several vital principles from our text and from the Word of God more generally.

Principle One:

God’s Prophets are Never Popular. Our Lord said this very clearly: “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his home town” (Luke 4:24). Later, Stephen would say to his Jewish brethren: “Which one of the prophets did your father not persecute?” (Acts 7:52).

The inference of Stephen’s words is that there was never a prophet in the history of Israel who was popular among his own people. One need only study the life of the prophet Jeremiah for an illustration of this principle.

The Lord Jesus refused the popularity of His peers because He knew full well that popularity could not be based upon a clear grasp of what His ministry and messiahship was all about. He also knew that popularity would not take Him to the cross of Calvary. Jesus refused popularity because, as the greatest prophet of all, men could not and would not take pleasure in Him.

Principle Two:

All Christians have all been given a Prophetic Task. It is not hard to conceive of our Lord as falling into the category of a prophet, but it may be a little more difficult to think of ourselves as prophets. Nevertheless, I believe that it is true to say that every Christian has a prophetic calling, a prophetic ministry, and a prophetic message. The church, as the body of Christ, is to continue to do and to teach that which our Lord began in His earthly ministry. The Great Commission, given to the church, is a prophetic commission. The message which we are to take to the world centers around the themes of sin, righteousness, and judgment, to which the Holy Spirit will bear witness (John 16:7-11).

As prophets, Christians can expect to be persecuted. Early in His earthly ministry our Lord addressed the issue of the suffering of the saints, linking their suffering with that of the prophets before them:

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:10-12).

Jesus frequently spoke to His disciples about the persecution they would experience as a result of being His followers (cf. John 15:17-20).

The apostle Paul also spoke of the suffering of the saints because of their prophetic calling:

And after they had preached to gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21-22).

The consistent teaching of the New Testament is that Christians will suffer for their faith (cf. 2 Tim. 3:8-13), and this is, I believe, because of the prophetic nature of Christian life and ministry. Just how Christian life and ministry is prophetic can be seen in the next principles.

Principle Three:

Prophets are not Popular because of Whom they Identify With. Prophets must identify with God, rather than with their sinful fellow men. John the Baptist (not unlike Elijah and Elisha) lived apart from his culture, even from his family. He was not unaware of what his culture was doing, but he was not a part of it. He stood apart from the world. So, too, the Christian is to stand apart, and thus will suffer persecution:

For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you (1 Peter 4:3-4).

And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them (Eph. 5:11).

Thus, by refusing to live according to our former lifestyle, the ways of the world, we condemn sin, convict sinners, and become very unpopular.

In our identification with Christ as our Savior, we are also required to identify with the needy, the poor, the oppressed, and the captives. The Nazarethites wanted Jesus to identify with them, but they refused to identify themselves with sinful Gentiles in their need for salvation and forgiveness. Yet the Old Testament prophets had consistently spoken of the Israelites in Gentile terminology (e.g. “not My people”), likening their sins to those of the heathen, Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, and so on. The Gospel forbids that we should shun anyone due to their race or to their social status, as Paul’s stinging rebuke of Peter (Gal. 2:11ff.) and James’ warning to the church (Jas. 2:1ff.) make very clear. Christ’s identification will fallen humanity (Phil. 2:3ff.) requires that the church also identify and associate with the humble (Rom. 12:16). This does not mean that we shun the rich, as the rich, but only that we do not favor the rich because they are rich.

Jesus associated with the poor, the sick, and “sinners” and thus almost immediately offended the self-righteous (Mark 2:15ff.). As we identify with Christ, we must also identify with those with whom He associated and identified, namely those who were in need and acknowledged it, and sought His grace. Those who would come to God for grace must stand in line with sinners, with the unclean, with the lepers, and with the harlots and tax gatherers. Those who refuse to identify with such will not want grace at all, nor will they want the source of grace, Jesus Christ.

Principle Four:

Prophets are not Popular because of their Message. I am reminded of the Old Testament prophet, Micaiah. When Jehoshaphat was deliberating as to whether or not he should go to war with Ahab, the king of Israel, the false prophets of Israel all gave the green light. Jehoshaphat was not convinced, however, and wanted to be sure that a true prophet had been consulted. He therefore asked, “Is there not yet a prophet of the LORD here that we may inquire of him?” (2 Chron. 18:6).

To this, Ahab responded, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me but always evil. He is Micaiah, son of Imla” (2 Chron. 18:7).

From the perspective of wicked Ahab, Micaiah never told him what he wanted to hear. From the perspective of God, Ahab never wanted to hear what God had to say. Ahab only wanted God to confirm and affirm His sinful actions. Prophets are not popular with disobedient people, for they do not want to do God’s will—it is an offense to the natural or sinful man, who is at odds with God.

So it is with the Christian. Our words of counsel and exhortation may be welcomed by a fellow-believer, who seeks to do the will of God. But our words of warning and admonition are going to be rejected by anyone who is intent upon doing evil. Prophets are not popular because they tell men what the need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.

Principle Five:

One of the Greatest Hindrances to our Prophetic Ministry is our Desire to be Popular with the World, and to have its Approval. If I were to be completely honest about my sinful failures to witness to my faith, I would have to confess that me fear of rejection, my fear of losing popularity with my peers, is my number one enemy. If we are more intent upon winning man’s approval than God’s, we either keep silent about the gospel, which will very often offend people (“You mean that if I don’t believe in Jesus Christ, God will send me to hell?”), or we modify the gospel to make it more appealing, and thus dulling its most cutting edge (sin, righteousness, judgment).

The life of our Lord is a constant testimony to His desire to please the Father, more than anyone else. Thus, His actions and His words are always governed by the will of the Father. Once we have settled the question as to whom we would serve, whom we would please, we have come to grips with the most fundamental issue of the task of the prophet. God put it this way to Jeremiah:

“Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’ Because everywhere I send you, you shall go, And all that I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them, For I am with you to deliver you,” declares the LORD (Jer. 1:7b-8).

Practical Outworkings of these Principles

Before leaving our text, let me simply probe the principles we have discovered, so as to “prime the pump” of your thinking concerning their practical outworkings.

In the first place, our text should give us considerable insight as to how we can distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. As you read through the Bible you will discover that false prophets are more popular that true prophets. False prophets tell people what they want to hear; true prophets speak those unpleasant truths from God which men need to hear. False prophets appeal to the flesh, and not to the spirit. They justify sin, rather than to condemn it.

Second, we ought to be encouraged in the sharing of our faith, reminded of the fact that men do not naturally accept the things of God, but rather reject them. The gospel will only be effective in the salvation of men as the Spirit of God works a miracle in their hearts, convincing them of the truth of His word and giving them renewed hearts to respond positively to it. I have heard it said, “If only the gospel were conveyed clearly, no one would reject it.” Just the opposite is true. When the gospel is clearly conveyed, natural men will always reject it, unless stirred by the Spirit of God. Witnessing will not save men, but it will often make them mad. Only the working of the Spirit saves men.

Third, because prophets are not popular in their home town, they may be tempted to proclaim the gospel out of town. If the principle which our Lord laid down is true than it is easier to be a witness anywhere than it is to be a witness at home. Going to the “foreign mission field” could be a temptation for some to avoid the heat of staying home. Perhaps this is why our Lord commanded His disciples to begin witnessing first at home, and then to go beyond.

Fourth, our patriotic duty may conflict with our prophetic duty. In effect, the people of Nazareth appealed to Jesus’ sense of patriotism, narrowed from His country to His home town. Even the original term used for “home town” in Luke 4:23 is similar in tone and meaning to patriot. Our ultimate allegiance, like the Old Testament saints named in Hebrews 11, is to that heavenly land, that heavenly city. We are but strangers and pilgrims here. When we become too attached to our country, or our city, we may find our obligation to God being overshadowed. Jonah was a true patriot, but a miserable (albeit successful) prophet.

Fifth, our involvement in politics may conflict with our prophetic duties. In light of the principle which our Lord laid down, no prophet I know of would have been elected to public office (Daniel, David, and the other political officials in biblical times were not elected, you will recall). In our country, politicians must be popular to get votes and they must get votes to get elected to office. From afar, I have seen “prophets” (usually preachers) seriously modify their prophetic message when running for office, because being a successful politician requires being popular. I am not saying it is wrong to be in politics, mind you, only that it is dangerous (tempting) to be in politics.

! Lesson 14:
Deity Confronts the Demons
(Luke 4:31-44)

And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And He was teaching them on Sabbath days; and they were continually amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority. And there was a man in the synagogue possessed by the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, “Ha! What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he went out of him without doing him any harm. And amazement came upon them all and they began discussing with one another, and saying, “What is this message? For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out.” And the report about Him was getting out into every locality in the surrounding district.

And He arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s home. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever; and they made request of Him on her behalf. And standing over her, He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she immediately arose and began to wait on them. And while the sun was setting, all who had any sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on every one of them, He was healing them. And demons also were coming out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Son of God!” And rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.

And when day came, he departed and went to a lonely place; and the multitudes were searching for Him, and came to Him, and tried to keep Him from going away from them. But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” And He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea (Luke 4:31-44).

Introduction

Several (actually more than that!) years ago, when I was a student in seminary, I went outside late in the night to be revived by the cool breezes of the evening. Our apartment was located next to the seminary parking lot, and I observed a car parked outside the library, with four people in it. The license plate was from out of state and the situation was questionable enough that I called the police and asked if a squad car might check out the car and its occupants. There had been some recent burglaries at the seminary and it seemed the prudent thing to do. I did play the matter down and ask for someone to cruise by in the course of their patrol.

It didn’t work out quite that way, however. Within five minutes, four squad cars were on the scene, two coming from each side of the parking lot. One of the squad cars stayed behind a good while. I began to get an uneasy feeling about what I had done. Who was it in that car, and what were they doing? A friend of mine happened to be a roommate of one of the seminary students who was in the car. He told me that two or three seminary men were in the car, attempt to exorcise a young man of a demon.

What would these men have told the police, when they inquired as to what was going on? What would you have said? “Oh, no problem, officer. You see we were merely trying to cast a demon out of this fellow here.” Right. That would have brought on a whole new crew, wearing white coats and carrying strait jackets.

When I told a professor friend of mine, he said, “I’d lie!” I know just how he felt. One would surely attempt to avoid telling those policemen what you were really doing. In our day, demon possession is not something which our culture is accustomed to seeing, nor are they eager to admit that demons even exist. Scott Peck, psychiatrist and author of the well-known book The Road Less Traveled, has also written a book which is a study of human evil, entitled, People of the Lie. In this book he professes to be a Christian, and he also testifies to at least two experiences of exorcism in his career. He points to another author who pursues the matter much more fully. Demon possession, according to Peck, is a reality, even in the United States.

The passage of Scripture which we are going to study in this lesson is not only relevant to us because demons doe exist today and still possess people. It is relevant to us for a number of other points of application as well. My initial impression was to view the people of Capernaum as vastly superior to those at Nazareth. Our text ends with the people begging Jesus not to leave them, while the people at Nazareth drove Jesus from their synagogue and sought to kill Him. In this case, however, the differences between the people of these two are really superficial, and the similarities are disturbing. Even more distressing is the realization that the demons have something in common with the people of both cities. Let us look to our text to discern the differences and the similarities between the three major groups which are described: the Nazarethites, the Capernaumites, and the demons.

A Brief Review

The accounts of the births of Jesus and John the Baptist, His forerunner introduced Luke’s gospel. Then, Luke tells us of the commencement of John’s ministry and that of our Lord. John began to preach that Messiah was coming and that men should repent in preparation for His arrival. He denied that He was Messiah and immediately pointed to Jesus as God’s appointed King when He was divinely indicated as such at His baptism. Jesus was then led of the Spirit into the wilderness, where He was tempted.

Luke passes by the first year of Jesus’ public ministry, with but a two verse summation of the impact of His ministry in Galilee (4:14-15). The reputation of the Lord reached Nazareth, the place where He grew up, long before His return to this city. When He arrived on the Sabbath and read the passage from Isaiah, messianic expectation was exceedingly great. Nazareth was not merely an obscure town in Galilee, it was a town with a poor reputation, such that Nathaniel could say, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46)

Since Jesus referred to Nathaniel as “a man in whom there was no guile” (John 1:47), we must believe that these words did not just reflect prejudice and bias.

When Jesus informed the people of Nazareth that the words of Isaiah, the promise of Messiah’s coming, were fulfilled in their hearing, the people were delighted:

And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22).

Knowing that no prophet was ever honored by his home town, Jesus brushed aside the people’s praise, and informed them further of His messianic ministry, which was to include the salvation of the Gentiles. At this the people’s praise turned to anger. Jesus was thrust unceremoniously from the synagogue—they would have no more of His teaching—and the people were about to force Him over a precipice, which would have brought about His death (or a mighty deliverance by a band of angels—remember Satan’s temptation using Psalm 91). Jesus passed through the hostile crowd, much like Moses and the Israelites walked through the Red Sea. His own people had rejected Him. He, like all the other prophets of Israel, was no hero, for His message and ministry did not conform to the desires and expectations of the people.

Jesus’ Ministry At Capernaum
(4:31-43)

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus arrived at Capernaum.[68] Capernaum was a small city, located on the western shores of the Sea of Galilee, about 25 miles from Nazareth. Jesus moved here upon hearing of John the Baptist’s arrest (Matt. 4:12-13). It thus become known as Jesus’ home (Mk. 2:1; Matt. 9:1). This is where Simon and Andrew, James and John lived (Mk. 1:21, 29).

Jesus At The Synagogue on the Sabbath (1-37)

Verses 31 and 32 begin with a summary of Jesus’ teaching ministry in the synagogue on the Sabbath days. His teaching resulted in amazement on the part of His audience, not unlike the initial response of the people of Nazareth. Luke sums up the cause for the amazement of the audience with these words:

His message was with authority (Luke 4:32).

This is a similar statement to that found in Matthew’s gospel, immediately after Jesus had delivered the “Sermon on the Mount”:

The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matt. 7:28-29).

What is it that distinguished our Lord’s teaching from that of the scribes and Pharisees, and made His teaching authoritative, when their teaching was not? The gospels do not really tell us what it was about Jesus’ teaching that caused it to stand apart, vastly superior to that of others. It does not seem that Jesus method of delivery was that much different from His contemporaries. Jesus taught sitting, as they did, for example. The difference does not seem to be a matter of style, so much as of substance. In my personal opinion, there were at least two things which distinguished Jesus’ teaching from that of the others of His day:

First, I believe that Jesus’ teaching was simple and straightforward, while that of scribes and Pharisees was academic, scholarly, and obscure. Have you ever heard a scholar teach in such scholarly terms that you left having no grasp of what he was saying? You go away feeling that that man knew much more than you, but you have no idea of what it was he said. Obscurity often passes for depth. When Jesus taught, He spoke very simply, using earthly stories, parables, and illustrations. People heard Him, knowing what He had said, and grasping that this was what the Bible had taught in the first place. Jesus, as the Master Teacher, made the text of Scripture clear and simple.

Second, Jesus taught as the author of Scripture, while the scribes and Pharisees taught as mere students, and not good students at that! The difference between Jesus’ teaching and the rest was the same as hearing the author of a book speak about his book and hearing another person speak about the same book. Jesus taught Scripture as God, from God’s point of view. The scribes and Pharisees taught as mere men, with their biases and prejudices obscuring the text of Scripture. Indeed, the matter was even worse, for the scribes and Pharisees were known for quoting their knowledge and use of rabbi’s material, and not for their knowledge of the Scriptures. Morris informs us that,

Originality was not highly prized among the rabbis and it was usual to accredit one’s words by citing illustrious predecessors. For example, R. Eliezer piously disavowed novelty: “nor have I ever in my life said a thing which I did not hear from my teachers” (Sukkah 28a; a similar statement is made about R. Johanan b. Zakkai, and the attitude was common). Jesus did no such thing and the authority with which He spoke impressed men.[69]

The Demon’s Disruption (33-37)

From a general statement about the authority, Luke moves to a specific incident which illustrates his point. On one particular Sabbath Jesus may have been in the midst of His teaching when He was rudely interrupted by the piercing scream of a demoniac. I can almost imagine watching the person ahead of me jump when the man screamed (that it not to say that I would not have done likewise). The satanic and demonic evil of this man, controlled by the demon, would have been frightening. His voice would have sent chills down your spine. What would Jesus do now? No doubt the demon thought that he would create chaos and confusion. He was up to no good. According to Luke’s account, however, the incident simply served to demonstrate the power of our Lord’s words and to further His reputation throughout the region. Let us see what this incident reveals about the man, the demon, the people, and our Lord. Remember that this is the first instance of demonic possession in Luke’s gospel. It is also the first report of a miracle being performed on the Sabbath, which receives no protest—surely all were glad to have the demoniac cured, especially those setting near him.

At Nazareth, Jesus had been put out of the synagogue. Now, at Capernaum, a demonized man had come into the synagogue, and the demon must be put out of the man. The man was utterly dominated by the demon. The demon so fully controlled the man that the voice was the demon’s, as well as the spirit. The man was utterly overshadowed. To use a contemporary expression, the demon wanted only the man’s body, and he had it.

The demon was dominant, and thus from the words and action which characterized the demoniac we can learn much about demons. The demon was unclean, in contrast to the Lord, who was recognized by the demon as “the Holy One of God” (4:34). The demon was loud and disruptive. He cried out with a loud voice (4:33). His intent seems to have been to interrupt and disrupt the teaching of Jesus. The demon, in my opinion, was not only hostile and angry, it was perplexed. The demon was something like a wild animal that has been cornered. His question, “Have You come to destroy us?” (4:34), could just as easily have been a statement, “You have come to destroy us!”[70] This raised the question, verbalized by the demon, “What do we have to do with You,[71] Jesus of Nazareth?” (4:34).

Satan had been told at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve (in which Satan was instrumental) that his head would be crushed by the heel of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). He knew, in other words, that when Messiah came, it would spell his destruction, his demise. That is why the demon so quickly raised the question of what Jesus was doing there in the synagogue. Had He not come to destroy Satan? What was the purpose of Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue? What was going on? Satan could not figure out the game plan of our Lord. Not realizing that Jesus would “crush his head” by means of His substitutionary death on the cross, Satan could not fathom what was taking place. The demon was demanding to know what was going on.

Jesus would not carry on a conversation with this demon. He would not dignify the demon by giving it further occasion to manifest its diabolical nature. Thus, Jesus rebuked[72] the demon and commanded it to be silent and to come out of the man. The demon obeyed, but only after one final rebellious act. He cast the man to the ground in a way that was so violent, it seemed certain that the man would have been seriously injured. Luke, the doctor, informs us further of our Lord’s great power by indicating that the man incurred no injury from this final fit. Jesus was Lord.

We can see that the man was utterly overshadowed, dominated and controlled by this unclean and evil spirit. We can see that the demon was seeking to resist the purposes of Messiah, rebellious to the end. We can also see that our Lord was in complete control. While exorcisms typically were long, drawn out processes, with formulas and the like, Jesus cast the demon out with one short sentence. The demon obeyed, reluctantly, by immediately, and there was no injury done to the man. What a Saviour!

The incident had a profound impact on those who watched. I would suspect that the whole ordeal took very little time, but even the brevity of the event was significant. At the word of Jesus, demons obeyed. The word of Jesus had great power and authority. If Jesus’ teaching was authoritative, so were His words spoken to the members of the satanic hoard.

And amazement came upon them all, and they began discussing with one another, and saying, “What is this message [literally “word”]? For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Luke 4:36).

Jesus’ words were powerful, whether in teaching, or in commanding the demon to be silent and to depart from the demoniac. The authority of our Lord was to be seen by the power of His words. When Jesus spoke, even the demons listened, and obeyed.

As a result of this incident in the synagogue Jesus reputation was spread abroad. Reports of this event and many others preceded Jesus to other parts of the land. They also brought many to Him for healing, which is described in the next section.

The Healing of Peter’s
Mother-in-law and Many Others
(4:38-41)

Jesus left the synagogue, and went to the home of Peter (or so it would seem), where his mother-in-law was suffering from a high[73] fever. On her behalf, “they” (which seems to include Peter and other family members) appealed to Jesus to heal her. While the other accounts (Matt. 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31) focus on the physical “touching” or “taking the hand” of this woman, Luke emphasizes the word of rebuke spoken to the fever. Once again, it is the word of the Lord which is powerful. Not only does this high fever leave the woman instantly, but the residual consequences of the fever were remedied. Just as the waves of the sea would take considerable time to be calmed after the winds ceased, so the weakness resulting from the fever of this woman would have taken time to overcome. Yet her healing was instantaneous and complete. Thus, she immediately got up and began to minister to the Lord.

It was still the Sabbath day, and thus there was not the normal activity. As sunset approached, the Sabbath ended, which immediately brought many to the door of the house, hoping for healing. These were not people with minor ailments, various aches and pains, but people with serious maladies of various types, people who had to be brought by others[74]. Until the Sabbath ended, the people could not labor by carrying the ill to Jesus. At sunset, the people arrived en masse. Every type of illness was healed, instantly and completely. Demons, too, were being cast out, like the exorcism which Luke reported in the synagogue earlier that day. Here, too, the demons identified Jesus as the “Son of God,” but were rebuked and silenced, and commanded to come out (Luke 4:41). Jesus did not desire or permit the praise of these unclean enemies.

The Priority of Jesus’ Ministry
(4:42-44)

It would seem that Jesus performed healings throughout the night. The people began to arrive at sundown, and Jesus is now said to “depart to a lonely place” when the day came. Thus, early on the next morning, when He had healed all who were present, Jesus slipped away to a lonely place to pray. Luke does not specifically mention prayer here, but Mark does (Mark 1:35). Later, in chapter 5, Luke does describe the prayer life of our Lord:

But He Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray (Luke 5:16).

It was not long before the crowds found the Lord. When they realized that He was leaving them, they, unlike the people of Nazareth, sought to keep Him in their midst. The reasons, I think, are fairly obvious, and not all that commendable. Who would want such a healer and teacher to leave?

Jesus responded to their appeals to stay by referring to His calling, to His priorities:

But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

Jesus knew what He had been called to do. Just as Isaiah’s prophecy, read by our Lord in the synagogue at Nazareth, emphasized the importance of proclamation, so Jesus stresses the priority of proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom to practicing miraculous healings. There is a missionary mandate here as well. Not only does Jesus view preaching as having priority to miracle-working, He also views it as necessary for Him to preach throughout Israel, and not just in a few places. Thus, the final verse (4:44) informs us that Jesus kept on preaching in Judea, and not just in Galilee.

Conclusion

Our text contains a number of valuable lessons. Let us consider of few of them. First, the text gives us much insight into the realm of the demonic. The demoniac was so controlled by the demon spirit that he utterly lost his personhood. Satan offers men freedom, but he delivers bondage, slavery. We do not even know the name of this demonized man. What a pathetic picture of a man filled with the spirit of Satan. How great the contrast with the Christian who is filled with the Spirit of God. That person is free from the dominion of sin and death, free to exercise all of their God-given talents and potential, to be the unique person God meant them to be, to fulfill their unique role in the church and in the world. The demonized man was just a body to be possessed, a mouth through whom Satan could speak. Only in Christ are men made free. Only filled by His Spirit can we experience freedom and individuality.

As I have considered the demon exorcisms of this text and compared them with the others described in the New Testament I have come to the conclusion that Jesus never diagnosed any case of demon possession, to the surprise of his audience. That is, every time Jesus dealt with a demonized person the people already knew the problem was demonic. The New Testament never describes any occasion when a person was brought to Jesus and He diagnosed the problem as demonic, to their surprise. Demon possession was evident to everyone. I say this because today there are many who are crediting demons with illnesses, ailments, and vices, for which they should not receive credit. Alcoholism, smoking, child abuse, and countless other symptoms are now said to be the result of demonization. I never see this in the New Testament. When men are demon-possessed, everyone knows it. It may require God’s matchless power to rid the demonized of the spirit which possesses him, but it does not take divine insight to recognize the demonized as possessed by a demon. Let us not give demons more credit than they deserve. Let us not seek to see them where they are not. And let us not cast our guilt and weakness on them.

Our text also provides us with insight into the priorities which guided our Lord. In short, His priorities were prayer and the preaching of the Word. Miracles played a minor role in His ministry, but prayer and preaching were His priority. Thus, He knew He must leave Capernaum and preach elsewhere, even though the people begged Him to stay. Prayer and proclamation were also the priority of the apostles (cf. Acts 6:1-7).

Finally, this passage points out a very sad reality—the hardness of the heart of man. In one sense the people of Capernaum seem to stand head and shoulders above the people of Nazareth. The Nazarethites drove Jesus from their synagogue, and would have killed Him if they could. The people of Capernaum begged Jesus not to leave their presence. Were not the Capernaumites better than the Nazarethites? Not really.

Had these two groups of people been interchanged, I think that each would have acted exactly as the other, given the same situation. Both the Nazarethites and the Capernaumites initially responded to Jesus’ teaching with awe and wonder. Both would have urged Him to stay in their midst, except for the fact that Jesus revealed some of the unpleasant realities of His messianic ministry to the people of His home town—namely the hardness of heart of the Jews and the divinely purposed blessing of the Gentiles through the unbelief of Israel. Had the events which occurred at the Capernaum taken place in Nazareth (which was precisely what the Nazarethites hoped, Luke 4:23), the people would have loved Jesus, and begged Him to stay. Had the events which happened at Nazareth occurred at Capernaum, I believe that the Capernaumites would have thrown Jesus from their synagogue and sought to kill Him, just as the people of Jerusalem would later do. The only thing which was different in Nazareth from Capernaum was what Jesus did and said. The people were the same.

There is one thing which the demons, the Nazarethites, and the Capernaumites all shared in common: wonder, curiosity, amazement, and unbelief. Lest we bristle at the thought of the unbelief of the people of Capernaum, let me remind you of these words of our Lord concerning Capernaum:

Then He began to reproach the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall DESCEND TO HADES; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matt. 11:20-24).

The message which both John the Baptist and Jesus proclaimed was this: “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” The message and the miracles of Jesus were simply His claim to be Messiah. Yet while people initially responded with wonder and praise, they did not repent. And when Jesus refused to fulfill their expectations of Messiah, they rejected Him and sought to put Him to death. The greater the number of miracles Jesus performed, the greater the evidence of His Messiahship, and the greater the responsibility for rejecting Him. Jesus was popular whenever He utilized His power to enhance and enrich the lives of the people and to remove their pain and suffering. Jesus was unpopular whenever the greater purposes of God for His life were unveiled.

The people of Capernaum are really no better than the people of Nazareth. Both wanted a miracle-working Messiah who would do their bidding. Neither sensed their own sin and the need for repentance. And so it is today. There are many in churches today who know that Jesus is the Son of God, yet have not submitted to Him. There are many in churches today who believe in Jesus as a miracle worker or as a great teacher, but not as Savior and Lord. Such people are no better than those who immediately and openly reject Jesus for who He is. Indeed, the judgment of those who know more is greater, for their level of responsibility is greater. To whom much is given, much is required. This is why Jesus held Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum more culpable than Tyre, Sidon, or Sodom. Knowledge brings responsibility. Jesus Christ is God’s Messiah, and our response to Him is to be repentance and belief. What we need much more desperately than physical healing and mighty miracles is the forgiveness of our sins. This is the primary task for which our Lord came to the earth, and it is God’s primary gift to men, which we are to receive. To receive God’s other gifts, and to reject His gift of salvation, is a damnable offense. Let us not be like the Nazarethites, the Capernaumites, or the demonized. Let us repent and believe in Jesus as our Savior.

! Lesson 15:
How to Hook a Fisherman
(Luke 5:1-11)

Introduction

This past weekend I was in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where I was teaching an in-prison seminar. When I arrived, the state director of Prison Fellowship, Mark Ecklesdafer, picked me up at the airport. Since it was just about lunch time, we picked up something to eat and then went down to the river to watch the steelhead (something like a cross between a trout and a salmon) try to jump the dam, on their way upstream to lay their eggs. Mark is an avid fisherman, and so he and I watched twenty or more fishermen, standing in the river, fishing for steelhead. Many were hooked, but none were landed while we watched. A number of fish had been caught, however, which we could see by the fish which were trailing in the river, attached by a rope to the fisherman (or to a nearby stake in the river).

As I sat there beside that river on such a beautiful day, I could not help but think of this text in Luke’s gospel, which I knew I would be teaching in a week. I concluded that no one could really appreciate the miracle which our Lord performed here unless he or she were a true fisherman. A true fisherman is one who will persist at his task for hours, on the mere possibility of making a great catch. Mark told me that his wife would sometimes ask him, “How can you stand there in the water for hours, hoping to catch a fish?” His answer, which any fisherman can identify with, was, “Easy.”

This story of the great catch is more than just the account of a great catch, for in the final analysis, it is not the fish that are “hooked” but the fishermen, Simon Peter and his brother Andrew,[75] and their partners James and John. From this point on, Luke informs us, these men left their jobs as fishermen and followed Jesus wherever He went. This event is therefore one of the turning points in the life of the disciples and in the gospel accounts of the life and ministry of our Lord. It should not be overlooked that Peter, James and John, the three named fishermen here, are the inner three of the circle of disciples, those three who were privileged to witness events which the other disciples did not see (for example, the transfiguration of our Lord, cf. Luke 9:28).

The Background of this Miracle

Two texts of Scripture seem, at first glance, to be parallel accounts with that of Luke in chapter 5, verses 1-11. These texts are Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:13-20. Matthew’s account reads this way:

And walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And they immediately left the nets, and followed Him. And going on from there He saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. And they immediately left the boat and their father, and followed Him” (Matt. 4:18:22).

The differences between the accounts of Matthew and Mark are so different from that of Luke that I cannot possibly see all of these texts as being a description of the same event.[76]

In fact, there are a number of callings of the disciples, there are several stages of commitment reflected in the Gospels. One of the keys to understand the events in Luke chapter five is to recognize that there is a progressive drawing of the disciples.

“From the data of the other Gospels it appears that it [the calling of the disciples in Luke 5:1-11] was probably quite early during the Galilean ministry, but after the Lord’s first meeting with Peter, John, Andrew and others (John i. 35-52). It was also after the first call of Peter and the others to be disciples of Jesus (Matt. iv. 18ff., Mark i. 16ff.). From this it becomes clear that, although they had followed Jesus at the first call, they did not yet follow Him in a complete and unconditional manner. They were still, at least for part of the time, engaged in their trade as fishermen until the final choice was made to leave all and follow Jesus (v. 11).”[77]

As I understand the progressive calling of the disciples from the Gospels, it falls roughly into this sequence of events:

(1) At the suggestion of John (“Behold the Lamb of God!,” John 1:36) and the invitation of Jesus (“Come and see,” John 1:39), Simon and Andrew followed Jesus for that day. The next day, Philip and Nathanael were invited (“Follow Me,” John 1:43). With these (and other disciples?) Jesus attended the wedding at Cana (John 2:2), and witnessed to the people of Samaria (John 4).

(2) Jesus calls the four fisherman disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John) to follow Him (Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), which they do, but not to the exclusion of their fishing business, which they still do on the side.

(3) Jesus fills the boat with fish. From this time on the disciples leave

their ships and fishing and follow Jesus everywhere (Luke 5:1-11).

(4) Jesus also called Levi, who left his work (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14;[78] Luke 5:27-28).

(5) At some point, the other disciples are called, but this is not recorded in the Gospels.

(6) Jesus was sought by others, who wished to follow Him. He encouraged men to follow Him, but was clear to spell out the cost of discipleship (Matt. 8:18-22).

(7) After a night of prayer (Luke 6:12), Jesus appointed the 12 disciples as His apostles (Luke 6:13; cf. Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-19).

The Setting for the Miracle
(5:1-3)

Jesus was standing by the Sea of Galilee, which Luke calls the “lake of Gennesaret” (v. 1).[79] Around Him a crowd had gathered, listening to Him proclaim the word of God. Beyond the crowd of those who were pressing in on the Lord Jesus, there was the sea of Galilee, and two ships were pulled up on the shore. One ship belonged to Peter (v. 3), and the other belonged to James and John (vv. 7, 10). These four fishermen were not among the crowd. Instead, they were off washing their nets (v. 2). They had spent a long and fruitless night fishing (5).

The amazing thing about this scene is that the wrong people seem to be close to our Lord, and likewise the wrong people seem to be at a distance. You would think that the disciples, Peter and Andrew, James and John, who had spent much time with Jesus, would be those in the inner circle, closest to the Master. Instead, the crowds pressed upon Jesus, and the disciples were at a distance, tending to business, washing their nets. They no doubt looked on with some interest as they worked, but they were surprisingly detached from the Master and from the crowd.

Jesus’ appearance at the lake is, in my opinion, not coincidental. I believe that He purposed to be there, knowing that this is where the disciples would be. It is no accident that the boat into which our Lord stepped, and from which He taught, was Peter’s (v. 3). Jesus seems to merely be doing that which would make His speaking more effective and efficient, as well as providing a way of escape from the crowds when He was finished. I believe, however, that Jesus was seeking the disciples. It was time for them to become permanently attached to Him, accompanying Him wherever He went. The time for a deeper level of commitment and involvement had come. The appearance at the lake that day was for the purpose of bringing about a life-changing decision on the part of Peter and his companions. Jesus would momentarily use the boat as His pulpit, but He was intent on making fishermen fishers of men.

The Catch of a Lifetime
(5:4-7)

The disciples had apparently finished washing their nets and had probably hung them out on the ship to dry. Jesus had likewise finished His teaching, and asked Peter to put out to deeper water, and to let down the nets for a catch. Notice these words of our Lord:

“Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch” (Luke 5:4).

Jesus did not make a suggestion; He made a command. And He did not order the disciples to let down their nets to try to catch fish, He ordered them to put out their nets for a catch of fish. In other words, Jesus was issuing both a command and a promise. The command was to put out the nets. The promise was that there would be a catch. And what a catch it would be!

Peter’s words betray a reticence, perhaps even a bit of irritation:

“Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but at Your bidding I will let down the nets” (Luke 5:5).

In the first place, Peter’s words indicate that he and his partners were dog tired. They had worked hard, all night. Besides that, they had just finished washing their nets. They would have to do it all over again. Second, Peter indicates that their efforts had been futile. Night was the best time to fish.[80] If they had not caught anything at night, why in the world should they catch anything in the daytime, the worst possible time to fish. Third, there is a hint of irritation here. Did Jesus, a carpenter, think that He knew more about fish than these fishermen? His order seemed naive.

Peter relented and let down the nets, but it would seem that he has safeguarded himself for the failure he thinks is certain. You almost wonder if Peter didn’t want to fail in this venture, so that he could give Jesus an “I told you so” look. How many times would Peter have the opportunity to prove Jesus wrong. Surely when it came to catching fish, he was the expert. Jesus was the Master, and so His word would be obeyed, albeit under protest.

The result was incredible. There were those stories that all fishermen swapped, about good catches, but this beat all that Peter had ever heard, by far! The nets were absolutely full. They began to break. They signaled their partners for help, and even with two ships, the harvest was so large that both boats began to sink. The catch of a lifetime had been made. And now it was time to “hook” the fishermen.

The Disciples’ Response
(5:8-11)

Every miracle had its purpose, and this one was no exception. There was a “catch” to the story, and it is now to be disclosed. Simon Peter[81] was the leader and the spokesman for the others. He immediately responded (as always) by falling down at the feet of Jesus, saying,

“Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8).

Falling prostrate at the feet of Jesus was an act of humility and worship. Peter had been ministered to in an area of his own expertise.[82] He now saw the Lord Jesus in an entirely different light.[83] Jesus was Lord, and he was but a sinful man. In verse 5, Jesus was referred to by Peter as “Master,” but now He is Peter’s Lord. The change of terms is our signal to a quantum leap in Peter’s grasp of Jesus’ greatness and power.

Peter not only confessed the greatness (and perhaps the holiness) of our Lord, but also his own sinfulness. Just what was it that caused Peter to recognize his sinfulness at this particular occasion? What was Peter now confessing as sin? I believe that the narrative provides us with the necessary clues to understand Peter’s confession. Peter saw his resistance and reticence to obey the Lord’s command to let down the nets as sin. Peter thought he was the expert, but now sees that Jesus is Lord of the sea as well. Peter doubted that they would make a great catch, and feared that his efforts would be wasted. Now he saw his Lord’s sovereignty and his sin.

Peter’s confession is noteworthy. At the very point that Peter draws nearer to His Lord than ever, he seems to urge his Lord to depart from him. Peter could have departed from the Lord Jesus, but his love for Him and His growing awe prohibited him from doing so. It was like the moth and the flame. He could not draw apart, but only nearer. If sin were to drive a wedge between him and his Lord, it would have to be the Lord who departed, not Peter.

So far as I can tell, this is the first time in Luke’s gospel that any man has seen so much in one of our Lord’s miracles. Previously, people have marveled at His power and teaching, but no one has concluded, as Peter did, that Jesus was so righteous, and that he was so wretched. The revelation to Peter that he was a sinner is a basic necessity, and Peter has the distinction of being the first in Luke’s account to become aware of this fact. Whether or not the other three disciples-to-be recognized their own sin as a result of this miracle we do not know, but Luke is clear that all were amazed and seized with wonder at seeing what the Lord had done (Luke 5:9-10).

Our Lord’s response is perplexing, because it is not immediately apparent as to how His words relate to Peter’s confession:

“Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men” (Luke 5:10).

Peter had just confessed to being a sinner, and testified to the greatness of His Lord. Jesus responded by a command not to fear, and a promise that he would become a fisher of men. How do our Lord’s words square with what Peter has just said?

I believe that Peter’s fear can be found in three areas, and that our Lord’s words to Peter provide him with hope in each area:

First, I believe that Peter was fearful of leaving his life’s occupation of fishing to follow Jesus. Note the contrast between the first two verses of our text and the last verse. The story begins by describing the great crowd which had surrounded Jesus, while the fishermen are off in the distance, tending to the washing of the nets—tending to business. When the story is concluded by Luke in verse 11 the disciples leave everything and follow Jesus:

And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him (Luke 5:11).10

On several occasions, over a period of time, Jesus has invited Peter and his fishermen partners to follow Him. I do not think that our Lord’s invitation was only for a short period of time. I believe that these men understood the implications of Jesus’ invitation, but were afraid to leave their life’s work to follow Him wherever He went. This was necessary, however, for Jesus ministered far more widely than just in Galilee, around the Sea of Galilee, where they always fished.

What was it that caused Peter and the other three fishermen fear leaving their boats and their jobs? I confess that I am reading somewhat between the lines, but I suspect that they were fearful concerning the very practical matter of providing for themselves and their families. The longer these men were with Jesus, the more they wanted to be with Him all the time. But you see, they had responsibilities and financial obligations to consider, too. I can just see Peter, telling his wife (whose name is never given in Scripture—I wonder why?) that he would love to be able to go with Jesus when He traveled to more distant places, but there was the business … “But Peter,” she may have protested, “How can we pay the bills?” The children need clothes, the roof on the house needs repairing, and you know that we have to care for my mother … ”

Of course, these were very practical matters. But this miracle with the fish demonstrated in a very remarkable way that Jesus was not only to be trusted as Israel’s Teacher and Prophet and Miracle-worker, but also as their great Provider. With this remarkable catch, Jesus showed that He was able to provide. He was sovereign in the matter of work, as well as in all other matters. With this miracle Peter’s fears about following Jesus melted. He and his partners walked away without a thought, without even bothering with that huge catch of fish.[84] The fears which had haunted and hindered them so long vanished with the catch of fish.

In this miraculous catch of fish our Lord also graciously provided a psychological release from the occupation of fishing. Those of you who are not fishermen will probably never fully appreciate how hard it is to quit fishing. You are always attracted by the possibility of a really great catch. To have quit fishing without a great catch would have left a void in these fishermen. Every time they heard the fishing was great they would have second thoughts. With this one catch, a catch which broke all records, the fishing profession could be left forever. No one could ever have a catch like this. They truly quit while they were ahead. What a way to retire! How gracious of God to arrange for a career change in this way.

Second, I believe that Peter and his partners were fearful about commencing an entirely new career. Not only did the call to follow Jesus require these fishermen to leave their career, it required them to commence an entirely new career. Jesus likened the new career of the disciples to the old. In both cases they would fish. There was some kind of continuity in their tasks. It would seem that the first occupation had prepared them for the second. But even more than this, Jesus gave these men the promise that they would be fishers of men, a promise which in the light of their huge catch, included being very successful fishers of men. How easy to leave one task for which you have just set a new world’s record, to take on another, which you are assured you will succeed at. How gracious was our Lord’s dealings with these disciples.

Third, Peter’s was fearful because he recognized his sin and the Lord’s righteousness. The words of Peter, “Depart from me, Lord,” reveal his awareness that a holy God cannot have intimate communion with sinful men. While Peter had no desire to leave His Lord, He did not know how he could enter into an even more intimate relationship with the immensity of his sin. Our Lord did not fully answer Peter’s objection on this count, He only assured him by telling Him to stop fearing.[85]

Ultimately the Lord’s provision for Peter’s sin is even more abundant than His provision of fish. That provision will be made at the cross of Calvary, where He will die in the sinner’s place. Communion and intimacy with God is abundantly provided by the Lord’s sacrificial death. It is too early for Peter to know about this, and so he is simply assured, without any specific details being given.

Conclusion

The Meaning of this Incident for Peter and His Partners

For Peter (and Andrew too, it seems), James and John, the three who will make up the inner circle of Jesus followers, this incident is a major turning point. They have followed Jesus before, but only partially, only for a time. Now, these disciples have made the decision to leave their careers and follow Jesus wherever He went. This was no small decision. It was a crisis of careers and a mid-life crisis combined. From this moment on, Jesus would begin to pour more of His life into these disciples. The more intimate aspects of His life and ministry would now be made known to them.

The monumental change which occurs here is signaled by the striking contrast between the distance of the disciples and their dedication to their job in verses 1 and 2 and their divorcing themselves from their jobs in verse 11 to become Jesus’ disciples. It is also signaled by the change in Peter’s name, from Simon (as previously) to Simon Peter or Peter (as it will now be, with few exceptions).

There is also a change in the way in which Jesus is perceived and in which the disciples perceive themselves, as indicated by Peter’s response. The Lord Jesus had only been “Master” before, one of a higher rank, but not seen to be whom He really was. From now on, Jesus is “Lord” to Peter and his partners. And Peter, who saw himself as an expert, at least in fishing, now sees himself as a sinner before a holy God. What a change!

The Meaning of this Incident for Us

Before we begin to explore the meaning of this passage for us, let me be very clear in what I think the text does not mean. THIS TEXT IS NOT TEACHING THAT THOSE WHO ARE MOST COMMITTED TO CHRIST MUST LEAVE THEIR SECULAR JOBS TO BE HIS DISCIPLES. There are far too many Christians who seem to feel like second class Christians because they are not in “full-time Christian service.” There are many who have entered into “full-time Christian service” on the faulty premise that this would make them more significant, spiritual Christians. The Bible does not teach this, and our text does not teach this, though some may wrongly conclude that it does.

Didn’t the disciples have to leave their (secular) jobs in order to follow Jesus? They most certainly did. But why? At this point in time, Jesus was (only) physically present on the earth. If Jesus were to have His disciples with Him and He was called to preach the good news of the kingdom of God far and wide (cf. Luke 4:43-44), then there is no way that these fishermen could continue their fishing career in the Sea of Galilee. But what we must see is that after our Lord’s death, burial, resurrection and ascension, He is now spiritually present with all saints through His Holy Spirit. While we may need to leave our homes or our employment to obey His leading and to proclaim the gospel, we do not need to leave anything in order for Him to be in and with us.

In the gospels, we can see the reticence of the disciples (used in the broader sense, not just of the 12, cf. Luke 6:17; Acts 6:1-2) to be physically separated from Jesus. They would have preferred Him to remain physically present with them, but Jesus refused, and told them His “going away” was actually better (cf. John 16, esp. vv. 6-7; 20:27). The disciples were not to leave Jerusalem until Jesus had come to be with His church through His Spirit, which commenced at Pentecost, and continues to this day. Thus, we need not leave our occupations to be with Christ. We often bring Christ to a fallen world by living and witnessing for Christ in and through our work. Spirituality (nearness to Christ) is not determined by whether or not we have “secular” jobs. One need only remember that the apostle Paul often supported himself through “secular” employment. And by means of his working with his own hands, set an example for all (cf. Acts 20:33-35).

What, then, does our text have to teach us? Primarily, our text deals with the matter of following Jesus. There are many lessons for us to learn about following Christ from our text. Let me suggest just a few.

First, our text strongly implies that following Jesus begins with the realization of our inadequacies and needs. Those who came to our Lord and followed Him in the gospels were those in desperate need. Jesus Himself said that He came to seek and to save the lost, that He came not to the well, but to the sick. Thus, it is those who are inadequate in themselves who follow Christ. There is no need to follow Christ if you are doing fine in and of your own efforts.

It is no coincidence that prior to the successful catch of that morning, at the command of Jesus, there was a long, frustrating night of “fishing failure” the night before. The one area in which Peter felt confident and capable was as an expert in fishing. So it was that Jesus sovereignly designed a night of failure, followed by a morning of unparalleled success. Peter failed on his own, but was abundantly successful in obedience to Christ’s command. Those who follow Jesus are those who have found themselves to fail on their own. Peter’s most significant confession in this text is that he was a sinner and that Christ was righteous. When this is granted, it is no wonder that the sinner gives up his way and chooses to follow Christ. Failure is the first step in following Christ. Those who follow Him have found themselves to fail on their own. Those who feel sufficient will not turn to Him.

Second, our text teaches us that following Jesus requires faith in Him as our all-sufficient Savior. If Peter found himself to be a failure at fishing and a sinner in life, He found Christ to be sovereign, righteous, and all-sufficient. All of Peter’s fears vanished when he realized the sufficiency of the One who had called him to be a fisher of men. Jesus Christ is the only all-sufficient One. To follow Him is to be assured of God’s provision of forgiveness of sins and of righteousness; to follow Him is to be assured of our physical needs. To follow Him is to be assured of eternal life. To follow Him is to be assured of divine guidance and direction. To follow Him is to be assured of all that is required to do His will. Our great lack of faith can be traced, in almost every case, to an inadequate grasp of the goodness and the greatness of God. When we realize who it is who calls us to follow Him, the faith to do so comes easily. Apart from knowing God, we find our faith lacking and deficient.

Third, our Lord knows our weaknesses and our unbelief, and gives us ample evidence, ample basis for our faith. The Lord Jesus knew of the inner turmoil which Peter and his partners were dealing with, better than they did. Instead of berating them or of forcing them to follow Him unconvinced and semi-committed, Jesus performed a miracle which vaporized their fears and was a catalyst for their faith. For these men, an overflowing, tearing net and two sinking ships was all the evidence they required to see the sufficiency of the Savior.

God has given us even greater testimony to His sufficiency. In the first place, He has given us the evidence of His resurrection. Not two full ships of fish, but an empty tomb testifies to the holiness and the power of our Lord. In addition, He fills us with His Spirit, and He shows us His power in the transformed lives of those who have trusted in Christ as their Savior. Finally, we have the testimony of the Scriptures themselves, including this very account in the gospel of Luke. We have ample evidence on which to base our faith. Our problem is that we do not meditate these matters often enough. Our greatest problem as a church and as individual saints, I fear, is that we lack faith, and this is due to an inadequate grasp of the greatness of our God. Let us let our minds and hearts dwell long and deep upon Him.

Fourth, our text strongly implies that in order to follow Jesus, we must forsake certain things. In order for Peter, James and John to follow Jesus, they had to leave their ships and their nets. In the final analysis, they had to leave those things in which they had faith, in which they found their safety, their security, and their significance. Following Christ, finding Him to be our all-sufficient Savior, requires that we forsake anything besides Him in which we trust, in which we feel secure, in which we feel significant, in which we feel safe. For the rich young ruler, his trust was in his riches. Jesus instructed Him to forsake his riches, to sell his possessions and to give the money to the poor, not because rich people cannot be saved, but because God will not let men trust in His Son and something, anything, else. Selling all of his goods would have been the most beneficial thing (for himself) that this young man could have done, for it would have forced him to place all of his trust in Jesus alone. We cannot follow two leaders, and we are led by that in which we trust. Thus, we must have our faith in only one person, Jesus Christ, and in nothing else, if we are to follow Him.

Often times, our greatest problem will come in that area in which we are most skilled, most knowledgeable. For Peter, this was his skill as a fisherman. Jesus had to show Peter that He knew more than this veteran of the Sea of Galilee, so that Peter could find Jesus the Master and Teacher, even about fishing. Whatever it is that you find yourself good at, whatever it is that you trust in, is that which you must forsake to follow Christ.

Fifth, our text suggests that if we are to be followers of Christ, we must do what He does. Jesus came “to seek and to save” the lost. The disciples were to become “fishers of men” not only because Jesus would command them to do so, but because this is His mission. These men would become “fishers of men,” not so much because they were fishermen, but because Jesus had come to draw (catch) men into His kingdom. To follow Christ means to do as He does. Those who would be followers of Christ cannot ignore the fact that Jesus was a seeker of men, and thus we, too, must be fishers of men. Evangelism is an inseparable part of the calling of a disciple of Jesus.

Sixth, our text suggests that if we would follow Jesus, we must not only do what He does, but we must do it His way. Peter thought of himself as an expert at fishing. Using their finest skills the night before, Peter and his partners caught nothing. Fishing Jesus’ way, which involved a violation of all of the principles of fishing Peter knew, brought great success. Following Jesus, in my estimation, means leaving behind many of the “proven methods” of our past. This statement may trouble many, but there is much truth in it, I believe. In the early chapters of the book of First Corinthians, the apostle Paul made a point to show how his methods were seemingly silly, and diametrically opposed to the methods of successful speakers of his day. But in doing things this way, in doing things God’s way, the Spirit of God produces the fruit and God receives the glory. Let us be careful about what it is we try to bring with us when we seek to follow Jesus. Not only did Peter and his partners leave behind their boats and their nets, they left their proven fishing methods behind as well.

Seventh, our text suggests that we should not make hasty commitments to follow Christ, nor should we call on others to do so. Finally, let me conclude by reminding you that Jesus did not press these men to make a hasty decision. Considerable time passed, and I would suspect that much agony was experienced in the interim. Why is it that we press men to make hasty decisions, when Jesus did not? Important decisions should not be made quickly. Decisions which are good ones, which are lasting ones, are those made slowly, prayerfully, deliberately.

May each of us thoughtfully consider what it means for us to be followers of Jesus Christ. Let us contemplate His sufficiency, and our sin. Let us forsake our methods, our sources of security, salvation, and significance. Let us follow Him.

! Lesson 16:
Stretcher Carriers and Sermon Critics
(Luke 5:12-26)

Introduction

Although Jesus’ ministry commences in Luke chapter 4 (and we are midway through chapter 5), about a year has passed since the beginning of His public preaching. Up till now, Jesus has been preaching and teaching in synagogues (Luke 4:15). At Nazareth, the town where Jesus had grown up, His teaching was initially enthusiastically received, but when the fuller implications were spelled out (namely the blessing Messiah would bring to the Gentiles, Luke 4:23-27), He was cast from the synagogue and apart from divine enablement, would have been thrust down to his death. Jesus then went to Capernaum, where He preached and underscored His message by casting out a demon (Luke 4:31-37). Healing Peter’s mother-in-law seems to have led to an all-night healing session (4:38-41), but after a time of private prayer our Lord felt compelled to press on to other places so that He could carry out His primary task of proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God (4:42-44).

If Luke chapter 4 focused on the ministry of our Lord to the masses, chapter 5 begins to focus on the ministry of our Lord with respect to the leadership of Israel. In the two healings recorded in our text (Luke 5:12-26), the Lord discloses Himself to the priests (5:14) and to the teachers of the law (5:17, 21, etc.). In the case of the priests, we do not know of their response to the report of the healed leper, indeed, we do not even know for certain that the leper ever went to the priest (he did not obey the Lord about keeping quiet, you will recall). We do know that the teachers of the law reacted strongly to what they heard from our Lord. The beginning of the opposition of the leaders of the nation can be found here in Luke’s gospel. Simultaneously, the commencement of the training of the 12 can be found. As the leaders of Israel draw back from our Lord, He calls men to follow Him, who will later be appointed as His apostles, and the eventual leaders of the church which is to be born after His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Not only do we find the opposition to Jesus on the part of Israel’s leaders beginning here, but we also see some of the reasons for their opposition. Let us look carefully at the two healings which are Lord performs in our text, to see what lessons were to be learned by the nation, and to learn the lessons which God has for us here as well.The Structure of the Text[86]

The text can be divided into two major sections, each describing the a healing performed by our Lord, and a response to that healing:

(1) Verses 12-16—The Healing of the Leper and its Consequences

(2) Verses 17-26—The Healing of the Paralytic and its Consequences

The Healing of the Leper
(5:12-16)

In a certain Galilean city[87] our Lord came upon a leper. Luke, the doctor, tells us that this was no ordinary leper, but rather a man “full of leprosy” (5:12). While the term leprosy may have been employed for a number of different ailments, Luke wants us to know that this man was a hard case. We sometimes hear of people who have had exploratory surgery, who are found to be “full of cancer.” It is indeed a serious condition.

The man prostrated himself before the Lord Jesus and implored Him to heal him. His petition shows a great deal of insight into the person of our Lord: “Lord, if you are willing, You can make me clean” (Luke 5:12).

The leper did not doubt the Lord’s ability to heal; the only issue was whether or not is was His will to do so. Many people who wish to be healed today could learn from this leper. The critical issue was not the leper’s faith (“Lord, if I am willing … ”), nor the Lord’s power (“Lord, if You are able … ”), but the Lord’s sovereign will. How comforting it is to appeal to a merciful and compassionate God!

Reaching out and touching the man, the Lord replied, “I am willing; be cleansed” (Luke 5:13).

It is noteworthy that Jesus here, as elsewhere, touches the leper, when He never seems to have touched a demonized person. Pressing this point even further, it would seem that the text suggests that Jesus touched the leper before He pronounced him clean. The Lord is doing several significant things here. (1) He is touching a leper before he is cleansed, showing the He is not able to be defiled by this uncleanness. (2) He is instantly producing physical healing of a very serious disorder. (3) He is not only healing the man, but He is pronouncing him to be cleansed. Jesus did not command the man only to be healed, or to be whole, but He pronounced him to be cleansed. It would seem that our Lord has therefore done that which an Old Testament priest could only do after a test period, to be sure that the man was indeed free of the disease. When Jesus makes a man clean, there need not be a test period. The man is thus to go and offer his sacrifice, and to be a witness to the priests, but apparently not to be pronounced clean (or at least this would only be a formality, a seconding of what our Lord had already done).

The Lord gives a very stern warning to the man, something which Mark’s gospel makes even more emphatic (“He sternly warned him,” Mark 1:43), instructing him not to make his healing public. This would almost seem to be a greater miracle than his healing. I lost a few pounds and it would seem that everybody noticed (some thought I was too thin!). Can you imagine being completely healed of leprosy and not having to answer an endless stream of questions. It is hard to fault the man for telling of his healing.

The second part of Jesus’ command to the former leper was to go to the priest, as the law (Leviticus 13 & 14) instructed. The primary reason seems to be for a witness to the priests. Note the plural “priests” here, rather than just the singular. He was to go to the “priest” (singular) as a witness to the “priests” (plural). I doubt that there was a long line of people waiting for a priest to pronounce them cleansed of leprosy. In fact, I would almost imagine that the priest may have excused himself, consulted with other priests, and then finally consulted the law itself, to learn how he should handle this cleansed leper. How unusual this cleansing would have been. How great a testimony it would have been to the priests. How quickly word would have spread among the priests. This was another way of serving notice to the priests that the Messiah had arrived.

Word did get out, thanks to the leper[88] and perhaps to others who might have witnesses his healing. Luke alone informs us that Jesus frequently retreated to the wilderness (the place where He was tempted?) for the purpose of prayer: “But He Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray” (Luke 5:16).

Why did our Lord need to pray, and for what might He have prayed? First, I believe that our Lord desperately yearned for fellowship with the Father. At this early point, not to mention later, no one really fathomed the purpose of our Lord’s coming. People flocked to Jesus, but with only a partial and distorted grasp of what He was coming to do. Only the Father understood. Prayer was a time of fellowship and communion between Father and Son. The miracles and the misunderstanding of the people only intensified our Lord’s yearning to be alone with the Father.

Furthermore, the greater our Lord’s earthly success, the greater the temptation might be to forsake the way of the cross and to pursue an easier route to reigning upon the earth. Our Lord’s retreat for prayer was an expression of His dependence upon the Father. It put His successes in perspective, for He did everything in obedience to the Father’s will and in the power of His Spirit (cf. Luke 4:14). These times with the Father kept our Lord’s perspective and priorities in line with those of the Father.

These are days when all too many popular preachers and evangelical figures are falling. Many of them, I fear, have failed to follow the example of our Lord of retreating to solitude and prayer in times of great success and public acclaim. It is in our earthly successes that we are inclined to feel smugly self-sufficient and successful, forgetting that it is only in our weakness and His strength that God’s sufficiency is shown.

The Pharisees and the Paralytic
(5:17-26)

Jesus had returned to Capernaum, and word had already gotten out that He was back at His headquarters (Matt. 9:1-2; Mark 2:1-2). News of Jesus’ return precipitated two very different responses. The first response was that of a number[89] of people who may have lived in or near Capernaum, who knew that Jesus was able to heal the sick. They had a friend who was paralyzed, whom they wanted to bring to Jesus for healing. It seems to have taken some time to get the man from where he was staying to the house where Jesus was teaching. By the time they arrived, the house was filled. And there was apparently a large crowd gathered outside. Mark (Mark 2:2) informs us that there was not even room outside the door.

The scene, which Matthew totally passes by without comment, must have been almost comical. It is difficult to conceive of our Lord not being aware of the entire event. The house is crowded and Jesus is teaching. At the same time, Luke notes that Jesus was endued with power to perform a healing.[90] If this house had windows, there would have been people filling them. Perhaps the Lord could see the commotion going on outside, caused by the four who were determined to get the paralytic to Jesus. The may have tried one window and then another, all around the house. (The door, as Mark has informed us, was impossible.)

Undaunted by the difficulties, these men decided to try “from the top down.” They took the paralytic, let’s call him “Fred,” to the roof. There may have been stairs, of course, but may have come only from inside the house. Can you imagine poor old “Fred,” placed not on one of those carefully designed and constructed ambulance-type stretchers, but rather on a kind of makeshift pallet. Hands may have slipped in the process of getting “Fred” to the roof, and poor Fred may have several times dangled precariously on his pallet, threatening to fall to the earth too far below. For all we know, Fred might have panicked and pled to be taken home, where life was safer. Once on the roof, one can imagine the difficulty of four men carrying a stretcher over hot tiles. Lowering Fred down through the roof must have provided another spine-tingling ride, making the scariest rides at Six Flags look easy.

The scene, as viewed from below, must have been just as amusing. The house was filled with people, we are told. Luke alone tells us who many, perhaps most, of these people were. They were the “Pharisees and teachers of the law.” Jesus had become a major threat to the teachers of the law, as a couple texts of Scripture will demonstrate:

And they were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Mark 1:22 ).

And they were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him” (Mark 1:27).

Jesus’ teaching was immediately recognized as newer than, different from, and better than that of the scribes and Pharisees. It would not have taken these teachers of the law long to recognize that the popularity of Jesus spelled trouble for them. No doubt the word circulated quickly among the teachers of Israel and this gathering at Capernaum was at least one of the summit conferences they called to decide what to do about the teaching of Jesus.

Luke informs us that it was no small gathering of teachers, but a representation of all the teachers in Israel:

And it came about one day that He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem … (Luke 5:17a).

The teachers of the law had gathered to hear Jesus, to pass judgment on Him, and then, undoubtedly, to decide what course of action to take concerning the threat which He posed to them.

Such a group of teachers would have been a large delegation. They, in my opinion, would have constituted most of those inside the house. Luke includes a detail that I consider significant. He informs us that these teachers were sitting in the room (Luke 5:17). If you were going to get the maximum number of people in that house, how would you position them? Would you have them sit or stand? Of course, you would have them stand. Then why were the Pharisees and teachers of the law “sitting” when more people could have been able to come in the house if all stood? My answer is this. The sitting position was the position of authority for the teacher. A teacher in those days did not stand to teach, he sat to teach (cf. Luke 4:20-21). These teachers would not have stood, for that would have been to concede Jesus’ authority as a teacher, the very thing they were inclined to challenge. It is this large group of hostile hearers who take up all the room inside this house, and who keep the paralytic from being brought before Jesus.

What a humorous sight it must have been to watch these prim and proper (and very proud) teachers as the roof was being removed. It would have been a very dirty business. It could have been dangerous as well. If there were tiles (which it seems to me there were), a tile might occasionally have been dropped. Can’t you just see the teachers below, scrambling out of the way of a falling tile? Mark’s account tells us that they dug through the roof (Mark 2:4) the roof, implying that there was some dirt or something like it. All of this “stuff” (crud) came tumbling down on those seated so proudly and properly below. Can’t you see them angrily demanding the men above to stop, dusting themselves off in disgust?

Once the man was finally lowered so that he was in front of the Lord, things really began to happen. Notice that nowhere is it said that the four men or the paralytic made a specific request of our Lord. Either our Lord acted before the request was made or the men felt that Jesus would not need to be asked specifically, once He saw the man’s need. All three gospels report virtually the same response on the part of our Lord: “And seeing their faith, He said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven you’” (Luke 5:20).

This was, I think, a distressing response to all who those who were involved in this incident: the victim (Fred), the four stretcher-bearers, and the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

Poor Fred must have been distressed at the words of Jesus. He had not come primarily to be forgiven, but to be healed. He had risked all of the perils of his journey, and especially those related to his being lowered from the roof. Being told that his sins were forgiven must have seemed like a “rip off” to Fred, who had come to be healed. After all, isn’t this what his four friends had assured him would happen? And the four men must have had a similar response. They had brought Fred a considerable distance and fought their way through the crowds. They had gone to the trouble of getting Fred down through the roof. The owner of the house would probably be sending them a bill for the repairs to the roof. They had not asked for a healing, but surely the Lord could have performed it. They, like Fred, must have felt “let down” (pardon the pun).

The Pharisees and teachers of the law were indignant. They seemed to care little whether or not Fred was healed, but they were angered by Jesus having the audacity to pronounce a man’s (any man’s) sins forgiven. Forgiveness of sins is something which only God can do, they reasoned, and rightly so. Thus, to tell a man his sins were forgiven was also to claim to be God. “Just who does this fellow think he is?” The question of authority raises its ugly head, for this is the bone of contention between these teachers and Jesus. Jesus, so the crowds thought, taught with authority, and not like them. Now Jesus Himself is claiming God’s authority. They are indeed overflowing with “righteous” indignation.

The response of Jesus raises all kinds of questions. In the first place, it raises the question, “How could Jesus offer the man forgiveness of sins when what he really wanted was physical wholeness?” The answer to this is simple, I believe. Jesus, by His actions, was teaching that the forgiveness of sins is more important, more valuable, than mere physical healing. If one had to choose between one or the other, forgiveness of sins is of much greater value than physical recovery.

Second, the question arises, “How can Jesus forgive this man’s sins, based on the faith of the four?” Isn’t the forgiveness of sins based upon individual repentance and faith? The answer is to be found in the ultimate source and basis for forgiveness, the character and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). We have faith in Him because He first opens our hearts (Acts 16:14). Faith itself is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-10). Thus, God’s grace is not prompted or initiated by man’s actions, it is prompted by God’s compassion and grace. It is mediated by Christ’s atoning work on the cross. God’s good gifts are the result of God’s goodness, not man’s meritorious acts, to which God responds and reciprocates. Our text shows that God’s blessings do come by faith, and that in this case the faith which is in focus is that of the four men, not that of the man on the stretcher.

Third, the Pharisees demand to know, “How can Jesus dare to forgive a man’s sins when only God can do so?” The answer to this question is, by far, the most simple: Jesus can forgive a man’s sins because He is God. Logic had carried the Pharisees and teacher of the law to the deity of Christ as surely as the four had carried the paralytic to Jesus. But they would have none of what logic demanded.

Jesus had all along intended to heal the paralytic, but this healing was to be a teaching tool, not just a miracle. “Fred’s” desire was about to be fulfilled, but now his healing would prove that our Lord did have the power to forgive sins. Our Lord asked a simple question, “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23).

It is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” than it is to say, “Rise up and walk.” The reason is because there is no visible proof that sins have been forgiven. One can make such a statement without having to prove he has done it. But to command a paralyzed man to walk is something very difficult. They proof of your power is very visible, or the evidence of its absence. To command a paralyzed man to walk requires him to do so. Thus, Jesus has set up this circumstance to show that He has both the power to forgive sins and to make the paralyzed to walk. Our Lord’s miracle here will prove His power in two areas, not just one. He is “killing two birds with one stone,” so to speak.

With this, our Lord commanded “Fred” to get up, to pick up his pallet, and to go home. Fred did so immediately. Imagine it. The pallet which had seconds before carried Fred from home, Fred now carried home under his arm. What a delightful burden this must have been. I wonder if it made it all the way home, or whether Fred dumped it in the trash can outside the house.

Fred left the house, glorifying God, and so did all the rest, all the rest with the exception of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. They are still stewing about the “blasphemy” uttered by our Lord. I would take it that the crowd which praised God was largely that group which waited and watched from outside. They may well not have heard our Lord’s pronouncement of forgiveness of “Fred’s” sins. They would have watched Fred friends attempt to get him into the house, then onto the house, and then through the roof to Jesus. They would then have seen Fred emerge from the house some time later, with his pallet under his arm. How they must have rejoiced.

We are not told how the Pharisees and teachers of the law responded. No doubt they were sullen and silent. No doubt, too, they met soon to discuss how they would handle Jesus, His teaching, and His miracles. But that is something which Luke delays for later in his account.

Conclusion:
Lessons From the Paralytic

There are numerous lessons to be learned from our text. I will underscore just a few. First, our text serves to contrast the faith of the stretcher-carriers with the unbelief of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. The stretcher-carriers believed in Jesus, the Pharisees and teachers were skeptical. The stretcher-carriers were persistent in their efforts to reach Jesus. The Pharisees and teachers were resistant, increasingly drawing back from Jesus. The stretcher-carriers overcame various obstacles to get to Jesus; the Pharisees and teachers were obstacles, keeping others from Jesus. The stretcher-carriers wanted others to benefit from the blessings which Jesus bestowed on men; the Pharisees and teachers rejected His blessings and cared little about others benefiting from Jesus. If you stop to think of it, not once in any of the gospels do you find a teacher or a Pharisee bringing anyone to Jesus for mercy and grace. You often find them opposing and resisting people who wish to draw near to Him. At best, you find the Pharisees and teachers passively tolerant. The Pharisees and teachers had to reject their own logic and theology to reject Jesus as the Son of God, which their hardened hearts compelled them to do. They saw themselves as righteous and suspected Jesus to be a sinner. After all, He associated with them.

The bottom line is simply this: Are you a stretcher-carrier or a sermon critic? Stretcher-carriers are those who recognize Jesus’ power and authority and who seek to share Him with others, often at great personal effort and sacrifice. Sermon-critics are those who may listen to the teaching of the Bible, but with minds already made up, just waiting for some pretext for their unbelief and rejection.

Even born again Christian are inclined to become sermon critics, rather than stretcher-carriers. They come to hear a preacher, only to see if he conforms to their preconceived doctrines and ideas. They want only to discover if he agrees with them. They do not want their prejudices exposed and challenged. They do not want to be under the authority of God’s Word. And they spend so much time criticizing that they have no time to bring others to the blessings which God has for those who will receive them.

May God grant that you and I become stretcher-carriers, and not mere sermon critics.[91]

! Lesson 17:
On Eating, Drinking, and Being Merry
(Luke 5:27-39)

Introduction

This week, I came across a book entitled The Seven Deadly Virtues.[92] The author of the book, Gerald Mann, is a Baptist preacher. Early in his book Mann tells of an experience in a small country Baptist church which kept him from church for a number of years. Mann writes:

The first time I met a Baptist preacher, he asked me about three questions, placed his hand on my shoulder, and said, “Jerry, you’re lost, and that’s all they are to that!”

I started attending church regularly. I didn’t know what “lost” meant, but he said it with such gravity that I was certain I was whatever he said I was.

By the spring of my thirteenth year, the Baptists were “hard in prayer for my soul,” as they frequently informed me. An evangelist was coming to town to lead revival services, and according to them, it could well be my last chance to be saved. Such ominous warnings didn’t frighten me. What little I had had to do with God told me that he was not that kind at all.

However, I attended the revival anyway, because the evangelist was a former teen-age gang-leader who had once tried to stab my older brother. I was curious to hear and see a person who claimed to have been converted from the seamy side of life.

The ex-hoodlum-turned-Bible-thumper was something to behold! He was dressed in white and red—white suit with red cuffs and lapels, red and white shoes. Even his Bible was red and white!

His sermon was a blow-by-blow account of his former life on the “wild side.” Graphically, he portrayed scenes of gang fights, heroin sales, and sexual liaisons with wanton sirens. Considering that the wildest thing in our town was playing dominoes at the pool parlor, one can imagine how captivated we teenagers were. This was genuine Mickey Spillane stuff! And in the flesh! We didn’t miss a word.

Then he told us of how Jesus had reached into the midst of all that muck and plucked him out of it. I am certain he didn’t intend to, but he made it sound as if Jesus had spoiled a rather exciting life! His message had the import of one of those True Confession magazine stories: “I immersed myself in a world of booze and dope and sex. And boy, was it fun! But I tell you my story only to keep you from making the same fun-filled mistakes!”

The story was so gripping that I was sorry he had been converted so soon. I wanted to hear a little more!

Then the evangelist took the microphone and started down the aisle, while the song leader fed out the cord. In a flash, I realized he was heading straight for me. (Later, I learned that someone had “fingered” me as a potential convert.)

He stopped in front of me and said in a booming voice, “Do you want to go to Hell!” The audience was silent. I didn’t know what to do. I was scared and angry and confused. I bolted from the pew, dashed outside, and ran two blocks before I looked back.[93]

Gerald Mann describes and attitude toward sin and sinners which is very frequently found among Christians, and which is often the pretext for the rejection of the gospel by unbelievers. There is a very common perception that while unbelievers are having their fun now, their time of suffering—and our time of blessing, of course—will come. We therefore find ourselves frequently citing the beer commercial in a critical way. Since you only go around once, you’d better grab all the gusto you can get. The “King James” version of this is: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

When it comes to the matter of eating, drinking, and being merry, it is generally held that the Bible in general, and Jesus, in particular, condemned the thought. If this is your opinion, you are in for a rather distressing study, for the issue of eating, drinking, and being merry is precisely that which the Pharisees raise with Jesus and His disciples. The disturbing fact is that Jesus is the one who is eating, drinking, and being merry, and the Pharisees are miffed because of it. How is it that Jesus can be for eating, drinking, and being merry, when many Christians are against it? Hopefully this “tension in the text” will hold your interest long enough for you to learn some vital lessons from our text.

The Structure of the Text

Our text in Luke has two parallels, one in Matthew 9:9-17 and the other in Mark 2:13-22.[94] Luke’s text breaks into these divisions:

(1) Verses 27-28 — Levi’s resignation

(2) Verses 29-32 — Levi’s reception: Look who’s coming to dinner!

(3) Verses 33-39 — Feasting or fasting: Why don’t Jesus’ disciples fast?

The Context of the Text

The public ministry of our Lord has commenced in chapter 4. That ministry “started out with a bang,” with Jesus’ message and miraculous power welcomed, but that did not last long. The first instance of Jesus’ public teaching recorded by Luke (albeit a year into His public ministry) is at the Synagogue in Nazareth, where Jesus had grown up. Reading from Isaiah chapter 61, Jesus indicated that His coming was a fulfillment of this prophecy. People were delighted to hear this, until Jesus pointed out that His coming meant blessing for the Gentiles, too, something which brought about a murderous response from the people. Elsewhere, however, Jesus was welcomed and sought after by the multitudes.

Luke is already preparing his readers for the rejection of Jesus by the leadership of the nation. If the multitudes welcome Jesus, the Pharisees and teachers of the law quickly begin to be suspicious, and then critical, and then become outright opponents, who seek occasion to accuse Him and also a means of destroying Him.

The Pharisees were first introduced in chapter 5, at the healing of the paralytic, who was lowered through the roof of the house, in which Jesus was teaching (vv. 16-26). When Jesus informed the paralytic that his sins were forgiven, the Pharisees reacted, reasoning (rightly) that only God can forgive sins. They cannot deny the healing of the paralytic, but they are unwilling to receive Jesus as God. The calling of Matthew and the banquet at which Jesus and “sinners” intermingled was another incident in which the gap between Jesus and the Pharisees widens significantly. This section of Luke’s gospel, which reports the reaction of the Pharisees to the “eating and drinking” of Jesus and His disciples, informs us of one of the fundamental issues which put Him and the religious leaders of Israel at odds.

Our Approach

Our approach in this lesson will be to carefully consider the actions and associations of our Lord. We will also attempt to understand the questions raised by the Pharisees, in response to our Lord’s actions and associations. Then we will carefully consider our Lord’s response to these questions. Finally, we shall seek to learn if there are any 20th century parallels to the thinking of the Pharisees, as well as to identify any principles which should guide and govern us in our spiritual lives.

Levi’s Resignation
(5:27-28)

Levi, known here and in Mark (2:14) by this name, but elsewhere referred to as Matthew (cf. Matt. 9:9; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), was a tax-collector. We know from the New Testament[95] that anyone who was a tax-collector was a very unpopular person, synonymous with “sinner” and on a social par with gluttons, drunkards, and harlots. This was the bottom rung of the Jewish social ladder. One could sink no lower.

There was more than one type of tax-collector in those days, as Shepherd informs us:

Levi was a custom-house official. The Talmud distinguishes between the tax collector and the custom house official. The Gabbai collected the regular real estate and income taxes on the poll tax; the Mockhes, the duty on imports, exports, toll on roads, bridges, the harbour, the town tax, and a great multiplicity of other variable taxes on an unlimited variety of things, admitting of much abuse and graft. The very word Mockhes was associated with the idea of oppression and injustice. The taxes in Judea were levied by publicans, who were Jews, and therefore hated the more as direct officials of the heathen Roman power. Levi occupied the detestable position of a publican of the worst type—a little Mockhes, who himself stood in the Roman custom-house on the highway connecting Damascus and Ptolemais, and by the sea where all boats plied between the domains of Antipas and Philip. The name “publican,” which applied to these officials, is derived from the Latin word publicanus—a man who did public duty. The Jews detested these publicans not only on account of their frequent abuses and tyrannical spirit, but because the very taxes they were forced to collect by the Roman government were a badge of servitude and a constant reminder that God had forsaken His people and land in spite of the Messianic hope, founded on many promises of the ancient prophets. The publicans were classed by the people with harlots, usurers, gamblers, thieves, and dishonest herdsmen, who lived hard, lawless lives. They were just “licensed robbers” and “beasts in human shape.”

According to Rabbinism there was no hope for a man like Levi. He was excluded from all religious fellowship. His money was considered tainted and defiled anyone who accepted it. He could not serve as a witness. The Rabbis had no word of help for the publican, because they expected him by external conformity to the law to be justified before God.[96]

Luke was the more hated kind of tax-collector, who assessed taxes for commerce. One can see how his tax office could be stationed on the shores of the Sea of Galilee near Capernaum.[97] One can also imagine that Levi may have frequently heard Jesus teach, and was likely well known to our Lord, just as the disciples Peter, James, and John were known to Him.

We know that the position of tax-collector, like most jobs, affords certain kinds of evil. Luke has already informed his reader of one of the evils of which many tax-collectors were guilty when he wrote of John the Baptist’s words to the tax-collectors who came to him for baptism:

And some tax-gatherers also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to” (Luke 3:12-13).

Thus, we know that many tax-collectors were guilty of abusing their position by using the power of the state to charge excessive taxes and keep the profits of their evil deeds. Luke himself will later inform us of one instance in which a sinful tax-collector repents and makes restitution for his misconduct (Zaccheus, cf. Luke 19:1-10). The question is, “Was Matthew one such crooked tax-collector?” I see absolutely no evidence which suggests that he was. Matthew, on following Jesus, makes no gestures of restitution, as does Zaccheus. I believe the reason is that Matthew was an honest tax-collector. Jesus did not call a crook to follow Him, hoping that discipleship would mend his ways. Jesus’ look at Matthew is a discerning one, suggesting an appraisal and approval of his character.[98] The assumption of the Pharisees, that all tax-collectors were crooked, “sinners,” was wrong, and I believe Matthew to be one example of their error.

It is my opinion that tax-collectors were hated, not just because they misused their authority, but because of what they represented. Tax-collectors were a painful reminder of the fact that Israel was not a free nation, but was subject to Roman rule and authority. If the Pharisees had thought this matter through, they would have realized that the very presence of tax-collectors was a reminder of Israel’s sin, for foreign domination was, under the Mosaic Covenant, one of the consequences for disobeying the Law of Moses. This would surely be an indictment against the “teachers of the law,” who were so opposed to tax-collectors. The Old Testament prophets frequently identified the leadership of Israel for making a significant contribution to the sin of the nation.

And so it was that Jesus passed by the tax office of Levi and invited him to follow as a disciple. Luke alone tells us that Levi, much like the fishermen (Peter and Andrew, James and John) at the beginning of the chapter, left everything and followed the Master. The brevity of the account serves to underscore the dramatic change which seems to happen so quickly and yet so decisively.

Levi’s Reception:
Look Who’s Coming to Dinner!
(5:29-32)

Luke alone informs us that the dinner which Jesus attended was a celebration banquet put on by Levi. Having left all, one would think that Levi would have held a wake, rather than a reception. From all appearances, it was a lavish affair, held in what would probably have been a very large and lovely home. No doubt Levi was a well-to-do man, even without practicing the evils of some of his colleagues.

I can imagine one of Levi’s colleagues arriving home after a hard day at work, asking his wife if there was anything interesting in the day’s mail. As a matter of fact, there was, his wife informs him. She shows him an invitation to a banquet at the house of Levi. The invitation explains that the reception is in celebration of his leaving his work in order to follow Jesus of Nazareth. The invitation also indicates that Jesus will be at the banquet as well.

Our Lord is not only present at the celebration, He was the central personality, the major attraction and focus of attention. Every indication is that Jesus was very much a part of the celebration. It is my personal opinion that this celebration included wine, like the wedding at Cana. It is also my viewpoint that Jesus was holding a cup of wine and was drinking from it just like the others.

“Eating and drinking” is in our text, the central issue. “Drinking,” here, as elsewhere, has the connotation of drinking wine, not just drinking water or grape juice. Jesus said,

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gathers and sinners!’” (Luke 7:33-34).

John obviously ate, but a rather unusual diet of desert foods (locusts and wild honey (Matt. 3:4). John drank as well, but not wine (cf. Luke 1:15). It is quite plain, then, that what John did not drink, namely wine, Jesus did, and thus He was accused of being a “drunkard.” Jesus and the “sinners” were there, mingling happily, joyfully, at Levi’s celebration.

No so with the Pharisees! In contrast to the rejoicing of the rest, the Pharisees, Luke alone tells us they were grumbling (v. 30). Some think that the Pharisees crashed this dinner party. I do not. Jesus was not one to exclude anyone, and I doubt that Levi was either. Several times in Luke’s gospel Jesus is described as eating in the home of a Pharisee (7:36; 11:37; 14:1). The Pharisees were there by invitation, I believe, but they never entered into the festivities. As I read the gospel accounts of this reception I envision them standing off to one side, with sour looks on their faces, turning down all food and drink, watching critically, waiting for the chance to find fault.

The guests at this banquet are the source of great consternation for the Pharisees. Luke tells us that the guests were “tax-gatherers and other people” (v. 29). This is different from Matthew and Mark, who identify the guests as “tax-collectors and sinners” (Matt. 9:10; Mark 2:15). The fact that tax-collectors would be invited by Levi, a tax-collector, seems self-explanatory. After all, who would Levi invite but his peers, his social equals, and his colleagues in the work world? Undoubtedly this explains much, but Mark includes the very significant comment that many of the tax-collectors and sinners at this celebration were followers of Jesus (Mark 2:15). This would mean that while Levi may have invited some who had not yet met Jesus (a somewhat evangelistic dinner), many whom he invited were very familiar with him, and thus could easily enter into Levi’s joy at following the Master.

The scribes of the Pharisee party (not all scribes were Pharisees) were greatly distressed by the fact that Jesus was associating with undesirables. Eating and drinking was something a “proper Jew” did with “proper people” and never with “sinners.”[99]

The Talmudical tractate Berakoth (43) expressly states that the disciples of the scribes may have no table communion (W. Manson, in loc.) with the ‘Am-ha-’arets (“the people of the land,” those who do not know or observe the Law).[100]

Thus, the Pharisees converged upon Jesus’ disciples[101] with this question: “Why do you eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” (Luke 5:30).

Luke has carefully avoided calling the guests at this reception “sinners,” but the Pharisees do not hesitate to use this label. There is a curling of the lips as the word “sinners” is spoken by the Pharisees.

Why? The issue hinges on the definition of the terms “sinner” and “righteous.” These terms have very different definitions in our text, the first the definition of the Pharisees, the second, the definition of Jesus.

The distinction between the pharisaic definition of these terms and that of our Lord can best be seen from the story which our Lord told later on in Luke’s gospel:[102]

And He also told this parable to certain one trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I think Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14).

To the Pharisee the “righteous” were to be distinguished from “sinners” by human assessment. The “righteous” held the right social and racial positions, sinners did not. The “righteous” were better than “sinners,” according to the Pharisaic view. The “righteous” were holy because they followed the rules, they did the right things, they kept the Law of Moses, as they interpreted it. The “righteous” were also justified in disdaining the “sinner” and in keeping separate from him.

The one “claim to fame” of the Pharisees was their “separation” from sin and “sinners.” They saw themselves as holy because of what they would not do, where they would not go, and with whom they did not associate. What a blow to their system it must have been to have Jesus come onto the scene, doing virtually the opposite of all they did, and claiming to be God at the same time. What a humbling thing it must have been for the Pharisees to be present at the reception which Levi put on. They were undoubtedly present only because they were afraid to let Jesus go unsupervised, unchallenged, unchecked.

Jesus’ answer reflects the difference between the heart of God and the heart of Pharisaism: “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call righteous men but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31b-32).

Jesus had made it clear from the beginning that He had come to help those in need. His message of repentance, like that of John, was aimed at sinners. After all, do the “righteous” need to repent?

There are two very important principles underlying our Lord’s words, principles which we very much need to grasp and to apply.

PRINCIPLE ONE: TO BE LIKE GOD, MEN MUST BE MERCIFUL, AND TO BE MERCIFUL MEN MUST HAVE COMPASSION ON SINNERS, RATHER THAN SIMPLY TO CONDEMN THEM.

It is Matthew who includes these words to the self-righteous Pharisees, who are condemning the guests at Matthew’s house as “sinners”:

“But go and learn what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mtt. 9:13).

The Pharisees thought of righteousness only in terms of rituals, of ceremonies, of self-righteous “sacrifices” (such as fasting). Jesus, citing Hosea 6:6, reminds these “righteous” Pharisees that the essence of true religion is not ceremony, but compassion. The compassion which God calls for is that which has concern for the well-being of one’s neighbor, including “sinners” and Gentiles. This was something which Pharisees would not do, and in the name of holiness. Jesus came to call sinners because He was compassionate rather than condemning.

PRINCIPLE TWO: IN ORDER TO CALL SINNERS, ONE MUST HAVE CONTACT WITH THEM.

The Pharisees thought that holiness required them to remain separate from sinners, to refuse to have contact with them. Jesus was holiness incarnate, and yet His holiness was not diminished by His contact with sinners. In order for God to call sinners to repentance, God found it necessary to have contact with them, which is the reason for our Lord’s incarnation—of His taking on human flesh, living among men, touching and being touched by them. Jesus was not only comfortable among sinners, they were comfortable with Him.

The lesson which Jesus was trying to communicate to the Pharisees is vitally important to Christians today. These two fundamental principles are the key to evangelism, to penetration into our society with the saving grace of God. If we have compassion, we will not spend all of our time and energy condemning sinners, but will rather call them to repentance. If we would obey our Lord by calling them to repentance (the essence of the great commission), then we must learn to have contact with sinners in such a way as to be comfortable with them and they with us, without conforming to their ungodly ways. This is what our Lord did, and this is what our Lord calls us to do. We, in the name of separation from sin, are often sinning by not showing compassion to sinners and by not having contact with them so as to be able to share the gospel. This is no new error. The apostle Paul had to correct similar misconceptions in the church at Corinth:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

How well Paul’s words apply to the Pharisees, especially the self-righteous Pharisee of Luke 18. How well they also apply to many Christians today, who think that holiness requires them to avoid associating with sinners. Let us listen to and learn from the Savior, who came to seek and to save sinners, like us.

Why Don’t Jesus’ Disciples Fast?
(5:33-39)

Both of the questions of the Pharisees involved eating and drinking. The first question, asked and answered above, concerned those with whom Jesus ate and drank. The second question presses even further, as to why Jesus’ disciples are eating and drinking at all, since both the disciples of John and those of the Pharisees were practicing fasting. Why were Jesus’ disciples feasting when the rest were fasting?

And they said to Him, “The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers; the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same; but Yours eat and drink” (Luke 5:33).

The question is evident, Jesus’ disciples, unlike the disciples of the Pharisees and even of John, feast, while the others fast.[103] The real issue is not stated, but it is there: “Why are your disciples able the enjoy life, while we merely endure it?” Note the contrast in the attitude of the Pharisees with that of the “sinners.” The sinners are celebrating; the Pharisees are grumbling. The sinners are happy; the Pharisees are sad. The sinners are enjoying life; the Pharisees only endure it. The sinners are “grabbing for gusto,” the Pharisees are griping to Jesus.

Jesus gives a very extensive answer to this question, because a number of factors are involved. His first answer deals with the immediate question, the obvious issue, the fasting question. Fasting was a sign of repentance, a strangely inappropriate action for the Pharisees, who thought themselves righteous, and thus did not feel obligated to repent:

And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism [of repentance] of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John (Luke 7:29-30, comment mine).

John the Baptist had referred to himself as the friend of the bridegroom, and the Messiah as the bridegroom (John 3:29). Jesus picked up this imagery and pointed out the fact that the friends of the bridegroom do not fast while he is present with them, but only fast in his absence. Jesus, the bridegroom, is present with His friends and followers, and thus it is only appropriate for them to rejoice. John was in prison. His disciples were right to fast. For Jesus’ disciples to fast while He was present would have been for them to act inappropriately. There would be a time, Jesus indicated, when He would not be present, a time when fasting would be proper for His disciples. This time, as I understand it, would be the time from His arrest and death, to the time of His resurrection, or perhaps the descent of the Holy Spirit.

There is a very simple, but crucial principle underlying our Lord’s explanation:

REJOICING IS APPROPRIATE FOR ALL THOSE WHO DELIGHT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD IN THEIR MIDST, AND IN THE FELLOWSHIP WITH HIM THAT THIS AFFORDS

Centuries before, David had written, “In Thy presence is fulness of joy; In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever (Psalm 16:11).

Of course those who were followers of Jesus found pleasure in the reception which Levi put on, because they were with Jesus. They were sinners, but they were forgiven. There was no greater joy than that of fellowship with God. For the Pharisees, who knew not God, being in His presence was agony, not ecstasy. Those who do not know God find His presence “hellish” agony.

Here is the key to understanding the parable of the prodigal son. The great tragedy of the prodigal was not being poor, or even being poorly fed, it was being separated from his father. Thus, the great rejoicing at his return. But for the old brother, being at home with the father was no reward in itself. The older brother was angry because of the “joy” of this feast his father had ordered at the return of this sinner. The older brother was angry because he had suffered at home, with the father, and not experienced all the pleasure of the other. How much a Pharisee the older brother is.

There is a principle which is vitally important to Christians which underlies the explanation of our Lord. It is this,

THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN FORGIVEN, WHO IS IN GOD’S PRESENCE, SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED BY JOY.

Joy, not sorrow, not sadness, should be the dominant characteristic of the Christian. The Christian life includes sorrow and suffering and sacrifice, but these are not the melody line of our life, or they should not be. These are the harmony line. Suffering and sacrifice are means, but they should not be the end. Joy is the goal, it is the climax, it is the reward of forgiveness and fellowship with God.

Why is it that there are so many “dill pickle” Christians around, who are more like the Pharisees than those who attended Levi’s reception? It is because Satan has warped our conception of the Christian life. I have recently read an excellent book which is devoted to the subject of the pleasure, the joy of knowing and serving God. It is by Tim Piper, entitled, “Desiring God: The Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.”[104] I cannot recommend it too highly. It is the joy of knowing and serving God which should be our strength and our goal. It is also the joy of the saint which should draw others to Christ as well.

Jesus went on to deal with a deeper issue, that being the contrast and contest between “old” and “new.” The Pharisees represented and defended the “old order” or so they thought. They were the promoters and preservers of the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law and to institute a new covenant. Thus, underlying the struggle between Jesus and the Pharisees was a contest between old and new. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to adopt the old, or at least to adapt the old. Jesus could not do this. He came to fulfill the law by living in perfect obedience to it, and by dying to its demands. But He also came to institute the new covenant (celebrated, incidentally by eating and drinking).

Thus, by means of a parable, Jesus explained why the new could not adopt or adapt to the old. To put a new patch on an old garment would be foolish. You would have to cut it out of the new garment, destroying it, and then it would not match the old garment on which it was patched anyway (Luke 5:36). In a similar way, you cannot put new wine into old wineskins, for the old skins would burst (be ruined) and the wine would be lost (ruined). There was no way to use the new to salvage the old.

The “new wine” must be put into new wineskins (Luke 5:38). The new covenant which Jesus was instituting must bring with it new structures, new forms, new practices. Pharisaism, which was committed to preserving the old way, could not accept this. The reason for this Jesus explained in last verse of chapter 5:

“And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough’” (Luke 5:39).

Jesus is explaining, in this statement, the mindset of the conservative, for Pharisees were conservatism incarnate. Having tasted the old and finding it good, the conservative does not wish to try the new, even though it might be better. And the reason is simply this:

CONSERVATISM TENDS TO VIEW THE OLD AS BETTER BECAUSE IT IS OLD, AND THE NEW SUSPECT BECAUSE IT IS NEW.

I had better say it now. I am generally quite conservative. But conservatism is not automatically right; neither is liberalism automatically wrong. Contemporary Christianity has over-simplistically been linked with conservative economics and politics. Right wing politicians have become “bed-fellows” with fundamental, evangelical Christians. This could be a very unhealthy relationship, even though close ties can be found.

There are various types of conservatism. There is economic and social conservatism, where the “have’s” attempt to keep what they have (money, standing, power), which leaves the “have-not’s” without. This kind of conservatism is not Christian, for the “have’s” are to give of their wealth to the “have-not’s” (cf. 1 Timothy 6). There is also social conservatism, which is simply stubborn resistance to change, any change. This helps to explain why old people tend to be more conservative, as a group. Let’s face it, the older I get, the less energy (foolishness) I have to try something new, especially if the old and proven works. Biblical conservatism seeks to defend the faith, to hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and this is good, but all too often much more than the fundamental truths gets thrown into the “save” basket.

The conservatism of the Pharisees had “gone to seed.” It had become a kind of “preservatism” which attempted to save their way of life, but which was found to have rejected the God they claimed to serve. Let us beware of letting our conservatism get out of hand. Nothing is to be viewed as better only because it is old. Likewise, nothing should be automatically viewed as better simply because it is new.

Conclusion

I have sought to make application to the principles of this passage as we have gone through the text itself. But let me not conclude without saying something very pointed to any who may not yet have come to faith in Jesus Christ, who have not found His presence a comfort and a joy. First, do not allow “dill-pickle” Christians to convince you that you must sacrifice all pleasure and joy to serve and follow Christ. The opposite is true. The only lasting and ultimate joy is found in being forgiven by Him, and being in fellowship with Him. Second, do not think of God as distant, uncaring, and unpleasant. Our Lord Jesus demonstrated that God cares, that God has come, and that God finds pleasure in the fellowship of forgiven men and women. Third, do not suppose that being a sinner must keep you from God. Recognizing that you are a sinner is the first step toward God. Jesus came to call sinners. It is only the self-righteous who shunned Jesus, for Jesus came to forgive sinners and to have fellowship with them. You cannot be too sinful for God to save, only to holy to need His salvation. Finally, recognize that proof that you are forgiven, a child of God, is by the comfortableness and joy you find in being in the presence of God and His people. If you have never trusted in Him, do it now. No joy will ever match that which you find in Him.

! Lesson 18:
The Great Sabbath Controversy
(Luke 6:1-11)

Introduction

My friend Al, who works at the auto parts house I frequent, pointed me to his new “jokes” posted on the front of the counter. I could not help but laugh at the way in which the four types of government were compared, using two cows. SOCIALISM would have you give one of your cows to your neighbor and keep the other. COMMUNISM would insist that you give both cows to the state, and occasionally you might be fortunate enough to get a little milk or butter. NAZISM would shoot you and take both of your cows. In a DEMOCRACY you would sell one cow and buy a bull. To this I would add one more category—LEGALISM. Legalism would lay down so many rules and regulations concerning the keeping of cows that nobody would want them anyway!

Legalism is a deadly system, one which characterized the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, and which was evident in their attitudes and actions as we see Luke describing them in our text. Specifically, the legalism of the Pharisees was dramatically evident in their rules pertaining to the keeping of the Sabbath. Concerning the legalism of the Pharisees with regard to the Sabbath, Shepard writes:

“The Mishna says: ‘He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath to the quantity of a fig is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping.’ Rubbing the grain out was threshing. Even to walk on the grass on the Sabbath was forbidden because it was a species of threshing. Another Talmudic passage says: ‘In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing’ [Jer. Shabt, page 10a]. The scrupulosity of these Jews about Sabbath was ridiculously extreme. A Jewish sailor caught in a storm after sunset on Friday refused to touch the helm though threatened with death. Thousands had suffered themselves to be butchered in the streets of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes rather than lift a weapon in self-defense on the Sabbath! To these purists, the act of the disciples was a gross desecration of the Sabbath law. The worst of all was that Jesus permitted and approved it.”[105]

Shepard is referring to the Sabbath laws of Jesus’ day, but it would be incorrect to suppose that things have improved with time. A friend loaned me a book by Rav Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth entitled, Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath.[106] This volume (my friend reminds me that it is the first volume) goes into great detail concerning the interpretation and application of the Sabbath for contemporary Judaism. In the preface to this work the author writes,

“The Mishna (Chagiga: Chapter 1, Mishna 8) likens the laws of Shabbath to ‘mountains hanging by a hair,’ in that a multitude of precepts and rules, entailing the most severe penalties for their breach, depend on the slightest of indications given by a biblical verse.”[107]

He also reminds us of the importance which Judaism has and continues to place on the keeping of the Sabbath:

“May we be privileged, by virtue of the proper observance of the Shabbath, to see the final redemption of Israel. ‘Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, ‘“Were Israel properly to observe two Shabbathoth, they would immediately be redeemed’”(Shabbath 118b). Until such time, God’s only dwelling-place on this earth is within the four walls of the Halacha (Berachoth 8a).”[108]

The book contains much instruction about the keeping of the Sabbath, but I will mention only a few. As I do this, I confess that it is somewhat “tongue in cheek,” but I would hasten to point out that the legalism which is apparent here is frequently found within evangelical Christianity as well. If we would smile at the “straining of gnats here” let us laugh at our own “strainings” as well.

Cooking in most all forms (boiling, roasting, baking, frying, etc.) is forbidden on the Sabbath, in particular when the temperature is raised above 45 degrees centigrade (113 Farenheit).[109] If the hot water tap is accidentally left on, it cannot be turned off on the Sabbath.[110] Escaping gas can be turned off, but not in the normal way. One must turn off the tap of a gas burner with the back of the hand or the elbow.[111] The preparation of food is greatly affected by the Sabbath. One cannot squeeze a lemon into a glass of ice tea, but one can squeeze lemon on a piece of fish.[112] That one cannot light a fire on the Sabbath is taught in the Old Testament law (cf. Exod. 35:3). Strict Judaism views this to prohibit turn electric lights on or off on the Sabbath. The problem can be solved, however, but using a timer, which automatically handles this task.[113] So, too, an air conditioner cannot be turned on by a Jew on the Sabbath, although a Gentile might be persuaded to do so.[114] One cannot bathe with a bar of soap on the Sabbath, but liquid detergent is acceptable.[115]

I found the section dealing with “discovered articles” (pp. 233-235) most interesting. One is prohibited from transporting goods on the Sabbath. This would prevent merchants conducting business on the Sabbath. It has been so highly refined (defined?) that now one cannot carry something which he unknowingly took with him. If one is walking along on the Sabbath and discovers that he is carrying something in his pocket, he has several courses of action so as not to violate the Sabbath. He may, for example, drop the item out of his pocket, but not in the normal or usual fashion (by grasping it, removing it from the pocket, and dropping it on the floor). He can, however, reverse his pocket, expelling the object unnaturally, and thus legitimately. If the item is valuable, and he does not wish to leave it on the ground, he can ask a Gentile to watch the item for him. Otherwise, the item could be carried, but not in the usual way. He can carry it for a prescribed distance (just under four amoth), put it down, then take it up, and so on. Or, the man could relay it between himself and a fellow-Israelite, each one carrying the object for no more than the prescribed distance. If this is not advisable, the object can be carried in an unusual way, such as placing it in the shoe, tying it to his leg, or managing to suspend it between his clothing and his body.

The keeping of the Sabbath is, to some, not only a matter which is taken seriously, but which is taken to almost humorous extremes. One can well imagine, then, that the Pharisees would be zealous in seeing what our Lord did with respect to their Sabbath regulations. While we may not struggle with the keeping of the Sabbath, we should struggle with the problem of legalism, as it raises its ugly head in the keeping of our Lord’s commandments to His followers. Let us listen well to learn how we may be as legalistic as the Pharisees, and not even know it.

The Structure and
Context of our Passage

Verses 1-11 of the sixth chapter of Luke’s gospel deal with the subject of the keeping of the Sabbath, according to the Pharisaical interpretation of the law. This passage has two major divisions. Verses 1-5 give an account of the protest of the Pharisees and the response of our Lord, stemming from the “harvesting” of food on the Sabbath by Jesus’ disciples. Verses 6-11 deal with Jesus’ healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath.

In chapter 6 (actually a larger portion of the text) Luke is not concerned with providing us with a precise chronology. This can be seen by the vague time references (“on a certain Sabbath,” 6:1; “on another Sabbath,” 6:6). It is also hinted at by the fact that the arrangement of Luke (followed here by Mark as well) does not match that of Matthew. While Mark and Luke go immediately from the account of the call of Levi, the banquet which he gave, and the resulting barrage of questions, to the Sabbath controversy. Matthew, however, records the call of Levi in chapter 9 and does not deal with the Sabbath controversy until chapter 12.

Luke’s purpose is to prepare his reader for the rejection, arrest, conviction, and execution of Jesus by his opponents by laying the groundwork early in the book, which clarifies the issues which made enemies of the Pharisees (in particular) and the other Jewish leaders, as well as with the masses (hinted at in the Nazareth incident in Luke 4:16-30). The masses rejected Jesus because He would bring blessings on the Gentiles (Luke 4:16-30). The Pharisees rejected Jesus because He claimed to be God (5:17-26), because He associated with sinners (5:27-39), and now, because He did not keep the Sabbath as they interpreted it (6:1-6). These issues will dominate the relationship between the Pharisees and Jesus, culminating in His crucifixion. The section which we are studying provides us with the “continental divide” of the gospels.

While in chapter 5 the Pharisees (first mentioned by Luke in conjunction with the pronouncement to the paralytic that his sins were forgiven) object to Jesus’ authority to forgive sins, they do not seem to have come to a resolved opposition against Him. When we come to verses 6-11 in chapter 6, they have their minds made up. They are no longer looking for evidence as a basis for making a decision about Jesus, they are looking for proof the validate their rejection of Him. What began with curiosity, and led to concern, has, by the time we have reached our text, become condemnation and criticism.

The Approach of the Message

In this message we will begin by considering the objection of the Pharisees to the trivial act of the disciples of our Lord of eating of the grain from the fields, through which they were passing. We will then explore some of the responses which our Lord could have made, but did not. Then we will consider the response which He did make, along with its implications. Next, we will look at the Lord’s healing of the man with the withered hand, seeking to learn the critical differences between our Lord’s understanding of the Sabbath, and that of the Pharisees. Finally, we will attempt to discover how the error of the Pharisees has its counterparts in our day and time, and even in our church! We will conclude by pointing out some of the crucial principles which our text can teach us about God’s commandments.

The Disciples Go Against the Grain of Pharisaism
(The Horrible Harvest)
(6:1-5)

The Lord Jesus and His disciples were passing through some grain fields on the Sabbath, followed by a delegation of Pharisees. Perhaps a crowd of other followed as well. Why were the Pharisees present? I believe that the Pharisees stuck closely to Jesus just as the press does to some noted dignitary, hoping for something to happen (usually bad). The Pharisees knew that Jesus’ popularity was growing steadily. They also were becoming alarmed at the realization that Jesus was not in their camp, indeed, was often attacking them (cf. the Sermon on the Mount, which comes before this incident in Matthew’s account). They were afraid to leave Jesus to Himself, unwatched, unchallenged. Furthermore, they were eager to catch Jesus in some transgression of their rules, so that they could point their fingers at Him and accuse Him of being wrong.

On this Sabbath day, we might imagine some of the Pharisees badgering Jesus with a constant barrage of questions, hoping to trap Him. Another group may have been counting the steps our Lord was taking, since they would only allow a limited amount of travel on the Sabbath. Much to their delight, some of the disciples (who were seemingly oblivious to the legalism of the Pharisees) began to strip heads of grain from the field, rub them in their hands to separate the grain from the sheaf, and pop it into their mouths. This, to the Pharisee, was harvesting and threshing grain, something which one could do on any other day, but not on the Sabbath. The challenge was made, both to Jesus (Matthew and Mark) and to the disciples (Luke), “How the Sabbath be so blatantly broken by doing this?”

Jesus had several options available to Him in what He could have said in response to this challenge:

(1) “I DIDN’T DO IT!” Jesus is not said to have done as His disciples did in the text, nor is He accused of doing so by the Pharisees. The easiest thing for Jesus to have done was simply to point out that He was not guilty of their charge, that their charge to Him was misdirected. Jesus refused to do this however, taking responsibility for the conduct of His disciples. Jesus argued on the premise that what He could do, His disciples could do. Jesus wanted to argue His point here, and did not miss the opportunity to do so by using a technicality.

(2) “THAT’S JUST YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OF THE SABBATH.” The Sabbath commandment is incredibly concise: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8).

Even the related texts which expand on the application of this law are not lengthy or detailed (cf. eg. Exod. 31:12-17; 35:2-3; Lev. 23). When the actions of our Lord’s disciples are viewed through the lens of the Old Testament law, there was nothing wrong with them. Viewed through the lens of the legalism of the Pharisees, their actions were heinous. Jesus could very easily have pointed out to His critics that there was a world of difference between the Pharisaic interpretation of the law and the actual law itself.

Jesus does not want to argue about different methods of interpretation here. The Sermon on the Mount, as recorded by Matthew, does spell out the differences between the correct interpretation of the law and those of the Pharisees, but this is not His purpose here. As I understand this text, Jesus wants to establish His right to violate the law, even though He has not done so.[116] He therefore grants His opponents their argument (that it was unlawful to harvest on the Sabbath, as the disciples had done) and presses on to show that they were wrong in accusing Him, not because of a wrong interpretation of the Sabbath, but because Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, had the right to break the Sabbath.

Our Lord’s argument, as outlined by Luke, is based upon a very simple premise: WHO YOU ARE DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE FREE TO BREAK THE SABBATH

We could go into very great detail in seeking to see the parallels between Jesus and David, or to justify David’s violation of the sacredness of the bread which he ate, and which he gave to his men (his disciples) as well. Let us not do so, however, for the point is more forceful when we take the Lord’s words on face value.

Jesus responded to the harassing questions of the Pharisees with a stinging introduction: “Have you not even read … ?” (v. 3).

The Pharisees were professional students of the law. This was their high calling in life, their claim to fame. Jesus began by asking these scholars if they had ever even read the text to which He referred. It is His way of saying, “You question is a very elementary one, and one that reveals a very poor grasp of the Scriptures.” These words must have come as a slap in the face to the proud students of the law.

Jesus’ argument was amazingly simple: “David broke the law, and if he could have done so, I all the more.” Technically speaking, David did break the letter of the law when he ate bread that only the priests were allowed to partake of. David also gave this bread to his men, and was not to be condemned for doing so.

Why didn’t the Pharisees condemn David’s actions? This is the question which Jesus seems to be pressing. David’s actions could be justified by several lines of argument. David was hungry, as were his men. He might have died without this bread. The answer which Jesus is seeking is something different, however. Jesus wants His critics to admit that they don’t condemn David’s actions because David did them. David was so revered by the Pharisees that they dared not condemn his actions here, even though a technical violation of the law.

The point of this line of argumentation is now about to be pressed home. If David could break the law (prohibiting any but the priests from eating the sacred bread) because of who he was, Jesus could also break the law, for He is even greater than David. Who you are determines what you can get away with. The central issue, then, was not whether or not Jesus broke the Sabbath, but who Jesus was. Once the Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Son of God, as Israel’s Messiah, then He must be held accountable for keeping all of the law. There was no protest against Jesus’ miracles on the Sabbath (cf. Luke 4:31-37) until after Jesus rejection by the Pharisees.

Jesus’ statement indicated who He was, which entitled Him to break the law: “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5).

The term, “the Son of Man” has only once been used previously by Luke, and that at the time of the Pharisees rejection of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. The Old Testament meaning of this title, found predominantly in Ezekiel, would suggest that Messiah would reveal the sins of the nation Israel, for which He would be rejected and persecuted. Jesus began to use the title for Himself at the first evidences of rejection.

The second expression, “Lord of the Sabbath” is even more significant. I believe that it may have a two-pronged meaning. First, Jesus may be claiming here to be the Sabbath’s Lord in the sense that He is the fulfillment of all that the Sabbath was to foreshadow (cf. Col. 2:16-17). The rest which the old Sabbath promised has come in Christ: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

If Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath by coming with a greater rest, then the commandment to keep the Sabbath can be set aside. Why work to rest under the law when Christ gives rest from the law?

Furthermore, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in the sense that He is greater than the Sabbath, and thus able to set it aside. To be Lord of the Sabbath is to be Lord over the Sabbath.[117] When Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, He claimed to be greater than the Sabbath, in authority over the Sabbath, and thus far more qualified than David to break the law pertaining to the Sabbath.[118]

The Healing of the
Man with the Withered Hand
(6:6-11)

Luke does not record any response to Jesus’ defense of His disciples’ action. My guess is that the Pharisees went off, stunned, silent, and sullen. Another Sabbath incident is recorded by Luke in verses 6-11 which was, according to the Pharisees, was a transgression of our Lord, who did the “work” of healing on the Sabbath.

There was a man present as Jesus taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath, who had a withered hand. The scribes and the Pharisees were well aware of this man’s presence (had he been “planted” by them?), and they were sure that our Lord would heal him. They were waiting for the occasion, so that they could accuse Jesus. They wanted the man healed, but not fore his benefit. Jesus wanted the man healed for the man’s benefit. How right Jesus had been to point out (according to Matthew’s account, Matt. 12:7), that the governing principle in keeping the law, especially the Sabbath law, was not sacrifice or ritual, but mercy and compassion. These Pharisees had no compassion on the man with the withered hand, and yet they were certain that Jesus would have compassion on Him. They, in their lack of compassion, sought to use the compassion of Christ to their advantage. What a contrast in the character of our Lord with that of His enemies.

I do not know whether the man caught Jesus’ eye, or if he plead for mercy and healing, or whether he was pointed out to Jesus by the Pharisees or others. We are told that Jesus was aware of the man, as well as of the scheme to accuse Him (Luke 6:6-8). How easy it would have been for our Lord to avoid this conflict. He could have privately instructed the man to meet Him at another time or at another place, so as to avoid the attack of the Pharisees.

Jesus did not do so however. Jesus wanted to face the issue head-on. He called for the man to come forward, in the sight of all. Jesus wished to make an issue of the healing of this man on the Sabbath. Here was the very heart of the conflict between Jesus and His opponents, the scribes and Pharisees. The issue which Jesus wished to raise was the purpose of the precept. Why was the Sabbath Law given? The Pharisees concentrated on the negatives, on the “Don’ts” of life. Jesus on the affirmatives. The Pharisees thought that the more a man suffered (fasting, tithes), the more spiritual he was. Jesus ate and drank, a matter of discussion in the immediately preceding context.

Jesus therefore posed this question, in essence:

IS THE SABBATH GIVEN TO MAKE MAN MISERABLE, OR AS A SOURCE OF BLESSING? IS THE SABBATH GIVEN FOR MAN’S BLESSING, OR TO BE A BURDEN? IS THE SABBATH THE TIME FOR DOING GOOD OR FOR DOING EVIL?

The Pharisaical view of the Sabbath would reluctantly allow for one to work to render aid to a dying man, to one in such dire straits that he would not live till the Sabbath had ended. But the man with the withered hand did not fit into such a category. He would live. His malady was not life-threatening. The Pharisees therefore believed that Jesus should wait to heal this man. Jesus, by His actions, was raising the question, “Why?”

Jesus looked about, studying His audience, and, according to Mark’s account, angered by the hardness of heart of His accusers (Mark 3:5). He seemed to let the question simmer in their minds. What was the Sabbath for, to make men miserable, or to be a blessing? If the Sabbath was for good, then doing good on the Sabbath could hardly be wrong. If the Sabbath was not given as a blessing for man, then doing good on the Sabbath would be wrong. It was that simple. Why was the Sabbath given, for good or evil?

Jesus answered the question by His deeds. He instructed the man to stretch out his hand (Dr. Luke, incidentally, alone informs us that it was his right hand—what a man of detail!). When he did so, it was healed. I have to smile because Jesus actually did nothing other than to speak. He did not reach out and touch the man. He did not even command him to be whole. He instructed him to hold out his hand, which as he did so, became healed. Technically speaking, the way in which Jesus performed this miracle kept Him from breaking even the strict and legalistic rules of the Pharisees. Tee Hee.

The Pharisees were not giggling, however. They were seething with anger (v. 11). They went off in a huff, to deliberate among themselves (Mark tells us that they included their enemies, the Herodians,[119] and that they discussed how to kill Jesus, Mark 3:6) as to how to handle Jesus.

The Pharisees are now the bitter enemies of Jesus. They are not interested in following Him. They are no longer open to the possibility of His being the Messiah. They only wish to be rid of Him, something which they will only later be able, in the providence of God, be able to achieve. The Sabbath controversy was, for them, the last straw. Jesus and they were deadlocked in a conflict which was irreconcilable so long as they stubbornly resisted the Son of God and persisted in their sins (they didn’t repent, they just fasted so as to pretend they were repentant).

Conclusion

Our text does far more than reveal the sinfulness of the Pharisees, and the silliness of their interpretation and application of the Sabbath. We can learn several vitally important principles from this passage. Let me summarize them in conclusion.

(1) There is not a direct cause-effect relationship between legality and morality.

The Pharisees wrongly concluded that by keeping (their interpretation of) the law, they would be righteous. They thought that legality insured morality. This has always been wrong. As a friend of mine has said, there are many crimes that are not sins and there are many sins that are not crimes. Witnessing, spanking disobedient children, and meeting as a church in a home may become illegal, but they will not because of this become immoral acts. So, too, abortion may now be legal, but it is still an immoral act. Legality and morality are not the same. Legalists do not see this, and thus they are always law-minded for the wrong reasons. Law-abiding people are still sinners. Indeed, the purpose of the law was never to make men righteous, but to prove men sinners.

(2) There is not a direct, one-toone relationship between our interpretation of the Law and the Law itself.

The Pharisees had obviously confused or blended their interpretation of the law with the law itself. In other words, their interpretations of the law were the final authority. I believe that our Lord did not argue this point at this time for at least two reasons. First, He wanted to demonstrate His freedom from the law, not just from their interpretation of it. Second, he knew that the were unable and unwilling to distinguish the two from each other (their understand of the law from the law itself). Confusing our interpretation with the inspired Word of God sanctifies our opinions, even our errors, and makes it a mortal sin for men to differ with us. Let us be on guard about equating our perception of the truth with the truth itself. There is often a great deal of difference.

(3) The precepts of the Law must always be applied in the light of the principles of God’s Word.

To the legalist, it is the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law that is supreme. Legalists, like a bureaucratic IRS agent (I do not say all are this way), looks not at the intent of the law, but only at the inscribed law. It is a scary thing to see what legalists can do to any law when they refuse to interpret that law in the light of the spirit in which it was given.

I believe that the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew’s account, is our Lord’s interpretation of the Old Testament law, based not upon the letter of the law, but upon its spirit. In this, Jesus set Him interpretation of the law in opposition to that of the Pharisees. In this, Jesus sought to demonstrate that His handling of the Old Testament law was consistent with the original intent of God when it was given. The law is thus to be interpreted in terms of its original intent, rather than upon a rigid legalism.

In the United States, we have an illustration of how devastating legalism can be. The Supreme Court was created to be the final interpretive authority, the final judge, as to the meaning of the law. This court was to interpret the law in the light of the purpose for which that law was originally written. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has now become a kind of second legislative body, no longer judging the laws in terms of the intent of the framers of the constitution, but by the standards and purposes they wish to achieve. How tragic! How like the legalism of the Pharisees, who sought to impose their own agenda on God’s laws.

(4) The precepts of the Law are to be understood and applied in the light of the person who gave them.

From what we know about the Pharisees, they must have had a very distorted view of God. If they thought they were godly they must also have thought they were God-like. Thus, they very likely viewed God as a person who found little to enjoy, and much to agonize over. Holiness consisted not so much in positive, affirmative actions as in what one didn’t do.

One’s view of God would greatly shape the way in which one interprets and applies God’s commandments. Thus, having a very negative God-image (may I alter the over-worked self-image term?), one would view the commandments in their most negative light. Think about it for a moment. Suppose that you worked for a company which had a set of policies for all its employees. If you had a very strict and harsh manager, you would interpret the rules very conservatively. If, on the other hand, you had a very kind, understanding and tolerant manager, you would tend to interpret the company rules more liberally. You would not always assume the worst.

Jesus claimed to be God, as the Pharisees well knew, but He did not conform to their conception of God. Jesus was, as Jonah similarly protested, a gracious and compassionate God, a God who delighted in the salvation of men. Jonah and the Pharisees were not compassionate, as Jesus pointed out (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; Hos. 6:6). Note that in both instances of our Lord’s reference to Hosea 6:6 in Matthew, it is addressed to the Pharisees. Jesus was too kind, too caring, too forgiving, too intimate with sinners. A harsh conception of God led the Pharisees to a harsh interpretation of the law. Knowing the Rule-Maker is one of the greatest keys to understanding the rules which He has made.

(5) The Law must always be interpreted and applied in the light of the covenant of which it is a part.

Think about it for a moment. Why do we not live under the laws of the 3rd Reich, or of Contemporary Russia, for example? The reason is simple: Laws are but a definition of the kind of conduct which a given government requires. The nature of the government determines the nature of the laws. An atheistic government may have laws prohibiting religious meetings, worship, or propagation. A truly communistic government will likely have laws which prohibit free enterprise. Laws are a reflection of a given government, a clarification and definition of how life is to be lived under this kind of government. Even a change of administration in the United States (say from a very liberal one to a conservative one) can great affect what new laws are passed and how existing laws are interpreted and enforced.

We must remember that the Sabbath laws, as all the Ten Commandments, were a part of the old covenant, the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus has already explained to the Pharisees that you cannot blend the old and the new. The reason why our Lord retained and defended His right to set the law aside was because it was a part of the old covenant, which was to be done away with, set aside, replaced by the new and better commandments of the new covenant. The Pharisees were either unable to understand, or at least to accept, the fact that the old order (along with the old laws) was passing away.

I do not mean to suggest that the Ten Commandment and the requirement of the Mosaic Covenant have no relevance to the 20th century Christian. I do mean to say that we must today interpret and apply the Old Testament law in the light of the fact that Christ has set aside the old order and established the new.

(6) Who you are determines whether or not you are subject to the Law.

David, our Lord reminded His critics, was able to violate the law which prohibited the eating of the sacred bread to anyone but the priests. The priests, because of who they were, could eat the sacred bread, and they could violate the Sabbath by offering sacrifices in the temple. Jesus, God incarnate, was free from the law, so to speak because He was the author of the law. You and I cannot take a book that has been written, copywritten, and published, and change its words, but its author can, because it is his work. So, too, as God Jesus was not subject to the law, and thus not bound to keep the Sabbath. Christ voluntarily place Himself under the law, in the sinner’s place, so that He could bear the penalty of the law, and redeem men from the power of death through the law.

Jesus’ actions and words in our text are most significant, for they teach in principle in a minute scale what He will accomplish on a broad scale. Jesus was not merely claiming authority to set aside the Sabbath, He was claiming the right to set aside the whole law. By meeting the demands of the law without any sin, and by dying to the law in the sinner’s place, Jesus has set the law aside. Having died to the law, the resurrected Christ was no longer under the law, to which He had subjected Himself. Our Lord’s Sabbath actions were but a prototype of His work on the cross.

Pressing this principle beyond its immediate application to our Lord, we can also say that the disciples of Jesus were given the same rights and freedoms as their Lord claimed. Not only was David allowed to break the law and to eat the holy bread, so were his disciples. Not only was Jesus free from the law, so were His disciples. Our bondage or freedom is the by-product of our relationship to Christ, or our lack of it. Those who are “in Christ” are privileged to share in all the He accomplished for them.

(7) The principle of perversion: The good things which God gives can quickly and easily be corrupted and perverted by sinful men.

Satan has, from the very beginning, sought to pervert the blessings of God, making them into a curse. God’s command that Adam and Eve could eat of every tree but one was for their blessing. Satan quickly entered to make God’s restriction look evil. In Romans chapter 7 Paul teaches us that the law is good, but that sin perverts it, so that the law actually is used to entice men to sin. So, too, the Sabbath law, given for man’s good, was perverted by the Pharisees.

(8) One’s perception of the purpose of the Law has everything to do with one’s motivation for obeying it.

If I view God as harsh and unloving, and His law as restrictive and burdensome, then I will do everything I can to avoid its instructions. I will distinguish between my joy, my best interest, and the commands of God. This is exactly what the Pharisees did. For all their talk about keeping the law, the Pharisees had become experts at avoiding its commands. The very things which God required most (mercy and compassion), the Pharisees were able to escape, and even to feel righteous for so doing.

When I once come to the liberating conclusion that the psalmists had long ago reached—that the law was good, wholesome, and a delight to obey—then I will strive to learn it, to understand it, and to apply it:

How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the law of the Lord.…. Blessed art Thou, O LORD; Teach me Thy statutes. With my lips I have told of All the ordinances of Thy mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of Thy testimonies, As much as in all riches. I will meditate on Thy precepts, And regard Thy ways. I shall delight in Thy statutes; I shall not forget Thy word.… O how I love Thy law! It is my meditation all the day (Ps. 119:1, 12-16, 97).

God’s commandments, Old Testament or New, were to be viewed as blessed, a joy to carry out, and a joy when carried out. That is much needed perspective today. That is not the spirit of legalism.

! Lesson 19:
Defining Discipleship
(Luke 6:12-26)

Introduction

In his excellent book, Restoring Your Spiritual Passion,[120] Gordon MacDonald identifies five different types of people:

(1) Very Resourceful People are the people who stimulate and challenge us in our ministry—our mentors.

(2) Very Important People are those who share with us in our ministry, often our associates.

(3) Very Trainable People are those people who have potential for ministry, whom we can profitably train.

(4) Very Nice People are just that, but add little to our ministry and do very little ministry themselves.

(5) Very Draining People are those who could easily consume most of our time and energy in ministry. These are the takers, who seldom become producers or givers. These are the very needy folk, who drain us of our strength and time.

When I read through Luke’s introduction to the Sermon on the Mount as he records it, I think that there are a wide variety of people present there to hear what Jesus taught. Without too much effort, we could probably find people to fit nearly every category which MacDonald has identified for us. Jesus would, of course, be the “very resourceful person.” The twelve disciples might be the “very important people.” The larger group of disciples might contain “very trainable people.” The large crowd would probably have some “very nice people” and some “very draining people.” I have to think that there is another category which must be added, too, the “very nasty people,” made up of those whose life’s calling seems to be to harass and trouble us. The Pharisees would certainly fall into this category.

The puzzling thing to me is that most of the categories of persons are simply lumped together to some degree by the term “disciple. “We would use the term primarily for the twelve whom Jesus here designates as His apostles (v. 13). The group of those from whom the twelve were selected are called “disciples” (v. 13). I would take it that it was from this group that the 70, who were later sent out by Jesus (Luke 10:1ff.) were drawn. Then, there was the large group of “disciples” who awaited Jesus and His “disciples” as they came down from the mountain (v. 17). In addition, there was the “great throng of people” (v. 17) who came to hear Jesus and for healing.

A number of dispensational scholars have taken the position the Sermon on the Mount was the “constitution of the Millennial Kingdom,” and thus it does not directly apply to the church today. I disagree. It would seem to me that from Luke’s account at least we must conclude that the subject of the sermon (at least verses 20-26) is discipleship. Those to whom the sermon was addressed are the disciples (v. 20a). Our text not only helps to define what discipleship is all about, it also has much to say about the motivation of a disciple. For all of us who would desire (or not desire) to be disciples, this text has much to say. Let us listen well to the words of our Lord, speaking to disciples about discipleship.[121]

The Structure of our Text

The structure of our text may be outlined as follows:

(1) The Setting of the Sermon, verses 12-20a

·         The designation of the twelve as apostles—vv. 12-16

·         The miraculous ministry of Jesus on His descent—vv. 17-19

(2) The Sermon on the Mount, Part I—verses 20b-26

·         Blessings—vv. 20b-23

·         Woes—vv. 24-26

The “Tensions of the Text”

There are several “tensions” to be found in this text, problems which motivate our study and provide significant clues to the interpretation of the text. Briefly outlined, the “tensions of this text” are:

(1) Jesus appears to be changing horses in mid-stream, from one who enjoyed life and whose disciples did as well (cf. 5:27-39) to one who advocates a “teeth-gritting” endurance of life.

(2) Jesus appears to be teaching that poverty is a blessing and that riches is a curse. Are the poor more blessed than the rich?

(3) Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount differs quite a bit from that of Matthew. Why does Matthew’s account dwell on the “spiritual” (“poor in spirit,” “hunger and thirst for righteousness”), while Luke’s dwells on the physical (the “poor,” “hunger”)?

The Interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount

There are many different views as to how we should approach the Sermon on the Mount. I have already suggested that I believe the thrust of our Lord’s words, at least in our portion of the sermon, dwell on the very present matter of discipleship, not on the future matter of the Millennial Kingdom. This means that the teaching of Jesus here is not remotely related to our daily lives, but is directly relevant to us. I would also suggest that this sermon should be interpreted in the same way (with the same hermeneutics) our Lord taught in Matthew account of the Sermon, in terms of the principles of the law, and not just the precepts. Thus, our Lord’s teaching on “turning the other cheek” is not merely a rule which teaches a mechanical kind of response to a right cross (the term does suggest this, rather than a slap, as we will later point out), but a principle which should govern our relationship with our enemies. The practices advocated here are illustrative of principles, and the principles are primary.

The Setting of the Sermon
(6:12-20a)

Luke begins by telling us that the day’s events were preceded by a night of prayer on the part of our Lord. Luke gospel has an emphasis on the prayer life of our Lord, which we have already seen. Our Lord was said to be praying when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him (3:21). Our Lord went off to pray after the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and the healing session which resulted (4:42, compare Mark 1:35). Later, Luke said that Jesus had a habit of prayer, “But He Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray” (Luke 5:16).

While there are many important matters which require prayer, what our Lord does is not unusual. From our perspective it would have been, for how many of us spend all night in prayer? And if Jesus found it necessary to do so, how much more so should we pray?

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that Jesus prayed all night just regarding the choice of the twelve who would be chosen as apostles. This was surely on our Lord’s agenda, but I think that there were other matters which He prayed about as well. I would suggest that our Lord prayed concerning the sick and that the great display of His power (vv. 18-19) was in answer to His prayer. I believe as well that the Sermon on the Mount was a matter of prayer. Jesus had to prepare His messages, too, and He did so on His knees. We who preach could surely learn from the Master here! Finally, I suspect that Jesus prayed for His enemies, the Pharisees. In verse 28 Jesus will teach, “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”

I cannot imagine our Lord failing to practice in His prayers what He preached. It is my opinion that our Lord’s prayer for the Pharisees may have greatly helped Him in preaching His Sermon on the Mount. I cannot conceive of the fact that the Pharisees would not have been present at this sermon. Luke never mentions them (Matthew’s account has references to them, cf. 5:20), nor is it ever mentioned that they were there. They were never absent, however. Recall, for example, that they were there when Jesus healed the paralytic (5:17ff.), and at the reception held by Levi (5:29ff.), and in the grain fields when Jesus was traveling on the Sabbath (6:1ff.). The Pharisees were almost omnipresent when it came to Jesus. They dared not leave Him alone, unchallenged.

A preacher friend of mine once shared that he had a woman in his congregation who felt it was her task to challenge and humble him. Every Sunday she would sit in the front and very loudly disagree with him. Do you think that the Pharisees did any differently? I’m sure that they were there when Jesus preached this sermon. I have no doubt but that they were in disagreement. But Jesus prayer for them, His enemies, enabled Him to overlook them, and not to be distracted by their disruptions.

After His all-night prayer vigil, Jesus called a larger group of “disciples” to Him, from which He chose twelve, designating them as His apostles. These were to be the leaders of the church (remember that Luke also authored the book of Acts). These twelve men were to spend much time with Jesus. They were to be sent out in preaching and healing campaigns. They were to be apostles.

Even Judas was chosen. Luke very carefully informs us that Judas was to become a traitor (v. 16). This indicates that Judas was not initially a traitor. It tells me that Judas did not purpose to infiltrate Jesus’ inner circle as a base of operations. Judas had good intentions.

Some might say that while this was true, Judas was an unbeliever, and that all the rest were genuine believers. There is truth in this, of course, but in a very technical sense, none of the twelve were true believers yet. These men had many positive qualities. These men would become men of faith, spiritual leaders, but there were not so at this point in time. It is not until chapter 9 in Luke’s gospel (chapter 16 in Matthew’s) that the great confession of Peter is found. Consistently the disciples are looking at one another after some great miracle of our Lord and asking themselves, “Who is this … ?” None of the twelve initially fully grasped that Jesus was the Messiah in such a way that we could call them full-fledged believers at the time Jesus appointed them. There was not as much difference between Judas and Peter (say) than we might think. Peter became a rock; Judas a traitor.

Jesus’ actions here teach us some important lessons about leadership. Jesus was in no hurry to “lay hands on” any man as a leader. Considerable time passed before the twelve were designated as leaders. Just as Judas would fail, so there would be men at a later time which would fail as well, though not as unbelievers (cf. Acts 20:29-31). Jesus had no qualms about giving some men greater amounts of His time than others. Jesus gave priority to those who would later prove to be ministers and leaders. These eleven, to use MacDonald’s terminology, were “very trainable people.”

In the immediately preceding section of Luke, the author has developed the theme of the opposition of the Pharisees. With the Pharisees, Jesus has become a very unpopular person. Jesus was challenged because he claimed the authority to forgive sins (5:21). Then He rankled the Pharisees because of those with whom He associated—sinners (5:27-32). Next, they were upset because Jesus and His disciples ate and drank, while they fasted (5:33-39). Finally, the Lord was guilty, in the minds of the Pharisees, of breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus had the audacity (so they thought) to claim the right to do so (6:1-11). The verse which precedes our text informs us that the Pharisees were now the enemies of Jesus, who are looking for a way to be rid of Him. Parallel accounts tell us that the wish to put Him to death (cf. Mark 3:6).

While Jesus was exceedingly unpopular with the Pharisees, He was the favorite of the people. We should probably say, because Jesus was popular with the people, He was very unpopular with the Pharisees. His unpopularity with the Pharisees was very much related to His popularity with the people, something which the Pharisees very much resented. Matthew and Mark tell us that Pilate knew the source of the religious leaders’ hostility was jealousy (Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10).

The extent of Jesus’ popularity with the people is evident from two major facts mentioned by Luke. First, the large number of people who were there, even in such a remote place. Second, the great distance from which people were coming. Here, we are told by Luke that they came from all over Judea, Jerusalem, and even from the coast of Tyre and Sidon (v. 17).

This popularity of our Lord is an important element in the setting of the Sermon, for it indicates to us the great courage of our Lord in delivering this message. Jesus’ popularity was a rather fragile thing, as later events will indicate. Jesus did not choose to speak on non-controversial matters, however, just to keep the favor of the crowds. When you stop to think about what our Lord is saying in this sermon, it was virtually the opposite of what others taught and believed. Jesus spoke of poverty, hunger, and persecution as blessed, and of wealth, being well-fed and favor as bringing a curse. He taught people to love their enemies, and not to retaliate. He taught that one should give to those in need, knowing that they would never be repaid. These are not very popular teachings. The “health and wealth” teachers of our time know this. Jesus, in spite of His great popularity, spoke the truth, and taught what people needed to hear, not just what they wanted to hear.

The Sermon
(6:20b-26)

There are a number of differences between Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount (6:20-49) and that of Matthew (chapters 5-7).

Luke 6:20-26 And turning His gaze on His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. 22 “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and cast insults at you, and spurn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. 23 “Be glad in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. 24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. 25 “Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. 26 “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.

Matthew 5:1-12 And when He saw the multitudes, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 And opening His mouth He began to teach them, saying, 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. 12 “Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

In the first place, Luke’s account is much shorter than Matthew’s. Second, in the blessings portion which we are studying, the ones blessed are spoken of more in the third person (as if “they,” “them”), while in Luke’s account it is second person (“you”). Matthew’s account is more “spiritual” (“poor in spirit,” “hunger and thirst for righteousness”), while Luke’s is more physical (“poor,” “hunger”). Luke makes a greater emphasis on the contrast of time (“now”). Matthew’s account deals only with blessings, while Luke has cursings (“woe”) as well.

The words which our Lord spoke to His disciples in verses 20-26 contain a mixed message of both blessing and woes. The “woe” section is unique to Luke. Matthew’s account contains only blessings. It is difficult to grasp the parallels which are drawn between the blessings and the cursings unless the two passages are placed side-by-side, as follows: Looking at his disciples, he said:

At first reading the words of our Lord are incredible. It would seem as though Jesus has said that all who are poor, hungry, mourning and persecuted are blessed, while all who are rich, well-fed, happy, and honored are cursed. Is it a blessing to be poor, hungry, sorrowful, and rejected? Are all the hurting people of the world suddenly so fortunate, while all of the comfortable, happy people of the world are really cursed?

The answer to these questions is “No!” There is no intrinsic benefit to being poor, nor is there any automatic evil in being rich. Luke is careful in the selection of words which he uses to convey Jesus’ message. Look at them again. Jesus said, “Blessed are you who are poor … ” He did not say, “Blessed are all who are poor … ”

There is a world of difference between these two statements. Matthew’s account limits the “poor” to the “poor in spirit.” Luke’s account limits the “poor” to the disciples, who have chosen poverty in order to follow Him. So also, those who are rejected and persecuted are treated this way “because of the Son of Man” (v. 22). It is not being poor that is blessed, but being poor for Christ’s sake. There is no intrinsic merit in being rejected and persecuted, but only in being thus treated on Christ’s account (cf. 1 Peter 2:20).

Not all Christians are called to a life of poverty, hunger, weeping, and rejection, but the disciples of our Lord were. Poverty, hunger, weeping and rejection was the life which our Lord chose, setting aside the riches and glory which belonged to Him so that He could become the Savior of the world by dying on the cross of Calvary. The disciples, that is those who followed Him, would have to adopt His lifestyle and suffer His rejection. To identify with Christ as His disciples meant adopting Jesus’ lifestyle. For the eleven this meant poverty, hunger (at times) and weeping, and rejection.

Obedience to God meant this kind of life for many—not all, but many. Note the words of the writer to the Hebrews, speaking of those faith led them to choose suffering now, so that they would receive God’s promised rewards:

And others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (Heb. 11:36-37).

So, too, this was the life which the apostle Paul chose:

To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless (1 Cor. 4:11).

But in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger (2 Cor. 6:4-5).

As Jesus frequently taught, when a choice must be made between money and God, God must come first (Matt. 6:24). Money is not evil, unless it takes the place which only God should have (cf. 1 Tim. 6). The rich young ruler’s money meant too much for him. When forced with the choice of following Christ or being rich, he chose to remain rich (Luke 18:18ff.). In the Lord’s parable of the soils, the thorny soil symbolized the “cares of this world” are that which chokes out the seed of the gospel. Luke tells us that Jesus called them “worries and riches and pleasures of this life” (Luke 8:14). When we must choose wealth or Jesus, being well-fed or Jesus, laughter or Jesus, we must always choose Him.

Does this mean, then, that those who follow Jesus, those who are His disciples, are in for a gloomy, miserable, unhappy life? Not at all! The reason is this: the joy and the blessedness of serving Him is so great that the things we must give up to do so are no great loss to us. These are only great losses if we have invested too much in them, if they mean too much too us. The parable of the “pearl of great price” (cf. Matt. 13:44-46) teaches this truth. Once the man has found the “pearl of great price” he gladly sells all that he has to purchase that of greatest value. We sense no great loss when we give up lesser things to gain the greatest thing. This is what Jim Elliot is remembered for saying, “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

This raises an interesting and important point. What is it that makes following Jesus so great a blessing that men will gladly give up riches, comfort and even friends to do so? Luke’s account would supply us with a very strong reason: the blessings which Jesus gives are eternal, while those which disciples may reject are temporal. We can fill in many other answers from the gospel as a whole. Jesus gives the forgiveness of sins, peace with God, the joy of fellowship with Him and of serving Him. Discipleship leads to the greatest blessings, so great that wealth, health, and the praise of men matter not.

Giving up lesser benefits for greater ones is not a principle known and practiced only by Christians. It is a principle practiced by all who are wise. We give up immediate pleasures to save our money to buy something that is of lasting pleasure or value. Runners give up food and even friends to maintain rigorous training, all for the joy of winning the race. Sacrifices are a blessing when they lead to greater blessings. That is what Jesus was saying in this sermon. How blessed were His disciples! True, they would become poor, they would experience hunger, and they would be rejected and persecuted. But in light of the blessings of fellowship with the Son of God these were hardly worthy of being called sacrifices.

We must also ask another question. “Who are those upon whom the ‘woes’ are pronounced?” Notice that Jesus also says here, “Woe to you who are rich … ” (v. 24).

It is my opinion that Jesus is now speaking to particular people, just as he had been speaking to the disciples. (Would this have been a special word of warning to Judas, for example, who would be stealing money from the money bag he carried for the disciples? Cf. John 12:6)

If the “you’s” of verses 20-23 could identify with the prophets of old in being rejected and persecuted by the nation, the “you” of verses 24-26 must be those who could identify with the false prophets (v. 26). I believe that Jesus especially had the Pharisees in mind here. Later on Luke will inform us that “the Pharisees were lovers of money” (Luke 16:14).

Conclusion

The point of the passage is clear. Men must make a decision as to their values and their priorities. We must all choose to forsake some things in the pursuit of others. Not all men must forsake wealth to follow Christ, although all must forsake the love of money. Life involves choices. We must choose what in life to pursue. Every choice has both benefits (blessings) and a price to pay. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of a gift, the gift of eternal life, which is of infinite value. To have it is worth the loss of anything else. The price is that we must acknowledge our sins and trust only in Christ. We must forsake all other gods and follow Christ alone. If such a choice comes at the price of poverty, hunger, sadness and rejection, it is well worth it, and it is still blessed. May God grant that each of us may be disciples of our Lord. That we may find following Him better than anything else life has to offer. Jesus never minimized the cost of discipleship. He didn’t need to, because it is the pearl of great price. Intimacy with God is the greatest of all blessings. All other “blessings” are but trash in comparison.[122] May God’s values and those of the gospel be ours. It is not the pursuit of riches that is wrong, but the pursuit of false riches. Let these words of the Lord of Glory to the church at Laodicea be a guide to us as well:

“‘So because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see’” (Rev. 3:17-18).

Let us all purse riches, but let those be the riches which only our Lord can give.

! Lesson 20:
Tough Love
(Luke 6:27-49)

Introduction

This sermon is what I would call a “sweaty palms” message. It is surely not a message that we would naturally want to hear. Our natural inclination is not to “turn the other cheek” nor to give a freeloader a “loan.” I think it is important to begin this message by admitting to ourselves that we are naturally opposed to what Jesus has to say in Luke’s accounting of the Sermon on the Mount. Because of this, I caution you to delay judgment on what you hear until you have had sufficient time to think about it, to study the Word of God, to pray, and to search your own heart.

I have entitled this message, “Tough Love,” but I think you will soon recognize that I mean something very different from what this expression generally has been used to describe, even in Christian circles—especially in Christian circles. I recently read Anthony Campolo’s book, entitled The Power Delusion, in which he indicated that it is now common practice for couples who are seriously dating to seek to avoid the commitment of love. Each of the two, Campolo suggests, are actually trying to “under love” (my words) the other, as opposed to outdoing the other in love. The reason is that love has obligations and so the one who loves most owes most. To be free from the debts of love one must love less, making the other partner more in debt to you than you are to them. A kind of “unbalance of payments” scheme.

If we are right in assuming that love has its debts, then we will probably be dismayed to learn from our Lord just how great a debt we owe. In this case, however, we are not dealing with the our debt of love for a husband or wife, or of a friend, or even of a neighbor, but of an enemy. Jesus is specifically dealing with love’s obligation and expression in relationship to our enemy. Quite frankly, we will see that what Jesus requires His disciples to do for their enemies is more than what many are willing to do for their spouse.

The “tough love” we are dealing with is not the kind of love which justifies being “tough” on the other person (which is sometimes required), but rather is a love which is incredibly tough on us to live out.

Admittedly, when we read our Lord’s words in verses 27-30, there are many potential problems with doing exactly as He says. The first thing I would say to this is that Jesus wanted His listener to obey the spirit of His words, not just the letter. He wants His disciples to interpret His words here just as we should interpret the Old Testament Law of Moses. We should find the principle underlying the precept and then interpret and apply the precept in light of the principle.

Second, I would hasten to admit that there are many potential problems which come to mind when one tries to take Jesus’ teaching seriously. For example, should one “turn the other cheek” in the case of rape, or of murder, or of child sexual abuse? What about an abused wife? I think that we can quickly see that one must interpret and apply our Lord’s words in the light of other biblical principles. But while there may be exceptions, our Lord’s intent is to deeply imbed the principle in our minds. In the case of marriage and divorce, Jesus did not want to talk in terms of exceptions, but in terms of the rule (cf. Matt. 19:3ff.). So, here, Jesus wants to avoid undermining the rule by emphasizing exceptions. Thus, we see no exceptions to “turning the other cheek,” even though we know that must be some. Let us first learn the rule from this text, and then seek to put it into practice, and finally to consider abuses and exceptions.

The Structure of Our Text

I view our text as having three major divisions. As a unit, the text contains our Lord’s words to the broader group of those gathered to hear Him (cf. 6:27; 7:1), rather than just the small group of disciples (cf. 6:13-16, 20). Here, Jesus is spelling out how one of His followers must deal with their enemy. Verses 27-30 define some of the practices which Jesus’ follower must carry out for an enemy. Verses 31-38 lay down the principles which require and motivate one to act as Jesus has taught above. In verses 39-49, Jesus “parablizes,” pointing out why this kind of practice is needed. Thus the text may be summarized as follows:

(1) Loving One’s Enemy (Luke 6:27-49)

·         BEHAVIOR: The Practice of Loving One’s Enemy—Verses 27-30

·         BASIS: The Principles for Loving One’s Enemy—Verses 31-38

·         BETTERNESS: The Practical need for loving enemies—Verses 39-49

The Approach of This Message

In this lesson I am going to do something a bit unusual, something I usually seek to avoid—deviating from the order of the text, as recorded. I am going to begin by characterizing the practices which our Lord required for us to love our enemies (vv. 27-30). Then, I will deal with the parables of Jesus, underscoring the importance of our obedience to His commands here (vv. 39-49). Finally, I will conclude by identifying the principles which underlie the practices (vv. 31-38).

The Practice of Loving One’s Enemy:
The King of Love Christ Calls For
(6:27-30)

Entire sermons could be preached on these verses, but our approach precludes this. Let us begin with an overview of what Jesus is calling for in this section.

(1) Jesus is giving instructions to all of those who would be His followers, His disciples. Verse 27 informs us that Jesus spoke these words to “all who hear.” This may be another way of saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus is telling those who would follow Him what practices are required of them.

(2) The practices which our Lord requires here all pertain to our “enemy,” the one who hates, curses, mistreats, attacks, and takes advantage of us. Our enemy, I think we can say, is the one who is not seeking our best interest at their expense, but who is striving to achieve their best interest at our expense.

(3) The practices which Jesus requires are all responses to a specific evil done to us personally by our enemy. The actions our Lord requires are responses to personal offenses against us.

(4) The evils done against us may be due to the fact that we are followers of Christ, although this is not clearly stated. The responses are clearly required of Christ’s followers.

(5) The actions (responses) our Lord requires are those which are contrary to Judaism, to our culture, and to our own fallen nature. The actions which Jesus requires are supernatural responses. We would not do them normally (motivation), nor could we (means, power). Thus, the actions set the follower of Jesus apart from all others.

(6) Generally speaking, the actions required of our Lord necessitate the surrender of our personal rights. To put it in other words, we could file charges against our enemy for their doing to us what they have done.

(7) The list of practices which Jesus laid down here is suggestive, not all inclusive. Matthew, for example, gives us additional matters to consider, which were a part of this same sermon (cf. Matt. 5:41). Jesus did not intend for this list of required responses to be considered complete, but rather suggestive. These are but examples of the way in which a more general principle: Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

(8) The things Jesus required require faith and supernatural enablement. These are not acts which one does in his own strength, in order to be saved, but are acts which one who has been saved does, due to the new mind and the new strength Christ gives through His Spirit.

(9) The things which our Lord here commands could be abused and may need to be set aside in order to carry out other instructions. The Christian life is not simple, as the Pharisees sought to make it (they really complicated it further). The Christian seldom acts on just one principle at a time, but on several, all held in balance and tension. We are thus something like a juggler, trying to keep several principles in the air at the same time by our deeds.

(10) The practice of the commands of our Lord given here relate to the “blessings” pronounced by our Lord above. Doing as Jesus commands may make us poor. We may object, “But I’d go broke doing this!” Jesus’ words above, “Blessed are you who are poor … ” would become very relevant.

(11) Knowing that one had made the commitment to practice these precepts would have a great impact on his conduct. For example, if I knew that I were not going to strike a person back who hit me, I would be encouraged thereby to become a blessed “peacemaker” and “gentle” person (cf. Matt. 5:5, 9). Those who choose to carry firearms in their cars know that this does not tend to make them meek, just as those who choose a more pacifistic lifestyle tend to avoid developing chips on their shoulders. The conscious chose to obey Jesus’ commands here will also tend us to develop other godly characteristics.

Parables Explaining the
Need for Loving Our Enemies
(6:39-49)

I would not “go down fighting” for the fact that all of these words are parables, but I do think that the one common factor is that of explaining why it is essential for Jesus’ followers to obey these commands. In simplest terms, Jesus is saying that it is necessary for His followers to “march to the beat of a different drum,” to live life by a higher standard, to have their practice be better than that of others, who are not His followers. “Betterness” is the unifying thought which undergirds these verses and gives a unity of thought. Let us briefly summarize the impact of each statement which our Lord makes here to see His reasons for “betterness” in living of His followers.

(1) Guides of the blind need to see better than those they lead, v. 39. The first parable has to do with those who lead the blind. If the “guide” is as blind as the one he leads, both will get hurt. The guide for the blind must see better than the one he guides. Jesus came, He said, to “give sight to the blind” (Luke 4:18). This, I believe this involved more than the giving of physical sight (cf. John 9:35-41). If Jesus’ followers are going to do as He did, their sight must be better than that of sinners.

(2) Teachers must be better than their students, v. 40. Jesus reminded His of what we all know: teachers must be better than their students, for it is the student’s task to come up to the level of his teacher. We do not have a 5th grade student teaching 12th grade students. We might, however, have a 12th grade student teaching the 5th grader (in the old days this happened). Because students are in the process of becoming like their teachers, teachers should be better.

(3) Eye inspectors and correctors must have better vision than the one whose eye from which they are trying to remove a small foreign particle, vv. 41-42. If one has bad eyesight, caused by a large foreign object, he can hardly function well at helping another remove a small imperfection from his eye. One must have better vision than the one with impaired vision, whom we are seeking to help.

(4) The superiority of some things can only be discerned by the better quality of their output, their “fruit,” vv. 43-45. The quality of some unseen things can only be measured by the visible “fruit” of their output. The nature (species) and quality of a tree can only be known by the nature and quality of its fruit. The condition of a man’s heart, invisible to other men, can only be judged by what proceeds from him (his mouth). If following Christ is the better way, then Christians should produce better “fruit.” Thus, Christians are called to live by a much higher standard.

(5) Obedience to the “tough” commands of our Lord proves a person to be a true follower of Christ, and handling the tough tasks now assures us of enduring tough times ahead, vv. 46-49. Jesus taught that it is not only to call Jesus Lord, they must prove He is Lord by obeying His commands (v. 46). It is in doing the tough things which shows our discipleship. It is not test of a child’s obedience to hand him money and instruct him to go and buy candy. It is a test of obedience to have the child submit to an inoculation at the doctor’s office.

In verses 47-49, Jesus sought to illustrate the fact that doing the hard thing now gives confidence in the hard times ahead. When building a house, the wise man “goes the extra mile” of laying a strong foundation. Digging deep to establish a solid foundation is not the easy way, but when the storms come, the building will stand. Obedience to our Lord’s commands regarding the loving of our enemies is not easy, but it does give us confidence that in the future we will have been well founded, well established in our faith and obedience, and able, by His grace, to withstand any coming storms.

In each and every one of these illustrations, the need for “betterness” has been established, even though the cost is high to live according to Christ’s higher standard. The commands of Christ regarding loving our enemies is a very high standard, higher than that which others hold or practice, but this only shows that which God all things are possible for those who trust in Him, who obey His commands, and who are sustained by His power and grace.

Principles Underlying the Loving of our Enemies
(6:31-38)

The precepts about loving our enemies, which our Lord has given us in verses 27-30 are based upon principles. Beginning from the lowest level principle and ascending to the highest, Jesus gives us several governing principles in verses 31-38. Let us briefly consider these.

(1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This principle is based upon a fundamental premise, that of reciprocity. We tend to respond to others in kind. Those who love us, we love. Those who are kind to us, we are kind to. Those who are harsh with us, we tend to be harsh with. The “golden rule” teaches us that that given the human tendency toward reciprocity we should treat others in the same way that we want them to respond to us. If we want people to be kind and gracious toward us, we must be kind and gracious toward them.

There is nothing particularly noble about following this principle, since we serve our own best interest by being kind toward others. Kindness shown toward others tends to be reciprocated toward us. We gain from what we give. Much of the secular counsel in how to relate toward others is based upon the principle of the golden rule. It does not rise above the standard which unbelievers set for themselves.

The golden rule, however, is but a minimum requirement. It relates toward with the expectation that our kindness will be returned. It does good so that good will be done for us. The golden rule can be followed by any self-seeking person. Obedience to it has little virtue, for it sets a standard which all men would try to keep. The golden rule is not bad—it is simply not good enough. Thus, our Lord presses on to other (higher)principles.

(2) Do good unto others when they have done evil against you.

Jesus made it very clear that there is no virtue in living according to the same standard as others, even sinners (vv. 32-34). Then Christian is to surpass the world’s minimum standard in the matter of loving others. The world gladly responds in kind. Sinners love those who love them. But the saint must love those who hate him. This is by far the more difficult path. If others reciprocate in kind, we are to respond otherwise. We are not only to give love for love, and good for good, we are to love our enemies, and to return good for evil.

(3) Do unto others, without looking to men for your reward.

If we are to do good to those who have done evil against us, we are also to do good to men who will do evil against us. Men do good things for others, expecting them to do for them in return (reciprocation). The Christian not only is to disregard what their enemy has done against them, but is also to act kindly toward others, knowing that they may not reciprocate, and may do evil to us when we have done good to them.

Sinners look to men for their reward, and they look for their rewards to come quickly. Christ’s followers are to look to God for their reward, and that may not come until eternity. This means, of course, that men must live by faith in order to love their enemy, faith that God sees, that God rewards, and that blessings will come later on.

(4) Do unto others as God has done unto you.

While sinners deal with others in accordance with the way they have been treated by them, saints are to deal with others in accordance with the way God has treated us (and all men). Christ’s followers are to show mercy to their enemies because God has shown mercy to us. In His mercy, God has always provided men with a way to escape the judgment of God. This has always been by means of God’s grace, through the instrumentality of man’s repentance and faith (which is also a gift of God). The mercy of God is to provide the follower of Christ with the motivation to show mercy to his enemy. We are to treat others as God has treated us.

(5) Do unto others in the same way you want God to do to you.

We have already seen that we are to deal with men as God has dealt with us. Now we must press this even further so that we deal with men in such a way that determines how God will deal with us in the future. This is not an easy principle to grasp, but the Lord Jesus taught that the way we treat others determines how God will treat us. In the “Lord’s Prayer” Jesus taught that we are to ask God:

“‘AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS, AS WE ALSO HAVE FORGIVEN OUR DEBTORS’” (Matt. 6:12).

Lest we fail to grasp what this means, our Lord explains,

“For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matt. 6:14-15).

God deals with us in the same way that we deal with others. God judges us according to the standard we use for others (Matt. 7:1-2). When we deal with men in mercy, God deals with us according to mercy. When we demand our rights, that is, justice, then God gives us justice (what we deserve) too. So, Jesus taught that God deals with us in the same way we deal with others, including our enemies:

“And do not pass judgment and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you shall not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap. For whatever measure you deal out to others, it will be dealt to you in return (Luke 6:37-38).

Here it is, then. While ordinary men live ordinary lives, Christians are to live supernatural lives. While ordinary men love those who love them, Christians are to love those who hate them. And they can do so because they look to God for their reward, not to men. Christians can be taken advantage of by men because God is the one who blesses and rewards them. Christians can engage in a kind of “deficit spending” of love because God will always replenish the supply.

Conclusion

These words of our Lord are indeed difficult and perplexing, but their essence is clear. We are to do what no one else will do—love our enemy. We are to do so because God has loved us while we were His enemies. We are to do so because God is the One who will bless us for obeying His commands.

We know from the gospels that our Lord practiced what He preached. He loved His enemies and He went the extra mile on the cross of Calvary. He provided, at His expense, the way of salvation for men. Through the cross of Christ men can be transformed from enemies to intimate friends (cf. Ephesians 2).

There are a number of ways in which our text could be misinterpreted and misapplied. Let me say that this text was not written to suggest or to sanction the abuse of our Lord’s disciples by evil men. This text was not written for the thief, to sanction his taking of our coat or our shirt. This text was not written to justify borrowing money and not paying it back. While there will always be those who will use such texts to demand unreasonable things from Christians, this was obviously not our Lord’s intent. He was advocating the overcoming of evil with good, not the practice of evil against the good.

This text also surfaces the fact that we often act out of unrealistic expectations. Much of our acts of “love” done toward others is very selfishly motivated. We love others in order to be loved in return. We give in order to receive. We do good, so that good will be done to us. We serve on the basis of expected reciprocity. Whether or not we continue to serve and to love others is conditioned by how they respond toward, by how must we get back from them in return. Our Lord’s words are intended to show such thinking as utterly mistaken. We must serve others, expecting nothing in return from them, but assured that we will receive our reward from God. And the beauty of God’s grace is that He rewards us far beyond that which we deserve. He rewards in accordance with His grace and His riches.

I personally believe that much of the so-called “burn-out” in ministry is simply people who are angry with men (and with God) because there has not been any reciprocity, and return for our sacrifices and service. This kind of burn-out is based upon self-interest and self-seeking, not on the obedience of a true disciple of Christ. Let us forsake our expectations of receiving our rewards from men.

I have already indicated that our Lord’s concept of “tough love” is vastly different from that which is often propagated in the name of Christianity today. “Tough love,” as it is commonly spoken of, is love that is tough on others, love that looks out for one’s own interests. Biblical “tough love” is that which is tough on us, the lover, and which is merciful to others, even our enemies. You will not find our text in most books which deal with “tough love” because our Lord’s words condemn what is popularly taught.

This leads me to a final word of advice about the way we listen to sermons and the way we read “Christian counsel books.” We have a tendency to quickly accept the “sounds good to me” advice and counsel, that advice which conforms to our own sinful tendencies and preferences. Of course we don’t want to be taken advantage of by evil men. Naturally we do not want to return good for evil. And thus we quickly look for reasons which we should not have to do what Jesus has taught here.

But let me remind you that God’s thoughts are not man’s thoughts, nor are His ways our ways. Therefore, we should expect that much of what our Lord has to say is going to be hard to accept. Truth is going to initially be reacted to. Only after much thought and prayer can we see that the hard things are exactly what our Lord meant, and what our fallen nature wants to reject. The corollary to this is that false teaching, that which makes things easy on us, is going to “sound good” to us, and be accepted without a great deal of critical thought. Let us beware of that teaching which “sounds good” to us too quickly. The renewing of our minds requires that our thinking change into conformity with God’s Word. Hard to hear or not, let us listen to what our Lord has taught us in this passage.

! Lesson 21:
Jesus the Healer
(Luke 7:1-17)

Luke 7:1-17 When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. 2 And a certain centurion’s slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. 3 And when he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. 4 And when they had come to Jesus, they earnestly entreated Him, saying, “He is worthy for You to grant this to him; 5 for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue.” 6 Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, “Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof;  7 for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 “For I, too, am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 9 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that was following Him, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.” 10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

11 And it came about soon afterwards, that He went to a city called Nain; and His disciples were going along with Him, accompanied by a large multitude. 12 Now as He approached the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizable crowd from the city was with her. 13 And when the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her, and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise!” 15 And the dead man sat up, and began to speak. And Jesus gave him back to his mother. 16 And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” 17 And this report concerning Him went out all over Judea, and in all the surrounding district.

Matthew 8:5-13 And when He had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, entreating Him, 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain.” 7 And He said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 “For I, too, am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled, and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. 11 “And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed that very hour.

Introduction

The story of the healing of the centurion’s servant can best be understood in the light of the Old Testament account of the healing of Naaman, as recorded in 2 Kings 5. Naaman was a military man, too, like the centurion. Naaman was the captain of the army of the king of Syria, Israel’s enemy. We know that because of Israel’s sin and rebellion against God Syria was given dominance over God’s people. The Syrian army, under the command of Naaman, would wage periodic attacks, plundering cities, taking the crops, and even taking slaves. It was one such slave girl who happened to become the servant of Naaman’s wife. She told her master’s wife that if Naaman were in Israel there was a prophet of God who could heal him of his leprosy. Naaman decided that it was worth the effort to make the trip to Israel to seek such a healing.

Naaman took the expected course of action. He worked from “the top down.” Naaman received a letter from his king, the king of Syria, to the king of Israel. In effect, this letter ordered the king of Israel to see to it that Naaman was healed of his leprosy. In addition to the persuasive power of the letter from the king of Syria, Naaman came laden down with money and expensive gifts. This would “sweeten the pot” and provide more incentive for benevolence, surely securing his healing if it was possible in any way.

The king of Israel was greatly distressed at the arrival of Naaman and on reading the letter he presented from the king of Syria. He viewed this as a political ploy, giving the Syrians a pretext for another attack on Israel. After all, how was the king of Israel to heal of pagan leper? When Elisha, the prophet of God to Israel, heard of these matters, he sent word to the king of Israel to send Naaman to him, so that he would know that there was a prophet in Israel.

Naaman arrived at the door of Elisha’s house. It must have been an awesome sight, seeing all those “Rolls Royce chariots” arriving at the house, something like the arrival of the black limousines at the White House, when dignitaries and heads of state visit our president. Obviously, Naaman had expected the “red carpet” treatment from the Israelites. His nation’s political supremacy, His commissioning letter from the king of Syria, his gifts and money in hand assured him of being treated very well, he thought.

It was quite a disappointment to have been greeted by a mere servant, rather than the prophet. So, too, it was humiliating to be instructed by the prophet through the servant that he must dip himself seven times in the Jordan river if he would be cleansed. In fact, Naaman was downright furious. He expected to be greeted by the prophet, and to have been healed personally by the prophet, using some dramatic words and gestures. He expected to pay well for his healing, of course, but in the process to be treated as his position deserved.

A wise aid to Naaman suggested that he had little to lose but his pride, and much to gain. Had the prophet asked for a great sacrifice on his part, he would have gladly paid, so why not do what he said? Naaman obeyed and was cleansed.

The reason why the healing of Naaman is pertinent to us is that Naaman and the centurion are very similar in many ways, except in their approach to God for healing. Naaman came on the basis of human power and authority. He came as the captain of the Syrian army and by means of the power of Syria. He expected that his influence and power, not to mention his money, would assure him of healing. The centurion, on the other hand, totally set aside all of his position and power, humbly appealing to Jesus as one who was unworthy of His gifts, indeed, even of His presence.

The story of the centurion’s faith is both significant and relevant to us. Our Lord made a point of commending his faith. This man was a Gentile, not a Jew, and yet he put the Jews to shame in this matter of faith. Few things are more needed in our individual lives and in the life of the church than a vital, growing faith. The centurion’s faith serves both as a stimulus and as a model for Christians of all ages.

The Approach of this Message

In this message we will study two incidents in the life of our Lord. The first incident is that of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1-10); the second is that of the raising the dead son of the Jewish widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17). These two incidents have certain elements in common and other distinct areas of contrast.[123] These incidents share in common these fact that both are miracles performed by our Lord. Also, both of these incidents have been recorded by Luke as samples of the kind of miracles Jesus had been performing, the reports of which went to John the Baptist, and resulted in his question to Jesus, as asked by means of two of his disciples (Luke 7:18ff.). These two incidents serve as incentives and models for faith in our lives. Finally, these miracles serve to confirm and testify to the identity of Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah.

We will begin by studying the healing of the centurion’s servant, and then move on to the raising of the widow’s son. Then we will return to consider the characteristics of faith which we can discern from both incidents. Let us listen well to these words which can stimulate and strengthen our faith.

The Centurion’s Faith
(7:1-10)

The story of the healing of the centurion’s son is a remarkable one, but let us focus on some of the critical features which Luke and Matthew include in their accounts of this event.

First, note with me that there are some very perplexing differences between Luke’s account and that of Matthew. It is not difficult to conclude that the accounts in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 are a record of the same incident. What is difficult to grasp is why Luke’s gospel makes a point of telling us that the centurion never personally spoke with Jesus, while Matthew’s account clearly gives us this impression. Matthew’s account seems to describe a face-to-face conversation between the centurion and Jesus, while in Luke’s account two delegations are sent by the centurion to Jesus in the man’s behalf. He even explains why he did not come personally to petition Jesus to heal his servant (Luke 7:7). The issue which faces any conservative student of the Bible is the explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the two gospel accounts. Since we believe that the Bible is free from error, we must also hold that there are no unexplainable discrepancies in parallel gospel accounts of the same incident. How, then, can we explain the apparent contradictions in these two accounts?

My first answer is that we should not feel obliged to give a full explanation where one does not exist. We are not to close our eyes to problems in the text, but faith allows us to live with apparent inconsistencies, knowing that God’s word is inerrant and infallible, and that our understanding of His word is neither of the above. Faith is not opposed to the facts, but it is not troubled when all the facts are not made known. Let us remember that the gospel writers were aware of the writings of others (cf. Luke 1:1-2), and yet they felt free to have differences in their accounts—not differences which made another biblical author in error, but perhaps differences which remind us that we have only partial accounts of any incident in the life of Christ.

For example, in Luke’s account of the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17-26), he informs us that he was let down through the roof. In Matthew’s account, this is never mentioned (Matt. 9:2-8). From reading only Matthew’s account, we would never have guessed that the man who was healed had a most unusual “entrance.” Neither account is in error, and both can be harmonized. We must suppose that in some cases, if all the facts were reported, apparent discrepancies would be explained, but the purpose of the accounts was not so much to convince critics as it was to proclaim the gospel, from different points of view. Apparent discrepancies should not be avoided, but neither should they make us feel compelled to answer every problem when only limited information is given.

I have a friend who is an attorney. He once had a client who was involved in a traffic accident. His client had been struck by another car in an intersection. The light was green for his client. He had two police officers who saw that the light was green. The other party insisted that his light was green, and he had two deputy sheriffs to testify to this, who were standing on the opposite corner. The bottom line was that the traffic light was malfunctioning. Knowing the malfunction of the light cleared up all of the discrepancies in the two accounts.

Having said this, there are various ways of explaining the differences between these two gospel accounts. The first is to view the centurion as not coming initially, but personally appealing to Jesus later on, perhaps as the servant became more critically ill and his pain intensified. I find this a little hard to accept. Another explanation is simply that Matthew’s account is the more abbreviated, and that he meant us to understand that the centurion appeared before Jesus and appealed to Him by means of his representatives. We know that this was Matthew’s meaning in a text which is somewhat parallel in this regard:

Then he [Pilate] released Barabbas for them; but Jesus he scourged and delivered over to be crucified (Matt. 27:26).

Pilate did not personally scourge Jesus or hand Him over to be crucified; he did so through his agents. So, too, we could say that Matthew intended us to understand his account of the petition of the centurion’s representatives.

Second, note that the centurion is never named, even though Luke is a man of great detail. I believe that this is for several reasons. Luke was more interested in describing the man’s character than giving us his name. He was also intent upon focusing on the man’s position and power as a centurion. Luke wanted us to think of this man as a Gentile, which he most certainly must have been. Finally, Luke wanted us to see this man in terms of his position of power. This centurion was a military officer, attached to the occupation forces in Israel. His power with respect to the nationals was almost unlimited. He, like Naaman, could have attempted to secure healing for his servant by using his political connections, but he laid all these things aside. Rather than appealing to Jesus as a man of great position and power, he approached Him as an unworthy Gentile. He demanded nothing, but pled for grace.

Third, note that the centurion asked nothing for himself, but was seeking physical healing for his servant, a young lad who was very likely a Jew.

Fourth, the only motivation to which the centurion appealed was the mercy of our Lord. In Matthew’s account especially the condition of the servant is described as being very painful. The basis upon which Jesus was approached was that of human need, not of human power or worthiness or merit. So, too, the centurion offered nothing in return for the healing of the servant.

How interesting to contrast the humility of the centurion with the hypocrisy of the Jewish elders, who pled his case before Jesus. Only Luke provides us with the details on this matter, including the petition of the Jewish elders to Jesus on the behalf of the centurion:

“This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue’ (Luke 7:4b-5).

The centurion saw himself as unworthy of the grace of God. He did not feel worthy to have Jesus come under his roof (v. 6), nor even to personally come to appear before the Master (v. 7).

The Jewish elders, however, saw the centurion as very worthy. The basis of his worthiness was his favorable attitude and actions toward the Jews. Far from disdaining the natives who were under the authority of Rome, this man loved the nation of Israel. He greatly valued them as a nation, and thus, I believe, had a considerable respect for their religion. This love for the nation was expressed by his role in building (or helping to build) their synagogue. At the bottom line, the Jewish elders were much like some institutional Christians today, they believed that big donors were to receive “special handling” by religious leaders. Perhaps they had another fund-raiser planned and were hoping to hit this man up for another donation. Frankly, the whole thing stinks. The true attitude of the Jews toward Gentiles of a lessor “value” can be seen from Luke 4:22-30 and Acts 22:21-23). Man surely does discriminate, and on the basis of outward appearances.

Jesus went with the Jewish elders, toward the house of the centurion, but for very different reasons than they had suggested. Jesus acted apart from selfish interest, and out of a heart filled with mercy. They acted out of self-interest, for very selfish reasons. Rich and generous Gentiles were worthy of Jewish ministry, but the unworthy were worthy of rejection, disdain, and even eternal damnation, at least in the minds of many Jews.

Fifth, the centurion made his request, based upon what he had heard of Jesus. So far as we know, these two never met. So far as the centurion was concerned, there was no need. Being from or near Capernaum, the headquarters of Jesus, there must have been a great deal to hear about Jesus (such as the healing of the paralytic, lowered the roof, whose sins were forgiven—Luke 5:18-26), and this man had a listening ear.

Sixth, the centurion must have had a fair understanding and appreciation for the Jew’s religious beliefs. Notice that the centurion did not wish to have Jesus put in the position to have to come into his house. This was not because the official was unwilling to have Jesus, but, due to his contact with the Jews, he understood the Jewish reticence to have any intimate contact with a Gentile. Furthermore, the centurion built their synagogue, so he had to have known a good deal about their religious beliefs and practices. He was not offended by these views, nor did he in any way challenge them. Indeed, he accommodated them. This was a very humble thing for a military superior to do for a captive people.

Seventh, the centurion had a grasp of the meaning of authority. The centurion was a man of authority himself, but he was quick to recognize that his authority did not extend to the healing of dying men. Jesus’ authority did. Jesus’ authority was greater than the centurion’s. Thus, the centurion does not mention his own authority, except to illustrate why Jesus need not be personally present to heal his servant. A man of authority need only speak the word. Jesus, the centurion had concluded from the reports he had heard, was a man of greatest authority. He even had authority over nature. Thus, He could order sickness to depart and it would do so, whether or not He was present. He also recognized that Jesus’ authority, like his own, was the result of a higher authority (“I myself am a man under authority,” v. 7). A man of authority, like the centurion, could quickly recognize and appreciate the superior authority of Jesus.

Eighth, each of the accounts of the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew and Luke have a unique emphasis. Luke’s account, addressed primarily to a Gentile audience, provides great encouragement for Gentile readers because here the faith of a Gentile is praised by our Lord as superior to that of Israelites. There is hope for Gentiles. Also, though, there is conveyed the great respect which the centurion had for Judaism and for the Jews, which caused him to send a delegation of Jewish elders to petition Jesus for the healing of his servant. Matthew’s gospel, on the other hand, written with a Jewish audience in mind, tends to humble the reader by including Jesus’ words that not only commended this Gentile’s faith, but which also spoke of the fact that in the kingdom many Jews would be absent, while many Gentiles would be present (Matt. 8:10-12).[124]

The Raising of the Widow’s Son
(7:11-17)

Shortly after the healing of the centurion’s slave Jesus was traveling toward Nain, accompanied by a large crowd. Heading out of town, in the opposite direction, was another crowd, but of a very different disposition. The crowd with Jesus (except for the “sad sack” Pharisees) was joyful, jubilant, expectant. Everything here was upbeat. The other crowd was the opposite. They were mourning the death of a widow’s only son. There was no joy, no hope, no expectancy.

The two crowds met head-on, outside the city of Nain. This put Jesus face to face with the widow, whose grief was evident. She did seem to know who Jesus was, or is she did it did not matter. She did not ask for nor expect anything, except perhaps that Jesus and His followers stand aside. All of the initiative was taken by our Lord, and not in response to faith, but only in response to grief and human need.

Having great compassion on her, Jesus told the widow not to cry. Many have said this to a mourner, but only Jesus could be right in doing so. We tell others not to cry because it makes us uncomfortable. Jesus told her not to cry because it was unnecessary and inappropriate. She was not to cry because her son was not to remain dead. Rejoicing was the appropriate response. Jesus then touched the coffin, bringing the procession to a halt. This must have caught the poll-bearers off guard because this would have normally defiled Jesus. With no ceremony, Jesus simply instructed the boy to arise, which was immediately evident by his sitting up and speaking. The more labored and time-consuming raisings performed by Elijah and Elisha were greatly overshadowed by this instantaneous raising of Jesus.

Both crowds seemed to explode with joy and praise. They feared God and acknowledged Jesus to be a great prophet, at least. This did not exclude Him from being Messiah, though neither did it acknowledge Him as such. From the response of the people to John it would seem that they thought a prophet might be Messiah. At least Messiah would be a prophet. “God had visited His people,” they said, and so He had. The reports of Jesus’ greatness spread throughout the region.

This story, like that of the healing of the centurion’s son, also brings to mind the healings of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. Jesus’ raising of the dead son reminds us of a similar incident in Elijah’s ministry (1 Ki. 17:17-24) and in that of Elisha as well (2 Ki. 4:18-37). In the case of Elijah especially, there are parallels to the raising of the son of the woman who lived at Nain. Both boys were the only son of a widow. Both boys were raised from the dead by a “prophet of God.” Both Elijah and Jesus presented the boys to their mother. Both raisings proved that a true prophet of God was present.

Conclusion

I believe that these two miracles, the healing of the centurion’s son and the raising of the widow’s son, serve several purposes in the developing message of Luke’s gospel. First, these miracles testify to the fact that Jesus is who He claimed to be—Israel’s Messiah. No prophet had ever surpassed these miracles. Second, these miracles are the backdrop for the questions of John the Baptist, which are to be introduced in the following section. Third, these miracles were the basis for the faith of men and women. Finally, these miracles are samples of the kind of faith which we should have today. Let us look back over these two miracles to discover the characteristics of faith which these to incidents teach us.

(1) Faith honors and pleases God. If anything is clear in the story of the centurion, it is that the faith of this man both pleased and honored God. God delights in men’s faith. God is honored by faith when He is the object of that faith. What greater compliment to the character of God than to have men demonstrate that they have confidence in Him. Men find God trustworthy because He is worthy of men’s trust. Faith honors God. Faith pleases God. Faith is commended by God.

(2) Faith focuses on God as its proper object. The centurion did not trust in his (great) authority, but in Christ’s. The centurion believed that Christ was Lord of nature, that He had authority to command sickness to depart. His faith was focused on the right object.

Too often, we focus our attention on our faith, rather than on God, who is the object of our faith. The centurion was not guilty of such self-consciousness. In fact, he did not mention his faith at all. It was Jesus who pointed out the great faith of this man. The centurion had fixed his attention of Jesus, on His compassion, His mercy, His power. The centurion was preoccupied with the person of our Lord, not his possession of faith.

To press this point a little further, some Christians lose the focus of their faith by concentrating on the promises of God, rather than the person of God. Promises are only as good as the person. Promises alone are worthless. A healthy faith is a faith in the person, which then enables us to believe the promises. And if our faith in the person of God is sufficient, we hardly need promises, for we know that God is greater than those promises He has given. The difference here is subtle, but important. It is the difference between God as the gift and God as the giver. The centurion’s faith was focused on God.

(3) Faith anticipates and asks for great things from a great God. The centurion not only asked our Lord for a miraculous healing—the boy was about to die—but also for a healing that was out of the ordinary. The centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant “long distance.” His God was so great that He need not be present to heal, and thus he asked for Jesus merely to speak the word. Faith in a great God is evidenced by requests that are out of the ordinary.

How often my prayers and those of others I hear are merely requests for the humanly possible. It is not that God cares little about colds, sniffles, the flu, minor aches and pains, but lets face it folks, a little aspirin, bed rest, and time usually solves these problems. The things which should require faith are those things which are not humanly possible. Let us once again read through the New Testament, looking at those things for which our Lord and His apostles prayed. Let our prayer be a reflection of the greatness of our God.

(4) Faith is always found in the vicinity of grace and mercy. The centurion’s petition was a request for grace, and thus he totally rejected any worthiness on his own part (although the Jewish elders thought he was worthy). The faith of the centurion was not only faith in the power of our Lord, but in His character, specifically His mercy. He knew that Jesus was not only able to heal from afar, but willing, because of the great suffering of his servant. Faith cannot be divorced from mercy and grace. God’s gifts to men are not the result of man’s worthiness, and not even the result of man’s faith, but of God’s goodness and mercy. In the case of the raising of the widow’s son, no faith was demonstrated, no request was made, but Jesus saw the need and met it.

BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED THROUGH FAITH (Eph. 2:8)

(5) Faith does not require sight or visible evidence. So far as we know, the centurion never saw Jesus. The centurion did not request Jesus’ presence, nor did he feel it necessary for his servant to be healed. Faith is trusting in the person of God, based upon the testimony of those who have seen him. So it was for the centurion and so it is for us. Our faith is to be grounded in the testimony of the apostles. Faith does not require sight. The centurion’s faith did not require Christ’s presence, nor rites, rituals and magical formulas, only the spoken word of the Lord.

(6) The faith which our Lord commends in the centurion is for the blessing of God on others, rather than on one’s self. Notice the unselfish nature of the centurion’s faith. He trusted God and asked our Lord for the healing of his servant, not the blessing of his bank account, and so on. The “name it and claim it” folks always seem to dwell on the selfish dimensions of faith. Have faith and God will heal you. Have faith and God will make you rich and famous. Have faith and God will bless you. The faith of the centurion is vastly superior. It is focused upon God and its application is toward others. May our faith be out-going, rather than ingrown. Faith is a gift, like the other gifts, not to be used in a self-indulgent sort of way, but to meet the needs of others.

(7) Faith grows. Our Lord commends the faith of the centurion, but it would be wrong to think that his faith was somehow instant faith. I believe that the faith of the centurion was a faith that was nurtured, that grew over time. His faith was evidenced in the way he dealt with the Jews, and especially in his generosity toward the building of their synagogue. The centurion seemed to trust God to bless Gentiles through the Jews. He invested his worldly goods in blessing Abraham’s seed. The faith which we see commended by our Lord here is not the “first-fruits” of his faith, so to speak, but the evidence of a growing, healthy faith.

I believe that faith must be exercised, if it is to grow. May God stretch and increase our faith. May our Lord in the day to come be able to commend our faith, as he did the faith of the centurion. And may our faith be a blessing to others.

! Lesson 22:
John’s Problem With Jesus
(Luke 7:18-35)

 Introduction

The danger which faces us as we come to the account of the question which John the Baptist relayed to Jesus is that we won’t take it as seriously as we should. Several major factors could hinder our grasp of the gravity of this situation. First, we have a general problem with the PIOUS BIAS as I have come to call it. That is, we are inclined to think that because John the Baptist was a prophet, he must have always been pious. We must hold this erroneous viewpoint in spite of the fact that most of the heroes of the Bible are described as mere mortals, with the same sinful tendencies and temptations as the rest of us, and with unbecoming behavior at times. Second, we tend to think of John only in positive terms because of his past piety. He is the one who identified Jesus as the Messiah. He is the one who said that Jesus must increase, while he must decrease. He is the one who encouraged some of his disciples to become Jesus’ disciples instead. Third, we tend to think of John positively because of the good things which our Lord had to say about him. Fourth, John died a hero’s death, and thus we don’t want to speak of him in any way which would tarnish his reputation.

While John the Baptist was a great man, he was not a perfect man. This was the worst moment of John’s life, so far as the biblical record is concerned. We will not appreciate this passage of Scripture and its relevance to our lives unless we begin by understanding the seriousness of the error which is depicted here. Set aside your pre-conceived opinions of what happens here for a moment and consider exactly what is taking place when John sends two of his disciples to Jesus with this question, “Are You the One who is coming, or do we look for someone else?” (Luke 7:19, 20).[125]

(1) The question which John asked was John’s question. Initially I wondered whether of not John’s disciples might have embellished John’s question, but Luke’s account repeats the question. The first time the question is spoken by John to his two disciples. The second time the question is spoken by the disciples. The wording of the two questions is the same. The question which John’s disciples asked Jesus is precisely the question John instructed them to ask.

(2) John’s question was the result of his unhappiness with what Jesus was saying and doing. The section begins with these words: “And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things” (Luke 7:18).

The two miracles recorded in the previous verses of chapter seven—the healing of the Centurion’s servant and the raising of the widow’s son from the dead—would surely have been included in the report which was given to John. Clearly, John was not altogether pleased with the reports he was receiving as to what Jesus had been saying and doing. The question which John sent to Jesus via his two disciples reflected John’s displeasure.

(3) John is questioning Christ, the Messiah. John does not here openly question God, nor does he question himself or his ministry. John does not question the fact that Messiah will come. John questions that Jesus is the coming Messiah. And this is in light of his own words to the contrary in the past:

And John bore witness saying, “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and He remained upon Him. And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32-34).

(4) John’s “question” is not really a question—it is a public challenge. The question, once again, is this: “Are You the One who is coming, or do we look for someone else?” (Luke7:19, 20).

The “we,” given the context of this account, would seem to include not only John and his followers, but the crowd which I believe was present at the time the question was put to Jesus. The “we” thus is nearly equivalent to “Israel.” The response of Jesus to the crowd about John also suggests that the question was put to Jesus publicly. Given all the miracles which Jesus was doing at the time, he could hardly have been alone, so that this question could have been put to Jesus privately, even if the two had wanted to do so.

The biggest difficulty with the question, however, is with the inference of the last statement, “… or do we look for someone else?” There is a clearly implied threat here. If you fail to answer our questions satisfactorily, we will look for someone else to be the Messiah.

(5) John is forcing, not following, Jesus. Rather than following Jesus, as John has done in the past, John is attempting to force Jesus into declaring Himself as Messiah, and acting as John has predicted. This is not as clearly stated in Luke’s account here,[126] as it is by Matthew:

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John” (Matt. 11:12-13, NASB).

If the forcefulness began with time of John the Baptist and was present to the time of Jesus’ words, it is not unlikely that John and/or some of his followers were trying to “push the program,” to forcefully help things along. I believe that it is evident from our text that John is being pushy, overly forceful.

(6) John was challenging Jesus to do what He had purposed not to do. John was pressing Jesus for a public announcement, a public commitment to be the Messiah. He was demanding that Jesus proclaim Himself as Messiah or John and the others would reject Him and turn to another. It is obvious that Jesus did not intend to bear witness to Himself in this fashion. Jesus did not want men to accept Him as the Messiah because He claimed to be Messiah, but because the evidence was compelling that He was Messiah.

The so-called “great confession” of Peter will come later in the gospel accounts, but when Peter does finally conclude that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, it is not because Jesus has told him so:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:15-17).

The reason why Jesus refused to publicly claim to be Israel’s Messiah was so that flesh and blood would not reveal His identity, but that the Spirit of God would do so, based upon the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah, and the works and words which Jesus did, proving Him to be Messiah.

Luke’s account of the “great confession” of Peter goes even further, showing the reader that even after Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ Jesus did not want His disciples to proclaim His messiahship:

And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” But He warned them, and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, … (Luke 9:20-21).

John’s question, or rather John’s challenge, was wrong for various reasons, but one of these was that it was Christ’s purpose not to publicly identify Himself as Messiah, the very thing John demanded, or else he and others would find themselves another “messiah.”

Put in its crassest form, John was saying to Jesus, “Put up or shut up! Enough of the way You have been functioning. Either you identify Yourself as Messiah (and get on with the program, of judgment and of arranging for my release) or else we’ll find ourselves another Messiah.”

Given this perspective of John’s words here, conveyed by two of his disciples, we can see that John has fallen far from what he once was. He who gladly accepted his role at one time, is now threatening to change things. He who was given the great privilege of identifying Jesus as Messiah, now challenges Messiah to prove Himself, not altogether unlike the challenge of Satan during our Lord’s temptation. He who once encouraged his disciples to follow after Jesus now sends two of his disciples after Jesus, not to follow Him wherever He would go, but to change His course.

The Approach of This Message

In this message, we will seek to understand some of the reasons for John’s spiritual decline. We will then focus on Luke’s emphasis in this section, which is to show how our Lord responded to the challenge. Finally, we shall seek to discover how John’s failure is like our own, and how, given our Lord’s teaching here, we can avoid falling into the same trap.

The Structure of the Text

The text can be outlined as follows:

(1) Verses 18-23 JOHN’S CHALLENGE and JESUS’ RESPONSE

(2) Verses 24-28 JESUS’ PUBLIC COMMENDATION OF JOHN

(3) Verses 29-35 WHAT THE MINISTRIES OF JESUS AND JOHN HAVE IN COMMON

(4) Verses 29-30 People’s response to John and to Messiah

(5) Verses 31-35 In spite of many differences between John and Jesus, both were rejected by the masses

Why Did John Go Wrong?

It is important to begin by pointing out that in neither Luke nor Matthew’s account is there an emphasis on explaining why John went astray at this point in time. I believe there are inferences in the gospels, but no clear statements nor emphasis on the reasons for John’s crankiness here. It may be of help to us to briefly consider some of the factors which contributed to John’s attitudes and actions.

(1) John had very little contact with Jesus. From what Luke tells us in his gospel, we would have to conclude that Jesus and John were virtual strangers. There was the contact between Mary and Elizabeth, at which time John leaped in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:41), but early in his life, John began to live a secluded life in the wilderness. The only way that John recognized Jesus as the Messiah was by means of the Spirit’s descent upon Him (John 1:29-34). Jesus avoided contact with John and his disciples to minimize competition and friction between them (John 4:1-3). It was not until John’s arrest that Jesus’ public ministry officially commenced (Matt. 4:12, 17). The point here is that John did not have a close relationship with Jesus which might have assured him of Jesus’ identity and of His ultimate fulfillment of the messianic prophecies, especially those John had emphasized.

(2) Jesus had not publicly identified Himself as Messiah. It was not from the mouth of Jesus that John learned He was the Messiah, but from the revelation of God to John and the witness of the Holy Spirit, in the form of the dove, which descended upon Him at His baptism. John seems to be seeking from Jesus what he had never heard, our Lord’s own testimony to the fact that He was Messiah.

(3) John had been Israel’s great prophet, but it appeared that Jesus was taking his place. John did not seem to mind having an inferior role to that of our Lord, but it might have been an irritation for John to learn that Jesus was being received as a great prophet. This is what we see in the immediately preceding context, in the crowd’s response to the raising of the widow’s dead son:

And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us! and, God, has visited His people!” (v. 16).

(4) There were great differences between John’s ministry and message and the ministry and message of our Lord. John and Jesus were very different men. Jesus was, it would seem, gentle and soft-spoken. John, it would appear, was rough-hewn and outspoken. Jesus was very much in contact with people, frequently found in the cities, and often in contact with sinners. John was a man who lived a very secluded life. He lived in the desert, so that the people had to come out to hear him preach, if they would hear him and be baptized. His seclusion was extended by his imprisonment. John did not eat many foods, but ate a kind of desert “C Rations.” Jesus, on the contrary, drank wine and ate foods that John did not and would not (cf. Luke 7:33). John’s disciples fasted, and Jesus’ disciples didn’t (Luke 5:33).

John’s ministry, so far as the gospel record informs us, did not include miracles, healings and wonders. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that John may have performed wonders, but we are never told of any. Jesus, on the other hand, frequently worked miracles. The two which are mentioned in the immediate context (the healing of the Centurion’s servant and the raising of the widow’s son from the dead) are but a sampling. It would not be difficult to see why Jesus’ healing ministry would trouble John if he had no healing ministry himself. Jesus’ ministry was, at the moment, very popular, while John had little or no public ministry while in prison.

The major difference between John and Jesus, as I see it, and the one which best explains John’s unhappiness with Jesus, is the difference in the emphasis of the message of each. John’s emphasis was on sin, judgment, and condemnation, while Jesus’ emphasis was on healing and salvation. Both emphases were biblical and important, but they were very different in tone and in their outworking. The Old Testament prophets contained an emphasis on both areas, but in practical outworking John focused on the judgment side of Messiah’s coming and Jesus focused on the salvation side.

John’s task was to condemn Israel’s sins and to warm of the impending judgment of God. It was also to call on men and women to repent for their sin to avoid the wrath of God. John’s problem was that he did not understand that there were two comings of Messiah, the second of which was for the purpose of judgment, the first of which was to become a provision for man’s salvation by dying for the sins of the world. Jesus’ first coming was to bear the judgment of God, not to bring it. John’s message was true, and it served the purpose of preparing men for Christ’s first coming by calling many to repentance. Those who acknowledged themselves to be sinners found grace and forgiveness. John was perplexed by our Lord’s mercy and healing, for He expected Him to inaugurate the kingdom in a very different way.

John’s challenge was thus his attempt to force the Lord’s hand, to press Jesus to announce that He was the Messiah, and to cause Him to begin to bring judgment to the earth. John had warned men that Messiah would come with fire, and John thought it was high time for Jesus to get with it, and to do as he had warned Messiah would do. John’s failure to fully grasp the prophecies of the Old Testament and thus the two-fold coming of Christ, led him to conclude that Jesus was in need of some straightening out. That is what John set out to do, but as we shall see, this is not what happened. Let us now move on to consider the way in which Jesus dealt with this crisis, which John precipitated.

Our Lord’s Response to John’s Challenge

I cannot help but to wonder how we might diagnose John’s problem today. Some would undoubtedly see this as a “self-image problem.” It seems to me that nearly every problem today is related (by us) to low self-esteem. I wonder which of the plethora of books on the shelves of the Christian bookstores we would have sent to John. Jesus’ actions and words would not have conformed to much of what we would say or do. Let us begin, then, by taking note of what Jesus didn’t do, but what we might have been inclined to do in His place.

Jesus did not do what John demanded. Jesus did not make a declaration that He was (or that He was not) the Messiah. John may have given an ultimatum, but Jesus didn’t take the bait. Jesus didn’t give John His personal attention. Some would have felt that John was merely lonely and depressed and that he needed some “quality time” spent with him. Jesus didn’t think so. Jesus did not tell John the answers to his problems, which would have put his mind at ease. John’s grasp of the messianic prophecies was incomplete and distorted. Jesus could have straightened John out. He could have laid out the whole “plan of the ages,” but He did not. And, Jesus, I might add, did not inform John that he was soon to die at the hand of Herod.

Jesus’ response to John was very simple. He simply told John’s emissaries to tell John what they had witnessed:

“Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor” (Luke 7:22).

In effect, Jesus is suggesting to John the solution to his problem. He is simply telling to John to do what every saint must do, compare the prophecies of the Old Testament with the deeds and declarations of Jesus Christ. If Jesus fulfills these prophecies, then the Bible bears witness to the fact that He is the Messiah. Note how the words and works of Jesus do compare with these Old Testament messianic prophecies in Isaiah:

John’s assurance that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah should come from the knowledge that the deeds and declarations of Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies which spoke of His healing ministry and of His preaching good news to the poor and the oppressed. John needed to get back to the Word, the Word which He had proclaimed. Unfortunately, John had tended to divide what God had joined together. John had filtered out the salvation and healing texts and focused only on the judgment texts. And yet, when we look at the Scriptures we find the two themes welded together. Look, for example, at the broader context of this text we just cited from the prophecy of Isaiah:

In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see. Once more the humble will rejoice in the LORD; the needy will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. The ruthless will vanish, the mockers will disappear, and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down — those who with a word make a man out to be guilty, who ensnare the defender in court and with false testimony deprive the innocent of justice (Isa. 29:18-21).

Perhaps because of the tendency of men to compartmentalize truth, God has in this prophecy and others joined together the two themes of mercy and justice, of salvation and judgment. While it will take two comings for these promises to be fulfilled, God wants His people to understand that Messiah will achieve both. He will accomplish salvation for those who trust in Him; and He will accomplish divine justice on those who persist in their sin. John, like many of us, seems to have emphasized one aspect of prophecy to the exclusion of the other. Thus, when Jesus’ first coming was characterized by mercy and grace, John was inclined to think he had designated the wrong Messiah, rather to question his thinking and theology. Jesus’ words take John back to the Book, which is the only standard for our thinking and theology. Jesus’ ministry was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and thus it is John who must stand corrected. It was not Jesus who needed to change, but John.

Jesus had become, as it were, a stumbling block to John. And so our Lord’s final message to John is one which encourages him not to stumble over our Lord: “Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me” (Luke 7:23).

Conclusion

There are many lessons for us to learn from John’s failure and Jesus’ words of encouragement and correction. Let me suggest a few.

First, this incident teaches us that the only valid test for determining whether of not Jesus is the promised Savior of the world is the test of truth. Does Jesus and Jesus only fulfill those promises and prophecies of the Bible which speak of the coming Savior of the world? If the deeds and words of Jesus, as reported by the gospel accounts, fulfill the Old Testament prophecies (which every gospel writer assures us that they do), then Jesus is the Messiah. The test of who is God’s Savior is the test of the Scriptures themselves. Everyone who claims to be Messiah must measure up to the standards which God has set for Him. Only Jesus meets these standards. Jesus does not give John a direct claim for many other men have made the same claim. Jesus does not attempt to use His personal magnetism or charisma, but rather points to the deeds which He has done and to the Scriptures which speak of these deeds.

Let me ask you very candidly, my friend, Have you looked carefully at the evidence? Are you seeking God’s salvation? Do you wish to have the forgiveness of your sins? Do you wish to experience the grace of God, rather than His judgment? Then you can only do so by trusting in God’s provision, God’s Messiah. Who Jesus Christ is the most important question in the world to you. Have you read the Old Testament prophecies? Have you studied the words and deeds of Jesus. If you conclude that Jesus was an impostor than you cannot look to Him for salvation, but if you conclude that He alone fulfills the Scriptures, then you must turn to Him, trusting in His death, burial, and resurrection for your salvation.

Second, for Christians there are a number of principles which are relevant to our own experience. Let me conclude by mentioning just a few:

(1)Prophets, are not perfect. John was a prophet, in fact the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, but John was not perfect, as our text makes clear. Many of the great Christian leaders of present and past times have been known (at least by those close to them) to be men with some strange ideas or practices. Great Christians have not necessarily been good husbands or fathers. They may not have been able to get along well with others. Men who are great in one area, might not be great in another.

More than this, men who are great in one area may have major problems in that very area of their greatness. John was a prophet, and thus we must say that his specialty was prophecy, but this was precisely where his great error arose, too. John failed to grasp the fact that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. John was trying to straighten Jesus out, when John needed to straighten out his grasp of prophecy.

John was not alone in this, for Peter tells us that all of the Old Testament prophets struggled to grasp the meaning of biblical prophecy. Indeed, they even struggled to grasp the meaning of their own prophecies:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Our difficulties in understanding the Bible can be found in several areas. First, there is the limitation of the “natural man,” unsaved, and unaided by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 2:f6-16). Then, there is the limitation of our finiteness. Even saved persons have limits as to what they can grasp now. Third, there is the limitation of our sinfulness, our waywardness, and of our warped past. An abused child (by its father) will find it difficult to read those passages which speak of God as Father, without reading into the text those ideas which are rooted in their experience, but are not true to the Word.

Finally, we have difficulties in fully grasping God’s truth because of our limitations in the area of our spiritual gifts and ministry. Each Christian has a particular form of “giftedness,” which God has given to equip them for a certain kind of ministry. Since we do not possess all of the gifts, we approach the Scriptures only through the gifts which we have. For example, when Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed about taking Mark on their next missionary journey (cf. Acts 15:36-41), each had a perspective based on his own gifts and calling. As a front line apostle, Paul refused to take along a man who had failed under pressure, and rightly so. As an encourager, Barnabas refused to give up on a man who had failed, and rightly so. Each viewed Mark through the grid of his own gifts and calling. I am suggesting that we approach the Scriptures in the same way, with our own strengths and corresponding weaknesses.

If the Old Testament prophets—those through whom the Scriptures were given—did not fully understand the Scriptures, how can we suppose that we understand them completely, either? The apostle Paul tells us that the Scriptures do not tell us all we would like to know. The Scriptures enable us to “see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12), only to know fully in eternity.

Our limitations in understanding the Scriptures suggest a couple of areas of application. First, we should be very careful not to become overly dogmatic about those things which are not crystal clear in the Scriptures. I notice, for example, that some Christians tend to be very dogmatic about certain views about prophecy (eschatology). Whether you are “pre or post trib,” for example, is something about which one can be absolutely convinced. If John could be so wrong about Messiah, let us be very cautious about eschatology, and any other area of biblical truth, too, if it is not emphatically and clearly taught in the Bible.

Knowing our own limitations in understanding the Scriptures, let us learn the dangers of isolationism and autonomy in Bible study and Christian living. Part of John’s problem, in my opinion, was his isolation from other believers. He had no one to challenge his thinking, and even his biblical interpretation. You and I need one another for many reasons, but one good reason we need others is to balance off our own limitations and distortions. Any Bible teacher who does not listen to and learn from other Bible teachers, is suspect, in my opinion. Any Christian who thinks they need only their Bible and the Holy Spirit is likely to become extreme in some view of what the Bible teaches. Let us learn to lean on one another to help balance out our grasp of biblical truth.

Knowing that our grasp of the Scriptures is imperfect, we need to learn to live by holding truth in tension. John, like the other prophets, could not harmonize the seemingly contradictory truths of Christ’s suffering and His triumph, of Messiah’s judgment and His salvation. And yet what John could not reconcile, God does. No prophet could reconcile these truths in tension until they had been fulfilled. Jesus did not solve John’s problem by informing of how all of the Messianic prophecies would be fulfilled in the future, by one Messiah and by two comings. Jesus encouraged John study the Scriptures and the believe them, even though certain truths seem to be in tension.

I believe that we need to do likewise. We must, for example, hold the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in tension with the equally true doctrine of man’s responsibility. We do not do justice to the Word of God by holding to one truth and excluding the other, only for the sake of clarity or simplicity. Let us learn, like John, to hold seemingly opposing truths in tension, until God reveals their unity and harmony in the future.

(2) There is a great danger posed by unrealistic expectations. The bottom line is that John had unrealistic, inaccurate expectations of God. His expectations with regard to Messiah and His ministry were wrong, and thus they came into conflict with the ministry and message of Christ. John tried to change Christ to conform to his expectations, rather than to change his expectations.

We put ourselves in a very vulnerable position when we allow ourselves to hold unrealistic expectations, either of God, or of our mate, or of our children, or of our church, or of our ministry. Let us be on guard to keep from having expectations which surpass the Scriptures.

!  Lesson 23:
The Wordless Worship of an Unnamed Woman
(Luke 7:36-50)

Introduction

Of all the secular experts, Michael Landon is, in my opinion, one of the most effective at creating drama on the television screen. I can still remember scenes from “Bonanza” and “Little House on the Prairie” which nearly brought tears to my dry, masculine, eyes. Luke is even better at drama than Michael Landon. The story of the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and her hair is one of the most moving accounts in the New Testament. My fear in teaching this passage is that I (we) will over-analyze it, and in the process lose the thrust of this great text. It is something like telling a joke, which is not immediately understood. The more we seek to clarify the details, the more we lose the impact of the joke.

In the laboratory, one must often kill the object being studied in the process of seeing its parts. Frogs, for example, do not come to or from the lab living and jumping. So, too, I fear that as we look at the parts of this very moving story we might miss the thrust of it for having considered its details. In biblical words, I fear that we might “strain the gnats” of this text, but “swallow its camels.” Let us open our hearts as well as our minds to the message of this text for us.

There are three principle characters in this story, all of which are relevant to us. The Lord Jesus is, of course, the star of the story. He, unlike the others, deals with this woman in love and forgiveness. The woman, who is never named, is the recipient of our Lord’s forgiveness. She represents the “sinners” who are strangely attracted to Jesus. The host, Simon, was a Pharisee, and as such he represents at least the perception which many “sinners” have of the church and of Christians. It is from these characters and their relationship with each other that the message of our story is to be found.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text can be outlined as follows:

(1) The Setting—vv. 36-38

(2) Simon’s Thoughts and Jesus’ Response—vv. 39-47

(3) Jesus’ Response to the woman—vv. 48-50

The Uniqueness of this
Foot Washing in the Gospels

Each of the gospels has an account of the washing of Jesus’ feet by a woman. Let us briefly consider these other accounts:

Matthew 26:6-13 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. 8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

Mark 14:3-9 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. 6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

John 12:1-8 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “ It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

It is my personal opinion that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John all deal with the same washing, but that Luke’s account is a unique incident, recorded only in his gospel. John’s account initially seems to differ from those of Matthew and Mark, primarily due to the fact that the dinner appears to happen at the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. While John’s account tells us that Martha served, it does not specifically indicate that the meal was served at her home. If the home of Mary and Martha was too small to entertain a large group, then Simon the leper (a former leper, healed by Jesus, I assume) may well have volunteered his home. Martha would likely have insisted that she serve.

The similarities between the three gospel accounts and that of Luke are superficial. The name Simon is was common in the ancient world as “Smith” is in our phone books. “Simon the leper” is hardly synonymous with “Simon the Pharisee.” In fact, a link between the two would be unthinkable to a Pharisee. Luke’s incident appears to occur much earlier in Jesus’ ministry than that of the others, which occurs just prior to our Lord’s death (thus serving as a preparation for His burial). In Luke’s account, “Simon” silently protests; in the others’ accounts, the disciples protest (John narrows the protest down to Judas). Simon the Pharisee could not grasp how Jesus could let such a sinful woman touch Him, while the disciples were troubled by the waste of the perfume, which could have been sold so that the money could help the poor.

All things considered, I believe that the incident described by Luke in his gospel is different from that described by Matthew, Mark, and John.[127] Let us seek to learn from Luke what it was about this event which made it worthy of so much attention.

The Setting
(7:36-39)

We are not told precisely when this incident occurred, nor the name of the city. The principle characters are Jesus, Simon the Pharisee, and the woman with a soiled reputation. It is interesting that Luke gives us the name of the host, but not of the woman. Omitting her name is, in my opinion, a gracious act, purposely done.

At first look it would seem that there are two people equally zealous to see Jesus: Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman. Simon could easily converse with Jesus in the comfort of his home, around a meal. For the woman, getting close to Jesus was no easy matter. Her sinful life, known to all who lived in her town, made it difficult for her, a woman, to seek out Jesus, a man. If she owned a home, she could not invite Jesus there, for this would be inappropriate, especially if she were a harlot, for this would be her place of business.

Reports of Jesus’ ministry and teaching had somehow reached this woman, and she was most eager to see the Savior. When she learned that Jesus was to have dinner at the house of Simon, the woman knew it was her opportunity to see Jesus. From our Lord’s words, it would seem that she arrived at Simon’s house before Jesus: “You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet” (Luke 7:45).

If the dinner were to begin at 7:00 P. M., the woman seems to have arrived at 6:45. She was there, ready and waiting. With her, she brought a container of perfume.[128] It is my opinion that this woman came prepared to anoint the feet of Jesus, the humble task usually delegated to the lowest servant. Perhaps she would be permitted to do this.[129]

The washing of Jesus’ feet can best be understood in the light of our Lord’s words of rebuke to Simon, and when compared to the Lord’s washing of His disciples’ feet as recorded in John chapter 13. As the Lord entered the house of Simon, custom and normal hospitality would have it that Jesus would have been greeted with a kiss, His feet would have been washed, and His head anointed with oil.

The woman no doubt waited near the door for Jesus to arrive. She probably expected that Jesus’ feet would have been washed by one of Simon’s servants. After His feet were washed, the woman would then likely have planned to anoint His feet with the perfume she had brought. Imagine the look on her face when she realized that Jesus’ feet were not going to be washed. She did not let the dirty feet of our Lord keep her from what she had intended to do. She dared not kiss Jesus on the face, as Simon should have done, but she could kiss His feet, His dirty feet. She had come with no basin, no water, and no towel. Nevertheless, as she began to kiss His feet, the tears began to flow, something most unusual for a woman of her profession.[130] As the tears began to flow, the woman must have noted that the little streams of tears carried the dirt of the road as well. She used the water of her tears to wash His feet, something she could hardly have planned in advance. Since there was no towel available to her, she used her hair to dry Jesus’ feet. Imagine this, the woman used her hair, the most glorious part of her body (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15), to dry the feet of Jesus, the most ignoble part of one’s body! She did not do her duty quickly, so as to quickly finish an unpleasant task. She persisted at kissing the feet of our Lord (cf. v. 45).

This woman’s worship of Jesus was at a great cost to her. It cost her the expensive vial of perfume, and the humility to kiss, wash, and dry the dirty feet of the Lord Jesus. But there was a higher price than this paid by the woman. In my opinion, the greatest price which she paid was facing the scorn and rejection of the self-righteous Pharisees and other dinner guests at that meal. Jesus did not give her a “dirty look,” but it is inconceivable to think that all of the others did not. Simon’s disdain, revealed by his inner thoughts, must also have been evident in his eyes, and so too for the other guests. “What in the world are you doing here?” must have been etched on the faces of the guests. It could hardly be otherwise for a Pharisee, whose holiness was primarily a matter of physical separation from sin and from “sinners.” The woman’s desire to see and to worship Jesus was greater than her fear of these guests. Their scorn was a high price to pay, but to the woman it was worth it.

Simon’s Thoughts and Jesus’ Teaching
(7:39-43)

No doubt a great part of Simon’s motivation was to “check out” Jesus. Was this man really a prophet? Was His message to be believed? And how did His message compare with that of the Pharisees? Was He a threat, or an ally? Just who did Jesus claim to be and what was to be done about Him? Should He be resisted, opposed, put to death, or should be ignored? Could He be recruited to their side? These may have been some of the questions in Simon’s mind, suggesting some of his motivation for having Jesus over to dinner.

Simon’s reasoning is most illuminating. It went something like this:

Premises:

·         If Jesus were a prophet, he would know people’s character

·         If Jesus knew this woman was a sinner, He would have nothing to do with her

Conclusions:

·         Since Jesus has accepted this woman, He does not know her character

·         Since Jesus does not know this woman is a sinner, He cannot be a prophet

·         Since Jesus is not a prophet, I/we can reject Him, His message & ministry

Simon, like many of us, was being very logical about his thinking and his response to the Lord Jesus. The problem with logic is the same as the problem with computers: your output is only as reliable as your input. To put it differently, there was nothing wrong with Simon’s logic, other than the fact that he based his conclusions on a faulty premise. His first premise—If Jesus were a prophet, He would be able to discern the character of those around Him—was correct. Jesus, in fact, went beyond Simon’s expectations. Jesus was not only able to detect the woman’s character (“… her sins, which are many,” v. 47), He was also able to know the thoughts of Simon, His host (v. 39). By conveying to Simon that He knew His thoughts, Jesus proved that He was at least a prophet.

Simon’s second premise was entirely wrong, a reflection of his erroneous thinking as a Pharisee. Simon, like his fellow-Pharisees (remember that the word Pharisee means “separate”), assumed that holiness was primarily a matter of separation. Holiness was achieved by keeping oneself separate from sin and from sinners. According to this view, Jesus would have to shun this sinful woman in order to remain holy. Simon concluded that either (1) Jesus didn’t know this woman’s character, or (2) that whether or not He knew about her sinfulness, He was physically contaminated by her, and thus could not be holy.

Our Lord knew exactly what Simon was thinking, as well as why his thinking was wrong. Jesus’ words to Simon in verses 40-47 expose the error of Pharisaical thinking, and explain why the “Holy One of Israel” would draw near to sinners, even to the point of touching them and being touched by them.

A Story for Simon (40-42)

The question which best expresses the issue which caused the Pharisees to draw back from Jesus is found early in the gospel accounts:

“Why do you eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” (Luke 5:30; cf. Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16).

Simon could not conceive of Jesus knowingly allowing this woman to touch Him by washing His feet. Why would Jesus possibly associate with sinners? Jesus gave the answer by telling a story and then extracting a principle.

The story was a simple one. A money-lender loaned money to two different individuals, neither of which were able to repay their loan. The one had borrowed ten times more money than the other. The money-lender forgave the debt of both men. “Which of the two,” Jesus asked Simon, “would love the money-lender more?” Simon’s cautious answer was that the one who owed the most would love the man the most. Jesus confirmed the truth of his response.

Underlying it was the principle, THOSE WHO ARE FORGIVEN MOST LOVE MOST.

Jesus now takes the principle and applies it to Simon and the sinful woman. Simon shunned the woman because she was a sinner, and expected Jesus to do likewise. Jesus rebukes Simon by showing that in every respect the woman has outdone Simon in her acts of love and devotion. Simon did not show Jesus even the minimum courtesy of washing His feet. This woman not only washed His feet, she did it with her tears and her hair. Simon did not bestow a kiss on Jesus’ face; the woman did not cease to kiss the feet of Jesus, which, at first, were dirty feet. Simon did not anoint the head of Jesus with oil; the woman anointed His feet with expensive perfume. The woman outdid Simon in showing love to the Lord. The woman was, at least in Simon’s mind, a greater sinner. The woman was, as Jesus pointed out, the greater lover as well. From both the story which Jesus told and from the supper which Simon held, the one who was forgiven more loved more.

There is a problem here, which has troubled theologians and Bible students over the years. In verse 47 it would appear that Jesus is telling the woman that she is forgiven because she loved much. It is not difficult to accept the statement that those who are forgiven much, as a result love much. It is difficult to accept the statement that those who love much are forgiven much. To love because you are forgiven is a natural response to grace. To be forgiven because you love is works. There are thus some who would teach that on the basis of this text we must love in order to be forgiven. This makes forgiveness the product of our works, rather than a gift of God’s grace.

It may be over-simplistic, but I think that the problem can be resolved by taking note of who Jesus is speaking to, and the issue which He is addressing. In verse 47, Jesus is speaking to Simon the Pharisee. He is answering the question, “Why does Jesus seek out and associate with sinners?” The Lord’s answer is found in His response to Simon:

“Simon, I seek out sinners and associate with them because they love me more than ‘saints’ like you Pharisees do.”

Think about it for a moment. If God’s purpose for the incarnation was to be loved by men, whom would you expect the Lord Jesus to associate with if it were true that “he who is forgiven much loves much”? If the principle is true, then we would expect our Lord to seek out those who were the greatest sinners (and in the minds of the Pharisees, this woman qualified as one of the city’s great sinners).

Jesus is therefore addressing the question, “Why does Jesus seek out sinners?” rather than the question, “How is one saved?” The relationship between forgiveness and love is the basis for our Lord’s actions in seeking and receiving sinners.

The body language of our Lord in verses 44-47 is most significant. All through the dinner, Jesus’ back was to the woman, who was anointing and kissing His feet. He was, at the same time, facing His host, Simon. Now, once Simon’s rejection of Jesus is revealed, in contrast to the woman’s worship, Jesus turns His back on Simon and faces the woman, even though He is still addressing Simon (cf. v. 44). Jesus is, by His actions, rejecting Simon and accepting the sinful woman. What an incredible statement is being made here!

Jesus’ Words to the Woman
(7:48-50)

When Jesus speaks to the woman in the final verses of our passage, He now makes clear to her the basis for her forgiveness: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50).

Let there be no doubt as to the basis for one’s forgiveness. It is not works. It is not the work of loving others, even God’s Son. Forgiveness is the gift of God, granted to those who have faith.

The question is this: “What was it that the woman believed by faith?” If the woman’s faith saved her, what was the substance of her faith? What did the woman believe that saved her? I believe that the text strongly implies the answer: THE WOMAN BELIEVED THAT IF SHE CAME TO JESUS AS A REPENTANT SINNER, JESUS WOULD NOT SEND HER AWAY.

The “bad news” of the Pharisees—”Jesus associates with sinners”—was good news to this woman, because she acknowledged that she was a sinner. The only people who will bristle at the thought that Jesus has come to seek and to save sinners are the self-righteous, those who do not think they need saving. This woman did not dispute the fact that she was a sinner. She rejoiced at the reports that Jesus received sinners. She came to him as a sinner, believing by faith that He would not send her away—and she was right. Of all those who went to the dinner, only this woman is said to have left forgiven. Oh, the marvelous grace of God toward we sinners!

Conclusion

The first lesson of this incident is that Christ came to seek and to save sinners. A woman who was considered a great sinner by her peers was forgiven by our Lord, while those who thought themselves righteous went away unforgiven. There is a strange attraction to Christ for those who will admit they are sinners, and who wish to turn from their sins. Jesus is never more approachable than He is to sinners. In John’s gospel we read these words of great encouragement to every sinner:

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).

While it is true that Jesus is the sinless Son of God, who hates sin and who will ultimately judge sinners, the message of the gospel is that in His first coming Christ came to save, not to condemn. Jesus thus said to the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).

This is because in His first advent, Jesus came to bear the penalty for man’s sin Himself, and to save men from eternal damnation. All who come to Him for forgiveness and salvation will be saved. None will be turned away. But there is yet another coming of Christ, when He comes to judge. At that time, it will be too late. Those who come to Him them will tremble in fear of Him, and rightly so.

My admonition to you who have never come to Christ as this woman did is that you come now. Come, trusting that He will receive you, that He will forgive you, that He will save. No one is more accessible to sinners than Christ. No one is more repulsive to the self-righteous than Christ. May each of us be like this woman, rather than like Simon the Pharisee.

The second lesson which we can learn from our text is to recognize the characteristics of self-righteousness as evident in the life of Simon the Pharisee. I cannot dwell on the evils of Pharisaism here, so suffice it to mention just a couple of characteristics of Simon which are evident in our text, which could be true of us as well. Simon was more interested in passing judgment on God than he was on God’s judgment of him. Simon felt that his home would be more righteous by keeping sinners, like this woman, out, than by inviting sinners in. Many churches feel the same way. Simon was inclined to see some sins as greater than others in the eyes of God. Sexual sin was unforgivable, but pride was acceptable.

Simon thought of religion as something to be preserved; Jesus thought of true religion in terms of penetration. Simon wanted to keep sinners out, Jesus went out to sinners. Some of Simon’s error is the failure to grasp the change from the old covenant to the new. The Old Testament dealt with sin as incurable, and thus the principle defense was simply to avoid contact with sin and sinners. The new covenant came with a solution for sin. The new covenant could change hard hearts to soft ones. Thus, Jesus did not feel compelled to deal with sinners the way the Old Testament taught—seek to destroy or to avoid them.

The Pharisee looked at sin something like the way we look at AIDS. It has no cure, and thus the best course of action is to avoid any and all contact. But, you see, the gospel teaches that Jesus is the cure for sin. Thus, Jesus did not need to avoid sinners, He could seek them out, just as we could aggressively attack AIDS if there was a foolproof cure.

Somehow Simon and the other Pharisees of the New Testament found it difficult to be “touched” by those they would not touch. In all of the New Testament I fail to see one incident in which a Pharisee was touched by the misery, the sin, the shame, the grief of another human being. It is little wonder that the Old Testament prophets had to speak so often about mercy and compassion. I see none of it in the Pharisees in the gospel accounts. To have compassion obligates one to minister to others. To lack compassion allows one to use others for one’s own personal gain, at their expense. Jesus, who did not hesitate to touch or be touched by sinners, was constantly “touched” (emotionally) by them. May we be like Him.

The painful reality is that our churches often reflect the mood of Simon’s house than they do of Jesus Himself. We ought to welcome sinners, if they acknowledge themselves as sinners, and if they seek to be saved from their sins. All too often, sinners are shunned by the church, more than they are sought be it. May we learn from our Lord to be more like Him and less like Simon.

Lastly, we learn a great deal about worship from this woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears. It is true that we do not have the opportunity to wash the feet of Jesus, as the woman in our text did, but we can learn a number of principles pertaining to worship from her actions. Consider these principles with me as we conclude.

(1) Worship is for sinners. The woman who worshipped Jesus was a sinner. Our Lord neither denied this, nor minimized it. It is important to recognize that sinners can worship God. As you think through the complex rules and regulations of the Old Testament law, it becomes evident that God established worship for sinners. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to have all of the intricate rules and rituals and sacrifices. Worship, in the Old Testament, was for sinners.

So, too, in the New Testament. As our Lord said, it is our awareness of our own sinfulness, in conjunction with the knowledge of our Lord’s perfection, which stimulates worship. Those of us who are most sensitive to the magnitude of our sin, should also recognize the magnitude of God’s forgiveness, thus stimulating our worship.

I sometimes get the impression that when we come to the Lord’s Table we think that we have to reach some kind of momentary sinlessness before we can worship. How foolish. Even momentary sinlessness is impossible. When Paul warns against observing the Lord’s Supper “in an unworthy manner” (1 Cor. 11: 27) he is referring to the inappropriateness of the drunken excesses in the Corinthian observance of communion. There is a world of difference between an “unworthy manner” (and adverb, “unworthily”) and an unworthy state (being a sinner). While we will be sinless when we worship God in heaven, we worship as sinners on earth.

(2) Worship takes place at the feet of Jesus. The proper position for our worship is at the feet of Jesus. It suddenly occurred to me that the feet of our Lord are very frequently mentioned in our text. While Simon did not even do justice to our Lord’s head, the woman was only comfortable at Jesus’ feet. She kissed them, washed them, and dried them with her hair. She did not feel worthy to do otherwise. Particularly in Daniel and the Book of Revelation, men find themselves falling at the feet of Jesus, when they recognize Him as God. Worship at the feet of Jesus acknowledges His greatness and our unworthiness; His perfection, and our sinfulness. Worship that exalts man is not true worship.

(3) Worship is preoccupation with the person of Jesus Christ. The woman who worshipped at the feet of Jesus was preoccupied with Him, and Him alone. The fact that there were those present who disdained her did not matter, for she cared only about what her Lord thought about her. The fact that many present were hypocrites did not prevent her from worshipping, for her worship was focused on the Savior.

(4) Worship is not concerned about receiving something from our Lord as giving something to him. Jesus was approached by many people, most of whom wanted something from Him. I do not wish to minimize this or to condemn it. If I lived in Jesus’ day and were blind, I would want to come to Jesus for Him to restore my sight. But this woman’s worship was expressed by her giving to Jesus, not getting from Him. Too often, our prayers are like a wish list for Santa, at Christmas time. Too seldom, our prayers are praise and adoration alone, without any request, where our only desire is to be in His presence, forever.

(5) Worship involves the emotions. The tears of the woman who worshipped Him by washing His feet are most significant. The worship of this woman was, may I say, emotional. Those of us in our tradition tend toward a very intellectual worship. We could use a good deal more emotion. Remember that we are to love the Lord our God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Worship should involve the mind and the emotions.

(6) The worship of this woman was without one word. It took me a while to realize that while our Lord spoke to this woman, Luke did not record so much as one word which she spoke to Him. It is possible that she spoke to Him, but Luke does not find it necessary to record the fact if she did. I make a point of the silence of her worship because some women seem to chafe at the fact that their leadership in public worship if forbidden in the New Testament Scriptures. I also would point this out for the benefit of those men who think that they can only worship when they speak publicly. The best worship may be wordless.

(7) Finally, worship is not easily hindered. There were many reasons why this woman could have stayed away from Jesus and not worshipped Him. She was not invited. She was not wanted. She might be expelled. She would be scorned. There would be hypocrites there. But in spite of many difficulties, the woman did what she desperately desired to do—she worshipped Jesus. Why is it that a couple drops of rain, a late Saturday night, and we find worship too difficult.

May God enable us to worship as this woman did, to the glory of God, and for our delight.

! Lesson 24:
Ministry, Money, and Women
(Luke 8:1-3)

Introduction

Suppose that you and your wife were to invite the president over for dinner. Suppose, too, that he and his wife were to accept your invitation. As the time draws nearer, your wife asks how many places to set at the table. There would be the president and his wife, certainly a number of security people, undoubted the press, and on an on it would go. What may have begun as a rather intimate meal, would quickly become a large production.

So it was with Jesus’ ministry. In my mind, I have always had a certain mental picture of Jesus going about from place to place, followed by His disciples. At the front of the disciples were, of course, Peter, James and John. As we look more closely at the description of the ministry of our Lord in the gospels we discover that very soon the party which accompanied our Lord became quite large. One of the few texts which informs us about this large group is our text for today. In addition, Luke informs us about the vital role which a large number of women played in supporting the ministry of our Lord and His disciples.

While our text is but three verses long, it is a very important passage. It provides us with details the other gospel writers avoid, or only casually allude to. It informs us about the relationship between ministry and money and also about the role of women in ministry. Let us listen well to our text, for it has much to say to us.

Our Approach in this Lesson

The approach of this message will be to begin with a number of observations about what Luke is trying to tell us here. Then we will conclude by focusing on the principles we learn from this passage concerning ministry and money, and concerning the ministry of women.

Observations of the Text

(1) Our text links the preceding passage with a new, second, missionary journey about Galilee. There is a sense in which our text seems almost parenthetical, but note that verse 1 begins by informing us of another missionary campaign of our Lord:

After this,[131] Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God (Luke 8:1a).

The expression, “after this” informs us that the events which follow are related to the preceding verses, specifically, I take it, the story of the woman who washed our Lord’s feet with her tears? Is it possible that she is one of the group that accompanies our Lord, which Luke is here describing?

In the fourth chapter of Luke’s gospel, Jesus indicated very early in His ministry that He was committed to going about from city to city to preach the gospel. He had this commitment because He recognized that it was a vital part of His divine calling and commission. When the disciples urged Jesus to return to the people who were waiting for Him, He responded:

“I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other town also, because that is why I was sent” (Luke 4:43a).

There will be several other missionary campaigns mentioned in Luke,[132] but this is clearly the beginning of one of the important ones in His ministry to the people of Galilee. I believe that verses 2 and 3 of chapter 8 tell us how our Lord’s ministry was logistically worked out. He was accompanied by many, and they were supported by the contributions of some of the women. In the parable of the soils which follows (vv. 4ff.), Jesus explains the different responses to His preaching of the kingdom, as well as providing the reason for His change to the parabolic method of teaching.

(2) Jesus was accompanied by a large group of followers on this campaign. In the early days of our Lord’s ministry, it seems as though He either traveled alone (e.g. when He went to the synagogue in Nazareth, none of His disciples are mentioned, Luke 4:16-30). At other times, some of His disciples were with Him. But now we are told that a large group of followers accompanied Jesus on this campaign.

There were, Luke tells us, the 12. Obviously these are the 12 disciples. I am not certain but what they may have been accompanied by their wives, at least a later practice of the apostles, but perhaps one which began here (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). If other women accompanied Jesus and the 12, why not the wives of the 12? In addition to the disciples, there were many others, as we will soon see.

(3) Included among this large group of followers who accompanied Jesus on this tour were many women. Three women are specifically named: Mary Magdalene (from whom the seven demons had been cast out), Joanna the wife of Cuza, Herod’s steward (this may explain one of Herod’s primary sources of information about Jesus and His ministry, cf. 9:7), and Susanna, who is not mentioned again in the Scriptures. In addition to these three, who are named, were many other women:

… and many other. These women were helping to support them out of their own means (Luke 8:3b).

(4) The women who followed Jesus had all been miraculously helped by Him. I believe that Luke identifies the three women by name so as to indicate how different each was. But regardless of the diversity among the women who followed Jesus, they all seemed to have this in common: Jesus had miraculously delivered (healed) them of conditions for which there was no human solution. Some, like Mary Magdalene, were delivered of demon possession. Others were healed of sicknesses and disease. Others, may have been healed of injuries and disfigurations. But all were beyond human help. All of those who went with Jesus to be of help to Him were those who had experienced His help in their lives.

In one sense, the group which accompanied Jesus was a testimony to the identity of Jesus Christ as Messiah. As Jesus went from village to village and city to city preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, those with Him bore witness to the fact that Jesus had given them sight when they had been blind, had enabled them to walk, when they were paralyzed, had freed them from demonic possession, when they had been in bondage to demons. The crowd which accompanied Jesus was, in one way of viewing it, the answer to John the Baptist’s challenge that Jesus prove His identity as Messiah.

It is not difficult to understand why those who had been healed by our Lord would want to be with Him as He traveled. The delivered demoniac expresses not only his desire to be with Jesus, but that which many like him must have felt as well:

“The man from whom the demons had gone out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, “Return home and tell how much God has done for you.” So the man went away and told all over town how much Jesus had done for him (Luke 8:38-39).

In both cases, that of the demoniac, who went home to his own people, and those many who accompanied Jesus, the good new was proclaimed by those who had been helped by the Messiah.

(5) The women who had been healed by Jesus and who now accompanied Him, were those who also supported the whole group out of their own means. Luke wants us to know that these women were not mere “clingers-on,” they were active contributors to the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. Humanly speaking, this campaign could not have been waged without their support. The party had to eat, and the food was provided by these women. I cannot say for certain that no men contributed to the support of our Lord’s mission, but we do know that many women played a crucial role in this matter.[133]

I should note at this point that while the women contributed the money which provided for the needs of this group, a man (Judas, to be specific, cf. John 12:6; 13:29) kept and distributed the funds.

The more I have read this text, the more I have become convinced that meeting the physical needs of the crowd that accompanied our Lord was a secondary matter, an outgrowth of being with Christ. To put the matter differently, I am convinced that these women did not follow our Lord to “have a ministry” as much as they followed Christ to be with Him. Being with Christ, these women were, like Him, sensitive to needs (even the hunger of those in the group) and to meeting these needs. Thus, these women were with Christ and also acted as He did in the face of needs.

(6) The women who accompanied our Lord and His disciples met needs which our Lord did not meet in a miraculous way. In one way, it is amazing to find our Lord and His disciples in need. In another, it is amazing that He purposed that women meet their needs. The Lord Jesus had proven His power and sufficiency in the lives of each who followed Him. He did that which men could not do—He performed a miracle in each life. And yet He did not miraculously provide for the need of the group for their daily bread. Why didn’t Jesus miraculously provide food for His party?

The precedent was set at our Lord’s testing in the wilderness. There, He refused to turn “stones into bread” as Satan challenged Him to do. He would not use His power to provide for His own needs. Similarly, He would not use His power here to do something similar, only on a much larger scale. Jesus would not make “miracle meals,” even though His followers were hungry.

On two occasions, Jesus did miraculously provide for His followers, once at the “feeding of the 5,000” and again at the “feeding of the 7,000.” In both cases, there was no earthly way to feed these hungry. Jesus feed these crowds by performing a miracle because there was no other way to feed them. Also, in so doing He gave further evidence to the fact that one greater than Moses was present.

I believe that there are several reasons why Jesus did not miraculously provide for His followers, thus making the group dependent on the generosity of these faithful women followers.

This was a part of our Lord’s humiliation, of His humbling in coming to the earth.

This gave men and women the opportunity and privilege of having a part in His ministry.

It was an example for later apostles and missionaries, that God provides for the needs of His people through people. The Lord’s practice of allowing women to support Him and His followers gave approval to the supporting of those who proclaim the gospel. Our Lord set the precedent that those who proclaim the gospel should be supported by those who benefit from that preaching. This is seen earlier in the Old Testament prophets (cf. 1 Kings 17:7ff.; 2 Kings 4:8-10), and is taught in principle by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 9).

Our Lord’s practice of being supported by women affirmed the importance of women in the proclamation of the gospel, and the practical partnership attained by underwriting the preaching of the gospel.

(7) These women, who followed Jesus during this Galilean campaign, continued to follow Him to and through the end. Luke likes to introduce key characters to his reader before he focuses on them. For example, Paul is introduced briefly (Acts 8:1, 3) before the accounts of his conversion (Acts 9) and of his later ministry (Acts 13:1ff.).

Later texts tell us more about these women as time went by:

“Many women were there [at the cross], watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons” (Matt. 27:55-56).

“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Jesus, and ‘Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there” (Mark 15:40-41).

“The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment … It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense” (Luke 23:55-56; 24:10-11).

“They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” (Acts 1:14).

Taking all of these texts together, we know that these women who are mentioned by Luke are the same women mentioned by Matthew and Mark as well, who continued to follow Jesus, not only in Galilee, but also to Jerusalem. They are the women who stood by our Lord at the cross, and who were the first to come to the empty tomb. What a marvelous and wonderful group of women these were! What a tribute Luke gives them! These were faithful women, faithful in meeting the needs of our Lord and of His party, faithful in staying with Him even in danger, faithful even after His death. Indeed, they were among those present and praying at the time of Pentecost.

Conclusion

Out text provides us with several vitally important principles, related to two major areas of Christian experience and ministry. The first pertains to the relationship between ministry and money. The second pertains to the role of women in ministry.

The Relationship between Ministry and Money

(1) Ministry costs money. This principle is so obvious it seems almost silly to state, but there seem to be those who overlook this reality, or who chose to ignore it. Even our Lord’s ministry required money. He did not have the need for television production costs or for office space, but He and those who followed Him did need simple provisions, namely food. Our Lord’s overhead did not include a hideaway retreat in the mountains or a yacht, nor a high personal income, but He and His followers had physical needs which people were privileged to participate in meeting.

(2) Ministries sometimes mismanage money. It is very apparent that some ministers and some ministries mismanage the funds which are given in support of that ministry. Judas, we know, misused some of the funds which were given to support our Lord’s money. Such evils should not be minimized, but neither are they an excuse for failing to support God’s work. Let us take every precaution to prevent and to clean up mismanagement; but let us not avoid our responsibility to support God’s work.

(3) Those who share in the costs of ministry, participate as partners in that ministry. I believe that Luke is telling us that these women who accompanied our Lord and who helped to finance it were a vital part of the “team” which proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God. Our Lord put the matter this way:

“Anyone who received a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward” (Matthew 10:41-42).

Thus, to sustain a prophet in his ministry is to share in the reward of his ministry. To support a prophet is to share in his work and in his reward.

(4) It is biblical, in some cases, to be supported in ministry. Luke has told us that Jesus was supported in His ministry by a faithful group of women. Surely if our Lord can be supported, it is biblical for other “missionaries” (those who proclaim the good news) to be supported as well. Paul emphasized this in 1 Corinthians chapter 9. I understand the Gospel of Luke to indicate three major forms of support of those who minister.

First, men may be supported in proclaiming the gospel by those who have previously benefited from their ministry. This is the case in Luke 8:1-3 as I understand it. These women had personally benefited from our Lord’s ministry to them, and now they support His ministry to others. Paul was supported by the Macedonians, to whom he had previously ministered (cf. Philippians 1:3-6; 4:10-13).

Second, men may be supported by those to whom they presently minister. When Jesus sent out the 12 (Luke 9:1-6) and the 72 (Luke 10:1-12), He told them to take nothing. That was because they were to be ministering to those to whom they came, among whom they lived and served. The 12 and the 72 were to heal and to cast out demons. Surely the cities to which the came should have gladly sustained these preachers and miracle-workers. They were indeed servants “worthy of their hire.”

Third, some men were self-supported. When men became hostile toward our Lord and His message, Jesus spoke to His disciples about a different means of being supported as they proclaimed the gospel:

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:35-37).

When the disciples of the Lord previous went about preaching and healing, they were generally well-received. But after our Lord’s rejection and crucifixion, it would be different for His disciples as well. Now they were to continue to go out, preaching the gospel, but this time fully prepared to care for themselves. In effect, they were to be self-supporting in the hostile world which was to come. Because of various evils and abuses (mainly those of the false teachers) Paul refused to exercise his right to be supported by the church, and to minister at no cost. Indeed, Paul even worked with his own hands so as to be able to support others (cf. Acts 20:34-35).

This last method is not a very popular one today. Few seem willing to dirty their hands with common, mundane labor. Many are those who want someone else to support them in their ministry. Many of these ask people whom they do not know, to whom they have never ministered, to support them in ministry. I do not see this kind of support in the New Testament.

When, then, should men be supported, by whom, and under what circumstances? From the entire book of Luke I believe we would have to say that this would differ for different people, and even for the same people, under different circumstances. I believe that we should be supported either by those to whom we have ministered or by those to whom we presently minister. And, we should be supported only when it promotes the gospel of Jesus Christ. There were times when Paul avoided taking money for his ministry because of the abusive practices of the false teachers. There were times when Paul was trying to practice the gospel by working with his own hands, supporting others. And there were times when Paul accepted support so that he could devote himself to proclaiming the truth of the gospel. Whether we are supported or not should be determined by determining whether or not the gospel will be best served by being supported or by being a supporter of others by working with out own hands. Too many people in ministry refuse to consider both options.

(5) Supporting the gospel ministry involves the support of many. The women who supported our Lord’s ministry did not support only Jesus—they supported the entire ministry team:

These women were helping to support them out of their own means (Luke 8:3).[134]

There are many Christians who want to support the leader of a ministry. After all, he is visible, vocal, and dynamic. But they are not so eager to pay the secretary who takes his calls or types his sermon manuscripts, which are essential functions too. When the gospel ministry is supported the gospel team should be supported.

(6) Supporting the gospel ministry involves the mundane. I am sure that there was nothing very exciting about buying heads of lettuce, or vegetables, or meat, but these were the things from which the meals were made. Today, Christians are not eager to pay for the office rent, for the utility bills, or for printer ribbons. All of these mundane matters are necessary, however, and buying them as a part of the gospel ministry is supporting the ministry, no matter how mundane that may seem.

(7) He or she who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. These words of our Lord refer to ministry with money, and then ministry in other ways:

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10).

In the context of this passage it is clear that money is the “little thing” while other matters are the greater things. These women, who were faithful to follow our Lord in Galilee, and to meet the needs of the group, were faithful also at the foot of the cross and at the tomb of our Lord. Their faithfulness in the little thing of money assured them of faithfulness in the greater things of a later time. Judas, on the contrary, who was not faithful in the little thing of money was not faithful in greater things. Faithfulness in the matter of money is critical, for it leads to faithfulness in greater things as well. Investing in the gospel ministry determined where the hearts of these women were:

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:21).

The Role of Women in Ministry

(1) Jesus elevated women above the status given them by society. Luke is a man who gives greater attention to women in his accounts than do the other New Testament authors.[135] Throughout the life and ministry of our Lord, Jesus loved and esteemed women. Throughout the gospels, women are described in a very favorable light.[136]

(2) Jesus used and encouraged women in ministry. Luke’s account of these women who followed Jesus and supported the Galilean campaign is a tribute to them and to their ministry. It commends the women for their faithfulness and commitment to the Lord and it values their ministry as a partnership in the proclamation of the gospel.

(3) Jesus differentiated the ministry of women from that of men. Jesus did not use women in ministry in the same ways that He used men. He did not choose 6 men and 6 women as apostles; He chose 12 men. He did not send out 36 men and 36 women from city to city (10:1ff.); He sent out 72 men. Jesus did not send out women to preach to people. Jesus used women in ministry, but in a way that is entirely consistent with the principles and practices of the apostle Paul, those principles and practices which are viewed as “narrow” by some evangelicals and most others. Jesus did not use women in ministries which caused them to teach or to have authority over men.

(4) Jesus did not allow His culture to dictate the ways in which women were used in ministry. Today, some Christians are tempted to think in this way: Jesus elevated women above the culture of their day. Therefore Christians should continue to press for women’s rights and ministry which surpass society’s standards and structures. If Jesus was a “liberator of women” in His day, the church should seek to liberate women today.

They miss the point of what Jesus did. Jesus did not allow His culture to dictate how women were used in ministry. In Jesus’ day, the culture was suppressing women. In our day, our culture is liberating women to the extent that no distinctions between men and women are tolerated in terms of their ministry and function. In the church we must obey God’s commands, and not culture. Now, instead of surpassing culture by elevating women (as Jesus did), the church is forced to firmly plant its feet and refuse to give women offices and functions which are clearly unbiblical. Women are forbidden in Scripture to teach or to lead men (1 Tim. 2:11-12), and the church must obey, whether culture or women hail this as fair and proper or not. Following Christ often means resisting our culture. Jesus did not allow His culture to dictate His practice, but rather divine principles. We must do likewise, whether we are praised or mocked for being obedient. In the final analysis, we do not honor women by treating them like men. We honor them by dealing with them as a special creation of God with a complimentary, not a competitive role to play with regard to men.

(5) One’s spirituality or significance to Christ is not measured by one’s prominence, power, or position, but by one’s heart for God and devotion to Him. The reason why both men and women clamor for the “right” to possess positions of power and prestige is because we think that our significance to God is measured by our standing before men. I have little doubt that the women whom Luke mentions in our text were more “spiritual,” more spiritually perceptive, than the 12 disciples. The men who followed Jesus wanted to call down fire on God’s enemies; they wished to gain power and prominence for themselves; they argued about who would be the greatest in the kingdom; they failed to grasp the spiritual implications of what Jesus was saying and doing. The women, on the other hand, seem to be more sensitive, more devoted to pure worship of the Savior, and more perceptive that Jesus’ death was becoming eminent (thus, the anointing of Jesus for His burial, by a woman, of course). Position and power have nothing to do with their devotion to Christ and the intimacy of their fellowship with Him. Thus, “having a significant ministry” was not, and never should be, a driving force in the lives of these godly women. They only wished to be with Him, even if that were while washing His feet. Let us seek this mind as well.

Allow me to make one final observation. This text is divine testimony to the fact that God knows those who follow Him, and He honors both their devotion and their deeds of service. Whether men praise us or not, God will reward our faithfulness and devotion to Him. Let us seek His praise, His favor, His “well done, good and faithful servant.”

! Lesson 25:
The Parable of the Soils
(Luke 8:4-21)

Introduction

While I was a student in seminary, I went through one of those typical stages through which the immature pass. I was convinced that all the seminary needed to teach was “content,” and that they should do away with all of the “methods” courses. One of the methods courses I felt was unnecessary was that of homiletics, teaching men how to deliver their sermons.

One day I found an ally, a fellow-student who felt just as strongly on this matter as I did. He did not think that homiletics was necessary either—just a waste of time. As it turned out, he was scheduled to deliver his sermon to homiletics class the very next day. For the life of me I cannot tell you what in the world that fellow was trying to get across to the rest of us. Suddenly I saw that homiletics was beneficial.

If a course in homiletics will help a preacher to get his ideas across to his audience clearly and effectively, Jesus would seem to need such a course at this point in His ministry. That is, if Jesus were trying to get His ideas across to His audience clearly, He was doing the opposite. But the real problem comes when we learn from our text that our Lord’s purpose in speaking by means of parables was not to clarify, but to conceal His message.

As you read through our text in the 8th chapter of Luke’s gospel you will find two statements, which appear to contradict each other. This apparent contradiction is the “tension of our text.” At the end of the parable of the soils, Jesus called out to His audience, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 8:8b).

This quite clearly seems to be an encouragement to listen to His words and to learn from them. And yet in the same context Jesus told His disciples, “… I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand” (Luke 8:10b).

In other words, Jesus is encouraging His audience to listen and to heed His teaching, while He is also telling His disciples that the parables He uses are designed to “cloud” the truth, rather than to clarify it, to conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it.

The importance of this parable can hardly be overemphasized. Our Lord concluded it with an exhortation to listen well to His words (Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8). He also told His disciples that if they did not understand this parable, they would not understand any of the parables (Mark 4:13). Thus, this parable, in one way or another, serves as the key to understanding the meaning of each parable, as well as our Lord’s reasons for using this new “parabolic” method.

The Approach of this Message

As we study our text we must seek to find an interpretation of it which enables us to reconcile this apparent contradiction. We will begin by considering the setting of our Lord’s teaching in this text. Then we shall consider the parable, its meaning, and the purpose of parables in our Lord’s ministry. We will learn how teaching in parables fits into the ministry of our Lord and to His overall purpose. We will then attempt to distill principles from this passage and show their application to our lives.

The Structure of the Passage

Our text falls into four divisions:

(1) The parable of the soils told by Jesus—8:4-8

(2) The purpose of our Lord using parables—8:9-10

(3) The interpretation of the parable of the soils—8:11-15

(4) The implications and applications of the parable—8:16-21

The Setting

From the accounts of Matthew and Mark we learn that Jesus was probably at Capernaum. Matthew tells us that “Jesus went out of the house” (Matthew 13:1), which at least suggests that this was the house where our Lord usually stayed while at Capernaum, the early headquarters for His ministry. A large crowd from various cities and towns had gathered along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, so that our Lord found it necessary to speak from a boat, anchored close to the shore (cf. Matthew 13:2; Mark 4:1).

The preceding context in all three gospel accounts indicates a strong resistance to Jesus, His teaching, and His ministry, on the part of the Pharisees. The clash between Jesus and the Pharisees was evident in His claim to have authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:17-26), His association with sinners (Luke 5:27-32), and His failure to keep the Sabbath according to their prescriptions (Luke 6:1-11). Jesus’ miraculous power was attributed to Beelzebub, the prince of demons (cf. Mark 3:22). By this point in time they had already determined to put Jesus to death (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6). It was only a question of finding the right place and time.

The parable of the soils is found in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4-18). Luke’s account informs us that teaching by parables began with our Lord’s second Galilean campaign (cf. Luke 8:1). Teaching by means of parables became the Lord’s method of teaching the crowds:

With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything (Mark 4:33-34).

The “disciples” to whom our Lord revealed everything was the larger group of His followers, including those previously mentioned in 8:1-3. Mark especially makes this clear:

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, … (Mark 4:10-11a).

The Parable of the Soils
(8:4-8)

The parable of the soils describes what becomes of seed that is sown in four different types of soil. The first type of soil is the hardened soil of the pathway. This seed does not penetrate the soil at all, but is quickly snatched up by the birds of the air. The second type of soil is the rocky soil, a shallow layer of earth, barely covering

to rock below. The seed which falls upon this type of soil quickly germinates, aided by the warmth retained by the rock, but hindered by a lack of depth and by a lack of moisture. The seed which germinates quickly also terminates quickly. The third soil is the thorny soil, a soil populated with thorns. The seed falling into this soil germinates and begins to grow, but is eventually crowded out by the hardier thorns. The fourth soil is the fruitful soil, that soil which produces a bountiful crop. Having told the story, Jesus put an exclamation point after it by adding these words: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (v. 8).

The Purpose of the Parables
(8:9-10)

The disciples apparently kept quiet as our Lord was teaching by means of this parable and many others. They may have been reluctant to admit that they didn’t understand what He was trying to teach them. It would seem that no one else asked what He meant, either, or they would not have needed to ask Jesus privately about His meaning.

The disciples who accompanied Jesus (more than just the twelve, cf. Mark 4:10) privately inquired about the parable. Luke’s account tells us that they asked Him about this parable (v. 9), while the other accounts inform us that they were also asking about the meaning of all the parables. Matthew tells us that they inquired as to why Jesus switched to teaching by means of parables (13:10). Mark says that “they asked Him about the parables” (4:10). All of these questions are intertwined, and so it is easy to see that all of these questions could have been put to our once they were away from the crowd.

In Luke’s account, even though he says that they asked Jesus what this parable meant, Jesus first explained to them why He had changed His method of teaching the crowds by means of parables. Luke’s account of our Lord’s response is brief and to the point. Jesus’ answer is brief, but loaded with implications. Let us consider what He said:

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand’” (Luke 8:10).

Let us make several observations concerning what our Lord has said:

(1) Jesus began using parables to conceal His teaching from some, and to reveal it to others.

(2) Jesus used parables to conceal truth from the crowds, while revealing it to His disciples. We can see from our text that the disciples did not understand our Lord’s parables any more than the crowds, but He did explain the meaning to them later (Mark 4:34).

(3) By teaching in parables, Jesus did not withhold anything which the people were both eager and able to understand. Mark clearly tells us that Jesus taught the crowds all they could handle: “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand” (Mark 4:33).

(4) Jesus viewed His teaching by parables (and thus His concealing and revealing) as a fulfillment of prophecy, or at least as consistent with the ministry which God gave to Isaiah. Our Lord cites from Isaiah chapter 6 to vindicate His actions. God had sent many prophets to the nation Israel, and all of them were rejected, along with their message. John, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was also rejected, at least by the religious leaders of Israel. Isaiah chapter 6 is the account of this prophet’s commission. The words which our Lord cited are the word of God to Isaiah, indicating that his ministry was essentially not one of calling men to repentance, but rather of confirming their condemnation. Isaiah’s words sealed Israel’s doom, and preceded the outpouring of God’s judgment on His disobedient people. Jesus viewed His ministry as similar to that of Isaiah, and thus teaching in parables could be vindicated by referring to Isaiah’s account of God’s words addressed to Him.

(5) The teaching which Jesus was simultaneously concealing and revealing concerned the secrets of the kingdom of God. I believe that on His first Galilean campaign Jesus concentrated on identifying Himself as Israel’s Messiah (cf. Luke 4:16-21). Now, He seems to be concentrating more on the nature of the kingdom itself.

(6) Those from whom the secrets of the kingdom of God are concealed are unbelievers, whose doom is thereby sealed. Jesus conceals the truth from “those who are without” so that they won’t understand and will not repent, and thus not be able to enter into His kingdom. This is implied in Luke’s account, but clearly stated in both Matthew and Mark, not to mention the prophecy of Isaiah. You will recall that when the teachers of the law attributed Jesus’ works, accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit, to Beelzebub (Mark 3:22f.), Jesus said that this was one blasphemy which could not be forgiven them. Their doom was sealed, and speaking in parables was one aspect of their condemnation.

Our Lord’s words of explanation reveal that some decisive changes have occurred in His ministry:

·         They reveal that there is a change in the message of our Lord. I believe that in the first Galilean campaign of our Lord, the emphasis was on His identity as Israel’s king. Now, the Lord’s teaching has shifted to the more intimate (secret) aspects of His kingdom.

·         Our Lord’s words reveal a change of method. Our Lord is now speaking by means of parables—more indirectly than before.

·         Our Lord’s words reveal a change of focus and emphasis. Jesus is beginning to spend more time with His disciples. In our Lord’s first Galilean campaign, it would seem that His disciples were not always present. From now on, Jesus pours more effort into the teaching of His disciples (not just the 12, either, but the larger group of His followers).

The Interpretation
of the Parable of the Soils
(8:11-15)

Jesus has just finished explaining His purpose in speaking by means of parables—to conceal the secrets of the kingdom from the crowds, while revealing them to His followers. Now, having explained His purpose in using parables, Jesus goes on to explain the meaning of this particular parable of the soils.

The parable explains the different responses which men have toward the gospel. Four different responses are given, along with four different causes and four distinct results. The sowing of the seed symbolizes the spreading of the gospel. The seed which is sown is the word of God (v. 11). The hardened soil—those alone the path—are those whose hearts have never been open to the gospel, who never responded positively to the Lord Jesus Christ. The scribes and Pharisees seem generally to fall into this category. The gospel makes no impression on them whatsoever. Satan immediate snatches the gospel from their hearts, so that there is no response, no new birth, no fruit.

The second soil—the shallow soil—represents those who positively (joyfully) respond to our Lord’s teaching, but only due to an inadequate grasp of its implications. These folks respond positively to the word because they think that it is a kind of “prosperity gospel,” a gospel which promises only good times, blessing, happiness, and bliss. The quickness of the response is an indication of their lack of depth, or their lack of perception as to what the gospel really means. And, let me quickly add, this is not due to our Lord’s misrepresentation of the gospel. It is the result of selective hearing, of hearing only the good and pleasant things, rather than hearing of the costs involved in discipleship, of which our Lord often spoke. A simple reading of the Sermon on the Mount will show how our Lord carefully represented the blessings and the costs of following Him.

The third soil, the thorny soil, represents those who have a more complete grasp of the cost of discipleship, but who have never rid themselves of the “cares of this world.” Their concerns for money and for pleasure outgrow their seeking first the kingdom of God, and thus their priorities are reversed. It is not that the people represented by this thorny soil do not understand the costs of discipleship, but that they are not willing to pay the price. It is not lack of knowledge which causes them to err, but lack of commitment, lack of dedication.

The fourth soil, the good soil represents all those whose hearts are prepared for the gospel, and whose lives are uncluttered with competitive interests and values. In this fourth soil the word not only bring forth life, but the plant comes to maturity and it bears fruit. Here is the goal of discipleship.

Which of the Soils is Saved?

When I have taught this text before I have spent considerable time attempting to answer the question, “Which of the four types of soil represent those who are saved?” I am now inclined to approach this parable differently. I believe that the first soil represents those who are lost, and that the fourth soil represents those who are saved, but I do not believe that the Lord’s purpose in telling the parable is to distinguish between believers and unbelievers. There is only one kind of soil which attains the goal. The goal which our Lord holds out in this parable is not that of being saved, but that of reaching full maturity and of bearing fruit. Someone might argue that a “rocky soil” person or a “thorny soil” person is a true believer, but our Lord would have us understand that they have not reached the goal for which they were saved. We are saved, not only to escape divine wrath and to live forever in heaven, but to attain to the “fullness of the stature of Christ” (Eph. 4:13) and to bear fruit (John 15:5).

The problem with many contemporary Christians is the same as that of the Pharisees and many other Jews of Jesus’ day—we are “two-category thinkers.” We think of the world only in terms of those who are saved and those who are not; those who are going to heaven and those who are going to hell. The Jews thought of the world in terms of two categories: the Jew, who was God’s chosen, the object of God’s blessings; and the Gentile heathen, who was lost and the object of divine wrath. The parable of the soils which Jesus told forces us to think in terms of more than just two categories. It is not enough to have merely escaped hell, and to have our foot wedged in the doorway of heaven. The goal for which we are saved is to persevere, to grow, to reach maturity, and to produce more fruit. To fall short of this goal (even though we may have been saved), is to fail to attain that for which we were called and set apart.

The kind of Christian which pleases the heart of God is not one which makes a dramatic start and then dies out, nor one whose commitment to Christ is slowly choked out by worldly desires. The kind of Christian which pleases God is that one which thoughtfully hears the gospel, understands its implications, and then consistently grows and matures, and which bears fruit as a result.

Over the years of my ministry I have seen only a few who were so bold as to admit that all they wanted was to be “saved by the skin of their teeth,” who wanted to live this life with a minimum of commitment and obedience to Christ, and with a maximum of worldly pleasure. The few who were honest enough to say so admitted that they did not care about heavenly rewards, but only wanted to be sure of making it through the gate. While few are honest enough to admit to this kind of thinking, many of us are guilty of it. Our Lord’s parable of the soils should exhort us to desire and to depend upon Him to enable us to be like the fourth soil, and to find all other soils unacceptable. It is only this fourth soil kind of person who perseveres through adversity to maturity and fruitfulness (cf. v. 15).

In the gospel accounts we find that these four types of soil describe nearly all of those who heard the gospel of the kingdom. We find those who immediately rejected it; those who too quickly accepted it, those who fizzled out over a longer period, and those who endured and who bore fruit. These four types of soil also provide us with a grid by means of which we can categorize church-goers today. How few are those who can be called “good soil saints.”

The Reason for Hiding the Truth
(8:16-18)

In the previous verses Jesus has told His disciples that He meant to hide the truth of the kingdom from the masses, while revealing it to His intimate followers. Now, in verses 16-18, Jesus makes it clear that this “hiding” of the truth is only temporary. The truth, Jesus taught, was like a light, and light was not intended to be hidden, but to be brought into the open, where men in darkness could benefit from it.

In verse 17, Jesus went on to say that nothing which was presently hidden was to stay hidden for long, but would be brought out into the open. Jesus was not revealing His secrets to His disciples so that they could keep these things to themselves. Jesus was revealing His secrets to His disciples so that very soon they could broadcast them to the world. The disciples were thus urged to listen well, for as they distributed that which the Lord had entrusted to them they would be given even more. The secrets they were told were to be publicly proclaimed. As the truth was broadcast, more truth would be revealed. Jesus did not envision a gnostic few, who discovered and kept His secrets to themselves, but a dynamic force which would proclaim them abroad.

Why, then, were these truths, these secrets of the kingdom, temporarily concealed from the masses? Why were only the disciples told? I believe that that which was “secret” here was that which pertained to the sufferings and sacrificial death of Christ. The reason why these secrets were not made known to the crowd of Israelites was that many of them were to be the ones who would publicly deny Christ and who would demand His execution, while calling for the release of Barabas. Isaiah’s prophecy was veiled because the nation Israel had too long rejected the prophetic warnings and exhortations of previous prophets. When Isaiah came on the scene his message was veiled because God’s judgment was at hand. Thus, Isaiah’s preaching was to solidify Israel’s state of unbelief.

Something similar is happening in our Lord’s shift to teaching in parables. The nation Israel has not received Jesus as their Messiah. Their leaders have rejected Him and have determined to put Him to death. The people demand miracles and signs. Jesus began to veil His teaching, focusing more on His disciples and revealing more and more to them about His upcoming rejection and sacrificial death. Jesus’ concealing of these mysteries of the kingdom allowed the unbelieving nation to intensify its efforts to rid itself of this kind of Messiah. It signaled a change from speaking of a crown to suffering death on a cross. These mysteries would only be proclaimed and understood after our Lord’s crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

The principle has been laid down that Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him (v. 18). The question is, “What constitutes ‘having’ or ‘possessing’ the truth?” The answer, I believe, is this: WE HAVE THAT WHICH WE POSSESS BY PRACTICING IT.

The “inner circle” of our Lord’s followers not only heard our Lord’s teaching, they took it to heart, leaving everything behind them to follow Him. Those who did not possess the truth only heard it, but did not apply it. Jesus is teaching that the one who possesses His teaching is the one who acts on it, who makes it his (or her) own, and who thus perseveres, grows to maturity, and bears fruit. To those who use the truth, more is given. To those who only hear it, even what they appear to possess is taken away—it has done them no good at all.

The Real Family of our Lord
(8:19-21)

This “principle of possession” is applied by our Lord in a very practical way in verses 19-21. His mother and brothers came to the house where He was staying and requested to see Him. Some brought word inside to the Lord, informing Him that His family was there and wished to see Him. Jesus responded by saying that His “true family” was made up of those who heard His word and put it into practice. The real followers of Jesus are those who had ears to hear and hearts to do what He taught.

Conclusion

This text teaches us some very important principles—truths which have pertinent and practical application to our own daily living. Let me conclude by mentioning some of these principles:

(1) Men are unable to grasp God’s truths, apart from divine enablement. Not only the crowds, but the disciples of our Lord as well failed to understand what Jesus was teaching by means of the parables. The disciples were enabled to understand what the parables meant only because Jesus explained their meaning to them at their request (Mark 4:34). Apart from our Lord’s explanations, the disciples would have been just as much in the dark as the crowds. Even when Jesus spoke plainly to the disciples, they did not fully grasp what He was saying (cf. Matt. 16:9,11; Mark 9:30-33).

Divine revelation requires divine interpretation. This is because God’s truths are vastly above our ability to grasp or comprehend:

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

This principle, that divine revelation requires divine interpretation, is not just true for those who lived in Jesus’ day—it is true for saints today as well:

No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would hot have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, No mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:7-9).

In this context, Paul tells the Corinthian saints that God’s truths are above human comprehension. He goes on to say in the verses that follow that it is through the Holy Spirit that God makes these truths known to men. The Spirit has inspired the human authors, and it is also the Spirit that enables gifted teachers to explain them, and who illuminates individuals to grasp their meaning and application. While the disciples went to Jesus to learn the meaning of His words, we must look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to grasp the meaning of Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10ff.; John 16:12ff.).

(2) When it comes to possessing the truths of God, we must use it, or lose it! Our Lord informs us that He does not inform His followers of His secrets only for their information, but for their transformation (cf. John 17:17; Rom. 12:2). And not only are we to see to it that the Word of God is applied to our own lives, we must also proclaim it to others. Here is fruit-bearing. The Word of God is like the manna of the Old Testament: it is not given for us to store up, but to use. That which is not used rots.

(3) Problem passages should draw us to Him. Often times people will use difficult texts as their excuse for not studying the Bible, or for not following Christ. The “difficult sayings” of Jesus drew the disciples closer to Him, for He alone knew their meaning. Problem passages should do this for the true Christian. They should cause us to seek His face, to learn from Him through His Spirit. Problems should draw us to Him, not from Him.

(4) The parable of the soils has an evangelistic lesson, as well as a warning. Note that the sower sowed seed on all four kinds of soil. You might say that he sowed indiscriminately. You and I do not know what kind of soil our unsaved fried or neighbor might be. Because of this, we must proclaim the gospel (sow the seed) indiscriminately. We will not know what kind of soil men are for some time. Let us therefore be on guard against pre-judging others and simply proclaim the truth of God’s word to all.

For those who have heard the word of God, who have heard the gospel and yet have not responded, there is a clear word of warning here. To disregard the gospel is dangerous, for Satan will not allow the seed to remain for long and the seed may never be sown in our hearts again. If you have heard the message of the gospel, knowing that you are a sinner in need of God’s grace, in need of the forgiveness found only in Christ, and yet have not acted so as to receive it, you are presuming on the grace of God, expecting another opportunity which may never come your way again. Receive Him today!

! Lesson 26:
The Stilling of the Storm
(Luke 8: 22-25)

Introduction

After many years of marriage and a number of tense moments, our friends, Don and Maggie, had come to an agreement: Maggie would not interrupt Don’s concentration when he was in the middle of a project. On a number of occasions Maggie had interrupted Don when he was deeply involved in a task, much to his consternation. Finally, they agreed that when she wanted to ask him something, she would wait until he had finished what he was doing.

The arrangement had worked pretty well over the years, until a particular day. Don was working on a project in the garage. Maggie, well acquainted with their arrangement, walked out to the garage and stood silently by, waiting for the signal that he was ready to be interrupted. When he looked up, she calmly reported, “the house is on fire.”

There are times when one feels justified in being excited, even a bit panicky. When I read the account of the stilling of the storm in the gospels, I am troubled by the fact that Jesus rebukes the disciples for panicking in this life-threatening storm. I have to ask myself how one would approach Jesus to awaken Him, so as not to set his faith aside. If you were one of the disciples, who had just been rebuked for your lack of faith, what would you have done differently in that storm? Would you come to Jesus something like Maggie came to Don? How does one deny their faith in the midst of a storm? How does one practice their faith in the face of a life-threatening danger? These are not easy questions to answer, but they are questions which our text raises.

For some, the stilling of the storm is an easy text to interpret and apply. They would tell us that we “trust Jesus in the storms of our life.” But how is this done? How does one practice faith in the frantic moments of life? How should we have responded if we were in that storm and if we were practicing our faith? It isn’t as simple as it seems. The story of the stilling of the storm isn’t a very extended account, but it is one that requires a good bit of thought and study.

Our Approach

Initially, I must admit to getting caught up by all of the details which were not provided by our text. I intended to approach to the stilling of the storm something like the National Transportation Safety Board would investigate an airplane mishap. A seemingly simple and trivial incident (like running out of gas) is taken very seriously, requiring months of investigation, the conclusions being summarized in multiple volumes. As I began to approach the stilling of the storm from this same point of view, I ended up with many unanswered questions.[137]

It suddenly dawned on me that I was missing the point of the passage. All of the details which I desired to discover were deliberately omitted, not only by Luke, but also by Matthew and Mark, in their parallel accounts. The reason why all of this information was withheld was so that the principle thrust of the incident could not be lost in a maze of mundane details. Consequently we will not approach the passage in a way that tries to discover all of the facts, but in a way that seeks to interpret and apply the facts which we have been given.

As I understand the account of the stilling of the storm, the principle focus of the passage is on faith, or rather, the lack of faith evidenced by the disciples’ response to the storm. The is no doubt the obvious emphasis on the need for faith, but it would seem to me that this text supplies us with a great deal of insight into the nature of faith. Let us then seek to learn from this lesson what faith really is, how it works, and how its absence can be detected. May God use this lesson to increase our faith.

I will begin by briefly re-telling the story of the stilling of the storm, including some of the details which are added by the other accounts of Matthew and Mark. We will then seek to explore some of the principles pertaining to faith which can be discerned from this incident on the middle of the Sea of Galilee. We will also attempt to show how these principles apply can be found elsewhere in Scripture and how they apply in our daily experience.

The Context of our Passage

The account of the stilling of the storm is the first of three miracles recorded by Luke in chapter 8. The stilling of the storm (Luke 8:22-25) is followed by the healing of the demoniac (8:26-38). The third manifestation of our Lord’s miraculous power is recorded in the account of the raising of Jairus’s daughter, interrupted by the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. All of these precede the sending out of the disciples, to do the very things the Lord has done here:

When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick (Luke 9:1-2).[138]

All of these miracles point to the power of our Lord Jesus, as well as to His identity as Israel’s Messiah. They are, for the disciples, as well as for the reader, to be the fuel for faith. The two central threads which run through these miracles are “fear” and “faith.” As we study these incidents, let us seek to learn the relationship between fear and faith, and between Jesus’ power, His person, and our peace of heart and soul.

Parallel Passages

The miracle of the stilling of the storm is found in all three of the synoptic (synoptic means to see the same way, and refers to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of which approach the life of Christ in the same general way, as distinct from the approach of John’s gospel) gospels. Each of the gospels contributes some unique facet or element, so that our study of the event from Luke’s gospel is enhanced by a reading of the accounts of Matthew (8:23-27) and Mark (4:36-41).[139]

The Stilling of the Storm

It was the day on which Jesus had taught the crowds by means of parables on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The crowds lined the shore, while Jesus taught from a boat, anchored just off shore. It was evening (Mark 4:35), and our Lord had finished His teaching, so He instructed His disciples to cross the lake by boat to the other side. They left the crowd behind on shore, but some of those who were listening from on board other little boats followed as they set out to cross the lake (Mark 4:36). It was during the peaceful part of this trip that Jesus fell asleep in the back of the boat, on a cushion (Mark 4:38).

Without warning, a storm came upon the lake. The winds blew fiercely, whipping the water into mountainous waves. The boat and its passengers were in serious danger. The seasoned sailors on board understood the threat even better than the rest and all were frightened. No doubt they did everything possible to secure the ship and to attempt to weather the storm. The boat was being swamped by the waves, which swept over the bow. Jesus, at the rear of the boat, was least affected. The violent up and down motion of the boat was much more pronounced at the bow of the boat and least at the stern. So, too, with the water which swept over the bow. The disciples were scared to death; Jesus slept.

With some irritation they must have noted His peaceful repose. How could He be so peaceful? How could He sleep? Why was He not even aware of their plight? Didn’t He care? We are only told that “the disciples went and woke Him,” but I would imagine that they were not as gentle as they might otherwise have been as they shook the Lord to rouse Him from His sleep.

The statements of the disciples differ from one gospel to another:

·         “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matthew 8:25)

·         “Master, Master, we’re going to drown!” (Luke 8:24)

·         “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” (Mark 4:38)

I believe that all of these words were spoken, and probably more. As there were twelve frightened and frustrated men with Him, each may have spoken at once, or perhaps in sequence, or a little of both. Thus, the recording of all of these statements is true to the events, and reveals different emotions and responses. Matthew seems to record a cry for help. Luke seems to give us a statement of doom. Mark records the rebuke of one or more of the disciples for our Lord’s seeming aloofness.

Aroused from His slumber, Jesus stood and rebuked[140] the winds and the waves. Instantly the winds ceased. More astoundingly, the raging waters were calm. Normally, considerable time is required for the waves to cease, even though the winds have long since diminished. Yet here, all was calm. The sea was as smooth as glass. Jesus gently rebuked the disciples for their fear and for their lack of faith. The disciples, however, were too shaken by what they have seen to think very deeply about what our Lord had just said. They were totally overwhelmed by what He had just done. Speaking to one another they pondered not only what had just happened, but also who is was who was with them in the boat: “Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25).

It would seem that their fear at what Jesus has just done differs both in kind and in intensity from that which they had as a result of the storm. What Jesus has just done was even more startling than the life-threatening storm itself.

The Point of the Passage

The story is simply told. There is no embellishment evident in any of the gospel accounts. There are many questions which come to the reader’s mind as a result of the brevity of the text, some of which must be left to the reader for personal study and meditation. Many details which we would like to have been told have been withheld so that the principle point of the passage would be emphatically clear. This incident focuses on faith, or perhaps more accurately, the absence of faith on the part of the disciples. The disciples were afraid, and their words and actions toward Jesus were less than what was expected of them. Jesus spoke to them only about the faith which they should have had. Let us seek to identify the principles taught by this passage which pertain to faith.

The Importance of Faith

(1) Faith is fundamental for those who would be followers of Christ. The Lord sought faith in His disciples in this text, and nothing else. The story of the stilling of the storm is the account of our Lord’s looking for faith in His disciples and not finding it. All of the extraneous details have been omitted from this story so that the importance and nature of faith are glaringly prominent.

Jesus did not criticize the sailing skills of these men, nor did He coach them on the art of bailing boats. He did not expect them to do anything in the midst of that storm but to trust in Him. Instead, they rebuked Him for His lack of caring and activity. The disciples’ lack of faith was viewed by our Lord as a most serious problem. The Lord gently, but firmly, rebuked them for their unbelief[141] and for their fear.

Faith is fundamental for those who would be followers of Christ. It is that for which our Lord seeks (cf. Luke 18:8), that in which He delights, and the lack of which causes Him displeasure. Faith is equally important for those who would follow Christ today. It is by faith that we are saved from our sins (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:22). We are to live by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Faith is fundamental, not only to our text, and to the disciples, but to everyone. It was faith that saved Abraham (Romans 4), as it was faith that sustained all of the heroes of the faith named or alluded to in Hebrews chapter 11. It is faith from which obedience flows (Romans 16:26). It is by faith that we stand (2 Corinthians 1:24). Faith is the shield which protects us from satanic attack (Eph. 6:16; cf. 1 Peter 5:9). To sum it up, without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

(2) Failing to trust in Chrsit dishonors and displeases Him and is detrimental to men. The disciples’ lack of faith does not please our Lord here, nor does it do so elsewhere (cf. Matt. 14:31; 16:8). It was dishonoring to Christ for it showed that the disciples did not view Him as the Son of God and the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (cf. Colossians 1:16-17). In addition, the disciples’ lack of faith caused them much unnecessary consternation and fear.

The Nature of Faith

(1) Faith involves a decision for which men are responsible. Our Lord’s rebuke of His disciples, regardless of how gentle it may have been, indicates that the disciples were expected to have faith, and were held accountable for failing to have faith. While faith is, in one sense, a gift of God, it is also a gift which may be accepted or refused. Faith involves man’s choice.

(2) Faith acts, sometimes by waiting, and sometimes by working. Sometimes faith is a decision which requires man to take action. For example, Abraham’s faith in God required him, on one occasion to circumcise his son. On other, he was required to send away Ishmael. On yet another, he was instructed to “sacrifice his only son.” We might call this the “obedience of faith.” It is doing that which God has commanded, trusting in God to fulfill His purposes and promises as we act in obedience to His command, even though such obedience seems to be foolish, even destructive.

At other times, a decision of faith requires us to be passive. Faith sometimes must passively wait, at a time when we would be tempted to act on our own to bring about a certain result. God promised Abraham a son. By faith, he should have patiently waited. Instead, Abraham produced a son through his wife’s handmaid. This was an act of unbelief, which continues to have its adverse consequences. Faith acts, sometimes by waiting, and other times by working.

(3) Faith is tested and proven by adversity and trails. The disciples’ lack of faith is exposed in their crisis experience on the Sea of Galilee. Faith’s absence or presence is revealed in the traumas of life. Apart from this storm, the disciples would have continued to appear and to feel as though they had control of the situation. Their panic on the lake showed otherwise.

So it is for us as well. It is the crises of life which reveal our faith. God sent trials into Job’s life to show that his relationship to God was a matter of faith, not of mere self-interest, as Satan suggested (cf. Job 1). So, too, James tells us the purpose of trials is to test and to deepen our faith:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance (James 1:2-3).

The tests and the trials of life—life’s crises—simply expose those flaws and failures in our faith which have long been there, but which are only revealed under stress and pressure. If possessing faith is important, then we can be grateful for the tests which reveal our weaknesses.

(4) Faith is the opposite of fear. Jesus cited the disciples’ fear as evidence of their lack of faith. When you stop to think about it, fear (that is, the kind of frantic, panic, fear that the disciples displayed in the storm) and faith are mutually exclusive. Where you find fear, faith is absent. When you find faith, fear is gone. In their fear the disciples made too much of the problem and too little of God’s provisions. They viewed themselves as on the brink of disaster, at death’s doorway. In reality, they were only “beginning to be in danger” (Luke 8:23, NASV). The boat was beginning to fill up, but the disciples saw it as full. Fear maximizes the problem and minimizes God’s provisions and presence.

Worry is an even greater sin than fear in my opinion. Fear is based upon reality—there was a serious storm raging. Worry is based upon the hypothetical possibility of trouble. “What if I lose my job?” “What if I get sick and can’t work?” Fear is being in a boat that is in a storm and is filling up with water. Worry is standing on shore, too frightened to get into a boat, for fear that a storm must might come up, and that it might sink. Fear has more basis than worry, even though it is wrong.

(5) Faith faces danger and risk. Faith does not deny danger nor minimize it. Faith involves “risk” from a human perspective. Faith puts oneself, one’s future, one’s safety on the line. Faith entrusts oneself to God in the midst of danger. While faith is antithetical to fear, it is also akin to fear in that danger will evoke one response or the other. Faith faces danger with peace and tranquillity. Fear faces danger in frenzy. Faith is willing to take risks, based on the promises and purposes of God. Fear avoids danger at all costs. Faith is not gambling, toying with danger, for gambling is based on chance, while faith is based upon God.

(6) Faith is trusting God. Faith focuses on God, its object is God. Since the incarnation of Christ, faith focuses on God incarnate, Jesus Christ. The disciples did not just lack faith, they lacked faith in Christ, the One who was in the boat with them. The words of the disciples, after the stilling of the storm, reveal their utter failure to grasp the greatness of the One who was with them. The disciples did not grasp the greatness of the One who was with them in the boat, and thus they lacked faith in His power, in His presence, in His goodness.

(7) Faith is trusting God alone. True faith is faith in God alone. Faith cannot be placed in both God and man (cf. Ps. 146, esp. vv. 3-4). Faith in God cannot be mixed with trust in ourselves, or in our own actions. The storm of the Sea of Galilee had brought the disciples to a point of absolute desperation. There was nothing which they, or any other human being, could do to save them. If God did not act, and if He did not act in a supernatural way, they were doomed.

In this case, the disciples were painfully aware of their inadequacy, of the futility of anything they might do to save themselves. In other instances, we must come to the realization that even when our actions might seem to save us, they don’t. Abraham’s method of lying about the identity of his wife, Sarah, seemed to work, it seemed to save his skin. In the final analysis, Abraham had to come to see that only God could save Him. When Abraham was called on to sacrifice his only son, he was brought to the point of trusting only in God.

(8) Faith is trusting in God alone to do the impossible. Faith is not trusting in God for those things which will happen in and of themselves. Faith is trusting in the God who miraculously intervenes to do that which is humanly impossible. Faith is not based upon statistics, but on supernaturalism. Faith trusts God to do that which cannot be done. The disciples saw no way out of the storm. Jesus stilled the storm, and all, including the boat, made it safely to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.

The Scriptures teach us that we are to walk by faith, and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). In spite of the fact that our bodies are deteriorating, we believe that we will live eternally. While we see that we will die, we believe that we will be raised again. While it appears that those who live according to the Sermon on the Mount will suffer economic disaster, God has promised to provide for our every need. Faith is not based upon statistics, nor upon sight, but upon God’s supernatural power, and upon His promises.

(9) Faith is trusting in God alone for salvation. A study of this text has led me to a starting conclusion: All faith is saving faith. The disciples here, cried out for their physical salvation. Had our Lord not intervened, they would have perished. As you look through the New Testament, you see that many who come to Jesus in faith ask for “salvation.” The woman who believed that she would be healed of her issue of blood literally believed that she would be “saved” (Matthew 9:21), and the Lord obviously confirmed this when He said,

“Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed [literally “saved”] you” (Matthew 9:22).

While she was still alive, Jairus believed that if Jesus came and touched her, she would be healed [literally “saved”] (Mark 5:23). Mark later tells us that all who touched Jesus were healed [literally “saved”] (Mark 6:56).

My point in all of this is that all faith looks to God to “save” us in the sense that according to our human “sight,” in terms of mere statistics, what we do or do not do by faith would seem to lead to destruction. Abraham was commanded to leave his family behind and go to an unknown (as yet unnamed) land, where God promised to bless him. From a human perspective, Abraham was leaving certain prosperity behind while flirting with disaster. Abraham was instructed to take the life of his only son, through whom God had promised to bless him and all the earth. Humanly speaking, this would destroy Abraham’s family. But Abraham, by faith, believed that God was supernaturally able to raise him from the dead (cf. Hebrews 11:17-19). Faith trusts God to save us from disaster, from disease, from destruction, from death, from defeat. All faith is faith that God will save us from something (and to something).

(10) Faith always has a firm foundation. When Jesus rebuked the disciples for their unbelief He said, “Do you still have no faith” (Mark 4:40, emphasis mine).

This term “still” strongly suggests that there was no excuse for their unbelief. It implies as well that the disciples had been provided with more than enough evidence for their faith. It informs us that the disciples’ had a firm foundation for their faith. In the past, their unbelief might have been understandable, even excusable, but not now. There were many evidences, many facts which had been provided the disciples, which were to serve as the basis of their faith. Let us briefly review some of the evidences which the disciples had, which were a firm foundation for their faith in Christ.

Old Testament Texts About God

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses (Psalm 33:6-7).

God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging (Psalm 46:1-3).

You answer us with awesome deeds of righteousness, O God our Savior, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas, who formed the mountains by your power, having armed yourself with strength, who stilled the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, and the turmoil of the nations (Psalm 65:5-7).

O LORD God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you. You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them (Psalm 89:8-9).

All of these texts focus on the fact that God is both the Creator and the Controller of His creation, which includes the sea. The New Testament goes even further to identify Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of the creation.

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17).

The One who was in the boat with the disciples was the Creator and the Controller of the Sea!

Old Testament Incidents Pertaining to Israel

When our fathers were in Egypt, they gave no thought to your miracles; they did not remember your many kindnesses, and they rebelled by the sea, the Red Sea. Yet he saved them for his name’s sake, to make his mighty power known. He rebuked the Red Sea, and it dried up; he led them through the depths as through a desert. He saved them from the hand of the foe; from the hand of the enemy he redeemed them. The waters covered their adversaries; not one of them survived (Psalm 106:7-11).

When God created Israel as a nation and brought them out of Egypt, He did so by parting the Red Sea, in such a way as to save the Israelites and to destroy the army of Egypt. The disciples are the beginning of God’s new program the church. If need be, the Lord could have used the winds to cut a path in the Sea of Galilee, and they could have walked to shore, on dry land!

Old Testament Prophecies Pertaining to Messiah

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him (Deut. 18:15).

I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. My hand will sustain him; surely my arm will strengthen him. No enemy will subject him to tribute; no wicked man will oppress him. I will crush his foes before him and strike down his adversaries. My faithful love will be with him, and through my name his horn will be exalted. I will set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers. He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, The Rock my Savior.’ I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure (Psalm 89:8-9,20-29).

Moses had prophesied that One like him, but greater than he, would come. That One was Jesus. He was greater than Moses. Moses brought bread from heaven; Jesus was the Bread of Life, come down from heaven (cf. John 6:30-40). If Moses parted the Red Sea, what could the One greater than Moses do to the Sea of Galilee? Psalm 89, I believe is a Messianic Psalm, speaking not only of David, but of Messiah, the Son of David. This One, we are told, will “set his hand over the sea” (v. 25).

Jesus’ Words and Deeds

Jesus’ teaching and deeds, up to this point in time, had given ample proof of His identity as Messiah, as well as of His power. In Luke chapter 5, there was a similar “boat incident” (vv. 1-11), in which the Lord taught from on board, and then commanded the disciples to put out to sea. In that incident, He commanded them to put out their nets. Contrary to nature and to good fishing procedures, they made a great catch. The nets began to tear and the boat began to sink (with fish). Peter responded to the power of the Lord with words which closely parallel those of the disciples after the stilling of the storm.

In addition to this miracle in the boat, Jesus had healed a leper and a paralytic (Luke 5:12-26). He had performed many miracles (6:17-19). He healed the nearly dead servant of the centurion and raised the widow’s dead son (7:1-17). There should have been no doubt as to the Lord’s person or His power. All of the statements of the Old Testament about the power of God, and some of the prophecies pertaining to Messiah could be seen as fulfilled in Christ.

(11) Faith is trusting the presence, purposes, power, and character of God, founded on the Word of God. Faith is rooted in our awareness of the presence of God in Christ in our midst. Christ was with the disciples, but they did not know who He was. The disciples’ discussion after the miracle betrayed their lack of understanding who He was who was with them. Knowing Christ, and being assured that He is with us, is the basis of our faith.

The verb form of the term rendered “afraid” in the account of the stilling of the storm (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:40) is found once in the New Testament, in a way which addresses the kind of fear manifested by the disciples in the midst of the storm. Noticed how peace can be found in the midst of difficulties, how peace can replace panic, based on the assurance of Christ’s presence with us:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid” (John 14:27, emphasis mine).

A similar note is sounded in Deuteronomy 31:6, which, in the Greek translation (the Septuagint) uses this same term found in John 14:27:

“Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you.”

When the Lord was about to leave His disciples, He comforted them with the assurance that He would send His Spirit, whose task is to mediate the presence of Christ (cf. John 14-16). We may have peace in the midst of the storm if we have the presence of Christ in our hearts.

In addition to His Spirit, the Lord Jesus left His Word, which testifies to His presence, His power, and His purposes, which will be fulfilled in us.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy “Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you (Hebrews 13:5).

(12) Faith is founded on the purposes of God. The disciples were frightened in the midst of the storm but had they known who He was, they could have had great comfort in the Lord’s purposes. It was His idea for them to go to the other side. It was His purpose to reach the other shore. It was God’s purpose for Christ to die on a Roman cross, not to drown in the Sea of Galilee. Knowing who it was who was in the ship, and knowing His purposes, could have given the disciples great peace.

One final note, even though the disciples’ faith failed, God’s purposes did not. In spite of the disciples’ fear and unbelief, the ship did not sink, the storm ceased, and all landed safely on the shore. The failures of our faith do not frustrate the purposes of God. As Paul puts it,

If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

Here is the bedrock basis for our faith. He is good. He is powerful. His purposes will stand. And even when we fail in faith, He will not fail in faithfulness.

! Lesson 27:
The Deliverance of the Demoniac
–or–
“Unholy Fear”
(Luke 8:26-39)

The “Goat Man”

When I was growing up, there was a kind of farm that we would pass on our way to the city of Tacoma. The farm was owned by a man who was only known as the “goat man.” The “farm” was hardly that. Actually it was a large piece of property, stacked high with Army surplus goods. I can remember balsa wood life rafts, perhaps hundreds of them, piled there on the farm. The goat man’s house was a mere shack, with the most meager accommodations. (All of this I surmise from my recollections of what I saw from the road, as we would drive by.)

He was called the “goat man” because the only thing he raised on that farm was goats. I can vividly remember the man sitting on the porch of that little shack with the door open and goats freely going in and out of the house. I can especially recall one particular goat, which always had a rooster sitting on his back. I am telling you the truth. Every time we went by the goat man’s house that one goat had that one rooster sitting on his back, even as it walked about. It was an amusing sight.

The interesting thing about the goat man is that he was apparently very wealthy. The rumor was that this man owned an entire city block of downtown Tacoma. What an incredible thing it was for a man to live as he did, sitting on the porch of that shack, surrounded by goats and chickens, with a yard full of surplus rafts, when he could have lived in luxury and dressed elegantly.

Every place has its own “goat man” of sorts. There is always some “crazy person,” who is the talk of the neighborhood, and who provides entertainment for all who see them. I believe that the two demoniacs who lived in the region of the Gerasenes were the “talk of the town” in their day. At one point in time, these men must have lived in the town and carried on relatively normal lives.[142] Then, something happened which turned the two into virtual beasts, who were so strong and uncontrollable that the people would no longer use the road which passed by the place where they dwelt.

The problem for us is to really grasp the reality of what is described here. Most of us have (gratefully) not seen men or women who were so demonically controlled that they had superhuman strength, spoke in strange voices, and seemed to personify evil. For most of us who live in the United States, we must accept this biblical account by faith. But such things do occur, as Don Baker, a pastor who experienced a face-to-face confrontation with a demoniac, reports. He had undergone a period of intense depression, which necessitated hospitalization and a long period of therapy by a Christian psychiatrist. He recounts this incident with a demon-possessed man, which occurred just a little while before his breakdown:

… it had been just a few days after my first personal encounter with a Satanist that I slipped into my black hole. That was a frightening experience. It happened as I was walking to my room at a conference center where I had been invited to teach for a week. Standing in my path was a handsome young man, twenty-seven years of age, dressed in army fatigues.

“Is your name Baker, or Barker?” he asked.

“Yes,” I replied, “my name is Baker.”

“I’ve been told to talk to you,” he said.

His manner was strange and threatening. His voice was flat and colorless. His eyes looked cold and empty. I felt fear as I looked at him. He came into my room with me, and I asked him to be seated. He said, “No, I’ll stand.” Then he said, “I must tell you something, but I cannot look at you; and you cannot look at my face.” With that he turned to the wall, pressed his head against the wallboard, and began reciting the most bizarre story I had ever heard. He had been a worshiper and priest of Satan for seventeen years. His devotion to the evil one had taken him all over the country and had involved him in every occult practice known to man. Every twenty-two days he was visited by a demon and driven to unspeakable acts of evil. He hated God. He hated Christ. He hated talking to me, but he was compelled …

After two hours he suddenly turned on me, his eyes filled with hate, and screamed, “Aren’t you afraid of me? Don’t you know I can kill you?” With supernatural calmness I looked into that enraged face and said, “No, you can’t, for greater is Christ Who is in me than Satan who is in you” (1 John 4:4). Instantly he screamed, a hideous high-pitched scream, threw up his arms, and fell to the floor. In uncontrolled rage he began pounding his head on the concrete floor, uttering noises horrible beyond description. I looked around vainly for help. I called, but no one came. I was alone—alone with a demoniac. Face to face with the enemy for the first time.

“O God, what do I do?” I cried. I knelt beside that writhing human form, placed one hand between his forehead and the concrete and the other on his back. As I stroked his head and shoulders I prayed, “Lord Jesus, deliver this man from Satan.” I continued to pray, all the time shielding his head from the floor. “In the name of Jesus, Lord of heaven—Lord of all—I command you, Satan, to come out of this man’s body.”

If there was a precise formula, I didn’t know what it was. I did know that Jesus’ name always rang the death knell to the demons in the Scriptures. After what seemed an eternity, his body began to relax. He stopped jabbering and foaming. I urged him to speak the name, Lord Jesus—Lord Jesus. Each time I said that name he looked at me with pleading eyes and then grabbed his throat and his tongue to indicate that he could not speak. As I knelt beside him, clutching his body to mine, I prayed again, “Lord Jesus, release this man’s tongue, that he may speak Your name.” Finally, it happened. His lips began form words.

“Say it,” I urged. “Say His name. Say Lord Jesus.”

“I can’t,” he cried.

I prayed again. Finally he lifted his head, summoned the little strength he had left, and cried, “Lord Jesus.” With these words he slumped to the floor, unconscious. I covered him with a blanket, rubbed his head, massaged his shoulders and back, and waited for him to revive. His first words after opening his eyes were, “Lord Jesus.” He then raised up, moved to the side of my bed, knelt there, and gave his life to Jesus Christ.[143]

Our text is important for us for several reasons. First, this text teaches us much about the demonic forces which oppose our Lord and His church. It reminds us of the supernatural forces at work contrary to the Christian. It reminds us as well that Jesus Christ has power over the demonic forces, indeed, even over an entire “legion” of demons. We owe a great debt to Legion, for he is an extreme illustration of the end result of Satan’s control. This description of Legion provides us with a kind of “untouched photo” of a man who is fully “spirit filled,” as it were, totally dominated by Satan, by means of his demonic assistants. Satan’s deception and destruction is unmasked, revealed in its purest and ugliest form. Let us look carefully as the finished product, for it is vastly different from what Satan claims he can produce.

Second, the deliverance of the demoniac draws our attention to a fear of God which is unholy and unhealthy. The fear of “Legion,” which is the fear of the demons who possess him, and the fear of the people of his home town, is an unholy fear, one which causes men to draw away from God, or, as in our text, to ask the Son of God to withdraw from their region. It is no great shock to learn that the unbelieving and the unholy would fear God. At the conclusion of this message, I will suggest that this same kind of unholy fear which is seen in Legion and the people of that region can be found in many Christians, and that it is this kind of fear which hinders, even opposes revival. Let us listen well to this text, for it has much to say to contemporary Christians, as well as to modern-day pagans.

The Approach of This Message

In this message, we will begin by reviewing the setting, and then we will look at the events surrounding the deliverance of the demoniac as it is described by Luke, accented by the accounts of Matthew and Mark. We will then consider the “tension of the text,” which is the key to the interpretation of this event and its meaning for us. Finally, we will consider the nature of the fear of Legion and his fellow-townspeople, and seek to learn how it can be found in all people, including Christians.

The Deliverance of the Demoniac

The day had begun with our Lord teaching the crowds from on board a boat (perhaps that one belonging to one of the fishermen of the disciples), anchored along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The use of the boat was not new (cf. Luke 5:3), but our Lord’s method of teaching by means of parables was (Luke 8:3ff.). Here, Luke records only the parable of the soils (8:3-18). At the end of His teaching that day, Jesus had His disciples set out for the other side of the lake (cf. Mark 4:33-36). On the journey across the lake, a great storm arose, which threatened the boat and its passengers. After Jesus had stilled the storm, the boat continued on to the other side of the lake. It is here that our story picks up. It is as Jesus steps out of the boat to the shore that the demoniac appears.

The disciples’ hearts were still pounding from the scare they had experienced due to the storm. Their pulse rate was perhaps at last returning to normal. Now, as their boat glided gently up onto the solid ground of the shore, the disciples must have breathed a sigh of relief. I can almost hear one of the disciples sigh, under his breath, “Safe, at last!” What could happen to them now, after their safe landing? The solitude of the lonely shore was probably a welcome scene, after the crowds which had gathered along the other shore. No one probably gave a thought as to why no people were around, or why the road, which led to the nearby town, was empty.

The boat landed in sight of a road, which would lead into the town nearby. There, on the hill, was a cemetery of sorts, although I have the feeling another one may have been in greater use. Neither the road nor the cemetery were being used, however, for one reason: two demoniacs dwelt nearby, and no one felt safe to pass by, anywhere where they might be accosted by them (Matthew 8:28). While these men had once lived normal lives in the nearby town (cf. Luke 8:27), they now lived more like animals. The men were demon-possessed, and so they were will and dangerous. The townspeople had tried by contain and to control the men, even using chains, but their superhuman strength proved too much for the chains (Luke 8:29; Mark 5:3). They no longer wore clothes, and they often cried out in loud, but inhuman voices, often lacerating themselves with stones (Mark 5:5). They were dangerous not only to any passer-by, but to themselves as well.

The two men and the townspeople seemed to have come to an understanding. They would live in seclusion, where they would not hurt anyone else, and the townspeople would leave them alone. It was the best solution, it seemed, under the circumstances. The men were left to themselves, so that whenever the demons chose, they could torment them, but without harm to anyone else. Everyone seemed to know that the place where Jesus had landed was, by common consent, a no-man’s land.

Matthew alone tells us that there were two demoniacs, and not just one, as a reading of either Mark or Luke would lead one to conclude. Mark and Luke, who tell only of the one demoniac, also include the report that this man, once restored to sanity, became a follower of our Lord. It take it that the other demoniac did not. Mark and Luke tell us only of the one demoniac, for they are interested in his faith, a faith which the other seems not to possess.

As we seek to relive the incident with the demoniac and the herd of swine, we need to recall that the whole scenario was being witnessed by the “pig pokes” or “hog herders,” who saw everything from their elevated vantage point. If we can replay the event in the form of a mental movie, we need to begin with a wide angle lens. The Lord and His disciples have just arrived, and they are standing on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Also, near the lake seems to be the road, which passed beside the graveyard (where the two demoniacs dwelt among the tombs) and which continued on to the nearby town. Slightly higher, somewhat on a hill (it would seem) was the graveyard, where the demoniacs lived. From their position, they could see the boat approaching the shore and the party on board landing. Even higher up were the “pig pokes,” who were tending the hogs, who would later plunge down the steep bank into the Sea of Galilee and drown.

Tending the hogs was probably not all that taxing, and thus the herdsmen must have been gazing out on the lake below, and have seen the boat approaching. (They may also have watched the storm, which had threatened this and other boats on the lake.) When they realized that the boat was going to land here, in this virtual “no man’s land,” they must have been expecting that their day would have a little excitement.

They knew, of course, that the demoniacs were nearby (no doubt they kept their distance, too) and that no one ever used this road (Matthew 8:28), nor did anyone land on the shore near the graveyard. I can see these “pig-pokes” nudging each other in the ribs, saying, “Hey, Joe, watch this. This is going to be good.”

They watched as the two demoniacs swooped down on the unsuspecting disciples, shrieking in a way that would chill anyone’s blood. They giggled as they saw the disciples’ apprehension. They waited for these two violent men to brutalize these men, sending them back in their boat, to wherever they had come from. How they must have marveled to see the two demoniacs fall before Jesus. How their faces must have shown bewilderment as they overheard the statements of these two, screamed loudly enough for them to hear, even from their distance (cf. Matthew 8:29; Luke 8:28; Mark 5:7), declaring Jesus to be the Son of the Most High God (Luke 8:28). And then, can you imagine the uneasiness of these herdsmen when they saw the demoniacs turn in their direction, and point toward the herd of hogs, obviously asking Jesus something about them? When the hogs left the two demoniacs and possessed the pigs, the “hog herders” were the first to know, and to run the other way. When the people of the town asked these herders what had happened, they were able to tell it all, for they had seen the entire incident, located as they were above the entire scene. (It was from this same height that the pigs plunged, over a cliff, or at least a steep bank, into the lake.)

As the demoniac[144] rushed downhill from the tombs toward Jesus, eyes crazed, screaming at the top of his lungs, it must have been a frightening sight for the disciples. Perhaps they considered jumping on the man as a group, hoping to have the combined strength to contain him. The demoniac seemed only to see or to care about Jesus, and as he drew near, he fell to his knees. As this man speaks, it is not the person, but rather the demons which are in control. Thus, it is the demons addressing our Lord, as we shall soon see.

The demonized man immediately recognized Jesus, even from a distance, as the Son of God and Israel’s Messiah. In Luke’s account, Jesus is acknowledged as “Jesus, Son of the Most High God” (Luke 8:28). When Jesus commanded the demons to come out of this man, whose demonized name was Legion, the demons began to speak through the man.

It is very important to take note of the fact that although the demoniac fell at Jesus’ feet, it was not an act of worship, as it would later be, when the demons were cast from the man. The demons did recognize Jesus’ identity, and they also acknowledged His superiority, His authority over them. They recognized, for example, that He could do with them as He pleased. Their petitions were addressed as those of inferior beings to One who was infinitely superior to them.

If I were to characterize the response of the demonized man to Jesus, and thus the response of demons to the Son of God, there is one word which would best summarize their reaction to Him—FEAR. Notice the following characteristics of fear which are evident in Legion’s words:

(1) Legion was fearful of the presence of God. The fear of Legion is very different from that of the disciples, in the midst of the storm. The disciples were fearful because they did not realize that God was with them in the boat. The demons are fearful because they know that God is present among them. Their first words to Jesus are a testimony to the fact that they recognize Him as the “Son of the Most High God” (Luke 8:28). They are frightened because they know God is in their midst.

(2) The demons were fearful of torment, of the judgment of God. Why would the appearance of Jesus on the other shore of the Sea of Galilee be a cause of fear for the demons? Because they knew that the coming of God’s Messiah spelled destruction for them. Jesus Himself will say of the devil,

“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of the world shall be cast out” (John 12:31).

In the beginning, God said that the “seed of the woman” would destroy Satan:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15).

It is interesting to note that while the demons dread their own torment, they have no qualms about tormenting those whom they possess.

(3) The demons were frightened by the timing of His coming. The thing which caught the demons off guard was the timing of His coming. They knew that their time would come, but they did not expect it to come so soon. To them, Jesus had come prematurely, at least according to their scheme of eschatology. Listen to their surprise as they say, “Have you come to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matthew 8:29).

The demons knew that Messiah’s coming spelled their doom. What they did not expect was His coming to be so soon.

We are inclined to give Satan and his evil hoard too much credit. We think that they are all-knowing when they are not. They, like the Jews of that day, and even like the disciples of our Lord, had a distorted grasp of Messiah’s coming. They looked for but one coming, not two. The demons were looking for the “second coming of Christ,” but they did not expect the first. When Jesus appeared, they were shaken, they were frightened. The fact that Legion ran to Jesus, rather than from Him, indicates (among other things) the demons’ fear and frantic confusion, caused by the unexpected appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(4) The demons were fearful of the outcome of Christ’s coming for the man they had demonized. The demons dreaded the deliverance of the demoniac. The reasons for this will be seen next.

(5) The demons feared disembodiment. Jesus almost immediately began to command the demons to come out of the man. They, just as quickly, began to plead for “mercy.” They knew better than to ask Jesus to continue to possess this man, although that was their preference. If Jesus must cast them out of the man, at least let Him give them some body to possess: “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

Demons would naturally prefer to possess people. Their destructive work would give them greater pleasure, and they could more fully manifest themselves this way (demons could speak through a man’s vocal cords, but we do not find demons speaking through animals). To be dispossessed of a body was, to the demon, torment. Disembodied spirits could not as fully display themselves and they could through a body.

(6) The demons feared the restriction of their freedom to continue their destructive work. There is a very interesting fact revealed by a comparison of two of the parallel accounts. Notice the difference between these two requests of the demons:

And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss (Luke 8:31).

And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area (Mark 5:10).

It would seem that in putting these two requests together we would have to conclude that to send the demons out of the country would be to send them into the Abyss. Torment, for demons, is to be kept from doing evil.

Combining what we learn from various biblical texts enables us to understand what the demons dread here. It would seem from Isaiah (chapter 14), Ezekiel (chapter 28), and Daniel (10:10ff.) that demons seem to have certain geographical boundaries. That is, they seem to have certain territories or spheres of activity, beyond which they cannot venture. We also know from 2 Peter chapter 2 that some demons have already been confined to the “pit” (2 Peter 2:4), just as Satan himself will be put in chains for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3) in the future. Thus, it would seem that to be sent out of the country would mean being thrown into the Abyss, into a kind of captivity which would greatly confine and restrict their activity.

The demons therefore appear to fear any restriction to their present activity, even though they know that they await the judgment of God in the future. There is no repentance here, but only regret if they are restricted from doing what they have always done, which is to rebel against God, to work against His purposes, and to torment men.

I believe that the fear of the demons can be summed up in these words: THE DEMONS FEARED THE PRESENCE AND THE POWER OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT HIS PRESENCE AMONG THEM WOULD RESULT IN CHANGES WHICH WERE NOT VIEWED BY THEM AS DESIRABLE

The demons were evil. They delighted in doing evil. Torture, to them, was being hindered from torturing men. Since they loved to do evil and since Jesus was both good and God, they knew that His coming would have to result in hindering them from continuing to do that which is evil. To an evil creature, bent only on doing evil, good is a most dreaded thing. The evil demons dreaded Jesus’ coming, for they knew it meant good.

The demons pled not to be tormented, which, according to our text involved two things. First, they did not wish to be disembodied. Second, they did not wish to be sent from the country. The demons did not wish to be disembodied. It would seem that a demon cannot fully manifest its character and nature apart from possessing a body. To press the matter further, it would seem that apart from possessing a person, with a tongue, the demons could not speak. While it was vastly inferior to possess a pig than a person, at least it was a body. Thus, the demons begged Jesus to allow them to possess the nearby herd of hogs than to be disembodied.

Jesus granted the demons’ request to enter the herd of swine, and when they entered them, the entire herd plunged, headlong, into the sea. It is interesting to me to observe that while the disciples had feared drowning in that very sea just a short time earlier, it was a herd of pigs whose fate it was to drown, not the disciples.

When the pigs plunged into the sea, there was little doubt as to what had happened. The herdsmen went off to tell all that would listen about what had happened. The entire town came out to see the scene, and the swine, but most of all to see the Son of God, who had come to their shores.

It is very important for us to observe the response of the crowd, and the reasons for their response. Look carefully at Luke’s report (which squares with those of Matthew and Mark):

And the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people how the demon-possessed man had been cured. Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear (Luke 8:35-37).

Several observations are critical to understanding why the people of the Gerasene region rejected Jesus and asked Him to leave their country.

(1) All of the people of the nearby town came out to meet Jesus.

Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus (Matthew 8:34).

This was not a small group, not even a delegation. Everybody gathered there to see Jesus. The people were not interested in the swine, but in the Savior.

(2) The people are overcome with fear. The fear of the people is prominent and emphatic:

When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid (Mark 5:15; cf. Luke 8:37 above).

(3) Out of fear, all the people ask Jesus to leave their country. It is a unanimous verdict from all but the one delivered demoniac (was the other demoniac siding with the crowd?)—Jesus must go. They want Jesus not only to stay away from their town, but to leave their country. They want Him nowhere around. It is amazing, but emphatically evident.

(4) The fears of the people are not in response to the drowning of the swine, but due to the miraculous change in “Legion,” the delivered demoniac. I do not know how many times I have heard the fear of the people and their request that Jesus leave them explained in economic terms. If this view were correct, we would expect that it would be the owner(s) of the pigs that would have been singled out as having come, that they came and looked upon the bodies of the pigs, washing up on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. But we are not told this at all.

We are told, instead, that all the people of the town came out, and that they looked at the delivered demoniac (not the pigs), and that they learned that Jesus delivered him. It is not because the pigs died that the people are frightened, but because Legion was delivered. Imagine this: from the actions and the words of the people of this region, they would rather have had Legion as he was, dangerous, destructive, and uncontrollable, than to be whole, healed, clothed, and a constructive member of society.

The reason why we so quickly accept the economic explanation for the actions of this crowd is because no other explanation seems plausible. We simply cannot fathom how these people could reject and resist Jesus for having done good to this man, and for their whole region. After all, they no longer have to worry about traveling on this road.

Here we find the “tension of the text,” the problem in the passage which provides us with the key to the interpretation of the passage, and to discovering its meaning for us. The tension of the text is this: HOW CAN THE PEOPLE OF THIS REGION BE MORE FRIGHTENED OF JESUS THAN OF THE DEMONIAC, SO THAT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE HAD THINGS AS THEY WERE, AND THAT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE JESUS LEAVE THEM THAN STAY WITH THEM? HOW CAN PEOPLE FEAR THE SON OF GOD FOR DOING GOOD MORE THAN THEY CAN FEAR SATAN AND HIS DEMONIC HOSTS FOR DOING EVIL?

(5) Nowhere in the New Testament are we told how anyone who was demon-possessed became that way. Before we can come to the solution of our problem, we must observe that we are never told how demon-possession begins. That is, those who are brought to Jesus who are demon-possessed have been brought to him in that condition. Jesus never asked, “How did it happen?” There is a clear biblical explanation, as we shall see.

(6) The fears of the people are like the fears of the demoniac, before he was delivered from his demon-possession. The Gerasene demoniac and the Gerasene-dwellers share one thing in common in our text—a fear of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both “fears” are of the same kind. Just as the demons dreaded the arrival of the Lord Jesus, so did the people of the nearby town. They were frightened by the good thing which had happened to the demoniac. They feared that Jesus might do other “good” as well. They would rather that Jesus go away from them than to remain among them. Although it is not clearly stated, it seems obvious that they would rather have the demoniac as he once was—even though it was detrimental to them and frightened them—than to have him as he now was—sane, clothed, and a contributing member of society.

·         They share a common fear of the Lord Jesus.

·         They share a common fear of the good which He can do.

·         Both are afraid of the changes which Jesus’ coming threatens.

·         They both have a “territorial” dimension to their fear. The demons fear being sent out of their country. The dwellers of this area fear Jesus and send Him out of their territory.

The coming of Jesus to the region of the Gerasenes was an occasion for fear, both on the part of the demoniac and on the part of the people who feared him. As the demoniac feared the good which Jesus was about to do—namely his deliverance—so the people of that region feared the power of the Lord Jesus to do good for them. Ultimately, the people feared that Jesus’ coming meant a change, not only for the demoniac, but for them, a change which they did not want, and did not feel that they needed. They wanted things just as they were, and Jesus threatened the status quo. The thought of the kind of changes which Jesus would bring was tormenting to the people of this place. Thus, they wanted Jesus to go because they wanted nothing to change.

If the essence of repentance is change, then we must conclude that repentance was a thought which was repulsive to the Gerasene populace.

Our first response to the realization that the entire town wanted Jesus to go because He was good is to view this as an oddity, as an exception to the rule. After all, didn’t other towns beg Jesus to stay with them (cf. Luke 4:42; John 4:40)? The next observation focuses on the reality of man’s rebellion against God.

(7) All unsaved people are, to a certain degree, demon-possessed, in the sense that they are Satan’s slaves, and that they manifest the same character and conduct as Satan and his evil host. We need to recognize that the response of the people to Jesus was not the exception, but rather the rule. We need to realize that it was not just Legion that was dominated by Satan and his horde of demons, but it is every unbeliever. All those who are unsaved are the slaves of Satan through their bondage to sin.

The difference between Legion and the populace of the Gerasenes was not one of kind, but rather one of degree. This is why the Bible does not tell us how demon-possessed got that way. The Bible has given us the answer: Man is born in sin, in hostility and opposition to God, and is thus of the same mind toward God as is Satan and his host of demons.

To open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’ (Acts 26:18).

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4).

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work (1 John 3:8).

We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one (1 John 5:19).

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him (Revelation 12:9).

Initially, many of those who first saw and heard the Lord Jesus Christ welcomed Him. For those who had been prepared by the ministry of John the Baptist and had repented of their sin, He was heralded as God’s Salvation. But for most, He was first welcomed because people thought that He would comply with their mistaken conceptions of His kingdom and His reign. Once He make it clear that His kingdom was not “of this world” many forsook Him. Eventually they decided to reject Him. In this sense the Jewish people, the people from the other side of the lake, were far worse than the inhospitable people of the Gerasene region—they sought to rid the world of Him. They put Him to death on a Roman cross. Their animosity and fear of Jesus is of the same kind as Legion and as his fellow-countrymen, but only greater in degree.

One of the first manifestation of man’s fall in the Garden of Eden was a fear of God, rooted in man’s sin and disobedience. While Adam had once looked forward to the Lord’s arrival and their walking together in the garden, this was no longer true after his sin:

“I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid” (Genesis 3:10).

There is an unholy fear of God, the kind that fears God for what He is and will do, the kind that fears the good which He will do, which will hinder us from persisting in our evil deeds. It was this fear which caused Legion to run to Christ; it was this fear which caused the people of that place to as Christ to leave them alone; and it was that same kind of fear which caused our Lord’s own people to cry out, “Crucify! Crucify!”

But they shouted, “Taken him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” (John 19:15).

Pilate pressed this further, “Shall I crucify your king?” To this, the crowds responded, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

The nation Israel was willing to renounce all their messianic hopes, all hopes of independence, just to be rid of Jesus.

John has summed up man’s response to God incarnate, in a way that precisely agrees with all we have seen:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it … He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him (John 1:1-5, 10-11).

John also tells us very clearly why it is that men fear the holy God, and to not want Him to dwell among them. It is because sinful man wants to persist in his sin, and he thus views a righteous and holy God as a threat to his way of life. Men who wish to persist in their sin do not welcome God’s arrival. They wish only His departure, even if it requires that we put Him to death on a cross.

It is from this bondage to Satan, to sin, and to death, to which every unbeliever is subject, that Jesus came to save us:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— (Hebrews 2:14).

That is why He could say, with reference to His sacrificial death,

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:31-32).

Jesus died to break the power of sin and of Satan. He died to bear the penalty for your sins and for mine. And all who have trusted in Him will readily acknowledge, with the apostle Paul, that we have been saved from the power and the dominion of the Satan, whom we formerly served:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature object of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved (Ephesians 2:1-5).

We owe a debt of gratitude to the demoniac, for he shows us something which we very much need to know, something which we very much want to avoid. He shows us the miserable condition of the one who is totally “spirit-filled” in following and being controlled by Satan. Notice that this man is tormented, self-destructive, alienated from others and a menace to society. This man has no real identity, and surely no fulfillment or freedom.

This week I read, once again, these powerful words from the pen of R. C. Sproul, who speaks of unregenerate (unsaved) man’s utter hatred of God:

Jonathan Edwards preached another famous sermon that can be viewed as a sequel of sorts to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. He titled the sermon, Men Naturally God’s Enemies. If I can presume to improve Edwards’ title, I would suggest instead God in the Hands of Angry Sinners.

If we are unconverted, one thing is absolutely certain: we hate God. The Bible is unambiguous about this point. We are God’s enemies. We are inwardly sworn to His ultimate destruction. It is as natural for us to hate God as it is for rain to moisten the earth when it falls.

Romans 5 teaches clearly: “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son.…” The central motif of the New Testament is the theme of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not necessary for those who love each other. God’s love for us is not in doubt. The shadow of doubt hangs over us. It is our love for God that is in question. The natural mind of man, what the Bible calls the “carnal mind,” is at enmity with God.

We reveal our natural hostility for God by the low esteem we have for Him. We consider him unworthy of our total devotion. We take no delight in contemplating Him. Even for the Christian, worship is often difficult and prayer a burdensome duty. Our natural tendency is to flee as far as possible from His presence. His Word rebounds from our minds like a basketball from a backboard.

By nature, our attitude toward God is not one of mere indifference. It is a posture of malice. We oppose His government and refuse His rule over us. Our natural hearts are devoid of affection for Him; they are cold, frozen to His holiness. By nature, the love of God is not in us.

We must be more precise. God is our mortal enemy. He represents the highest possible threat to our sinful desires. His repugnance to us is absolute, knowing no lesser degrees. No amount of persuasion by men or argumentation from philosophers or theologians can induce us to love God. We despise His very existence and would do anything in our power to rid the universe of His holy presence.

If God were to expose His life to our hands, He would not be safe for a second. We would not ignore Him; we would destroy Him. This charge may seem extravagant and irresponsible until we examine once more the record of what happened when God did appear in Christ. Christ was not simply killed. He was murdered by the hands of malicious men. The crowds howled for His blood. It was not enough merely to do away with Him, but it had to be done with the accompaniment of scorn and humiliation.

But we are Christians. We are lovers of God. We have experienced reconciliation. We have been born of the Spirit and have had the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. We are no longer enemies but friends. All of these things are true for the Christian. But we must take heed, remembering that with our conversion our natural human natures were not annihilated. There remains a vestige of our fallen nature with which we must struggle every day. There still resides a corner of the soul that takes no delight in God. We see its ragged edge in our continued sin and we can observe it in our lethargic worship. It manifests itself even in our theology.[145]

No matter what Satan may promise, the demoniac is a shocking demonstration of what he delivers. It is only when freed by the liberating power of Jesus Christ that a man can be what he wants to be, what he ought to be, fully human, fully forgiven, worshipping at the feet of Jesus. Let us never forget Legion in his misery, nor the new man in his sanity and devotion to the Savior. Let us remember as well that there was another demoniac, who was delivered from Satan’s total control, but who was not delivered from his sin, nor from Satan’s more subtle dominion, from which he did not wish to be saved. May each one of us look to Jesus as our Deliverer and as the object of our devotion.

Edward’s words remind us that the salvation of lost men requires a miracle of divine liberation, of divine calling, of divine regeneration and salvation. Salvation is something which only God can do. We can share the message of salvation, and we must. We can pray for men’s salvation, and this is our duty. But only God can save, only Christ can deliver men from death and from bondage to Satan, the adversary and our enemy.

Edward’s words also remind us that Satan is a very formidable enemy for the saint. While his control is limited, with respect to the Christian, he is still a dreaded enemy, one who can only be defeated by divine power. The Scriptures have much to say to the saint about Satan’s schemes and attacks.

I must say that I, as a Christian, sometimes have an unholy fear of God, of the same kind as the demoniac, and as the people of his home town, and the people of Jesus’ home land as well. Sometimes I dread God’s power to deliver me from sin, wanting to wallow in it, foolishly supposing that I am missing something if it is taken from me. In my own feeble efforts at worship I realize that I often resist drawing near to God, wanting to withdraw as Legion and his countrymen wanted to keep a distance between themselves and Jesus. Let us beware of the same kinds of fear that were (and are) evident in the lives of unbelievers, which are rooted in our rebellion and in our resistance to repentance and the righteousness of God, which are rooted in our sin.

It is my conviction that our church and our nation desperately needs revival, and that begins with repentance. Repentance, in a word, is change, and yet it is the very change which we desperately need for revival that we most fear. May God expose our unholy fears, and give us faith to repent and to seek those changes which God requires in our lives.

In Summary

What I have been trying to say in this message can be briefly summed up in this way. The fear of Legion was of the same type of the fear of his fellow-countrymen, an unholy fear of God and of His power, threatening to change us and to keep us from the evil we desire to continue to do. This kind of fear is not unusual, but is the same kind of fear of God which every unbeliever manifests. It is the evidence of satanic dominion in one’s life. Unfortunately, this same kind of fear can be found in Christians, too, the evidence of Satanic opposition, deception, and influence.

Satan can be expected to produce and offer a counterfeit counterpart for every good which God offers man. Satan’s counterpart to a “holy fear” of God, which causes us to draw back from sin and to draw ever more closely to Him, is an “unholy fear” of God which tempts us to draw away from God and to resist His working in our lives, and to cling to our sins as though they were good.

! Lesson 28:
The Interrupted Miracle
or
 Two Touching Miracles
(Luke 8:40-56)

Introduction

Our first child, a boy, had died unexpectedly (crib death) in the middle of the night. You can imagine our uneasiness when our next child, Beth, became ill during the night. When her eyes began to roll back in her head we set out for the hospital. I had little interest in what the speed limit was that night, nor did I stop for traffic lights. In my mind, time was of the essence. The sooner we could get Beth to the hospital, the better. Any delay, at that moment, seemed to endanger her life.

The ruler of the synagogue, Jairus, must have felt very much the same as he left his home and his critically ill daughter to seek Jesus and to beseech Him to come and place His healing hands on her. Once Jairus found Jesus, it would seem to be an easy matter for Him to come and to heal the girl, but there were several hindrances to His speedy arrival. First, there was a large and seemingly unruly crowd, who pressed upon Jesus, making His travel very slow. Second, there was a woman who slipped in behind the Lord Jesus, secretly stealing a touch of His garment, which instantly healed her of a 12-year ailment. This healing was instant, but what followed was distressingly time-consuming. Jesus, knowing that power had left Him, stopped, not willing to go on until the person who touched Him was known. All of this took time, time which seemed to endanger the daughter of Jairus. We are not told of Jairus’ response, but Luke informs us that the disciples (Peter in particular) were perturbed by Jesus’ actions.

There are actually two miracles described in our text, which are carefully intertwined. In reality, the miracle of the healing of Jairus’ daughter is interrupted by the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage. For a short time, it appears that this healing of the woman has cost the life of Jairus’ daughter.

The “tension of this text” is this: why would Jesus take the time to attempt to identify the person who touched Him, when this appeared to be nearly impossible to do, and when it threatened to cost the life of the girl who was mortally ill? A study of this text will supply us with an answer to this question. We will discover that this divine delay was for the benefit of all involved, including Jairus and his daughter.

The Background of Our Story

Jesus had crossed the lake, the Sea of Galilee, with His disciples. In the midst of this crossing, there was the great storm, which our Lord stilled with a mere word. When they landed on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, they were met by the raving demoniac, from whom Jesus cast out the host of demons. When Jesus and His disciples landed, once again, at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1), on the home side of the Sea of Galilee, they were met by a large crowd (Luke 8:40; Mark 5:21), which had gathered to wait for Jesus and to greet Him. It is very likely that some of the other little boats, which had been on the lake (Mark 4:36), and which had witnessed the stilling of the storm, had gone back to port, and had reported how Jesus had dealt with the storm. Some may even have had reports of the deliverance of the demoniac. The crowds were no doubt expectant and exuberant as Jesus returned. Apparently Jesus taught by the seashore (cf. Matthew 9:1-17), and it was during His teaching that Jairus arrived, begging Him to come to his house, so that his daughter could be healed.

Stealing a Healing

Mark and Luke depict Jairus as describing his daughter’s condition as critical—she was dying. Matthew’s much more terse account suggests that she had already died. As precious time lapsed, it is not difficult to imagine that Jairus may have suspected that the worst had already happened. Nevertheless, even if she had died, Jairus believed that Jesus’ touch could heal her (Matthew 9:18-19). Jesus consented, and they were on their way to his house as a woman made her way to Jesus, unseen, or at least unnoticed by the crowd. She stole a healing by touching His garment, which necessitated a time-consuming delay, preventing Jesus from arriving at the house of Jairus before the death of his daughter.

The woman, whose name is never given, had suffered from a hemorrhage for 12 years. I think that it is safe to say that her ailment was “female” in nature. It is not difficult to understand why she approached Jesus, unseen, from behind, while Jairus faced our Lord, falling at His feet. Jairus beseeched the Lord to bring healing to his daughter; the woman did not even ask.

A casual reading of the account of Luke may result in a kind of ho-hum response on the part of the reader, but this fails to give this remarkable woman the credit she deserves for what she accomplished. It may seem like a very little thing for a person to reach out and touch Jesus, but this was an accomplishment worthy of our admiration. Let me point out some of the obstacles which were in this woman’s way.

(1) There is the obstacle of her ceremonial uncleanness, as defined by the Old Testament law. The book of Leviticus clearly identifies this woman’s condition as one which made her unclean, and which therefore should have restricted her to her own home.

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening … When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean, he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening (Leviticus 15:19, 25-27).

(2) There is the obstacle of a large crowd, which is pressing forcefully upon the Lord Jesus. Luke tells us that there was a large crowd and that they were pressing hard upon our Lord:

“As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him” (Luke 8:42).

We must say, then, that getting to Jesus would have been no easy task for anyone. I take it that the crowd parted, allowing Jairus, the synagogue ruler, access to the Savior. But they would not have done so for anyone of a lessor status. I was tempted to say that it would have been easier for the ailing woman to get to Danny White, past the offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys, than to get to Jesus. I say, I was tempted, because it seems quite an easy thing to do this early in the season. Nevertheless, it was a most incredible thing to make it to Jesus through the crowd, especially for a woman. I was reminded of the fact that earlier in the book, Jesus’ mother and brothers were kept from Jesus by the crowds:

Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd (Luke 8:19).

(3) The woman had to work her way through an uncooperative crowd in a weakened condition. It might have been one thing for a woman to get through the crowd to Jesus who was in top physical condition, a woman who had been “working out” every day. But this woman suffered from a prolonged illness, one which had gotten progressively worse (Mark 5:26), and thus her condition was very poor. It may have been a major undertaking for her to get up out of bed, let alone fight her way through a crowd.

(4) Finally, the woman had to reach Jesus by forcing her way through an aggressive and crushing mob, and yet in a way that did not draw attention to herself. It is especially clear in Luke’s account that the woman desired anonymity:

Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet (Luke 8:47, emphasis mine).

It is not hard to see why the woman would have wanted it this way. She was a woman, she was a woman with a condition that made her unclean. She was a woman with a “female problem,” one which she would not care to proclaim before a large crowd. She had to reach Jesus forcefully, and yet unnoticed. And the amazing thing is that she did so. It was only Jesus who kept her from pulling off the perfect crime—stealing a healing, unnoticed in the midst of a large crowd.

A Divine Delay

Upon touching the Lord’s garment, the woman was instantly healed. No doubt she intended to remain as inconspicuous as possible, and just let Jesus and the crowd pass on, leaving her alone, unnoticed, and able to return to her home and a normal life. Jesus would not have it this way, however. Astounding the disciples and the rest, Jesus stopped and inquired as to who touched Him.

To the disciples, and especially to Peter, their spokesman (Luke 8:45; cp. Mark 5:41), this was incredible, perhaps even naive. Peter spoke for the others when he said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you” (Luke 8:45).

I can see Peter’s eyes roll at our Lord’s words. I wonder whose glance he caught, whose eyes met his, as his bewilderment is expressed here. We must remember that Jesus’ identity is not fully known here, as can be seen from the disciples’ question after the stilling of the storm (Luke 8:25). At this point, Peter and the disciples frequently listened to some of Jesus’ words with a kind of condescending tolerance, rather than with faith and understanding. For example, when Jesus (later) spoke of His death, Peter felt it was his responsibility to rebuke Jesus, to straighten Him out. That is the same basic attitude which I sense here. It is as though the disciples’ eyes have met as though as to say, “Somebody has got to take Jesus aside and have a little talk with Him. He expects to do the impossible. He wants to know who touched Him when hundreds have done so.”

It was incredible. Asking who touched Him was like standing in the shower and pondering the origin of but one single drop of water. Seeking the identity of one person who touched Him in a crowd of touchers and shovers was seemingly an impossible task. More than this, it seemed to be a fruitless task. What difference did it make anyway? And even more distressing, it caused what seemed to be an unnecessary delay, so that the daughter of Jairus, who was virtually at death’s door, was “needlessly endangered.”

Jesus would not be deterred, however. He obviously had a good reason for pressing this matter, but what was that reason? Why would Jesus delay that urgent journey to the house of Jairus, only to learn who had touched Him, even if it had produced a healing? There are at least two answers, I believe. The first answer is that His delay was for the good of the woman who had been healed. The second answer is that His delay was also for the good of Jairus and his daughter.

Let us first consider how this delay was for the good of the woman. Initially, no one admitted that they had touched Jesus. All, Luke informs us, denied touching Jesus (8:45). There seemed to be a stalemate. But Jesus would not let the matter drop, even though the disciples protested. Finally, the woman recognized that she must confess. Fearfully, she came to Jesus, where she fell at His feet. Before the crowd, she bore witness as to why she had touched Jesus, and how He had healed her (8:47).

Jesus had very few words to say to the woman, but they are very important ones. Let us look at them carefully:

“Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace” (Luke 8:48).

So few words. For this Jesus had stopped, refusing to go on to the house of Jairus, until He could say them to this woman. Why are the words of the woman and the words of Jesus so important? Let me suggest several reasons.

(1) Jesus would not allow the woman to have a second-class healing. Note the position of the woman, now that she has identified herself. Before, she was behind Jesus, out of His sight (or so she thought). Now she is at Jesus’ feet, just as Jairus had been.

I may be in error here, but it would seem to me that the woman came to Jesus secretly, from behind, because she felt that she was unworthy to approach Him directly, as Jairus had done. If so, Jesus would not allow her thinking to stand. He would not be content until she, just like Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, was before Him, looking into His face. Here is where people of faith belong, at Jesus’ feet, before Him. Only those who are unbelievers will have God’s back turned to them.

(2) Second, Jesus would have no misunderstanding as to the real cause of the woman’s healing. It would be possible, had Jesus not identified faith as the real source of the woman’s healing, to attribute it to other causes, more akin to magic than to faith. Jesus identified faith as the real cause of the miracle. She believed, as the other gospels record, that if she were to touch Jesus[146] she would be healed. She not only believed this intellectually, she acted on it. As we have seen, touching Jesus was not an easy thing to do, but she did it nonetheless. From one point of view, it was Jesus’ power that healed her; but from another (the point of view Jesus does not wish to be overlooked), it was the woman’s faith which brought her healing, while the rest of crowd was not blessed as she was.

(3) Third, Jesus did not want the woman to experience guilt for stealing a healing. As it was, the woman would have gone home healed but guilty. She had stolen this healing from Jesus. She had taken it without permission, and, she may have thought, without His knowledge. Jesus’ words, “Go in peace,” suggest that she could go home without any misgivings, without any guilt. She had not “taken” a healing from Jesus, He had given it to her, as a gift of grace. Grace has no guilt, and thus Jesus will have her know she has been endued not only with divine power, but also with divine grace.

(4) Finally, Jesus would not allow the woman’s faith to be anonymous. I initially wondered why Jesus would insist that the raising of Jairus’ daughter be kept silent, while here Jesus forced the woman to make her healing public. I think I understand why, now. It as not the miracle which Jesus wanted to make public, but rather the woman’s faith. Jairus’ faith was very evident, as he fell before the Lord Jesus and pled for Him to come to his house. But while the woman reached out to Jesus in faith, she had done so anonymously. Jesus does not allow her faith to remain anonymous. Faith in Christ must be publicly professed.

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Everyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 10:9-11).

Faith is not intended to be a “private” matter, as so many seem to think. How often have I heard people decline to discuss their own spiritual condition, justifying themselves with the statement, “Well, my faith is a very personal thing … ” Faith in Christ is not personal. Jesus acknowledged that it was the woman’s faith which healed her, but she must also confess her faith before men. This was so important that our Lord refused to go on without her confession of faith.

Death’s Defeat

As the woman went her way, a messenger came from the house of Jairus. The girl had died. All hope, he suggested, was lost. There was not longer any need to trouble “the teacher” further (8:49). From these words we can see that the prevailing opinion among this delegation was, WHERE THERE’S LIFE, THERE’S HOPE.

Jesus might have been able to heal a sick child, but they did not view Him as having power over death. Thus, the death of the child was the death of hope for her healing.

The advice of the messenger[147] was wrong, and Jesus quickly countered it with these words to Jairus: “Don’t be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed” (Luke 8:50).[148]

As Jesus drew near to the house of Jairus, He left all but three of His closest disciples and all of that large crowd behind. Among other reasons, only a limited number would have been able to enter the house, not to mention the fact that a crowd had already gathered there who had begun mourning for the child.

Inside the house, the commotion had already commenced. There was a group of people gathered, all of whom were mourning the death of the daughter of Jairus. Jesus insisted that the commotion (Mark 5:39) cease. He further told them that the girl was not dead, but asleep. Mourning turned to scornful laugher. They knew that she was dead! Both Matthew and Mark tell us that these scorners and mourners were put outside before Jesus dealt with the death of the daughter (Matthew 9:23-25; Mark 5:40). Luke does not bother with this detail. He simply tells us that Jesus took the child be the hand and command her to arise (8:54). Immediately her spirit returned and she arose. She stood up and walked around. Her parents were both surprised and delighted.

Jesus then gave two perplexing commands. The first was that they give the girl something to eat. One would think that if Jesus could raise this girl from the dead He could also have done so with a full stomach. And so He could have. I believe that there is a very important principle suggested here: GOD DOES NOT DO FOR PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES

I am aware of the expression, often attributed to the Bible, that “God helps those who help themselves.” In truth, though, God has come in the person of Christ to help those who cannot help themselves. Jairus could not heal his sick daughter, nor raise her when she died. Jesus could, and did. But Jairus and his wife could feed the child, and so Jesus did not do so, miraculously. Miracles are not performed where normal human effort is sufficient.

Our Lord’s second command is also of interest, but for a different reason. He commanded the parents not to tell anyone what had happened (Luke 8:56). Was Jesus trying to keep this miracle a secret? How could this possibly be? There were many waiting outside, to see what would happen. The girl would sooner or later appear alive. In fact, everyone did learn that she had been raised. Matthew reports, “News of this spread through all that region.” (Matthew 9:26).

Jesus was not trying to prevent the impossible here. Instead, He was sternly insisting that those who had scoffed would be deprived not only of witnessing this miracle, but also of hearing a first-hand testimony of what had happened. Think of the frustration and irritation of those who had laughed at Jesus, who upon seeing the girl alive, could not hear from the parents what had happened inside. “Tell us what happened,” they must have inquired. Only to be told, “I’m sorry, Jesus told us very emphatically not to tell you.” Those who disbelieve not only fail to receive God’s blessings, they are not even able to witness them.

Conclusion

The two miracles which we have witnessed through the words of Luke had a great impact of those who experienced them, even if their meaning and message was not perceived by the crowds. But these miracles were also meant for the benefit of others. Allow me to suggest some of the ways in which these events could have been meaningful to Israelites and which can be meaningful to us.

(1) This interrupted miracle is an illustration of the way God is dealing with Israel and the Gentiles. Perhaps I am allegorizing the text, but consider with me how the experience of Jairus and the woman parallels that of the Jews and the Gentiles.

Jairus had the implied promise of the Lord Jesus to come to his house and to heal (or raise) his daughter. Along comes a woman, when Jesus is in the process of dealing with Jairus, and “steals” a blessing from God. In the process of her doing so, there is an agonizing delay, one which appears to be at the expense of Jairus. For at least a short time it would seem (or so it did to those who reported the girl’s death to Jairus) that the woman’s blessing cost the daughter of Jairus her life. God seems to have been unnecessarily delayed, so that the woman is blessed at the expense of the ruler of the synagogue. And, worse yet, the woman was declared unclean by the law, so that she would have been thought to have had no right to approach or touch Him. Here is Jairus, an apparently righteous, devout, and influential Jewish leader, whose “blessing” is interrupted by an unclean woman,[149] whose healing was undeserved, on several counts.

It sounds a great deal like what is going to take place with the Gentiles. God made of covenant with Abraham, and with his (Jewish) descendants, to bless them. The Israelites had sinned, and their condition was critical. Apart from divine intervention, the nation would have been destroyed. The prophets spoke of the “healing” of the nation through the coming of Messiah (Isaiah 53:5). The Old Testament prophets even described the “healing” of Israel as a resurrection (cf. Ezekiel 37).

When Jesus, Israel’s Messiah came, the Jews naturally thought that it was for their blessing, although Jesus made it clear that Gentile blessings were included as well, something not welcomed by the Jews (cf. Luke 4:16-30). We now can see that God’s program for His people, the Jews, has been delayed, and that in the interim, the Gentiles are receiving God’s blessings. From this moment in time (since Israel has not yet been restored), it looks as though the delay in the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel is the fault of the Gentiles, who appear to some Jews at least, to be stealing God’s blessings, and unworthily, too!

In Romans, chapters 9-11, Paul addresses this painful point. He outlines that the purposes of God have always been to bless the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The blessing of each is not independent of the blessing of the other, for both blessings are inter-related. Such was the case with the woman and Jairus (and his daughter). Paul tells us that the salvation of the Gentiles does not hinder or defeat the salvation of the Jews, but is a part of God’s program and process for blessing both Jews and Gentiles:

What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened … I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Genitals, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow-countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Romans 11:7, 11-15).

The rejection of Christ and the gospel by the Jews made possible the salvation of the Gentiles, and the salvation of the Gentiles has caused a delay in the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation to the Jews. But it is the salvation of the Gentiles which will play a key role in bringing the Jews to repentance and to salvation.

When the process of God’s dealings with the unclean woman and Jairus was complete, both were blessed, and neither at the expense of the other. When God’s process of dealing with both the Jews and the Gentiles is complete, both will be blessed, and neither at the expense of the other. This miracle plays out, in a small way, what God is currently doing in a much bigger way. The end of the story in Luke assures us about the end of the story in Scripture and in our experience (cf. the Book of Revelation).

There are two principles which become evident in the events of our text which not only explain God’s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles (as outlined above), but which also shed light on the “delays” which we perceive in God’s dealings with us. Let me spell these out, along with some of their implications.

(1) God does not bless one at the expense of another. There is somehow the misconception that God has limited resources, so that in order for Him to bless one, He must utilize the blessings He would have given to another. It is as though God has only $1,000 in the bank, and if he gives $1,000 to one person, He has nothing left to give another. This may help to explain some of Jonah’s resistance to taking the gospel to the Ninevites. If God chooses to bless the Gentiles (something Jonah was pretty certain God would do), then won’t this be to the detriment of the Jews?

Fortunately, God’s resources and His power are not limited. In fact, Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11 is that God blesses the Jews by blessing the Gentiles. Blessing the Jews is not limited by God’s blessing of Gentiles. God’s blessing of Jairus and his daughter is not curtailed by His blessing of the woman who touched Him.

For the Christian, this means that we do not need to fear that God’s blessing of others will in any way limit our blessings. Indeed, if our hearts are in tune with God’s, the blessing of others is a blessing to us. We delight in God’s goodness to others. It also means that jealousy and covetousness are especially inappropriate and evil for the Christian. We do not need to desire that which belongs to our brother or sister. God’s resources are such that He has more than enough to bestow on all of His children. We can be content with what we have, knowing that it is not a shortage (cause by His blessing others) which keeps God from bestowing more upon us. God is blessing us by the withholding of things, just as He does by the bestowing of them. As Job put it, “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away” (Job 1:21).

(2) Divine delays are a blessing because God wishes to bless us in a greater way than that for which we have asked. The delay which we find in our text is a divine delay, it is one which resulted from our Lord’s decision and actions. Apart from our Lord’s stopping and insisting to know who touched Him, the Lord’s arrival to the home of Jairus would not have been delayed at all. It was not the woman’s actions which slowed Jesus down, but our Lord’s actions. Thus, she did not create the delay, Jesus did. It was a divine delay.

If the cause of the delay was divine, the effect of the delay was blessing. The delay was a blessing for the woman. It focused attention to her faith, and on her healing. It showed she had equal access to the Savior, and that Jesus delighted in her healing. But the delay was also a blessing to Jairus. Just as our Lord’s delay in going to Lazarus resulted in a raising from the dead, rather than a (mere) healing, so our Lord’s delay in arriving at the home of Jairus resulted in a greater miracle—a raising from the dead, rather than a healing.

This “greater healing” required greater faith from Jairus, and it brought greater glory to our Lord. It also revealed the lack of faith on the part of those who came to report the girl’s death, and on the part of the mourners who had begun to weep and wail over her death. Jesus could easily have prevented the girl from dying, whether present or absent (cp. Luke 7:2-10), but He chose to overcome death instead. The divine delay was, then, for the good of all involved.

You and I have experienced God’s “delays” too. He has, for example, delayed in coming. He could have come sooner, but out of His longsuffering, He has delayed, for His coming will bring judgment on all unbelievers. We may very well have prayed for a Christian who was terminally ill, to find that God has delayed in answering our petition. Rather than to prevent that one from dying, He has chosen to wait, and thus to raise that saint from the grave—a greater miracle, which requires greater faith. But when the “dead in Christ” have been raised, we will then be able to give Him greater glory and praise for what He has done.

Whatever it is that we have asked God to do now, whatever it is that has been delayed in our lives, if God has promised to do it, it will be done. The greater the delay, the greater our delight when God proves Himself faithful.

(3) Divine delays demonstrate that hope is the product of faith, and that faith is not the product of hope. The divine delay which Luke reports illustrates the fact that biblical faith is what God requires when all human hope is gone. The woman had faith that Jesus could heal her, when all human hope was gone. She had seen all the doctors, and they had only made her condition worse. She had spent all of her money, so that she had no remaining options. It took 12 years, but all human hope was now gone. Faith was not the result of hope (human hope) but the response to the absence of it.

The same can be said for Jairus. The messengers who came to report the girl’s death seemed to believe that there was hope of the girl’s healing so long as she was alive. Once she died, they saw no hope, and thus they counseled Jairus not to “bother the teacher” any longer. The mourners, gathered inside Jairus’ house felt the same way. When Jesus spoke of the girl’s condition as “sleep” rather than as “death” they laughed in unbelief. They saw no hope. The funeral might just as well go on. But Jairus’ words, as recorded in Matthew, reinforced by our Lord’s encouragement, indicate that faith has hope when all human hope is gone. “Faith” which still has human options is a meager faith. Biblical faith has God as its object when all other options are gone.

This principle has great relevance to Christians today. There is much being said and being written about PMA, Positive Mental Attitude, or Positive Thinking, but by whatever label it is known, most of what is advocated falls far short of biblical faith. PMA is really human optimism, based upon possibilities, but not upon God’s person, His power, and His promises. Faith is what one demonstrates when there is nothing to be positive about except God and His Word. PMA is hype, more than it is hope. Biblical faith produces hope, it does not depend on it for its existence. PMA seeks to reverse the order, and in so doing it is wrong.

For many, a great barrier to faith is that things are too good, hope is too high, there are too many other options. I believe that when our Lord said, “Blessed are you who are poor … ” (Luke 6:20), He was referring to their helpless, hopeless, condition, which encourages them to turn to God and His resources, rather than to human means. One reason why Jesus spent so much time among the helpless and the hopeless was because they were ripe for faith. They knew better than to put their trust in mere mortals, or in human wisdom, strength, or people. Many are those who reject God because they have too many other things in which to trust. When God pulls the rug out from under us, when He removes all other options, then we must trust in Him alone. May we find our trust and our hope only in Jesus Christ.

Someone might be tempted to think that these two people were forced into faith, and in one sense this is true—neither had anything or anyone else to trust in. Neither the woman nor Jairus had much choice. They were, as we say here, “between a rock and a hard place.” Those of us who have found themselves in desperate places probably have experienced greater faith than we, and they can and will praise God for this. But all of us who choose to live in accordance with God’s Word, with His commands and teaching, will discover that faith is required not only for the emergencies of life, but for the routines of life as well. Try to live by the Sermon on the Mount without faith, for example. Faith is essential for all men, at all times. Emergencies only underscore this reality from time to time.

May each of us be men and women of faith, trusting in God, in His power, and in His promises, knowing that trusting in anything or in anyone else is folly.

! Lesson 29:
The Training of the Twelve
(Luke 9:1‑17)

Introduction

As the father of five daughters, I can only read the command Jesus gave to His disciples to “travel light” with wonder and a touch of envy. Many times we have packed up to drive to the Northwest to visit family and friends with the car literally sagging with all that we carried. It would not be very truthful for me to give the impression that my daughters and wife were the only culprits. I have been known to carry “a few” tools and spare parts in the car—just in case. When I drove a Volkswagen bus, I even carried along a spare cylinder head. If I could have, I would have carried along a spare engine (I did this only once).

Our two older daughters just returned to college. The younger of them had a friend meet her with a pickup truck. Our older daughter once had an uninformed friend meet her with a compact car. When our older daughter got on the plane bound for Chicago my wife had to hang her carry‑ons on her like a Christmas tree. The last item placed into her hands was—I assure you this is true—a fairly good sized electric fan which had to be disassembled to be placed safely under the seat. I just knew that if the plane crashed on take‑off, it would be due to having been overweight.

When Jesus sent out the twelve to preach and to heal in the villages of Galilee, He specifically forbade them to carry along the kinds of things which we always try to take on a trip. It is with great wonder and admiration that I read these words. If only I could get my family to travel that light.

The Tensions of our Text

But the way in which our Lord had the disciples go out raises some very practical problems. We find that the instructions Jesus gave in this first section of our text raise the first of three “tensions” in our text. Let me briefly point out these tensions, which we shall seek to explain in our exposition of this passage.

(1) In verses 1‑6, why did the Lord Jesus command His disciples to go about, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, in such a way as to be without basic necessities? Why did Jesus forbid the disciples to take along things which they really needed?

(2) In verses 7‑9, why did the Luke record (as did Matthew and Mark) the interest of Herod, and why did Jesus avoid seeing Herod, when Herod was continually trying to see Him?

(3) In verses 10‑17, why did Jesus command the disciples to feed the five thousand when they did not have the means to do so?

These are the “tensions of our text,” the answers to which will provide us with the necessary keys to understand what the events described by Luke were designed to teach the disciples, as well as the readers of his account, readers from his own day until now.

The Context

In chapter 8 of Luke’s gospel we have been told of the band of followers of our Lord, some of whom were women, who supported Jesus and the group out of their private means. One of these women will be of particular interest to us as we study our text. We have also read of the stilling of the storm and of the deliverance of the demoniac. Finally, we read of the two intertwined miracles, of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the raising of Jairus’ daughter.

In the verses immediately following our text, Luke will record the question which Jesus asked His disciples concerning His identity, and the “great confession” of Peter. Then, in response to this confession we have the revelation of the glory of God on the mount of transfiguration, along with out Lord’s revelation of His coming rejection and crucifixion.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text falls simply into three major divisions:

(1) The Sending out of the Twelve (9:1‑6)

(2) Herod’s interest in Jesus (9:7‑9)

(3) The Feeding of the five thousand (9:10‑17)

The Sending out of the Twelve
(9:1‑6)

1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5 If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.” 6 So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people Everywhere (Luke 9:1‑6, NIV, emphasis mine).

The sending out of the twelve, on one hand, is no surprise. Matthew informs us just prior to his account of the Lord’s commissioning of the twelve that Jesus had instructed His disciples to pray for workers for the harvest (Matthew 9:38). The sending out of the twelve (and later the 70) is a partial answer to this prayer. We are also indebted to Matthew (10:2‑4) for telling us the pairs of those who are sent out two‑by‑two:

·         Simon and Andrew

·         Thomas and Matthew (tax collector)

·         James and John

·         James and Thaddaeus

·         Philip and Andrew

·         Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot

All three gospel accounts inform us that the disciples had to be called together,[150] which informs us, perhaps to our surprise, that the disciples were not always together, and not always with their Lord, even at this stage in His earthly ministry. Some were family men, and it should therefore not come as a surprise that they were not always with Jesus.

A divine mandate was given the apostles. They were given both the authority and the power necessary to carry out their commission. Only Luke tells us that the apostles were given both power and authority.

The ministry of the apostles was two‑fold: they were to proclaim the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand; and, they were to heal the sick, which included casting out demons and the raising of the dead (Matthew 10:8). Luke tells us that the disciples were given authority over all demons, which is important, for not all demons were of equal rank or power, and some were much more difficult to cast out, as will be seen in the case of the disciples left behind during the transfiguration (Mark 9:14‑32). At this early stage of their ministry, every demon was subject to them.

It is noteworthy that the physical and the spiritual were intertwined in the ministry of the apostles. They were to minister both to the physical (healing) and the spiritual (preaching) needs of the people. This is consistent with the practice of the Lord (cf. 9:11). There is another reason why healing (Mark indicates the healing was associated with anointing with oil (6:12) was necessary, in my opinion. The practice of the apostles and the power they manifested needed to be consistent with and to underscore the message of the kingdom which they preached. In the Book of Deuteronomy, for example, the Israelites were told that God’s blessing for their obedience to His (Mosaic) covenant would include health and physical prosperity cf. 28:1‑14), while disobedience would bring sickness and disease (cf. 28:15ff.). The healing ministry of the apostles was a prototype, a foreshadowing of the kingdom which was to come if the nation repented and turned to God.

The Lord Jesus not only gave the apostles specific instructions about their ministry and message, but also concerning their methods. They were to go all about, from village to village in Galilee. This was, it seems, to be the closing proclamation of the kingdom to Galilee, the conclusion to His Galilean ministry. In this instance, the ministry was to be from village to village, which suggests that it was those small, out of the way places to which the apostles would go, those places which had not yet been visited with a messenger of the good news of the kingdom. No doubt rumors had reached these places, but not an accurate, authoritative proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of God.

We do not know now long this campaign went on, but it would seem to have lasted several weeks anyway. For this, one would normally require a number of provisions. Jesus not only forbade the disciples to take along extra supplies, He insisted that they not take along even the necessities, such as their food. The apostles were to be provided for by the people in the villages they visited, but in a very closely regulated way. They were to come to one of the houses in each village, and announce their message to the residents, and, I would assume, to offer to minister to the physical needs of those people as well.

If the people of this particular house received the pair, they were to make this house their headquarters, the central hub of their ministry. From here the entire village could be reached. The disciples were not to go from house to house, which is the way our minds would have conceived it (since this is one of the popular means of evangelism used by true Christians, and by the cults as well). If welcomed, they were to stay at that one house until they left to go to another village. The people at that home were expected (perhaps aided by food from others in the village) to provide “bed and breakfast” as it were, food and lodging as long as they stayed. Since the apostles not only preached, but healed and cast out demons, their ministry was will worth this small price. If the apostolic team were not welcomed, the entire village was to be abandoned, accompanied by a symbolic gesture which underscored the Gentile‑like uncleanness of these people. The response of the first household, then, determined whether or not the team would stay in that village or not.[151] There were no second chances.

These instructions which our Lord gave to His disciples—not to take along any of the needed provisions for their travels—should not be viewed as universals, applying to all missionaries or witnesses in all situations. We know that traveling this way is not always required, for later in Luke Jesus specifically reversed the instructions He gave the disciples in our text:

“When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:35‑36).

There was a specific purpose for the instructions which Jesus gave His disciples, a purpose that would be fulfilled, so that different instructions would be given for the future. What was the purpose? What was Jesus trying to do by sending out His disciples without the essentials they needed? I believe that the answer is that Jesus was training the twelve to trust Him for their every need, and especially for their daily needs. If the disciples were to have a roof over their heads at night and food on the table, the power of God would have to be real in and through them. The gospel would have to work. “No work, no eat” has a very different, but a very real relevance to the apostles as they went about, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and healing the sick.

Had the disciples been allowed to take their own provisions along, the response of the villagers would not have been as evident, and the faith of the disciples would not have been put to the test. Our Lord’s instructions to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11) could not have more relevant to these twelve men as they went their way, relying upon God’s power to work in and through them, so that the people would receive them and their message as from God, thus supporting them with food and lodging.

The disciples had heard a great deal of teaching from the lips of the Lord Jesus. They had learned a great deal of theology. But now they needed to learn to trust in Him and in His Word. It was the practical theology of trusting Him to empower their ministry and to meet their needs that they were not going to learn on this, their first, missionary campaign. The command to take no provisions was designed to create an environment of need where faith was required and where obedience was tested. The ultimate issue for the people of God in every age is not, “How much do you know?” but, “Who do you trust?” The disciples are about the experience the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus in a new way, by living and walking by faith, by trusting in His power and faithfulness, even in His absence.

Herod’s Interest in Jesus
(9:7‑9)

7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed, because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, 8 others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. 9 But Herod said, “I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” And he tried to see him.

It would not have been difficult for Herod to have kept up to date on Jesus’ teaching and activities. Jesus was “the talk of the town.” Word of His approach or arrival was quickly spread (cf. 9:11). In addition, Herod, a highly threatened man, would have undoubtedly had some counterpart to the secret police, who would have kept track of Jesus. But even beyond this, Herod had a very direct source of information. Among those listed of those who accompanied Jesus and contributed to His support was Joanna, the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3).

Can’t you just see Herod getting a daily update from Cuza, whose wife must have kept him informed as to Jesus’ every activity?

We are told by all three synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that Herod had a keen and on‑going interest in Jesus. Luke tells us that Herod kept on trying to see Him,[152] something which would not occur until the trial of our Lord, preceding His crucifixion (cf. Luke 23:7ff.). I believe that there are several reasons why Herod would have been interested in Jesus.

(1) Herod was a Jew, at east in religion,[153] and may have had some religious interest in Messiah.

(2) Herod was a king, and Jesus and His disciples were going about his territory, preaching about THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Herod the Great was so fearful of losing his territory that he was threatened by the birth of a baby, and that he would kill innocent children to rid himself of a potential rival. No doubt Herod Antipas was apprehensive about this Jesus and His teaching. Politically speaking, what the people thought of Jesus (which is where the emphasis falls in our text) would have been more important to Herod than who Jesus really was. Public opinion is always vitally important to a politician, and Herod was well‑informed as to who the people thought Jesus was.

(3) Herod was guilty of the murder of John the Baptist, and thus he was haunted by guilt and by a fear that he may have been raised from the dead. John may well have spoken of resurrection from the dead in connection with his preaching on the kingdom of God. Since the message of Jesus (and now His disciples) was the same as that of John, Herod feared that the person was the same, too. The situation is similar, in Herod’s mind to the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice. The apprentice thought that he rid himself of the one “spirit” and ended up with many more. Herod thought his problem was John, but now there was Jesus, and the twelve, and the seventy. Where was it to stop?[154]

(4) Herod wanted to see Jesus to see a miracle.

When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a miracle. Herod was eager to see Jesus, something like a child being eager to go to the circus.

With Herod’s interest in seeing Him and knowing His identity, why did Jesus actively avoid him? Here was a man with great political power and influence. Here was a man with a keen interest in Jesus. Why would Jesus send His disciples out to the “boonies”—to the insignificant and remote villages of Galilee, when He would not go to the capital? It would seem today that Jesus would have been expected to go to Herod personally. We would justify this with the reasoning, “Just think what Herod could do for the kingdom of God if he were converted … ”

Let me remind you that Herod also had a keen interest in John the Baptist and his ministry. Look what happened to John! The message which Jesus would have delivered to Herod was no different than that which John (unsuccessfully) had delivered to him already. Herod could easily have seen Jesus, but he wanted Jesus to come to his own turf. Herod was, at best, curious about Jesus, and, at worst, jealous and fearful of losing his political power. The kingdom of God is not brought in by human might, nor by political intrigue or ploys. The kingdom of God is not made up of mighty men, but of those who are child‑like. Herod was no true seeker. Jesus had no time for him. Herod would have his day with Christ, and on that judgment day Herod would show his true colors. There is yet another appointment for Herod to stand before Christ.

The Feeding of the Five Thousand
(9:10‑17)

10 When the apostles returned, they reported to Jesus what they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew by themselves to a town called Bethsaida, 11 but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing. 12 Late in the afternoon the Twelve came to him and said, “Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding villages and countryside and find food and lodging, because we are in a remote place here.” 13 He replied, “You give them something to eat.” They answered, “We have only five loaves of bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food for all this crowd.” 14 (About five thousand men were there.) But he said to his disciples, “Have them sit down in groups of about fifty each.” 15 The disciples did so, and everybody sat down. 16 Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he gave them to the disciples to set before the people. 17 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

We should begin by taking note of the fact that this miracle, the feeding of the five thousand, is the only miracle, apart from the death and resurrection of our Lord, which is recorded in all four of the Gospel accounts.

The apostles had returned from their missionary tour throughout the villages of Galilee. They reported to the Master all that they had done (9:10). Jesus was taking His disciples aside for a while, in a remote place somewhere near the town of Bethsaida (9:10). A retreat from the crowds seemed advisable for several reasons. First, from Mark’s perspective, they were weary and they needed some relief from the crowds:

The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest” (Mark 6:30‑31).

Matthew’s account gives us a second reason: the beheading of John the Baptist had created a hostile atmosphere. Jesus and His disciples had been ministering in Galilee, Herod’s territory. The retreat was beyond Herod’s territory. This “retreat” would allow the situation to cool down, and to let Herod’s interest in Jesus diminish. Since the Jewish Passover was near (John 6:4), this would remove Jesus from the Jewish mainstream, and it would also help to minimize premature enthusiasm and efforts to make Him king.

Luke does not give us a particular reason or purpose in this retreat, but I think that we can see the above reasons as explanations for it. From Mark 6:31 we know that the disciples were so busy in dealing with the crowds that they didn’t even get the chance to eat. When Jesus therefore invited the disciples to come with Him “to a quiet place and get some rest” (Mark 6:31), it is very doubtful that food was not a part of this plan. I think that they had packed some kind of picnic lunch to take with them. They surely did not expect to find a McDonald’s nearby in the wilderness and to buy a “big Mac” for lunch.

Apparently only one other person had come with a packed lunch. A young boy, whom Luke does not mention, had come with a small and modest lunch (barley loaves and fish was not “steak and ale”). I wonder if he had planned to go fishing at the Sea of Galilee and had come with a sack lunch. When he saw the crowds running around the lake, some of whom reached the other shore before the Lord’s boat, he saw this as more exciting than fishing. He must have followed them with keen interest. Little did he know the role he would play in the events of that day.

Jesus taught and healed, just as He had always done, and as the disciples had done in the villages. As the day wore on, the disciples besought Jesus to send the crowds home, so that they could obtain food. On the surface this appears to be a request based upon the disciples compassion for the crowds. We know, of course, that Jesus had compassion on the crowds. Luke tells us that Jesus “welcomed” the people (9:11). It is Mark who emphasizes His compassion:

When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things (Mark 6:34).

I am not so sure that that disciples shared this compassion. Mentally and emotionally, I don’t think they put out the welcome mat, as Jesus had done. I think that they, like me, would have sighed, “Oh, no!” at the sight of this crowd, at the very time when they had looked forward to a brief retreat, away from the crowds.

I think that they also looked forward to a good meal. I believe that they had packed something very special to eat. Since there was no way that their provisions could feed such a crowd, I think they didn’t bother to mention what they had. They expected Jesus to come to the same conclusion they had reached. It was time to tell the people to go home. They had interrupted the disciples’ retreat. They had delayed their dinner. Enough is enough. Send them home!

It seemed a very reasonable solution. It seemed to be the only possible solution. It even appeared (though I doubt that it was such) to be a compassionate one. How shocked the disciples must have been to hear Jesus’ response, “You give them something to eat” (Luke 9:13).[155]

Jesus, who would not command a stone to become bread, so as to satisfy His own hunger, commands His disciples to feed the masses. Jesus, who would not feed Jairus’ daughter, but commanded her parents to do so, now tells His disciples to feed this crowd!

The disciples thought that acquiring food was the people’s problem. Jesus told the disciples it was their problem. How could this be? How could Jesus command His disciples to do what was impossible? Jesus held His disciples responsible for meeting the physical needs of this huge crowd. Those who had just spent several weeks, living by the hospitality of the village people, were now to be hospitable. But how?

Jesus could have done things much differently, making things a great deal easier on the disciples. He (knowing all things) would have known that this problem was going to arise, so He could have made advanced preparations. He could have had food brought out. He could even have miraculously provided a huge supply of food, and then commanded His disciples to serve it. But this is not the way that Jesus chose to meet the needs of the crowd.

While the Lord is the One who fed the five thousand, it was the twelve disciples were very much involved in the process of the feeding. They were to survey the crowd, seeking to discover what their resources were (Why did they not include their own food, which I think they had brought with them?). They were to have the crowds sit down in groups of 50,[156] so that they could eat. The disciples passed out the food, miraculously multiplied as it was divided by Jesus. And, the disciples also collected the portions which people had not taken (not, I think, what scraps were left on their proverbial plates).

What the disciples were commanded to do, they had to do in faith. They had to act before Jesus provided. They had the people sit down to eat when there was no food. The people surely knew this. They had heard the disciples asking how much food was on hand. They knew there was virtually no food. They saw what little the boy had brought. The disciples had to begin passing out the food. When and how the food was multiplied, we do not know. But just as the priests who bore the ark had to get their feet wet before the Red Sea parted or the Jordan ceased to flow, the disciples had to act before the solution was given. God acted through the disciples, as they obeyed.

The unused, unneeded portion of food was collected by the disciples. It was surely no coincidence that there were twelve baskets full, one for each disciple. Those who had tried to persuade Jesus that there was no way this crowd could be fed, now had to carry the leftovers. Can you imagine walking alongside Peter as he carried his basket and groaned, “Man, this basket is heavy!”

By the way, is this story of the feeding of the five thousand not a beautiful illustration and assurance of our Lord’s promise of provision which can be found in the Sermon on the Mount? Remember these words:

“So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 7:31‑33).

The crowds sought the Savior, first and foremost. They took no thought about what they would eat, wear, or drink on that day. Something which may have annoyed some of the disciples as foolish. But because they sought the Savior most of all, He met their physical needs.

Conclusion

I believe that we can see from our text that the purpose, the goal of our Lord’s dealings with the disciples was to train them in the area of faith. The “Training of the Twelve” was, first and foremost, training them to trust in Him. The means of training the twelve in faith was not “teaching” per se, but testing them. Jesus commanded the twelve to act in obedience to His command, without the means to do so. Jesus commanded the disciples to obey Him, without having the human means of doing so, and thus having to trust Him to provide for their needs.

Jesus commanded the disciples to go out, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God and healing, yet without the necessary provisions of food, housing, and clothing. These would be provided for them through those who believed their message, as the power of the gospel was worked out through their preaching and healing. If the gospel did not work, if the Lord’s promises were not true, the disciples would have been in trouble. Jesus’ commandments were purposed to create needs which only He could provide, and which would be obtained only through faith.

The great need of the disciples, like us, was not to know more (in a purely intellectual way) about Jesus, but to trust Him more. The disciples also needed to learn to trust in Him in His absence. Jesus could have gone with His disciples, but He purposely stayed behind. They needed to find Him sufficient in His absence, for they would soon learn that He would not be with them (in His physical body) for long.

There are several principles evident in our text which not only apply to the disciples, but also apply to us. Let me mention these, along with some of their implications, as we conclude this message.

(1) The Lord teaches us to trust Him by commanding us to do that which is beyond our means to do. When you stop to think about it, all of the commands of God are impossible for fallen, sinful man to obey. That is why we must not only be saved by faith, but we must walk by faith. God’s commandments are not humanly possible. The burden imposed by Judaistic Pharsaism were heave because no one offered help to do them (Matthew 23:4). Jesus’ burden is light, not because it is easy, but because He provides the means to do what He commands (cf. Matthew 11:28‑30).

(2) God uses human “needs” as an avenue for teaching and testing our faith. In the first section of our passage, the disciples had to go forth, trusting in the Lord for their “bed and breakfast,” as well as for their power and authority to preach and to heal. It is indeed difficult to trust God in those areas where we do not sense of need. This is why it is so difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, and so blessed to be poor, by our Lord’s own words (cf. Luke 18:25; 6:20). Jesus’ commandments in our text would remind us that faith is seldom learned in the classroom, but is learned in the crises of life, when we must obey God without all the visible means available to do so.

(3) Human needs will either be viewed as an occasion for faith, or they will become the excuse for our unbelief and disobedience. In the case of the feeding of the five thousand it was the lack of food supplies in hand which seemed to justify the disciples’ conclusion that the crowds be sent away, hungry. In what appears to be “pseudo compassion” the disciples urge Jesus to send the crowds away, to meet their own needs. I think that the disciples were disappointed that they could not be alone with Jesus. I suspect that they did not want the crowds at all. This was their “lion in the road” (to use a expression from Proverbs), their compelling reason to do what they wanted to do anyway. Jesus’ response indicated that the disciples were wrong. That the peoples’ need for food was to be met.

Deficiency, the absence of the needed element, is often used as an excuse for sin and for disobedience. I believe that the lack of food masked the disciples’ lack of compassion and even their exasperation with the crowds. It may also have masked the fact that they had a private stock of food (which they brought for their picnic lunch—they planned to be away, in a remote place, the people didn’t) which they did not count in the “resource search,” which they planned to consume when the crowds left.

In businesses, and even in Christian ministries, there is one statement which seems to put plans to rest, without any further discussion: “We don’t have the money.” Everybody says, in effect, “Well, I guess that does it. I guess we cannot do anything more.” Jesus did not tolerate this answer. Not having the means was no excuse. Jesus thrust the responsibility for feeding the crowds back on the disciples, even though they lacked the (human) means to feed them. The one thing they failed to recall was that Jesus has all the means required to do any task he purposes to do. The question is not our Lord’s means, but His purposes, His will. When Jesus commanded the disciples to go out from village to village, even without provisions, it was obvious that the disciples must obey, with provisions in advance or not. When Jesus commanded them to feed the five thousand it was their obligation to obey, whether or not the food was yet present.

Lacking the means to do what God commands is not only evident in the sinful excuses men sometimes offer when money is lacking, deficiency of various kinds are used to excuse many forms of sin and disobedience. In a land of plenty, I am amazed how often we talk about our deficiencies, and seldom speak of our over‑abundance.

Let me mention some of the present‑day deficiencies which are often used to excuse sin. There is the lack of proper balance of body hormones. A specialized form of this is seen in frequent references to PMS. There is the problem of low blood sugar, low self‑esteem, and the deprivations of parental affection. There is the lack of submission on the part of the wife, the lack of leadership of the part of the husband, which excuses all kinds of evils.

I do not deny that all of these deficiencies are real (many times) real problems, with great pain and difficulty associated. But what I am saying is that the lack of these things is, according to our text, the occasion for faith and obedience, not the excuse for disobedience, sin, and bad behavior. We always lack the means to do what God requires of us, and yet He commands us to obey because He is always faithful to provide the means to do His commands. When we excuse ourselves from obedience to His commands, we use our deficiencies as an excuse for sin, rather than as an occasion for faith.

(4) Lacking the means to do something is not necessarily proof that God does not want us to do what requires these things, nor that we should not attempt to do them. Having no food was not justification for sending the crowds away hungry. Are we always to see deficiency as a justification for failing to do anything? Are we always to suppose that we are to act when we do not have the means? How do we know when we should or should not do something? I believe that the ultimate answer is that we are always obliged to act to meet the needs of others when those needs are valid and vital, and when we have a clear imperative from God to do so. In my opinion, the Great Commission is a clear imperative from God to meet the need of a dying world to hear the good news of the gospel. In addition, we have His promise to be with us as we carry out this task. The commandments to live holy lives, to put off the old man, to put on the new, to be filled with the Spirit, are all impossible in the power of the flesh, but provided for by the sending of the Holy Spirit. We have in each of these cases, a command and a promise of His provision. We must act, we must obey, when we have a clear command, and a promise of His provision.

(5) God’s provisions come at the point of our inadequacy. The Lord did not provide for His disciples or the crowds until their human resources were expended. That is why Jesus did not feed Jairus’ daughter, but He did feed the crowd. Our insufficiency, our inadequacy is the point at which divine power is provided, and usually not before. Paul put it this way:

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:9‑10).

(6) Some needs are more important than others, and thus they must be prioritized. Some needs are not genuine needs at all. Satan, for example, fabricated a “need” for Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that they could be “like God.” Other needs are real, but of lower priority than others. Jesus, during His temptation in the wilderness, had the “need” for food, and Satan tried to persuade Him that He should use His divine power to satisfy this need (“turn this stone into bread”). Jesus’ response informs Satan that His need to obey God is more important than His need for food, even for physical life. Jesus commanded His disciples not to take along provisions for their journey so that their need for food and shelter would be subordinated to their need to obey.

In the feeding of the five thousand the disciples were also to learn that the meeting of their physical needs was to be subordinated to meeting the needs of the crowd for food. They were to trust God to meet their needs, and were to devote themselves to meeting the needs of the crowd. And when they let God worry about their needs, they ended up abundantly provided for, each having a basket filled with food. The world says, “God helps those who help themselves.” This text teaches us that “God helps those who help others.”

(7) God often chooses to use little to create much. Jesus could have created a sumptuous meal out of nothing, just as He created the world ex‑nihilo, from nothing. But Jesus chose to feed the five thousand by multiplying the scant sack lunch of the little boy. This “little” includes not only the grossly inadequate supply of food of the young lad, but our faltering, fallible, puny efforts as men and women.

There is a frequently employed little/much theme in the Bible. Elijah used the little bit of flour in the widow’s container, and it become, over time, much. God used the little thing of Moses’ staff to become the instrument through which much was done. Gideon’s army was whittled down to a more little group of 300 so that God could bring about a great victory through them. David was but a little shepherd boy when he killed Goliath. On and on it goes.

Jesus used the five loaves and two fishes and made a great meal. He used “little people,” that is weak, uneducated men as His disciples, yet what great things He accomplished through them. Jesus commended the apparently insignificant gift (of two mites) of the widow. He taught that the slave who did not make good use of that which was entrusted to him was lazy and wicked, even though he was given little, compared to others (Matthew 25:24‑30).

We often have a “drop in the bucket” mentality. We see the needs around us as so great, and our resources as so small, that we despair of making any significant contribution. We, like the disciples, conclude that it is better to send people away (or to stay away from them) then to do something which is small. We think of India, for example, and its poverty, and we want to throw up our hands and forget it. But this text and many others teach us that our “little contribution” is all important.

Sometimes it may be due to a misapplication of our theology that contributes to our sin in this area. We believe (or we should!) that man is totally depraved, that he is not sick with sin but dead in sin. Fallen, sinful man cannot do anything to contribute to his salvation. God must do it all. We merely accept what He has accomplished.

But then we go on to think that we cannot contribute anything in the realm of Christian service, and in so doing we are wrong. Apart from God’s supernatural intervention and blessing, apart from His multiplication of what we have done, our service will accomplish nothing, but the Bible teaches that we are to do what we see needs to be done, to the degree that we are able. God often uses the little that we do to accomplish great things.

For example, we know that we cannot create light in the darkness of men’s hearts, nor can be bring dead men to life (spiritually speaking, as well as physically), and yet we can share our faith, we can tell others the good news of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit of God can multiply that simple effort. He can convict men of their sin. He can regenerate men, bringing them to life. God has chosen to save men through the seemingly little thing of others sharing their faith. When we fail to do the little things which we can do, we sin, and we hinder (not prevent) the work of God through us.

If the events of our text were intended to teach the disciples to trust and to obey, I believe that God’s purpose in this account was to do likewise for each of us. For any who have never come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, their Sin‑bearer, I urge you to trust in Him for salvation. And for those who have come to faith in Him as Savior, I pray that we may trust in Him as the all‑sufficient One who provides for us to do all that He commands.

! Lesson 30:
The Cross and Christianity
(Luke 9:18‑26)

Introduction

On the ‘ribbon of highway’ that stretches ‘from California to the New York island’ the American Main Street—the mass of people seem completely self‑absorbed. One hundred and fifty years ago Alexis de Tocqueville visited America from France and wrote: ‘Each citizen is habitually engaged in the contemplation of a very puny object, namely himself.’ In a century and a half things have not improved. For all the diverse and attractive, buzzing and mysterious reality that is everywhere evident, no one and no thing interrupt people more than momentarily from obsessive preoccupation with themselves. America is in conspicuous need of unselfing.[157]

Theo Williams, one of the evangelical giants of India, and a missions leader, once met with the elders of our church. We were discussing the benefits of interchange of Christians between the Eastern and the Western world. He said that such interchange was beneficial, for the Western world had much to contribute to the Eastern in terms of its grasp of Scripture. He quickly added that the Eastern evangelical had a contribution to the Western world. Specifically, Theo Williams said that the Western world knew little of “taking up its cross,” something which believers in the East know much more about.

One would find it difficult to debate this fact. Indeed, I think that in America the church might find it necessary to change the expression, “Take up your cross and follow Christ” to “Take up you CAUSE and follow Christ,” if we were describing how things actually work. In America, self, self‑interest, self‑seeking, and self‑love are not viewed as a great evil, opposed to the very essence of Christianity. They have now become the great mandate, to be placed higher in priority to the commands of the Bible to love God and to love our neighbor. We are often told from the pulpit that we must first be able to love ourselves, before we can love either God or our neighbor. Our Lord words, as found in our text in Luke chapter 9, tell us that we are wrong. Taking up our cross may not be a very pleasant thought, but it is a very necessary one. Let us remind ourselves that Jesus is speaking to each of us, and that He is telling us here what every true follower of Him must do. Let us listen well to Him.

The Structure of the Text

Our test falls into three divisions:

(1) Confessing the Christ—vv. 18‑20.

(2) The Christ and His Cross—vv. 21‑22.

(3) Christ’s Followers and Their Cross—vv. 23‑26.

Background

The issue of the identity of Jesus is not new in the gospel of Luke. For the reader, the identity of Jesus has been given at the very outset of the book. We know these words, spoken by the angel to Mary:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:31‑33).

We know, then, from the beginning of Luke’s account, that Jesus is the Son of God, the divine Messiah, whose destiny is to rule over the promised Kingdom of God.

John the Baptist also knew that Jesus was the Messiah, as we can see from His introduction of the Lord Jesus (cf. Luke 3:1‑6).[158] Satan likewise knew who Jesus was, as we know from Luke’s account of the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness. The entire temptation of our Lord was predicated on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah (“If you are the Son of God.…” e.g. Luke 4:3). The Demons knew, as well. They said,

“Ha! What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4:34).

and,

“You are the Son of God!” (Luke 4:41). They knew that He was the Christ (Luke 4:41).

The leaders of the nation Israel, the scribes and Pharisees and priests, quickly came to their own conclusions as to who Jesus was. To them, Jesus was an impostor, a false Messiah, who worked miracles through the power of Satan (Mark 3:22; cf. Luke 6:11; 7:34). They had already determined that they must destroy Him (Mark 3:6; cf. Luke 6:11).

With the general Israelite population, the issue of Jesus’ identity arose quickly. In Luke’s first recorded message of our Lord, delivered at Nazareth, the people immediately began to discuss Jesus’ identity:

And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22, NASV).

The people did not so quickly come to the decision of their leaders. Some were quick to wonder whether or not Jesus actually was the Messiah:

All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” (Matthew 12:23).

Many, however, thought Him to be a great prophet:

And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” (Luke 7:16; cf. Matthew 21:11, John 6:14).

There was never complete consensus on the identity of our Lord, as can be most clearly seen in the John’s gospel:

At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ? But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.” Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.” At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. Still, many in the crowd put their faith in him. They said, “When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?” … On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” Thus the people were divided because of Jesus (John 7:25‑31, 40‑43).

Most of the masses believed Jesus to be a good man, although some, like their leaders, held Him to be a deceiver:

Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people” (John 7:12).

The disciples, too, were caused to wonder who Jesus was. When Jesus stilled the storm, they pondered Who it was who was in the boat with them:

“Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” (Luke 8:25).

It is now time for this question to be answered. Who is Jesus? The answer to this question is the difference between a disciple of Jesus Christ and an enemy, it is the difference between heaven and hell. The time has come for the disciples to declare their allegiance to the Master as their Messiah.

Confessing the Christ
(9:18‑20)

From the gospels of Matthew and Mark, we know only that the scene of the great confession is somewhere along the way to Caesarea Philippi. Luke tells us that Jesus had been spending time in private prayer (9:18), and that it was in this privacy that the question of His identity was put to the disciples.

One can only conjecture as to what the subject matter of our Lord’s private prayer was. It would have been interesting to have been a “fly on the wall,” or perhaps better, a “lizard on the rock,” where Jesus was praying. I would venture a guess that one primary subject of our Lord’s prayer would have been His disciples’ grasp of His identity as Messiah. After all, it was the Father who revealed this to the disciples (Matthew 16:17). The time was right for the question to be asked.

The Confession of the Crowds

Jesus did not begin by immediately asking the disciples who they thought He was, but rather who the crowds thought He was:

“Who do the crowds say I am?” (Luke 9:18).

The answer was given by various disciples, not just Peter. Perhaps one said, “John the Baptist,” while another said, “Elijah,” and yet another “one of the prophets, raised from the dead.”

The answers of the disciples as to who the masses of Israelites thought Jesus to be were exactly the same as the “Gallup Poll” results reported to Herod (cf. Luke 9:8). These answers tell us several important things:

(1) The popular thinking concerning Jesus’ identity had no consensus. There were various views as to who He was. There was no general agreement, no one commonly held identification.

(2) There was agreement that Jesus was somehow a man “sent from God.” All of the three answers imply that Jesus was viewed as a good man, a man sent from God, and a man of great power. He seems to have been viewed as associated with the Kingdom of God, for which the Jews awaited with great anticipation.

(3) There was no significant portion of the Israelites who believed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. It is this third observation that supplies us, I believe, with the tension of this text. How can it be that after the testimony of John the Baptist, that of our Lord (through statements, e.g. Luke 4:13‑21, and deeds), and even of the demons, that the nation would not grasp the Jesus was the Messiah, and not just a prophet or one sent from God? How could any thinking Jew of that day not conclude that Jesus was the Messiah?

The answer to this question is one of the keys to understanding our text. It is certainly not that there was apathy or disinterest concerning the coming kingdom. There was great interest and enthusiasm on this issue. The answer is to be found in John chapter 6, where John records the response of the people to the miraculous feeding of the five thousand. You will recall that the great confession follows both the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew and Mark). It is in John’s gospel that the popular response to Jesus’ miracle of the feeding of the five thousand is recorded, along with the corrective action taken by our Lord:

When therefore the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is of a truth the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus therefore perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone (John 6:14‑15).

Jesus’ miracle feeding of the five thousand resulted in what almost seems to be mass hysteria. “Could they find a better candidate for Messiah than Jesus?” “Could they wish for any better things from Messiah?” The people had not concluded that God had appointed Jesus to be Messiah, but they did determine to appoint Him as Messiah themselves. They did not see that God had made Him King, but they were intent of drafting Him as their king.

Such hysteria caused Jesus to do several things. First, He sent His disciples away, so that they would not get caught up in this frenzied enthusiasm (Matthew 14:22; Mark 6:45). Second, He Himself withdrew from the crowds for a time of private prayer (John 6:15; cf. Matthew 14:23; Mark 8:46). Third, Jesus began to introduce the subject of His sacrificial and substitutionary death to the crowds. Jesus began by exposing the selfish motivation of the crowds in wanting to make Him their King (John 6:26). He then went on to speak of Himself as the “Bread of Life.” Once Jesus began to speak of His suffering, the crowd quickly lost its enthusiasm. John tells us the result of Jesus’ teaching:

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more (John 6:66).

Thus, the fact that the disciples’ answer to our Lord’s question does not include any option that He was the Messiah is not surprising. It is not that no one had thought of it, but that once Jesus informed them of the kind of Messiah He was, no one wanted Him as their Messiah. They could accept Him as a prophet sent from God, but not as their Messiah. The disciples’ answer reveals the fickleness of the crowds and of their acceptance of Jesus. If the disciples are to declare Jesus to be the Messiah, they will do so as a very small minority, at this point in time. It is interesting, is it not, that our Lord would choose such a time, such a low ebb in His popularity, to ask His disciples concerning His identity.

Peter’s Confession

Having laid the foundation by asking the disciples who the people thought He was, Jesus now pressed for a personal confession. So much for the crowds, who was Jesus to those who most intimately knew Him.

“But what about you … Who do you say I am?” (Luke 9:20).

Peter, not unpredictably, now speaks. Presumably he speaks for the rest, though we must wonder if he spoke for Judas:

“The Christ of God” (Luke 9:20).

These words of Peter, very concisely put, tell us that Peter recognized Jesus to be God’s Messiah. In contrast to the views held by the masses, Peter has come, by means of the revelation of the Father (Matthew 16:17), to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah whom God has sent.

Peter’s confession is monumental. It is the watershed of the gospels. Let us take a moment to make a few observations about this confession:

(1) Peter’s “great confession” was a landmark event. It is at this point that the fuller implications of Jesus’ ministry begin to be revealed clearly. Matthew’s account emphasizes this point:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life (Matthew 16:21, emphasis mine).

(2) Peter’s confession was not a recitation, but a personal confession of Peter’s convictions about the identity of Jesus. The confession of Peter was not a repetition of words which Jesus had just said, it was an answer to a question Jesus asked.

(3) The “great confession” was not as great as we might wish. It was a partial, imperfect, and even tentative confession of our Lord’s identity.

I want to linger on this third point, that Peter’s confession was, in one sense, a “great” confession, but in other ways it was only a faltering beginning. What was “great” about Peter’s confession was that it was a confession, a proclamation of Jesus’ identity as Messiah, in the face of His rejection by virtually all of his world. Peter’s confession may have expressed the conclusion of most of the apostles, but it was in stark contrast to the view of the masses which had just been summarized. Peter’s confession can also be seen as “great” in terms of its outcome, its implications.

But when carefully considered, it is certainly not all that it could (or should) have been. The text does not clearly state this, but all appearances are that Peter acknowledged Jesus to be Messiah, but not to be God. The expression, “the Christ of God” (v. 20), I understand to mean God’s Messiah, the Messiah whom God has sent, not the Messiah who is God. Peter later came to realize that Jesus was both Messiah and God, and this he boldly proclaimed (cf. Acts 2:36), but it was a human messiah that Peter seems to have confessed here. This was consistent with the expectations of the Jews of Peter’s day. It was one thing to claim to be Messiah, but a vastly different thing to claim to be God.

Second, not only was Peter’s “messiah” not divine, but he was surely not a suffering messiah. It is in the accounts of Matthew and Mark that Peter’s violent reaction to the Lord’s disclosure of His imminent rejection, suffering and death are recorded. The very same person who rejoiced in Christ’s identity as Messiah, rejected the possibility of Him being a suffering Savior. Peter’s “messiah” was therefore a distorted “messiah,” a messiah of his own hopes and aspirations.

Finally, Peter’s confession is one that is doubted and even denied. We must remember that Peter, the one who made this great confession, is the same person who made his “great denial” when identified with Christ after his arrest. His declaration turns to doubt. And we see that this is also true for others of Jesus’ followers. When Jesus, unrecognized, joined the two on the road to Emmaus, and questioned them about the things which made them so sad, we find this conversation reported by Luke:

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people (Luke 24:19).

After His arrest and crucifixion, these disciples’ estimation of Jesus was not different, no greater, than that view held by the masses. He was only a prophet.

The Cross of the Christ
(9:21‑22)

Jesus’ response to the “great confession” of Peter must have caught the disciples off guard. Jesus said two things which would have been very perplexing to them. First, Jesus commanded His disciples not to tell anyone what they had concluded, and what He confirmed, that He was the Messiah. Jesus “strictly warned” them about this (v. 21). He knew that they would be very tempted to let everyone know the truth. In the sending out of the seventy, Jesus took further measures to assure this:

After this the Lord appointed seventy‑two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go (Luke 10:1).

The term “others” indicates to us that the seventy‑two did not include the twelve. And little wonder. If the twelve disciples had gone forth, proclaiming the message of the kingdom of God, do you think they could resist the temptation to tell the secret they had just learned? Jesus therefore kept the twelve with Him, and sent out those who did not know what they did.

The reason for this strange‑sounding command is to be found in our Lord’s second statement. As God’s Messiah, He must be rejected by the leaders of the nation, be crucified, and then rise from the dead three days later (v. 22).[159] If the disciples were to make known the identity of Jesus, it would only hinder His rejection and crucifixion, something which must take place. This was a prophetic necessity, for the Old Testament prophets foretold His suffering and sacrificial death (Isaiah 52‑53). It was a theological necessity, for the sins of the world must be atoned for. Just as Peter sought to prevent our Lord’s arrest, by drawing his sword and using it (John 18:10‑11), so the crowds would be tempted to revolt. The news of Jesus identity would only be broadly proclaimed after His death, burial, and resurrection.

Jesus had already alluded to the fact that some things revealed privately to His disciples would temporarily be concealed from the rest, but only for a time:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (Luke 8:16‑17).

Jesus identity as the rejected, crucified, and risen Messiah is boldly proclaimed by the apostles after His death and resurrection. One example is the proclamation of the apostle Peter:

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

The rejection, and crucifixion of Jesus by the leaders of Israel (Luke 9:22) is very much related to the rejection of Jesus as God’s Messiah by the crowds (Luke 9:18‑19). The leader of Israel feared the crowds, and did not dare to carry out their long‑held plans to kill Him until they sensed that Jesus’ popularity had waned significantly:

Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words (Luke 19:47‑48).

And the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people (Luke 22:2).

Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ was the occasion for Jesus to begin to speak plainly about His coming rejection and death. It was surely not something which Peter and the others wanted to hear, but it was the plan and purpose of God. It was the means for God’s promises of salvation to be fulfilled.[160]

Characteristics of Our Lord’s Cross

Before we move on to the “cross” which the disciple of Christ must take up, let us briefly summarize the characteristics of Christ’s cross, for the cross of the Master and the cross of the disciple are very much interrelated.

(1) The cross of the Christ was mandatory. Christ must suffer and die.

(2) The cross of the Christ involved more than the physical wooden cross, the instrument of His death, though it surely involved this as well. Our Lord spoke of the fact that He must suffer many things, which suggests that more than the literal, physical, cross were in mind. He was, for example, to suffer the rejection of His people and their leaders. This, of course, was preliminary and necessary for His crucifixion. In Hebrews (2:18, NIV; 5:7‑10; 10:5‑9), we are told of the broader “suffering” of our Lord. Later on in Luke chapter 9 we can see a kind of suffering in the “sigh” of our Lord over the spiritual dullness of that generation (Luke 9:41), which implies that the kenosis and incarnation of our Lord was certainly a sacrifice, and, to some degree a form of suffering. Wouldn’t it be suffering to leave the realms of glory and to dwell among sinful men, many of whom rejected you, and even the few who received you had a distorted view of you? Finally, the Lord had to suffer not only the rejection of men, and death on that cross, with all its physical pain, but He had to suffer the alienation from God which bearing the sins of the world entailed. The extent of His suffering is infinitely beyond man’s ability to grasp. While the disciple’s cross may not be pleasant, it’s suffering does not begin to compare with that of our Lord’s cross.

The Disciple’s Cross[161]
(9:23‑26)

The difference between the disciples’ estimate of Christ’s identity and that of the crowds and the leaders of the nation spells trouble. When the opinion of Jesus by the crowds reaches a low enough ebb, the plans of the leaders to kill the Christ will be possible. When the crowds and the leaders view of Jesus is diametrically different from that of the disciples, there will not only be a cross for the Christ, but also for those who identify with Him. That is what Jesus now tells them. Having told the disciples of His cross, He immediately goes on to tell them that they will have a cross as well, if they follow Him.

The cross of the disciple has a number of characteristics which should be of great interest to those who have purposed to follow Christ as His disciple. Let us consider some of the characteristics of the disciple’s cross.

(1) The disciple’s cross is directly related to the cross of Christ. The rejection and suffering of Christ’s followers is the consequence of their following Him. It is for choosing to follow Christ that His followers will have a cross to bear.

“Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter‑in‑law against her mother‑in‑law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward” (Matthew 10:17‑43).

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death (Mark 13:12).

Because Christ was rejected and suffered the cross, so will most of the twelve disciples and many others of that generation who believed in Christ and followed Him:

“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me …” (Matthew 24:9).

He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword (Acts 12:2).

Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13).

And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them (Acts 26:10).

(2) The disciple’s cross entails more than just external persecution, and occasionally martyrdom—it entails death to self‑will, self‑interest, and self‑seeking. In the words of Jesus, it requires denying self (Luke 9:23). The “way of the cross” is the way of death to our own interests. As our Lord set aside His glory and prerogatives as God in order to come to earth and “bear His cross,” so the disciple of Christ must do likewise (cf. Philippians 2:1‑8). The cross means that we must also “put to death” the old nature and its practices:

By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him (Romans 6:2‑8).

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers (1 John 3:16).

(3) The disciples is a cross that is taken up daily—it is a way of looking at life and of living it.

I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord (1 Corinthians 15:31).

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—which is your spiritual worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1‑2).

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (Rom. 8:13).

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

(4) The taking up of the disciple’s cross, like Lord’s taking up of His cross, is based upon a principle stated by our Lord: to seek to save one’s life is to lose it; to give up one’s life for Christ’s sake, is to save your life.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it” (Luke 9:24).

This same principle underlies the living of the Christian life:

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds (John 12:24).

How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies (1Corinthians 15:36).

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you (2 Corinthians 13:4).

(5) The cross, because it is an instrument of suffering and death, is repulsive to everyone, and thus we will not accept it without a divine calling and enablement.

Jesus blessed Peter for his confession that Jesus was God’s Messiah, God’s Christ. He told Him that flesh and blood did not reveal this truth, but the Father. Once they understood the nature of Jesus’ messiahship, men rejected Him as Messiah. They may still regard Him as a prophet, but not as Messiah, for they do not wish to follow a suffering Messiah. Ultimately, they (we) do not wish to pursue of way of suffering, but rather a way of peace, prosperity, and glory. But our Lord has revealed that the way to a crown is through the cross, both for Him and for those who would follow Him.

The natural man simply rejects suffering and death as a way to find life, and thus the gospel will always be foolish to the unbeliever. The message of the gospel is the message about a cross, a cross that men do not wish to hear or to accept, and yet it is the only gospel, the gospel which Paul and all of the apostles preached:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength (1 Corinthians 1:17‑25).

The cross is a message which cannot be “marketed” or “merchandised,” for it does not have human appeal. In order for the gospel to be “merchandised,” sold with Madison Avenue advertising techniques, we must first change the gospel itself. And many have done just this. Rather to proclaim in simplicity, man’s sin, Christ’s righteousness, and salvation through the cross of Christ, we offer peace and prosperity, happiness and fulfillment, and we do so by minimizing the foolishness of the cross. In so doing, we rob the gospel of its power.

The message of the cross cannot and will not be received by men apart from the drawing of the Father through the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what the Bible teaches, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit is what our Lord promised:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:8‑11).

False teacher reject the cross, because they know it is not appealing to men. They also do not wish to suffer the reproach of the cross themselves. Instead, they offer a different gospel, a crossless gospel:

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:12‑14).

Conclusion

This text has many points of relevance and application to contemporary men and women. First, it reminds us of the fact that the question which our Lord asked His disciples is the most important question any man or woman will ever answer. The difference between salvation and condemnation, between heaven and hell is bound up in the answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” The correct answer is that He is the Son of God, God’s Messiah, and my Savior, the one who died on the cross of Calvary, in my place. At one point or another, every person will have to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Savior of the world. To answer in this way now is to have eternal life. To wait until later is a vastly different thing. Someday, everyone who has denied Jesus as the Christ will have to acknowledge their error, but when it is too late for salvation:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9‑11).

This is what every living creature must do, who has rejected Jesus as the Christ of God before His coming to reign and to rule over the earth. But the good news of the gospel is that men can confess Him as the Christ of God today and be saved from their sins:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Everyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 10:9‑11).

Just at this question was an individual matter, to be answered by every man, so it is today. Frankly, the view of the masses will never be the right view of Jesus. You must stand apart from the crowds who reject Jesus as the Christ, and in so doing you will find a cross of your own to bear, but this is God’s way of salvation. I ask you now, as Jesus asked His disciples, “But you, who do you say Jesus is?”

Those of us who are saved, who have professed Jesus to be God’s Salvation, must realize that there is a cross to bear if we would follow Him. As the crowds rejected Jesus and clamored for Him to have a cross, so they may reject us. This is a part of the cross which we must take up, daily. And when we share our faith with others, we must do so in simplicity, in clarify, in fear, and in faith, knowing that only the Father, through His Holy Spirit can cause men to recognize Jesus as God’s only Savior, cross and all. For it is the cross of Calvary that is God’s only means of saving men.

I am very troubled by those who pervert the gospel, the word of the cross, in order to make it more appealing, more marketable. They offer men prosperity, popularity, and what they desire. They offer men a crown in the place of a cross. They offer life, but they lead men along the road to death, just as Satan deceived Adam and Eve.

I am troubled by Christians who in their desire not to be rejected, attempt to avoid any cross in life. They want their faith and their gospel to be intellectually respectable, when the Bible says it is foolishness. They want obedience to God’s word to seem logical, sensible, and appealing, but the cross is an offense, whether it be the cross of Christ, for salvation, or the cross of the disciple.

Beware of any teaching that minimizes the cross, that merchandises the gospel, and that appeals to the fleshly nature of man. This is not the way of the cross, nor is it the way of our Lord.

I would also add that we have much to learn from our Lord in the area of evangelism. Jesus would not inform the disciples that He was the Messiah, and then merely ask them to mouth back to Him some kind of formula. He asked the disciples to express, in their own words, who He was. I have great difficulty with those who attempt to lead men to Christ by asking them to repeat a prayer after them. If men do not understand the gospel well enough to express their faith in their own words, they are not really convinced of the truth, and they are not ready to have a kind of “forceps delivery.” Let us learn from our Lord that it is ultimately God who converts and convinces men of His identity. Let us beware about putting words in the mouths of those we wish to be saved.

! Lesson 31:
The Transfiguration of Christ
(Luke 9:27‑36)

Introduction

We all have said something stupid, which after the words have come out of our mouths, we wish we hadn’t said. I remember getting on the elevator with my friend, Don Grimm, after lunch. I started to tell him of the story which I had recently heard about the Hunt brothers, who had just recently lost hundreds of millions of dollars in silver investments. I was starting to say that the Hunts may not have “lost their shirts,” but it sure had “loosened their ties.” Don politely suggested that I hold up on the story for a moment, and after we got off the elevator I learned why. One of the Hunt brothers was standing right beside me.

Years ago, when I was in college, I had an assignment to go to the curriculum library of the Seattle Public School system. A very prim and proper lady in the autumn of life was seated at the desk and asked me if she could be of any help. I responded, “Oh, no thanks, I just came to carouse around.” I meant to say, “I just came in to browse around.” I don’t know how the wrong words came, but they did.

I remember years ago hearing of the man who was introducing a very well‑known Bible expositor. He was attempting to impress the audience with the scholarship of the teacher, who was about to address them. He concluded, “And now, it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Bruce Waltke, who will bring us his suppository message.”

Stupid things sometimes come out of our mouths before we even know it. Peter is one of the disciples who seemed more prone to say something—often something dumb—than the others. It has never puzzled me that Peter was not the author of one of the four gospels. It would have been too tempting for him, I suspect, to edit out of that gospel all of the things he wished he had never said. And so we may be grateful that others recorded Peter’s words, so that we can identify with him, and his tendency to say the wrong thing.

On the mountain of transfiguration, Peter repeats his error of talking too quickly and thinking too little. Luke tells us that Peter did not know what he was saying, something which is quite evident. Peter’s hasty and ill‑conceived words provoke a divine response, from God the Father Himself. Those words, aimed at the disciples, but probably most directly at Peter, are just as relevant to men and women today as they were then. In our study we shall seek to learn what happened on the mount of transfiguration, what it was the Peter was suggesting, and what God’s response meant.

The Setting

The identity of Jesus is the central issue dealt with in Luke chapter 9. Herod, we are told by Luke, was very interested in the identity of Jesus, for while he was aware that some thought Jesus to be Elijah or some other prophet, raised from the dead, he feared that he might be John the Baptist, raised from the dead, since he had put him to death (9:7‑9). When Jesus asked the disciples who the people thought Him to be, they gave the same answers that Herod had heard (9:19). When Jesus pointedly put the question to His disciples, Peter spoke up, with the most profound statement he has made, up to this point: “The Christ of God” (9:20).

Peter was right, of course. In Matthew’s account of the great confession, our Lord particularly praises him, and speaks of his prominence in the proclamation of the gospel (Matthew 16:17‑19). But, when Jesus went on to speak of His suffering, rejection, and death, Peter’s words of reaction and rebuke were not those revealed to him by God, but the very thoughts of Satan (Matthew 16:21‑23). Peter was not thinking of the kingdom of God from the divine point of view, but from his own preferences, prejudices, and preconceptions, which, our Lord said, were the viewpoint of man and (interestingly enough) Satan.

Jesus went on to tell His disciples that there would be a “cross” for them to bear as well, if they would follow Him. Man’s perspective is that one must save his life in order to live, but Jesus taught that His followers must give up their lives for Him, in order to live. Life, He said, comes out of death. On the other hand, those who would seek to save their own lives will ultimately lose them.

Jesus then promised His disciples that some of them would see the “kingdom of God” before they died:

“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27).

While there are numerous explanations as to what Jesus’ words here mean, the simplest explanation, especially in the context, is that Jesus was foretelling the transfiguration which was to come within a week’s time.

A week later,[162] Jesus took three of His disciples with Him up the mountain[163] to pray. There are various reasons given as to why only Peter, John, and James were taken along. We know that it was this same three who often were taken along, while the rest were left behind. They alone were taken into the house of Jairus, where Jesus raised his daughter from death (Luke 8:51). One commentator tells us that these three were taken along because they were the “most spiritual” of the three.[164]

I am not so sure. It may not have been that big of a thing. When I go to the store, I like to have company, and so I’ll announce to my girls, “I’m going to the store. Anybody want to go along.” Usually they want to know which store. If it is the automotive parts house, where I buy my car parts, they likely won’t accompany me. If there is the chance we will stop at the ice cream store, I usually will have company.

It is not inconceivable to me that Jesus would have said to the disciples, “I’m going to Mt. Hebron, would any of you like to go along?” Perhaps one of them asked, “To pray?” That may have prompted the nine to stay behind, while the three may have loyally (or lovingly) gone along.

For whatever reason, only three disciples accompanied Jesus to the mount, for a time of prayer. Little did any of them dream of what they would see and hear on this occasion.

Before we press on to that which occurred at this time of prayer, let us not too quickly pass by the fact that prayer, once again in Luke’s writings, is closely linked with great events. This is true in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Allow me to summarize some of those instances in which prayer is shortly precedes a great event:

In Luke’s Gospel:

In the Book of Acts:

It can be safely said that Luke places a heavy emphasis on prayer. He is careful to link prayer with great manifestations of God’s grace and power. We can hardly overstate the need for prayer today, nor car we overstate the lack of diligence of the church to pray as we ought. As the apostle James put it,

You do not have, because you do not ask God (James 4:2).

May we become people of prayer, as our Lord was marked by His prayers.

The Transfiguration of the Christ

While the identity of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah was not acknowledged by the masses, nor by Israel’s political leaders (e.g. Herod), nor by the religious leaders, Peter had just confessed that Jesus was God’s Messiah. Jesus Himself affirmed this profession, and then hastened to go on, spelling out the suffering and death that this necessitated. Now it is time for God the Father to give the final word, as is done in the transfiguration. Here, Jesus is given the Father’s stamp of approval as His appointed King of Israel.

We do not know exactly what time it was, nor how long our Lord had been in prayer. We do know that He was praying as He was transformed before His disciples. It would have been of great interest to have heard the words our Lord was speaking to the Father as His appearance began to be changed.

The three disciples, Luke alone tells us, were sleepy. How easy it is for us to quickly conclude that they were simply tired, and that they, unlike the Master, could not discipline themselves to stay awake. Let me begin by saying that we are not told why they were sleepy, only that they were. Fatigue is, of course, the most simple explanation. But lest we jump to this conclusion as though it were our only option, let me briefly mention two other possibilities.

First, let me remind you that the sleepiness of the disciples in the garden, just before His arrest, was, according to the diagnosis of Dr. Luke, the result of sorrow, not simple fatigue (Luke 22:45). They were exhausted from sorrow. Second, allow me to point out a rather unusual sleepiness which Daniel experienced as the result of a divine revelation, not unlike that which is described here:

I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning,[165] his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground (Daniel 10:5‑9, emphasis mine).

There are, then, a variety of reasons for sleepiness. We do not know which of these was the cause of the sleepiness of the disciples, but only that they were sleepy at the time that our Lord was transfigured.

Can you imagine what it must have been like to have been in a deep sleep, and to awaken to the sights and sounds that were taking place on that mountain. If it were me, I would first wonder if I really was awake, or whether it was a dream. Then I would wonder where I was. Then I would have been awe‑struck by the brightness of the three persons, all of whom (Luke tells us that Elijah and Moses were in glorious splendor—was the splendor of our Lord vastly greater here? We do not know for sure —) were radiant. For sleepy eyes, it must have taken some time to adjust to this kind of luminance, especially if it was during the darkness of night. For some unexplained reason the disciples knew who the two men were who were talking with our Lord. They were Moses and Elijah.[166]

The “sound track” would also have been of great interest. Not only did the three disciples recognize the three gloriously radiant persons, but they also overheard their conversation. We do not know how long they spoke, nor all of the details which were covered. But we do know the subject of the discussion: the coming departure (literally, the “exodus”) of our Lord in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31).

Whatever length of time this revelation or transfiguration took, it eventually ended. This was signaled by the fact that the two men began to leave Jesus. This action prompted Peter to speak:

“Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Luke 9:33).

Luke adds, parenthetically, that Peter did not know what he was saying. That’s for sure!

True, Peter did not know what he was saying, but he was saying something. Mark informs us that it was out of fear that Peter blurted out these words, informing us that all three were frightened by the splendor of the sight of the transfiguration (9:6). Peter’s words were not carefully thought through, but they did propose something. What, then, was Peter suggesting? What was he trying to do?

First, it would seem that he was attempting to keep Elijah and Moses from leaving. His words were spoken just as they began to leave (Luke 9:33). They were departing, but Peter spoke of dwellings. Now there is no need for a motel if you’re not staying the night. By proposing to build three shelters, Peter is seeking to prolong their stay, even though (or, should we say, especially because) they were leaving. Peter may thus be trying to prolong the glory of this event. He may even be selfishly be trying to prolong for himself the excitement and enjoyment of these heavenly visitors. Don’t think that selfishness is out of the question. If you do, read on in this same chapter.

Peter’s proposal may also have been motivated by a desire to see the kingdom and its glory instituted NOW. Jesus had spoken of his suffering, rejection, and death. There were some intervening events, which meant that the kingdom would not come as quickly as the people (including the disciples) would like. The departure of Elijah and Moses was not a good sign, so far as Peter would have been concerned, for it spelled delay. To keep them around might have hastened the coming of the kingdom, something that was still in the minds of the disciples even after our Lord’s resurrection (cf. Acts 1:6).

A Divine Interruption and Statement

If the departure of Moses and Elijah prompted Peter to speak, the ill‑thought‑through words of Peter seem to have been the cause of this divine interruption, which seems to have stopped Peter in mid‑sentence:

While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him” (Luke 9:34‑35).

A luminous cloud settled down over all of them, which seems to have obscured their view of each other, or at least of Moses and Elijah, for when the cloud disappears, these two are gone. The appearance of the cloud caused the disciples to be even more frightened. It seems to have silenced Peter. It is then that God speaks to them from the cloud, adding His testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, the King of Israel.

The words of God were carefully chosen, the very precise formula used to designate the king of Israel. The expression, “this is my Son,” which was also spoken by God previously at our Lord’s baptism (cf. Luke 3:22), is to be understood in the light of its Old Testament origin and meaning. In 2 Samuel 7:14, the expression is used by God with reference to Solomon, and the Davidic dynasty which will follow, and of which our Lord is the final descendent and eternal King. Solomon was Israel’s king, and David’s son, and yet God said of him,

“I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men” (2 Samuel 7:14).

It is evident that while God promises an everlasting kingdom to David, the “son” of whom He speaks is Solomon, David’s son, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. “Thou art my son” is an enthronement formula, a kind of coronation statement, which indicates that God has appointed this person as king, the person who is called His “son.” To be a “son of God” in this sense is to be God’s king.[167]

This is clearly the sense of the expression, “Thou art My Son,” as it is found in Psalm 2, only here it is specifically speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the eternal king of Israel:

“I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (Psalm 2:6‑9).

And so, when we find the expression, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen,” it is God’s most emphatic identification of Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is Israel’s King. Peter has said so. Jesus has said so. The Father has now said so, in a most emphatic and dramatic way. But the identification of Jesus is just the beginning. The last statement of the Father, spoken from within the splendor of that luminous cloud, explains the significance of Jesus’ identity. Here is the bottom line, the application of the divine affirmation: “Listen to Him” (Luke 9:35).

Observations

Before we seek to explore the implications and applications of the transfiguration, let us pause for a moment to make an observation about the three who witnessed this event. There were three witnesses to the transfiguration: Peter, John, and James.[168] There are also three accounts of the transfiguration in the gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Is it not noteworthy that while there are three witnesses to the transfiguration, not one of them is a gospel writer? Matthew, who wrote one of the accounts, was one of the nine left behind. John, on the other hand, who accompanied Jesus up to the mount of transfiguration, and who wrote a gospel account, does not include the transfiguration in his gospel. I find this most interesting. If such a spectacular event were to happen today, we would be certain to have the “press corps” invited. Jesus did not do so, and He knew what was going to happen (cf. Luke 9:27).

I am not sure that I can explain why this is true, why Jesus would invite three men along, and yet none of them would give a personal account of the event. I think it is safe to say that Jesus did not capitalize upon or emphasize the spectacular. If He handled things as some religious leaders do, He would not only have had the twelve disciples along, but he would have had the radio, television, press, and a huge crowd of witnesses along with him as well. Jesus downplayed the spectacular, while we play it up. Perhaps we need to learn a lesson from our Lord, here.

But why would he play this miracle down? Further still, why did Jesus consistently play down the spectacular? I can think of one reason. The spectacular never really convinces or converts anyone. Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus was challenged to do something spectacular, in order to prove who He was. Even on the cross He was challenged to get Himself down off that cross. But had He done so, it would not have made any difference. Jesus, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, said that even if one were to rise from the dead, he would not be believed if those same people had rejected the Old Testament scriptures (Luke 16:27‑31). If, as Jesus had said to Peter, that flesh and blood do not convince men of His identity, but rather the Father, then no spectacular miracle (or any combination of them) can convert lost men. Thus, our Lord does not play up this miracle on the mount of transfiguration.

The Meaning of the Miracle

But what did the miracle mean? Let us first consider the meaning of the miracle in the light of the developing argument of Luke’s gospel. The transfiguration was designed, I believe, to do several things:

(1) The transfiguration confirms the identification of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. When God the Father spoke of Jesus as His Son, He settled the matter of His identity forever. Peter’s confession was confirmed by God, dramatically, emphatically, finally.

(2) The transfiguration also identified the “kingdom” of which our Lord and His apostles spoke with the “kingdom” of which the Old Testament spoke, and for which the Jews were eagerly waiting.[169] Notice all of the similarities between the manifestation of the Mosaic Covenant and the “kingdom” which God established there after the exodus, with the phenomenon which took place on the mount of transfiguration. Moses was present here, as he was in Exodus (cf. chapters 19ff.). Moses went up to the top of the mountain (Exod. 19:3), just as Jesus took the three up the high mountain. In Exodus (24:16‑18) there was a cloud from which God spoke, just as God spoke from the bright cloud on the mount of transfiguration (cf. also the Shekinah glory, Exodus 40:34f.). The glory of God was made visible on the mount (Exodus 19:11), just as the glory of our Lord was made visible on the mount of transfiguration. On the mount, Jesus’ face glowed (cf. Matthew 17:2), like the face of Moses shone when he descended from the mount (Exodus 34:29‑35). All in all, the parallels are too many and too obvious not to conclude that the kingdom of which our Lord was King and that which was spoken of in the Old Testament were very much related.

(3) It clarifies that Jesus is neither Elijah nor Moses, but, indeed is One who is far Greater. We know that some thought Jesus was Elijah, while others thought he was a prophet raised from the dead (Luke 9:8, 19). Moses and Elijah were not only the two Old Testament personalities most closely associated with the coming kingdom, but also those whose identity was most confused with Jesus. When Jesus was set apart from all others as “the Son” by the Father, He was also distinguished from Moses and Elijah.

It almost seems that until the Father spoke from the cloud, Peter may have viewed Jesus, Moses, and Elijah as peers, as equals. If this was so, the statement by the Father made known the vast superiority of Jesus over all others, including Moses and Elijah, raised from the dead or not.

(4) The transfiguration demonstrates, once again, that the crown and the cross are a part of one plan. When Jesus was identified as the coming King by Peter, Peter was unwilling to accept the fact that Jesus would die on a cross. Peter was eager to have a King with a crown, but unwilling to have a King with a cross. The transfiguration welds together the glory of the coming kingdom with the “exodus” of Jesus at Jerusalem—the cross. What will eventually be made clear is that the cross was the path the Father had appointed to the crown.

(5) Finally, the transfiguration was a testimony to the fact that God is able to raise men from the dead, to possess the kingdom. The reason why Peter rejected the cross was that it seemed incompatible with the crown. How could one who dies live in the kingdom of God. Jesus taught that the one who gives up his life gains life. The presence of two Old Testament saints, both of whom were presumed dead,[170] alive and talking with Jesus, was testimony to the fact that death did not prevent a saint from participating in the kingdom of God to come.

The transfiguration of our Lord played a very significant role in the unfolding of God’s plan and purpose for Jesus, the Christ of God. It affirms in a dramatic way, that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hopes of the Old Testament saint, that He is the Messiah. But what other lessons did this event have for Peter, James, and John. I believe that the application is made perfectly clear by the Father’s words, “Listen to Him” (Luke 9:35).

The lesson may be stated as a principle with these words: IF JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, THE CHRIST OF GOD, THEN MEN HAD BETTER LISTEN CAREFULLY TO HIM

Peter had spoken well when he confessed Jesus to be God’s Messiah. He had never said anything more profound or more true. But the rest of what Peter said was neither true nor profitable. When Peter resisted the cross of Calvary, the thought as a man, and he spoke as though he were Satan. God’s words, spoken from the cloud were intended to silence Peter, to cause him to be more intent on listening than on speaking, to be more eager to learn from Christ than to correct Him. If Jesus was who Peter said He was, and who the Father indicated, then silence is more golden than speech. Peter had better speak less and listen more. God’s Messiah should be heard and His followers should be learners, listeners.

This principle is not a new one in Scripture. In Psalm 2, the bottom line of application is this: If Messiah is God’s Son, men had be in right relationship to Him. Look at the message of the psalm as a whole:

Psalm 2 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6 “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” 10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. 11 Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

The more men come to recognize the deity and the authority of Jesus, they more they become listeners and learners. The more they find silence appropriate in His presence. The lesson which God wanted Peter to learn is the same as that which the writer to the Hebrews is teaching:

Hebrews 1:1–2:5 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.” 8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” 10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” 13 To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? 1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. 5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

Peter, who did not write a gospel account, does refer to the transfiguration. Note that the message of the Father to the three (including him) is the same message which Peter passes on to his readers:

 2 Peter 1:12‑21 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. 16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And John, the author of the book of Revelation, gives this account of the vision of the glorified Lord, who seems to look much as he did when John saw Him on the mount of transfiguration.

Revelation 1:10‑20 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double‑edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The glorified Lord is the One who is speaking to the churches, through the words which are written in chapters 2 and 3. Take note of the one thing which is said to all of the churches:

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear … ” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

The final words of the book of Revelation once more remind us of this same principle:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18‑19).

Conclusion

If Jesus is God’s Messiah, the King who was appointed not only to die for man’s sins, but the King who will come (as Psalm 2 points out) to subdue His enemies, then we had better listen to Him now. This is the very message which Peter brought so forcefully to his countrymen in Acts chapter 2:

“For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “‘The Lord said to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:34‑36).

My friend, if you have not come to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as God’s King, then you are His enemy, and, a Peter reminds us from the Scriptures, He is coming again to punish those enemies. The application for you is exactly the same as that which Peter made to his audience:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God may call” (Acts 2:38‑39).

I urge you, my friend, if you have not acknowledged your sins, your rebellion against God, and trusted in Jesus as your sin‑bearer, then do so today, for a day will come when you must acknowledge Him as God’s King.

For all those of us, like Peter, who have come to trust in Jesus as the Savior, the application is that we must listen to Him. Surely none of those who have trusted in Him would deny this, but the question is, are we really listening to Him?

How is it that men can listen to Jesus today? There is but one primary answer, and that is that we listen to Him by reading His word. This is implied or stated often in the Bible. It is the clear inference in Hebrews 1 and 2. God has spoken finally and fully in the person of His Son. If men were to hear what God said in the Old Testament age, how much more must we listen to Him through His Son, the Living Word, and the written word which speaks of Him and for Him.

There are many “Christian” works available to us today, and unfortunately they are often not written or used to enhance our study of the Bible, but to replace it. It is amazing to me how many Christian “fad” books are popular. These are the kind of books which find their source of content in human wisdom, rather than in divine revelation. They do not point us to the Bible, but from it. Oh, the titles may sound Christian, but the theology is not. These books are here for a while, never again to be read or practiced, because they are already out of date or of fashion.

There is a statement that is popular in Christian circles today, coined (as I recall) by a godly man, which goes like this: ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH

I could not agree more. If it is true, then it is God’s truth. The problem is that if it is not biblical truth—truth clearly revealed in Scripture—then we don’t know whether it is truth or not. This statement, “All truth is God’s truth,” has become the banner for those who want to make the study of secular subjects their prime task. I fear that we use it as an excuse.

If I understand passages like 2 Timothy 3:15‑17 and 2 Peter 1:3‑4 correctly, there is no truth necessary for life or godliness which God has not revealed sufficiently in the Bible. For godly living there need not be any other source of revelation. If books and sermons enhance our study and our grasp of the Scriptures, then so much the better. If they hinder it, so much the worse. Let us listen to what our Lord says to us in His Word.

In principle we would surely all agree that we should listen to the Lord Jesus by reading His Word, but in practice we, like Peter do otherwise. Many Christians mistakenly suppose that listening to a preacher is listening to God’s Word. Not so! God has gifted men to teach His Word, but that is to enhance our understanding of the Word, not to replace our own study. It is obvious that men are fallible in their understanding of the Word, otherwise there would be no disagreement. God will hold us responsible for what we believe, not for what others have taught us. Let us do more listening.

We, like Peter, are often talking more about the Word than we are listening to it. I have attended many Bible studies where the mood, if not the stated emphasis went something like this: “Well, this is what this passage means to me … ” Frankly, most of us haven’t studied the text enough to have any opinion as to its meaning. We simply fill the air with our thoughts, rather than being preoccupied with God’s thoughts. Without knowing it, our words are like Peter’s—we don’t know what we are saying. The important thing is to learn what the text means, and then to ask ourselves what we are going to do about it. Let us listen more to God’s Word, and talk less about it.

There is a world of difference between what I would call “privatizing” Scripture and “personalizing” it. Privatizing Scripture is what Peter has warned us against doing in the first chapter of his second epistle. He has said, in effect, “God did not reveal prophecy through men who spoke their own minds, who wrote what they preferred. God directed men to write what He intended, He divinely inspired the Holy Scriptures to prevent them from being merely man’s ideas about God—ideas which are nearly always warped and distorted, just as Peter’s views of Messiah were in error. Peter’s words seem to say that just as God has guarded His Word through the process of inscripturization (the process through which the books of the Bible were written and preserved), so God has given His Spirit to men so that He can guide us to interpret the Scriptures correctly, for we are as able to distort Scripture in its interpretation as men were to distort it in its inscripturization (apart from God’s intervention and enablement). Let us, then, be on guard about making the Scriptures say what we would like them to, rather than allowing God to speak to us through them, often rebuking us, or enlarging our grasp of God’s goodness, His grace, His power, His holiness, and our fallenness, weakness, and need for forgiveness and enablement.

We often “listen” to God’s Word the same way that Peter did. We listen to the parts we like (i.e. the “crown”) and we reject the parts we dislike (i.e. the “cross”). We do not have this option. That is what the transfiguration was saying to Peter. The crown and the cross must be believed and practiced together. They cannot be neatly separated, so that we keep the parts of God’s plan which we find appealing and acceptable. How often when we do read the Word, we read it selectively, taking its promises, its hope, its comfort, but ignoring or setting aside its rebuke. The Words of the Father should be ringing in our ears: Since Jesus is the King, we had better to listen to what He says, all of what He says.

! Lesson 32:
Secular Saints
(9:37‑56)

Introduction

James was seventeen, three days a student at the Veterinary College in Scotland. Today he had attended his first class in animal husbandry and he was euphoric. His professor was one of those exceedingly talented men who could bring his subject to life. James was not just motivated to study horses, however, he felt he had come to know everything there was to know about these magnificent creatures. To enter into the role of the veterinarian more fully James bought a brand new riding mac with a full array of snaps and buckles which, he said, slapped against his legs as he walked.

Stepping out onto the street in front of the college, what should his eyes behold but a massive horse, standing passively before the coal cart which it was his task to pull about the streets of Scotland. It was not a beautiful specimen, for it was old and its back was swayed, but it was big and it was a horse. James stepped up to the animal, surveying it with what he believed to be the eye of a highly trained veterinarian. He identified the various parts of the creature’s anatomy, as he had just been taught the previous hour. The crowds passed by, oblivious to his expertise. Having finished his task, James started to walk away, then turned, intending to express to the horse his affection for the horse with a parting gesture.

James reached up, intending to pat the great beast on the neck, but the horse acted with unexpected speed, clamping his teeth firmly into the material of James’ new mac and lifting him from the ground. James dangled in mid‑air like a lop‑sided puppet. The passers‑by, once uninterested and unimpressed by his air of confidence, now pushed and shoved to get a better look at this bizarre spectacle. Some older ladies, took pity on James and pled for someone to come to his help. To James’ chagrin, the younger ladies giggled. James was mortified. Not only was he overcome with shame, his wind had been cut off by his new coat, and saliva from the horse’s mouth was running down his face.

Just then a little man pushed his way through the crowd. It was the coal dealer, the horse’s owner, who quickly sized up the situation and commanded his horse to drop James. When the horse hesitated, the coal dealer jabbed his thumb into the horse’s belly. Quickly the horse dropped James to the ground, gasping for air. As soon as he could get to his feet, James tried to disappear into the crowd, but he could not help but hear the advice of the horse’s owner, who shouted after him, “Dinna meddle wi’ things ye ken nuthin’ aboot!”

James did not let this initial setback keep him from pursuing his ambition to become a veterinarian. This is fortunate for us as well for James Herriot not only went on to become a veterinarian, but he also became a very popular author who has shared many of his experiences in his writings, such as in the book, All Creatures Great and Small, in which he tells the story about himself and the coal dealer’s horse.

The story of James Herriot reminds me a great deal of the disciples of our Lord in the events of Luke chapter 9. At the very beginning of the chapter, the disciples were sent out to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God (Luke 9:1‑6). This appears to be the disciples’ maiden voyage, as it were, upon the seas of public ministry, ministry which they conducted apart from the physical presence of the Lord Jesus. During this brief training mission, the disciples successfully preached and conducted healings, which included the casting out of all demons (9:1).

Now, at the end of chapter 9, they must feel even more equipped. They have participated in the feeding of the five thousand, and they have been a part of the great confession, at which time the identity of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah was professed. While the three are on the mount of transfiguration, observing the transformation of our Lord, along with Moses and Elijah, and hearing the testimony of the Father, the nine are down below, miserably failing in ministry.

I can imagine the disciples feeling just as confident as James Herriot on that day when the Lord was on the mount and they were left by themselves. What a golden opportunity. What a chance to “show their stuff.” When that father came along, begging them to cast the demon from his son, they must have felt absolutely capable, fully equipped to handle the situation. After all, had they not cast out all demons when they were sent out. “Sure. No Problem,” I can almost hear the nine saying. “Bring your son here. We’ll handle it.” What could possibly go wrong?

Plenty, as we can see. I can almost see one of the nine saying to the rest, “Step aside, let me handle this.” Whoever was first must have felt confident that a mere word would have delivered the child from his demon captor. It didn’t work, however. The demon did not obey. I can imagine the look of bewilderment on the face of that disciple. “What could I have done wrong?,” he may well have pondered. “Here, let me handle this,” says another of the nine. I wonder if every one of the nine tried their hand at exorcising the boy.

The more they tried, the more people gathered. And, it would seem, the more aggravated they became at the disciples’ impotence. The father certainly seems to show the signs of exasperation. From Mark’s account, it would appear that the Jewish religious leaders, the “teachers of the law” (Mark 9:14), took this occasion to harass the nine. They surely had the advantage, for the disciples could not produce any results. All the disciples could do was to debate, which Mark tells us they did. And to add to their humiliation, while the disciples were not able to cast out the demon from the boy, they came across a man who was successfully exorcising, and he wasn’t even a part of their group (cf. Luke 9:49). The final blow must have been the stinging words of our Lord,

“O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you and put up with you?” (Luke 9:41).

Something is definitely wrong. Discovering what it is that is wrong is the purpose of our lesson. It is my conviction that the same evils which plagued the disciples of our Lord have continued to plague the saints and the churches of our Lord throughout its history. Let us see what these evils are.

The Structure of the Text

The major divisions of the remainder of chapter 9 may be summarized as follows:

(1) 9:37‑43a—The Disciples’ Defeat: The Demonized Boy

(2) 9:43b‑45—The Disciples’ Dismay: Jesus’ Coming Death

(3) 9:46‑48—The Disciples’ Dispute: Who is the Greatest?

(4) 9:49‑50—The Disciples’ Dilemma: The Competition

(5) 9:51‑56—The Disciples’ Desire: “Smoke” the Samaritans

The Disciples’ Defeat
(9:37‑43)

The next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd met him. A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. A spirit seizes him and he suddenly screams; it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth. It scarcely ever leaves him and is destroying him. I begged your disciples to drive it out, but they could not.” “O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.” Even while the boy was coming, the demon threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the evil spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father. And they were all amazed at the greatness of God (Luke 9:37‑43).

Jesus is gone, but the nine disciples were likely undaunted by the request of a concerned father to cast the demon from his son. The demon caused epileptic‑like symptoms, among others. The boy would scream, go into convulsions, and foam at the mouth (Luke 9:39). The demon would also attempt to destroy the boy by causing him to fall into fire or water (Matthew 17:15). But this was not all. He was also possessed by a spirit which Jesus called a “deaf and mute spirit” (Mark 9:25). All in all, the boy’s life was in constant danger and his life was one of sheer torture, not to mention the agony which this caused his parents. The father was desperate, but the disciples were defeated in their attempts to cast out the demon.

A large crowd was gathered about the nine, it would seem not an entirely friendly crowd, for among them were “teachers of the law,” who were arguing with them (cf. Mark 9:14). The crowd was delighted to see Jesus return and rushed to Him. The man with the demonized child begged Jesus to rid the child of his demonic oppressor. He hastened to point out that he begged the disciples to do it, but that they were unable.

In a way, our Lord’s response catches us off guard:

“O unbelieving and perverse generation. How long shall I stay with you and put up with you?” (Luke 9:41).

Of whom is our Lord speaking, when He says this? Is He speaking of the father, of the crowds, or of the disciples? My understanding, based on our Lord’s choice of the term “generation,” is that Jesus was referring to all: The father, the disciples, the “teachers of the law,” and the crowds.

The father was unbelieving, as can be seen more clearly from Mark’s account.

“It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” “ ‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.” Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” (Mark 9:22‑24).

This is not all, however, for the disciples were also unbelieving, as can be seen from Matthew’s account:

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:19‑21).

If our Lord’s words of exasperation reveal anything to us, it is how much our unbelief displeases Him. His words further reveal the suffering which His incarnation caused Him. How much easier it had been, and would be, for our Lord to have stayed in heaven, than to have come to earth, to dwell among sinful, unbelieving men.

Think about it for a moment. God did not have to come to dwell among men, as Christ did in His incarnation. God did not have to come to save men, which His incarnation was purposed to accomplish. Nor did God have to use men in reaching others with the good news.

Perhaps we can better understand the frustration of our Lord with men, all men including (perhaps especially, at this point) the disciples, by considering the way in which God often chose to “get things done.” In the Bible, God very often employed angels to accomplish His purposes. Can you ever think of an instance in the Bible in which an angel argued with God about what He was doing, or how He was doing it? Now think about the disciples. They often differed with the Lord. Peter set out to set Jesus straight on a number of things (cf. Matthew 16:22‑23). Can you ever think of a time when an angel failed at his task? But here, as elsewhere, the disciples failed. No wonder Jesus viewed His days with men in terms of suffering. God suffers from our hardness of hearts, from our unbelief. It is a cause of grief to Him. And yet, He bears this burden for our benefit. He endures our sin, in order to save us, and even to use us in the achievement of His purposes on the earth. This is one of the great wonders of all time—that God puts up with men.

What the disciples could not do, Jesus did, by merely speaking a word. The rebel demon in the boy gave a last burst of defiant energy, and came out of him. All were amazed at the power of God manifested through Jesus.

The disciples were bewildered. They could not understand how they could deliver from demonic control in the past, but not now. Both Matthew and Mark record the private query of the disciples as to why they were unable to cast out this demon:

After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer” (Mark 9:28‑29).

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 9:19‑21).

I wondered why Luke does not include this information. Why would he not tell us the problem and give us a clue to its solution? After some thought, it occurred to me that only Luke’s account of this event is followed up by yet another volume—the book of Acts. The book of Acts describes a dramatic reversal of the problems manifested in the lives of the disciples at this point in time. The disciples suffer, as Jesus said, from unbelief, from a lack of faith. The manifestation of this is their lack of prayer. And the result is a lack of power. In the book of Acts we find faith, prayer, and power. Luke saves the good news, the solution, for his second book. Matthew and Mark give us the solution now, for they do not have another book left to write. We will say more of this later.

The Disciples’ Dismay
(9:43b‑45)

When the disciples were with the Lord in Galilee (Matthew 17:22; Mark 9:30), Jesus once again informed them of His coming death and resurrection:

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it (Luke 9:43b‑45).

Jesus began by telling the disciples to “listen carefully,” an expression which should have been especially significant to the three, who had heard the Father’s exhortation to “listen to” the Jesus, Messiah (Luke 9:35). He then went on, once again, to tell of His coming death and resurrection. The disciples did not yet understand what He meant, although they were grieved by His words (Matthew 9:23). They would feared to ask Jesus what He meant (Luke 9:45).

The Disciples’ Dispute
Luke 9:46‑48

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest” (Luke 9:46‑48).

The disciples may have feared asking Jesus about His death, but they were not reticent or ashamed to ask Him about their own positions in the kingdom. Luke tells us that the disciples disputed among themselves concerning who was the greatest. Jesus, knowing their motives, raised the issue with them. Matthew tells us that when the disciples came to Jesus, they did not ask Him directly about their own position or greatness, but that they veiled their ambition:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me (Matthew 18:1‑5).

The disciples’ debate about their own greatness may well have been precipitated by the disaster the nine experienced with the demonized boy. When the twelve were all together, how easy it would have been for the three, having had their private glorious experience on the mount of transfiguration, to have come down on the nine for their failure to exorcise the boy. I can easily imagine how the argument might have gone. “Man, you mean you guys weren’t even able to cast a demon out of a boy? Well, when John and I went out we really put the demons on the run, didn’t we John?” “You guys just needed an expert along.” How easy for the three to look down their spiritual noses at the nine.

The lesson which Jesus taught His disciples is a very interesting one. He took a child and said that anyone who ministered to that child in His name was actually ministering to Him. I think I know why Jesus found it necessary to use this lesson. If you are concerned about your status in ministry, you measure the significance of your ministry by the significance of your audience. To minister to a “significant person” is, in effect, to be a significant person. To minister to the insignificant—say, a child—is to have an insignificant ministry, and thus is equated to being insignificant. This is a pagan point of view, but it seems to be the viewpoint of the disciples here. And, it is typical of the thinking of Christians down through the ages. Among pastors, do you think it is unnoticed who has the biggest church, the wealthiest church, the fastest growing church, the most up and coming congregation? You bet it does, and the motivation behind it all reeks of the same value system that plagued the disciples of our Lord. Jesus taught that it did not matter to whom you ministered because all ministry should be ministry to Christ and for Christ. To welcome a child is to welcome Him. To serve a child is to serve Him.

Here is a lesson which needs to be learned by many of us. How many times have I heard someone say (or imply) when offered a seemingly “non‑status” ministry that what they really had in mind was something “more significant.” Usually this translates to the group of recipients being bigger, more important, and the ministry position having more status. Our Lord taught that all such thinking is anti‑Christian. It is only competition and ambition concealed in a cloak of piety.

The Disciples’ Dilemma
(9:49‑50)

Competition (for this is really what ambition produces) is not only found in its many‑faceted personal forms, but also in various collective versions. Thus, we come to the next event in Luke’s gospel, the case of the non‑franchised, non‑ordained, non‑approved exorcist:

“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem (Luke 9:49‑50).

Apparently the disciples were not successful in stopping this exorcist, either, for they tell the Lord that they tried to stop him. Isn’t it interesting that this group of men who fought with one another for position also resisted anyone else having a successful ministry. If they were unable to successfully cast out a demon, why should they allow this “outsider” to do so? Jesus responded by rebuking the disciples, reminding them that anyone who was not against them, anyone who was doing good in His name, was no enemy.

The Disciples’
Desire: Smoke the Samaritans
(9:51‑56)

As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village (Luke 9:51‑56).

It is indeed ironic. The Lord has repeatedly told His disciples that He would be rejected by the Jews and specifically by the Jewish religious leaders. He is now resolutely headed toward Jerusalem, where His rejection and death were soon to take place. On the way to this city which would reject her King, the Lord passes through Samaria. The determination of our Lord reflected in verse 51 is similar to that described in John chapter 4, where John tells his reader that Jesus “had to go through Samaria” (John 4:4). In this particular town, the Lord and His disciples were rejected, not because they were Jews so much as that they were headed for Jerusalem.

Two of the three disciples who had accompanied Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, James and John were incensed. Righteous indignation simply oozed from them. They requested the Lord’s permission to “smoke the Samaritans” by calling down fire from heaven on them, much as Elijah (whom they had just seen on the mount of transfiguration) had done to the Israelite soldiers sent out against him in 2 Kings chapter 1, who were acting like Samaritans. James and John, like Jonah, would rather watch their enemy suffer the wrath of God than to experience His grace. The disciples would have enjoyed calling down fire from heaven to destroy their enemies.

Jesus rebuked them. It was a very thinly veiled racial and cultural prejudice that motivated the disciples, not at all in keeping with the spirit or the intent of Jesus’ coming to earth. He had come to save, not to destroy. And what it particularly interesting is that the motivation of the disciples in wanting to “smoke the Samaritans” is precisely the same as the Samaritans’ motive for not welcoming them because they were on their way to Jerusalem— racism. The disciples found the Samaritans worthy of death for their prejudice, but did not recognize the same evil in themselves.

Conclusion

Our text reveals several serious problems with the disciples that must be dealt with. Not only are these problems which plagued and paralyzed the Lord’s disciples, they are problems which have hindered saints and the church throughout the church’s history. Let us first summarize the failures of the disciples, as seen in our text:

PROBLEM ONE: THE DISCIPLES SUFFERED FROM A LACK OF POWER.

When begged by a desperate father to cast a demon out of a child, the nine disciples are not able to do it. The disciples’ impotence is highlighted by the fact that another, who was not one of their number was, successfully exorcising in that area (cp. Luke 9:49). It is not that the disciples had not done so before (Luke 9:1‑6), but only that they now were unable.

The disciples’ inability to cure the demonized child is not due to any lack of power, for our Lord’s words make it evident that they could have exorcised the child if they had prayed and fasted. They did not experience the power of God for two principle reasons:

They did not feel the need to rely on the Lord for power.

They would have misused this power, either to further their own position, or to judge their enemies (e.g. the Samaritans).

PROBLEM TWO: THE DISCIPLES SUFFERED FROM A LACK OF UNITY.

The disciples were marked by dissension at this point in time. They were arguing with the “teachers of the law” (Mark 9:14). They were arguing with each other (Luke 9:46; Mark 9:33). They were even trying to interfere with the ministry of a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name, but was not one of them (Luke 9:49).

PROBLEM THREE: THE DISCIPLES SUFFERED FROM A LACK OF COMPASSION.

When the disciples asked the Lord’s permission to “torch” the Samaritan city, their request betrayed yet another serious weakness. It betrayed a deep‑seated prejudice, the kind which hindered the church and which was a direct affront to the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 15; Galatians 2:11‑21). While the outward symptom is that of cruelty and severity, the root problem is even more lethal—self‑righteousness. The disciples, like the Jews of their day, felt smugly superior to the Samaritans. They despised the “lowly” Samaritans, just as the scribes and Pharisees disdained “sinners,” now realizing that they were great sinners themselves.

The disciples manifested the same spirit which we have seen in the prophet Jonah—that self‑righteous spirit which resists proclaiming the gospel to those of another race, preferring instead to see their destruction. It is the same spirit which prevailed in Judaism in Jesus’ day. This is why the once enthusiastic Jewish audience in the synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Luke 4:1ff.) suddenly turned on Jesus, when He makes mention of the blessing of the Gentiles in the past.

The application of our text is based upon a very simple, but profound principle: JUST AS THERE IS NO TEMPTATION WHICH IS NOT COMMON TO MAN, NEITHER IS THERE ANY SIN WHICH IS NOT ALSO COMMON TO MAN

The sins of the disciples are not unique, but are as common as the cold. As we seek to learn how this text applies to us, we must recognize that the problems of the disciples are precisely those which have been evident in the church throughout its history, and which are hindering the church to this very day. Let us see how a lack of power, a lack of unity, and a lack of unity are the malady of all men, and not just of the disciples.

Powerlessness is not merely a symptom of a problem in the lives of the nine; it is symptomatic of an anemic church today as well. Paul wrote of those in the last days who would have “a form of godliness, but denying it power” (2 Timothy 3:5). The church at Sardis seemed to suffer from listless, lifelessness, too (Revelation 3:1‑6). It is my opinion that the church today is suffering from a lack of power, rooted in prayerlessness, the origin of which is to be found in a lack of faith. If we really believed that God is able to do “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3;20), we would be much more at prayer, and the power of God would be much more evident in our midst. The disciples are not that different from us, are they?

Disunity and division has and continues to plague the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as it did the disciples. The church at Corinth was very clearly a divided church. They divided over their leaders (1 Corinthians 1:10‑12), over the one who baptized them (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:13‑17), over their personal rights (1 Corinthians 6:6‑13), and over their spiritual gifts (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1ff.). Strife and division is found frequently in the churches of New Testament times (cf. Galatians 5:15; Philippians 4:2; James 4:1‑2). In America, success is the standard of one’s worth. Competition is the name of the game, not cooperation. Church splits, denomination divisions, and other forms of strife are very commonplace events. The disciples’ difficulty is ours as well.

A lack of compassion is also a universal problem. The Old Testament prophets frequently called on the nation Israel to manifest compassion. The prodigal prophet, Jonah, was typical of the nation Israel in his cruelty and lack of compassion with regard to his enemies, the Ninevites. We, too, lack compassion. When we hear of a homosexual, dying of aids, there is all too often a sense of satisfaction in this—”They deserve it!” we say to ourselves. And so they do. But we deserve the outpouring of God’s wrath, too. Our sins are as offensive to God as theirs, but we would rather that our enemies suffered God’s wrath than His grace. We are often hard and callused to the sufferings of men and women about us. We justify our severity by thinking that sin is the reason for the suffering of others, and that righteousness is the basis of our blessings.

We now need to recognize another principle, which is necessary if we are to understand this text in Luke’s gospel: SINS OFTEN HAVE A PIOUS VENEER, A RELIGIOUS SUGAR‑COATING, WHICH MAKES THE SINS APPEAR EVEN VIRTUOUS.

None of the three sins of the disciples is recognized as sin by them. Indeed, they seem to have thought of their attitudes and actions as virtuous. Sin is like that. Some may be enticed by sin by knowing it is wrong (“stolen water is sweet,” Proverbs 9:17), but sin is especially enticing for the religious by thinking it is virtuous. The disciples thought their indignation and intentions of burning the Samaritan city were righteous. They no doubt viewed being “first in the kingdom” as a noble goal as well. And they were doing Jesus a favor by seeking to prohibit an unauthorized man from exorcising demons. How much easier it is for us to justify our sins by feeling that we are duty bound to do them. Beware of sins with pious exteriors!

There is another principle which is essential to the interpretation and application of our text, and it is this: SOME SINS ARE SYMPTOMATIC, ROOTED IN OTHER SINS, WHICH MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND DEALT WITH IF WE ARE TO BE FREED OF THE SYMPTOM SINS.

Abraham’s sin of lying (about the identity of his wife, Sarah—cf. Genesis 12:10‑20; 20:1‑18) was rooted in a deeper sin—lack of faith. It was not until Abraham’s faith grew that his sin of lying was remedied. So, too, with the “symptom sins” of the disciples. Each of the sins of the disciples was rooted in a deeper sin:

Recognizing the problems of the disciples and knowing that we share them does not explain to us how these problems can be solved. Some would point to the book of Acts for the solution. When we come to the book of Acts, we do discover a dramatic change in the lives of the disciples in the very areas which we have discussed. Notice these words:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: “‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.’ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need (Acts 4:23‑35).

The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed (Acts 5:12‑16).

In place of self‑sufficiency and a lack of power we find faith, prayer, and the power of God manifested in the lives of the disciples. In the place of the self‑seeking, competition, and disunity, we find a oneness of heart and mind. In place of self‑righteousness and a lack of compassion, we find great compassion shown to the needy. But while Acts reports that a dramatic change has come to the disciples, where is the description of what the cure is? What is it that changed the disciples?

I know that there are some who would like to suggest to us that the solution to the lack of power in the lives of the disciples was the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The coming of the Spirit did make a significant impact on the disciples, but the simplistic view that one needs only to have a dramatic experience with the Holy Spirit simply does not square with the Scriptures. The early church, as found in the early chapters of the book of Acts, was a dynamic and powerful church, but as time went on, carnality crept into the church. Even believers who had received the Holy Spirit and who possessed the gift of tongues manifested the same symptoms which we see in the disciples’ lives in Luke chapter 9.

The solution to the problems of self‑sufficiency, of self‑seeking, and of self‑righteousness are to be found in realizing the sinfulness of these conditions, and then, by God’s grace and enablement, taking up our cross, and following Him. It means, in the words of the New Testament, putting to death the old nature, it means putting off the old man and putting on the new. It means walking in the Spirit, and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. It means living by faith, and not by sight.

As we conclude, let us look to the New Testament epistles in order to see that it is the cross of Christ which is the key to each of the three problems which plagued the disciples and which continue to plague us.

(1) The problem of self-sufficiency and a corresponding lack of power is solved by the cross of Christ, which is the power of the gospel.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile Romans 1:16).

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate” (1 Corinthians 1:18‑19).

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power (1 Corinthians 2:2‑5).

(2) The problems of self-seeking and disunity is solved by imitating Christ in taking up His cross. Paul tells the fragmented church at Philippi that imitating Christ was the means to turn self‑seeking into self‑sacrifice and discord into unity.

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like‑minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:1‑11).

(3) The problems of self-righteousness and its resulting lack of compassion are solved, once again, by the cross of Christ. The apostle Paul confesses that he once felt “self‑righteous” as a devout Jew, but that when he came by faith to the cross of Christ, he now counted those things in which he once took pride as dung:

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death (Philippians 3:1‑10).

The problem of the disciples and its solution is nowhere more concisely summed up and solved as it is in the epistle of James. Let us conclude by pondering his inspired words and their application to the sins of the disciples as well as our own:

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures (James 4:1‑3).

! Lesson 33:
Conflicting Commitments
(Luke 9:57-62)

57 And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 And another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Introduction

I once had a cow named Star. My family decided that Star was not going to produce milk, and so they decided to make hamburger of her. I planned to load Star up on the back of our unlicensed pickup and to run away from home with her. Incidentally, I was too young for a driver’s license at the time. I relented, and eventually even ate some of the hamburger, but I didn’t like losing Star.

Someone once wrote a book entitled, Sacred Cows Make Good Hamburger. I have never read the book, but I like the title. Sacred cows do may make good hamburger, but making hamburger of sacred cows isn’t a very popular thing to do. The fact is that every culture, even our Christian culture, has its “sacred cows.” And while such cows often need to become hamburger, those who try to make hamburger of them are often “slaughtered” for trying to do so. As I read through the Old Testament, I find that the prophets were always trying to make hamburger of Israel’s sacred cows, and they were constantly being slaughtered (at least persecuted) for it.

Sacred cows are hard to kill, precisely because they are sacred. A trip to India will bring this fact to life. It is one thing to hold some belief or to have some practice that we admit is wrong. But some of us have become quite skillful at practicing what is evil, and being commended for it because we have been able to convince others that this vice is actually a virtue. This enables us to cling to it vehemently and to practice it zealously, because in so doing (we think) we are doing that which is good. Our sacred cows may be evil, but if we can convince ourselves that they are really sacred, we can cling to them. Better yet, if we can convince others they are sacred, we will be praised for persisting at them.

I am convinced that one of the sacred cows of our Christian culture at this time is “the family.” Working hard to “get rich” is perhaps unacceptable, but working hard “to provide for one’s family” becomes a virtue for which one is praised. Self-indulgence may be considered a vice, but if I give my family a “much needed vacation” or I buy a “place on the lake” or a “condo in Colorado” so that I can spend “quality time with my family” I am a Christian hero, upheld by many as a model for others to imitate.

Please do not get me wrong. The family is a wonderful institution. God created the family, and it is a great blessing. We are to provide for our families. And we are living in a culture which is destructive to the family. Often it is because the family is under attack in our culture that we have sometimes overreacted, making the family the number one priority, and in so doing, we have made it a sacred cow.

When Jesus came to the earth, he angered many by exposing some of the “sacred cows” of His day. Jesus made it clear that these “sacred cows” had to be slaughtered if one were to be a follower of Christ. In the concluding verses of Luke chapter 9 our Lord has some very disturbing words for those who have made a sacred cow of the family. Let us listen well to these words of our Lord. Let us not take them beyond what He intended. But let us not fail to take them seriously enough, just because they attack one of the “sacred cows” of contemporary Christianity.

Background

In the last message we dealt principally with our Lord’s teaching of His twelve disciples. There, we identified some of the problems that were plaguing them. We said they had a:

(1) Lack of power — the disciples could not cast a demon out of a boy.

(2) Lack of unity — the disciples could not be of one mind because they were each debating with each other about who would be the greatest in the kingdom.

(3) Lack of compassion — they wanted to use the power of God to torch a Samaritan town rather than to save it.

These problems reveal a failure on the part of the twelve disciples to truly understand discipleship as our Lord had been teaching it. The closing verses of chapter 9 involves discipleship too, but with a broader group of “disciples.” Here, our Lord’s focus is not merely on the twelve disciples, but on the larger group of “disciples” who had been following Him.

When we look at verse 1 of chapter 10, we realize that the Lord is going to send out 70 (or 72, depending upon how you read the original text) disciples[171] to proclaim the gospel. Matthew 8:19-22 is the only parallel Gospel account. There, it is obvious that the person who offers to follow Jesus as one of His disciples is not one of the 12. And so we understand that in this text Jesus is addressing a broader group of disciples than just the 12. A man (Matthew tells us he is “a certain scribe” – 8:19) tells Jesus that he will follow Him, but first he needs to bury his father. If we have identified the earlier problems of the 12 disciples as a lack of power, a lack of unity, and a lack of compassion, the problem here would be a lack of commitment, for indeed, this man has a divided loyalty. The principle that underlies our Lord’s teaching in our text is:

Anything that competes with Christ for our loyalty must be forsaken as an idol.

I must admit that I become uneasy the more I begin to grasp what our Lord means by this. I suspect that it will make you uneasy as well, as we study this matter further.

In our Lord’s description of the three would-be disciples in our text, the commitment of each is faulty, because it has implied limits. Our Lord addresses the limits each has placed on his commitment; He calls our attention to the exception clauses – the fine print – of each person’s promise to follow Him. Notice that in none of these three cases are we told whether or not the person ultimately followed Christ. That is not the point Luke wants to get across to us. Rather, he wants us to begin to recognize some of some of those things that rival and thus hinder our commitment to Christ. Jesus is identifying those things that we love more than Christ, which undermine true discipleship. This is a critical text, one to which we must listen very carefully. Those things that Jesus identifies as hindrances to our commitment are what I am calling “sacred cows.”

The Three Volunteers

The final paragraph of Luke chapter 9 focuses on three “volunteer disciples.” Each of these men offers to follow Jesus. Luke has each man give us one statement regarding his commitment. He then reports to us what our Lord had to say to each man in response to his offer. There is something wrong with the commitment of each of these three men. The first of these appears to volunteer unconditionally. The second appears to have an emergency, which will delay his commitment, but just for a time. The third volunteer seems ready to follow Jesus immediately, but just wants to say good-bye to his family before he leaves. In each case, the commitment to follow Jesus seems sincere, and the level of commitment looks acceptable to the reader. I fear that I would have approved the “application” of each of these three men.

Jesus does not the way that I would have. His words in response to each volunteer surprise and even amaze us. It looks to us as though Jesus does not want volunteers at all, as though He is trying to drive people off, rather than to “attract” followers. Why is Jesus so discouraging to these volunteers? What kind of discipleship does Jesus require? In each case, the response of our Lord is instructive. Taken together, the commitments of these three volunteers and the correction of our Lord are very instructive concerning Christian discipleship. My approach will be to look at each volunteer, and especially the commitment that each would be willing to make as a follower of Jesus. I will then focus on our Lord’s response to each, and seek to learn what was wrong with the offer of each volunteer. We will seek to sum it all up, so that we can see how much of the discipleship of our Lord’s day was not good enough for the Master. Finally, we will consider how our Lord’s words on discipleship relate to Christians and non-believers today.

Unlimited Commitment? (9:57-58)

The first would-be disciple approaches Jesus with what appears to be a very simple and unlimited commitment: “I will follow You wherever You go” (verse 57). What could be more clear? How could our Lord hope for any better volunteer, any better “disciple” than this? Our Lord is obviously not satisfied, as we can see from His response: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (verse 58). We need to remember that we can only observe “outward appearance,” while our Lord “looks upon the heart” (see 1 Samuel 16:7). Jesus knows that this man cannot be a true disciple.

Our Lord could have corrected this man for what he did not say. He told Jesus that he would follow Him wherever He went. Jesus could have chastised him for not being more committed than this. This man’s commitment was geographical, that is he was willing to follow Jesus anywhere … the beaches of Hawaii, the slopes of Aspen, Colorado, anywhere, … or so he said. But would he have followed Jesus to Jerusalem, knowing that our Lord’s death was certain? I think not.

Even if this man’s commitment to Christ would have caused him to go anywhere Jesus went, is following Jesus only a matter of geography? This first volunteer is something like a man that is joining the army. He tells the recruiting sergeant that he will go anywhere the army will send him. But does this mean that the man is willing to give up his baggy pants for a neatly pressed uniform? Is he willing to exchange long, unkempt hair for a buz cut? Will he submit to the rigors of boot camp? Will he take orders? Will he risk his life in warfare? Will he shoot missiles or drop bombs that will take many lives?

Jesus takes this man’s offer at face value. Does the man say that he will follow Jesus wherever He goes? Jesus will now put this man’s commitment to the test. Jesus says to him in effect, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. You say you will follow Me anywhere. I do not own a home. I do not even have a place that I can call ‘home.’ I do not even own my own bed. Are you willing to follow Me under these conditions?”

One of our elders used to say that his version of “roughing it” when camping out was a Holiday Inn. Did this would-be disciple think that Jesus and His disciples were staying in a penthouse suite in the Hilton? Obviously this man’s commitment to follow Jesus “anywhere He went” had some limitations. His commitment was not unlimited at all, but very limited. He did promise to “follow Jesus” in every respect, but only to follow Him in terms of geography. And he did not at all mean to say that he would follow Jesus anywhere, if that meant living in sub-standard accommodations. What once looked like unconditional commitment now, under the scrutiny of our Lord’s questioning, looks very conditional and hardly acceptable.

This man’s focus is on where he would be willing to go; Jesus’ focus is on what one is willing to leave behind in order to go. Following Jesus requires leaving; specifically, it requires leaving home. Foxes have holes; that’s where they live. That’s where they have a foxy little fox and a little lair of foxes. Isn’t that what it’s all about for a fox? Birds have nests, and what is found in nests? Mamma birds, eggs, and then eventually little baby birds – that’s home. Jesus is saying to this man, “You don’t really understand what you’re saying. In order to follow Me you must be willing to leave everything behind, even what you call ‘home.’”

When this man talks about following Jesus, he is thinking about accompanying Him to this or that town. Jesus says, “No, following Me requires that you imitate Me in every aspect of My life and ministry. It is patterning your life after My life, and that means much more than just being willing to move from one place to another, as romantic as that sounds.” We don’t know how this man responded to our Lord’s amazing response. Certainly he was taken aback. After all, what up and coming religious leader turned away followers? We don’t know whether this man ever became a true disciple of our Lord. The impression we are left with is that he went away, shaking his head, something like the rich young ruler. The one thing this man did learn was that his idea of discipleship was a whole lot different than that of the Master.

“Delayed Commitments” (9:59-62)

The last two volunteers exemplify what I call delayed “delayed commitments.” Notice that in both cases the key word each man uses is “first:” “Permit me first” (verse 59), and, “but first permit me … ” (verse 61).Notice also that in these instances nobody has said anything about not following Christ. What they are talking about is following Christ “when,” following Christ “if,” and following Christ “after.” These two men fully intend to be our Lord’s disciples sometime and somehow, but not immediately. Thus we have these two offers of delayed commitment.

The first delay looks like a perfect excuse for one’s absence, doesn’t it? Think back on your college days when your professor probably said something like this: “There is only one excuse for not being here to take this exam, and that’s death.” He would then pause for effect, and then add: “And I’m talking about your death.” We all know that a death in the family, especially the death of one’s father, is a valid reason for taking time off work or putting something off for a while. If you were to hear of the death of your father, would you not stop your work as quickly as possible, and go to attend to the needs of the family, and in particular to make arrangements for the funeral? Would you not be there as quickly as you could if it were possible? Of course you would. The death of one’s father is regarded as an acceptable excuse for putting some important obligations off for a little while.

Some students of the Bible tell us that this “father” has not really died yet. Therefore, what this “disciple” is saying is that he must stay home with his parents until that time when his father dies, which may be a number of years off. The text doesn’t really tell us this. Let’s give this would-be disciple the benefit of the doubt and suppose that his father died that morning, and that he’s going to be buried that night. Now suppose that this man to whom Jesus has just said, “Follow Me,”[172] is the oldest son. As the oldest son, he would be expected to stop what he was doing and to handle all of the arrangements. It is regarded as his duty. In spite of all this, Jesus says to this volunteer, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60).

Isn’t Jesus being unduly demanding? Couldn’t Jesus have said to him, “I’ll tell you what, we’re going to go on. Why don’t you finish up with your father’s funeral and then catch up with us on our way to Jerusalem. We understand this is difficult for you, so just do what you’ve got to do. After all, it’s only 24 hours, so get your father buried, get your affairs in order, and then come join us.” Jesus does not say that. What Jesus says is rather shocking, and it flies in the face of what everybody expects. The man’s request for a delay seems reasonable until you begin to look at what Jesus says in response. Jesus’ response brings His divine insight to bear on the problem. If the man were in military service, we’d have flown him home. If your father is sick or dying, even if you are in prison, they’ll often let you out of prison to visit your dying father. When there is a death in the family, people are usually willing to set aside normal routines so that one’s family obligations can be fulfilled. Jesus challenges us on this point, “No, you must follow Me now, rather than to take the time to bury your father.” He now will tell us why. Ultimately, it all comes down to what is most important.

I want to be sensitive about this, but I also must get down to the basic realities of life. What does burying this man’s father entail? It involves preparing the body, securing a burial spot, putting the body in it, and covering (or sealing) it up. Burial is disposing of the dead body of the deceased. Is there some reason why the oldest son can do this better than anybody else? When our Lord says, “Let the dead bury their own dead,” He is saying that that is a job anybody can do. More pointedly, an unbeliever (“the dead”) can handle a burial as well as a believer. In fact, our Lord indicates that it would be better if an unbeliever buried the dead, rather than one of His disciples.

Please do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that our Lord’s words here set down a hard and fast rule prohibiting Christians from being involved in funerals. I am saying that if I were forced to choose between following Jesus and burying my father, I would have to choose to follow Jesus to be a true disciple. Consider the eternal value of these two activities: (1) of burying the dead; or, (2) of preaching the gospel by which men can enter into eternal life. The former does nothing that others who are spiritually dead cannot do; the latter proclaims a message by which men can escape the bonds of death and receive the gift of eternal life. Is that not what the gospel is all about? From Abraham, who reasoned that God was able to raise men from the dead, and all the way through the Old Testament, this is what the gospel is about. Consider these words of Job: “And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth” (Job 19:25).

The gospel is the offer of the gift of eternal life, life that extends beyond the grave. If one must choose between the two activities of digging a grave, or of preaching the gospel, which is more important? Viewed from this perspective, the sobering words of our Lord make a great deal of sense, do they not? Doesn’t following Jesus now appear to be vastly more important than staying back to bury your father, if you must choose only one of the two? Obviously for most of us, we don’t have to make that choice. As part of our Christian responsibility to our family, we carry out such duties as burying the dead. But if we had to make the choice, as some people have, between following Christ and fulfilling our family duties, which would we choose? Jesus suggests that the answer to this question should be determined according to what is eternally more important.

The third man (whom the Gospel of Matthew does not mention) says, “I will follow you Lord, but first let me go back and say good-bye to my family.” (Luke 9:61)

This requested delay, in contrast to the one above, seems so trivial, doesn’t it? Our response might be, “Well, sure why not, what’s another thirty minutes? No problem.” In the case of the second volunteer, there seem to be compelling reasons for a would-be disciple to wait to follow Jesus until after the dead have been buried. In the case of the third volunteer, the delay seems so minimal that it hardly appears to matter one way or the other. In fact, we find that when Elisha did just this, he was not condemned for doing so:

19 So he departed from there and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, while he was plowing with twelve pairs of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth. And Elijah passed over to him and threw his mantle on him. 20 And he left the oxen and ran after Elijah and said, “Please let me kiss my father and my mother, then I will follow you.” And he said to him, “Go back again, for what have I done to you?” 21 So he returned from following him, and took the pair of oxen and sacrificed them and boiled their flesh with the implements of the oxen, and gave it to the people and they ate. Then he arose and followed Elijah and ministered to him (1 Kings 19:19-21).

Jesus doesn’t see it that way. He says, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)

Why does He say this when the man only wants to go back and say good-bye to his family? Jesus sets down a principle that every farmer would understand: You can’t plow a straight row looking backward.

If you want to plow a straight furrow, you must keep the plow lined up by fixing on some object ahead, and aiming toward it. Anyone who tries to plow while looking backward is in trouble. It would be similar to attempting to drive while looking only at the rear view mirror.

It is as though Jesus knows that if this man went back to his family to say good-bye, he would be talked out of following Him. His father might take him aside and remind him of his obligations to his family. His wife might remind him that she was pregnant, and that this was no time for reckless decisions. His mother might start sobbing uncontrollably. It was not his going back to say good-bye that was wrong; it was that doing so would keep him from following Christ.[173] After the Israelites were delivered from their Egyptian slavery, when things got tough, some of the people began to “look back” to Egypt, as though returning to Egypt would be better than going on to the promised land. And so it was that they went so far as to talk of killing Moses, and of appointing another leader who would lead them back to Egypt. When they looked back, their hearts were not fully committed to going forward. And so Jesus seems to be saying that anything that turns our hearts from a full commitment to follow Christ should be avoided, even though it may seem insignificant, even though it may look like the proper thing to do. If going back to say good-bye to your family would lead you to turn from your commitment to Christ, it is something that should be avoided like a plague.

I believe our Lord knew that this man still had a yearning to stay home, rather than to follow Him. I see similar things happening over and over again today. I have dealt with a number of men who were involved in illicit and adulterous relationships. When confronted with their sin, they acknowledge it (often), and then they tend to say something like this: “Listen, just let me go back to my lover and explain to her why I can’t keep this up.” Do you know what I tell that person? “No, burn your bridges! Don’t go back, even to say good-bye.” In seeking to go back, we often want to savor our sin just a little bit longer, just one more time. Don’t do it, and don’t allow others to do it, either! Don’t go to the refrigerator and open the door if you’ve just committed yourself to a diet.

I believe that this also applies to substance abuse. Some people who are addicted to a particular substance just keep wandering back to that same old group of friends who abuse the same substance, to that same old place of failure. They go back to that same old environment, that same old place of temptation and failure. All they’re really doing is looking to rekindle the old fires again. You must not go back to those sins that enslave you, not if you are committed to follow another master (see Romans 6). You’ve got to burn your bridges. This applies to every one of us, in every area of our lives. We are tempted to keep going back to our old ways, to our old sins, but the Bible keeps saying to us, “Don’t go back.”

Qualified Commitments:
Hindrances to Following Christ

These, then, are three examples of conflicting commitments. Each one of these three men’s commitment to Christ is nullified or minimized by some other commitment. Each one professes a commitment to “follow Christ,” but only in a partial or restricted way.

Let me point out that every single excuse for not fully following Christ in our text is related to the home or to the family. Let me repeat this again. Every excuse for not following Christ in this text is due to a higher level of commitment to the home or the family. I think that is significant. The first man says, “I will follow you wherever you go,” and Jesus says, “Following Me means having no place to call home.” “Oh,” the first man seems to say in response, “well that’s a different matter.” The second man says, “I will follow you, but first I have an obligation at home. I must first bury my father before I can follow You. My family must come first.” Jesus says, “No, I must come first, and the preaching of the gospel must take priority over buring the dead.” And the man seems to respond, “Oh, well that’s a different matter.” The third one says, “Jesus, I most certainly am going to follow You, but the least I can do for my family is to go say good-bye to them.” Our Lord seems to respond, “It’s them or Me.” Jesus says in response to all three, “You must choose Me, or them, but I will not be followed by half-hearted disciples.”

We see then that in all of these cases there is nothing intrinsically wrong with what these people propose. There is nothing wrong with having a commitment to one’s family; there is nothing wrong with having a home; there is nothing wrong with carrying out your responsibilities to your father; there is nothing wrong with saying good-bye—unless these are what keep you from wholeheartedly following Christ. Ultimately, Jesus is not talking about whether or not one ought to have a home. He is not talking about whether or not one ought to take care of the funeral arrangements for his father. He is not talking about whether or not one ought to go back and say good-bye to his family.

Jesus is talking about having the right priorities. Jesus is saying that those who would be His disciples – those who would follow Him – must be those who put Him first, above all things, including one’s family. We demonstrate our love for God, most often, by loving our fellow men. But we must never love men above God. We demonstrate our love for God, most often, when we love our family. But we must never put family above God. Our Lord said this in the clearest possible terms, not just in our text, but elsewhere as well:

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:34-38).

25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:25-27).

Our Lord is talking here about the priority of our love and commitment to Him over the love and affection which we have for our family. He is talking about Who must come first whenever these two loves (love for God, love for family) become competitive. Our love for God must always have a higher priority than our love for family.

But do you know what is interesting? What we believe in theory, we often do not practice. Our Lord is telling us something absolutely distressing because in our Christian culture we often say repeatedly and emphatically, “You serve Christ by serving your family, by ministering to your family.” I am not challenging this statement altogether. Usually it is true. But the words of our Lord in Luke chapter 9 should caution us that “love for family,” as good as it is, can become an evil if it diminishes our love for God, and our commitment to follow Him.

Many Christians have lost a biblical perspective on the relationship between following Christ and fulfilling family obligations. Quite frankly, I can understand why. Our culture has turned against the family. Same sex marriages are now socially acceptable, while questioning the morality of such relationships is politically incorrect. Divorce is rampant, as is sexual immorality. Marriage is viewed with disdain and thought unnecessary. Unborn children are being slaughtered by the thousands. The traditional family is under attack. And many faithful and concerned Christians have responded. Good for all of them! But let us not overcorrect here. Let us not emphasize the family so much that it is at the expense of discipleship. Let us not forget or set aside the sobering words of our Lord, cited above.

You can go into a Christian bookstore to look for a book on the subject of faith, and not find one recent book on a subject that is one the most important aspects of the Christian’s spiritual life. But there are countless books on the family, and new ones coming out every week. Do you know what many of these books are implying? “God can be used to make your family life better.” God has now become the means, and the family is the end. “This is absolutely, categorically wrong!” God is the end, and we and our families are the means. The family is the means by which we serve God. The family is not the only means. The family is one means by which we may serve God. This is why the single woman in 1 Corinthians 7 is encouraged to think about remaining single. A single woman doesn’t have to be married to be happy, but we often imply that one must be married to be happy. Paul suggests that by remaining single a woman may be better able to serve God and others, without the distractions of marriage.

We have come to the place where we have absolutely unrealistic and distorted expectations of marriage and the family, expectations that the Bible does not teach or support. Read the stories of Abraham and Sarah that give insight into their marriage. We find Abraham introducing Sarah as his sister, to save his own life, even though this puts her in the harem of foreign kings. And she is the woman through whom the promised Messiah will come!

Why are so many Christians walking away from their marriages? Because their marriage isn’t giving them what they have come to expect. Often, the trouble is that we are expecting far more from marriage than we have reason to expect. As a matter of fact, do you know what Paul said marriage would give you? He said it would bring you difficulty (read all of 1 Corinthians 7 again). We expect it to give us happiness, pleasure, and meaning. I love my wife and I love my family, but if my hopes are wrapped up in them, I am in trouble. I am in trouble because no family can every provide that which I can only find in Christ.

You remember the story of Joseph, who was betrayed by his brothers and sold into slavery in Egypt (Genesis chapters 37 and following). When Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt for grain the second time, they still did not know that Joseph was their brother. When Joseph had his silver cup hidden in Benjamin’s grain bag, he was destined to spend the rest of his life as a slave in Egypt. Do you remember what Judah said to Joseph as he pled with him to allow Benjamin to return to his father (by taking Judah as his slave)? He said, “his [i.e. Jacob’s] life is bound up in the lad’s life” (Genesis 44:30). That was the problem in a nutshell. Jacob’s life was wrapped up in his child’s life, which is why he was not able to let Joseph go earlier in his life, and Benjamin after the disappearance of his older brother. It was not until Jacob was willing to give up Benjamin (and Joseph) that he could serve God as he should. The same was true of Abraham and Isaac, and thus the agonizing account of the near sacrifice of Isaac (see Genesis 22). We can love our family more than God, and this is nothing less than idolatry.

Conclusion

What are some of the things that happen when our Christian environment places the family in such an elevated position that it takes priority over following and serving our Lord? First, it makes life without a family seem meaningless and insignificant. Have you noticed that some people who are widowed, or who have been deprived of children believe that life has lost its meaning? It may be because too much was invested in family. This can be corrected as we rearrange our priorities in accordance with our Lord’s teaching. Have you seen somebody whose marriage was terminated by divorce or death? Their whole life may be turned upside-down. But through their suffering they may find out that life can go on without one’s mate, especially as they follow Him. Have you seen people struggle with a so-called mid-life crisis? It may be because in mid-life they have discovered that the children, in whom they invested their life, are not bringing the fulfillment and meaning they expected. Dismay and depression are often the result of having placed too much importance on the family, thus expecting too much from it.

Second, it compels people toward marriage. People who feel they have to be married to be fulfilled, significant, and happy cannot seem to get to the marriage altar fast enough. Perhaps too many get married too quickly because they think marriage is the answer to their problems. They discover over and over and over again that it is not.

The Bible teaches us that the essence of life is not to be found apart from a living, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. I can delight in my relationship with God through Jesus Christ, without ever being married, and without ever having a family. It is possible that God may enable you to better serve Him through marriage and a family than by serving Him alone. But the ultimate issue is that we choose to follow Him.

What really frightens me is that the family is really just an extension of ourselves. Family interests are often really self-interests when you get right down to it. We see in our children our unfulfilled expectations, our desires, our aspirations. We see ourselves in our children, and that’s why we are tempted to make them our highest priority. We are really looking out for ourselves, and we find we can sanctify our self-service if we but talk about God wanting us to minister to our family. It sounds wonderful, but if we have placed family above Jesus Christ, it is wrong.

I know I’ve been talking as though I am talking only to you, but this text raises some serious questions. It raises questions for those of us whose children don’t go to a Christian school. Are we not sending our kids to a Christian school just because we want to spend the money on ourselves, rather than to invest in our children’s education? Then that’s a problem. Do not think that I am advocating that everyone needs to go to a Christian school, because I’m not. Actually, I’m just warming up for the rest of us.

My children have attended Christian schools. For those of us who send our children to a Christian school, I must ask some painful questions? Do any of us send our children to a Christian school to avoid a racially integrated public school? If so, is this Christian? Am I sending my children to a Christian school to isolate them from the world, and in the process depriving them of the opportunity to follow Jesus by proclaiming the gospel in a non-Christian school?

Homeschoolers also have some questions to ponder. Are we teaching our children at home because we are afraid God is not able to keep our children outside our homes, apart from the protection and instruction we can provide? By building fortress walls between society and our children, are we really saying we cannot or do not trust God to save and to sanctify our Children?

What I’m trying to say to all of us is that this text is loaded with painful, agonizing questions, but the ultimate principle is this: Nothing must be given priority over our commitment to Jesus Christ. Nothing!

Satan will always attempt to take those good things, like the family, and idolize it, making it the object of our affection, and our ultimate priority. If that happens, Satan has won a victory. He’s made what is good the enemy of what is best. Jesus Christ alone is life, not our family. We must follow Him at all cost.

I want to close by reading you some words from I Corinthians 7, uncomfortable words, words which we would probably tear out and say, “Well, in the context, of course, this applies to single women and not to us,” but it doesn’t. It applies to all of us:

“But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on both those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:32-35).

There is a very important principle which is found throughout the Bible, and it can be summed up in these words:

The things that are temporal (temporary) are of less value than the things which are eternal.

Marriage and family are temporal. When we get to heaven, we will not live as husband and wife, as we now do. If the family is temporal, it is still important, but it is not as important as those things which are eternal. It is not as important as following Christ. Therefore, following Christ must always have priority, and family must always be subordinate.

Following Christ means putting everything—everything—aside which hinders our commitment to follow Him.

It does not mean throwing our marriages and children away. Please, if you are one who is neglecting your family, do not take this to be some kind of validation of your sin. It is not! I am not saying, “Let’s all go out to serve God while we neglect our families.” What one is willing to sacrifice, and what one is willing to make sacrifices for, tells us much about a person. I believe that the pagans who offered their children to Molech loved their children. I think they sacrificed their children with tears in their eyes, but there was something more important to them than their family. Tragically, it wasn’t God.

All of us must ask ourselves, “To whom are we making sacrifices, and what are we sacrificing, and for what are we sacrificing?” Some people sacrifice their families in the name of following God, and I fear that some of them are wrong. Ministry is not to be thought of as synonymous with discipleship or following Christ. Some people find their significance and status and fulfillment in what they call their ministry, and so they sacrifice everything that gets in their way, including their family. Self-serving ministry which sacrifices our families to obtain success and status is most likely sin. Paul says in I Timothy 5 that those who do not provide for their own family are worse than an unbeliever. The scribes and the Pharisees in Mark 7 use religious commitment as a pretext for not meeting the needs of their elderly parents. “Well, I’m sorry, Mom and Dad, I’d like to help you pay the utility bills, and I know they’re turning off the heat and the phone this week, and I know your table’s empty, but I have devoted my money to God; it is Corban.” Jesus called this hypocrisy and condemned it as sin. Some were using “religious commitment” as an excuse for ignoring and neglecting their families. Please understand that I am not advocating this. I am simply saying that in our culture, the movement is the other way, and oftentimes our commitment to our family hinders our commitment to Christ, and we may even be patting ourselves on the back for it.

This is a tough text, and I confess that I do not fully understand it. I am not certain that I know what it means for me at this point. But I understand one thing all too clearly: I dare not allow anything, no matter how good it might be, to come before my commitment to follow Christ. May God bring to our hearts and minds those things which mean so much to us that, while we may never say so with our mouths, with our lives, we will choose them above serving Christ.

I wish to make one last observation, for Christians and unbelievers alike. Do you notice that Jesus is not nearly as eager to attract or to accept followers as we are? Many of those who sincerely intended to follow Jesus went away, scratching their heads because Jesus did not enthusiastically accept them. Jesus wanted men to follow him whole-heartedly. He did not downplay or conceal the high cost of discipleship. Over and over again He spoke of the high cost of discipleship, and urged men not to follow Him if they had not counted the cost. It is not that Jesus wishes to discourage men from following Him. It is only that He wants those who follow Him to understand what discipleship is about. Following Jesus begins with trusting in Him as God’s promised Messiah, God’s only means of salvation. It is by faith in Him, in His life, in His substitutionary death for our sins, in His burial and resurrection, that men can have their sins forgiven and enter into eternal life. I urge you to “follow Him” who alone can save. Following Him is the greatest privilege ever offered to us. But it is not an easy path. Let us follow Him, having counted the cost, and let us proclaim the good news of the gospel, urging others to follow Him as well.

! Lesson 34:
When Personal Evangelism is Inadequate
(Luke 10:1‑16)

Introduction

In our last lesson I told you that while “sacred cows make good hamburger” the one who grinds the hamburger is not very popular. And I then proceeded to call the “family” a sacred cow, one which, for many Christians, is an excuse for not following Christ, a hindrance to their discipleship, rather than an expression of it. Apparently some of you agree that such teaching is touchy business. One of the women who teaches in the Sunday School came up to me just before the lesson and said, “I’m not going to be able to listen to your sermon because I’ll be in the back teaching. I’m going to have to listen to you on tape. I’m really sorry about—I’d love to be there and watch the stoning.”

This week, I would like to play it safe. I would like to be less controversial and more positive. I said that I would like to be, but unfortunately I cannot. I cannot avoid pointing out yet another “sacred cow” in Christian thinking. This week we will seek to grind yet a little more hamburger from another sacred cow, and that cow is “personal evangelism.”

Before I go much farther, it is necessary for me to define what I mean by the term “personal evangelism.” This is not a biblical term, and thus is one which can easily be confused. By the term “personal evangelism” I am referring to that sharing of our faith which we do on a one‑to‑one basis, that witnessing which we do on a more intimate level, with those whom we know or seek to know personally. In short, “personal evangelism” is “personalized evangelism” or “individualized evangelism.” Jesus practiced “personal evangelism” when He spoke to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, and again in His dealing with the Samaritan woman in John chapter 4. The gospel was applied to the personal situation, sins, and needs of the one with whom He was dealing.

Personal evangelism, like the family, is a very wonderful thing. Let me remind you that it is nearly always a “good thing” which becomes a kind of sacred cow. Personal evangelism is a marvelous thing. Many of you were brought to faith in Christ through the personal witness and evangelism of an acquaintance. But personal evangelism seems to have become the means to evangelize, rather than a means of reaching the lost for Christ. It is the method which most of us prefer. It is, at times, a method which can hinder other methods of evangelism. When we insist on using the method of “personal evangelism” when we should be employing another method, we have made it a sacred cow, and it is time for making hamburger.

In our text the Lord says something that is most surprising. In effect, he forbids the disciples who are sent out to evangelize to do so personally. They are forbidden to greet anyone along the road and they are commanded not to go “house to house.” When is personal evangelism the wrong method, and why is this so? That is the tension of our text. Our study should provide us with the answer to these questions.

Our Approach

Our approach in this lesson will first be to understand what our Lord is seeking to achieve in the sending out of the seventy—the goal of this missionary campaign. Then, we will consider the methods Jesus prescribed for the seventy and how they relate to the goal of the mission. Next, we will seek to see why Luke alone records this incident, and what he wanted us to learn from it, especially as it relates to the on‑going proclamation of the gospel, as we see it described in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. Finally, we shall seek to identify those principles and their applications which relate as much to us and our time as they did to these disciples.

The Structure of the Text

Luke 10:1‑16 falls into several divisions:

(1) Verses 1‑3—Jesus’ mandate and the seventy

(2) Verses 4‑9—Jesus’ methods and the seventy

(3) Verses 10‑12—Jesus’ instruction on responding to rejection

(4) Verses 13‑16—Jesus’ rebuke of rejecting cities

The Setting of the Text

Luke chapter 9 is the immediate backdrop for our text in chapter 10. It begins with the sending out of the twelve disciples. The report of Herod’s concern with the identity of Jesus is followed by the feeding of the five thousand. After this, Peter’s great confession is recorded, followed immediately by the transfiguration of Jesus. After our Lord’s return with the three from atop the mountain, the various hindrances to discipleship are described:

(1) Their lack of power—reflected in their inability to exorcise the boy

(2) Their lack of unity—reflected in their arguing over who was greatest

(3) Their lack of compassion—reflected in their desire to torch a Samaritan town

(4) Their lack of commitment—as seen in men’s reasons for not immediately following Christ

The first words of verse 1 in chapter 10 (“After this …” ) show the close link between the sending out of the seventy and the preceding context. The sending out of the seventy disciples is thus related both to the sending out of the twelve (Luke 9:1‑6) and the Lord’s instruction on discipleship (Luke 9:37‑62).

Problems in the Passage

When one consults the commentaries, two problems are usually mentioned. I will only briefly discuss them. The first problem has to do with the difference in the texts concerning the number of disciples who were sent out. Some texts read seventy, while others read seventy-two. In some ways, it is a simple textual problem, one whose existence can easily be explained, even if the problem is not so quickly or easily resolved.[174] In another way it is a problem which is simply not that serious. The meaning and the application of the text do not hinge an the text either way.

The second problem in our passage is a delight for the liberal student of Scripture. They enjoy pointing out the fact that the account of the sending of the seventy is found only in Luke’s gospel, and that it has many similarities with the account of the sending out of the twelve (which it does).[175] They err greatly, however, in thinking that this account is a pure fabrication on the part of Luke, to establish his own historical theories.

When the two sendings (in Luke’s account) are viewed side‑by‑side there are a number similarities which are evident, even intentional:

In spite of the similarities, which should come as no great surprise, there are many differences, significant differences. It is these differences which point to the unique contribution of this text, in addition to the contribution of the account of the sending out of the twelve:

(1) In Luke 9 only the twelve were sent out. Now, there are seventy others.

(2) The twelve are known individuals, the seventy are not.

(3) The twelve were sent out in Galilee, but this sending is along the route Jesus will be taking to Jerusalem.

(4) The twelve were specifically told not to preach to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but there is a clear hint of this sending including the Gentiles. This seems to be a more Gentile territory, and there would be no need to speak of what is eaten, if they were only in Jewish homes.

(5) The sending out of the twelve seems to conclude Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, but the sending out of the seventy is introductory.

(6) The twelve were sent out in place of Jesus, but the seventy were forerunners, sent ahead of Jesus, who would be passing by this way (v. 1).

(7) The twelve were sent out everywhere, and the impression is that they went to those remote, previously missed places. This seems to have been a rural, remote mission. The seventy were sent to cities.

What, then, is the central and unique thrust of this sending out of the seventy, which sets it apart from the other sending in chapter 9, and which signals us to its meaning and application? I think the key to the entire text is in making this one simple observation: THE THRUST OF THE SENDING OF THE SEVENTY IS REACHING THE CITIES

I do not usually quote myself, but I want to share a note that I wrote down as I was studying this text in preparation for this message. It reveals the beginning of my realization of what the key to the text was, and yet not knowing what to make of it. I wrote:

“There is a ‘city emphasis’ here. I can feel it but I can’t quite decide what to do with it. Do we have a sense of need for the city? This city? Dallas? Richardson? Does the city know the gospel? We are very intent (at times) in personal evangelism, but I think there is another facet of evangelism here. Moody, for example, and his impact on the city of Chicago.”

I begin, then, with the observation that THE CITY, for some reason is the central theme, the thread unifying the entire text. The emphasis on reaching cities seems to set the sending of the seventy apart from the sending of the twelve. In somewhat reverse order, I wish to go back through the text to show how the theme of reaching the city gives unity and clarity to our text.

The evidence is great in our text that it is THE CITY which is the central and crucial concept in our text. Notice first of all the number of times THE CITY is mentioned in our text:

·         Verse 1: “to every city and place”

·         Verse 8: “Whatever city you enter… ”

·         Verse 10: “whatever city”

·         Verse 11: “dust of your city”

·         Verse 12: “that city”

·         Verses 13‑16: “all cities which are rebuked”

In chapter 9 the term “city” is mentioned one time (Luke 9:5), with “villages” being mentioned once as well (9:6). Here, “city” is much more frequently mentioned. Note also that while the term “city” appears five times in our text, six cities are specifically named: Sodom, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre (2x), Sidon (2x), and Capernaum. Some of these cities are hardly referred to elsewhere.

In speaking of the rejection of the disciples, our Lord speaks more in terms of cities than of individuals:

“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town” (Luke 10:8‑12).

In these words we see that when disciples are viewed as being rejected by the cities, and thus the cities are symbolically warned of the coming judgment of God upon the city, just as the cities of earlier days (like Sodom) were judged of God.

If the goal of the sending of the seventy is so that the gospel may be preached in the cities, then many of the difficult problems raised by our text are resolved.

(1) The statement in verse 2, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few,” is explained. The problem with this statement is that our Lord has repeated taught elsewhere that few will choose the “narrow way” of salvation through Him:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13‑14).

“For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14).

In addition to these verses we know full well that Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, to be rejected and crucified (cf. Luke 9:22, 44, 51‑53). He was not going to be accepted as Messiah by the masses or by the leaders of Israel. The “great harvest” would not come from the Israelites, and certainly not at this time. How, then, can Jesus speak of a large harvest, with few workers? Why should He not be speaking of a small harvest, a harvest of the few?

This statement, “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few,” provides us with the explanation for our Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities. If the harvest is great, but few of those who hear the gospel receive it, then the gospel must be broadly proclaimed, to as many people as possible. If many people must hear the gospel for a great harvest to occur, then the logical place for proclaiming the gospel is in the cities, where the masses are congregated.

Speaking in farming terms, I believe that Jesus taught that the “yield per acre” for sowing the gospel would be low. If the harvest is to be great, the only way that this can happen is by sowing many acres. The only way that many can be harvested by the gospel is for many to be sent out, covering a great multitude of people. The city is the focus of the disciples’ efforts because reaching many is the goal of their mission.

(2) The emphasis on reaching the cities with the gospel also helps us understand our Lord’s instructions not to greet anyone on the road. Our Lord’s words here should perplex us if we take them seriously:

“Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road” (Luke 10:4, emphasis mine).

How could Jesus command the disciples to refrain from the normal social amenity of a friendly greeting on the road? If Jesus were intent on the proclamation of the gospel “en masse” rather than one‑by‑one, and if the time were extremely limited, such individual contact would have to be restricted.

Suppose that you worked in advertising for a soap company and your boss wanted to make the most people possible aware of the company’s product. After much thought, it was decided that a television commercial would best accomplish this goal. The filming studio was reserved for one hour on a certain afternoon, and you were to be there to make the commercial. On the way to the studio, you might have stopped to tell five people about your company’s soap, but if you had done so, millions would not have been able to see the commercial on TV. Thus, while it may seem rude not to chat with everyone you met on the way, your task required you to avoid such conversations, due to the higher priority of being at the television studio and making the commercial so that many more could be made aware of your product.

This is exactly what Jesus was instructing the seventy to do. While they could have spoken of Messiah to many individuals one‑at‑a‑time, they could make much better use of their time by speaking to many at one time. And the place to find concentrations of people is not along the highway, but in the city, where many people live and gather. Thus, time should not be wasted on the way to the city. The disciples should hurry to the city and there make the gospel known to the greatest number of people.

(3) The emphasis of our Lord on the cities also explains why the disciples were not to “move around from house to house” (Luke 10:7). The homes where they stayed were the place of eating and sleeping. Perhaps the gospel was proclaimed from the home as well, but it was more likely done in the street or at the gate of the city. This is where important matters were discussed in Israel. In one sense, this was not as personal, not as intimate, a place from which to minister, but it was more public. The public factor was more important than the personal factor. This may not strike us as “warm and fuzzy” but it is nevertheless true.

(4) The command of the Lord which prohibited the disciples from taking any provisions with them also makes sense in the light of the goal of reaching the cities. The Lord told the disciples not to take any provisions along with them (Luke 10:4), immediately after telling them that He was sending them out as “lambs among wolves” (Luke 10:3). Why would Jesus send the disciples into hostile territory unarmed and without provisions? The key to the answer is again found in the Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities.

Jesus spoke of wolves and lambs. The disciples were sent out like lambs amidst wolves. What do wolves normally and naturally do to lambs? Answer: THEY EAT THEM. When Jesus sent the disciple “lambs” out in the midst of wolves, how would they know that the people were not wolves? Answer: THEY WOULD FEED THEM. This helps me to understand why the disciples were sent out without provisions. The response of the people of the cities to the gospel which the disciples proclaimed was evidenced by their hospitality, by their offering a “bed and breakfast” to those who came in the name of the Messiah. When people opened their hearts to the gospel, they also opened their homes to the disciples. This was a test of the people’s response to the message they heard.

There is much biblical precedent for what I am suggesting here. Abraham welcomed the angels (unaware) with hospitality, with a special meal, as did Lot, but the people of Sodom wanted only to rape the men (Genesis 18:1‑8 with 19:1‑11). In Judges chapter 19 the Levite from the hill country of Ephraim received great hospitality from his heathen father‑in‑law, but not from his fellow‑countrymen, who, like the Sodomites, wanted only to rape him. In the gospels we see the people who loved Jesus asking Him to their homes (like Mary and Martha). In the book of Acts, chapter 16 (vv. 15, 34), we see the Lydia and the Philippian jailer demonstrating their acceptance of the gospel by taking Paul and Silas into their homes. In Hebrews chapter 13 the true believers are to continue to “entertain angels unawares” (v. 2) by showing hospitality to strangers.

In one of those towns it would not have been unnoticed that two strangers had arrived. It was their obligation under the law to show them hospitality. If they received these men and their message, they would take them into their homes. If they did not, their rejection was all the more evident. Incidentally, this act of taking a preacher into one’s home also helps us to understand the warnings of the Scriptures against inviting false teachers into our homes, for in putting them up we also become partners in that message which they proclaim (cf. 2 John 10).

Why Public Proclamation
and Not Personal Evangelism?

The Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities should now be clear from the text, as well as providing us with a plausible explanation for the instructions which our Lord gave the seventy. The reason has been given by our Lord in this text: “The harvest is great and the workers are few” (Luke 10:2). By inference, I think that there is another reason: the time was short. Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, to die. He would then be raised from the dead and ascend to His Father. The emphasis of Luke 9:51 is our Lord’s ascension. When our Lord came to these towns on His way to Jerusalem, they must either receive Him as their King, or they must reject Him. Time was short, the decision was crucial. This was not time for casual conversational witness, it was a time for bold, broad proclamation of the gospel, a proclamation which reached as many people and as wide an area possible, in a short period of time. Given this goal, it is easy to see why “public evangelism” must have precedence over “personal evangelism.” Personal evangelism was a luxury which Jesus said the cause of the gospel could not afford.

We should thus be able to see why these seventy were commanded to reach the cities and to practice “public evangelism” as opposed to “personal evangelism.” But what did Luke intend to teach the church and us by this account? The Lord’s commands here were intended to shape the disciples’ methods, but what were they intended to teach us? Let us first consider this incident in the light of Luke’s second volume—the book of Acts—and then move one to consider its principles and applications for us.

The Sending of the
Seventy and the Book of Acts

We know that Luke is not only the author of this gospel, but also of yet another volume, which we know as the book of Acts. It is incredible how the account of the sending of the seventy anticipates and foreshadows the proclamation of the gospel in Acts.

The “great harvest” of Luke 10 can be seen as the harvest of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. When Jesus told His (seventy) disciples that the harvest was great, there was only one way that this could be true, and that was through the expansion of the preaching of the gospel from the Jews only (as was the case in the sending of the twelve—Matthew 10:5‑6) to the Gentiles as well. This is hinted at in Jesus’ instructions to the seventy concerning eating whatever was put before them (Luke 10:7‑8). It is boldly played out in Acts.

Acts 10 is the vision which God gave to Peter, preparing the way for him to stay in the home of Cornelius, where he would preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Chapter 11 then expands on this by telling of the reaction of Peter’s colleagues, and of the way that God spoke to them through Peter’s experience. The book of Acts begins with a Jewish church in Jerusalem, but in chapter 11 there is a thriving Gentile church (Antioch) which becomes the launching point for missionary activity aimed at the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:1ff.).

The turning point of the gospel of Luke seems to be our Lord’s setting His face toward Jerusalem (cf. Luke 9:51‑53). In Acts, it seems to be Paul’s face turned toward Rome. The gospel is being more and more widely proclaimed in Acts, which was foreshadowed in Luke 10.

Note also that in Acts the thrust of evangelistic efforts is not just toward individuals, but also to cities. The great commission was our Lord’s command to take the gospel to all nations. The book of Acts shows the beginning of this world‑wide thrust. The guiding hand of the Holy Spirit can be seen not only in His leading apostles and missionaries to individuals, but almost more strongly, to cities. True, there is individual leading. The Spirit directed Philip to the eunuch in the desert (Acts 8:26ff.), but this only serves to demonstrate the point, for in this conversion I believe we find the key to the evangelization of Ethiopia. Thus, we find Paul hindered from going to certain places (Acts 16:6‑7), but being directed by a vision to go (come) to Macedonia (Acts 16:9).

In Acts we find that evangelism was as much or more of the “public” variety than is was “personal.” Evangelism took place more out of the public preaching of the gospel (e.g. Acts 2, 4) than it is described as coming from person‑to‑person encounters. It might be objected that the witness of those who fled Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff.) was personal, but I would remind you that those who fled bore witness on their way. These people seemed to be traveling about, and were not settled people, witnessing casually to their next‑door neighbors. To put it is different terms, they were not “sharing their faith” (personal evangelism), but “preaching” (public evangelism):

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19‑21).

There is another interesting parallel between the sending of the seventy in Luke 10 and the spread of the gospel in Acts. Can you name the twelve who were sent out? Yes, you can because Matthew (10:2‑4) gives us their names, and even their team (he lists them by 2s). How about the seventy? Can you name any of them? Not a one, for certain. In the book of Acts, the apostles, the twelve, were key leaders in the church, and in the evangelism of many of the Jews (e.g. Acts 2). But when the church is forced to flee Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff.) the apostles stay in Jerusalem (8:1), while the others flee, proclaiming the gospel as they go. But for a few exceptions (like Paul), these Gentile evangelizers are not named, just as the seventy are not.

All of this serves to underscore the fact that what Luke has recorded in the chapter 10 of his gospel is preparatory and foundational to what is recorded in the book of Acts. This should come as no surprise to us. The hand of the Holy Spirit is once again evident in the Scriptures.

BUT WHAT DOES THIS TEXT HAVE TO TEACH US?

The sending out of the seventy was not written only for the early church, it was written for our instruction as well. What is it that we are to learn from this account? What lessons are there to be learned by us? The first question which we must answer is this:

HOW DIRECT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDING OF THE seventy AND THE CHRISTIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVANGELISM TODAY?

This is a very critical question. It would be easy to see this one incident informing us of a particular goal, at a particular point in Jesus’ earthly ministry, which required the methods which He prescribed. But is it only that? Is this a unique event, one which has no close parallel for our own day? I think the relationship if quite direct. Let me give several reasons for concluding that there is a close parallel between the mission of the seventy and the mission of the church today.

(1) Luke recorded the event for us. Its a simple observation, but an important one. The Holy Spirit inspired this account because it has something important to say to us. The presence of this passage tells us that the mission of the seventy is important for us.

(2) Our Lord’s instructions to the seventy seem to cover a greater period of outreach than just the mission of the seventy for this short period of time. Why would Luke go into such detail on the instructions which our Lord gave the seventy if these instructions were not important to us? You will note that in Luke 22:35‑38, Jesus modifies the instruction given earlier,[176] but the very fact that there is a modification suggests that our Lord expected His earlier instructions to still have relevance. Why modify non‑applicable instructions? In the sending out of the twelve, similar instructions are given, in much greater detail in Matthew. The detail of these instructions implies a broader period of application. I therefore understand them to apply to evangelism through the history of the church, including today.

(3) The Great Commission of Matthew 28 conveys a sense of urgency, portrays a world to win, a world to which we must go. In short the Great Commission seems to be little more than an extension of the commands given to the seventy.

(4) The work of the Holy Spirit through the church in the book of Acts bears testimony to the fact that the commands given to the seventy were carried out on a much greater scale in the early history of the church. We have already seen how Acts plays out and expands upon what commences in Luke. I believe that we see this happening with regard to world evangelization as well.

(5) The needs and conditions of our time very closely resemble those of the seventy at that point of time. Are the words of our Lord, “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few” not as applicable to our day as they were then? Think about these facts, facts which were true then, and are just as true (even more so) today:

·         The world is perishing without Christ

·         Jesus is soon to come

·         There is a great territory to be covered, a great harvest to reap

·         The need for reaching many quickly with the gospel is urgent

All of these factors lead me to conclude that the need for reaching the world for Christ is greater today than at any other time in history. And the urgency of the need requires us to use the right methods to reach this goal.

What lessons, then, can we learn from the sending of the seventy? Let me suggest a few possibilities, although there are undoubtedly many more:

(1) We need to have a greater sense of urgency for reaching lost men and women with the message of the gospel. There is in the sending of the seventy a note of urgency, a great sense of the need to go forth from city to city. Jesus was coming and each city needed to be told.

Jesus is coming again, this time not to die for the sins of the world, but to judge those who have rejected Him. Men and women who do not know Him as the Savior will perish, suffering God’s eternal wrath. In a word, they have nothing to expect but Hell. In my opinion the evangelization of the lost is not suffering so much from bad methods as it is from bad motivation. If we were to gain a biblical sense of urgency, such as that seen in the sending of the seventy, the Great Commission or in the book of Acts, we would find a way. The old adage: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way” is true. We need the will to reach the lost.

(2) We need to broaden our vision from reaching those around us to reaching those around the world. We need a “world vision.” Our Lord loved the world. He died for the sins of the world. He commanded the church to go into all the world with the gospel. If J. P. Phillips was correct in saying that our God is too small, it is also true that our vision is too limited. We need a vision for reaching the world with the gospel.

We should learn from our text that Jesus loves and cares about cities. This sounds a little strange, but His concern for the city is wrapped up with His concern for people. And it is not a new concern. Abraham appealed to God to spare Sodom, which He would have done if there were but ten righteous souls there (Genesis 18:32‑33). While Jonah hated Nineveh, the Lord showed compassion on this city (Jonah 4:10‑11). Jesus also loved the city of Jerusalem and wept over its unbelief (Luke 13:34‑35). God cares about cities because He cares about people.

I am not so sure that we have the same kind of concern for cities that our Lord does, or that men like Abraham had. We seem to have lost the sense of the lostness of the cities, even though the evidence of man’s sin and the warnings of impending judgment are everywhere. May God give us a heart for cities, and for our own city in particular. How desperate is the need here in Richardson, and in Dallas, for the gospel of Jesus Christ. How great the need for finding ways to reach entire cities with the message of God’s salvation.

(3) We need to utilize the most efficient and effective methods for reaching the world with the gospel. Much of our Lord’s instruction to the seventy pertains to their methodology. In order to reach our goal, we must utilize the right methods. Jesus was teaching the seventy that in order to reach the masses they must use methods which was oriented to the masses. They could not stop to greet men along the way because this was too individual, too personal. There is nothing wrong with the personal approach, so long as reaching masses is not our goal.

I have heard it said and implied that “personal evangelism” methods are the way to reach the world with the gospel. I think not. The argument goes something like this: “If each Christian were to lead just one other person to Christ, and that new Christian were to win one … ” The fact is that this has not happened. I believe that the world is to be reached by the preaching of the gospel, and this involves more than just a personal witness, as important as this may be.

Jesus’ teaching strongly implies that “personal evangelism” methods were not going to be effective in making a great harvest and in covering a vast area with the good news of the gospel. My fear is that we have come to equate evangelism with “personal evangelism” and that we automatically think of reaching people by personal methods when we should be utilizing those methods more geared to multitudes. Further, I suspect that some of us have come to the conclusion that “public evangelism” is passé while “personal evangelism” is the only way.

The film, “The Gospel Blimp,” illustrates how we have become muddled in our thinking in the area of evangelism. As best as I can remember the movie, the Christians in a certain city wanted to reach their city for Christ, and they commenced doing so in inappropriate, foolish, and even offensive ways. The movie begins with ludicrous and laughable efforts of mass evangelism of their city and then concludes by focusing on several people who begin to effectively share their faith in terms of “personal evangelism.”

Insofar as the film encourages sensitive, well‑motivated, well‑executed “personal evangelism,” it is great. But the movie does a serious disservice to the viewer. It sets “personal evangelism” at odds with “public evangelism,” and leaves us with the impression that we would be well advised to forget any efforts of reaching a city as a whole and to concentrate entirely on “personal evangelism.” Perhaps I do the film a disservice, but that is the impression I was given.

In the film it was not Christians’ desire to see “public evangelism” take place in their city which was wrong. What was wrong with their effort to reach their city was that they were using poor methods, methods which unnecessarily irritated and offended people with the message of the gospel. What we should learn from this film is that our methods must match our goal. If we are striving to reach the masses, we must use appropriate methods. If we are trying to reach our neighbor, we use a different method. What we should not learn from this film is that “public evangelism” should be replaced by “personal evangelism.”

(4) This text does not tell us that “personal evangelism” is wrong, or that we should slack up in our efforts at it. As we have seen, Jesus practiced “personal evangelism.” Please do not misinterpret what I am saying here. When we have a sense of urgency for reaching the lost, we will strive to reach all that we can, and we should use various methods to do so. Some of us are not doing nearly enough in the area of personal evangelism. Jesus would not need to have told us to slack up in this effort. More than anything I am saying that we need to expand our vision from “reaching our neighbor” to “reaching the world” and to expand our methods from “personal evangelism” only to “personal evangelism” plus public proclamation.

(5) Our text causes me to reevaluate both my methods and my motives in personal evangelism. Once I recognized “personal evangelism” to be a kind of sacred cow, I also realized that it was not subject to very close scrutiny. After all, what Christian wants to be caught criticizing personal evangelism? But I have discovered that personal evangelism has a number of inherent dangers and is subject to certain abuses. Let me mention a few that have come to my mind.

Personal evangelism can quickly be caught up and manipulated by what I call the CULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL. One of the great problems in our thinking as it relates to “personal evangelism” is what I have called the “cult of the individual.” We have, in recent years, become obsessed with discovering “individual needs” and dealing with everyone in the light of these needs. As a former school teacher I find this dramatically demonstrated in the public school classroom. In days gone by, there was a teacher in the front of the class, with 30 or more students facing the teacher. The students listened, the teacher taught. Now I know that this wasn’t the perfect system, but I believe that it was not wrong to think that there were enough common factors that all students could be dealt with in a similar way, at the same time.

Now, the classroom is the scene of absolute chaos and anarchy. Every child is “doing his own thing.” Some are roaming around the halls. Others are doing who knows what outside. Others are “independently working” inside the class. Any form of uniformity seems to be unacceptable. Progressive education is guided by the concept of individuality. The fact is that all kids are basically alike. Oh, they develop at different rates, they have different aptitudes and interests, but they can be dealt with as a group—perhaps not all the time, but at least some of the time.

The “cult of the individual” has invaded the church, and now we find the watchword of biblical proclamation being that we must “relate truth to the individual needs” of people. Some of this individualization is at the center of “personal evangelism.” Jesus individualized the gospel for both Nicodemus (John 3) and for the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). But the tendency to individualize has gotten out of reason. We now condemn all communication which is not addressed to the specific needs of the individual. We used to talk about “the needs of women” and now it is the “needs of the young mother,” the needs of “the working woman,” and on and on it goes.

Quite honestly this “individualistic” approach does not neatly square with the Scriptures, which inform us that all temptations are “common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). But we would rather view our problems as unique, for then there is no ordinary solution for them. The fact is that the problem of men (old or young), women (single or married), and children (male or female) is sin.

I know a man in Dallas who is a converted homosexual, and a very fine fellow. He is having a great ministry in the homosexual community. When he came to speak to a group of ministers, who were as “straight” a group as you could find, he said this: “Don’t try to identify with me in my specific form of sin. Identify with me in the struggle which we all have with the flesh.” This man has his head on straight. He sees that the root problem of the homosexual is the same problem as the alcoholic, the wife‑beater, the child molester, or the upright citizen who is dominated by his pride.

We have become so individualized in our approach to people that we are failing to address people at the lowest and most common level of their sin. Abraham lied about the identity of his wife, and we would thus have dealt with him about lying—his individual problem. But God dealt with him concerning his (lack of) faith, the root problem. To be quite frank about it, all of our individual problems can be boiled down to a handful of root problems common to all men.

What this means is that “public evangelism” should not be passé. We can address large groups of people with the message of the gospel, because every sinner has the same problems, and Christ has provided but one solution for the problem—the cross of Calvary. In this way, the gospel is too simple for some, who would like to think that men’s problems are much more complex, much more individualized.

There is one other variety of individualism, often a rugged individualism, which is related to the cult of the individual. Personal evangelism can be appealing to an individualist because he or she can do it on their own, without having to work with others, without having to make concessions to the opinions and convictions of others. One of the reasons why we do not do more mass evangelism, I fear, is that Christians and churches are so autonomous, so individualistic, that they can’t work together. Personal evangelism is especially appealing to the autonomous type. This does not make personal evangelism wrong, but it does tell us that any good thing can be abused by sinful people.

Another danger of personal evangelism is that it is just that—personal. We can become so caught up in our relationship with the one we are trying to personally evangelize that we “lighten up” or “soften up” on the message. It is very difficult to maintain a biblical sense of urgency and to take a “laid back” approach to presenting the message. Because I know the person and assume a long term relationship, I do not feel the urgency to tell it all and to tell it directly. I pull my punches. If you were honest, don’t you feel the same tension I feel here, the temptation to say things a little too obliquely, a little too indirectly, a little too casually? Friendship evangelism has the danger of practically putting the friendship above evangelism. These dangers do not mean that we scrap personal evangelism, but that we recognize its dangers and inherent weaknesses and seek to avoid them.

Personal evangelism also has a subtle way of affirming and sanctifying my lifestyle, rather than challenging and changing it. The term and the concept of “lifestyle evangelism” has become very popular, but I’m not sure that we’ve thought enough about its inherent problems. The inference is that “I can be a Christian Yuppie, self‑seeking, self‑satisfied, indulgent, and thus I am able to relate to others like me.” “Lifestyle evangelism” assumes that my lifestyle is pleasing and acceptable to God, and thus I may evangelize from its context. The Bible challenges my lifestyle, it tells me that my lifestyle should be vastly different than those around me without Christ. My lifestyle may need to change first, and then, from a Christian lifestyle I should seek to win those who live a worldly lifestyle.

Lifestyle evangelism tells me I’m okay as I am, and, worse yet, that I can have a positive impact, just as I am.

Personal evangelism thinking can justify many sins and whitewash them to look pious. I can tell myself that since I am an upper‑middle class white, I have no point in common with someone of another race or socio‑economic strata. The Bible flies in the face of this, indeed it calls this contrary to the gospel itself (cf. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians chapter 2). One of my good friends, Dr. Ruben Conner, a godly Black Christian leader, was won to Christ through the (personal) witness of a white man on the job.

What Should
We Do With This Message?

What am I suggesting that we do specifically? Let me summarizes and conclude with a few parting remarks. First, we need to have a greater sense of urgency, which only comes from a grasp of what the Bible tells us the fate of the lost is, and from a realization the our Lord is coming soon. Second, we need to have a wider vision, a world vision. Personal evangelism is a good start. Concern for our neighbor is a good beginning, but it is not enough. Christ’s command was that the gospel should be proclaimed in all the world.

Am I saying that everyone should become a missionary, or that everyone should stand on a street corner? No. But I am saying that we should all be bolder in our witness, that we should all seek to proclaim the gospel to the greatest possible number of lost individuals. And, I am saying that we should recognize that there are other methods than just the one‑on‑one kind, which should be employed when the evangelism of the many is to be attempted.

How does what I am suggesting relate to the person who does not have a gift of public proclamation. Obviously we are not all Billy Graham’s or Luis Palau’s. That is true. For some of us, doing a better job of personally sharing our faith is a lofty goal itself. But all of need to recognize that reaching the world with the gospel is a task in which all of us should play some part. It may be in contributing to evangelistic efforts. It may be in planning and executing them (we could use a good evangelistic campaign here in Dallas). But we all ought to sense the burden, the responsibility, and seek to discover opportunities in which we can play a part. Certainly we can do exactly what Jesus told His disciples to do: pray that the Lord of the harvest would send forth workers.

As individuals and as a church, I believe that we need to pray that God will give us a burden for the lost souls of our city, Richardson, Texas, and for the city of Dallas. It means that we should be praying and pondering ways that we may let the people of our city that they are sinners, destined for an eternity without Christ, and that Jesus Christ has died for sinners so that they might have eternal life. It means that we may consider ways in which the media can be utilized to proclaim the gospel effectively and efficiently. Let us pray for the gospel to be sent forth, and let us do what our Lord leads us to do in the evangelization of the world.

! Lesson 35:
The True Source of Joy
(Luke 10:17‑24)

Introduction

There is a clever television commercial currently running which advertises Wendy’s hamburgers. The commercial mimics a marketing test in which supposedly random people are asked to choose between two hamburgers. Choice “A” is a Wendy’s hamburger. It is fresh, hot, and juicy. It is the kind of hamburger nobody would refuse. Choice “B” is one from the competition. It is tough, old, and uninviting. This hamburger is one even a hungry dog would walk by without a second glance. A “red‑necked” wrestler type is asked which of the two burgers he would choose. His answer is that he would take choice “B” because eating it would be sheer misery. This man is obviously a masochist, who wants pain, so he takes burger “B” and even asks for another. Some Christians are like this. They find the pain and suffering of discipleship a pleasure. Suffering is their joy. This is masochistic. This is unnatural. But, to some people, this is Christian.

There are others who are not like this at all. They are into pleasure, not pain. They see the Christian life as the gateway to all sorts of pleasures and rewards. The Christian life to them spells popularity, success, and prosperity. Following Christ is the way to the “good life.” When this kind of pleasure seeking finds its pleasures in the wrong things, it is just as wrong as the masochism of the other extreme.

Our text is one that deals with the Christian’s world view. All of life is affected by how we relate joy, happiness, and pleasure to discipleship, to our relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Our text will inform us as to what the proper source of joy is, and how that should impact our Christian life. It is a vitally important issue, one which affects every one of us in many ways. Let us listen well to what our Lord has to say in this passage.

The Structure of the Text

As I currently understand our passage, it falls into three major divisions:

(1) Verses 17‑20—The Disciples’ Joy & their Salvation

(2) Verses 21‑22—The Lord’s Joy & the Disciples’ Salvation

(3) Verses 23‑24—The Disciples’ Joy & the Salvation Sought by Saints of Old

There are three themes inter‑twined in this text: joy, salvation, and the sovereignty of God. In verses 17‑20, Jesus urged the disciples to find their joy in their salvation, not in their authority over the demons. In verses 21‑22, Jesus expresses His own deep joy, based upon the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men, and in the part He was to play in this salvation. In verses 23‑24, our Lord turns the disciples’ attention to the saints of old, who yearned to see God’s salvation, but who were not privileged to see what the disciples’ eyes were seeing.

Background

It is difficult for us, from our vantage point, to imagine the reticence of the seventy (or 72) as they went out to proclaim the gospel from city to city. Think of how you would have felt if you were sent out, just being told these things.

(1) You were being sent out as “lambs among wolves” (10:3).

(2) There was in what Jesus said a great deal about rejection (10:10‑16).

(3) You were sent out with no provisions (10:4).

(4) You were told to eat whatever you were served (10:7‑8).

If we were honest, we would have to say that going out under these circumstances would have been less than desirable. I would have gone out with my knees knocking, expecting to be rejected often, and wonder where I might stay and what, if anything, I might have to eat. This is not that different from what many modern missionaries face, but it is nevertheless a fearful thing to do.

The Disciples’ Joy: Their Salvation
(10:17‑20)

I believe that the apprehensions which the seventy must have had have much to do with the enthusiasm they reveal on their return. They come back jubilant. They have seemingly been successful. Apparently they have been relatively successful. Thus, Luke sums up their report in this one statement:

“Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name” (Luke 10:17).

Their experience far surpassed their expectations. They came back jubilant.

When they say, “even the demons are subject to us,” it would seem that their ability to cast out demons was the epitome, the ultimate evidence of the power and authority they exercised in the name of the Lord Jesus. It is easy to see how they would have come to this conclusion. After all, had the nine disciples not been unable to cast the demon out of the lad (cf. Luke 9:37‑41)? If the nine were the “A squad,” and they could not cast out a demon, and the seventy, the “B squad,” were successful, this was cause for great joy. That they were able to cast out demons was proof to the disciples that they had great authority in Jesus” name, and thus a great cause for joy.

Jesus’ response to the enthusiasm and joy of the seventy is most interesting and informative. The first thing I note about His response is that it is warm, affirming, even a sharing in their joy. While their joy may have been misplaced, they were not rebuked.

Before our Lord seeks to re‑focus their joy, He first informed them that their ability to cast out demons was evidence of even greater issues than they had imagined. They saw their success only in terms of their having authority over the demons; Jesus was also watching their success (“I was watching Satan fall, …” v. 18, NASV), only He saw Satan’s demise. If they saw the demons as subject to them, Jesus saw Satan in the beginnings of his demise. Satan was, like lightning, falling from heaven. That is, he was falling down, and he was falling “lightning” fast. The coming of Christ and more specifically the cross of Christ was Satan’s defeat, and the mission of the seventy was but a preview of what was to come. Did the seventy see the spirits as subject to them? Jesus saw Satan as being defeated, and his power and authority as being overthrown.

The authority which the Lord had given to His disciples, that is to the seventy disciples, was such that it included power to overcome Satan, and the opposition to the preaching of the gospel which they were sent to proclaim. Their authority in Jesus’ name included the ability to “trample on serpents and scorpions” (v. 19). This may be language which is somewhat symbolic, as the allusion to Satan’s falling from heaven like lightning, but there is also a literal dimension which should not be overlooked. As they were going about from place to place, there was a very real danger posed by both serpents and by scorpions. It would seem as though Satan, the enemy (v. 19), would attempt to thwart their mission by employing such means as serpents. After all, Satan was, in the garden, in the form of a serpent. Because of their authority, however, no such dangers could defeat or hinder them, so long as they were doing what Jesus had commanded them to do. For this moment, and on this mission, they were invincible, indestructible.[177]

In verses 18 and 19 our Lord affirmed and even expanded upon the significance of the ministry the disciples had when they were sent out. In this they can rejoice. But in verse 20 our Lord now turns the disciples’ attention to a better basis for their joy. If they destruction of Satan was good news, and cause for rejoicing, their salvation was even better news, and cause for deepest joy. In a very gentle way, Jesus told them that they should rejoice in the fact of their salvation, rather than the fact of Satan’s downfall and defeat.

“However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20).

We should not lose sight of the fact that having the ability to cast out demons is not even proof that one is saved. We would assume from the fact that Judas was one of the twelve, that he was successful in casting out demons, as were the others (cf. Luke 9:1‑2). To have been unable to do so would have caused Judas to “stick out like a sore thumb,” something of which we have not hint in the Scriptures. The words of our Lord in Matthew’s gospel, however, make it quite clear that unbelievers were able to cast out demons:

“Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22‑23).

Jesus told His disciples that rather than to rejoice in their power over the demons, they should rejoice in their salvation. They should rejoice in that their names were written in heaven. Initially, the disciples were caught up in their relationship with the spirit world, namely that in Christ’s name they had power over them. Jesus told them that they should be rejoicing in their relationship with God. Joy at the prospect of the termination of Satan’s opposition is nothing when compared to the certainty of an eternal relationship with God. To suggest an analogy, the joy of one who marries should not be so much rooted in the fact that he is no longer single, as in the pleasure of his bride. The joy of the Christian should not be primarily in the destruction of Satan’s hold and power over us, but in the fact that we now belong to God.

The Lord’s Joy: The Disciples’ Salvation
(10:21‑22)

The words of our Lord in these verses are dramatic. They catch our attention because they are the expression of great joy on the part of our Lord, yet at a time when Jesus was resolutely set on going to Jerusalem, where He was to be rejected and put to death (cf. Luke 9:22, 51). In what could our Lord rejoice? What was the source of His joy?

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Luke 10:21‑22).

In verse 21 the Lord’s praise is directed to the Father, apparently while the disciples looked on. In verse 22, the Lord is speaking to the disciples, and yet His words to them are very much related to His words of praise to the Father in the previous verse. The basis of our Lord’s joy is several fold:

(1) The Lord Jesus had abundant joy through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ joy was not humanly produced. How could it be, when He was on His way to Jerusalem to die? The Holy Spirit produced His joy. We might say, in later New Testament terms, that our Lord’s joy was the “fruit of the Spirit” (cf. Galatians 5:22).

(2) The Lord Jesus had great joy in the salvation of men. God the Father had chosen to reveal “these things” (v. 21) to some men, and to conceal them from others. “These things” are, in essence, the knowledge of God’s salvation in the person and the work of Messiah. God revealed His salvation to some, and concealed it from others. Jesus rejoiced in the salvation that was revealed.

(3) The Lord Jesus had great joy in the sovereignty of the Father, which resulted in His revealing His salvation to some and concealing it from others. The sovereign of God in salvation is often spoken of in the Scriptures, but it is surely spoken of here. In verse 20 Jesus spoke of the disciples’ salvation as “having their names written in heaven.” This imagery, often found in the Bible (Exod. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Ezek.13:9; Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27), stresses the divine choice, made in eternity past, not the human decision made in time. When Jesus referred to His Father as “Lord of heaven and earth” in verse 21 it is the sovereignty of the Father that is spoken of. Likewise, in the revelation of His salvation to some and in the concealing of it from others (Luke 10:21), God’s sovereign will in salvation is stressed.

God’s sovereignty in man’s salvation is evident because those whom we would have expected to recognize Jesus as Messiah (the “wise and learned”) did not (it was hidden from them), while those we would least have expected to recognize Him (“little children”) did so. The difference here between the “wise and learned” and “little children” is not that of intelligence, for little children may be very intelligent, too. The difference is that the “wise and learned” were highly educated, and had seriously studied the Old Testament Scriptures. “Little children,” such as the disciples, were untaught and, as yet, uneducated, and yet they recognized Jesus as God’s salvation.

(4) The Lord Jesus further rejoiced because it was the Father’s “good pleasure” to accomplish the salvation of some through the Son. In the Father’s “good pleasure” it was the Son who was to make Him known to men. Those to whom the Father had chosen to reveal Himself were those to whom Jesus made Him known. Those from whom the Father chose to conceal the truth were those from whom Jesus concealed it (cf. Luke 8:9‑10). In the plan and purpose of God, Jesus worked out the sovereign purposes of the Father with respect to the salvation of men. In this role Jesus greatly rejoiced.

Jesus’ joy here was not only subject to the will of the Father, it was founded on the will of the Father. Jesus found His joy, His delight in that which delighted (“good pleasure”) the Father. It was our Lord’s pleasure to bring pleasure to the Father. Thus, since it was the Father’s good pleasure to save men through Him, He rejoiced. It was this joy, I believe, which sustained our Lord through His suffering on the cross (cf. Hebrews 12:2). Had the disciples found great joy in the spirits being subject to them? Jesus found great joy in being subject to the Father. It is not being in authority which is as important as being under God’s authority. Our salvation is based not on who or how many men (or spirits) are under us, but on our being rightly related (“under”) to God through Jesus Christ.

The scribes and Pharisees rightly perceived this matter. They had hoped that Jesus would join them and put Himself under their authority. They were unwilling to surrender their authority, and were persistently challenging His (“by what authority … ?”). It was their refusal to be under our Lord’s authority which resulted in their rejection and crucifixion of Him.

The Disciples’ Joy and the Salvation Sought By Saints of Old
(10:23‑24)

The disciples were not to find their joy in the submission of the demons to them, but in their salvation. This salvation has been viewed from the disciples’ point of view (“their names are written down in heaven”) and from the viewpoint of the Father (who sovereignly chose them) and the Son, whose joy it was to please the Father by revealing Him to those God had chosen. Now, this salvation in which the disciples are to rejoice is viewed from one last perspective, that of the Old Testament saints who looked forward to it.

Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” (Luke 10:23‑24).

The same essential statement is recorded by Matthew, but in the context of the parable of the soils. In Matthew’s account, Jesus specifically speaks of the gospel as being made clear to the disciples, again in the context of God’s sovereign election. After telling them that He has begun to speak in parables so that “they” might see, but not see, and hear, but not hear, lest they should understand, repent, and be saved (Matthew 13:13‑15), Jesus added these words of His revelation of the gospel to them:

“But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” (Matthew 13:16‑17).

The disciples have many reasons for rejoicing in their salvation. Their names are written down in heaven. Their salvation is eternally certain and secure. Their salvation is the good pleasure of the Father and the cause of the Son’s rejoicing. Their salvation is selective. They have been privileged to recognize and receive Jesus as the Messiah, while the wise and learned (by and large) have not. Now, the disciples are told that they can also rejoice in that the salvation which they have seen and heard is that for which the Old Testament saints yearned to see, but did not. What a privilege these men were given, to see with their eyes and to hear with their ears the fulfillment of the hope of the ages. Here is good reason for joy.

While in Matthew’s account the emphasis falls upon the blessing of the disciples, the 12 and the seventy and the rest who recognized and received Jesus as the Christ, God’s salvation. Thus, Jesus says, “Blessed are your eyes” (Matthew 13:16). In Luke’s account, the words permit a wider circle of those who are blessed:

“Blessed are the eyes that see what you see (Luke 10:23).

I believe that this emphasis is found in Luke’s gospel because the joy of salvation is to be experienced not only by the disciples who saw and heard and believed Jesus in His day, but by all who see Him as the disciples did, that is, by all those who recognize Him to be God’s Messiah, God’s salvation, and who come to believe in Him through the report of the apostles. The joy of salvation is for all believers, who come to the same realization that the first believers did. In talking to “doubting Thomas,” our Lord put it this way, recorded in John’s gospel:

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Many in Jesus’ day saw and heard what the disciples did, and yet did not believe. This is the basis for our Lord’s condemnation of the cities named in Luke 10:13‑15 (cf. especially Matthew 11:20). These cities had seen many miracles performed by our Lord, as well as having heard His message, and yet they did not believe. It is no blessing to hear and see the work of Jesus and to reject it, for this is the basis for divine judgment. It is only blessed to see and to hear as the disciples did, in belief. Therein is salvation. Therein is joy.

The Parallel in 1 Peter

Before I move to the conclusion of this message, I must share with you the strong parallel which I see between these words of our Lord spoken to the disciples in Luke chapter 10 with the words written by Peter in the first chapter of his first epistle. In my opinion we find the same three dominant themes: salvation, God’s sovereignty, and the disciples’ joy. Note, also, that Peter concludes, as our Lord did, by pointing out that the salvation in which they rejoice is that which the saints of old yearned to see. Is it not likely that Peter’s words are a virtual paraphrase of our Lord’s own words? They are surely worth repeating:

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things (1 Peter 1:3‑12).

Conclusion

As we have said throughout the lesson, there is a three‑fold emphasis to be found in these verses. Let me reiterate each of these, along with some suggestion regarding their implications for us.

(1) There is a strong emphasis on salvation in our text. The disciples are to rejoice, not in their derived power over the demons, but in their salvation. The Lord rejoiced in His role in the salvation of men, which was accomplished according to the sovereign good pleasure of the Father. And the disciples could, as well, rejoice in that they were those who were privileged to see what countless saints of old had yearned to see.

So far as men are concerned, there is nothing more important than the matter of his personal salvation. Each disciple in our text is encouraged to find his joy in the fact that his own name is written down in heaven. Salvation is an urgent matter, a matter of the highest priority, a matter of the greatest import and value, and it is also a matter that involves each individual. While our text places an emphasis on the Father’s choice of those who will be saved, the Bible also strongly urges men to believe in Christ as the Messiah, the Savior, and to accept Him as their personal Savior. If you have never trusted in Jesus Christ as your Savior, do it now. No other issue is more vital than this.

(2) There is an emphasis on God’s sovereignty in salvation. Many object to the sovereignty of God, especially in the matter of salvation. But those who would take our Lord’s words seriously must agree that He has emphasized the sovereign choice of God in these verses. Why does the Sovereignty of God offend men? Because fallen man is a rebel, who wants no one to rule over him. To the natural man being over others is a driving force. Being in charge of and having others subject to us is a source of joy. But for the Christian our great joy is being subject to Christ, of being under Him, under His authority, subject to His control. So it was for our Lord. So it should be for us. And if it is not so then things are not right between us and God.

The sovereignty of God in our salvation has many benefits. It means that our salvation is certain, for it is His will that prevails and is accomplished. He is able to do what He purposes. It means that our salvation is secure. Not only does God do what He purposes, He finishes what He begins. Paul put the matter this way:

Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

God finishes what God starts, and God has started our salvation. He purposed it in eternity past, choosing us long before we were given the opportunity to choose Him. He accomplished our salvation on the cross of Calvary. And it is He who will bring that salvation to its completion.

Finally, God’s sovereignty in our salvation means that we should be humbled by His love, which has chosen us and sought us out. It means that our lives should be filled with praise and adoration for our Savior. It means that it was grace that saved us, sovereign grace, undeserved grace, and thus He alone is to be praised.

(3) There is a great emphasis on joy in the Bible. Christians often tend to be masochistic, speaking often of the price of discipleship, and little of the joy of it. While our Lord spoke often of the cost of discipleship, this text is intended to underscore one of the great benefits of discipleship: joy. The theme of joy is not a new one. Joy is always the outcome of true salvation. Note some of these biblical examples of joy.

ABRAHAM’S JOY WAS IN THE COMING OF CHRIST

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).

DAVID’S JOY OF SALVATION

Restore to me the joy of your salvation (Psalm 51:12).

THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH EXPERIENCED JOY IN HIS SALVATION

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39).

THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER’S JOY

The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and the whole family was filled with joy, because they had come to believe in God (Acts 16:34).

JOY IS TO CHARACTERIZE THE LIFE OF THE TRUE BELIEVER

You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand. a prayer of David (Psalm 16:11).

They feast on the abundance of your house; you give them drink from your river of delights (Psalm 36:8).

Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

Then will I go to the altar of God, to God, my joy and my delight. I will praise you with the harp, O God, my God (Psalm 43:4).

GOD FINDS PLEASURE IN OUR SALVATION

As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you (Isa. 62:5).

But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more (Isa. 65:18‑19).

I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul (Jer. 32:41).

“The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing” (Zeph. 3:17).

ALL HEAVEN REJOICES IN MAN’S SALVATION

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety‑nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:7‑10).

JOHN THE BAPTIST’S JOY WAS IN JESUS’ INTRODUCTION

The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete (John 3:29).

THE DISCIPLES’ JOY WAS JESUS’ DESIRE AND PRAYER

“I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:11).

I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete” (John 16:20‑24).

“I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them (John 17:13).

THE CHRISTIAN CAN EXPERIENCE JOY IN SUFFERING

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name (Acts 5:41).

Through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope … Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation (Romans 5:2, 11).

These any many, many other passages in Scriptures tells me that joy is one of the principle motivations, not only for the Christian, but even for God Himself. God saved men for His own pleasure. Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). The saints are sustained in their present affliction, knowing the joy that lies ahead, not to mention the joy of knowing and serving God, and even of suffering for His name’s sake. The book of Philippians was written during one of the worst periods of the apostle Paul’s life and yet the keynote which prevails throughout the book is joy.

My study of joy in our text and in the Bible has led me to this conclusion: OUR PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE SEEK HAPPINESS OR PLEASURE IN LIFE, IT IS IN SEEKING PLEASURE IN ANYTHING BUT GOD HIMSELF.

I know that I have been guilty of saying to others, “It is wrong to seek to be happy. What we should seek rather is to be godly.” But this is not really consistent with what our Lord says in our text. It is not that we are wrong in seeking joy and pleasure; we are wrong in seeking pleasure in anything but God.

This leads me to another observation: WE HAVE OFTEN ERRED IN SEEKING TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE BY THE NEGATIVE MOTIVATIONS GUILT OR FEAR, RATHER THAN OF JOY.

The pursuit of joy in God and God alone could virtually revolutionize our lives. Think of some of the implications of this:

WORSHIP IS OUR JOY IN GOD OVERFLOWING IN PRAISE TO GOD. If we were to enjoy God more our worship would overflow in praise and adoration. The Psalms overflow with both joy in the Lord and the praise of God.

EVANGELISM IS OUR JOY IN GOD OVERFLOWING IN PRAISING GOD TO MEN. We talk about the things we enjoy. If our joy were in the Lord, we would talk about Him often, not because it was our duty so much as because God is our delight.

SERVICE IS OUR JOY IN GOD OVERFLOWING IN MINISTRY TO OTHERS. I believe that burnout is probably the result of a lack of joy in our service, as much or more than anything else. Service that is motivated by guilt or fear will not be a ministry of joy, and we will quickly burn out. Joy is the fuel of faithful service. Joy in the growth and progress of others in their enjoyment of God was a part of the fuel of Paul’s service:

“For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? Indeed, you are our glory and joy” (1 Thes. 2:19).

ENDURING PERSECUTION AND SUFFERING IS THE RESULT OF SETTING THE JOY OF GOD AND OF HIS PROMISES ABOVE THE PRESENT PLEASURES OF SIN. When we choose to disobey God, as did Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, it is because we have doubted God’s promises, and disdained His pleasures. Instead, we disobey, seeking those pleasures which are both fleeting and fatal. Finding pleasure in God is an antidote, a deterrent to finding pleasure in sin. We read of Moses, who

“… chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward (Hebrews 11:25‑26).

OUR STUDY OF, AND OUR OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WORD IS MOTIVATED BY THE JOY IT GIVES TO GOD AND TO US. David found his deepest joy in God, and thus he also found great delight in the Law of God—the Law, mind you. That which we turn up our noses. The Law of God was David’s great desire because he knew that the Law revealed what was pleasing to God and what was not. Because David found his pleasure in God, he found pleasure in studying God’s Word and in obeying it.

“I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoiced in great riches. I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word” (Psalm 119:14‑16).

LONG‑TERM DEPRESSION IS THE WILLFUL CHOICE NOT TO FIND PLEASURE IN ANYTHING, NOT EVEN IN GOD. Long‑term depression, that which we choose to live with, is a choice to live in a way that is a perversion of God’s purpose. It is choosing pain over pleasure misery over His majesty, pity rather than praise.

LEGALISM IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH NOT MAKING GOD MAD, WHILE GRACE IS LIVING IN A WAY THAT WILL BRING PLEASURE TO GOD. Legalism views God as angry, begrudging, and hostile. It lives in a way that will not “set God off.” Christian liberty views God as an intimate being, with whom we delight to commune, and who finds delight in our obedience. Christian liberty loves to please God. (I am inclined to think that the one thing which most irritated the scribes and Pharisees was the joy which Jesus found, especially in the salvation of sinners—cf. Luke 5:27‑35.)

If joy is something which the Christian should seek, a noble motive for the Christian life, then why is it that so few are characterized by joy? I think that there are several possibilities.

(1) It may be that we lack joy because we have not experienced the salvation which produces it. John Piper, in an excellent book on the subject of delighting in God,[178] suggests that the presence or absence of joy may be a better test of one’s salvation than a mere profession. He suggests that if one does not really delight in God, in His presence, in His Word, in the worship of Him, that one should really consider the validity of their profession of faith. I agree. Do you find God a delight? Do you desire to pray, to worship, to study His word? If not, your lack of joy may reflect the fact that you have not yet experienced His salvation.

(2) A lack of joy in the life of the Christian may be the result of unconfessed sin. In Psalm 51, David prayed that God would restore to him the “joy of his salvation” (Ps. 51:12). Unconfessed sin is the cloud that dims the rays of the sun of His salvation. The solution to this condition is repentance and confession.

(3) Finally, a lack of joy in the life of the Christian may be the result of a wrong focus. When the focal point of our desires is not God Himself, God alone, the joy of our salvation diminishes. I would suggest we might paraphrase the Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount with this statement: WHERE OUR TREASURE IS, OUR PLEASURE IS.

Our treasure follows our investments, of time, money, and spiritual gifts. If we misappropriate the things given to us as a stewardship, the source of our pleasure shifts, and thus our joy in the Lord is weakened.

May God enable us to find our joy in Him, and in Him alone.

! Lesson 36:
The Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:25-37)

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered and said, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS, AND YOU WILL LIVE.” 29 but wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied and said, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went off leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance a certain priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take came of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you.’ 36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same” (Luke 10:25-27)

Introduction

One of my elder friends reminded me of the story of a study which a certain seminary conducted with their student body. They asked each of the students to prepare a message on the “Good Samaritan” for a radio broadcast. The seminary then arranged for a man to feign a heart attack on the sidewalk in front of the students, as they were on their way to preach the sermon. As I remember the story, in every instance the seminary student stepped around the “dying” victim to hasten on to deliver his sermon on the “Good Samaritan.” I must confess that I find the story somewhat believable.

In thinking about the difference between the Good Samaritan described in our text, and those who are not such good Samaritans, I was reminded of two “Jessica’s,” both of whom were headline news in the recent past. You probably remember the story of Jessica Hawn, and recall what her boss, a prominent televangelist, did to her. You would find it difficult to forget the story of little Jessica McClure, who was rescued from a well in West Texas. What a difference! One “Jessica” was victimized by a preacher, while the other was rescued by a group of rough-necked well diggers. As we watched the news of little Jessica’s rescue on television, people on the scene said, “I just couldn’t leave the well until I knew she was all right.” The Chief of Police said, “I cried for two hours when she came out,” and this little girl’s rescuers persisted in saying over and over again, “We weren’t heroes; we weren’t Samaritans; we were just there to help.” Good Samaritans like these are needed in our day as well.

Background

The story of the Good Samaritan is told by our Lord. It is meant to be understood in the context of what has already been said in Luke chapter 10. You may remember that in praising the Father, Jesus has just said:

“I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent [the scholars] and didst reveal them to babes” (Luke 10:21b).

In the story of the Good Samaritan, it is the scholars—the “wise and intelligent”—who are exposed for what they are (or are not). It will become clear that “these things”—the gospel, the truths of the kingdom of God—are hidden from them. The Samaritan is no scholar at all, but he is the hero of our text. What is the difference between “Samaritans” and “scholars,” in our text, so that the good Samaritan is really “good,” while the religious scholars of our Lord’s day are not? The story of the Good Samaritan helps us to see the difference.

·         Our text has two basic structural divisions, each of which is prompted by a question.

·         The first part of the story is in answer to the question, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

·         The second part deals the question, “Who is my neighbor?”

These are the two major divisions then: (1) “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (verses 25-28), and (2) “Who is my neighbor?” (verses 29-37). We shall ponder the answer to these two questions in our study of this text.

The First Question

Let us look then at the first question, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The man who comes to Jesus is a lawyer. He is not the kind of lawyer who goes to court with us for a traffic ticket or to bail someone out of jail. This “lawyer” is an expert in the Old Testament law, in particular, the Law of Moses, which is contained in the first five books of the Bible. We might say that this person is an Old Testament scholar, specializing in the Law of Moses. This term “lawyer” is not used very frequently in the Bible. We find it only in the Gospels, in Luke 10 and Matthew 22:35.

Our text tells us that this “lawyer” comes to our Lord, asking this question to put Jesus to the test. It is a hypocritical question, because he appears to be a seeker, but he is not. He is not really seeking to be taught by Jesus, nor is he interested in finding the way to eternal life. He believes he understands all these things. He does not believe that Jesus, an uneducated man (so far as Judaism viewed Him—see John 1:46; 7:44-49; Acts 4:13), could possibly teach him anything. He feigns respect for Jesus as a teacher of the law, but he is only seeking to test Jesus by questioning Him so that he can then say, “Your teaching is not consistent with the law.” When the lawyer asks, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life,” this phraseology is not that of the Old Testament. The Old Testament law says, “Do this and live.” The lawyer is using Jesus’ terminology, and is asking, “What is the essence of your teaching?” He wants to take the bottom line of Jesus’ system and compare it with the bottom line of Judaism so that he can then say, “Your system is wrong.” That is his intention.

The lawyer’s question implies that he does not expect Jesus to respond with a sequence of acts, but rather with one decisive act. Much like the rich young ruler in the Gospel of Matthew, he seems to be saying, “What good thing must I do in order to have eternal life?” Notice now how Jesus responds to this man’s question. First of all, Jesus does not relinquish His claim to authority. Jesus does not respond with the kind of false humility that says, “Well, of course, you’re the scholar.” He says to the scholar, “You have answered correctly,” retaining His authority and dealing with him as the student and He the teacher. Jesus would not pretend to be other than Who He was—the Messiah. Our Lord is the Master; this man is not, even though he is commonly regarded as a scholar. So what does Jesus immediately do? He does not answer his question. I must tell you that this is the great temptation for anybody who is a teacher: Don’t just stand there, teach something. Do you notice that Jesus restrains Himself from giving the man an answer and instead says, “You know the law, how does it read to you?”

I find it surprising that Jesus asks the lawyer what the law teaches, because when I come to the Gospels I come from the perspective of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus often says, “You have heard it said, but I say to you.…” In other words, “Here is what Judaism teaches about the law, but here is what the law really means.” I come, therefore, expecting that Judaism is wrong when it teaches the law, but it is not always wrong. You may remember what Jesus says in Matthew 23 (which is not a bad commentary on this individual in particular or on Judaism in general). Matthew 23:1-2 is part of our Lord’s criticism of the Jewish religious leaders: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.” Had the lawyer in our text not “seated himself in the chair of Moses?” That is, had he not come to Jesus as the one in authority, who had the right to teach others the meaning of what Moses wrote? That is why we are told that he is a lawyer; he is an Old Testament scholar and thus a teacher of the law. One would expect Jesus to say, “Don’t listen to anything they say; they’re wrong.” But He says,

3 … Therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them” (Matthew 23:3).

Is this not an amazing thing to hear from our Lord? He is saying, “Their teaching is not wrong, but their practice is wrong because it is hypocritical. Listen to what they say; do what they say, but don’t do what they do because they are hypocrites. They say one thing, and they do something else.” Therefore, Jesus is willing to say to the lawyer in our text, “How does the law read to you? You tell me.” We see this elsewhere in the Gospels when the rich young ruler comes to Jesus and asks, “What shall I do … ?” When another lawyer asks Jesus, “What is the great commandment,” Jesus tells him the answer. In our text, when the lawyer asks the question, Jesus says, “You tell Me the answer.” (What is interesting is that both answers are virtually the same.) Jesus refrains from giving an answer to his question. Instead, He asks a question, and the lawyer responds. His answer to our Lord’s question draws together two of the great Old Testament texts: (1) “loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” a citation of Deuteronomy 6:5; and, (2) a citation from Leviticus 19:18: “You are to love your neighbor as yourself.”

The answer the lawyer gives Jesus is absolutely correct, and it is also identical with the answer our Lord gave when He was asked a similar question. There is no difference of opinion about what the law teaches in terms of the essence of the law. Jesus asks the question; the man gives the answer. Jesus then responds, “Good answer; now do it. If you really want to know the answer to the question, ‘How does a man attain (that is, earn) eternal life,’ the law says, ‘Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, and do it habitually.’”

Our Lord’s reply, “Do this and you will live,” is a quotation from Scripture as well. Unfortunately, the New International Version does not indicate this, but you will notice the capital letters in the New American Standard Version, which indicate that it is a citation from Leviticus 18:5. The answer of the law is, “If you would attain to eternal life by the keeping of the law, then keep the law. Do it and live. Keep on doing it and live.”

The words of the law, cited by the lawyer, go even further. They not only require that one keep the law; they require that one keep the whole law perfectly. You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind. You must not only love your neighbor, you must love him as yourself. The law must be kept, all of it, without any omissions or failures. In other words, in order to be justified under the law, one must be perfect. This is certainly not what this lawyer wanted to hear. If the lawyer believed that Jesus was making eternal life too easy, by requiring only one thing, he just fell into the trap of saying (by the words he quoted) that his system made eternal life impossible, for no one could possibly keep the whole law perfectly. And this is exactly what the law required. Listen to what the apostle Paul writes on this point:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM” (Galatians 3:10).

It is at this point that our expert in the law becomes downright uneasy. Here is where beads of sweat must have started to form on his brow. Jesus has not yet told this man anything new. He simply asks the man how he reads the law, and the man reads the law exactly as Jesus does. Then Jesus says, “All right, you know what the law says; do it.” This is where it gets uncomfortable for us too, isn’t it? The law commands us to do what we cannot and persistently do not do. If you want to be saved by your works, by law keeping, then you must be saved by keeping the whole law; not most of the time, but all of the time; not in most of its commands, but in all of its commands. This is when beads of sweat should begin to form on all of our brows as well.

It is very important that we understand this: Jesus is not teaching works as a means of salvation here; He is actually teaching that doing good works (law keeping) cannot save anyone, because no one can keep the law perfectly. This man asks the question, “How can I be saved?” Jesus answers, “You tell Me, according to the law.” He responds, “One can be saved by perfectly and persistently obeying the whole law, with one’s whole heart, soul, mind and strength.” The lawyer is now on the spot. The system he is seeking to defend, is a system that cannot save anyone. In seeking to condemn Jesus, the lawyer has just condemned himself and the whole world.

The Second Question

Our lawyer tried to put Jesus on the defensive, to force Him to justify Himself. And now, suddenly and unexpectedly, it is the lawyer who is on the spot. He now feels obligated to justify himself. And he attempts to do this by asking Jesus a second question. Some people never learn! Our text says, “trying to justify himself, he asked, “Who is my neighbor?”

The passage which the lawyer just quoted says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” You’d think this guy would be real uneasy about his ability to do this, but instead he seems more worried about the command to love his neighbor. Why? My theory (which is only theory) is that it is difficult to test one’s love for God. How do you assess one’s attitudes, one’s devotion, one’s meditation, one’s relationship with God? You can’t. But if you want to find some way to measure one’s love for God, you can look at his love for his neighbor. Isn’t that what the Book of James is saying to us (and 1 John too)? James says that a man who professes that he has faith and yet doesn’t show love for his neighbor is a man with a false profession. I find it interesting that the title of one of Chuck Colson’s books is Loving God, but the subject matter of that book is about loving man. When you read this book, you find that the love men have for God is expressed by their love for their fellow man. I suspect that the reason this lawyer is so uneasy about the command to love his neighbor is because he knows his love for his neighbor is deficient.

The lawyer of the Old Testament law now begins to do what some lawyers do so well—look for a technicality in the law itself. He is seeking to find some excuse from the law that gets him off the hook. He goes into his scholarly mode, as it were, and asks this very deep theological question, “And who is my neighbor?” I love what Jesus does, or rather, what He does not do. Jesus does not say, “Oh, that is a profound question.” He does not pull out His Hebrew lexicon (dictionary) and say, “Oh, that’s a very interesting Hebrew word.” Preachers sometimes appeal to the more technical elements of the original languages in which the Bible was written, but Jesus does not do this.

Neither will Jesus allow Himself to be drawn into a debate with this lawyer. (How fortunate for the lawyer!) Jesus could have argued with this lawyer, and won! Let’s play out a possible argument for just a moment. If on the surface, you ask the question, “And who is my neighbor,” what would the answer be? We know what the Jewish answer was: “My neighbor is my fellow Israelite.” There is a way in which this looks like the right answer. Look with me at Leviticus 19:18, the command to love your neighbor as yourself. I want you to look at this verse for a moment:

“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

Now answer this question on the basis of this verse alone, “Who is my neighbor?” Do you know his answer? The Jew would say, “One of my fellow Jews.”

On the surface, it looks like the inquisitive lawyer is safe on the basis of this verse alone. But let’s look further than this one verse. Here is where Jesus could really take this lawyer apart, and it is amazing that He doesn’t. First, we are told elsewhere in the law (in the study of which this man is regarded as a scholar) that God loves the alien; that is, God loves the non-Israelite (Deuteronomy 10:18). God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow and He loves the alien. God loves the non-Israelite as well as the Israelite. In the Jewish mind, the law belonged to the Jews and no one else. God says, “The law applies equally to Jews and non-Jews, and you’d better not interpret it differently.” Look at these verses with me.

22 “You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 24:22).

There are not two sets of laws, one for Israelites and one for the Gentiles:

15 “The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the Lord.” 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you” (Numbers 15:15,16, NIV).

“And I charged your judges at that time, [These are the men who apply the laws.] “Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien” (Deuteronomy 1:16, NIV).

If I were to ask you the question, “Does the Old Testament teach that there is one set of laws for the Jews, and another set of laws for the Gentiles?,” I would hope you knew that the answer is, “No!” The clincher text is in Leviticus 19:34 right down the road from Leviticus 19:18:

“The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself” (Leviticus 19:34a, NIV).

1 Peter 4:10-11 10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (NASB)

Wouldn’t you love to have been in a debate with this lawyer, sitting there casually with your hands in your pockets, and then to turn and ask him, “Haven’t you read the law?” Oh, what a delight it would have been! He’s absolutely wrong, and Jesus knew it better than any of us. But Jesus doesn’t take this man apart, even though it would have been easy for Him to do so. Jesus simply responds to the lawyer’s second question by telling a story, the story of the Good Samaritan.

What Our Text Does and Does Not Say

Let us take note of what our text does not say, and then consider what it says. In this story, we can be tempted to assume things that are not said. For example, Jesus says, “A man was going down from Jerusalem” (The New American Standard Version says, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem.”). While Jesus makes it clear that the two travelers (the priest and the Levite) are Jewish, and that the hero is a Samaritan, we are not told the racial origins of the victim. The reason is simple—it doesn’t matter. And if it mattered to the first two travelers, it should not matter to us. The only thing that matters about that man is the one thing we’re told about him—that he is badly hurt and in need of help! The man had been mugged. Robbers overtook him, beating him badly and stripping him of his clothes, and then leaving him lying by the road, half-dead. This man needed help, badly. That’s what matters; and that’s what the text tells us. It isn’t matter whether it is a Jew who needs help or a Gentile. There is a human being lying by the road, who is seriously wounded and who desperately needs help.

We are told that two of Judaism’s finest specimens come upon the injured man as they make their way along the same road. These two men seem to be there by chance (see verses 31 & 32). I take it that this means they did not have any pressing business, which might have hindered them from stopping to render aid. These two men—the priest and the Levite—belonged to an elite Jewish class; both of them were religious professionals. In today’s vocabulary, we might say that one was a prominent pastor and the other a well-known televangelist. If anybody was expected to carry out the Old Testament law, it would be these men.

The priest came upon the injured victim first. He could see the man lying by the side of the road as he approached. Rather than to get involved, the priest deliberately walked on the other side of the road, so as not to get too close to the battered victim. I suspect that the priest carefully focused his eyes straight ahead or in the opposite direction of the injured man, so that he would not see his suffering. He did not check to see of the man was alive or dead. He did not ask the man if he needed help. He did nothing that would enlighten him about this man’s condition, and thus his need. For this priest, ignorance was indeed bliss.

The Levite was no different than the priest. He came upon the injured man some time after the priest. His actions were a virtual re-play of the scene with the priest. He passed by the suffering traveler on the other side, so that he would not feel obligated to do anything to help him. If the priest and the Levite felt any emotion at the sight of this man, it was probably revulsion at the sight of his injuries and deplorable condition.

The critical difference between the Samaritan, the priest, and the Levite is their compassion, or lack of it. So far as the attitude of the three travelers toward this man and his condition this the only difference the text indicates. The text tells us that the priest comes along and says (so to speak), “Yuk!” and he turns away. The text says virtually the same thing about the Levite. He comes along; he looks briefly, and then he turns aside. He doesn’t get too close. He doesn’t say, “Are you still alive?” He doesn’t listen for a heartbeat, or try to get a pulse. He doesn’t say, “I’ll send an ambulance.” He does not say, “I’d like to help you, but if I touch you, I may be ceremonially defiled.” He looks, and he says to himself, “How disgusting,” and he walks away. It is the opposite of compassion. It is repulsion. He doesn’t want to know any more about this man.

Have you ever seen somebody back into a car, hear the crunch and feel the cars bump, and then not even get out of their car to see what damage they might have done? They don’t want to know, because if they see the damage, they will feel more responsible for it. So they put their car in drive and move on. That is exactly what these two men do. They do not look; they do not know the extent of the need. All they see is a tragedy and a need, and that is enough to turn their stomachs and their heads. They go all the way around this man to avoid seeing, much less doing, anything about his need.

The Samaritan Comes on the Scene

At this point in the story, the Samaritan comes upon the same scene. Before we consider his response to the injured traveler, we need to review a little concerning the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans. When the Assyrians defeated Israel, they dispersed the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom among the Gentile nations. They also brought foreigners into the land of Israel to re-populate the land. The result was a half-breed race (half Jewish, half Gentile) that populated the Northern Kingdom of Israel from then on. When the Babylonians took the southern kingdom of Judah captive, they did not intermingle the races but kept the Jews separate, and so “pure” Jews returned to Judah. The “Jews” of Judah came to disdain the half-breed Samaritans, and not without reason, since the Samaritans gave those who returned from their Babylonian captivity much grief and opposition as they attempted to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, its walls, and the temple (see Ezra 4:10, 17; Nehemiah 4:2).

That same hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans is very evident in the New Testament. Perhaps the most enlightening text is found in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John. When Jesus (deliberately) passed through Samaria, He became thirsty and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink of water. The woman was surprised and asked Jesus why He, a Jew, would ask her, a Samaritan, for a drink, since Jews and Samaritans did not associate with each other. This woman went on to discuss with Jesus some of the theological differences between the Jews and the Samaritans, but Jesus would not allow her to sidetrack Him from His presentation of the heart of the Gospel. In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 9, we read that the Lord’s disciples went ahead of Jesus, into a Samaritan village, to make arrangements for the Lord’s arrival. When the Samaritans learned that Jesus was headed for Jerusalem, they would not allow Him to enter their village, and so the disciples asked Jesus for permission to call down fire from heaven to destroy the place, but were forbidden and rebuked by Him (9:51-55).

You can imagine the response of the Jewish lawyer, when Jesus introduces the Good Samaritan into his story. Two Jews, holding the most esteemed religious positions in Israel, have deliberately ignored the needs of a helpless, half-dead robbery victim. Rather than to help him they simply chose to look the other way. And now, approaching the same crime scene, comes a Samaritan, the lowest possible rung on the Jewish social ladder. This Samaritan, unlike the priest and the Levite, has a reason for his journey. He is on a trip. If anyone could excuse himself from getting involved, it was this Samaritan. But when he saw the man lying by the road, he reacted in a very different manner. The Samaritan, unlike the two religious Jews, felt compassion for the victim (verse 33).

He drew near to the victim, rather than to veer to the far side of the road. He treated the man’s wounds and bandaged him. The Samaritan does not seem to have had a first aid kit in his saddle bag; rather the wine, the oil, and perhaps even the cloth he used to bind the wounds came from his own food supplies and clothing. He placed the wounded man on his own mount, and brought him to an inn, where he spent the night caring for the man. The Samaritan had to continue his journey, but he did not let this keep him from providing care for the injured traveler. He paid for the victim’s room in advance, and saw to it that the innkeeper looked in on the recovering victim. He promised to return, and to fully reimburse the innkeeper for any additional expenses. There is nothing more the Samaritan could have done to minister to the man on whom he had compassion.

Jesus Concludes His Story

At the conclusion of His story Jesus asks the Jewish lawyer a final question: “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” The lawyer really chokes on his words here. He cannot find it in himself to even pronounce the word “Samaritan,” and so he answers, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”

Twice now, Jesus has been asked a question by the lawyer. Twice, Jesus asked the lawyer a question in response. And twice, Jesus then responded to the lawyer’s answer by telling him to “do” that which he had just said. The lawyer asked Jesus what one must do to inherit eternal life. When Jesus asked him what the law required, the lawyer responded with the two-fold command to love God and to love one’s neighbor. Our Lord then told the lawyer to do this. When the lawyer asked Jesus who his neighbor was, Jesus told this story of the Good Samaritan, and then asked the lawyer to identify who was a neighbor to the man in need. And when the lawyer reluctantly identified the Samaritan as the “good neighbor,” the Lord told the lawyer to imitate the Samaritan.

Why does Jesus twice tell this lawyer to “do” something in order to “inherit eternal life”? Why would Jesus tell a man to do something when He Himself taught that a man cannot be saved by his works? Here is the answer: because he is talking to a man who believes and teaches that a person is saved by his works, by his law keeping. If law keeping is the way to eternal life, no wonder this man is a lawyer! Jesus tells this man, “Do what the law requires and live,” because he has really asked Jesus this question: “Based upon the law, what shall I do to have eternal life?” The answer of our Lord is this: “You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” Now we see why Jesus doesn’t go any farther with this man than he does; it is because this man first has to see the inadequacy of the law keeping system he embraces as the only means to obtaining eternal life. This man will not turn to Christ as the Messiah until he first turns from his dependence on law keeping to save him.

When a man like our lawyer friend in this text reaches this point, he has a fundamental decision to make: (1) Because he is condemned by the law, he must look for justification before God in some other way than keeping the law; or, (2) He must attempt to avoid being condemned by the law by finding (or creating) some technicality, which appears to get him off the hook. No wonder this man had become an expert in the law.

Conclusion

There is a great contrast in our text between the two religious leaders and the Samaritan, but at its very root, there is one thing that especially distinguishes the Samaritan from the Jews—compassion. When the two Jewish religious leaders saw the injured man, they seem to be repulsed, and they do everything they can to ignore and avoid him. The Samaritan, moved with compassion, does everything possible to minister to the needs of the injured victim.

What is Jesus trying to teach this Jewish lawyer here, by telling him this story? Overall, I believe that Jesus is attempting to show this lawyer that the Jewish religious system of that day was completely bankrupt. This lawyer obviously saw himself as the authority, and Jesus as the back woods preacher. The lawyer thought of himself as the accreditation agency, and of Jesus as the novice who was being tested for official approval. The lawyer thought of Judaism as owning the only franchise offering tickets to “kingdom of God,” and anyone who did not obtain their official approval as imposters.

Jesus sought to show this self-confident lawyer that by his own definitions, law keeping was not the pathway to eternal life, because no one is able to live up to the demands of the law. In order for one to be saved by law keeping, he must fulfill every requirement of the law all of the time, and with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength. This was impossible, and so this lawyer should realize that the law can only condemn, but it cannot save.

This lawyer’s confidence in the law and his ability to keep it was at the heart of his resistance to Jesus Christ. He confronted Jesus because he perceived (correctly) that our Lord posed a threat to Judaism. This lawyer was unwilling to accept faith in the Lord Jesus as the way to eternal life because his whole life was devoted to the preservation and promotion of law keeping. Until this lawyer saw the bankruptcy of his religious system, he could not cast himself on Jesus for salvation by faith.

The story of the Good Samaritan teaches some very important lessons to law keepers, to those who wrongly supposed they can earn eternal life by doing good works. It teaches that those in the highest offices of Judaism are guilty of a lack of compassion, which is at the heart of what the law required:

9 And as Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting in the tax office; and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he rose, and followed Him. 10 And it happened that as He was reclining at the table in the house, behold many tax-gatherers and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” 12 But when He heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:9-13).

There was a very fundamental difference between our Lord’s way of salvation and that of Judaism. Our Lord’s way was that of grace, through faith in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Judaism’s way was the way of law keeping, impossible though it may be. If a man actually supposed that he earned eternal life by his good works—by law keeping—then it is no wonder that he would be proud and self-righteous. Salvation (eternal life) was the result of his working. And so it comes as no surprise to see the priest and the Levite passing by the robbery victim with no compassion at all. They looked at the afflicted as those who suffered due to their own sin (see John 9:1), and they looked upon the affluent as those who had lifted themselves up by their own bootstraps. No wonder they had no compassion on the “sick.” No wonder the prophet Jonah wanted to watch the people of Nineveh be burned to a crisp, even the little children and the animals (see Jonah chapter 4). Self-righteousness is a subsidiary of legalism, and the mortal enemy of compassion and mercy.

Grace, on the other hand, is the mother of compassion. The lawyer was partially correct in his assessment of our Lord’s teaching about the way to eternal life. Jesus did teach that eternal life is granted by the doing (so to speak) of one thing—namely, believing in Jesus Christ. If one recognizes that law keeping cannot save, but can only condemn, then eternal life must come another way. And so it does. Those who accept the indictment of their sins by the law can be saved, apart from good works, by trusting in the only One who has ever kept the whole law, the One who died to satisfy the death penalty which the law pronounced upon sinners. Jesus Christ is the only righteous man to have lived on this earth. He alone fulfilled the law perfectly. And yet He took our sins upon Himself, bearing the curse of death which the law pronounced upon us. And by trusting in His death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf, our sins are forgiven and we receive the free gift of eternal life.

Since this eternal life is not the result of our good works, but the result of God’s grace manifested in and through Jesus Christ, we have nothing to be proud of, no basis for feeling self-righteous. And because God has been merciful and gracious to us, we can show mercy and compassion toward others. Grace leaves no place for self-righteousness; it is the basis for compassion. That is what Jesus is trying to help this lawyer to understand through the parable of the Good Samaritan.

And just as this despised and rejected Samaritan became the “savior” of the robbery victim on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, so the despised and rejected Jesus of Nazareth has become the Savior of all who trust in Him:

3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; he chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him (Isaiah 53:3-6).

Let me say one more thing as I conclude this lesson. This parable (and this sermon) are not intended to demean true biblical scholarship and study. I do believe that this parable was meant to condemn scholasticism, the intellectual and academic study of the Bible that is substituted for faith and obedience. How this lawyer seems to have enjoyed intellectualizing the truth of God’s Word. How hard he tried to keep the discussion scholarly and detached from life. But our Lord would not allow this man to deal with the truth of God’s Word in a test tube. Jesus would not define the term “neighbor” by doing a Hebrew word study. He defined it by telling a story. And Jesus will not allow the lawyer to deliberate and pass judgment as to whether someone else is our neighbor; He challenges us to ask ourselves whether or not we are good neighbors to those in need. That is what the truth of God’s Word is for, it is to be rightly understood and then rightly lived. God does not want us to give Him a textbook definition of loving our neighbor; He wants us to demonstrate love for our neighbor in the real world, by showing compassion to one in need, as did the Good Samaritan. Let us beware of intellectualizing the truth. Let us beware of keeping the Word of God in the classroom. And let us live out the grace of God that we have experienced it, if indeed we have experienced it.

!  Lesson 37:
When Martha Was Mad at the Master
(Luke 10:38‑42)

In his excellent book, Loving God, Charles Colson tells the story of Mickey Cohen, the “number‑one bad boy” of Los Angeles. Through the testimony of Jim Vaus and the ministry of men like Billy Graham, Cohen allegedly had a conversion experience. But when it became apparent to him that being a Christian meant that he could no longer be a gangster, he balked. That was too much. Colson calls the chapter of his book which deals with Cohen, “A Christian Gangster?” We all know better than to think that a man like Cohen could claim to be a Christian and yet carry on with his work in the underworld.

As strongly as we believe this, Christians fail to realize that it is not only a matter of occupying ourselves with the right kind of work, we must also go about our work with the right attitude. A preacher can preach with the wrong attitude, as Paul tells us (Philippians 1:15‑18). Someone who shows mercy by distributing food and clothing to the poor may be wrongly motivated in what they do (cf. Romans 12:8). Thus, we must not only be careful to be doing the right thing; we must be concerned with doing it with the right motivation.

It is often true that we begin our ministry with the right motivation, but somehow we get off track. This appears to be what happened to Martha. In a very familiar story, found only in Luke’s gospel, Martha becomes greatly distressed in the midst of preparing a meal for Jesus. I some people suffer from “burn out” in ministry, Martha is “burned up” in hers. This woman is really angry, and with Jesus no less! As one song has put it, Mary was … “‘Workin’ like the Devil, Servin’ the Lord.”

Who could think of a lovelier thing for a woman to be doing than to be showing Him the hospitality of a meal? And yet Martha virtually explodes with anger, due to the fact that her sister, Mary, is not helping, but rather is sitting at the feet of Jesus. And not only is Martha angry with her sister, she is greatly upset with her Lord. What happened to Martha’s ministry? What went wrong with her motivation? Why was Martha mad at Jesus? The answers to these questions can be found in the Bible. Let us listen well to the words of this text, and let us seek to learn from it those lessons which God intended for us, since it was preserved for our edification.

The Background of Our Story

At the 9th chapter of Luke, Jesus began to work with and through the disciples a great deal. This is due to the opposition to His ministry, His approaching rejection and crucifixion, and the need for the disciples to be trained for their work in His absence. Jesus first sent out the twelve apostles to preach the gospel (9:1‑6), and then the seventy (10:1‑20). Peter has made His great confession about the identity of Christ, and God has given His testimony as well at the mount of transfiguration (9:18‑36). The Lord has taught the disciples much about ministry, both through their successes (e.g., the feeding of the five thousand, 9:10‑17, and the healings and exorcisms of those sent out), and their failures (the failure of the 9 to exorcise the young man, 9:37‑43).

Jesus has emphasized the evangelization of the cities in the sending of the seventy, and the importance of joy as the motivation for ministry in his response to their report on their return (9:17‑24). In answer to the question of the lawyer about what he should do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told the man to do what the law commanded (9:25‑37).

It might appear from the story of the “Good Samaritan” that Jesus was advocating salvation by works. Jesus was, in reality, doing the opposite. He was attempting to show this expert in the law that in order to be saved through law‑keeping, he would have to do that which he had not been able to do (that is why he felt the need to justify himself), and that no one could do, for salvation through the law required perfect, progressive obedience to the law, without one failure.

The story of Martha and Mary underscores the futility of works as well. It was not the frantic activity of Martha which impressed Jesus, and which won His commendation, but the inactivity of Mary, sitting at the feet of the Savior, listening intently to His teaching. If one would place too high an emphasis on works, this story will put things back into perspective.

What We Know of Mary and Martha

There are several texts of Scripture which speak to us about Mary and Martha (and also Lazarus, their brother). I will place these texts in the order in which they seem to fall chronologically.

Luke 7:36‑50 Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” “Tell me, teacher,” he said. “Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.” “You have judged correctly,” Jesus said. Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Luke 10:38‑42 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

John 11:1‑39 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.” When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days. Then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.” “But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?” Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.” After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. “Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”

As I understand the chronology of these events, Mary was the one who anointed the feet of Jesus, as recorded in Luke chapter 7 (to which John referred in John 11:2). The incident recorded by Luke in our text takes place some time after this, followed by the raising of Lazarus (John 11), and finally by the last anointing of Jesus’ feet, in preparation for His burial (Matthew 26:6‑13; Mark 14:3‑9; John 12:1‑8). Some have explained the mention of the house of “Simon the Leper” by Matthew (26:6) and Mark (14:3) by suggesting that Martha was married to Simon. A tombstone found in that area with the names Simon, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus have been cited as evidence of this. It is my opinion that Simon offered the use of his house for this meal since it was larger, and that Martha did the serving, as stated in John’s gospel (but which doesn’t say whose house the meal was served in).

Based on all the texts in which Mary and Martha are described, I think we can infer several things about these two women. Martha appears to be the older of the two sisters. In our text in Luke chapter 10, Martha is depicted as the hostess, who invited Jesus into her home. Martha seems not only to be the older, but the more aggressive and outspoken of the two women. It is she who went out to meet Jesus after Lazarus died, and to inform Him that this would not have happened if He would have been there sooner. Mary will later repeat this same words, no doubt echoing Martha, but with a different tone, as I read them at least. Mary’s words convey only sorrow and regret. Martha’s words may subtly convey a rebuke, in effect saying, “If you hadn’t delayed, if you were not so late in coming, Lazarus would not have died.” This is not far from saying, “It’s all your fault, you know!” Even though Martha professed to believe in Christ as the Messiah, and in His ability to raise men from the dead (John 11:22‑27), she objected concerning the stench of the tomb when Jesus ordered it to be opened, and Jesus’ response reveals her lack of faith (John 11:39‑40). In Luke chapter 10 Martha is very aggressive and outspoken. She explodes with anger at Mary’s failure to come to her aid, and at Jesus’ encouragement (or at least His toleration) of her conduct. All of the texts combined paint a picture of Martha as the older, the more dominant (and perhaps domineering), the more outgoing, and the more vocal of the two.

Perhaps the two women can best be seen in contrast to each other, based upon John’s account of the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11.

Mary and the Feet of Jesus

Martha was upset because Mary remained at Jesus’ feet, listening to Him teach, while the burden of fixing the meal fell entirely on her. What was Mary doing at Jesus’ feet? How did she get there? I think I know.

Mary was always at Jesus’ feet. Indeed, in every text which speaks of her she is at Jesus’ feet. In Luke chapter 7 she was behind Jesus, quietly (and unobtrusively) washing Jesus’ feet with her tears and her hair. In John 11 she fell as Jesus’ feet when she found Him. In John 12 and its parallels, Mary was again at Jesus’ feet, anointing Him with expensive perfume, preparing Him for His death. I believe that in Luke chapter 10 she immediately found herself at Jesus’ feet, washing them from the dust of the journey He has taken. The account of Jesus’ washing the feet of His disciples in John chapter 13 sheds much light on this, as well as these words of Jesus, previously recorded by Luke, spoken to the Pharisees who had invited Jesus to dinner at his house:

Then he turned toward the woman [Mary?] and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet” (Luke 7:44‑46).

Mary, I believe, was at the feet of Jesus, doing what every good host or hostess would have done—washing the feet of their guest. It is my opinion that Mary just never got up. Mary was not content to make a quick job of it. Jesus began to speak, and she was captivated by His words. She was so inconspicuous, her actions so gracious, and Jesus so grateful and affirming, that she never thought of getting up and slipping away to the kitchen. I suspect that virtually everyone else in that room could hear the sigh’s of Martha, and the clanging of the pots and dishes as she proceeded to get angrier by the moment. But not Mary. She had eyes only for the One who had forgiven her, and who loved her, as she loved Him. She had no ears for Martha’s clamoring, but only for the gracious words spoken by her Master. Was she normally subject to Martha? Not so today, and Jesus was grateful to have her at His feet. The warmth of the love of that woman must have caused the room to glow. Who would dare to suggest she leave, no matter what Martha might want?

A Word About Martha

There are several things about Martha that we should take note of, before we consider our Lord’s words spoken to her.

(1) It is Martha who is the central person in our text, not Mary. We might all agree that Mary is the hero, she is the model, but she is not the dominant personality of our passage. Luke’s account records not so much as one word spoken by Mary, and there is but one brief verse describing her actions (v. 39). The remaining 4 verses are divided between Martha’s actions (vv. 38, 40) and Jesus’ response to Martha’s tantrum (vv. 41‑42).

(2) Martha was not jealous that Mary was spending time with Jesus, but angry that Mary was not helping her. One thing struck me as I have been thinking about Martha’s response to Mary’s actions: Martha was not envious of Mary, but angry with her. If Martha had said, “I would like to sit at your feet, too, Jesus,” that would have been one thing. But Martha did not say this. Martha seems to have felt that working in the kitchen was the “better thing,” not only for her, but also for Mary. How sad that Martha did not have the longing which Mary evidenced, the longing to do nothing else than to sit at Jesus’ feet, and to hear Him teach. Here was “bread” for which Martha had too little concern, or so it would seem.

(3) Martha does not see any problem with herself, but she blames those who are innocent of wrongdoing. Martha accused both Mary and Jesus of doing wrong against her, and found herself innocent. Jesus refused to grant Martha’s demands, even though forcefully put. Jesus praised Mary for the choice she had made and informed Martha that she was in the wrong.

(4) It is not Martha’s service which was wrong, but her attitude in that service. I do not think our text suggests that both Mary and Martha should have been sitting at Jesus’ feet, and that no meal should have been prepared. Martha was not wrong in serving, but her attitude in serving was clearly wrong. Martha had a serving ministry, but not a servant’s heart.

(5) Martha’s frustration, anger, and temper tantrum may not be excusable, but it is at least understandable. If Mary’s delight at sitting at the Master’s feet is easily understood, so is Martha’s chagrin. It is not excusable, but it is understandable. Let me remind you that Martha, as the hostess of the house, may well have been faced with entertaining a sizable group. We know that Jesus was often accompanied by a large party. One can hardly imagine the 12 disciples not being there, not to mention some or all of the 70, and then, of course, the women who accompanied and attended Jesus (Luke 8:1‑3).

Some years ago, when my younger sister was married, my parents entertained a large group at their home. At least 50 or 60 people were there for at least one meal. There was a great deal of planning and preparation involved. My wife, Jeannette, played a large role in this, and she can testify to the work involved. I gather from this experience that Martha likewise had no mean job. She could have used all the help she could get.

Another factor in Martha’s anger at Mary’s absence may have been a cultural one. In that day and time (as is still often the case in the Eastern world) the men would sit about talking “man talk” while the women were going about their more “domestic duties.” For Mary to have been in the “living room,” as it were, and not in the “kitchen” may have been unusual. Martha may not have sensed the Lord’s encouragement for Mary to stay, or, she may very well have observed it, which would explain her outburst of anger toward Him. Was she reminding Jesus of how He should “take the leadership” here?

Woman’s work was in the kitchen, fixing meals. Men’s work was to talk theology, in the living room, with Jesus. Mary had no right, Martha told herself, and if we had been in her sandals, we would likely have thought the same thing.

(6) Martha’s words reflect not only an anger, but a lack of reverence and a lack of submission. Martha charged Jesus with not caring for her, with condoning wrongdoing on Mary’s part, and then publicly demanded that Jesus concede His “error” by making Mary go to help her sister. One must say that this is hardly proper conduct. If Martha thought that Mary was not conforming to her “womanly role” how much more so for herself.

Jesus Response to Martha’s Rebuke

Jesus’ words in response to the stormy protest of Martha may not tell us all that was wrong, but they surely inform us as to what the primary problems were. Notice several things about Jesus’ words to Martha.

(1) Jesus did not respond to Martha’s anger in anger. How easy it would have been for Jesus to have a scorching, or at least a sarcastic response to Martha, but no trace of anger can be seen. Our Lord’s response is truly gracious, and His rebuke most gentle. That same compassion which drew Mary to Jesus’ feet, is that which characterized Jesus’ response to her sister.

(2) Jesus found Martha’s charges wrong on every count, and at the same time found Martha to be the one in the wrong. Her tears and her rebuke, no matter how strongly put, do not put Jesus on the defensive. Jesus made no attempt to clear Himself, defended Mary’s decision as the better one, and found Martha’s outburst unjustified, and a symptom of more serious problems. Angry accusations and outbursts, especially those which are disproportionate (as was that of Martha), often point to deeper problems. It is to these problems that our Lord’s words will point.

(3) Jesus’ response was evidence of His refusal to superimpose some kind of stereotypical “woman’s role” model on Mary and Martha alike. Mary and Martha were both women, but nothing in Jesus’ words deals with either of them as women. Mary was not only free to sit and learn at Jesus’ feet, she was commended for it. Martha was not forbidden or rebuked for serving, but only for insisting that Mary do likewise. Jesus deal with these women as individuals.

(4) Jesus dealt more with the attitudes of these women than He did their actions. Martha was rebuked for her wrong attitudes of being “worried and upset.” While Mary was motivated by love, gratitude, and pure joy, Martha was running on the steam of distress and consternation. This was not way to be serving her Lord.

(5) Jesus exposed a problem with Martha’s priorities. Mary had chosen that which was “better” and “necessary” (v. 42); Martha was frazzled and frustrated by a whole host of things (“many things,” v. 41). What was that “better” thing, that which was “necessary,” that which Mary had chosen, and Martha had not? In brief, I think that the “better thing” was abiding in Christ, drawing strength and instruction from Him. It was being taught at the feet of the Master. If there is any one element of discipleship, it is being a learner, and this is what Mary had chosen to do. Martha was preoccupied with ministering to Jesus; Mary with the ministry of Jesus. In the final analysis, He is not dependent upon our ministry to Him, but our life in Him is totally dependent upon His ministry to us. In seeking to serve Jesus, Martha was hindering the sustenance of Jesus in her life, and she even demanded that it be kept from her sister as well.

(6) Jesus exposed a problem of responsibilities. Martha had greatly overstepped her areas of responsibility. Simply put, Martha was responsible only for her attitude, for her service. Martha had extended her responsibility to “many things,” things which were not hers to assume. She felt responsible to direct Mary’s ministry, and even to dictate our Lord’s responsibilities (by demanding He correct Mary). She had begun to assume responsibility for others, while ignoring her own accountability.

Conclusion

We should first seek to understand this event and its meaning in the context of Luke’s gospel. What is the Spirit of God teaching us here, at this point in Luke’s developing argument of the life of Christ? I believe that this story illustrates many of the things which Luke has been emphasizing up to this point, as well as correcting any possible misconceptions. I believe that Luke is, by means of this incident, illustrating what true discipleship is. The essence of discipleship is not our service rendered to Christ, but finding our sustenance in Christ. It is not being a Martha, but a Mary. Discipleship is not so much a teeth‑gritting devotion to duty, as a joyful devotion to and dependence on Christ.

Our story is also further evidence of the priorities which characterize our Lord and which should characterize His disciples. One of these priorities is that of being sustained and strengthened by the Word of God as opposed to finding our strength from earthly sustenance, namely food. In the temptation of our Lord by Satan to command stones to become bread, our Lord’s response was, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone’” (Luke 4:4).

Later in this same chapter, when the disciples found Jesus in prayer, they urged Him to return to the place where He had been, for many were waiting for Him to heal them. Jesus’ reply expressed the priority of the Word of God to meeting man’s physical needs,

At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea (Luke 4:42‑44).

In the gospel of John, the same emphasis on deriving our sustenance from Christ is found, but this time using the analogy of a branch finding its life from the vine:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples (John 15:1‑8).

In the gospel of Matthew, learning from Jesus is not only taught, but it is taught in such a way as to prevent men from the very things which were eating away at Martha. Learning of Christ is the key to finding rest in Him:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28‑30).

Later on, in the book of Acts (also authored by Luke), we see the priority of the Word of God to service emphasized in this event:

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against those of the Aramaic‑speaking community because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “it would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:1‑7).

The New Testament, then, has much to say about the priority of the Word of God in the life of the Christian and in the life of the church. It is not, as some would say, that we “worship the Bible,” but rather that because we worship the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, we fellowship with Him and find sustenance from Him through His Word. By emphasizing the Word of God in the life of the Christian I do not mean to say that we sit at the feet of Jesus like Mary did by sitting through a sermon. Sitting at the feet of our Lord, learning from His word, may be furthered by the insight of gifted teachers, but ultimately we sit at Jesus’ feet when we personally study the Word of God.

I want to be honest with you at this point. While I believe that God has given me the gift of teaching, I am very frequently tempted to forsake my study and the hard work of grappling with the Word of God by finding other ways of serving God. I find that it is a lot easier, in the terms of our text, to be in the kitchen with Martha than to be in the living room with Mary, at the feet of Jesus. Jesus had many hard things to say, many things which the disciples did not want to hear, like Jesus’ instruction concerning His rejection and death. Serving God can often be an excuse for not studying God’s Word. Let us all beware of letting a good thing like service get in the way of the better thing, abiding in Christ through His Word.

But how can we say that being in the Word is more important, “better,” than serving Him? We can say this because abiding in Christ through His Word provides us with both the motivation and the means for serving Him. Service may not result in the study of God’s Word, but honest searching of Scripture will produce service. Just as a branch cannot produce fruit by any other means than by abiding in the vine, so we cannot produce fruit apart from abiding in Christ through His Word.

I believe that Martha’s explosive reaction to Mary’s failure to join her in the kitchen is indicative of a very serious problem in her life. I believe that her problem may be summed up in this way: MARTHA WAS WRONG IN MEASURING HER SIGNIFICANCE IN TERMS OF HER SERVICE

Martha felt that her service was so vital she could demand that Mary come to help her, even though it meant not being there to learn at the feet of the Savior. Martha was so violent in her response that she accused the Lord of wrongdoing by not giving her the “support” she needed in her ministry.

I do not think that Martha would have been so touchy about her ministry if she did not have her “meaning in life” invested in it. The kitchen was the one area which was under Martha’s authority. It was by preparing meals and offering hospitality that Martha saw herself as having value to others. When Jesus’ actions threatened her ability to perform in this area, she strongly reacted. Martha found her ministry to be of too much value to her. She could not put it aside for anything, not even in order to learn at Jesus’ feet. And she could not allow Mary to set it aside, either.

It is amazing that while Christians have come to the point of renouncing their performance, their works, as having anything to contribute to their salvation, they somehow think that their ministry does determine their significance to God, or at least to others. The Scriptures simply do not teach this, for our spiritual gifts, our ministries, and our level of effectiveness are all sovereignly given us by God (1 Corinthians 12:4‑6). The one who has a great ministry cannot take the credit, any more than the one with a seemingly insignificant ministry can take any blame. It is only required that we be faithful in using that which God has given us, in the context in which He has placed us.

Over the years I have seen many young men enter seminary and attempt to become pastors primarily because they (often told or taught this by other Christians) believe that this is a more significant ministry, which makes them more significant people. I think this same error lies under much of the struggle women have with the “role of women” taught in the Bible. Why are some women so up tight because they cannot teach and lead men? Because, I fear, they think these are more significant ministries, which would make them more significant people. When we think this way, ministry becomes our master, as it was for Martha. When we think biblically, our Master is our ministry, as He was for Mary.

I find it interesting to note that when our significance is not measured by our service, we are willing to accept either “success” or apparent “failure” in ministry as from God. John the Baptist rejoiced in the demise of his ministry, because he had played out his role, and the Master was being magnified. Paul dealt with many reverses in his life, and yet he was able to see them as from the hand of His sovereign Lord, and he could rejoice, even in the worst of circumstances (cf. Acts 16:25; 2 Corinthians 6; Philippians).

Our Lord’s words to Martha inform us that the magnitude of our ministry is not nearly as important as the motivation of our ministry. It will not be until the day of judgment that the motives of men will be revealed, and thus our ministries should not be judged by us now (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:1‑5). Let us beware of seeking to appraise the value of our ministries, since this is something which only God can judge with accuracy.

I was reminded this past week of some excellent work done by Gordon MacDonald, in his book, Ordering Your Private World. He does an excellent job of differentiating between the “called” person and the “driven” person. I believe that given MacDonald’s terminology we would think of Mary as being “called” and Martha as being “driven.” I would like to change the labels and to add a category. I would like to think of Christians as falling into one of three categories: (1) the committed (the “called”), (2) the compulsive (the “driven”), and (3) the complacent. Allow me to briefly summarize each in the chart below:

The Committed,
The Compulsive, and the Complacent

The committed are those who love the Lord, and whose love and joy motivates them to serve faithfully. The compulsive have to serve, but for the wrong motives, whether it be guilt, fear, or one’s need for approval. The complacent just don’t care. The love is cold, their loyalties divided.

My fear in teaching this passage of Scripture is that someone who is complacent will gratefully say an “Amen” to what they think I have said, so that they are excused from doing anything, but sitting. There are too many sitters already. Mary, I would suggest, was serving while she was sitting. She was, I believe, washing feet, just as Martha was serving in the kitchen. The difference between Mary and Martha is not that one served and the other didn’t, but that one served out of joy and love, the other out of a compulsive need to serve, for her own benefit. Let us be like Mary, serving the Lord with a pure heart, our of gratitude, not guilt or fear or compulsion.

There is yet one final thing that I wish to say as I close. There is no better place to be, no place we are more welcome to be, than at the feet of our Lord. When we fall at His feet, we acknowledge His majesty, power, and goodness, and our need. When we fall at His feet, we rightly reflect the response of the creature to the Creator. No sinner in the New Testament that I am aware of ever hesitated to come to Jesus’ feet. The self‑righteous would not be caught dead there, because of their pride and arrogance, but the sinner found the feet of Jesus a place of welcome. You are always welcome at His feet.

But I must say that all men will someday find themselves at Jesus’ feet. His saints, those who have trusted in Him for salvation, will be at His feet in worship, adoration, and praise. But those who have rejected Him will also be at His feet, or, more accurately, under His feet. As I close this message let me remind you of what God Himself has said of the enemies of Christ,

“‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET’” (Acts 2:34, citing Psalm 110:1).

May you come to His feet now, like Mary, in humility, in dependence, and in adoration, for it is He and He alone who welcomes and saves sinners, and who urges them to learn from Him whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light (Matthew 11:28‑30).

! Lesson 38:
Teach Us To Pray
(Luke 11:1‑13)

1 One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” 2 He said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread. 4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.’ “ 5 Then he said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6 because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.’ 7 “Then the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man’s boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9 “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Luke 11:1-13

Introduction

I have a confession to make. I have almost never prayed the so‑called Lord’s Prayer. The reason why I have refrained is because of what I have considered its misuse. In Matthew’s account, the Lord’s Prayer is preceded by these words:

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This is how you should pray … ” (Matthew 6:7‑9a).

I believe that my study of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke’s account has changed my mind about this. In introducing this prayer in the Gospel of Luke, which is similar,[179] but not identical to that found in Matthew, our Lord said, “When you pray, say: … ” (Luke 11:2a), strongly suggesting that the actual words should be repeated. If this is a prayer which disciples should pray, then we should understand what it means. If our Lord’s words in Matthew mean anything, they mean that to repeat the prayer without understanding it is essentially no different than praying as the heathen do.

The Tension of the Text

As I began to study this text more seriously, and as I noted that Jesus taught this prayer as a pattern, I could not find the prayer anywhere included in the many prayers of the disciples or of the early church, which were recorded in the New Testament. How could this prayer be a pattern, a model, and yet never be found practiced by the disciples? How could the Lord Jesus instruct His disciples to pray this prayer and yet we find no record of it having been done by the first disciples or later ones? Is this prayer a pattern if we never find it used as such? That is one of the tensions of this text. I think I now know the answer, but I shall delay sharing it with you until we look more carefully at the prayer itself. Let us listen well, then, to our Lord’s instructions on prayer, for this prayer is not the Lord’s Prayer, but the disciple’s prayer.

Luke, the “Gospel of Prayer”

As you may know, the Gospel of Luke has, by far, the most emphasis on prayer. Plummer, in his commentary on Luke, calls Luke “the Gospel of Prayer.”[180] Surely it is that. Up to this point, the emphasis of Luke has fallen on the prayer life of our Lord. But here a certain unnamed disciple sees the Lord’s practice as a pattern, one which each disciple should follow, and thus the Lord is asked to teach the disciples to pray as well. The prayer life which characterizes our Lord will, in the Book of Acts, characterize the disciples as well. Luke is paving the way, laying the foundation for that constant communion with God in prayer.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our passage can be simply outlined:

(1) The disciple’s request—“Lord, teach us to pray,” v. 1

(2) The pattern prayer: prayer’s agenda—vv. 2‑4

(3) The disciple’s motivation for prayer—vv. 5‑13

The Disciples’ Request
(11:1)

Jesus was, once again, at prayer. He was praying, Luke tells us, “in a certain place” (v. 1). I take it that this means our Lord was taking a time out for prayer, as He often did. The disciples had been observing these “seasons of prayer” for some time. Apparently they had finally realized that just as prayer played a vital role in John the Baptist’s life, and in the life of the Lord, so it should be their own practice as well. One of the disciples, who remains unnamed (was it one of John’s disciples, who followed Jesus?), asked Jesus to teach His disciples to pray, just as John had done.

Several things strike me about this request.

(1) I note that the subject of prayer is raised by one of the disciples, rather than by our Lord. One could hardly say that our Lord did not feel prayer was vital, but as strongly as our Lord believed in prayer and practiced it personally, He did not initiate the subject here. Why? I believe it was because our Lord wanted the disciples to conclude on their own how important prayer was. I believe that Jesus was ready and willing to teach on prayer, but only when His disciples were eager to learn. Motivation cannot be higher for learning when the student asks the teacher to teach.

(2) Closely related, our Lord knew the power of a good example was greater than that of an oration. It is no accident that the disciple asked Jesus to teach them to pray at the very time our Lord had set aside time for His own prayer. The prayer life of our Lord prompted the disciple to press Him to teach them to do likewise. How easy it is to ask one who has demonstrated his expertise to share it with others.

(3) The disciple asked Jesus to teach them to pray because he knew that this was an area of ignorance and inexperience. I do not know of anywhere in the gospels where the disciples were characterized as men of prayer. Jesus’ prayer life was, even in the garden of Gethsemane, something which He practiced alone, without the help (at least for very long) of the disciples. The petition of this one disciple was an open admission that prayer was not only needed, but was a deficiency in his life and in the lives of his fellows.

Once again, the disciples reveal a child‑like quality in which our Lord delighted, and for which He praised the Father (cf. Luke 10:21). The scribes and Pharisees, the wise and learned, were too smart, at least too proud, to admit their need to ask Jesus anything, other than to show where His authority came from, and thus they learned nothing from Him. A child has no reluctance to admit that they don’t know something, and thus they hound adults with their questions. The ability to learn begins with the ability to admit one’s ignorance and to express one’s desire to learn.

A Pattern for Prayer: Prayer’s Agenda
(11:2‑4)

When one looks at the prayer which our Lord gives to His disciples as a pattern prayer, we immediately recognize that it is a short one. This prayer does not include all of the elements of prayer. For example, this prayer focuses on petitions for God to meet certain needs, but it does not deal to any great degree with man’s praise.[181] The prayer is a skeletal one, one which can be filled in with much greater detail, but it is also one that does outline the essential elements of our prayers. Let us briefly survey the three areas of need which this prayer underscores, as I presently understand it.

(1) The prayer deals with the “cosmic need” of the coming of the Kingdom of God, at which time the character of God will be fully revealed. It is my understanding that the hallowing of God’s name is virtually synonymous with the coming of His Kingdom. The approach of the Kingdom of God is frequently mentioned in the gospels, but we know from the Book of Acts that it is not yet realized. The coming of our Lord’s kingdom will take place at His second coming, when the whole creation is restored and rid of sin, and when God’s holiness and splendour is revealed in its totality. Romans chapter 8 speaks of the cosmic need for His return, for the kingdom to come, and this prayer petitions God to bring it to pass. The first element of prayer has to do with the authority of the Father being fully established on the earth, and for His glory and splendour to be revealed at this time.

(2) The prayer deals with the area of the disciples’ physical needs. The Father is also the provider for His children, and thus the disciples are taught to beseech Him for their daily needs. I believe that bread stands not only for “food” in a general sense, but also for all of the other areas of physical need. The Father is the Sustainer of life and here He is to be petitioned to meet our physical needs.

(3) The prayer deals with the spiritual needs of saints who still sin. Salvation delivers one from the penalty of sin, but only the return of Christ will rid the saint of the presence of sin. There is no sinless perfection in this life. Thus, Jesus taught his disciples to pray for forgiveness for their sins. Even the apostles sinned. We can think of Peter’s denial of our Lord (Luke 22:54‑62), or his unbiblical concession to the Judaisers, which Paul called a denial of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11‑21). And there was Thomas, who refused to believe until he saw and touched Jesus himself (John 20:24‑29). As all creation awaits and yearns for the coming of the Kingdom of God, as man’s body yearns for the provisions of God for its physical needs, so the spirit of man desperately needs the forgiveness of sins committed and God’s protection from committing further sin. In order to enjoy fellowship with God, the barrier of our sins must be removed by His forgiveness. There is an on‑going need for this, and it is for this that Jesus taught us to pray. When our Lord included the expression,

For we also forgive everyone who sins against us (verse 4),

I believe He was not teaching that we must forgive before the Father will forgive us (which would mean that forgiveness is conditioned upon our works), but that the two are seen as working hand‑in‑hand. Further, I believe that this is an acknowledgment that we not only need God’s forgiveness, but that we also need God’s enablement to be able to forgive.

The petition, And lead us not into temptation (verse 4), is, I believe, the request that God enable us to deal with sin at its very roots, rather than waiting for its bearing of fruit. It is not a request that God “cease and desist” from tempting us, for we are told that God does not tempt (James 1:13‑14); instead, it is our expression of a desire on our part not to be tempted. Many of us would like to be tempted and to overcome that temptation, rather than to escape it. Our Lord’s consistent teaching is that we should seek to deal harshly with sin, dealing with its very roots. Thus, the prayer of the disciple should acknowledge the reality of his sin and consequent need for forgiveness, but at the same time should seek to avoid sin altogether by being kept even from solicitation to sin. That we are told to pray for something God has told us He won’t do is not that different from being told to pray for the things He has said He will do (cf. Matthew 6:32).

The Disciples’ Motivation for Prayer
(11:5‑13)

Here, then, we have the central core, the essence of those things for which the disciple of Jesus should consistently pray. Disciples should pray for the coming of God’s Kingdom, along with its revelation of God’s character, for daily physical needs, and for God’s provisions for sin.[182] Having provided us with the curriculum or material for our prayer, the Lord now moves to the motivation for our prayers. To do this He tells two parables, each of which begins (in the NASB at least) with the word “suppose” (verses 5, 11). The first parable deals with one’s request of a friend (vv. 5‑10); the second with the request made of one’s father (vv. 11‑13).

With a Friend, Boldness and Persistence Pay (vv. 5‑10)

The first example which our Lord gave is a rather humorous one, when you try to visualize it. One man has an unexpected guest arrive at his home, and he is without bread to give to him. Even though it is midnight, he goes to the house of a friend to ask to borrow bread. His friend is already in bed, perhaps in the same bed with his children.[183] There may even be animals in the room, as there often was (and still is in some parts of the world). The friend in bed would have quickly given the bread if it were not so late, and if it would not disturb the whole house. But even though man in bed protests, the man in need boldly (the text literally says that he shamelessly) persisted, which prompted his friend to get up, open the door, and give him what he was seeking, the bread for which he had asked.

If this man’s request was granted, due to his persistence, even though it was most inconvenient, then persistence in seeking what one truly needs must pay off. The next verses simply apply the lesson which the story has taught:

“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened (Luke 11:9‑10).

I had never seen these very familiar verses in connection with the context of the preceding words of our Lord in the story of the friend who petitions his friend for bread in the middle of the night, but the connection is clear. He, by persistently knocking, had the door opened to him. He, by boldly asking, got what he asked for. He sought and he found what he was seeking. So, too, with the disciple in his prayers. Consistent, persistent prayer, daily prayer, is to be motivated by the assurance that if a friend will give what is sought, even if inconvenient, then God will surely answer our petitions.

With a Father, We Can Expect Only Good Gifts (vv. 11‑13)

In the first story, Jesus used the example of a friend, who gave his fellow what he wanted, even though it was inconvenient, because of his persistence. In the second story, Jesus leaves the imagery of a friend and moves to that of a father. If friends can be expected to give us what we ask for when we persist, what can one expect of a father, better yet, of our Heavenly Father?

Jesus instructed His disciples to pray to God as their Father. He now picks up on the theme of God as Father in His second illustration. Earthly fathers love their children and delight in giving good gifts to them. Human fathers do not give their children “bad” things when they have asked for something good. Put a little differently, earthly fathers do not give their children gifts which will harm them when they are asked for those things which will help them. Fish and eggs are both helpful. They strengthen the physical body. Snakes and scorpions are both harmful to the physical body. God, as a Heavenly Father, does not give us those things which will be harmful to us when we have asked for those things which are beneficial to us.

To often, at least in my own experience, I find myself asking God for snakes and scorpions, rather than for fish and eggs. I discover that I am inclined toward things which are detrimental to my spiritual life. In such cases, I may ask for a snake, but God gives me a fish. I may wish for a scorpion, but God gives me eggs. If God does not give us evil gifts when we ask for the good, He does give us good gifts even when we seek those which are harmful to us.

Because God is a good God, a loving Father, He can not only be expected to answer our petitions, but to do so in a way that is for our highest good. From our Lord’s first story we learn that God answers our prayers. From the second, we learn that His answers are good ones. The highest good which God gives to His disciples who petition Him in prayer is summed up in the gift of the Holy Spirit. What better gift could our Lord give to His disciples. And we know from the first chapters of the Book of Acts that the Spirit is God the Father’s gift to His church, in answer to their prayers.

Conclusion

As we seek to conclude our study, let us return to the “tension of the text” mentioned at the beginning of this message. Why, if this prayer is a pattern prayer, do we never find it as a prayer of any of the disciples, either in the gospels or in the epistles? I believe that there are several possible explanations.

(1) This prayer may have been intended as a prayer to be repeated. One of my friends has suggested that if the prayer was to be recited, Jesus would have said, “When you pray repeat … ” rather than, “When you pray, say … ”

(2) Even if the prayer was meant to be liturgically repeated, we do not need to be told that it was. If Jesus instructed His disciples to pray this prayer, then this is more than enough motivation to do so. If our Lord tells us to do something, we should do it, whether or not anyone else does. To give numerous examples of men’s obedience to this command is unnecessary. Jesus’ instruction is far more forceful than man’s actions.

(3) If this prayer is a “skeletal prayer” that is intended to be filled in, then there are an infinite number of variations possible. It would be more accurate to analyze the prayers of the disciples and the church to see it they deal with the second coming of Christ, the meeting of their physical needs, forgiveness of sins and avoidance of temptation.

(4) This may be a corporate prayer, one which saints would pray as a group. I cannot minimize the collective nature of this prayer. While the one disciple asked Jesus to teach, he asked Him to teach the disciples as a group (“teach us to pray … ”), rather than to teach him as an individual. The coming of the kingdom of God, the provision of daily needs, and the forgiveness of sins are something for which all saints can pray together, daily.

As I look at our text as a whole, I learn some very important lessons. Let us conclude this message by considering several of these.

(1) I see that the prayer which our Lord taught deals both with our future hope, on which our faith is based, and with our present life, which is to be lived in the light of that hope. The coming of the Kingdom of God is our hope, our goal, and that for which we should pray. Looking and praying for this kingdom also motivates us to live presently in the light of that certainty of Christ’s return and of the establishment of His kingdom. Though we look for the coming of His kingdom in the future, we also look to the Father to meet our present needs: the need for physical sustenance and the need for forgiveness of sins and deliverance from that which might cause us to sin. The prayer which our Lord has taught us is one that encompasses both the present and the future.

(2) The prayer which our Lord taught us is not merely individualistic or self‑centered. Throughout this prayer we find plural pronouns (“us,” “our,” “we”), rather than singulars. I believe that the reason is that our prayers are to be intercessory, and not just individual. If we need desperately to pray for ourselves, we must also pray for others as well.

(3) The emphasis of this text is not so much on the method of our prayers, but on the motivation which produces them. Only three verses deal with the content, the curriculum of prayer, while the rest assure us that God the Father will hear, and will answer our prayers with only the best gifts in response to them.

The Lord’s Prayer is only a “vain repetition” if we do not understand it, or if we repeat it without really meaning it. The Lord’s Prayer is not the complete word on prayer, but it does inform us as to the “meat and potatoes” of much of our prayer life, indeed, for our daily prayer life.

Our Lord, in giving the disciples this prayer, and in the words which accompany it, is telling us that this prayer should be constantly on our lips. There are no excuses for not praying for these things, whether in these precise words or not. There are, however, some troubling reasons why we do not pray as our Lord has instructed us.

(1) When we do not pray that God’s name be revered, and that His kingdom come, we reveal in ourselves a love for this world, and a reluctance to see it pass, superseded and replaced by the righteous rule of God.

(2) When we do not pray for God to provide our daily bread, we reveal either a self‑sufficient attitude which does not depend daily upon God’s provisions, or we see a life of affluence and the laying up of earthly treasures which renders prayer for daily needs unnecessary.

(3) When we do not daily pray for God’s forgiveness of our sins (and the grace to forgive the sins of others) we reveal either a naiveté concerning our own (daily) sinfulness, or a callused conscience toward sin caused by on‑going sin which was not confessed, and for which forgiveness was not sought.

(4) Thus, when we fail to pray as our Lord has here instructed us, it may be because we are Christians, but not disciples. This prayer which our Lord taught His disciples was a prayer for disciples. The prayer makes a great deal more sense when taken in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. By this I mean that this is a most appropriate prayer for those who are poor, who are mourning over their sin and the sin of their nation, and who are persecuted. Such persons will gladly pray for the coming of our Lord’s kingdom, at which time Satan and sin will be done away with, and for whom daily bread is no academic matter.

It is possible that you might be a true Christian and not be a disciple, and the failure to pray as our Lord teaches us in our text may reveal this. This teaching thus serves not only to instruct true disciples, but also to flush out those who are saints but who are not also disciples. A Christian is one who is saved through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. A disciple is one who takes following Christ seriously in his life. There is a great difference between mere Christians and true disciples, and this text tells us that one difference is to be found in the content and the continuance of prayer.

Failing to pray as our Lord has instructed may reveal that the fact that God is not your Father at all. If we do not pray daily to God as our Father for these needs, or if we pray only for some of them, it may be because God is not a Father to us, but our foe. Only the one who knows God as their Father can pray to Him as their heavenly Father and do so expecting Him to hear and to answer with good gifts. Indeed, some of those things for which the true disciple is instructed to pray would be viewed as distasteful, even dreaded by a non‑Christian. What unbeliever would pray for the coming of the Lord’s kingdom, knowing that it would not only spell the end of their sinful lives, but also their damnation? Who would pray for forgiveness of sins, if they denied that they were a sinner?

If you lack the confidence to come to Him as your Father, then God has a way for you to become His child. That way is through God’s Son, Jesus Christ. He has come to the earth and has died in your place. God’s anger toward your sin has already fallen on Him. All that you must do is to receive God’s gift of forgiveness and of eternal life through His Son, and through His death on the cross of Calvary. Come to the Father as your Father, now.

If our Lord’s model prayer is indeed the prayer of a true disciple, then let us conclude by praying as our Lord has instructed.

·         “‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.

·         “Give us each day our daily bread.”

·         “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.’”

! Lesson 39:
Evidence that Produced Various Verdicts
(Luke 11:14‑36)

Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, “By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.

“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.”

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.

“No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as when the light of a lamp shines on you.”

Introduction

Josh McDowell has written a book entitled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. A lawyer friend of mine tells me that the title is inaccurate because evidence does not demand a verdict. As I have been studying our text for this week I would say that one would be quite foolish to think that the same evidence would produce the same verdict. In this passage found in the 11th chapter of Luke’s gospel, the evidence is the same for all to see: Jesus cast a demon from a man, a demon which caused him to be dumb.[184] All who witnessed this event concluded that a great miracle had been performed, but from this point on there is a great difference of opinion. The crowd was amazed at the miracle; some in the crowd (who, according to Matthew, were Pharisees, Matthew 12:24); Mark also tells us that they were teachers of the Law from Jerusalem, Mark 3:22) concluded that Jesus did this through the power of Beelzebub. Others were undecided, or at least uncommitted, and asked for “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16). And still others, like the woman who shouted from the crowd, missed the point of the miracle altogether (Luke 11:27).

On the basis of this passage I would have to agree with those who say that “you can prove anything you want from the Bible.” This is not to say that the Bible proves all points of view. Nor is this to say that it is impossible for the Christian to find answers in the Bible which he or she can hold with great confidence and conviction. It is to say, though, that many who view the biblical evidence miss the point. The beauty of this text is that it not only shows us how far men can stray from the truth, but it reveals to us why they do so. Here is a text of great importance to all who would seek to know the truth, to come to the verdict which the biblical evidence leads us. Let us listen well to the words of this text, for doing so can keep us from going astray, and it can help us to understand and to help those who have missed the point of God’s Word.

The Structure of the Text

I have outlined the structure of our text in this way:

(1) The Setting: Various Responses to the Demon Deliverance by Jesus—vv. 14‑16

(2) Jesus’ Response:

·         To the Beelzebub Charge—vv. 17‑23

·         To those who would try to remain neutral—vv. 24‑26

·         The woman who missed the meaning of this miracle—vv. 27‑28

·         To those who demand more proof by seeking a sign—vv. 29‑32

(3) The Real Problem: Not the Evidence, but the Eye—vv. 33‑36

The Evidence and the Verdicts
(11:14‑16)

At some point in Jesus’ ministry[185] He cast the demon from this man, a demon which caused him to be speechless. Proof that a miracle had occurred was virtually immediate because the man began to speech for the first time since he was possessed by the demon. The man’s words made an immediate impact on those who saw the miracle. The crowd, Luke tells us, was amazed, which seems to inform us that they believed Jesus had done this deed through the power of God. Some, however, did not see it this way. These people, admitted that a miracle had occurred, but attributed the power to Beelzebub, that is to Satan,[186] and not to God. They acknowledged the miracle about as reluctantly as some recognized the power of God at work in and through the disciples of Jesus, as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts:

“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).

In Mark’s account they go so far as to accuse Jesus of being demon‑possessed (Mark 3:22), as they had also accused John the Baptist (Luke 7:33).

Others took a more mediating position. They were not willing to acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah of God,[187] nor were they willing to deny it, thus accusing Jesus of operating by Satan’s power. They thought of themselves as open minded and willing to be convinced. But they also believed that they had not yet seen sufficient evidence on which to arrive at a sound conclusion, and so they requested a “sign from heaven.”

It is significant that Luke (alone) tells us that a sign from heaven was requested. I take it that this “sign from heaven” was one that would clearly link with the prophecy of Joel, demonstrating that the “kingdom of God” was at hand:

“I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Joel 2:30‑31).

Even John the Baptist did not seem satisfied with the words and the works of Jesus, and wanted more positive proof that He was the Messiah (Luke 7:20‑23). Jesus was not willing to give John any greater proof than that of His teaching and of His works. There were no signs from heaven for John either. You will recall that during the crucifixion of our Lord there was the heavenly sign of darkness, which testified to Christ’s deity and frightened many (Luke 24:44‑45; cf. Matthew 27:54). Jesus also taught that there would be heavenly signs which would precede His second coming (Luke 21:25‑28), and these heavenly signs are also linked with the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2, when Peter cited a portion of the second chapter of Joel’s prophecy, which spoke of heavenly signs. But Jesus would not give such signs here, for this was His first coming, when He came to save men, not to judge them.

Jesus Challenges the Beelzebub Verdict
(11:17‑20)

In verses 17‑32 Jesus challenged the various verdicts of the crowd which are briefly summarized in verses 14‑16. He first takes on the charge that He has delivered this demoniac from Satan’s power through Satan’s power. With a series of powerful thrusts Jesus showed the logic of His opponents who accused Him of being a servant of Satan to be wanting. In two paragraphs (vv. 17‑20, and vv. 21‑23) He shows the error of their thinking. Each paragraph ends with an indictment (vv. 20, 23).

Satan Doesn’t Shoot Himself in the Foot (Verses 17‑20)

The logic of the opponents of Jesus is apparent. They must admit that a miracle has been performed by Jesus. A demon was cast out. They will not admit that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. To whom or to what, then, do they attribute His power? If He delivered a man from Satan’s grasp, perhaps He did so through Satan’s power. Here was the only “rational” explanation for Jesus’ power His enemies could come up with: Jesus was operating in the power of Beelzebub, in the power of Satan.

Jesus’ response quickly shows how foolish such a conclusion was. It was as if Jesus had said, “Who willingly and knowingly shoots himself in the foot?” Satan would not do harm to himself, would he? Why, then would they be so foolish as to think that Jesus was attacking Satan’s kingdom (by casting out demons) with Satan’s approval and power? Any kingdom that fights against itself falls. Satan would not fight himself. The opponents of Jesus were foolish to make such a charge against Him. Not only was it false; it wasn’t even logical.

Jesus is not yet done with them. There is more. If the power to cast out demons is to be attributed to Satan, then in whose power are the opponents own children casting out demons? We see from texts like Matthew 7:22, Luke 9:49‑50, and Acts 19:13‑16 that a number of Jews were exorcising demons, some of them (Matthew 7:22) as unbelievers, but all seemingly in the name of Jesus. If the sons of Jesus’ opponents were casting out demons in Jesus’ name, were these men willing to attribute the power of their sons to Satan as well? Jesus presses their case much further than they wished to take the matter, but it was the logical conclusion of their argument.

Jesus was speaking in His defense, but in verse 20 He takes the offensive:

“But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.”

Jesus has probed their logic (which was faulty), and He has pressed it to a very uncomfortable conclusion (their sons are operating by Satan’s power, too, for they also cast out demons). Now, He gives them one more logical thrust: If they are wrong and He is operating in the power of God, then they must admit that the kingdom of God has come and that Jesus is the King. This is the very thing they most dreaded, and Jesus has just reminded them of what good logic must conclude: He is the King, whom they refuse to receive.

Only One More Powerful Than
Satan Can Take Away His Possessions
(11:21‑23)

The second argument of Jesus is just as forceful as the first. Not only were Jesus’ opponents wrong in attributing His power to Satan because Satan would not attack himself, they were also wrong because the One who would attack Satan must be more powerful. Jesus compared His deliverance of the demon‑possessed to the plundering of a powerful foe (cf. Isaiah 49:24‑26). No one can take away the possessions of a powerful man without first overpowering the person. The powerful man must first be overpowered, then disarmed, and finally bound, so that his goods can be plundered.

In this analogy, Satan is the strong man and his “possessions” are those who are demon‑possessed and Jesus is the One who has greater power and is taking away those he has possessed. Jesus is saying that He must overpower Satan before He can deliver those whom he had formerly possessed. His enemies refused to acknowledge that Jesus was God or that His power was God’s power, and yet logic would once again force them to this conclusion. In order to deliver men and women from demon‑possession Jesus had to be greater than Satan. To attribute His power to Satan was foolish. To think He was not greater than Satan was also folly. If the evidence were interpreted according to good logic, the evidence would point to Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus now counters the logic of His critics with another indictment. Not only is Satan Jesus’ enemy, not only are His opponents (who attribute His power to Satan) His enemies, but all who do not respond rightly to Him. Verse 23 is saying that those who were negative to Jesus were His enemies, but so were those who were neutral. Verses 24‑32 address those who have not responded negatively toward Jesus, but have not rightly responded to Him as a right interpretation of the evidence would demand.

Neutrality Toward Jesus is
Hospitality Toward Demonic Repossession
(11:24‑26)

In football, lining up in the neutral zone is an offense. In life, many seem to think that neutrality is a virtue. In the Bible, neutrality toward the person of Christ is offensive to God. In verses 24‑26 Luke will inform his reader that neutrality toward Jesus is also dangerous.

Jesus told yet another story. A man was exorcised of a demon. That demon wandered about in very unpleasant circumstances. The demon finally concluded that his former abode was far superior to the arid places he was now inhabiting, and so he returned to his former abode, but with additional demons. The final state was worse than the first, Jesus taught.

If Jesus is more powerful than Satan, which His last argument has shown, man is not. Man is not able, in and of himself, to resist Satan. The man who is possessed by a demon can, Jesus said, be re‑possessed. The only power that can keep the demons out of a man is the power of the One who is able to deliver that man in the first place. Jesus was warning those who would attempt to remain neutral, who would not come to receive Him as their Messiah and to obey His commandments, that neutrality toward Messiah is hospitality toward the hostile forces of Satan. It is no blessing for men to be exorcised, rid of demon‑possession if men do not have the person of God dwelling within. Just as man is unable to rid himself of a demonic inhabitant, neither is he able to keep an exorcised demon from returning. Jesus must not only be believed in as Messiah, He must also be received into one’s life, lest Satan only return in greater force.[188]

Neutrality about the person of Jesus is no virtue, it is a vice, and indeed it invites Satanic involvement, and it leads to a latter state that is worse than the former. Are those who attribute Jesus’ power to Satan His enemies, those who live dangerously? So, too, are those who think they can remain neutral concerning Him, for those who are not for Him are against Him (v. 23).

A Mother’s Praise
(11:27‑28)

Would some oppose Jesus while others remained silent? There was a woman in that crowd who spoke up, whose words, on the surface, were those of praise, but which fell far short of what was pleasing to the Savior. This woman seems to have recognized the power and the greatness of Jesus, but her praise was not for Jesus, but for His mother. She cried out,

“Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you” (v. 27, emphasis mine).

When compared to the hostility of some and the neutrality of others, these words may seem warm and welcomed to us, but Jesus’ response is corrective. He gently corrects, it should be noted, but He does not allow the woman’s words to stand unchallenged. The woman’s focus was on the mother of Jesus, and her blessing in bearing and nursing Him. This was true, for Mary was indeed blessed in this regard (Luke 1:28, 42, 46‑49). The woman’s focus was wrong, however. Her praise seems to be more focused on Mary than on Messiah, seeing a greater blessing in motherhood (bearing and nursing Jesus) than in discipleship (obedience to Jesus).

Why do you suppose that this woman saw such blessing in bearing and in nursing Jesus? It is my opinion (I want to go on record here that the text does not say this, but I think we can infer it) that the woman is viewing Jesus too much from a woman’s point of view. She views Jesus as a woman, and not as a disciple. For her, as for most women in that day, a woman’s role and her contribution was through bearing children (especially sons). This woman’s significance was in bearing and nurturing children, and thus she could only think of Jesus as a child and blessedness as being the child’s mother. While this woman has come farther than the opponents of Jesus and those who are, as yet, uncommitted, she has not come far enough. If Jesus is all that the evidence declares Him to be, then this woman should be focusing on obeying Christ’s words, not on the blessings of being Christ’s mother.

Obedience to Jesus is one of the central themes of the Gospels, one of the fundamental elements of discipleship. The Father said it at the mount of transfiguration:

“This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him” (Luke 9:35).

In John’s gospel, the issue of obedience (or of not wanting to obey) is clearly linked with the accusation that Jesus was demon‑possessed:

At these words the Jews were again divided. Many of them said, “He is demon‑possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?” But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (John 10:19‑21).

The real problem for those who rejected Jesus and who attributed His power to Satan was that of obeying Him. In seeing this as the issue, they were correct. In rejecting Jesus as Messiah, as the Son of God, they were wrong.

The woman was wrong, too. She did not interpret the evidence correctly. She saw Jesus as great and His mother as blessed, but she did not see that Jesus was the One to receive and to follow by obeying His commands. How often we view Jesus through the grid of our own needs and desires and our own narrow view of significance.

The Sin of Sign‑Seeking
(11:29‑32)

Some of those in the crowd there were those refused to come to a verdict, who resisted coming to any conclusion as to who Jesus was. Their reasons may have varied, although I cannot help but think that two factors weighed heavily in this matter.

First, I suspect that the strong opposition of Israel’s religious leaders to Jesus placed considerable pressure on the rest not to side with Him. It would seem that the most outspoken and radical opposition to Jesus was from the religious leaders of the nation Israel. The parallel accounts of Matthew and Mark both inform us that the “Beelzebub charge” came from the religious leaders. For anyone to openly recognize Jesus as the Messiah and to follow Him would have been to incur the wrath of these same leaders (compare John 9:34). It may well be that those who attempted to maintain some degree of neutrality were motivated, at least in part, by a desire not to oppose their leaders.

Second, many may have resisted coming to any firm conclusions about Jesus due to their understanding of the implications of such a decision. To acknowledge that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah meant, as Jesus had told the exuberant mother, that His words should be listened to and obeyed. If Jesus was the Messiah then men should follow Him, and that meant “taking up a cross.” Jesus was not the kind of Messiah most people were hoping for, and thus to accept Him as Messiah meant changing one’s aspirations from prosperity to persecution. The price was too high, so the decision was postponed.

The beauty of this stance is that it had an air of respectability to it. Some might even think it to be the wisest position to take. After all, why should one come to a hasty conclusion? There seemed to be evidence on both sides. The religious leaders were opposed to Jesus. On the other hand, some devotedly followed Him. Why not simply “hang back” and see how things worked out? Better yet, why not put Jesus on the spot, by requiring that He produce a heavenly sign? If He was the Messiah, let Him make it undisputedly clear? This is, after all, the “scientific method” isn’t it?[189] Shouldn’t one withhold a decision until all the facts are in?

Jesus has very strong words for those who request a sign from heaven. His words inform us that this is evidence that this generation of Israelites is wicked, and so much so that the “belief” of two Old Testament peoples puts them to shame. The people of Nineveh accepted the “sign of Jonah” and repented, and the Queen of the South believed the reports about Solomon’s wisdom. For this, they will testify in the day of judgment against this generation for their unbelief.

Two things strike me about our Lord’s use of the Ninevites and the Queen of the South. The first is that both are Gentiles, and they, because of their belief, will condemn the unbelief of this generation of Israelites. The second is that both parties believed with much less evidence than that which this generation had seen. The Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah, which as we find it recorded in the book of Jonah may have been only one short sentence: “Yet forty days and Nineveh will perish.” That’s not a lot of evidence! And from all we know of Jonah, he spoke these words in a way that was not meant to convince or to convert these people. But the Ninevites believed. The Queen of the South also was convinced of Solomon’s wisdom when she heard his words.

To put the matter a little differently, THE BELIEF WHICH GOD COMMENDED WAS BASED UPON INSPIRED WORDS, MORE THAN UPON WORKS.

The responses of all of these people within the crowd that witnessed Jesus’ deliverance of the demoniac were varied, but the end result and the problem was the same in every case: they did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah. And this unbelief was rooted in their rejection of Jesus’ words, which led them to a misinterpretation of His works.

The great problem of sign‑seeking is that it does not find the words of God to be enough, and thus it demands an on‑going stream of miraculous works. The Israelites of old consistently “put God to the test” by not believing His words, and by insisting upon more works. The tests which Satan put to our Lord were all intended to get Jesus to do some work, in an act of unbelief in the Word of God, to which Jesus always responded with the Word of God. In Hebrews chapter 11, as elsewhere, we are told that faith is not grounded in what is seen (works), but in what is unseen (God’s word). The heroes listed in this “hall of faith” in Hebrews all lived out their lives in faith, believing in God’s promises, even though they did not see what was promised.

Those who thought themselves wise by remaining neutral were caught up short by our Lord’s strong words here. He taught them that neutrality was actually hostility, and that it was also dangerous (hospitality toward Satan, and condemnation in the day of judgment). The Lord’s work of casting out the demon was meant to be interpreted by Jesus’ words, by His teaching. John the Baptist had identified Jesus as the promised Messiah. Jesus had thus identified Himself as well. To fail to see this work as the work of Messiah could only be the result of the rejection of His words. It was not that the evidence was so little (for look at how the Ninevites and the Queen of the South responded to so little evidence), but that their unbelief was so great.

The relationship between Jesus’ words and His works can be seen throughout the gospels. In the Gospel of John, certain “signs” are selected, but the significance of each is defined by Jesus’ words. Jesus’ healing of the blind man is explained in terms of His being the “light of the world” (John 9). Jesus’ raising of Lazarus is explained in terms of His being the “resurrection and the life” (John 11).

People persisted in wanting more works from Jesus, while not wanting His words. When Jesus fed the 5,000, the people wanted this bread from then on, and they would have forcibly made Him their king (John 6:15). But when Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, people could not stand to hear His words, and they left Him (John 6:60). When the disciples were asked if they, too, would leave, they responded in terms of Jesus’ words, and not just His works:

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life” (John 6:68).

In Luke chapter 16 Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazarus. When the rich man petitioned that someone be sent to his family, to warn them of the judgment to come, “Father Abraham” responded that his relatives had “Moses and the Prophets,” the Word of God, as it were, to warn them. He further said that if they would not receive these words, the return of one from the dead (a miracle, a sign) would not convince them. In other words, men insist that God produce works, signs, when they refuse to believe His words. Seeking signs is not an evidence of faith, but an evidence of unbelief.

The Real Problem:
Not the Evidence, but the Eyes
(11:33‑36)

In the final paragraph of this section, Jesus now exposes the real problem which underlies all of the misinterpretation that precedes:

“No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as when the light of a lamp shines on you” (Luke 11:33‑36).

In verse 33 Jesus says that the purpose of a lamp is to illuminate, and thus a light is put in a prominent place. I understand Him to be saying that He has come as the light of the world, that He has come to illuminate men (Luke 1:79; John 1:4‑18, 9:1ff.). Since He came to illuminate men, He did not speak or act in secret, but openly. His light, as it were, was brightly exposed to men. His generation would not perish for lack of light.

In the context of this passage we might say it this way: Since Jesus had come to convert men, His evidence was both plentiful and public. The evidence was clear. Indeed, no one denied the miracles which Jesus performed. In this passage, no one denied that He had cast a demon from the dumb man. Everyone, however, failed to come to the right conclusion with this evidence. They came to the wrong verdict. The evidence did not convince or convert men. The reason why this is so is seen in the next verses. They tell us that the problem was not with the evidence Jesus produced, but with the eyes which beheld it.

The eye, Jesus said, was is gateway to the person’s entire being, his whole body. If the eye is good, if it lets in the light, the whole body is illuminated. If the eye is defective, if it lets in little light, the whole body is dark. Moving from the symbolism to the substance of this argument, Jesus is saying that everyone who failed to interpret the evidence of this miracle as they should has done so because of a defect in their ability to “see” the truth, not because of any deficiency in the evidence.

As I look through the Scripture, I find the analogy of the eyes frequently employed for one’s receptivity to the truth, to one’s perception:

And he uttered his oracle: “The oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of one whose eye sees clearly, … Then he uttered his oracle: “The oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of one whose eye sees clearly” (Numbers 24:3, 15).

Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous (Deuteronomy 16:19).

Here I stand. Testify against me in the presence of the Lord and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed? From whose hand have I accepted a bribe to make me shut my eyes? If I have done any of these, I will make it right” (1 Samuel 12:3).

The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes (Psalm 19:8).

For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin (Psalm 36:2).

Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law (Psalm 119:18).

Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil (Proverbs 3:7).

Make the heart of this people callused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10).

The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes(the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers). Isaiah 29:10.

To open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness (Isaiah 42:7).

Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf (Isaiah 43:8).

They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand (Isaiah 44:18).

Like the blind we grope along the wall, feeling our way like men without eyes. At midday we stumble as if it were twilight; among the strong, we are like the dead (Isaiah 59:10).

“Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people (Ezekiel 12:2).

Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see (Luke 10:23).

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eye, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him (John 12:39‑41).

May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever” (Romans 11:10).

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4).

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:18).

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see (Revelation 3:18).

Conclusion

As I look at all the Scriptures it would seem that a man’s ability to understand what God is saying and doing is dependent upon his ability to “see” the truth. Man’s receptivity to the truth is the problem. The Bible is replete with evidence, but the eyes of man are not able to see it.

Man’s inability to see is attributed to at least three sources. First, man himself is responsible for his unreceptive heart toward God and toward spiritual truth. That seems to be the thrust of our Lord’s words to the crowd in Luke 11:

“See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35).

Man’s blindness is also attributed to the work of Satan, who blinds men’s minds from the truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). But blindness is also a work of judgment on God’s part, for He has blinded the eyes of Israel as a temporary judgment, due to their persistent unbelief (cf. John 12:39‑41).

How, then, does one who is blind come from blindness to sight, from darkness to light, from death to life? I believe that the answer to this question is clear in the Bible. Man cannot, in and of himself, heal himself of his blindness, for it is a blindness of heart. Instead, God, through a gracious and miraculous act on His part, opens our eyes to see the truth. I believe that Paul’s physical blindness and the reception of his sight (Acts 9:1‑19), was symbolic of his spiritual blindness. Later in Acts, we read of Lydia’s eyes being opened, as it were:

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message (Acts 16:14).

The epistles frequently speak of God’s bringing His people out of darkness into the light:

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6, cf. Ephesians 5:8; Col. 1:13; 1 Peter 2:9).

Man’s conversion begins when God sovereignly opens the eyes of those who sin (along with Satan’s blinding) has kept them from seeing the truth and responding to it. This does mean that man has no responsibility to believe, but only that he cannot believe until his eyes are opened. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is also involved in this “enlightenment” (cf. Ephesians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 2:6‑16).

Once a person has come to faith in Christ, it is the Scriptures which expose the light in our lives, and which reveals our sin. The Scripture “sharpens our focus” as it were. On the one hand we must ask for God to “open our eyes” as we come to the Word, so that we may see in it the things God has for us (Psalm 119:18). On the other hand, the Scriptures serve to open our eyes, to show us life as it is, ourselves as we are, and God as He is (Hebrews 4:12‑13).

Application

This text has clearly shown us that men will normally and naturally reject incontestable evidence in a broad variety of ways because they will not believe God’s word, due to the fact that they view the evidence through their own perceptions, through their own grid, rather than from God’s point of view. This truth has many applications, but allow me to suggest a few.

First, we see the desperate need for prayer and the Word of God in our lives. God’s word is the truth, but we need our eyes opened to see and understand it. Prayer petitions God to open our eyes. God has given us both His Word and His Holy Spirit to enable us to grasp His truth. The Word of God and prayer are the vital mainstay of the saint.

Second, the Word of God and prayer are the mainstay of our ministry. I have heard this said by Bible believing Christians: Nobody would reject the gospel if it was clearly explained.

This is not only untrue, it is a denial of the truth. No one more perfectly proclaimed the gospel than our Lord, and yet most refused to receive it. The problem is not with the evidence, but with the eye that beholds it. The Word of God proclaims the truth, and thus the material of our ministry should be the Word of God. The Spirit of God internally convinces men of the truth of the Word (John 16:5‑15). Prayer petitions God to open the eyes of blinded men, through the Spirit and the Word. It is not wonder that prayer and the ministry of the Word was a priority of the apostles (Acts 6:1‑6). It should be our priority as well.

Evangelism is accomplished primarily through the proclamation of the Word and through prayer. We will never argue a person into the kingdom of God. We will never produce enough evidence to apologetically save anyone. The problem is not in the evidence (which we can and should present), but in the eye of the lost. Let us proclaim the truth and let us pray, for we cannot convert a single soul. Only God can replace darkness with light. Only God can open eyes that are blinded to the truth. Wives who nag their husbands with the gospel forget who and what saves their mates. It is not that they have not heard the gospel often enough (more than likely), or that it has not been put in the right words (though it should be well said), but that lost men can’t understand it and would not accept it if they did. Salvation is a miracle which God performs, and in which we are privileged to take part.

Third, this text reminds us that we should never interpret the Scriptures from “our own grid” although we must apply them through our grid. One problem with each of these people who failed to conclude from the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah was that they viewed the evidence through their own grids. The leaders of Israel viewed Christ through their grid, through their aspirations, their ambitions, their authority, their biblical understanding, and thus they rejected Him. Those who tried to remain neutral also did so in the light of their own goals and aspirations (such as not offending their leaders). The woman viewed Jesus through the grid of a mother, but not as a disciple.

Most Bible studies therefore approach the study of the Bible from the wrong perspective. People gather together and seek to answer the question, WHAT DOES THIS PASSAGE MEAN TO YOU?

This is precisely what each of those who were wrong about Jesus did. They all viewed the evidence in the light of what it meant to them, not in the light of what it meant. Jesus’ words and His works would only be accepted it they fit into the expectations and desires of those who witnessed them. But we have seen that our perspectives are wrong, our hearts are wicked and deceitful. We must come to the truth in the light of what God is saying to us, not in the light of what we would like to hear. We are coming to the Scriptures as husbands, fathers, leaders, employers, employees, mothers, wives, and so on, but not as disciples. We are to apply the Scriptures through our own grid, but not to interpret them in this way.

Fourth and finally, if you are still neutral toward Christ you are really hostile toward Him and hospitable toward Satan. There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to the gospel. The evidence from God’s Word is clear. We are all sinners, deserving of the penalty of death (Romans 3:23; 6:23). God has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, to bear our penalty, so that we might have eternal life (John 3:16). All who trust in Him for salvation have eternal life (John 1:12). Do not remain neutral any longer, my friend, for this is a dangerous and damnable sin.

! Lesson 40:
Fundamentalists in Formaldehyde
(Luke 11:37‑54)

37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. 39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. 42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. 43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.”

45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. 47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all. 52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

53 When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.

Introduction

Several years ago, one of our elders went to Chile where his parents were celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. They live on a ranch in a fairly remote place and those who were a part of the celebration stayed on the ranch for several days. Included in this group was a German pastor. Hans was introducing the pastor to his youngest son, Gabriel, and when he did so he used the German word for pastor. This term was not familiar to Gabriel, who responded with a puzzled expression. Hans thought for a moment as to how he would explain what a pastor was in terms that Gabriel would understand. Finally, Hans had the solution.

“This man is something like Bob in our church.”

Gabriel immediately grasped this, or so he thought. And so he said,

“Oh, he works on cars, does he?”

Those of you who know me very well know that working on cars is one of my hobbies, but it is not my job. The problem which Gabriel faced was that the German word for pastor did not have any meaning to him. As we come to our text, there are several terms which do not produce a clear mental picture for us, or which may even produce an inaccurate meaning. Several of these terms are:

·         Pharisee

·         Wash

·         Lawyer

·         Woe

As we proceed in this study, be very careful to take note of the meanings which will be provided for these terms. Our understanding of this passage will be determined by a correct definition of the terms which Luke has employed.

Who Were the Pharisees?

We will begin immediately by defining the term Pharisee,[190] for it is one that is frequently found in the gospels. It was at the house of a certain Pharisee that this incident took place. Our Lord’s words were addressed to the evils of Pharisaism. We must therefore understand who the Pharisees were and how they related to Jesus and His ministry.

In a word, the Pharisees were the biblical fundamentalists of their day. The word “Pharisee” may very well be derived from a term which means “to separate.” The origin of the Pharisees as a sect seems to have been in or around the second century B.C. They soon became detached and distant from the political regimes (the zealots, for example, would have brought about change through revolution). The Pharisees sought to produce spiritual holiness and spiritual reformation. They recognized that Israel’s condition was the result of sin, specifically a disobedience to the Law. It was their intention to identify, communicate, and facilitate obedience to God’s law, thus producing holiness and paving the way for the kingdom of God to be established on the earth.

So far as the “fundamentals” are concerned, the Pharisees believed in nearly everything we do. They believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible (in their case, the Old Testament). They believed in the supernatural, in Satan, angels, heaven (the earthly kingdom of God at least) and hell, and the resurrection of the dead.

The problem with the Pharisees is not in what they believed, and not even in what they hoped to do, but in what they actually became and did. Their goals were noble and their presuppositions were essentially correct, but they were side‑tracked. Instead of being the first to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, they were the first to reject Him. Rather than turning the nation to Him, they sought to turn the nation against Him.

What went wrong? How did a group of men so well‑intentioned go so wrong? To a large degree the error of the Pharisees was an error with regard to divine revelation. While they held the Old Testament to be divinely inspired, they came to dwell too heavily on the law, to the neglect of the prophets. They came to dwell too heavily on the “letter” and not on the “spirit” of that Law. They concentrated too much on the details of the Law and not on its design, its purpose. In the final analysis, it was not the actual written Law which was their primary focus, but on the “oral law” and on their many interpretations of that law, which were written in many volumes. The written Law became only of secondary importance, while their traditions became primary. In those places where the traditions of the Pharisees contradicted the written Law, tradition prevailed (cf. Matthew 15:1‑11).

The relationship between the Pharisees and the written Law of God in the Old Testament is something like that of the present Supreme Court of the United States to the Constitution of our land. Quite honestly, the “interpretations” of that court are hardly related to the original constitution of our land, or of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Their present value structures and interpretations dictate the law of the land, almost in spite of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Thus, abortion can be ruled to be constitutional, only because the Constitution never specifically refers to a fetus as a person. Pharisees, move over!

As I have considered the Pharisees and their conflict with Jesus, it seems to me that the Lord had several major areas of conflict with them. First was their self‑righteousness, their feeling that they were spiritually superior to others and pleasing in God’s sight. Second was their handling (or rather their mishandling) of the Old Testament Scriptures. Third was their traditions, to which they gave higher priority than God’s revealed Word. Fourth was their resistance to Himself, and their efforts to discredit Him and to turn the nation from Him.

Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees as a group should inform us that every group has its own tendencies toward error, its own temptations and failures. The thing which has struck me most in my study of this text and of the Pharisees is that this group is most similar to evangelical conservatives of today. The term “fundamentalist” is one which is proudly accepted by some and disdainfully bestowed by others, but by whatever term we may choose to label ourselves, the Pharisees were that group of people in the gospels which most closely resembles us. As well‑meaning as these folks were, as correct as they were in so many areas of fundamental truths, they were some of our Lord’s strongest adversaries. They did not recognize Him as the Christ, they rejected and resisted Him, and they played a large role in His rejection by the nation. The study of this group and of their errors, as exposed by our Lord, should be of the greatest interest to those of us who are so like them. Let us therefore come to this text prayerfully, that we may have open hearts and minds, and that we may recognize those sins in the Pharisees which are also characteristic of us.

The Structure of the Text

We may outline the structure of our text as follows:

(1) Jesus’ Rebuke of the Pharisees—vv. 37‑44

(2) Jesus’ Rebuke of the Lawyers—vv. 45‑52

(3) Epilogue: The Outcome—vv. 53‑54

The Setting
(11:37‑38)

Jesus had just finished speaking and a Pharisee asked Him to come to his house to eat. One cannot discern from the text what the motive of the Pharisee might have been for asking Jesus to share a meal with him. I would have thought that Jesus’ words would have offended the Pharisee, but they did not seem to. What surprised the Pharisee was the fact that Jesus did not wash prier to eating. We do not know whether or not the Pharisee spoke to Jesus about not washing. If not, then Jesus would have responded because He knew his thoughts.

We have come to the second of those terms which might be misunderstood, “wash,” appears in verse 38. This is not the kind of

“washing up” which our mothers used to insist we did before we could eat our meal, the washing which is required by good hygiene. The concern is not “dirty hands” but ceremonial defilement. This was a “washing” that was required by the traditions of the Pharisees, rather than by the Law itself. It is more clearly explained in this text from Mark’s gospel:

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with “unclean”—that is, ceremonially unwashed—hands. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) (Mark 7:1‑4).

The surprise of the Pharisee all the more interesting in the light of what Luke has already written in chapter 7 of his gospel. There, Jesus was also invited to dinner by a Pharisee whose name was Simon (7:40). This is the occasion when Jesus’ feet was washed by the “sinful” woman, who accomplished her task with her tears and her hair. What is of interest to us is that Jesus pointed out to Simon that he had not greeted Him with a kiss, washed His feet, nor anointed his head. This Pharisee, who would not have thought of eating without a ceremonial washing, and who apparently provided the means for Jesus to wash ceremonially, did not provide Him with the one washing He really needed. The Pharisees were meticulous in the matter of an unnecessary washing, but careless in a beneficial and practical one, at least Simon was, and I find it hard to think that he was an exception.

It seems to me that the Lord’s failure to wash was purposeful, deliberate, and perhaps a new phase in His ministry. The Pharisee would have had to provide for the ceremonial washing. It would seem that all of the others at the table that day must have excused themselves and gone to wash ceremonially. Only Jesus remained. They may have waited, politely, for Jesus to do so also, only to realize that it was not going to happen. Jesus began to eat without washing. He did not “forget to wash” as our children often do, He refused to wash, in my opinion.

This seems to mark a change in His practice. I am inclined to conclude (by reading between the lines) that Jesus initially observed this ritual. After all, there was really nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Up till now, Jesus is never said to have refused such washing. We do know, however, that His disciples were accused of not washing (e.g. Mark 7). Jesus may well have taught His disciples that these washings were not necessary and they may have quickly ceased from them (if indeed they ever washed this way). Jesus may have persisted only for the sake of ministry, simply living in a way that would not cause needless offense (cp. 1 Corinthians 9:19‑23).

Now, however, Jesus seems to have ceased to wash ceremonially, as a matter of principle. It was now time to take a firm stand against the traditions of the Pharisees, for they had become of more importance to them than the written Word of God. Jesus seems to have deliberately refrained from washing here to make a point, to demonstrate the difference between Him, His teaching, and His practice, and that of the Pharisees. This is no oversight, it is a deliberate move, one which Jesus knew would make the differences between Himself and the Pharisees clear, and indeed which would widen the gap between them.

A Critical Difference
Between Jesus and the Pharisees
(11:39‑41)

Jesus’ response to the Pharisee is an answer to his surprise at the Lord’s avoidance of ceremonial washing. While our Lord is addressing His host He is also confronting the evils of the Pharisaic system (“you Pharisees,” v. 39), of which this man is a part. Thus Jesus’ answer is a response to all of Pharisaism.

Our Lord’s words here are difficult to follow because the imagery changes so quickly and so often. The overall thrust is the contrast between the outside, which is secondary, and the inside, which is primary. Jesus begins by talking about the washing of the outside of a cup or a dish, but then moves to the inside of a man. He then moves back to the dish imagery and tells His host that he can make the dish clean by emptying its contents and giving them to the poor. It is my opinion that Jesus constructs this mental puzzle so that its meaning and message will be pondered for a good while. Let these great minds ponder these thoughts.

The overall impact of Jesus’ words is clear. Jesus differs from His host and the other Pharisees by seeing the inside as more important than the outside, the heart as being more important than appearances, man’s attitudes and motives as more important than one’s actions. The Pharisees believed that a man is made holy by working from the outside, in. Jesus believed that holiness (and defilement) came from the inside, out.

Who can disagree with the fact that cleanliness on the inside is more important than cleanliness on the outside? I know a man who went out to a rural church to preach, where he spent the night at the home of a farmer. In the morning, the farmer’s wife fixed breakfast. She went out to the hen house to gather some eggs. When she came in with the eggs, this preacher noted that they had some of the barnyard on them, which the woman had not washed off. He didn’t worry about it, though, because she put the eggs into boiling water to cook. The pollution of that water couldn’t hurt the eggs, protected as they were by their shells. The woman then asked him if he would like a cup of coffee. He gratefully accepted, only to be as he watched the woman put instant coffee into a cup and then pour the dirty egg water into it. What is on the inside of the cup is more important to us than what is on the outside.

The Law dealt with external things, but its purpose was to teach Israel with reference to the heart. Jesus could therefore summarize the whole Law in terms of love: love for God and love for one’s neighbor. The Sermon on the Mount makes this point forcefully. Jesus taught that seeing the Law’s application only to outward acts was inadequate and inconsistent with God’s intent in giving the Law. He taught that obedience to the Law must be a matter of spirit, and not just of letter. This was not an added meaning, but the original meaning of the Law. The Pharisees did not see it this way.

Apparently the Pharisees explained their emphasis on the outward, the “outside of the cup” by insisting that it was important because God made it. We must keep the outside of things clean, including ourselves, because God made them. Jesus simply points out that God also made the inside, and thus they, by the same logic, should be kept clean as well.

When viewed by outward measurements, the Pharisees looked good, but Jesus exposed the vileness of their hearts when He told them that they were “full of greed and wickedness” (v. 39). When we look at the gospels as a whole we see that the greed and wickedness of the Pharisees was worked out in ways that seemed commendable, in ways that looked pious, in ways that may have even brought them praise, but which were evil (cf. Matthew 23:5‑7).

Jesus then told the Pharisee that the way to “clean up” was to empty the contents of the dish—what was inside—and thus all things would be clean. It is really a very simple image. I clean my coffee cup by first pouring out what is in it. You cannot clean the inside of a dish if the dish is full. One of the evils of the Pharisees was greed (v. 39; cf. also Luke 16:14), and thus Jesus proposed generosity as its antidote.

The Three Woes
(11:42‑44)

We do not know how the Pharisee responded to Jesus’ words, but it would seem that he had no opportunity to say anything, as Jesus followed up with three stinging woes. The term “woe” is another important element in understanding our Lord’s words. It is not so much a stinging rebuke as much as it is an expression of grief. When we say, “Woe is me,” we are not rebuking ourselves, but expressing grief. The flavor of this term “woe” is to be found at the conclusion of Matthew 23, where many woes have been spoken with regard to the Pharisees. Note the grief in our Lord’s words, which conclude a series of “woes” directed toward the Pharisees:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matthew 23:37‑39; cf. Luke 13:24‑25).

The first woe of our Lord concerns the Pharisees’ focus on the fine points, while missing the fundamentals. They majored in the minors:

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone (Luke 11:42).

The Pharisees were meticulous in the details of the Law, and yet they lost sight of the design of the Law. In the words of our Lord, spoken elsewhere, they “strained gnats and swallowed camels” (Matthew 23:24). Jesus did not criticize the keeping of the Law in its small points—the tithing of mint, rue, and other garden herbs—but He did say that the major thrust of the Law—justice and the love of God—must be fulfilled. While both are important, the former is secondary; the latter, primary.

The second woe concerns the Pharisees’ preoccupation with position, prestige, and the praise of men:

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces (Luke 11:43).

According to Jesus, the Pharisees were “full of greed and wickedness” (verse 39). They were not publicly regarded as such, however. These hypocrites loved the praise of men and to be placed in positions of privilege and honor. In short, they sought the praise of men, rather than the praise of God. They were driven by their desire to have men’s approval, rather than God’s. Having this motivation, they could not speak the truth, nor could they interpret the Scriptures accurately, for then they would have been hated and rejected, just as the prophets (who did interpret the Old Testament Scriptures accurately and who spoke truthfully).

Incidentally, it is interesting that Jesus accused the Pharisees of desiring “greetings in the marketplaces.” It was in the marketplaces that they would have contact with those they considered “unclean,” and probably those from whom they received honor and praise. It was this very defilement which, in their minds, necessitated the ceremonial washings which they so diligently observed.

The third woe is the most painful and pointed. Jesus accused the Pharisees of being a source of defilement, rather than of purification:

“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it” (Luke 11:44).

In the Law which the Pharisees revered (Numbers 19:16) the Israelites were taught that a person was rendered ceremonially unclean by coming into contact with a grave. The Pharisees thought of themselves as holy, and they saw their contribution as leading the nation in the direction of holiness. Jesus told them that the exact opposite was the case. They were themselves both unclean (sinful) and defiling to others. Those who came into contact with the Pharisees were thus rendered unclean. That which the Pharisees prided themselves in being and doing was the very opposite of the reality of the matter. Here was the most stunning blow of all to the self‑righteous Pharisees.

Three Woes Directed
to the Experts in the Law
(11:46‑52)

The final term which we must define is “expert in the law,” as rendered by the NIV. The NASB calls these experts in the law “lawyers.” The problem with this term is that is conveys an inaccurate picture of these men, who were not lawyers at all, as we know them. If the Pharisees were the “laymen” of this group committed to practicing and producing holiness (but were failing), the “experts in the law” were the “clergymen.” These were the theologians, the seminary professors, the authors of commentaries, the teachers of the Law. They were the source, the “horse’s mouth” of Pharisaism.

As the “experts in the law” were but a subset, a small group within the larger group of Pharisees, one of these “experts” saw that Jesus’ words were applicable to them, too, and sought to have Jesus clarify His teaching in their favor. Surely He did not mean to condemn the experts, too? Was it not only on the lay level that these errors were being practiced? Jesus’ answer is a follow‑up to His first woes, with three additional woes, woes specifically addressed to these experts.

The first woe directed against the “experts in the law” was that their teaching produced a burden, not a blessing:

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Luke 11:46).

When David spoke of the Law of God in Psalm 119, it was a blessing, a delight. When the experts of the Law were done with it the law was a burden, a drag. They had turned the Law inside‑out. What God had graciously given they had perverted by their teaching to be an unbearable code of conduct, one which was so complicated they could not even understand it, let alone obey it.

In contrast to their teaching, Jesus’ “Law” was light:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28‑30).

We might find these words of Jesus hard to believe if we thought about it. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was not sufficient to get into the kingdom (Matthew 5:20). He explained that He had not come to abolish the Law, and from His interpretation of it we would have to say that His interpretation of it was even harder to obey than that of the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ teaching forbade murder, but allowed for hate; Jesus’ teaching condemned both. The Pharisees’ teaching forbade adultery, but did not condemn lust; Jesus’ teaching called both sin. Jesus’ interpretation of the Law was not more liberal or easier to obey.

How, then, can our Lord say that His burden is light? Note, first of all that Jesus said that He was “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29). The hearts of the Pharisees, on the other hand, were full of wickedness and greed (Luke 11:39). The difference between Jesus’ teaching of the Law and that of the Pharisees was that His teaching was motivated by compassion, and theirs by self‑seeking and sin.

The second critical difference between Jesus’ handling of the Law and that of the Pharisees is that His teaching resulted in grace, while theirs resulted in guilt. Jesus’ teaching of the Law was always in the light of the teaching of the Old Testament prophets. The Pharisees were experts in the Law alone, neglecting the prophets. Yet it was the Old Testament prophets who were sent by God to interpret the Law (not the self‑appointed Pharisees), and to point out its essence, and its fulfillment. It was the prophets who spoke of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who enables men to obey the commandments of God:

“This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty (Zechariah 4:6).

The Law was not given to make men righteous, but to show men that they were unrighteous, and that they needed redemption. The sacrificial system pointed ahead to the coming Savior, the Lamb of God, of whom the prophets spoke in detail. The Law was but a temporary provision, and this “old” covenant was to be replaced by a new and better one, one in which God would transform men’s hearts, which would result in transformed lives (cf. Jeremiah 31:31‑34).

The second woe which Jesus spoke to the experts in the law is directly related to the first. Note that it is the most lengthy “woe”:

“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all” (Luke 11:47‑51).

We have already noted that the experts in the law and the Pharisees majored on the minors, they not only focused on the small details, missing the design, but they also focused on the Law without the prophets. The prophets were the ones who called Israel to the major matters of loving God and men, of mercy and justice. In these words of woe, Jesus shows us how strongly the Pharisees resisted the prophets. Not only did they reject the teaching of the prophets, they are guilty of being accomplices in their deaths.

Our first impression might be that the Pharisees build tombs for the prophets, which would seems to indicate that they accepted them as from God and their message as true. Our text, however, reads in such a way as to say that their building of tombs for the prophets proves their hatred of the prophets. Why would the Pharisees build magnificent tombs for people whose message they respected, and who, according to Jesus they would have put to death?

Have you ever been to a cemetery and looked at all the kinds of markers which are placed at the grave? I do not mean to suggest that this is true in all cases, but sometimes a very elaborate funeral and tomb is evidence of guilt, more than of love. Some people go overboard with the burial of those about whom they feel guilty, or to make it look as if they loved them when they did not. It seems that this was the case with the experts in the law. They went to great lengths to show honor to the prophets, lengths which only revealed their own guilt. This was a kind of Freudian slip, and Jesus pointed it out.

But how could these experts in the law be guilty of the blood of prophets whom their forefathers had slain? I think that Jesus is pointing out at least three ways. First, they had rejected the teaching of the prophets, just as their forefathers had done. Second, they were presently rejecting Jesus’ teaching, which was consistent with (and the fulfillment of) the teaching of the prophets. Soon, they would kill Him. And third, some of those prophets and apostles who are yet to come (namely Jesus’ disciples), after the death and resurrection of Christ, will be rejected, persecuted, and sometimes killed by them. All of this puts these experts in the same category of sinners, just like their forefathers. They were not the spiritual elite, they were just like the rest, just like those who had gone before them. They very things they condemned they were guilty of themselves.

The third woe is the capstone:

“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).

They have taken away “the key of knowledge,” Jesus said. What was the “key to knowledge”? In its simplest form, I believe that they “key of knowledge” was the divinely revealed knowledge of the Scriptures. The experts in the law, the ones who were self‑appointed to teach the truth of the Law to their nation, were the very ones who were withholding, indeed, concealing that truth. They set aside the written Law for the oral law and man’s distorted interpretations of the Scriptures. They set aside the prophets and all of the inspired insight which God had revealed through them. They made themselves and experts and thus discouraged men from studying the Word of God for themselves. Those who thought themselves to be the guardians of the truth, and the teachers of the truth, were the concealers of it. And any who would seek to find the truth and to enter into life through it, were resisted by these experts in the law. They were not pointing out the way to life, but pushing people away from that way. How great their sin. How great our Lord’s grief at their sin.

The Outcome
(11:53‑54)

The response of the Pharisees and experts in the law was not repentance, but rejection and resentment. This was the “last straw.” They would not seek to work with Him, nor to straighten Him out any longer. They would now become His fiercest opponents, trying to prove Him to be incompetent in the Scriptures, and waiting for the opportunity to put Him down. This was the beginning of the end. The cross is on the horizon.

Conclusion

The first thing which we need to recall as we consider the meaning of this text to us is that those who are guilty of the most serious sins are the ones who want to be most holy, and who think that they are. These Pharisees and experts in the law are, as we have said, fundamentalists. They believe in God, in His Word, in miracles, Satan, sin, and even of salvation. But their very desire to be holy has become distorted. Their commitment to lead others into holiness has actually produced the opposite. Let us learn that no matter how much we want to be holy, no matter whether men think us to be holy, God’s Word may show us to be otherwise.

How is it that people so committed to holiness can stray so far? If I understand this text correctly, we would have to say that it is by perverting the Scriptures. Just as Satan sought to use the Scriptures to tempt our Lord, so he employs the Scriptures to defeat the Christian. For those who hold the Scriptures in high esteem, Satan seeks to distort their grasp of the Scriptures. He accomplishes this is by working to make God’s Word merely a duty, and not delight, to make it a burden, and not a blessing. If the grace of God can be overshadowed by man’s guilt, if man’s efforts can be the focus rather than God’s, if the ministry of the Spirit can be set aside, then Satan has achieved his purpose. And if Satan can get our attention on but one portion of the Scriptures (as the Law was for the Pharisees) and not on the whole Bible, then we are sure to have a distorted grasp of God’s revelation. Also, if he can cause us to focus on one area of truth, to the exclusion of others, the Scriptures can be (mis)used to produce sin and not righteousness. The heart attitude with which we come to the Scriptures, as well as the way we study them plays a vital role in our Christian walk.

We who are fundamentalists and evangelicals have a number of ways in which we can be a hindrance to the Bible’s working in the lives others. We can, for example, fall into a scholasticism, an elitism which suggests to the masses that only the experts (who know Greek and Hebrew and theology) can study the Bible. We who are viewed as the experts in the Bible can give people the impression that all they need to do is to listen to and obey our interpretation of the Bible, rather than to read, study, and obey it for themselves. We can, of course, lose sight of the priorities of the Word of God, and focus on the fine points (like the details of prophecy, rather than its purpose of promoting faith and purity). And we can, by dull and boring teaching, convince others that there is nothing worthwhile in the Bible anyway.

This text surely reminds us that in the Bible those who are outwardly religious and inwardly evil are more severely rebuked than those who do not seek to clothe their sin in a religious garb. It also reminds us that there are corporate sins, those to which any and every religious group are susceptible. Whenever we are a part of a group that is a subset of Christianity, we will undoubted have both our strengths and our weaknesses. Satan will use either our strength (which he will encourage us to overplay and overstate) or our weaknesses. And because we, as a group, are convinced that we (distinct from all other groups) have the truth, we are not inclined to listen to or to learn from others, who are better able to see our weaknesses than we are.

One of the temptations which we face as Christians, and which our text clearly exposes, is to focus on outward acts or appearances, rather than on inward motivation. We are often guilty of taking new Christians aside and trying to rid them of their “evil habits” like smoking, drinking, cussing, or whatever, as though cleaning up the outside purifies the inside. Jesus teaches us that when we clean up the inside, when our attitudes and our motives are pure, our outward lives will clean up. Often, cleaning up only the outside tends only to corrupt the inside more. Now, having cleaned up the outside, we find pride and self‑righteousness to be added to our list of inner evils. Let us learn from our Lord that holiness begins inside and works out, and not the reverse.

I must confess to you that it was at this point I planned to have some very pointed applications, but the text forbids it. Jesus’ rebuke here is general, not specific. He does not point out any particular sin, but principles which expose sin. You see, the moment I become specific, I tend to become external, and this is exactly the opposite of what our Lord wants. Our Lord wants these Pharisees and experts in the law to look at their hearts, not in the light of their own teachings, but in the light of the Scriptures, and in the searchlight of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of God, working through the Word of God, which exposes our inward sins. May each of us go to the Scriptures, asking God as David did in Psalm 119 to reveal His Word to us, and also to reveal our sin. May each of us seek God from the heart to have a pure heart, by His grace, and for His glory.

Of what did the Pharisees accuse Jesus?

(1) Eating/associating with sinners—Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Luke 7:39; 15:2

(2) Not fasting as they did—Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33

(3) Operating in power of Satan—Matt. 9:34

(4) His disciples violated Sabbath by eating—Matt. 12:2; Mark 2:24; Luke 6:2

(5) Jesus violated Sabbath by healing man with withered hand—Mark 3:1ff.; Luke 6:6ff.

(6) Healing man with dropsy on Sabbath—Luke 14:1‑6

(7) Violating Sabbath, He cannot be Messiah—John 9:16

(8) His disciples didn’t wash their hands ceremonially—Matt. 15:1ff.; Mark 7:1ff.

(9) Under what conditions can a man divorce his wife? —Matt. 19:3ff.; Mark 10:2ff.

(10) Claiming, by inference (sins forgiven) to be God—Luke 5:17ff.

(11) Accepting praise by disciples as Messiah—Luke 19:19‑40

(12) Testing Jesus as to what to do with woman caught in adultery/application of the law—John 8:3

(13) Jesus was “bearing witness of himself”—John 8:13ff.

Of what were the Pharisees accused in the Gospels?

(1) Hypocrisy—bring forth fruit worthy of repentance—Matt. 3:7

(2) Honoring God with mouth, but heart far away—Matt. 15:7ff.

(3) Justify selves in men’s sight, but God knows hearts—Luke 16:16

(4) Self‑righteousness—Luke 18:10ff.

(5) Not having works sufficient to get them into kingdom—Matt. 5:20

(6) Placing their traditions above the law—Matt. 15:1ff.

(7) Focus on externals, not internals—Luke 11:39ff.

(8) Demanding a sign—Matt. 16:1‑4; Mark 8:11‑12

(9) The leaven of/in their teaching—Matt. 16:5‑12

(10) Being ignorant of the Scriptures—Matt. 19; 21:42, and of power of God (Matt. 22:29).

(11) Elevating themselves & seeking prominence—Matt. 23:2, 5‑6

(12) Shut of kingdom of heaven from men—Matt. 23:13

(13) Use technicalities as excuses for disobedience of law—Matt. 23:16ff.

(14) Focus on trivials, but miss the main points—Matt. 23:23ff.

(15) Being lovers of money—Luke 16:14

(16) Disdaining the crowds, who knew not the Law (John 7:49)

(17) Using their influence to turn men from Christ—John 7:48; 12:42

! Lesson 41:
The Hazard of Hypocrisy
for Heralds of the Gospel
(Luke 12:1‑12)

Luke 12:1‑12 Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

8 “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9 But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

11 “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Introduction

I heard somewhere, perhaps it was one the radio, that a man and a woman stopped to buy some chicken (or some other quick meal) and after they had paid for their food, they were handed a paper bag which, they assumed, contained their food. When they arrived at the place where they planned to eat, they opened up the sack and found that it contained the day’s proceeds, and not their food. The man closed the bag, went back to the place where he had been given the sack, and handed back the money, much to the relief of the employee who had mistakenly handed him the wrong bag.

The management of the business was so delighted at the man’s honesty that they wanted to do something to honor the man. They started to call the press, so that a photographer could come and take his picture. The man was very insistent that this not be done. Finally, because they seemed intent on calling the press anyway, the man explained his reluctance. “The woman with me is not my wife.”

Hypocrisy is all about us. In the immediately preceding context of the Gospel of Luke our Lord has just rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. In the passage we will be studying in this lesson, the Lord Jesus will warn His disciples to avoid the “leaven of the Pharisees” which, He says, is hypocrisy. Two questions come to mind as we consider our Lord’s words, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

(1) In what way is hypocrisy “yeast‑like”?

and,

(2) In what way is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees a danger to disciples?

In our study, we will seek to discover the answer to these questions. To do so, we will attempt to distill the essentials of hypocrisy, and to discover that form of hypocrisy of which the disciples were in danger of practicing. We will learn from our Lord why such hypocrisy is both foolish and evil, and the means which God has provided so that it can be avoided.

The Structure of the Text

Our text is at the beginning of a new section. In Luke 12:1‑53, our Lord is addressing His disciples. There are three major sections:

(1) The Disciple and Persecution—12:1‑12

(2) The Disciple and Possessions—12:13‑34

(3) The Disciple and Preparedness for Christ’s Second Coming—12:35‑53

At verse 54 Jesus begins to speak to the multitudes, beginning with the same subject of His return (12:54‑59). In 13:1‑9, on the same occasion, Jesus showed the Israelites that their (Jewish) sins were no less than the (Gentile) sins committed by men like Herod, for the nation of Israel had persistently failed to produce the fruit of righteousness.

The structure of our passage can be outlined as follows:

(1) The Setting: the heresy of hypocrisy—verse 1

(2) The folly & futility of hypocrisy—verses 2‑3

(3) Hypocrisy and our fears—verses 4‑7

(4) Hypocrisy and the gospel—verses 8‑10

(5) Hypocrisy and apologetics—verses 11‑12

The Setting:
Hypocrisy and a Hostile Environment
(12:1)

The first verse is perplexing in many ways, for it places our Lord’s teaching of His disciples in the midst of a very large and unruly crowd:

Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1).

In his book, Shantung Compound, Langdom Gilkey tells about life in an internment camp for westerners in China during the Second World War. Because of some infraction of the rules, one of the Japanese officers went about the camp, strongly rebuking various groups, and threatening very severe consequences if any further violations occurred. Gilkey describes how his group, made up of a number of seasons veterans, used to “tough talk” were nevertheless frightened by this little man with a big voice and a big gun. When he had sufficiently “put the fear” into Gilkey’s group, he moved on to the next, which happened to be a group of monks.

Gilkey wondered how this group of monks would handle the scorching words and frightening threats of this Japanese officer. A little later he heard the sound of loud laughter coming from that direction, and so he investigated. The Japanese officer was beating a hasty retreat and the monks were holding their sides as they laughed at the little man. The group of bearded and robed monks had encircled the little man to hear his words. Then, on the signal of one of the monks, they all started to move in, closer and closer. Finally, the officer was encapsulated by this group of very large men, holy men, and he was very frightened by them. The officer pushed his way through them and ran. That group of monks was simply too intimidating to this officer, who shortly before had been intimidating others. Some crowds can be too much for a person.

I think that this story helps us to understand how the disciples must have felt as they realized that they were encircled by a crowd of thousands, and not, it would seem, a very friendly crowd. Luke tells us that this large crowd was trampling on one another. Crowds sometimes tend to turn to a hostile group. We know of riots which have broken out at various sports events, where many were hurt. This unruly crowd must have given the disciples a rather uncomfortable feeling. Jesus had just attacked the religious leaders, the leaders whom they regarded as holy, the leaders they had respected. Was the crowd threatening to become hostile?

I believe that our Lord captured this occasion as an opportune moment for teaching the disciples. Soon, all too soon, Jesus and the disciples would be in Jerusalem, and there would be a hostile crowd, demanding the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. The hostility of that group would prove too much for all the disciples, who seem to have fled, and for Peter, who denied his Lord (cf. Luke 22:54‑62). Jesus thus sought to prepare His disciples to face a hostile crowd, for their rejection by the nation would soon come to pass. An angry (at least unruly) crowd was the setting for our Lord’s teaching of the disciples concerning their boldness in proclaiming the gospel in such circumstances. The crowds may have heard Jesus’ words, but they were specifically addressed to His disciples. It was time to prepare them for the persecution which would surely and quickly come.

The subject which Jesus was addressing was hypocrisy, and the Pharisees have just provided an example of its dangers. On the outside, they looked fine. The had long, pious‑sounding, prayers, and they had all of the trappings of men of dignity and holiness, but inside, Jesus said, they were full of “greed and wickedness” (11:39). But how could the disciples possibly be tempted to be hypocritical, like the Pharisees?

The answer, I believe, is that the form of hypocrisy which would be tempting for the disciples was different from the form of hypocrisy which characterized the Pharisees. Jesus pointed to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and showed it to be evil. Indeed, all forms of hypocrisy are evil. Thus, Jesus warns the disciples against all hypocrisy, but as He goes on it will be obvious what form of hypocrisy the disciples will be tempted to practice.

Before we identify the form of hypocrisy which is a danger to the disciples, let us first look at those characteristics which are common to every form of hypocrisy. Let us consider the “fundamentals of hypocrisy.”

(1) Hypocrisy is conformity to the values and expectations of someone else. This characteristic is not immediately apparent, but it is obvious after a little reflection. We are hypocritical because some other person’s values. Hypocrisy is bowing to the idol of other people’s values, which are not really our own. Hypocrisy is dying our hair green if the group we are a part of has defined spirituality as having green hair, knowing in our hearts that green hair has nothing to do with godliness. Hypocrites adjust and accommodate their appearance to what people think or feel.

(2) Hypocrisy is an inconsistency. Hypocrisy is the discrepancy between what appears and what is, between the way things seem and the way they are. The Pharisees appeared to be righteous on the outside, but in reality they were wicked.

(3) Hypocrisy is a deliberate deception. Hypocrisy is deliberately appearing to be what we are not. It is not accidental, but purposeful. Hypocrisy is a charade. Appearance does not match reality, deliberately so.

(4) Hypocrisy, is deception by our actions or our words. Hypocrisy is often acting in such a way that people will come to the wrong conclusion. This, to a large degree, was true of the Pharisees. It is also possible for our words to represent us in a way that is not true to fact. More about this as our study continues.

(5) Hypocrisy is sin.

(6) Hypocrisy is a deliberate deception, with either a positive or a negative motivation. Generally speaking, we are hypocritical either to achieve men’s praise or to avoid their persecution.

This last point is the key to understanding the difference between the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and that which would tempt the disciple of our Lord. People are deliberately hypocritical, they have a goal in mind. For the Pharisees, that goal was positive. They were hypocritical so that they could receive the praise of men. But for the disciples, the motivation to be hypocritical would have been negative—to avoid the persecution of those who hated true righteousness, who would reject and crucify Jesus, the Messiah, and who would also persecute and kill many of His disciples.

The hypocrisy of the disciples was likely to be trying to appear not to be righteous, in order to avoid the persecution of a hostile nation. The hostile crowd which encompassed the disciples was but a foreshadowing of the hostility of the nation which would reject Jesus as its Messiah. While the Pharisees desired the praise of the people for appearing to be righteous (hypocrisy), the disciples would be tempted to try to avoid the anger and violence of the crowds by not appearing to be righteous, a follower of Christ.

The context of our passage strongly reinforces the likelihood of this kind of hypocrisy. Jesus spoke to His disciples about fear, the fear of dying, which is a valid fear in the light of Israel’s hostility toward Jesus and His followers. Jesus also spoke to the disciples about their response when brought before the synagogues, which we know will happen from the Book of Acts. Just as men may be hypocritical by attempting to represent themselves as righteous, when they are not, others, may attempt to disguise their righteousness and their relationship to Christ, to avoid persecution for His sake. This is definitely a different form of hypocrisy from the Pharisees, but hypocrisy nevertheless.

The Lord’s First
Argument Against Hypocrisy
(12:2‑3)

Having learned how a disciple would be tempted to be hypocritical, we will now find the remainder of our Lord’s words more easily understood. In verses 2 and 3 Jesus gave the first reason why hypocrisy is foolish and futile:

There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs (Luke 12:2‑3).

Summarized as a principle, Jesus’ meaning would be something like this: HYPOCRISY, HIDING THE TRUTH, IS FUTILE, BECAUSE THE TRUTH CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE CONCEALED FOR LONG. Trying to conceal the truth is something like attempting to conceal a pregnancy: sooner or later it will be obvious to all. Paul says this:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden (1 Timothy 5:24‑25).

Simply put, the truth cannot be hidden for long. Some truth is more quickly evident than others, but sooner or later all truth will be evident to all. Hypocrisy is foolish and futile because it seeks to avoid the inevitable.

The words of our Lord in verses 2 and 3 may be taken several ways:

(1) Jesus may be saying that the evil men do will eventually be revealed.

(2) Jesus may be saying that the good news of the gospel will inevitably be revealed, in spite of our hypocrisy.

(3) Jesus may be saying that all truth, good or evil, will be revealed, so that in essence both “a” and “b” above are true.

We can see from Paul’s words that both options are true. Both the good and the evil which men do will eventually be made public knowledge. The question is, which of these lines of thought is Jesus attempting to emphasize? I find the evidence more heavily in favor of the second option. In the first place, Jesus is speaking to His disciples, not to men at large. Not that disciples would not sin, but that this first option would be more appropriate when addressed to the Pharisees. Second, the emphasis here is not on the disciple’s deeds (which Paul emphasized above), but on their words. Third, almost the same words are used by our Lord for the gospel. Note the words of our Lord in the passages below, both of which use the same imagery as we find in Luke chapter 12, and both of which refer to the unveiling of the gospel, which for a time is concealed:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (Luke 8:16‑17).

“So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs” (Matthew 10:26‑27; cf. Mark 4:21‑22).

The hypocrisy about which the disciples are being warned is that of seeking to conceal the gospel which they have believed, to conceal their discipleship. Jesus tells them that the gospel is going to be proclaimed publicly—it cannot be concealed. Trying to conceal the gospel is like trying to hide the sun. Thus, hypocrisy is futile.

The Lord’s Second
Argument Against Hypocrisy
(12:4‑7)

We have already characterized hypocrisy as having either a positive (praise) or a negative (persecution) motivation. The motivation for the disciples to be hypocritical by concealing their faith in Christ would be negative—the fear of persecution by their Jewish brethren. The normal pagan fear is the fear of man, and his ultimate fear is the fear of physical death (cf. Hebrews 2:15). Jesus defused this fear by showing that His disciples should rather fear God:

“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows” (Luke 12:4‑7).

The Lord’s word “friends” for His disciples sets the tone for this paragraph. While there is a very legitimate sense in which men should “fear” God, this is a very different “fear” than the fear of man or the fear of death. Jesus’ disciples, as He said elsewhere, are not His slaves, but His friends.[191]

The reason why the disciples would fear men enough to seek to conceal their faith in Christ is that they could, indeed would, be killed for their faith, like many of the prophets. Jesus did not seek to minimize the fact that many of them might die, but did seek to put that death into perspective. He told His disciples that physical death was not to be feared, but rather spiritual death—spending eternity in hell. Man can only take away one’s physical life, but God is the One who has the power to throw men into hell. Thus, the fear of man, which might incline one to hypocrisy, is overshadowed by God, who calls for honesty, indeed boldness.

While on the one hand the disciples’ fear should be of God, the greater emphasis of Jesus’ words falls on the faith which the disciples should have in Him. The One who is to be feared is also the One who has a deep love and intimate concern for His disciples. He knows and cares about the sparrows, which have little value to man. He also knows the very hairs of a man’s head. The disciple need not fear (as man does) for He is of great worth to God, who cares for Him. Nothing, then, will happen to the disciple, even death, outside of God’s infinite knowledge, love, and care. And since God has the keys, as it were, of heaven and hell, death can only usher the disciple into His presence. What need, then, to fear men, and to try to be a hypocrite?

The Lord’s Third
Argument Against Hypocrisy
(12:8‑10)

There is yet another reason why the Lord’s disciples should beware of the hypocrisy of silence, of trying to appear that one is not a disciple:

“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Luke 12:8‑10).

At first appearance this text seems to be warning the disciple that he might lose his salvation by denying the Savior, by his hypocrisy. This is not the case, however. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

(1) Man’s salvation is not based upon his works, or his faithfulness, but on Christ’s shed blood and His faithfulness.

(2) The Scriptures consistently teach that man did not choose God but that He has chosen man, and that the one who is saved is eternally secure.

(3) In our text, there is a definite change from the second person (“you”) to the third person (“whoever,” “him,” “everyone”).

(4) The unpardonable sin, referred to in verse 10, is elsewhere clearly a sin which an unbeliever commits, which terminates any further opportunity to be saved.

It is therefore not the disciples who are in view here, but those who would respond to their message for salvation. I believe that Jesus is saying, just as the apostles preached in the Book of Acts (2:38‑41), and the epistles teach (Romans 10:9‑10), that in order to be saved one must publicly identify himself with Christ, which, as I understand it, was by profession and by baptism, which usually happened together.

But what does this have to do with the disciples? Why would our Lord teach His disciples not to be hypocritical by referring to the requirements God has for man’s salvation? Very simply. How can the disciples call upon men to publicly profess their faith in Christ for salvation if they are, at the same time, trying to conceal their own faith? In times of persecution, such as the early days of the church, a decision to trust in Christ was most unpopular, and could lead to persecution by some and rejection by one’s family. The disciples must not waver in their boldness, for they must set and example for those who would come to faith.

The Lord’s
Fourth and Final Argument
(12:11‑12)

The Lord’s fourth and final words pertain directly, this time, to the words of the disciples when they are brought before the authorities, where they will be charged, and at which time they could be put to death:

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Luke 12:11‑12).

The Lord is speaking to His disciples about their rejection by their Jewish brethren. They are brought before synagogues, rulers, and authorities, they are brought before the Jewish powers that be. The Book of Acts records just such instances. After Peter and John had publicly and boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, as Israel’s Messiah (Acts 3), they were arrested by the Jewish authorities:

The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day … The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” (Acts 4:1‑3, 4‑7).

Jesus’ instructions to His disciples were thus not in the least hypothetical.

Our Lord’s words conveyed several important truths, which were vitally related to the hypocrisy of veiling one’s discipleship and the gospel.

First, the Lord’s words made it clear to His disciples that they would suffer rejection and persecution for their faith in Him. Jesus did not say to them, “If you are brought before synagogues.…” but “When you are brought before synagogues … ” Persecution was coming.

Second, the Lord’s words to His disciples cautioned them not to think or to worry about their defense ahead of time. While Jesus was telling His disciples ahead of time that they would be persecuted and resisted for their proclamation of the gospel, He did not mean for them to worry about this, or to spend time thinking up ways to defend themselves. For one thing, this would not be profitable for they would not know, in advance, what the circumstances were, to be able to make a proper defense. For another, they would be inclined or tempted, in their defense, to be hypocritical—not to be as bold and forthright as they should be. And for yet another, the more they thought about the dangers which lay ahead, and their reaction to them, the more they would be tempted to avoid the confrontation altogether by simply “backing off” in their proclamation of the gospel.

Can you imagine, for instance, a politician working on his concession speech, weeks before the election? How foolish! Rather than working to win such a person would be preparing for defeat. So it is with the disciple. To prepare our defense speech is to plan for the worst. Even though it may come, we need not borrow on tomorrow’s trouble. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.”

Third, the Lord’s words to His disciples reassured them that at the time they were needed, the Holy Spirit would teach them the right words to say in their defense. Disciples of our Lord are to be more intent upon proclaiming the gospel to men than they are defending themselves. The Holy Spirit, Jesus said, would minister in a special way to those who are accused, so that they can speak the gospel clearly and forcefully.

We see a number of examples of this in the Book of Acts. Peter and John, when arrested, boldly preached the gospel as their defense (Acts 4). Stephen, when arrested and charged before the crowd, powerfully preached the gospel as his defense (Acts 6 & 7). So, too, with Paul (cf. Acts 22). The Holy Spirit is God’s special gift to those in such difficult circumstances. As I understand it, He gives men under duress a special sense of God’s presence (cf. Acts 7:55‑56), thus comforting and assuring them. He also gives men the words to speak, and the power to speak them boldly. Stephen’s words struck hard, even though they were rejected. When the Holy Spirit provided and empowered men’s words, their defense was awesome, even if rejected. We must therefore leave our defense to Him, and we must faithfully proclaim the gospel, knowing that it may lead to persecution, even death.

Conclusion

At the beginning of this lesson I mentioned two questions which arose from the text, based upon this statement of our Lord: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

These two questions are:

(1) In what way is hypocrisy “yeast‑like”?

and,

(2) In what way is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees a danger to disciples?

As we conclude this lesson, let us seek to answer them. I believe that we must begin by observing that our Lord is not dealing with hypocrisy in its broadest form, but as it particularly confronts the disciples, which is a hypocrisy which consciously or unconsciously affects the proclamation of the gospel, of which they were to be heralds. Hypocrisy, in this context, is very “leaven‑like” in that even a touch of hypocrisy can greatly corrupt the gospel. It was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which put on a pious appearance, but had a godless and wicked heart, which caused them to pervert the message of the Old Testament to a gospel of works, rather than of faith, a gospel which looked for a very different kind of Messiah. Thus, the Pharisees, who thought they were leading men to eternal life were actually turning men away from it (cf. Luke 11:52).

Hypocrisy in the lives of the disciples would also have a devastating impact on the gospel which they were to proclaim. This is precisely why Paul reacted so strongly to the “hypocrisy of Peter” and those who followed him in dissociating from the Gentiles and eating with the Jews alone, as depicted in Galatians chapter 2. Why make such a big issue of such a little blunder? Paul made a big issue of it, publicly calling Peter to task, because, he said, it was a denial of the gospel. They gospel declared all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, to be lost in their sins, with nothing to commend them before God. The gospel offered salvation to all men, Jew or Gentile, on the same basis: faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of men on the cross of Calvary. To give preferential treatment to the Jews and to avoid the Gentiles was to imply that the Jews were on a higher spiritual plane than Gentiles, and thus to deny the gospel, which makes all believers equal (equally lost, equally saved, but the same things). Paul rooted out this little bit of leaven, knowing where it could go.

James, too, talks much about hypocrisy in his epistle (the Book of James). In the second chapter of this epistle James cites two examples of hypocrisy (although it is not called this in this chapter). To say that we are Christians and yet to discriminate between the poor and the rich in church is hypocrisy (James 2:1‑13). Furthermore, to say that one has faith and then to fail to minister to the needs of the unfortunate is also hypocrisy. That faith is worthless. Hypocrisy in these areas denies the gospel, it lives inconsistently with the gospel, and thus causes men to look down on the gospel as having no real value or benefit.

Our text teaches us many lessons. Allow me to cite a few:

(1) Opposition to the gospel and to the godly life which is to accompany it is to be expected. The gospel never has been, and never will be, a delight to the ears of the natural man. Only when the Holy Spirit has warmed our sinful hearts to its message will it appeal to us. Thus, today, as in the days of our Lord and His apostles, the message of the gospel will produce opposition. We are foolish and thinking unbiblically to expect otherwise (cf. 2 Timothy 3:10‑12). If we would be His disciples and proclaim His gospel, opposition is to be anticipated.

(2) Hypocrisy is to be suspected. If hypocrisy was something about which Jesus warned His most intimate friends and followers (and as the New Testament tells us was a reality in their lives), then surely we should suspect that hypocrisy will often try to raise its ugly head often in our lives. Indeed, hypocrisy is woven into the fabric of our lives and of our culture.

(3) The opposition which we are to expect may take a different form than that which the disciples experienced. Jesus’ words to His disciples made it clear that their opposition was to come largely from Jewish unbelievers. Thus they were warned that they would be “brought before synagogues, ruler and authorities” (Luke 12:11). Just as the form of hypocrisy was different for the disciples than for the Pharisees, so the form in which our opposition comes may be different from that which the disciples experienced. THE FORM WHICH THE OPPOSITION TOOK IN THE DISCIPLES’ DAY WAS THE RAISED FIST. THE FORM WHICH THE OPPOSITION TAKES IN OUR DAY IS THE RAISED EYEBROW. To the Jews the message of the cross was a stumbling block—”fight’n words,” but to the Gentile the message of the cross was foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18‑25).

The danger for the disciples, as I understand it, was to hold back from “telling it like it is.” The message of the cross was so violently opposed by the Jewish unbelievers that it would be easy to keep silent about it, or to play down those aspects of it which might prove offensive. To some degree, it would seem that this is the danger of those to whom the Book of Hebrews was addressed. But for us, the danger is a little different. We may, because we do not wish to be thought of as fools, keep quiet about our faith, but we are also tempted to revise the gospel, so that it seems to offer to the heathen exactly what they want, intellectual status, prestige, pleasure, power, riches, or what ever. Paul calls this kind of hypocritical “gospel editing” adulterating the Word of God, “catching with bait” as it were (2 Corinthians 3:17; 4:2). This form of hypocrisy cuts out the heart of the gospel, for the very thing which is the most offensive to the heathen mind is also that which is the heart and power of the gospel:

“But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:23‑24).

Our temptation to by hypocritical, when we are called to be heralds of the gospel, may take the form of keeping quiet, or the form of distorting the gospel. Both of these kinds of hypocrisy are leaven‑like and evil, and they must be recognized as sin and repented of. Ultimately our hypocrisy will be revealed, and the gospel will be proclaimed. The boldness with which we are to proclaim that gospel is to be matched by the boldness with which men respond publicly to it.

It is in the light of all of this that I can begin to appreciate the role which baptism played in the early church. Baptism, as one young man in a church I attended put it, is “being advertised.” I know that there are many who say, “My faith is a very personal, a very private matter.” But, my friend, I believe that Jesus says it cannot be that. One’s faith, in the preaching of the apostles, had to be publicly professed. If you have never publicly identified with Christ you not only should, I believe the Bible says you must. If you have never publicly identified with Christ in baptism, I believe the Bible requires it, if not for salvation (baptism does not save us), for discipleship. In this day and age when everyone is “coming out of the closet” is it not time for Christians to do so, to make public their relationship to God through Christ?

The boldness which Christ calls for in this text, boldness in the faithful proclamation of the truth, cannot come from within us, from our own strength. Jesus says in our text that this boldness to be unhypocritical comes from the Holy Spirit. Let us cease to worry about the consequences of our boldness and focus our attention on the source of it—God’s Spirit.

There is one form of hypocrisy which is the most dangerous of all. It is not committed by a disciple, but by the one who acts (and perhaps think of himself) as though he were a true Christian, but is not. This hypocrisy is damnable! When men stand before the judgment seat of Christ, all false professions of faith will be exposed as hypocritical, and those who have falsely claimed to be one of God’s children will be condemned to outer darkness, eternal damnation. It may be that neither your works nor your profession have any indication of the eternal life which God has offered in His Son, Jesus Christ. If the Spirit of God has witnessed to the truth of this possibility, deep within your spirit, come to Him today. Acknowledge your sin and accept Christ’s death on your behalf. Set the hypocrisy which leads men to hell aside, once and for all.

! Lesson 42:
Greed: The Affliction of the Affluent
(Luke 12:13‑21)

Introduction

When I read the parable of the rich fool, I cannot help but think of Howard Hughes. I do not know that he was a fool, but I do know that he was rich. I also know, from some of the reports that went out at the time of his death that while he had accumulated a great deal of wealth, he did not enjoy any of it in his last days, perhaps his last years. In this sense, Howard Hughes is a present day example of that against which Jesus was warning us in our text.

The danger of thinking of a man like Howard Hughes as I read this text is that this implies that the text applies primarily, perhaps exclusively to the rich. To put the matter more pointedly, thinking of the rich fool in this text as Howard Hughes enables me not to think of myself as a “rich fool.”

We may come to the parable of the rich fool with a sense of smug security. Perhaps Jesus will be speaking to us when he gets to the next section, verses 22‑34. There, Jesus is addressing His disciples. But here, Jesus is telling a parable. There was not such person. And besides this, this man was very wealthy. Jesus can hardly be addressing us.

I’m not so sure about that. In the first place, I think that most of us would be hard pressed not to admit that we are, as individuals, affluent—rich, if you would. Furthermore, our nation is, in comparison with others, exceedingly blessed.

Furthermore, verses 13‑21 are a part of a larger piece, and thus we cannot separate the warnings and instructions from the words of Jesus to the disciples which follow them. Note that in verse 22 Jesus’ words to His disciples begins with a “therefore,” indicating that what He is saying is based upon what has already been said. Note, too, that in our text Jesus warned against “all kinds of greed” (v. 15), which suggests that greed has a variety of forms, some of which may tempt the rich, and others of which may tempt the less affluent.

The Context of the Text

It is very important for us to approach our lesson and our text with a clear grasp of the fact that we are looking at but a piece of a much larger whole. In verse 1 of chapter 12 we were told that Jesus was surrounded by a very large, and somewhat unruly crowd:

Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples (Luke 12:1).

As we continue to read through chapter 12, it can be seen that Jesus was still conducting His teaching in the midst of a large crowd. Thus, in verse 41, Peter asked the Lord whether He was speaking to the disciples or to the crowd as a whole.

This large and unruly crowd seems to have set the scene, not only for the first section (vv. 1‑12), where Jesus warned His disciples about the danger of hypocrisy, the hypocrisy for them of behaving differently than that which was required of disciples. Boldness in living out one’s discipleship is also related to the next segment (vv. 13‑34), which deals with material possessions, for we know that boldness as disciples in a hostile environment may cost one his property (cf. Hebrews 10:32‑34). In the final section (vv. 35‑59), Jesus deals with the matter of readiness for His return, which, as we will see, has much to do with our boldness and our willingness to be unfettered by material possessions in the present age. My great fear is that we will not view this chapter as a whole, since our study will, of necessity, be only of a segment at a time. I urge the reader, therefore, to make every effort to read and to study this chapter as a whole, indeed to study the entire book of Luke as a whole.

The Structure of the Text

I understand verses 13‑34 to be dealing with the matter of material possessions. Although our study will be only of verses 13‑21,[192] I outline the structure of the entire section, in this way:

(1) The Setting (the request: “Tell my brother… ”)—v. 13

(2) Jesus’ Response: a message to the affluent (vv. 14‑21)

·         The Problem and a Principle—vv. 14‑15

·         A Parable and the Punch Line—vv. 16‑21

(3) Jesus’ Response to the disciples and the poor they represent—vv. 22‑34

The Setting
(12:13)

As I understand the setting, the great crowd which presses about the Lord Jesus and His disciples is still an unruly mass. I suspect that this one request which Luke records for us is but one of many. I think of the occasion as something like a presidential press conference. If you have seen one, you know that the members of the press, while not that numerous, all clamor for the President’s attention, seeking to get themselves recognized and their question answered. From what we see elsewhere, cries from those in the crowd were not unusual (cf. Luke 11:27). The man somehow got our Lord’s attention, and his question was recognized:

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me” (Luke 12:13).

The man seems to have recognized Jesus only as a teacher, not as the Teacher, not as the Messiah. He requests Him to respond, not so much as a teacher, but apparently as the other teachers of His day might have done. What the man wants is a judge, not a teacher. It would seem that the man’s brother was present, so that all Jesus would have had to do was to pronounce in this man’s favor. The request is not only for Jesus to do that which was outside of His calling, but also that which was selfish, in that it would not in any way contribute to the teaching needs of those in the crowd. A question asked of a teacher in that setting should have been one for which the answer would have a broad interest or application. I believe the man asserted himself, for his own interest, and with disregard both for Jesus and for the crowd.

Jesus’ Response to the Man and His Request
(12:14)

Jesus responded as a teacher, teaching, from the man’s own words, the error of his actions, and drawing from this “interruption” lessons of broad and general applicability. But first Jesus had a very few words to say to this man in direct response to his petition:

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” (Luke 12:14).

Jesus’ words indicate that the man’s request was in error. Jesus was a teacher, though infinitely more a Teacher than this man recognized. Other teachers might be tempted to pronounce on such cases, but Jesus knew that this was not within the realm of His calling or task, and thus He abruptly refused the request. I understand that when Jesus said, “Man,[193] who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?,” He gives us an indication that the brother was also present. Jesus would come, the second time, to act as Judge (cf. James 5:9), but this was later. The man was not looking at Jesus as Messiah, but only as a teacher, and Jesus would not grant his brazen request. He may have gotten the floor, but he did not get his request. What he got was far more than he asked for, but certainly what he deserved.

The Problem and its Remedy
(12:15a)

Our Lord was not looking for an opportunity to publicly humiliate this man. Had He wished to do so, I believe that He would not have used a parable, but the circumstances of this man’s life, the ugly reality behind his petition. But neither was Jesus, as a teacher, willing to let this teaching opportunity pass without using it as a “teachable moment.” Thus, His response exposes the sinful motive behind the man’s request:

Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed” (Luke 12:15a).

The question must be asked, “Who is Jesus speaking to, who are referred to by “them” in this verse?” I do not think it is the disciples, to whom Jesus clearly spoke in verse 22. It could be the crowd, but I am not inclined to think so. I believe that Jesus was speaking to the man, and his brother, who seems to have been with him. The words of our Lord were, of course heard by the disciples and likely by some in the crowd. I think, however, that Jesus’ eyes were riveted on this man and his brother. I think, also, that both men were probably guilty of greed—the one for not giving his brother what was his due (the older brother, who would be the executor of the will, as it were?), and the other for demanding that he get what was his.

Jesus’ words spell out the evil motive behind the man’s request: greed. They also suggest that greed, like so many other sins, has a variety of forms, each appealing to a certain segment of men. In order to avoid these various forms of greed, men must both “watch out” for them and “be on their guard” against them. It would seem that the first command (“watch out,” NIV; “beware,”[194] NASB) indicates the need to believe the danger exists, while the second (“Be on your guard against,” NIV) underscores the vigilance needed to resist the evil for what it is.[195]

The Principle Underlying the Problem
(12:15b)

If the sin underlying the man’s request was greed, Jesus, the Teacher, goes on to spell out the principle which shows the man’s values not only to be wrong, but foolish. This principle is this:

“A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke12:15b).

I must say that I prefer the wording of the NASB, which reads,

“For Not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.”

Jesus not just teaching that life does not consist in possessions. He is saying that even if one could amass a large accumulation of possessions, it would not produce life. Stated in this way, we can see that our Lord is addressing these words to those who are affluent, to those who are rich, but who think that “life” will be attained in accumulating even more. Life does not consist in things. It does not even consist in many things. And so it is that His parable, which is given to spell out the principle just stated, will tell of a rich man, who is not rich enough.

The Parable of the Rich Fool
(12:16‑21)

And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ‘ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:16‑21).

Jesus refused to serve as a judge, but He did a masterful job as a teacher. Graciously, I believe, Jesus did not seek to spell out the principle He had just taught, based upon the sin of the man whose request had provided the occasion for this warning against covetousness or greed. Instead, Jesus told a parable of a fictitious man. This man was very wealthy, and he owned land that was very fertile and productive. His barns were already full with the produce and goods he had previously attained. Now, once again, the land had produced bountifully. His bumper crop posed him with a problem, however. His barns were already full.

Jesus now takes us into the mind of the man. We can overhear his conversation with himself. “I have no more storage space,” he said. “What am I to do?” Then, the inspiration came. “I will tear down my barns and build even bigger ones.” Of course. He could increase His storage space. He could enlarge his capacity to hoard his possessions.

This solution now having been conceived, the rich fool now chats with himself in such a way as to reveal his intent, his goal. If his previous words have revealed his problem and the plan which will solve them, the next inner conversation reveals the man’s motives and goals. He talks to himself. Literally, he talks to his soul. Once he has built his bigger barns and put all of his crops and goods into them, he will be able to say to his soul, “Soul, you’ve got it made. You have many good things, enough to last for many years. It’s time to retire, to take life easy, to enjoy the good things for years to come. Its time to eat, to drink, and to be merry.”

God’s words pierce through the shallow thinking of the man, exposing his sin and his destiny, which is vastly different than he supposed. God called the man a fool, a man whose solution and whose wealth seemed to suggest that he was wise. If the man looked forward to a long life, a life of ease, God said that his life would end, this very night, before any of the good things of his prosperity would be enjoyed. What he saved for himself, another would possess.

And then, the words of God seem to end, and the final verse is the application of this parable to all men who would store up things for himself, rather than to be rich toward God: “The one who would do so, who would do as the rich fool, will share his fate.”

Where Had the Rich Fool Gone Wrong?

God’s words, along with those of our Lord, were probably shocking to those who heard them, and so they should be for us as well. The rich fool is a man who would likely be praised by our culture, and perhaps in some of our churches. He was a wealthy man. That seems to speak well of him, especially in a time (then and now) when men equate spirituality and success. Today, we call it the “prosperity gospel.” Here was a man who had been able to curb his appetite, or so it seemed. Here was a man who is not described as spending his money on himself, but who had the discipline to save it, “for a rainy day,” we might say. Here was a man who thought of the future and who prepared himself for it.

How could such a man be called a fool? How could this man receive God’s rebuke, and that of our Lord? How could he serve as a pattern for those who are condemned, and who are judged? What is there about this man’s thinking and motivation and actions which is foolish? What was the man who had made the request of Jesus (and those who were listening, as well) to learn from this story?

I believe that the story itself reveal several “foolish” elements in this man’s thinking and actions. Consider them with me for a moment:

(1) The rich fool was foolish in failing to recognize where his wealth had come from. There is no evidence in the story that this man was particularly smart, especially good at his work, or that he was a hard worker. The man apparently should not have taken the credit for his wealth. Jesus was careful to tell us that the man’s ground produced a great harvest. Let’s face it. Good ground produces good crops. Bad ground produces bad crops. And beyond this, God gives the bountiful crops. This is precisely what God promised in the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Deuteronomy 28:1‑14). The rich fool did not seem to recognize the source of his prosperity. Indeed, from what we are told, the rich fool had no regard for God at all.

(2) The rich fool erred in his understanding of the purpose of wealth. If the rich fool failed to grasp where his wealth came from, he also failed to understand what he was to do with it. He thought that wealth was to store up and to save, rather than to use. He further believed that wealth, when it was to be used, was to be used for his own comfort and ease. He did not, as the Old Testament Law had taught, see his wealth as the occasion for praising God, and as the means by which he could offer sacrifices and offerings, both compulsory and voluntary. Neither did he see his wealth as a God‑given provision for him to minister to others, both by giving and by loaning to those in need. It never occurred to the rich fool that when his barns could not hold any more, he could have given some of his wealth away.

(3) The rich fool was foolish in that he saw his possessions as his security, and as the basis for his ceasing to be productive. It would seem from this man’s words that he not only planned to retire, but that he planned an early retirement. His wealth, we might say, was his “social security.” I understand him to be saying that he would be at ease once his bigger barns were built and his crops were safely stored inside, along with his goods. He is planning to “hang up his work jeans” and to retire to the rocking chair. He is looking forward to eating and drinking the finest and in enjoying all the fine things for the rest of his life.

(4) The rich fool was foolish in his presumption. The rich man presumed two things about the future, both of with were false. First, he presumed that he would possess his wealth in the future. Second, he presumed that he would be alive in the future, to enjoy his possessions. Both of these presumptions were shown to be false when his life was demanded of him that very night. Someone else got his possessions, and he did not live to enjoy what he had stored up.

(5) The rich fool was foolish in holding a view of the future which was short‑sighted and which excluded the kingdom of God. The rich fool lived his life in the light of the future, but that future did not include the kingdom of God, death, or the judgment to come. The rich man’s future was only as long as his earthly life, and only as broad as his own interests.

(6) The rich man was a fool both in the way he defined life and in the way he thought life was to be obtained. The word “life” is frequently used in chapter 12. To the rich fool “living” or “life” was defined in terms of ease and pleasure, in terms not just of eating and drinking, but of doing so in a way that was enjoyable. And life was obtained by putting oneself and one’s wealth first. One found life by seeking life for oneself and by ignoring others, including God. Jesus told His disciples that the way for a person to obtain “life,” to save his life was to give it up. The rich man lived his life exactly the opposite to the way Jesus taught His disciples to live. Those who die in the pursuit of “life,” “living,” or “living it up” are aided by Satan, the murderer, who leads men to death by promises them and causing them to pursue “life” wrongly defined.

Conclusion

The Methods of the Master

Before we concentrate on the message of our Lord in this text, let us spend a moment considering His methods. Jesus was the Messiah, something which the man in our text seems to have failed to recognize, but He was also a teacher, indeed we can say that He was the Teacher. While I do not think that we should imitate every practice of our Lord, I do think that teachers can and should learn from the Teacher.[196]

Jesus, as a teacher, would not be turned from His calling and function to that which was not His task. Jesus refused to act as a judge or an arbiter between these two brothers, not because He was incapable of doing so, but because it was not His calling. Many of us who teach are asked to make pronouncements (that is, to make judgments) which are beyond both our ability and our calling. While Jesus refused to do what this man asked, He did use this man’s interruption as a “teachable moment,” and thus He taught a lesson for all to learn, a lesson with very broad applications, to those gathered that day. Jesus, the teacher, did not judge, but He did teach.

When Jesus taught, He, unlike the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, avoided the “gnats” and exposed the “camels.” Biblical teaching today often includes a truck load of trivia, of detailed analyses and of word studies and the like. Good teaching is based upon careful study, but it does not, in my opinion, make this the substance of the lesson. Instead, the lesson focuses on the major points, it exposes the essence of the issue, leaving the details largely unsaid. Good teaching does not tell others all that we know, but it conveys to them a few things they desperately need to know.

Jesus’ teaching—and I am convinced all good teaching—focuses on principles, rather than on particulars. The man had one goal in mind, having Jesus side with him so that he got his inheritance. Jesus focused on the underlying problem, the “heart” of the matter, which was greed, and He taught a principle, which covered greed in a general way: A MAN’S LIFE DOES NOT CONSIST IN THE ABUNDANCE OF HIS POSSESSIONS

One clearly stated principle not only crystallizes the truth, but it also expresses it in such a way as to be generally understood and applied. It also, in my opinion, does not make the Christian life easy for others, giving them a quick and ready solution for all of life’s problems (the legalism of the scribes and Pharisees did this), but it gives them the basis for understanding their problems and for determining what they should do about them. Teaching by principles places responsibility on the hearer to understand and to apply the truth.

Note, too, that when Jesus taught, He avoided the particulars and the specific problems of the man whose question prompted His lesson. Jesus could have provided some very intimate and spicy particulars about this man who wanted his brother publicly reprimanded. Jesus could have rightly called this man a fool, but instead He told a parable, and in this parable he exposed the rich fool’s greed, and in it also exposed the man as a fool. Jesus taught the truth in a way that would most encourage and enhance a godly response to the truth.

The Message of the Master

Jesus was not primarily teaching teachers how to teach, but rather teaching us all how to live. Let us therefore focus on those principles which underlie our text and which should govern the way we live.

PRINCIPLE ONE: ONE’S VIEW OF THE FUTURE DETERMINES ONES PRESENT CONDUCT

The rich fool was correct to live his life in the light of the future. He was foolish in his concept of what the future held. He assumed that he would be alive in the future, to enjoy the things he had stored up. His grasp of the future did not include God nor the kingdom of God. His future was entirely “this life” oriented, earthly, sensual.

One’s view of the future is not a trivial matter. Theologians call the doctrine of the future eschatology. Eschatology is vital to godly living. The prophets of old told the people of God about what the future held because they knew that people govern their lives in the present by what they know will happen in the future. Faith focuses on the future. It focuses on the promises of God for the future, even enduring present pain, persecution, and death in order to experience God’s promised blessings.

The expression “eat, drink, and be merry,” which we find in our text, is one that is based upon the rich fool’s perception of what the future held. In effect, the rich fool planned to “eat, drink, and be merry” because he believed that he would live. Ironically, others will “eat, drink, and be merry” because they believe that there is not future (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:32). For the Christian, their view of the future is what enables them to die now, knowing that they will eat and drink in the kingdom of God. I believe this is why the last and largest section of Luke chapter 12 (verses 35‑59) deals with one’s preparation for the future. We will therefore deal with this matter in much greater detail.

PRINCIPLE TWO: ONE’S DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES LIFE IS CENTRAL AND CRUCIAL TO THE WAY WE LIVE OUR LIVES

The term “life” is used a number of times in our text, and in the verses that follow. Almost always, the term from our word “soul” is derived is used (vv. 19 [2x], 20, 22, 23). Life, as God views it in these verses, seems to be one’s physical life—living. Life, to the rich fool, seems to be more a qualitative matter—living life in luxury, high on the hog, in tall cotton. The rich fool presumed that he would have life, and thus he prepared to live “the good life.” He died, a fool, leaving his treasure and pleasures behind.

Our definition of “life” theoretically and practically determines how we will live our life. For some, life consists in the abundance of things. This text is designed to blast this view as a myth. Some view life as being successful, or as being esteemed or treated as we think we should be, or as having power or position. Whatever it is that constitutes “life” for us becomes our god. That is why covetousness (or greed), seeking things as our ultimate good and goal, is called idolatry (cf. Colossians 3:5). And whatever is or becomes our god becomes that for which we will sacrifice all else. Thus, it is vitally important for us to have the right definition for life.

Satan shine here, his diabolical hand can be seen throughout history, but and at its very beginning. He is, we are told, both a murderer and a liar (cf. John 8:44). He seeks to turn men from life to death, and this he accomplishes by lying, by enticing men to see the way of life as death and the way of death as life. Thus he turned Adam and Eve from obedience to God, resulting in death, all along assuring them by lying to them that they would not die. Satan continues throughout history to seek to turn men from life to death. Thus we must be very careful to determine what life is and how it is attained.

The Bible is crystal clear on this point, not leaving it to chance. Jesus came to bring life. Indeed, Jesus came, teaching men that He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” (John 14:6; cf. John 10:10). Paul therefore said that for him to live was Christ. Christ is life, and if we have received Him by faith, He is our life. Thus, Jesus can command His disciples to give up their possessions, their self‑interest, and even their lives, to follow Him, for the things they give up are not life, but He is.

PRINCIPLE THREE: LIFE DOES NOT CONSIST IN THE ABUNDANCE OF THINGS, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO CAN ACCUMULATE MUCH

How easy it would be here to think that this principle, the principle which Jesus taught to the two brothers (first) and to the rest, applies only to those who are rich by our definition. The rich man here is the one who is greatly blessed, so much so that he does not have enough room to store it all. The rest of the world certainly views us as filthy rich, and are we not just this? A visible witness to this is the advent of mini‑warehouses. My brother‑in‑law just went into this business, and it is a very profitable one. Why? Because we have so many possessions we have no place to keep them. The rich fool in our text tore down his barns and built bigger ones. We simply rent a mini‑warehouse.

I am not condemning storage, but simply attempting to show that our need for storage testifies to our surplus, and thus shows many, perhaps most of us to fall into the category of those who are rich, and thus we must seek to learn how the principle laid down by our Lord here applies to us.

One very discomforting question came to my mind as I began to think of the application of the principle our Lord taught to my life. Doesn’t the goal and the means of the rich fool sound a lot like our concept of retirement. Don’t we hope to be able to store up enough goods as we go through life to be able cease our labor, and to enjoy the rest of our life as a kind of extended vacation? I don’t think that I will seek to answer this problem here, for one simple reason: our Lord has not yet given us the answer. It is vital to recognize the problem, before we seek to learn the solution. The solution is stated only in very general terms: we are to be rich toward God. But what does it mean to be “rich toward God”?

I believe that the following verses will give us much insight. I further believe that the reason why our Lord (as recorded by Luke) has so much to say about money and its use is because this is such a serious problem. In addition to the teaching of our Lord in Luke, we find the book of Acts providing us with a great deal of data as to how the early church understood this teaching and sought to apply it.[197]

Related Passages

1 Timothy 6‑10; 17‑19 But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

James 4:11‑17 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? 13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. 17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.

James 5:1‑11 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self‑indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you. 7 Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. 8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. 9 Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door! 10 Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

! Lesson 43:
A Disciple’s Perspective on Possessions
(Luke 12:22‑34)

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? “Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Luke 12:22‑34).

Introduction

In the midst of some of the pleasure—at least excitement—of the ice storm this past week, there was also the tragic discovery of a child’s body, a submerged automobile, and then another child’s body. Adding to this tragedy was the failure to find the body of the driver of the car, the mother of the two children who perished in the icy waters. The car, we learned, slid off the road, which did not have any guardrails, virtually unnoticed.

If it were not for the tragic circumstances surrounding this incident, one event would have been almost comic. A massive effort was waged to discover the bodies of those who had drowned. One was that of a self‑styled religious group. The ignited a bale of hay and set it afloat, believing that it would somehow mark out the location of the mother’s body. It didn’t.

Perhaps you watched and listened to the reports of this futile, even foolish, effort, and laughed, or perhaps groaned. How foolish, I thought for such a waste of effort. How stupid to think that a bale of burning hay would be able to do what skin divers, trained dogs, proven dragging methods, and even sophisticated electronic equipment had failed to accomplish. If such a method worked, it was well worth the effort. If it could not work, what a silly waste of time.

Why work at something that is fruitless and futile? Its really easy to see the folly of the burning bale of hay, isn’t it? It all depends on what our “bale of hay” is, though. In our text, Jesus asks a simple question, “What person has ever increased his stature (or lengthened his life) by worrying about it?”[198] We know the answer. No one has ever done so. If worrying is so futile an activity because it doesn’t work, even in such a small matter, why then is worry consuming so much of our time and of our energy? We all know that worry is unproductive, indeed, counter‑productive, and yet we persist at it.

In our text, Jesus is going to spell out some of the reasons why worry about our material needs is wrong. Then, after proving that worry is both foolish and evil, He will provide us with a very simple solution, a solution that many might not wish to hear, but this is what sets the true disciple of Jesus apart from others.

I have had to change my title after further consideration. Initially, I had entitled this passage, “Getting By: The Preoccupation of the Poor.” I had come to the conclusion that Jesus was addressing “the poor” here based on several premises. First, the Lord dealt with the greed of the rich in verses 13‑21. Would it not stand to reason that the “poor” would come next? Second, Jesus was specifically addressing His disciples here (cf. v. 22), and they had left their jobs, their homes, and much more. They, it seems, were supported by the gifts of others (cf. Luke 8:1‑3). Third, the things about which the disciples were said to worry about were “food” and “clothes. “These are the concerns of the poor are they not? Thus, I concluded that the disciples must be poor and that Jesus and therefore here giving the poor instructions on how not to worry about what they don’t have.

Now I believe that I was wrong, however. I base this on several lines of thought. First (and foremost), at the end of our text Jesus will instruct the disciples to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. If one gives to the poor, they are not the poor. If the recipient of charity is the poor, the donor is not. The disciples are to be the donors. Also, those who are poor do not have possessions to sell. Second, a key concept in Luke chapter 12 is hypocrisy. While the term is not found in our text, I believe the concept is present. The very people who worry about “food” and “clothing” are those, Jesus implies, who have possessions to sell. Thus, their worry is hypocritical. They are not nearly as hard off as they think, or as they wish us to think. Third, if Jesus addressed only the rich and the poor, the vast majority of men would have been omitted. In the way Jesus has addressed the disciples here, both the middle class and the poor can learn at the same time. The temptation to worry is little different for those who really have nothing and those who merely fear that they won’t have the next meal.

These verses, then, are for us. If, for some strange reason, our affluent culture was not devastated enough by what Jesus has said in verses 13‑21, we will find ourselves looking down God’s gun barrel here, where He teaches us the folly of worry about our material needs. He will tell us how to facilitate setting our hearts on heaven as well. Let us listen well to these words of our Lord.

The Context

Jesus is in the midst of a large crowd, teaching various segments of that crowd from time to time. In verses 1‑12 Jesus addressed His disciples, speaking to them about the danger of hypocrisy, not the hypocrisy of trying to seem more spiritual than they were, but that of seeking to appear less spiritual than they were. The motivation for this back‑handed kind of hypocrisy would have been fear of the crowds and their resulting rejection of the gospel, resistance, and persecution.

In verse 13 the subject changed from hypocrisy to greed. While the disciples would be tempted to shy away from boldness in the proclamation of the gospel, they might also be tempted to pursue material things. The subject of greed arose when a man in the crowd cried out the Jesus, requesting Him to instruct his brother to give him his share of the inheritance. Jesus refused to act as a judge or arbiter, but did not hesitate to point out that the problem was greed, and then to teach that even for those who are able to attain an abundance of possessions will find that life does not consist of possessions. His parable of the rich fool drove this point home.

But now, in verse 22, Jesus presses this same principle even further. He speaks directly to His disciples now and tells them how the principle should govern their own lives. If Jesus was, in the previous verses, speaking to those who are affluent—the rich—He is now speaking to those who are not. If, in the earlier verses, Jesus was dealing with those who sought to store up possessions for the future, He is now speaking to those who are worried about today’s needs. If, before, Jesus was talking about food that we might call “steak and ale,” here He is speaking about “beans and corn,” about “bread and water,” the bare essentials. If Jesus spoke to the rich about their preoccupation with “getting ahead,” He speaks here to those who are anxious about “getting by.” Let us take note, however, that while the application is different, the principle is the same:

“FOR NOT EVEN WHEN ONE HAS AN ABUNDANCE DOES HIS LIFE CONSIST OF HIS POSSESSIONS” (Luke 12:15b).

The Tensions of our Text

I find several “tensions” in our text, which serve to spur us on in my study, to guide us in our observations and interpretation, and to lead us to specific answers to seek from this passage, or from other passages in the Bible that help to explain and illuminate it. The tensions of this text, as I see them, are:

(1) Why does Jesus tell the disciples to sell their possessions and give to the poor, when He did not command the rich to do so in the previous section?

(2) Is Jesus teaching us that those who are poor, who sell their possessions and give the money away, are more spiritual than those who are rich? Is it spiritual to be poor and carnal to be rich? Jesus said, “Blessed are you poor,” but is this the same as saying, “Blessed is poverty,” or “Blessed are you for being poor,” or “Blessed are you if you are poor”?

(3) How far did Jesus intend for us to take His words? Is Poverty the touchstone of discipleship? Are we supposed to sell all of our possessions?

(4) We read in the Book of Acts that many of the saints did sell their possessions, giving the money to meet the needs of others. Were these zealous Christians foolish for doing so, as some of the commentators suggest, since these people seemed, later on, to have serious financial needs, which had to be met by other saints?

(5) Jesus’ examples of the ravens and the lilies both specifically refer to the fact that neither “toil.” Is Jesus teaching His disciples and/or others that they need not work, and that God will provide?

The Structure of the Text

The structure (or flow) of our text needs to be seen in its larger context, and thus I will attempt below to represent how I understand the text to fit together in the light of what Jesus is teaching here:

(1) THE PROBLEM OF GREED IS EXPOSED (Brother wants Jesus to act as arbiter and is refused)—vv. 13‑15a

(2) A (NEGATIVE) PRINCIPLE IS STATED (Life doesn’t consist of possessions)—v. 15b

(3) THE PRINCIPLE IS ILLUSTRATED (The Parable of the Rich Fool)—vv. 16‑20

(4) THE PRINCIPLE IS APPLIED GENERALLY (Don’t hoard possessions, be rich toward God)—v. 21

(5) THE PRINCIPLE IS APPLIED SPECIFICALLY TO DISCIPLES (Don’t worry about food and clothes—seek God’s kingdom)—vv. 22‑34

·         Worry about life/food (vv. 22‑23)

·         Worry about body/clothes (v. 23)

·         Example of ravens (v.24)

·         Futility of Worry (vv. 25‑26)

·         Example of lilies (v. 27‑28)

(6) A POSITIVE PRINCIPLE AND ITS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Verses 28‑34

·         God Cares About You and Will Care For You

·         Don’t Worry About or Seek After Possessions

·         Seek His Kingdom

·         Sell Your Possessions and Give to the Poor

Another Evil to Avoid:
Possessions and Discipleship
(12:22‑28)

22 Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23 Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? 26 Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? 27 “Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!

In verse 13‑21, our last text, Jesus was dealing with greed principally from the point of view of the affluent. The “fool” of Jesus’ parable was the rich fool. Jesus was in this passage emphasizing the negative aspect, as is indicated by the action words Beware and be on your guard (v. 15, NASB). The positive aspect has not yet been dealt with, but only alluded to by the words “rich toward God” in verse 21. Verses 22‑34 are also quite negative in their application.[199] Just as the rich need to beware of a preoccupation with acquiring possessions, so do the rest. Jesus therefore warns His disciples not to worry about their material needs, not even such basic matters as food and clothing.

I much prefer the way the NASB renders verse 22.[200] It reads: “And He said to His disciples, “For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious… ”

The reason to which our Lord referred is, I believe, the principle what He stated above, in response to the man’s request that his brother be instructed to give him his share of the inheritance:

“Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).

The principle, as Jesus stated it, applies to rich and poor alike. Even if one has an abundance of possessions, life does not consist of possessions. If this is true, surely we must see that life does not consist of possessions for those who do not have an abundance. Thus, for a poor person to be preoccupied with the accumulation of possessions is as foolish as for a rich person to be so. Furthermore, since Jesus warned against “every form of greed” we should be able to see that greed has its “poor man versions” just as it has it “rich man versions.” Jesus is now focusing on anxiety[201] concerning food and clothing as the form which greed is more likely to take in among His disciples.

The disciples could just as easily come to a wrong definition of “life” as did the rich fool. For the disciples “life” could become getting by, and thus one’s daily requirements of food and clothing can become a preoccupation. If the accumulation of such things is not in mind, at least the acquisition of them would be. The rich fool set about to store up large quantities of goods, so that his future could be self‑indulgent, secure, and pleasurable (he thought). The less affluent could be just as preoccupied with acquiring food for their next meal, and with clothing to wear now (“Honey, Johnnie’s shoes are worn clear through the soles … ”).

Jesus’ instruction to the disciples not to worry is based upon the following truth: “/Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing[202]/“ (v.23).

In what sense is “life” more than food? While it is true that both food and (to some degree) clothing are essential to sustain physical life, life is greater than either, or both. Life is more than that which sustains it. In a similar way, we might say that the beautiful sounds which come from a stereo system, playing one of our favorite records (excluding rock music, for me at least), is greater than the electric energy by which the sound system operates. An airplane may require fuel to run, but it is greater than the fuel by itself. Put in other terms, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In another sense, “life” is more than “food” in the same way that the end (or the goal) is more than the means (this does not justify the means, however).

We are not left to our own speculations as to what this means. WHAT A COMMENTARY WE FIND IN OUR LORD’S WORDS TO SATAN IN THE TEMPTATION! When Satan challenged Jesus to command stones to become bread, Jesus’ response was based upon the same principle which He is teaching here: “Man shall not live on bread alone” (Luke 4:4).

In citing this text from Deuteronomy chapter 8, Jesus was saying that life was sustained by more than just food. I believe that Jesus clearly implied that “life” was to be defined in terms of more than mere physical existence. He was also teaching that this “true life” was produced by the Word of God, not by physical food. Thus, if abiding in God’s Word required abstaining from food, He would gladly choose this path, the path of life.

From the gospel of John we learn that Jesus Himself was “life” (John 14:6), and that He was, indeed, the “Bread of Life” come down from heaven, greater even than that bread (manna) which was provided by God through Moses. This “Bread” is the source of true life:

Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said therefore the Him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:32‑35, NASB).

I believe that in these words Jesus has given His disciples a first reason as to why worry is wrong, which can be summed up in these words: WORRY ABOUT FOOD AND CLOTHING IS MISDIRECTED, FAILING TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT.

If “life” is more important than “food,” then worrying about food is worrying about a minor matter. While all worry is wrong for the Christian, as we shall see, worry about minor matters is even more foolish. It is like a woman worrying about how her hair looks as she is sitting in a boat about to be swept over Niagara Falls.

The second reason why anxiety is wrong is given by our Lord in the next verses. The thrust of these verses can be summed up this way: ANXIETY ABOUT FOOD AND CLOTHING IS FOOLISH WHEN ONE CONSIDERS GOD’S MARVELOUS PROVISIONS FOR HIS CREATURES, AS SEEN IN NATURE.

The foolishness of worrying about food and clothing is played out by our Lord by pointing to two illustrations from nature—the raven and the lilly. They are, we might say, “material witnesses” to God’s faithful provision of food and clothing for His creatures. The raven demonstrates God’s provision of food, and the lilies of the field, God provision of clothing.

The raven teaches a lesson concerning God’s faithfulness in supplying food. Two things would seem to put the raven in a position of disadvantage. First, the raven, you will recall, is not considered a “clean” bird, and would thus be looked down upon somewhat by the Jew. Second, the raven does not even work for his food. The raven, in contrast to the “rich fool” above, does not plant, harvest, or warehouse food for his future needs, and yet God provides for its daily needs.

Likewise the lilies of the field. Two things would seem to put them at a disadvantage. The lilies of the field to not toil, and they do not even “spin” to create the materials with which they are clothed (this is a poetic image, you understand, so that the lilly is personified, viewed from a people point of view). Further, the lilies of the field are extremely short‑lived. One day they bloom with such beauty, and yet (it would seem) the next day that are cast into the fire as fuel, good only for burning. Yet the “clothes” of the lilly put the garments of Solomon to shame.

If such unimportant and insignificant things as ravens and lilies receive such generous provisions from God, will not God’s children fare much better? Of course they will, which is the force of our Lord’s argument.

A Parenthesis
(12:25‑26)

The illustrations of ravens and lilies are, as you can see, separated by two verses, which give a third reason why worry about food and clothing is foolish. We can state the principle this way: ANXIETY IS FOOLISH BECAUSE IT IS FRUITLESS AND FUTILE.

Worry, Jesus reminds us, simply doesn’t work. Like the burning bale of hay which I mentioned in my introduction, worry does not produce anything. Worry does not make one taller, nor does it extend one’s life, depending upon which sense we give to these words. And if worry will not do such a little thing, why should we think it would do any greater thing? Worry never produced a single meal, indeed, not even a single bite. Worry has not produced a stitch of clothing. A little thought would even cause one to conclude that worry has probably hindered in these matters.

There is yet another reason, a fourth reason, why worry is foolish: ANXIETY ABOUT FOOD AND CLOTHING IS FOOLISH BECAUSE IT IS A LACK OF FAITH IN GOD AND HIS PROMISES TO PROVIDE FOR HIS DISCIPLES.

Worry disregards God’s care of His creation and disbelieves His love and care, as expressed by His promises.

In verse 28, Jesus gets to the bottom line. WORRY IS REALLY FEAR, AND ITS ULTIMATE CAUSE IS A LACK OF FAITH IN GOD, IN HIS GOODNESS, IN HIS POWER, AND IN HIS PROMISES TO PROVIDE FOR ALL OF OUR NEEDS, BEGINNING WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT—LIFE.

The problem with material things is just that, they are material. They can be seen. Faith is not rooted in what is seen, but in what is not seen. The things which are eternal are not seen, but the things which are temporal are seen. When we seek after material things, like food and clothing, we seek after that which we can see, and thus we live according to sight, rather than faith.

… we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 12:1).

Faith is rooted in the Word of God, which is both certain and eternal, not in those things which we see, which are fleeting, soon to pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but not His word. Thus, the Word of God is the basis, both for faith and for life. And it is at this very point that Jesus gives His disciples a sure and certain word:

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

The antidote to fear is faith. The fuel of faith is that which is not material, but is eternal, the Word of God. His “flock” does not need to fear about food and clothing, or anything else, for His kingdom (which, in essence, is synonymous with life) is assured. And not only is it certain that His “flock” will be given the kingdom, God has purposed to gladly give it. We can be assured that God will do that which gives Him pleasure, and giving us His kingdom will be pleasurable to Him, and so it is sure for us.

Keeping in Step With the Kingdom

Jesus has not just warned His disciples not to worry about their material needs, He has promised them the kingdom and He has promised to provide for them until that day comes. Now, Jesus will tell them how it is that they may be rid of that malady of materialism. Our Lord’s two commands are found in the final verses of our text.

The first command is a general one—they are to seek first the kingdom of God, and in this way be assured of having their material needs met. It is not that man’s material needs are insignificant, or that they should be ignored. Jesus is teaching us that it is wrong to worry about these things, for worry does not produce food or clothing. The opposite of worry is what Jesus requires: faith.

Seeking the kingdom of God is the means to meeting one’s material needs. That seems paradoxical, doesn’t it? One tends to think that it would work the other way, but God’s ways are beyond man’s thinking. We gain our life by giving it up, we lead by serving, and we have our material needs met by not worrying about them, but by seeking His kingdom as our priority.

Jesus now moves from a general solution to materialism to a very specific, practical step which every disciple should take:

“Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys” (Luke 12:33, NASB).

This step of selling one’s possessions and giving to the poor is based upon the principle that one’s heart follows one’s treasure:

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Luke 12:34, NASB).

This course of action, which Jesus calls for, seems radical indeed. We would certainly like to find some reason for taking His words in some way that is not literal. I do not think that Jesus is commanding every disciple to sell every possession, and thus all Christians to live in dire poverty. I will explain why I have come to this conclusion in a moment, but before I do, I want to ask this question, “If Jesus did call on you to sell all of your possessions in order to be His disciple (as He did the rich young ruler), would you do it?” Do Jesus’ words make you uncomfortable? I think they are supposed to. Let us not brush these words aside too quickly.

I believe that we can gain much insight into our Lord’s command as we consider carefully the words which Jesus does and does not use. First, I want to focus your attention on the word “sell.” Why did Jesus command His disciples to sell their possessions, rather than to give them away? Several observations came to my mind as I pondered the meaning of the term “sell.”

(1) Those possessions which we sell must be something other than necessities, like “food” and “clothing.” The necessities of life which we possess can be given to the poor. Jesus does not command His disciples to give their food or their clothes to the poor. John the Baptist has dealt with this matter:

Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise” (Luke 3:11b).

Here Jesus is commanding the disciples to sell their possessions and to give the proceeds of the sale to the poor. These “possessions” can hardly include food or clothing. I am assuming that that which is given to the poor is that which is most needed: food and clothing. Thus, more “luxury” (at least not necessary) items are in view as those things which should be sold.

Isn’t it interesting that while we often worry about “necessities” such as food and clothing, we often are literally laden down with non‑essentials, luxuries. In order to excuse our self‑indulgence, we just add to the list of what is essential. Thus, the list of “necessities” always exceeds our income, and thus we never have money to give. Jesus solves this problem quickly, does He not? He tells those of us who are, in our minds, “barely getting by,” to sell off some of the excess baggage.

There is a real hypocrisy here, isn’t there? Our text begins by addressing the folly of worrying about necessities like food and clothing, as those we are barely surviving. It ends with a command to sell off some of our stuff. We give the impression of being in dire straits, but we are really in “fat city.” That, my friend, is hypocrisy. And we are so good at it that we have even convinced ourselves we are in trouble, so much so that we worry about these material needs.

(2) Those things which we sell must have value to us and to others. If we are going to sell something, it must have a value to someone else, or there will be no buyer. What we sell, in other words, must be worth something to someone. Here, our Lord’s words expose what I have chosen to call the “Goodwill outlook on charity.” The “Goodwill mindset” is that we give away to the poor that which we don’t want, and that which no one else wants either. We give away to the Goodwill the things which didn’t sell at our garage sale. If we are to give as Jesus commands, we must give away more than our garbage, our castoffs.

Because the things we sell must have value to others, they will also have some value to us. Indeed, we can probably say that what we “sell” may be more painful to lose than that which we give away (“I didn’t want it anyway.”). Sometimes the pain is not just in the loss of that item, but in knowing who will have and use (or abuse) it. I can think of owning a car that I have carefully restored, and which I have lovingly cared for, being bought by a greasy, sloppy fellow, who will haul his trash in my “pride and joy” and who will never change the oil. Selling such a car (if I had one like it) would be torment.

(3) Those things which we sell are sold so that we can “buy” something better. People sell one thing to obtain another. People have garage sales in order to earn money to buy something they want more than that which they are selling. A biblical example is the merchant who found “the pearl of great price” and who gladly sold all that he had to purchase it (cf. Matthew 13:44‑46). Jesus says in our text that when one sells his earthly treasure, which corrupts and won’t last, he gains, in its place, lasting treasure. In this sense, selling our possessions is hardly a sacrifice, in the long term.

(4) We sell our possessions so that our assets may be “liquid,” accessible and available. I have another mentality to bring to your attention, one that is not very commendable. It is the “cash on hand” or “offering plate” mentality. We tend to think of our obligation to give to God only in terms of the cash we have in hand. Have you ever been approached by a beggar on the street? If you are like me, you put your hand in your pocket, jingle around the loose change, and if you’re really big‑hearted, you give the man all the change you have in that pocket, as though it were a real sacrifice. You would be offended if he were to ask for or expect more. Even the folding money in your wallet is seen as off bounds

When we go to church, that all changes—or does it? When the offering plate is passed, we would hardly think (or dare) to go only to the pocket where the loose change is kept (unless it is to give some pennies to our child to give—Good training!). We go to the wallet. We go for the greenbacks, at least those with small denominations. Although there are a few “cutting edge” churches who accept credit card donations, we think that our only obligation to God in terms of material things is that which we have in cash. No wonder we all are in debt! We think that God should respond like the street‑beggar, and gladly take the pittance we dole out in cash.

Jesus goes far beyond this. If we cannot give to the poor because “we don’t have it” (in cash), Jesus tells us to “go get it.” We may have to let the offering plate pass this Sunday, but when we have assets, assets that are not liquid, Jesus tells us to convert non‑liquid assets into liquid ones, so that we are never hindered from giving by a “cash‑flow” problem. Now this, folks, is down right threatening. This isn’t even meddling, its just plain pushy, but then that’s what discipleship is all about—finding out who’s Lord and whose servant, Who (or what) controls us, and what we are in control of.

Jesus’ words here are not just revolutionary and extremely “taxing,” they reveal a most interesting and informative fact. The problem of the disciples, like us, is not our “lack of having enough to get by,” but rather our having too much for our own good.

It occurred to me as I thought about our need for daily bread that Jesus has taught His disciples what to do about this matter—they are to pray:

“Give us each day our daily bread” (Luke 11:3; cf. Matthew 6:11).

But why doesn’t Jesus tell His disciples to pray for their daily needs of food and clothing, rather than to worry about such things? Isn’t this the place where our Lord’s instruction on prayer for such things is most applicable and relevant?

I think the answer is simple. Painful, but simple. The reason why He doesn’t teach us to pray here is because He knows that we wont. And why won’t we pray for our daily bread? Because we don’t need to. The disciples didn’t need God’s help in this matter because they had too much, not too little. If we were really in need and only God could supply our needs, we would pray. Our lack of prayer is almost in direct proportion to our affluence, unfortunately. While it is true that “we have not because we ask not” (James 4:2), it is also a sad fact of life that we “ask not because we have.” James goes on to say that when we ask, we don’t ask for our needs, but for our indulgences, our “pleasures” (James 4:3).

Do we wish to “turn our hearts toward home”? Then let us lay up treasure in heaven. The way to lay up treasure in heaven is to keep our assets liquid, to sell those possessions which only indulge us, and to give to the poor.

It occurs to me as I am writing this that the non‑liquid form which our wealth often takes is that which, in our minds, is the safest and surest investment. Thus having our wealth in non‑liquid form seems to be the safe thing to do, and thus it assures us that our wealth will be around for a long time. Jesus says, once again, the opposite. If we keep liquid and give away our wealth our wealth is the most secure, it is in purses without holes, it is treasure which lasts, it is treasure in heaven.

Conclusion

And so Jesus has, once again, taken us from the realm of the theoretical to that of the most practical and painful areas of our lives. He has given us several explanations as to why worry about material possessions is foolish, futile, and sinful. He has promised us that God will care for us now, just as He does the birds and the lilies. He has promised His disciples the kingdom. He has told us that therefore we are to lay up treasure in heaven, doing so by selling our possessions and giving to the poor.

But how does this all work out? Is every Christian to live in dire poverty, possessing nothing? Are we to sell all? Is poverty the key to piety (Here is a heart‑stopper for the “Prosperity Gospeleers”)?

I have several observations which should help us understand these words.

(1) In our text, Jesus did not command His disciples to sell all of their possessions. I believe that there is a significant difference between commanding one’s disciples to sell all they possess (this was said to the “rich young ruler,” Mark 10:21) and telling them to sell their possessions.[203]

(2) We need to view our text and its commands in the light of all the texts which bear on the Christian and material possessions. Some people use certain promise texts as a “name it and claim it” device. If Jesus once said that whatever any two people agree on will be given them, which He did (cf. Matthew 18:19), we need to beware of seeking to use this text independently from all other texts on prayer. So, here, we need to view Jesus’ words on material things in the light of other texts. Some texts teach us to give away things, rather than selling them (cp. Luke 3:11). This in now way minimizes or undermines Jesus’ words, as we find them in our text, but it does remind us that Jesus has said many things about material things, our attitude toward them, and our use of them. Let us seek to understand and apply this command in the light of the many things Jesus has taught (and will teach later) in Luke.

(3) Jesus has a great deal more to say about money and its use later on in Luke’s gospel. In a way, this text is merely an introduction to the subject. In chapter 16 and following texts, Jesus teaches us that we are to use money and material things wisely. Selling them and giving to the poor is a wise use of possessions because it does “lay up treasure in heaven” and thus turn our hearts toward home. But there are other ways to use money shrewdly, and thus selling our possessions may not always be the best course of action.

(4) We learn a great deal about the way our Lord’s commands about possessions in his gospel are to be understood and applied from Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. In Acts we find that the church did take Jesus’ words seriously:

And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:43‑45).

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need (Luke 4:32‑35).[204]

The saints in Jerusalem did take Jesus’ words seriously. The did sell their possessions. But they did not sell them immediately,[205] nor did they sell them entirely. Peter’s words to Ananias suggest no condemnation of him if he had kept his property (cf. Acts 5:4). But that which marked out the disciples in the early church was the fact that they renounced their claim to ownership:

… and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own (Acts 4:32).

This is not communism, at least as we know it today. Communism says that no one owns anything (or rather that the state owns it), and then the state insist on keeping it for the people. In the early church, people still retained possession of their possessions, but they did not claim the right to own or to keep them. In effect, they kept the goods until there was the need to sell them, but in their hearts they had already signed the title over to God. They had a change of heart, from seekers of possessions, to stewards of the possessions which God had placed in their care for a time.

Here, I believe, is the key to what our Lord is teaching us in Luke chapter 12. Greed seeks to gain more; while grace and generosity it eager to give it away if and when it is needed. After all, it isn’t worth worrying about. It isn’t going to last. And it will only be of eternal value as we convert it into lasting treasure by using it in a way that is obedient to God’s instructions.

When I think of our Lord’s teaching here on the way a disciple views possessions, things that he is inclined to think are his, I am reminded of His attitude toward those things which He possessed:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9).

Have this mind in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond‑servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:5‑8).

I see two very important lessons here. The first is that our Lord does not ask His disciples to do anything which He has not done Himself, and more. No one will ever have given up as much as He did. No one was ever as rich as He, nor have they become as poor.

Second, we are informed by these words and the example of our Lord, to which they point, that our “possessions” include much more than “food” and “clothes,” indeed, even more than material things. Our possessions are those things which we think are ours, to which we cling, which we don’t want to surrender for the benefit of others. Our possessions include our “rights” and our “Christian liberties,” which we may need to surrender for the benefit of others (cf. 1 Corinthians 8‑10; Romans 14). Jesus has begun with material possessions because this is a “little thing,” but it is a starting place, a beginning point.

Values Clarification

There is a lot of talk these days about “values clarification.” This is the teaching which is taking place in our public schools, teaching on values. The problem with this approach is that there are no moral values taught as absolutes. Instead, situationalism is taught (or at least caught) in this process of “clarifying” the values of the students by asking them how they should act in a given set of circumstances—sometimes those which seem to call for or justify immoral acts, like adultery or murder. Obviously I oppose the values clarification method and message in our schools.

As I view this passage in Luke I am reminded of the vital role which values play in our lives. The actions which we take are based upon moral assessments—values. Notice how often values are referred to in our text, often in the form of comparison. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Life and the body are of greater importance/value than food and clothes. We are of greater value to God than birds or the lilies of the field. Treasures on earth are of little value, but heavenly treasures are of great value, because they last. Seeking God’s kingdom is much more important than seeking material things.

Knowing the difference between good and evil, between good and best, between temporal and eternal is the basis for discerning value, and it is our value system which determines our actions. The man who found the “pearl of great price” knew that he had discovered something of great value, and he joyfully sold all his possessions to purchase it. Satan is a master deceiver, and he is constantly at work to reverse men’s values. Let us learn that it is only God’s Word which can be trusted to define our values, and to make those critical distinctions which shape the course of our lives (cf. Hebrews 4:12‑13). Let us constantly return to His Word so that our values conform to His.

Finally, let me say that value is often defined in terms of the future. Earthly treasure is of little value because it doesn’t last—it has no future. Heavenly treasure is of infinite value because it never perishes—it has no end. Therefore in the remaining verses of this chapter, our Lord addresses the disciple’s attitudes and actions pertaining to the future. Let us press on to consider these verses and the role which they play in defining our values and in helping us to loosen our grasp on material things. Let us look to these verses to help us stop worrying and to start waiting and working, as our Lord commands us.

Let me conclude with these words on the matter of materialism by J. I. Packer, as he comments on the meaning of 1 John 2:15‑17, a text very relevant to our study:

What does it mean to love the world? John analyzes this love in terms of the lust (desire) that says ‘I want … ’ and the pride (vainglory) that says ‘I have … ’ He is speaking here of restless craving for what you do not have along with complacent crowing about what you do have (v. 16).… Passion to possess, and pride in possessing, what the world around us has to offer is what love of the world means.

From this we see why love of the world excludes love of the Father (v. 15). Love of the world is egocentric, acquisitive, arrogant, ambitious, and absorbing, and leaves no place for any other kind of affection. Those who love the world serve and worship themselves every moment: it is their full‑time job. And from this we see that anyone whose hopes are focused on gaining material pleasure, profit, and privilege is booked for a bereavement experience, since, as John says (v. 17), the world will not last. Life’s surest certainty is that one day we will leave worldly pleasure, profit, and privilege behind. The only uncertainty is whether these things will leave us before our time comes to leave them.[206]

! Lesson 44:
The Way to Wait
(Luke 12:35‑48)

Luke 12:35-48 Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps alight 36 And be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those slaves whom the master shall find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them. 38 Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves. 39And be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 40 You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.”

Luke 12:41-48 And Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

Introduction

I doubt that there is anything I dislike more than waiting. It may be that you can identify with me in my annoyance with waiting, especially when it is prolonged awaiting someone’s arrival. Husbands sometimes come to church in a mental “miff” because they have sat in the car, waiting for wife and/or family to get out to the car. Wives can get upset waiting for their husband to get home from work, especially if they have dinner in the oven getting extra crispy or on the table getting cold. I was watching the news a couple of weeks ago, during the ice storm, and much was made of the thousands who were forced to spend a day or more in the airport, waiting for the weather to clear and for the airline schedules to be untangled.

Our culture is not inclined to wait, either. Think, for example, of how many “fast food” restaurants there are in our city, as compared with those which cook food the slow, old‑fashioned way. TV dinners are the solution for those who wish to eat at home, quickly. Credit cards have a great appeal to us because we can buy the things we want without having to wait till we have the cash to do so. The “sexual revolution” has also given our society a convenient philosophical rational for not “waiting” for sexual enjoyment, within marriage.

When you think of the Bible, waiting is one of the things which men and women of faith are called upon to do. All of those named in the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11 had to wait for the promised blessings of God. Their wait was even longer than we would like to contemplate—they were still waiting when they died. They are still waiting!

Jesus calls upon His disciples to wait, for although He will return to the earth, to rule over it as Messiah, it may be a considerable period of time before this happens. Our text implies that there will be a wait. History confirms this, for the church has been waiting nearly 2,000 years for His return.

I believe that the entire 12th chapter of Luke pertains to stewardship. Verses 1‑12 have addressed the disciple’s stewardship of the gospel. The disciple must make good use of the gospel by boldly living and proclaiming it. Verses 13‑34 have addressed the stewardship of possessions. Our preoccupation must not be with material things, but with true “life.” We need not worry about our life, but we should use things to minister to men’s needs now, which is laying up treasure for ourselves in heaven. In verses 35 and following our Lord turns, as I understand it, to the stewardship of time. He will instruct us as how we are to view and use the time which remains until he comes.

If we are required to wait, then you and I had better learn how to do it right. In our text, Jesus teaches us “the way to wait” for His return. In verses 35 and 36 Jesus spells out three elements involved in waiting, three descriptions of the readiness for and expectation of His return which we should have at all times. Verses 37 and 38 are a promise of the blessedness of those who wait as Jesus has said above. Verses 39 and 40 contain words of warning, for some do not wait in readiness for His return.

In verse 41, Peter asked to know just who Jesus was speaking to, and Jesus answered indirectly, with a question (verse 42), which leads to His promise that God will honor that manager with greater responsibilities in the kingdom who has been a good steward in his earthly ones (verses 43‑44). Verses 45‑46 are yet another word of warning, addressed to those who use our Lord’s delayed return as an excuse for sin and self‑indulgence. The final verses (47‑48) conclude our text by highlighting the principle on which divine discipline is based.

The Structure of the Text

What we have said above is summarized below:

(1) An Exhortation to Readiness—vv. 35‑40

(2) Three Elements of Readiness—vv. 35‑36

(3) Two‑fold assurance of blessing for those who wait—vv. 37‑38

(4) Warning about being caught unprepared—vv. 39‑40

(5) An Exhortation to Faithfulness—vv. 41‑48

Tension of the Text

Our text has one “tension” which should motivate the student to study these words very carefully. In verse 46, Jesus spoke of the servant who was “cut into pieces.” In Matthew’s parallel account (24:45‑51), he adds a reference to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 51). Is this speaking of hell, and if so, do Christians need to fear hell as a punishment for being unfaithful in their service? Our study, I believe, will answer this question.

Three Characteristics of a Good Waiter
(12:35‑36[207])

“Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, [and be][208] like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him.

I see three distinct characteristics of the “good waiter” as described by our Lord:

(1) Preparation—“be dressed ready … ”

(2) Maintenance—“keep your lamps burning”

(3) Expectation—“[and be] like men waiting for their master”

The preparation of the waiter consists of a readiness for action. In the imagery of our Lord it has to do with one’s clothing.[209] Literally, one is to be ready by “having their loins girded.”[210] One could hardly work with a flowing robe in the way, so it would be tucked in. In our culture we might say, “having your sleeves rolled up.”

Second, the “good waiter” is to “keep his lamp burning.”[211] They did not have street lights in those days, nor did they have a porch light to keep on, so that the master could easily find and enter his door. The good servant would listen for the sound of his master’s return (a dog barking in the distance?) and would have his light already lit, so that he could illuminate and thereby facilitate his way. So, too, with the disciple who awaits the Lord’s return. One’s waiting should be spent making all the preparations needed, so that the Lord’s return is not surprise, and so that we can be a part of the return.

Third, the “good waiter” is to be like a devoted servant, who eagerly awaits his master’s return, as if he were coming from a wedding banquet. Jesus did not suggest that the master was himself married, but only that he attended the banquet. It was both profitable and delightful activity, a good reason to be gone and even to be delayed in returning. The mood, then, of his arrival would be joyful and festive. The eager servant would be ready, able to immediately open the door to the master.

A Promised Blessing
(12:37‑38)

In verses 37 and 38 Jesus promises “blessedness”[212] for those who wait for His return as He has described above:

“It will be good [“Blessed”] for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good [“Blessed”] for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night.”

If we are to wait expectantly for our Lord’s return, doing so will result in the reward of “blessedness.” The nature of that reward is absolutely astounding. Those servants who are found waiting for the Master

will be blessed by the Master serving them. My understanding is that behind this figurative speech is a literal meaning: when He comes again, the Master will serve His servants! Is this not amazing?

To us, such an act seems inconsistent with His role at His second coming. Serving seems to be a contradiction to leading, to act a servant inconsistent with being the Master. The following observations may help us resolve our dilemma (isn’t this another “tension of the text”?).

(1) Serving is an honorable task. Jesus came to serve (cf. Luke 22:27), and thus we should surely see serving as honorable. In our culture, serving is a demeaning task, one which mean shun. So it was in Jesus’ day (cf. John 13:1‑17). Jesus elevated service to a function of great privilege and honor.

(2) Leading is not a contradiction to serving, but a form of serving. Some view leadership as an opportunity for others to serve you, but the Bible speaks of leadership as a form of service (cf. Mark 10:42‑45; 1 Peter 5:1‑3). Thus, our Lord can both lead and serve at the same time, or should we say that He can lead by serving. Serving His servants at the second coming is in no way inconsistent with His coming to rule.

(3) Because serving is not opposed to honor or to leadership, it is something which Jesus will do in His second coming, just as He came to serve at His first coming. Many acknowledge (in fact, who can deny?) that Jesus came to serve in His first coming (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27), but they think that His resurrection and ascension terminated this. Jesus came to suffer and to die, a function we would acknowledge to be painful. He will no longer suffer or die. He came to be rejected by men, but when He returns all will acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:9‑11). But if I read our text correctly His service, which began in His first coming, will persist in His second coming. It does not end. And why should it, if it is an honorable task, and one that is consistent with leadership?

(4) Jesus’ “servants” will no longer be servants, but “friends.” Jesus said that He would have His servants to dinner, where He would serve them. Those whom we have to dinner are our friends. Jesus, you will recall, told His disciples that He no longer called them servants, but friends (John 15:14‑15).

Here is a lesson for us. If it is not demeaning for our Lord to serve, then surely it is not to be viewed as demeaning to us. Indeed, it is our glory. Some of us look at serving as the unpleasant path to glory, but our Lord’s words strongly imply that serving is our glory.

In verse 38, Jesus repeated the promise of blessing to those who wait for His return, even if it is delayed (“second or third watch”).[213] Jesus thus implies that His return may well be later than we would wish or suppose. History has born this out, for nearly 2,000 years have passed since the Lord’s ascension. But even if His return is delayed, the blessings which accompany this return are in no way diminished. They are as certain as His word. Thus, waiting, for the saint, only enhances his expectation.

Words of Warning
(12:39‑40)

“But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”

Jesus moves to a very different image here, and we need to note the differences. The master/servant image (above) was intended as an encouragement to those who would wait as Jesus described. The owner/thief image is a warning to those who do not expectantly await the Lord’s return. In the first image, Jesus is portrayed as the master who is welcomed and comes with a reward. In the second, Jesus comes as a thief, who is not welcomed and whose arrival spells disaster (he is “ripped off”). In the first story the master owns the house, but in the second the man owns the house (and Jesus is viewed as the unwanted, unauthorized taker). The owner of the house loses his possessions. In the first image, the master is welcomed and let in the door. In the second, the thief is not welcome, and he enters by digging through the wall.

What is it that makes the difference? What determines whether Jesus is a “welcome Master” or a “dreaded thief”?[214] I think the answer is suggested by the two stories, but is made clear by the gospel. The difference is a relationship. There is a loving bond between the Master and His servants. They know and love each other. The servants await His return because of who He is. The home owner does not know the thief, nor does he wish to. He hopes the Lord never comes, for His coming is viewed as bringing a loss.

The gospel fills in the blanks. Those who have trusted in Jesus as the promised Messiah love Him and see Him as the source of “every good and perfect gift” (cf. James 1:17). They await His return and know that it will bring them blessedness. Those who have rejected God and His Messiah do not wish to see Him, for His coming only spells the loss of those things which they value most, but which will be taken away, just as the “rich fool” lost his possessions.

Did you notice that while there are many differences between the servants of the first parable[215] and the house‑owner of the second, that there is one thing that is the same? Neither the servants nor the house‑owner knew the time that the Lord would return. The delay of the Lord, along with the lack of knowing exactly when He will return, can produce very different results. For the true follower of Jesus, the delay produces anticipation and expectation. For the unbeliever, who does not love the Lord, nor take pleasure in the anticipation of His return, His delay produces a very different response, which will be played out in verse 45.

What is certain is that the Lord is going to return, to reward some and to judge others. What is not certain is exactly what “day” or “hour” that will be.[216] This delay and the uncertainly as to the precise timing of His coming can be a test of our faithfulness and a stimulus to our expectation. May it be so for each of us.

Peter’s Probing and Jesus’ Promise
(12:41‑44)

Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?” The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good [“Blessed”] for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.”

Peter must have been getting a little uncomfortable. Jesus’ words contained both an encouraging promise of blessing, as well as a warning. Peter must not have known just who Jesus was referring to. And so he (who else?) asked. Jesus purposely avoided giving a direct answer. Why? I think it is because he did not want to let Peter or the other disciples off too easily. Jesus was dealing with the kind of principles which applied to all. The warning and the encouragement should be heard and heeded. The Lord did not want the answer or the application to come to quickly or easily.[217] His question implied to Peter that he needed to think further, based upon what He said.

Jesus now becomes more specific as to the blessings which will accrue to those who eagerly await His return. He speaks of the blessing of the “manager” (does this not refer to the disciples?) who is faithful in his service, and whose reward is greater responsibility in the coming kingdom of God. Several observations are necessary in order to understand what Jesus was saying here:

(1) The reward of the “good waiter” is expressed in terms of stewardship.

(2) The reward of the faithful steward is for being a faithful steward.

(3) The reward of the faithful steward is to continue his stewardship in eternity, but with greater responsibilities.

(4) The faithful steward is rewarded for being found doing now what he will be doing later.

(5) The key to understanding these words of our Lord is to understand who is referred to by the “steward” (NASB) or “manager” (NIV), and by the “servants” for whom the steward provides food (rations) at their proper time.

(6) The stewards promotion in heaven is to be in charge of the very same kind of ministry he has had in life.

These words of encouragement will best be understood in contrast to that which follow, to the words of warning which Jesus speaks in verses 45‑48. Let us look at them now, and then consider the message which our Lord is seeking to convey to His faithful followers.

Warning: Divine
Judgment and Its Basis
(12:45‑48)

“But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

We are back, once again, to the imagery of the servant and his master, but this time the servant is a wicked one. He does not eagerly await his master’s return, his lamp is not lit, and, as it were, his loins are not girded up—he is not dressed for service. The Lord gives a clear word of warning here, so let us listen well.

The parable here is a very simple one. A servant’s master has gone for some period of time. It appears as though it may be a considerable time before the master returns. The servant is a steward, in charge of both men and women servants. From the Lord’s words above in verse 42 it would seem that this steward has been put in charge of feeding the servants. The steward is convinced that the master will not return for a long time. He therefore decides to use his master’s possessions for his own pleasure, rather than to use them as he was commanded to do. He indulges on the food and drink, consuming the supplies that were meant for others, while at the same time he abuses the servants under his authority. That man, Jesus said, would be cut into pieces and would be assigned to a place with unbelievers.[218] He then concludes by laying down the principle that judgment is meted out in proportion to the knowledge which one has received and rejected.

But what does our Lord’s parable teach us? There are some very critical questions which we must answer if we are to understand these words as our Lord meant us to:

(1) Who is the servant? Is the servant a disciple? A believer?

(2) Why does he act as he does? What do this servant’s actions tell us about his relationship to his master?

(3) Who are the men servants and maid servants?

(4) What is his punishment? Is it hell?

(5) Why does Jesus conclude with the principle underlying punishment?

I approach this passage (and, indeed, all other Scriptures) with several premises, which I need to share with you here.

(1) The text should be interpreted as meaning what it most clearly and literally seems to mean. This sounds obvious, but we who wish to be thought of as “scholars” often find ourselves telling people that the text means something other than what it seems to say—that’s why you need scholars like us, because the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, or seems to say. Jesus’ words in Luke 10:21 must apply here.

(2) There is a solution to apparent problems. Tensions in the text are God’s way of stimulating our thinking, of causing us to meditate on the Scriptures. This is not unlike the Lord’s refusal to give Peter a quick answer to his question in our text. The solution to the problems comes from diligent study, dependence on the Holy Spirit’s ministry, and prayer.

(3) The broadest context of the Scriptures as a whole (Old and New Testament) and the particular book most often provide us with the clues and the keys to understanding problem passages.

(4) God’s principle motivating forces are love and grace, not fear and guilt. To be specific, I don’t think that God is using the fear of hellfire to scare Christians into eagerly awaiting His coming. Fear would cause us to dread his coming, not eagerly anticipate it. The one steward who hid his one talent (Matthew 25:18, 24‑28) did so (or so he said) out of fear. In my opinion, he was not even a believer.

(5) In the context of our passage, I believe that Peter’s question, preserved only by Luke, provides us with the key to understanding our Lord’s words—not so much the words He had previously spoken, but the ones which He will speak in answer to Peter’s question, “Who are you speaking to?” I believe that discovering who Jesus is speaking of as “the servant” is the key to understanding His words.

Let us first seek to understand this difficult text by determining what the fate of this servant is. He is “cut into pieces” and he is “assigned a place with unbelievers.” Matthew further adds, in his parallel account that this man is assigned to a place with the hypocrites and that there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”[219] In my opinion, the place to which this steward is sent is clearly and obviously “hell.” Hell is a place of torment—weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hell is the place where unbelievers are sent. Hell is the place of punishment. There is only one reason why we are uncomfortable about taking this place as hell, and that is that it seems that an unfaithful believer is sent there. But is the “servant” a believer? This, is, in my opinion, the crux of the matter.

Who, then, is the “servant” who is cut into pieces and sent to hell?

The term servant is one that is frequently found in the Bible. In the Old Testament, there are four ways in which the term is most often used, describing someone or a group as God’s servants:

(1) The term “servant” refers to a specific person whom God uses in His service. Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1‑2) and David (2 Samuel 3:18; 7:5), were frequently called God’s servants.

(2) The term “servant” refers to the prophets, who collectively served God (“My servants the prophets,” e.g., Jeremiah 7:25).

(3) The term “servant” is often used of the nation Israel (e.g. Isaiah 41:8‑9; 44:1‑2, 21; 45:4; 49:3).

(4) The term “servant” is used of the Messiah who was to come as the Savior of Israel and the world (e.g., Isaiah 52:13; 53:11).

Perhaps the key “servant” text for interpreting our passage is found in the 65th chapter of Isaiah:

Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry. Behold, My servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty. Behold, My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame. Behold, My servants shall shout joyfully with a glad heart, And you shall wail with a broken spirit. And you will leave your name for a curse to My chosen ones, And the Lord God will slay you. But My servants will be called by another name” (Isaiah 65:13‑15, NASB).

The question is, “Who are the servants of whom God speaks here?” The first verse of this chapter provides us with the answer, I believe:

“I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ To a nation which did not call on My name. I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, follow their own thought” (Isaiah 65:1‑2).

I believe that God is saying to Israel that He has turned (or will do so) to the Gentiles because of the rebellion of Israel. His “servants” who eat, and drink, and rejoice are thus those who have turned to Him in faith, and they include both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Those whom God will “slay” (Isaiah 65:15) are His disobedient people.

Based upon these premises, my understanding is that the “servant” who is “cut in pieces” is the unbelieving nation of Israel. Unbelieving Israel will be “cut in pieces” (dispersed) and will be cast into hell, along with those heathen they so much disdain and despise. The faithful servant is God’s church, those who have trusted in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, and who wait expectantly for His return.

But what does all this have to do with stewardship? How does the nation Israel relate to our Lord’s teaching on stewardship? The nation Israel was given great privileges and responsibilities. Israel, for example was the nation through whom “light” was to be shed abroad to the nations. Israel was the steward through whom the Scriptures were given to the world. Israel, like Jonah, did not want this to happen. Israel resisted it all the way. Israel consumed its blessings on itself. Israel not only abused the Gentiles, they abused their own, as their prophets frequently said. The early chapters of the prophecy of Jeremiah perfectly depict the very thing of which our Lord is accusing “the servant” of doing (cf. Jeremiah 4‑6).

The last two verses of our text, Luke 12:47‑48 are especially significant when viewed in the light of the fact that unbelieving Israel is the unfaithful servant. Judgment, Jesus taught, was meted out according to knowledge. Greater knowledge meant greater punishment, for those who rejected it. Israel had that greater knowledge and thus her discipline as well.

Conclusion

The message as it related to our Lord’s audience, the nation Israel, is therefore clear. I believe that we can sum it up in this statement: ONE’S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LORD’S SECOND COMING IS THE RESULT OF HIS RESPONSE TO HIS FIRST COMING.

Those who will eagerly await our Lord’s return are those who have eagerly accepted His first coming. Those who did not receive Jesus as the Messiah, will surely not look toward His return as a welcome event.

Which leads me to this question, my reader friend, “Have you welcomed Christ as God’s Sin‑bearer and your Savior? Have you received His free gift of salvation? If you have, then you will surely look forward to the coming of His kingdom and to the glories of heaven.

In addition to the need to receive Christ in His first coming, there are several other lessons which we can learn from our text. I will briefly summarize them, for your consideration.

(1) First, Jesus emphasized that which was certain prophetically, namely that He was coming again. Many of us are guilty of focusing on that which is obscure in prophecy, rather than on that which is clear and emphatic. The fact of His second coming is a certainty, one on which we can base our present living. The timing of that coming is not clear.

I am what is know by some as a Calvinist. I do not necessarily like the label, but I do agree with the content which it describes, at least insofar as it stresses the sinfulness of man, the sovereignty of God, and the certainty that He will accomplish what He purposes and promises. Those who believe that a Christian can “lose” their salvation undercut the very certainty which our Lord bases His promises and His commands on. Whether it is God who “fails” to fulfill His purpose of saving us, or whether we fail, by our sin to be saved, our salvation ceases to be certain. Men may wrongly abuse the “once saved, always saved” truth, but it is still truth. Satan is a master at perverting truth in application (cf. Luke 4:9‑11; Romans 6:1). The certainty of the next world and the uncertainty of this life are two of the fundamental facts on which we should base our lives.

(2) Second, Jesus also emphasized that which was not certain. He told His disciples that the time of His return would be a time when they would expect Him. It is one thing to say that the unbelieving world will be caught off guard, but Jesus said that we will not be inclined to look for His return when He comes either. The wicked man will be inclined to use this fact to justify his sin, but the righteous must accept this truth and be in a constant state of readiness. This will require discipline and diligence, but that is what discipleship is all about.

(3) Third, Jesus stressed continuity in prophecy. As I mentioned earlier, much of what we do in heaven will be that which we have been doing on earth. We will, for example, worship Him in heaven, just as we should be doing now. Yes, many aspects of life on earth will be “history” in heaven. Sickness, sorrow, tears and death will no longer be in heaven. Seemingly, marriage will not be found in heaven either. But much that characterizes the Christian’s life on earth will also characterize heaven. We will be serving in heaven, as we do now. We will be serving, in some sense, as stewards in heaven, as we should be doing now. What we do now and how well we do it has a great deal to do with what we do in heaven. Let us see the continuity between “now” and “then.”

(4) Fourth, privilege brings about proportionate responsibility. Those who know much are more responsible than those who know little. Those who have much revelation and reject it will receive greater judgment than those who know little and reject it. This applies to both believers and unbelievers. Those who have heard the gospel often and have rejected it will suffer more in hell than those who have little or no knowledge of Christ. This is why we are warned that there should not be “many teachers,” for greater knowledge and privilege have a greater obligation (James 3:1).

! Lesson 45:
Consequences of Christ’s Coming
(Luke 12:49‑59)

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother‑in‑law against daughter‑in‑law and daughter‑in‑law against mother‑in‑law.”

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Luke 12:49‑59).

Introduction

The word “fire” can arouse a wide variety of responses. If someone were to yell, “Fire!” at the top of their lungs at this moment, it would probably produce fear, and a great commotion. One the other hand, in the middle of the winter, the suggestion to “build a fire in the fireplace” arouses all kinds of warm emotions. There is that phrase in one of the secular Christmas songs which speaks of “chestnuts roasting in an open fire.” Now that produces a warm, sentimental feeling.

When John the Baptist began to introduce Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, he spoke of a “baptism of fire” which Jesus would perform. There are strongly differing views as to what was being referred to as this “baptism.” Now, in our text, Jesus is speaking about fire. He said that He had come to “cast fire upon the earth” (Luke 12:49, NASB). The kindling of this fire was something which Jesus said He was eager to do. In order to understand His message, we must first learn the meaning of “fire” as He speaks of it in our text.

We will attempt to define the term “fire” which is found in our text by surveying the ways in which “fire” was used in the Old Testament and by John the Baptist. We will then seek to show why our Lord was eager to light this “fire.” Finally, we will try to show how this fire affects all men.

The Structure of the Passage

In verses 49‑53, Jesus explains the way in which His coming will “cast fire on the earth.” He also expresses an eagerness to get on with the process of bringing fire to the earth. This “fire” has implications for the family, but not those which we would prefer. The coming of Christ will cause great division within families, driving wedges between those family members between whom we normally find a strong bond.

In verses 54‑57, Jesus speaks specifically to the multitudes, pointing out a very serious hypocrisy. He reminds them that while they can forecast tomorrow’s weather by looking at present indicators, they cannot see the coming kingdom of God as being foreshadowed by Christ’s first coming.

Verses 58 and 59 conclude the chapter by making a very personal and practical application. Reconciliation with their opponent needs to take place prior to standing before the judge.

The structure of our passage can thus be summarized:

(1) Consequences of Christ’s Coming—vv. 49‑53

(2) Conclusions Called For by Christ’s Coming—vv. 54‑57

(3) Crucial Application of Christ’s Coming—vv. 58‑59

Christ’s Coming and Its Consequences
(12:49‑53)

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother‑in‑law against daughter‑in‑law and daughter‑in‑law against mother‑in‑law.”

Jesus said that He came to bring fire to the earth, that He was eager for it to be kindled, but it has not yet been kindled. It would seem that He must first undergo a baptism before it would be kindled. But what is that fire which He came to kindle? The answer to this question comes from the Scriptures. Let us first search the Scriptures to see if they speak of fire in any way which relates to the coming of Messiah. The following texts are those which I find to be crucial to our understanding of “fire” as it relates to the coming of Christ, Israel’s Messiah.

Fire in the Scriptures

GENESIS 19:24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

1 KINGS 18:24, 38 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by FIRE—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” … Then the FIRE of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

2 KINGS 1:12 “If I am a man of God,” Elijah replied, “may FIRE come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!” Then the FIRE of God fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men.

1 CHRONICLES 21:26 David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with FIRE from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.

PSALM 21:9 At the time of your appearing you will make them like a fiery furnace. In his wrath the Lord will swallow them up, and his FIRE will consume them.

PSALM 78:21‑22 When the Lord heard them, he was very angry; his FIRE broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, 22 for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance.

ISAIAH 10:16‑19 Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp [glory, NASB] a FIRE will be kindled like a blazing flame. 17 The Light of Israel will become a FIRE, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers. 18 The splendor of his forests and fertile fields it will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away. 19 And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few that a child could write them down.

ISAIAH 30:27‑33 See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming FIRE. 28 His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray. 29 And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. 30 The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming FIRE, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail. 31 The voice of the Lord will shatter Assyria; with his scepter he will strike them down. 32 Every stroke the Lord lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm. 33 Topheth has long been prepared; it has been made ready for the king. Its FIRE pit has been made deep and wide, with an abundance of FIRE and wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze.

ISAIAH 31:9 Their stronghold will fall because of terror; at sight of the battle standard their commanders will panic,” declares the Lord, whose FIRE is in Zion, whose furnace is in Jerusalem.

ISAIAH 66:16‑19 For with FIRE and with his sword the Lord will execute judgment upon all men, and many will be those slain by the Lord. 17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together,” declares the Lord. 18 “And I, because of their actions and their imaginations, am about to come and gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory. 19 “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.

JEREMIAH 15:14 I will enslave you to your enemies in a land you do not know, for my anger will kindle a FIRE that will burn against you.”

JEREMIAH 21:12‑14 O house of David, this is what the Lord says: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like FIRE because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. 13 I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?” 14 I will punish you as your deeds deserve, declares the Lord. I will kindle a FIRE in your forests that will consume everything around you.’”

LAMENTATIONS 4:11‑13 The Lord has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a FIRE in Zion that consumed her foundations. 12 The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the world’s people, that enemies and foes could enter the gates of Jerusalem. 13 But it happened because of the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed within her the blood of the righteous.

EZEKIEL 20:47‑49 Say to the southern forest: ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to set FIRE to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it. 48 Everyone will see that I the Lord have kindled it; it will not be quenched.’” 49 Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign Lord! They are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”

JOEL 2:1‑3 (NASB) Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations. A FIRE consumes before them, And behind them a flame burns. The land is like the garden of Eden before them, But a desolate wilderness behind them, And nothing escapes them.

AMOS 2:4‑5 (NASB)[220] Thus says the LORD, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they rejected the law of the LORD And have not kept His statutes; Their lies also have led them astray, Those after which their fathers walked. So I will send FIRE upon Judah, And I will consume the citadels of Jerusalem.”

MALACHI 4:1 (NASB) “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.”

LUKE 3:9, 15‑17 “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the FIRE.…” 15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with FIRE. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable FIRE.”

LUKE 9:54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call FIRE down from heaven to destroy them?”

REVELATION 13:13 And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing FIRE to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

REVELATION 20:9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But FIRE came down from heaven and devoured them.

From all of these verses, I believe that we can make the following generalizations about “fire” as it is used in the Bible:

(1) Fire is closely linked with the presence and the power of God.

(2) Fire is often used, either symbolically or literally, as an instrument of divine wrath, exercised against sinners, both Israelites and Gentiles.

(3) Biblical prophecy speaks of “fire” as yet to come, brought by God against sinners, both Gentiles and Jews.

(4) The future fire of divine judgment is closely linked with the coming of Messiah.

(5) At the outset of Jesus’ ministry, John the Baptist spoke of the coming Messiah as bringing fire.

On the basis of these premises, one can only conclude that the “fire” of which Jesus spoke is the same fire about which the prophets, including John the Baptist, spoke—the fire of divine wrath. When Jesus said that He had come to “kindle a fire” He is therefore saying that He has come to bring about the outpouring of God’s wrath on sinful Israel.

How can this be? Elsewhere Jesus has clearly stated that He did not come to judge, but to save (cf. John 3:16‑17; 8:11)? The answer is that Jesus did come the first time to save men, but for all who reject Him there is no other means of salvation. When He comes again, He will come to judge, especially those who have reject His salvation.

How can our Lord be so zealous for this “fire” to be kindled, as His words indicate? If He is going to bring about the judgment of God upon sinners, and if this is not a work in which He takes pleasure, why is He eager for the “fire” to be kindled? I think the answer is simple—this painful and unpleasant (for both God and men, I believe) outpouring of wrath is a prerequisite of and preliminary to the establishment of the kingdom of God. In order for the kingdom of God to be established, sinners must be punished and sin eliminated.

There are a number of seeming contradictions in our Lord’s words, here and elsewhere in the gospels. He is the Prince of Peace, but He will bring division. He promises men life, but He calls on them to give up life. He tells men to lay up treasure in heaven, but they are to give up the pursuit of riches in this life, and to give to the poor. The difference is, on the one hand, that between “then” (heaven, the kingdom of God) and “now.” Another crucial difference is that between “ends” and the “means” by which they are achieved. “Peace” is the end, but a sword and division is the means. “Life” is the end, but death—our Lord’s death, and the disciple’s “taking up his cross” is the means. “Blessing and riches” are the end, but giving up the pursuit of them is the means. Since the means appear to contradict the ends, we must go about these means by faith, and not by sight.

The means by which God has determined to bring about His kingdom (“fire”—the judgment of sinners) is not just painful to sinful men. It is exceedingly painful to God, not only because men will suffer for their sins, but because Jesus Christ, God’s Son will suffer His wrath as a payment for man’s sins. Jesus said that before He cast fire on the earth He had a baptism with which to be baptized.[221] This baptism is clearly the death which He would die on the cross of Calvary. His death on the cross would set in motion a series of events, which will eventuate in the pouring forth of God’s divine wrath on sinners. That sad reality is that it is not really necessary, because Jesus experienced the full extent of God’s wrath on the cross. For those who trust in Him, that is the full payment for their sins, but for those who reject Him, there is yet to come the outpouring of God’s wrath in the day of judgment.

Jesus could look forward to His baptism and to the “fire” that was to be kindled in the same way that a pregnant woman can look forward to her “labor.” She is eager to get on with it, not because it is pleasant and enjoyable, but because of what will result. The “fire” of God’s wrath, first poured out on Christ on the cross, and yet to be poured out on those who reject Him, is that which will bring to pass the coming kingdom of God.

The Israelites had forgotten this. They had neglected or overlooked the sequence of events which was to bring in the kingdom of God. They looked forward to the “day of the Lord” as the day of salvation, rejoicing, and blessing, but they forgot that the day of the Lord began with judgment. This is what the prophet Amos reminded them:

“Alas, you who are longing for the day of the LORD, For what purpose will the day of the LORD be to you? It will be darkness and not light; As when a man flees from a lion, And a bear meets him, Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall, And a snake bites him. Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it? (Amos 5:18‑20).”

If the Lord’s coming meant a the “fire” of judgment for Him, and also for those who reject Him, it also had a cost for those who would believe in Him. While He is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), He is also the source of division. He will cause great division among men, even within families, where the bond of union is the most intimate:

“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother‑in‑law against daughter‑in‑law and daughter‑in‑law against mother‑in‑ law” (Luke 12:51‑53).[222]

The division which Jesus speaks of here has several interesting features. First, there is a division which occurs within the family, in which the closest human bonds are to be found (“blood is thicker than water”). History has borne testimony to the fact that the gospel divides men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children, for faith in Christ requires ultimate allegiance to Him. Second, there is a polarization which is described, so that it is not “one against one,” or to follow the imagery established by our Lord, “one against four,” but “two against three” and “three against two.” Those who have come to faith in Christ will join together, while those who have rejected Christ will also find a new bondage, a new basis of unity, in opposition to Christ. This is how the Pharisees (the right wing conservatives of that day) and the Sadducees (the liberals) could join together in rejecting Christ and in opposing Him, and ultimately in orchestrating (humanly speaking) His death.

Third, there is, I believe, some allusion to the role of “authority” in this division. The division described out in these verses is all within the family, but it also crosses lines of authority. Fathers have authority over sons, as mothers have authority over daughters. Allegiance to Christ takes precedence over all other authority. Normally, we would expect that the Christian’s faith would enhance his or her obedience to those in authority, as we see the Scriptures teaching (cf. Ephesians 5:21–6:10), but there will be times when we must obey God rather than men, and in these instances, division will occur, as well as at other times. An unbelieving father will find it difficult to accept when his son now feels his ultimate responsibility is to obey God and to please Him, putting earthly allegiance and duty on a lower level.

Jesus refuses to paint a glorious picture of uninterrupted bliss and pleasure for those who would follow Him. While men can expect forgiveness of sins and the joy of obedience to Him in this life, faith in Him will produce persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). There will be inestimable joy and pleasure in heaven, but there will also be pain and persecution for Christians on earth. This is one of the central themes of Peter’s first epistle. The Christian’s perspective should be like that of the apostle Paul, who saw the pain and trials of this life as nothing when compared to the joys of heaven (2 Corinthians 4:16‑18). Jesus does not minimize the price of discipleship, because of the magnitude of the prize of discipleship.

There is no way that we can avoid pain and suffering. The one who follows Christ will suffer now, and will renounce certain of life’s present pleasures, but will experience the limitless joys of heaven later (cf. Hebrews 11:24‑26). The one who rejects Christ and lives only for pleasure now will suffer eternal torment in hell.

One more thing needs to be said here about the “family.” Family has become the in word among Christians, and others. It is now popular to talk about a church as a family church. This week, I have heard a church “commercial” running on the radio, which gives the listener the impression that Christ has come to “put the family back together.” There is a sense in which this is true, but let us not minimize or neglect our Lord’s words, which in the clearest terms possible tell us that His coming will divide many families.

The Challenge of Christ’s Coming
(12:54‑59)

If verses 49‑53 spell out the negative consequences of Christ’s coming, verses 54‑59 are a challenge to men to respond as they should to His coming. Verses 54‑57 call upon men to think clearly and independently, and to act decisively. In verses 58 and 59 our Lord concludes by challenging His listeners to act quickly on what He is saying:

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Luke 12:49‑59).[223]

At the beginning of chapter 12, Jesus spoke of the hypocrisy of Israel’s leaders (cf. v. 1). Now, Jesus focuses on the hypocrisy of the masses. These words are addressed specifically to the crowds (v. 54). Jesus calls them hypocrites. Why is this so? In what way are they hypocritical?

A hypocrite is one who acts inconsistently, who does not act as one believes. The people all knew how to judge the future in the light of the present. Jesus illustrated this by showing that they knew how to predict the weather. When a cloud appeared in the west, they quickly concluded that it was going to rain. It only took one cloud, not a whole sky full of them. And this one cloud was sufficient reason for them to immediately conclude that rain was coming. It did not take long deliberation. The conclusion was obvious. The evidence was clear, even though but one cloud.

So, too, with a south wind. A southerly wind was sufficient evidence for the Israelite to conclude that it was going to be a hot day. In both cases, the predictions proved out. The cloud from the west produced rain, just as the southerly wind produced heat.

The ability to judge evidence and to see its implications was not restricted to the experts. Everyone would come to the same conclusion from the evidence they received. Why, then, could these people, skilled at reaching conclusions about the weather, not come to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah, based upon the mountains of evidence which had piled up, all of which conformed perfectly to the predictions of the prophets?

Were Israel’s leaders guilt? They certainly were, but this did not let the masses off the hook. They should have seen the obvious and come to the right conclusion about Jesus, even if their leaders did not. Jesus’ rebuke to the masses seems to be that they did not think clearly, nor did they think independently of their leaders. They were guilty of letting their leaders think for them. Listen to our Lord’s words again:

“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?” (verse 57, NASB, emphasis mine).

They should have thought for themselves, Jesus charged. Their leaders were guilty, but so were the followers for following them. Let the crowd look at the evidence and judge rightly.

Quite frankly, my friends, people are too easily swayed by the thinking of the “experts.” We want people to do our thinking for us. We want to let others be responsible for coming to the right answers. But Jesus is very clear here. The important truths, those which really matter, are self‑evident to anyone who will look at the evidence. God has revealed His truth to babes, not scholars (Luke 10:21). We are all responsible to “search the Scriptures” and to see if what is taught is true, even when Paul is the teacher (Acts 17:11). Let us study the Word for ourselves and let us believe the self‑evident truths which are there, and which are revealed to all men who seek it through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14‑16). It is in this light that I believe John wrote these words:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him (1 John 2:26‑27).

We are not, by these words, told to be Lone Rangers, neglecting the gift of teaching which God has given to the church, but neither are we to be so dependent upon the teaching of others that we believe whatever we are told. God gives us the Spirit to teach us, and He therefore holds us accountable for our conclusions. The multitudes who heard Jesus thus had the weight of responsibility for the actions placed on themselves.

The last two verses of our text seem almost out of place. They have caused some commentators to wonder why they are found here, used in a way that appears to be quite different from their use in Matthew chapter 5:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:21‑26).

Before we consider the difference in the way Jesus uses this illustration, let us take note of the similarity. In both texts the motivation is the “fire” of God’s judgment. In the light of the “fire of hell” (Matthew 5:22), one should quickly reconcile with his brother, knowing that anger toward one’s brother is deserving of eternal damnation. So, too, in our text, the “fire” which our Lord has come to bring is a strong incentive.

In Matthew’s text it may well be that our adversary, our opponent, with whom we should quickly be reconciled, may well be our brother. But who is the adversary in our text in the gospel of Luke? Verses 51‑53 speak of division between family members, but this is the result of different responses to the gospel. Reconciliation, in this instance, is impossible, apart from all parties coming to faith in Christ.

A fellow elder first suggested it to me, and then a commentary suggested the same—that the adversary here is none other than our Lord Himself. If Jesus is coming to the earth to bring fire upon it, the fire of divine wrath (verse 49), and if men are responsible for their decisions concerning Him (verses 54‑56), then men had better seek to be reconciled to Him before that final day of judgment arrives, when it will be too late.

All men must come to Christ. Some will come to Him now, as their Lord and Savior. They will accept His baptism as their own. They will accept His death in their behalf as their death. They will find Him as the One who brings forgiveness of sins and peace with God (and also as One who brings division). Others will reject Him now, and will face Him when He comes the second time, to bring fire upon the earth.

May none of you be a part of this second group. Jesus in His first coming has already endured the “fire” of God’s wrath. He has already died for the sins of men. Trust in Him and you will never need to fear His second coming. Be reconciled to God through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20‑21), and do it before you face Him as your judge, and before you must face the fire of His wrath. Do it decisively. Do it quickly. Do it now!

! Lesson 46:
A Problem of Perspective
(Luke 13:1‑21)

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all [“likewise,” NASB] perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all [“likewise,” NASB] perish.”

6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’ 8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’ “

10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. 14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” 15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” 17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

18 Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in [“threw into,” NASB] his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches.”

20 Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? 21 It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into [“hid in,” NASB] a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

Introduction

One’s perspective makes all the difference in the world. To most of you, a car that is “sick” or “dead” has no appeal. If you own it, you probably will try to think of a way of getting someone else to purchase it, or even to take it off your hands. On the other hand, when I look through the “car” section of the want ads, I have no interest in those cars which are running well. I want the sick and the dead ones.

The son of a farmer looks at cow manure as something which he must endlessly shovel out of the barn—a pain in the neck. The flower gardener, on the other hand, looks at manure as free fertilizer. They delight to get the stuff. They shovel it around the flower beds with joy. A mere matter of perspective.

Our perspective is very much a reflection of who we are. A Christian’s perspective is very much determined by his or her spiritual gifts. To the apostle Paul, John Mark was a liability, a man who could not be counted on, and thus a man who should not be taken along on a missionary journey. To Barnabas, whose gift was encouragement, Mark was an opportunity and a challenge. Mark was a man who needed encouragement, and Barnabas was the man to do it, just as he had ministered to Paul (Saul) in the early days of his Christian walk.

In our text, we find two very different perspectives reflected. One is that of the Jewish leadership and of many of their followers. The other is the perspective of God, as seen in the viewpoint of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In verses 1‑5, a certain group of people viewed the tragic and untimely death of a group of men as an indicator of great sin and of God’s wrath. To Jesus this tragedy took on an entirely different meaning, one which He shared with His listeners. The parable of the fruitless fig tree in verses 6‑9 is our Lord’s response to the previous incident, teaching Israel about themselves and about God.

The account of the healing of the hunchback, the Israelite woman who had been stooped over for 18 years (verses 10‑17) again reveals a very different set of perspectives. The woman’s long‑term suffering produced one response, and her healing evoked praise from her and delight for many, but it greatly irritated the ruler of the synagogue, who did not want the Sabbath violated by such “work” as healing. Jesus has an entirely different perspective from this man, as we shall see in our study.

Finally, in verses 18‑21 our text ends with two very short parables. These parables, one about a mustard tree (vv. 18‑19) and the other about leaven (vv. 20‑21), give a divine perspective on the kingdom of God, one, as we might expect, very different from that of most Israelites.

Man’s natural way of viewing things is never the same as God’s (Isaiah 55:6‑9), and thus we can only know God’s thoughts from His Word, as revealed to us through His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14‑16). Let us approach this text as those who perspective is warped and distorted by sin, and let us look to God to give us that perspective which is like His. Let us listen well to these words of Scripture and heed them as the Word of God.

A Reminder

As we approach this text it is especially important for us to remember Luke’s audience and his purpose in writing this gospel. Other gospels were known to Luke, but he wrote this gospel for Gentile believers. He is not writing to a Jewish audience, as Matthew has done, but he is writing to Gentiles, showing them how a Jewish Messiah, in fulfillment of His promises to Israel, can bring salvation to the entire world.

Our text from this lesson is one which helps to explain why Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah, and of the way in which God used Israel’s hardness of heart and rejection of Christ to bring about His promised kingdom. The nature of the kingdom of God is very different from that which Israel expected, and it is brought about in a very different manner than they thought it would be. Few texts will give us more insight into the reasons why God took the kingdom away from Israel and gave it, as it were, to the Gentiles.

The Meaning of
the Massacre of the Galileans
(13:1‑5)

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all [“likewise,” NASB] perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all [“likewise,” NASB] perish.”

Jesus was still surrounded by a multitude of thousands (Luke 12:1), sometimes teaching the masses (e.g. 12:54) and at other times teaching His disciples (e.g. 12:22). Sometimes it was not clear just who He was speaking to (cf. 12:41). At one point in time a delegation came to Jesus with some tragic news—a report that Pilate had recently slain a group of Galileans[224] as they were worshipping. He mixed their blood with their sacrifices, we are told (v. 1). We do not know whether those who came bearing this account were themselves, or (more likely in my opinion), whether they were not.[225]

There was a meaning to this message. The report was conveyed to Jesus for a reason. Those who were the bearers of this bad news viewed it through their own perspective, a perspective which differed from our Lord’s. Jesus’ response to them exposed both their thinking and the error it betrayed. They had already drawn a false conclusion: these Galileans were greater sinners than others. This false conclusion was based upon a faulty premise: one’s suffering in life is indicative of one’s sin, just as one’s prosperity is proportional to one’s piety.

Jesus rejected both the conclusion and its premise as being false. He asked the question, which He answered with a simple, but emphatic, “no.” Then He immediately changed the focus. The tragedy which befell those Galileans should not be viewed as an opportunity to judge those who died at the hand of Pilate to be great sinners. Instead, it should be perceived as a warning to all sinners, namely themselves, of a judgment which awaits them.

Before we turn to the words of our Lord, found first in verse 3 and then repeated in verse 5, let us first take note that our Lord turned the attention of these men to another tragedy. This was also a tragedy which occurred in Jerusalem, at the tower of Siloam.[226] Here, 18 men were killed when the tower in Siloam suddenly collapsed and fell on them. These men were not greater sinners than others either.

Some point out that while the Galileans died at the hand of man (namely Pilate), the 18 people who died in Jerusalem died at the hand of “nature,” at what we would call an “act of God.” We may also conclude that while the first group of men who died were those from Galilee, the second group seems to be those who lived in Jerusalem. If these Jerusalemites tended to look down their noses at the Galileans, Jesus will provide them with an example of their own peers dying in a similar way, tragically, prematurely, unexpectedly. While they compared Galileans with themselves, Jesus compared Galileans with Galileans (v. 2), and Jerusalemites with Jerusalemites (v. 4).

There are differences between these two groups of men who died, but the similarities seem more striking to me. First, those in both groups died. Jesus is not speaking of suffering in general terms, but specifically of death. He also warns His audience of the death which they will experience. Second, both groups died in a similar way—quickly, unexpectedly, tragically. Third, both groups died at a place and time when they may have felt very safe. When would a legalistic Jew feel more spiritual and “closer to God” (thus “safe” from divine judgment) than when he was performing his religious ritual of sacrifice. They died while offering sacrifices! And the 18 men who died in Jerusalem died while standing near a tower, undoubtedly a tower that was a significant part of their defense network. The tower would be that place where guards were stationed, the place from which an attack from outside the walls of the city would be countered. Where could anyone have stood that would have made them feel more secure? And yet they died by the tower. Literally, they died under the rubble of that tower. That which they viewed as their salvation was their destruction.

Judaism was, from the perspective of the self‑righteous (and lost) Israelite, was his salvation. Being a physical descendant of Abraham was all one needed to be assured of a place in the coming kingdom. This was what the typical Israelite thought. Jesus’ words should have sent a chill down the spine of every listener. These people all died doing that which made them feel safe and secure.

Jesus’ words, as I understand them, and as they are twice stated in our text, are specifically directed toward the nation of Israel:

“I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all [“likewise,” NASB] perish.

The Lord calls upon all of His hearers to repent. The word “repent” is not new, but here it underscores the fact that those who are listening are sinners, too. Would they play the mental game of weighing the sins of those who died? Jesus let them know they were sinners. Would they ponder the death of those Galileans? Let them recognize that they, too, will die. Will they look at these few as especially sinful? Then they must be told that they will all die in a similar way.

I do not think that our Lord is speaking of death in a general way. He is not saying that all men will eventually die, and thus they must repent of their sins in order to be ready for their time of death. Jesus is speaking to the nation Israel. Jesus is speaking to that generation of Israelites which has seen God’s Messiah and has failed to accept Him as their King. This generation will perish, but it will, as a group, face even a more terrible death than those about whom they have just been speaking. That generation of Israelites will come to a tragic ending themselves, the sudden and irreversible destruction that will come when Rome comes in full force to annihilate the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to destroy the city.[227] I believe that this is what Peter was referring to in his powerful sermon, recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts:

And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” (Acts 2:40).

There is, of course a general (and very important) sense in which “be saved” should be understood, but here the salvation of Peter’s audience specifically includes a salvation from that generation and the destruction which lies ahead for all who persist in their rejection of Christ. This is the same destruction of which our Lord speaks in our text in Luke’s gospel. If Jesus’ listeners think that these two small groups of people died suddenly and unexpectedly for their sins, it is nothing compared to that which lies ahead for them. Let them not bother to ponder the sins of others. Let them repent of their own, and quickly!

The Parable of
the Fruitless Fig Tree
(13:6‑9)

Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’ “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

The relationship between the preceding five verses and this parable may not be immediately apparent, but it is clear and direct.[228] In the previous paragraph, Jesus was speaking to Israelites as Israelites, and warning them of the destruction which was coming for the nation. This parable of the “fruitless fig tree” is drawing attention to the same thing, only in a different way. The fig tree was a frequently employed and well‑understood symbol of the nation Israel.[229] Jesus uses this parable to underscore for His audience, once again, the utter failure of Israel to live up to the standards and expectations which God had held for it over its centuries of history. The parable is not only going to underscore Israel’s sinful fruitlessness, but also the nearness of its destruction, in tree‑terms, its time for being cut down.

Typical of ancient and modern practice, a fig tree was planted in the midst of a man’s vineyard.[230] The farmer expected the tree to be producing figs, and for three years he had come to look for fruit, only to find none. He had concluded (and long experience would confirm) that the tree was never going to produce, and so he ordered it cut down. The vinedresser appealed to him to wait just one more year, and then cut it down if it persisted in failing to produce a crop. The tree was not only fruitless and useless, it used up valuable ground. It should be cut down if it continued not to produce.

Farmers understand this imagery very well. An egg farmer will keep careful record of the production of his hens. A non‑producer will not be kept long, but will be put to better use in the stew pot. So, too, with cattle or with other kinds of fruit trees. Useless and unproductive plants are not tolerated, nor should they be. A farmer has the right to expect a return on his investment. This farmer is “fed up” with this fig tree, but he is persuaded to wait one more year. Time for this “tree” is short indeed.

This parable not only teaches the sinfulness of the nation Israel, it also underscores the shortness of the time and thus the urgency for the nation to repent and be saved from the wrath of God which is to come. That “fire” of which John the Baptist has warned (Luke 3:8‑9) and more recently our Lord (Luke 12:49ff.) is drawing near in time. Let the Israelites cease to ponder the sins of others and begin to act in repentance concerning their own sins.

Do the “three years” that the owner has waited for figs (v. 7) correspond to the length of time our Lord has already spent preaching the gospel to the nation Israel? Perhaps. I am inclined to think so. This would mean that there is little time left for the nation to repent. Jesus is already pressing toward Jerusalem (9:31, 53; cf. 13:31‑35). As the time of His death draws near, so does the time of Israel’s destruction.

While this parable, like the account of the tragic deaths of the Galileans and those who died by the tower of Siloam, conveys a message of warning to the Israelites, it also corrects another error in the thinking of the people. The inference underlying the conclusion of the people in verses 1‑5 is that God hastened the death of those who died, in judgment of their (greater than normal) sins. Our parable tells us the exact opposite. The people were wrong to conclude that these people who died prematurely were greater sinners than their peers. God had not come to judge them early because of their greater evil. Indeed, the parable of the farmer and the fruitless fig tree speaks rather of the patience and longsuffering of God with respect to the stubborn rebellion and sin of Israel. This extended time, this delay in judgment, was for the purpose of allowing God’s people further opportunity to repent. While some sinners may very well interpret and apply His delay as an occasion to expand in their sin (cf. 12:45), the righteous will know better. The erroneous conclusion of the people reveals the perspective of the people; the point of the parable reveals the perspective of God.

The Healing of the Hunchback
(13:10‑17)

On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

The next paragraph, you will note, is the longest in our passage. That should tell us something of its significance. At first it would seem that the story of the healing of this woman is totally out of context. It almost seems like an interruption. This is not the case however, for this incident vividly demonstrates the difference in perspective between the Jewish religious leaders and Jesus, a difference which will shortly climax at the cross of Calvary.

The scene has now changed. Jesus is no longer teaching the multitude; he is teaching, for the last time in Luke,[231] in a synagogue. There was a woman there who had been demonically afflicted with a spinal problem for 18 years. Jesus took the initiative and sought out the woman, laying His hands on her (something Jesus seemingly never did to demoniacs) and healing her instantly and completely.

Her response was almost instantaneous. She began glorifying God. Here was worship like this synagogue had probably never seen before. Many of the crowd joined her in rejoicing at her healing. Many, but not all. The ruler of the synagogue and some others (cf. vv. 15, 17) were not happy at all. Unlike Jesus, they had no compassion on the woman, nor did they rejoice in her deliverance. In contrast to the joy of many, the ruler of the synagogue was mad. He was incensed, but he did not confront Jesus. Instead, he went about rebuking the people, demanding that if they wanted to be healed there were six days in the week for such things, but not the Sabbath.

Jesus called the man and those who agreed with him[232] hypocrites. There was much about this ruler’s objections which were hypocritical. For example, he says that there are six days on which people can be healed. How many healings do you think occurred in that synagogue? Do you think that this woman could have come back on the following day and been healed? Not if Jesus were gone. I suspect that this woman was a “regular” at this synagogue, but she had not found healing (let alone sympathy) in 18 years. How could the ruler of the synagogue dare to even suggest that healing would be available at some other time?

Another form of hypocrisy, as I read between these lines, is that this man was to be a leader in worship, as well as in teaching. While most of those present were actively praising God—worshipping as they had never done before—this leader was doing everything possible to “shut down” what was going on.

The greatest hypocrisy however must be that which Jesus chose to highlight. Jesus accused the religious leaders of hypocrisy because they would routinely sanction “breaking the Sabbath” for the benefit of one of their animals, but not for the benefit of this woman, a daughter of Abraham. They would loose their donkey on the Sabbath, and let it drink,[233] but they would prohibit Jesus from loosing this woman from Satan’s grip, from her bondage, which had lasted now 18 long years. Their compassion was selective, self‑centered, and hypocritical.

Jesus’ stinging rebuke of this hypocrisy brought a two‑fold response. The people who rejoiced with the woman loved it, rejoicing over all that Jesus was saying and doing. The opponents, however, were humiliated. They were not sorry. They were not corrected. They were just put to shame. Their day, they must be telling themselves, will come. So it will seem.

What was the difference in perspective, in the thinking of the Jewish religious leaders, which brought about this totally opposite response to the healing of this woman? How could they be indignant when the people were ecstatic? I believe that the answer is really quite simple. The Jewish religious leaders felt that they were righteous, deserving of divine blessings. The others seemed to know better. The Jewish leaders therefore not only refused and rejected the grace of God (as seen in the woman’s healing), they despised it. How could this be? They felt that both divine blessing and divine indignation were God’s response to man’s deeds. They thought legalistically. In their minds, EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND CORRESPONDING RESPONSE FROM GOD.

When you read the Mosaic Covenant, this is precisely what you find. When Israel sinned, God brought chastening and discipline. When Israel obeyed the law which God gave, God blessed them. Thus, we can see how those who came with the report of the tragic slaughter of the Galileans revealed a legalistic outlook. If something really bad happened to people, they must have been really bad. If something really good happened to them (e.g. prosperity or long life), they had to have been good. In the words of the song Julie Andrews sings in the Sound of Music, “I must have done something good … ”

What the Israelites had forgotten was that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary and provisional. The promises God made to Abraham would not be fulfilled through the Mosaic Covenant, but through a new covenant. This new covenant was prophesied and described, for example, in Jeremiah 32 and 33. The blessings of God and the coming of the kingdom of God would not be the result of Israel’s obedience to the law, but due to the righteousness of Messiah, and through His death on behalf of sinners, bearing the condemnation of the law which man’s sins merit (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

Why would Israelites reject the Messiah and the new covenant which He came to establish? Why would they prefer the condemnation of the law to the blessings of forgiveness and eternal life in Christ? There is only one answer: These Israelites were self‑righteous. They did not regard themselves to be sinners, but rather as those who were righteous before God and thus deserving of His blessings on the basis of their good works. They would, in contemporary terminology, “rather do it themselves.”

It is the difference between Jesus’ perspective and that of His opponents which is spelled out in the final two parables of our passage. Let us consider them and their message as we attempt to draw this lesson to a conclusion.

The Mustard Seed and the Yeast
(13:18‑21)

Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in [“threw into,” NASB] his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches.” Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into [“hid in,” NASB] a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

Before we consider the meaning of these two very brief parables, let us draw back for a moment to think through the gospel from a broader point of view, as it is explained in the context of all the gospels, and in the remainder of the New Testament. We know that Israel did not, as a nation, turn to Jesus as God’s Messiah, and that the nation as a whole rejected Him, agreeing with His crucifixion. We know also that Jerusalem was destroyed and that the nation was scattered, not to be brought back to the land until a few years ago, and this still in a state of unbelief so far as Jesus is concerned. We know that the Jews rejected the grace of God and that the gospel has subsequently (and consequently) gone out to the Gentiles, and that God is now working through the church, rather than through Israel, although in a future day this will change (cf. Romans 9‑11). The Messiah and the message which Israel rejected, some of the Gentiles (and a few Jews) have believed. These two parables describe this, I believe, in somewhat veiled language.

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

The first parable is that of the mustard seed. Elsewhere the emphasis falls upon how small the seed is and how great the tree which results (cf. Matthew 13:31‑32). Here, however, Jesus places the emphasis on the action of the man, who carelessly casts the mustard seed aside, into his garden. The NIV is clearly inaccurate here, veiling the clear sense of the language. The NASB says it literally, the man threw the seed into the garden.[234] He did not “plant” it (another word, which is found above in verse 6). This parable must be understood in contrast to the parable above, of the fruitless fig tree. The fig tree was purposely planted (a different word in verse 6 than our word here in verse 19), and it was carefully tended and nurtured. This mustard seed was cast into the garden. I am inclined to think it was a part of his throwing compost into the garden, as fertilizer. The man did not intend for a tree to grow here, and surely not a mustard tree. The birds which gathered in it would only tend to steal the things growing in the garden (as any of us farmer‑types know from painful experience).

The message of this parable is simple and pointed, I believe. Jesus has warned Israel of God’s impending wrath. They have been the fruitless fig tree that is about to be cut down. The mustard tree is that tree which God has chosen to replace it with. The imagery of a tree, providing a place of protection for birds, is one commonly associated with the Gentiles in the Old Testament.[235] It is the careless “casting away” of the seed by Israel which results in the great tree of the largely Gentile “kingdom.”

Isn’t this amazing? Many of the Jews wanted to “work” for their place in the kingdom of God by meticulously “keeping the law.” No wonder the ruler of the synagogue was so upset about “breaking the law” as he saw it at least. But in striving to earn God’s blessings, they rejected their own sinfulness and thus the Savior as well. When they threw salvation away, the fig tree was cut down, but the mustard tree flourished. The rejection of Messiah by Israel has brought salvation to the Gentiles.

The Parable of the Leaven

The second parable in this pair is that found in verses 20 and 21. Here, Jesus likens the “kingdom of God” to the leaven which a woman seeks to hide in three pecks of meal. The NASB speaks of the leaven as being “hidden” in the three pecks of meal, while the NIV says it was “mixed into a large amount of flour.” The word clearly means to “hide” (cf. its use in Luke 8:17; 18:34; 19:42; Matt. 13:44; 25:25). While the woman attempts to hide the leaven, the result is the opposite, for it permeates the entire portion of meal.

You will remember that God saved Israel to be a “light to the Gentiles.” The Jews did not like the Gentiles, as the book of Jonah graphically reveals. They did not want to share their blessings with the Gentiles, and thus they sought to “hide” the truth and keep its blessings only to themselves. It was foolish and futile for the woman to attempt to “hide” the leaven in the meal. So, too, it was foolish and futile for the Israelites to try to “hide” the light of the gospel from the Gentiles. You will recall that Jesus spoke clearly about the salvation of the Gentiles to His people, and that their reaction was a violent one (cf. Luke 4:16‑30). In the very act of their trying to prevent the gospel from going forth to the Gentiles they only caused it to spread more quickly and effectively. In the book of Acts Luke will demonstrate that Jewish persecution in Jerusalem will only scatter the church and the gospel more and more.

The kingdom of God is like this, Jesus says. The Jews who think they are righteous will reject Christ and will refuse to repent, and thus they will be judged as a nation. They fig tree will be cut down. And in its place will be a mustard tree, as it were, the church. By trying to conceal the truth from the Gentiles, the nation has only proven to have unwittingly spread it abroad—God’s unfaithful and uncooperative evangelists. Let all Israel listen and learn from Jesus’ words of warning and instruction.

Conclusion

This passage concerns the nation of Israel, its rejection of Messiah, its self‑righteousness, and the impending judgment which will on all those who do not renounce their faith in Judaism and identify the Jesus as their Christ, their Messiah. It explains why the kingdom of God was taken from Israel, and why the Gentiles have come to play a very prominent part in God’s program for the church.

This text surely underscores the urgency of Israel’s need to repent, before the time of judgment comes upon that generation. But if it contains a message of warning to that generation, it also speaks to us of the urgency of repentance and of evangelism. If you have not come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior whom God sent into the world to bring about the forgiveness of sins, you should sense the same urgency of which Jesus spoke. You see, when Jesus ascended to heaven, to sit at the right hand of the Father, He did so to wait until the Father indicated that it was time to return to judge the world and to deal finally with the wicked. He is coming again, and that coming is soon. Those who have not trusted in Christ as their Savior may soon find themselves standing (or falling) before Him as their judge, even as Paul warns in Philippians chapter 2. Jesus will return to purify the earth with fire, as Peter spells out in the third chapter of 2 Peter. The delay in His coming is not do to His disinterest, but is due to His compassion and longsuffering. He is giving men further time to repent, just as the “fruitless fig tree” was given addition time to produce. But there is a day of judgment and “fire” coming soon. Be ready for it. The only way to be ready is to repent of your sin and to trust in Jesus as the One who died in your place, for your sins.

This text also admonishes Christians that as the time of Christ’s return draws near, we need to be found watching and waiting for Him. We need to be faithful to proclaim and hold forth the gospel, which is the “light” that we are to carry to all men. We are no more to “hide” this light than Israel was to do so. Let us be faithful to call upon men to be ready for the coming kingdom of God.

Finally, let us beware of the same kind of thinking which was typical of the Israelites of Jesus’ day. Let us beware of thinking that those who die early or in some tragic way are worse sinners than we. Let us view a more prosperous and lengthy life not as our reward for being righteous, but as God’s grace.

I find that we Americans often exude the same kind of national pride which typified the Israelites. They thought that God blessed them because they were more pious, more spiritual. This was not so. God blessed His people in spite of their sin, and out of His grace, rather than their goodness. We Americans often think (and even are so bold as to say) that we are prosperous because we are a “Christian nation,” and we send out missionaries, and so on. Any prosperity we have and continue to experience is, in my understanding, solely the outgrowth of divine grace, rather than of human merit. Let us realize that the kingdom of God comes to the earth because of the righteousness of Christ and the grace of God manifested through His Son. And let us be humbled by the fact that the kingdom has come to include the Gentiles because of Israel’s failure and sin, not due to our own righteousness.

! Lesson 47:
Striving to Enter the Narrow Door
(Luke 13:22‑35)

22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.

23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ 28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”

32 He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ 33 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Introduction

During the same Olympic Games the television network has run a beer commercial that causes us to smile. Several great “gold‑winning” feats are performed, and then, in the last few frames, the face of a “dreamer” is cleverly superimposed over the body of the great athlete. After several such “victories” the “hero” is awakened from his daydream. We see that this man was only dreaming of victory. His victory was a dream, but not a hope.

The Winter Olympic Games have produced the two real American heroes, Brian Boitano and Bonnie Blair, who have won gold medals. The most interesting “hero” of the Olympic Games, however, is not from America, but from England, “Eddie the Eagle.” Eddie did not win the 90 meter ski jump. Indeed, he came in last, about 150 feet short of the winner. Why, then, did Eddie become such a hero? Why did the 100,000 people in that crowd of on‑ lookers greet his efforts with such enthusiasm? I think the answer lies in the fact that Eddie is a man with whom we can much more readily and easily identify, rather than with those who won the gold. If Eddie can do it, then somehow there is hope that anyone, given enough time and effort, can do likewise. “Eddie the Eagle” personifies the hopes of the common man.

During the presentation of one set of medals this week, Frank Gifford made an interesting, but erroneous statement. The three top winners of the men’s ice skating competition were being presented their medals, and were then given a bouquet of flowers. (Most of you women probably were horrified by the way these men held them upside‑down.) As this presentation was coming to a close, Frank said, “The flowers will not last, but the medals will.” Christians know that the gold and silver will pass away, too, and that our salvation and eternal things will not (cf. 1 Peter 1:18‑19). Our salvation differs from the “gold” of the Olympics in that it is not won by human striving, but by Christ alone, by His death upon the cross of Calvary in our place. This we all know to be true, but a statement made by our Lord in our text seems to contradict all this. Jesus said to those listening,

“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to” (Luke 13:24).

Is Jesus here teaching that one must “work” for one’s salvation? Is salvation the result of our efforts, and not that our of Lord? How can Jesus tell these people that they must “strive to enter the door” in terms which are very appropriate for the efforts expended by Olympic athletes, for this term is one that is employed for such competition?

This, my friend, is the “tension of our text.” It is this question which will provide the fuel, the emotional push, for studying our text carefully. We will seek to find the answer to our dilemma as we consider this text and its interpretation.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text is very simple, for the passage divides neatly into two sections:

(1) Verses 22‑30—Striving for salvation and the few who are being saved

(2) Verses 31‑35—Herod, Jerusalem, and Jesus

Verses 22‑30 speak of the striving for salvation, occasioned by the question of the man who wished to know if only a few were being saved. Jesus indirectly answered this question, but He went on to tell His hearers far more than they wished to hear, for the few who would be saved were not primarily Israelites.

In verse 31 Luke tells of a group of Pharisees who arrive with the “bad news” that Herod was planning to put Jesus to death. Their advice to the Savior was that He abort His mission and go elsewhere. Jesus’ words reflect His commitment to persist in His ministry and His mission. He would keep on doing what He had been called to do and He would press on to Jerusalem as well. The final two verses reveal the heart of our Lord toward Jerusalem, the place where He was soon to die.

The Few Who Are Being Saved
 (13:22‑30)

Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’” But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last” (Luke 13:22‑30).

In verse 22 Luke introduces this section with the statement that Jesus was making His way to Jerusalem, teaching as He journeyed. This is not the first time such a statement has been made, for previously Luke wrote:

As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village. After this the Lord appointed seventy‑two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go (Luke 9:51–10:1).

Luke’s reference to Jerusalem is not incidental, and surely not accidental. Luke, as one of my friends has observed, “is a very geographically oriented writer.” Here in Luke we find the ministry of our Lord pressing toward Jerusalem. In Luke’s second volume (Acts), we find the ministry of our Lord (through the apostles and the church), pressing from Jerusalem to the “uttermost part of the earth” (cf. Acts 1:8, which may well serve as a kind of geographical outline to the book of Acts).

I understand from these earlier words of Luke that Jesus is continuing to press on towards Jerusalem, and that He is visiting those villages and towns to which He had previously sent His disciples. Our Lord and His message should not come as something new to these people and places.

Somewhere along the way, a man in the crowd put a question to Jesus, which was,

“Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” (verse 23).

Luke seems to deliberately avoid telling us who the man was, what group he may have represented, or what his motive might have been for asking the question. Whatever the man’s motive, the question provided Jesus with the occasion to teach His audience[236] an important lesson.

The question which this unnamed individual put to Jesus raises some questions in the minds of the reader. I find it essential to ask three questions pertaining to our text.

QUESTION ONE: WERE THERE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING SAVED?

Jesus did not answer the man’s question directly, but I believe that the answer is clear by inference. Jesus, in speaking of the “narrow door,” does suggest that the answer to the man’s questions was that only a few would be saved. In a parallel text, Jesus speaks of the “narrow way,” which has virtually the same meaning, but here it is clearly stated:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13‑14).

It is not how few who are saved that will shock this crowd, but who many of these “few” are. This matter will be taken up shortly. For now, however, let us be sure that we understand what Jesus means when He says,

“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to” (Luke 13:24).

Let us seek to do this by asking several questions, and seeking to learn the answer from our text.

QUESTION TWO: IS JESUS SPEAKING OF SALVATION AS THAT FOR WHICH ONE SHOULD STRIVE TO ENTER INTO?

I believe that the answer to this question is clearly yes. The man asked if only a few were to be saved. His question was speaking of salvation. When John the Baptist introduced Jesus as the Messiah, He referred to the prophecy of Isaiah, which spoke of Israel’s “salvation” (Luke 3:6, citing Isaiah 40:5). In the mind of the Israelite, this meant the restoration of the nation Israel and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham and the people of Israel throughout the Old Testament. It also meant an individual’s participation in this kingdom of God. Jesus went on to say that those who did not enter by the narrow door would be outside the kingdom, looking in with weeping and gnashing of teeth (cf. Luke 13:24‑30). The “narrow door,” as I understand this text, is our Lord Jesus, who is the only means of eternal salvation, the only way of entering into the kingdom of God.

QUESTION THREE: IS JESUS SAYING THAT ONE MUST WORK HARD TO ENTER INTO SALVATION?

Simply stated, I believe the answer to this question is yes. I believe that nearly the same thing is said in the book of Hebrews, where the author writes,

Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience (Hebrews 4:11, NASB).

But how can this be? How can it be said that one must strive to enter into the kingdom of God? A few observations from our passage will help us find the answer.

(1) Jesus is speaking to Israelites. His words are directed toward Israel. The question is raised by one man, but the answer of our Lord is directed toward a broader group (“them,” v. 23). The term “you” is frequently found in verses 24‑28, and the context makes it evident that the “you” is Israel. The words of our Lord in this text, then, are spoken to the Israelites.

(2) The expression “make every effort” (“strive,” NASB) is the rendering of an athletic term, used to speak of competition in the athletic games. We might think of it as an Olympic kind of expression. We have seen much “striving” this past two weeks, much effort expended. The same expression can also refer to doing battle, to fighting an opponent. Either way “striving” means not only entering into a struggle or competition, but also winning or losing.

(3) One is to strive to enter a particular door.

(4) The door through which the Israelites were urged to pass was one through which they had not yet passed. This seems self‑evident, almost trivial, and yet it is a vital point to recognize. I believe that it never entered the man’s mind who asked the question that he was not viewed as one who was “in” the kingdom. To the Israelites, they were already on the inside, and a few Gentiles could also get “in” by becoming a Jew, by submitting to proselyte baptism and by keeping the law. How shocking Jesus’ words must have been to those who heard Him.

(5) The door which one is to strive to enter is Christ Himself. He is the door, the only way into the kingdom of God. He is the King and it is only by receiving Him that one will enter the kingdom.

(6) The door that one is to strive to enter is narrow. The “narrowness” of the door suggests several important lessons. If the door is narrow, then few will pass through it. If the door is narrow, then it must be passed through one‑at‑a‑time. The Israelites believed that since they were descendants of Abraham they were assured a place in the kingdom, something which John the Baptist strongly refuted (Luke 3:7‑8). Since the door was narrow which led to salvation, and the gate was broad leading to destruction, one would certainly not haphazardly enter into the kingdom of God; one would have to strive to enter in. Just as one who is in the rapidly moving current has to strive to swim upstream, so the Israelite had to strive to enter into the kingdom, contrary to the mainstream of Israelites.

(7) The door through which the Israelites were urged to pass was soon to close. It is not the narrowness of the door which will pose a problem to the Israelites, but the “closedness” of the door. It matters not how wide a door is when it is closed. The door is, at the time of Jesus’ words, open, but narrow. The door will soon be closed. While time is running out for our Lord, it is likewise running out for Israel. They must act, and act quickly.

(8) The door which the Israelites do not pass, is one which they will, in the future, wish to pass, but not be able. This is a final offer, as it were, one which would not last for long. Jesus taught that there would be a time when the Israelites would wish to enter the door, but would not be able to do so. It is one thing to be barred by a door that one never wishes to pass through; it is vastly differently to wish to pass through a door and to find it permanently closed.

The question which was asked afforded Jesus one more time to underscore the same message which has marked this phase of His ministry: the time for Israel to repent and to receive Him as Savior is short. Israel is to strive to enter in through the narrow door, not because men must work for their salvation, but because the time for Israel is short. There is much to be gained or lost. Israel dare not be apathetic, passive, nor even philosophical about Jesus and His ministry, as the question of the man in the crowd seems to suggest. The time is short. Israel must pursue salvation as something which is to be gained or lost in the person of Christ. Salvation is not gained by works, for it is free, it is the result of the sacrificial death of Christ. But this free gift is to be diligently sought for the prize it is.

Let me attempt to illustrate what I believe Jesus to be saying. This week Steve Green will be putting on a free concert at Dallas seminary. There is no charge for the tickets. Seminary students and others must contact the seminary missions office to procure tickets. If enough seminarians do not acquire tickets, others may have them. If one values Steve’s singing, one will work hard to get concert tickets, even though they are free. There is only a short time in which they may be acquired, and diligent effort (striving, if you would) is thus needed.

So it is with salvation. The gift is free. Man does not work for righteousness, so that he can be good enough to get in. Neither does any person have some kind of automatic membership in God’s kingdom. Those who are to be in the kingdom must recognize both the value of this gift and the need to diligently strive to enter into the marvelous blessings it offers. The urgency of the issue, the greatness of the reward, and the shortness of the time all necessitate a purposed, diligent seeking of that kingdom, and of getting through that narrow door, so as to receive the free Gift of salvation.

The “Many” Are You, Not the “Few”

The man who put the question to Jesus seems to have assumed that he was among the “few” who were being saved. He may, like his fellow‑ Israelites, thought that the “few” being saved were Israelites, while the “many” who were not were Gentiles. Jesus has some very distressing words for those who would think such thoughts. In verses 24‑30 He is going to show His audience that Israelites will not be prominent among the “few” who are being saved.

Jesus first shocked His listeners by indicating that they were not already on the inside, so far as the kingdom is concerned. Then, He went on to say that many of His fellow‑Israelites who were not on the inside would not ever be in the kingdom. He tells them in symbolic terms that God will tell His people, Israel, that He does not even know where they are from. Twice, in fact, this is stated.

It is not coincidental that Jesus chose to use the words of David in Psalm 6:8 to express God’s rejection of Israelites after time for entering the door is past.

“Depart from Me, all you evildoers” (Luke 13:27).

In this psalm, David begins with a petition for God to save him (vss. 1‑5). He then described his own suffering, which included (and may have been initiated by) the rejection and resistance of his adversaries (cf. Psalm 6:7b). The last three verses of this psalm (vv. 8‑10) conclude the psalm with and expression of confidence that God has heard his petition and will save him. The beginning of this final section is verse 8, and the very words which our Lord spoke. I believe that Jesus is likening His rejection as Israel’s Messiah‑King by His people Israel to David’s rejection as Israel’s king by his fellow‑Israelites. David’s rejection is thus typical of our Lord’s, and David’s words of confidence, spoken to his enemies, can thus be repeated by Israel’s Messiah as well.

How sad is Israel’s response to God’s rejection of them from His kingdom. Note their defense, the basis on which they feel they should be included in the kingdom:

“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets’” (Luke 13:26).

They believe that mere association with Jesus was sufficient to save them. They had eaten in His presence. He had taught in their streets. Wasn’t this enough? No. John the Baptist, followed by Jesus, required the followers of Jesus—those who would be truly be saved—to identify with Him. This is what baptism was all about. Did the Israelites think that being a Jew saved him? He was wrong. Baptism was a public testimony of the Jew’s break with His culture, and with the legalism and ritualism of Judaism. It was a profession of identifying with Jesus as the Messiah. Identification with Jesus was, to put it in the terms Jesus is using in our text, passing through the narrow door.

May I pause for a moment here to press this point a little more personally? How many people think that they are going to be in God’s kingdom because they are a part of some religious sect or denomination? How many suppose they are saved because they come from a Christian family? How many think that they are saved by mere association with spiritual things? Nothing could be further from the truth. You are only saved by identification with Christ. Association with Christ (by going to church, reading the Bible, or whatever) isn’t enough. It wasn’t for the Jews of Jesus’ day. It isn’t enough for you either.

But the final blow of this paragraph is yet to come. Not only is association with Israel or with Jesus not enough. Not only are many Israelites not going to be among the “few” who are saved. But many of those who are saved will be Gentiles, and not Jews. This is made crystal clear in verses 28‑30:

“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Many Israelites, who assume they had a reserved seat in the kingdom of God, will find themselves on the outside when the kingdom comes. Many Gentiles, whom the Jews believed would suffer eternal torment, and whom they felt were unworthy of salvation (cf. the Old Testament book of Jonah), are described by Jesus as sitting at the banquet table of the kingdom, along with the prophets and the patriarchs of Israel.

Notice that the Israelites who miss out on the kingdom by failing to pass through the narrow gate are very conscious of what they have lost, and what others have gained. This is the basis for great torment, for “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Hell is no joy. Hell is being separated from God, and wishing you were not. Hell is being separated from God, knowing that you could have been, but refused, and watching others enjoy it. Hell includes conscious torment, the knowledge of what could have been.

In the Old Testament, God’s covenant with Abraham included the blessing of the Gentiles (cf. Genesis 12:1‑3). The Old Testament prophets also spoke of the blessing of the Gentiles. Jesus spoke of this as well, and it sent His audience into a frenzy of opposition (Luke 4:16‑30). Many who are first—Jews in the minds of an Israelite—Jesus said, will be last, left out, while many Gentiles—those considered “last” by Jews—will be first, enjoying the blessings of God in the kingdom (Luke 13:30).

Before we pass on to the second, and final, paragraph of our text, let me say that we dare not be philosophical about the kingdom of God, as the man with the “academic” question seems to have been. Jesus would have us know that entrance into the kingdom is something which we all need, something which we all must do individually, and something which is so urgent we dare not put the matter off or deal casually with it. The kingdom of God—salvation if you prefer—is a blessing so great, a gift so free, but with an offer so limited in time, that we must diligently pursue it.

But how, you might ask, can unsaved men be expected, even required, to pursue salvation with such energy, such zeal? Apart from a grasp of the gospel, apart from a knowledge of one’s lost condition, apart from a realization of the urgency of the issue, one will not take the matter so seriously. But this is something which the Holy Spirit produces. Jesus told His disciples in the 16th chapter of John’s gospel that it was the Holy Spirit who would communicate, convince, and convict men pertaining to sin, righteousness, and judgment. And when He does His work, men get on the move. A look at the second chapter of Acts tells us how powerful His persuasion is.

Herod, Jerusalem, and Jesus
(13:31‑35)

We have been told by Luke (once again) that Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, teaching and ministering as He went (Luke 13:22). I believe that Jesus’ exodus from Jerusalem (via His death and ascension) that will eventually close the narrow door, which He has urged His listeners to pass through. Verses 23‑30 therefore stress the implications of Jesus’ approaching Jerusalem for the nation Israel. Verses 31‑35 stress the implications of arriving in Jerusalem for Jesus.

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Some Pharisees arrived, seemingly from Jerusalem. It appears that they have a kind of “news flash” for Jesus. Apparently they have learned of Herod’s intention to put Jesus to death if He made an appearance in Jerusalem. They had come to warn Jesus of the danger of persisting on His present course.

It is difficult for me to see this as a sincere gesture on the part of the Pharisees. Herod is represented elsewhere as desiring to see Jesus (Luke 9:9). The Pharisees, on the other hand, had rejected Him and had determined to put Him to death (cf. Luke 6:11). Did they really wish to save Jesus from Herod’s treachery? It didn’t matter. Jesus would use this as a further occasion for teaching, just as He had done with the question of the man in the crowd.

Jesus’ response to this warning was to tell these Pharisees to report back to Herod (something I find it difficult to believe they would wish to do), referring to Him as “that fox,” far from complimentary, and certainly not appeasing any wrath he might have toward Him. The message to Herod would be a short one, spelled out in verses 32 and 33. In verse 32, Jesus expressed His commitment to carry on His ministry, as given by God, and as planned. We use the expression, “Keep on Truckin,” and is nearly what Jesus said. He would not be deterred from His ministry. It was business as usual for Jesus, even if that was dangerous, even if it meant death. Jesus was determined to finish what He had been sent to accomplish. No threat of danger would turn Him from His mission or from His ministry.

In verse 33 Jesus expressed His commitment to continue His journey. The fainthearted might be tempted to pursue the same ministry, but in a safer location. Jesus was intent upon continuing his ministry, and in keeping His course. He was not going to let anything cause Him to take a detour, so that He could avoid the danger which lay ahead. How much this is like the warning which Paul received in Acts 21, telling Him that persisting on with his course would lead him into bondage. How must alike Paul’s response is to His Lord’s. Neither would let danger keep them from fulfilling their mission.

Jesus made it clear that He knew He would die in Jerusalem. He was not naive of the danger. He was not oblivious to the pain and the persecution which was ahead. He was conscious that this was His calling. Would He urge men to “strive” to enter the door? He was striving to open the door to salvation, by His sacrificial death.

Today, when “playing it safe” seems to be the name of the game, even the smallest danger or threat may be enough to deter us. We conclude that “the Lord has closed the door,” when He may only have purposed for us to walk in His footsteps.

The last two verses of our text are perhaps the most beautiful as well. Here, Jesus expresses His own heart, and the heart of God, toward Jerusalem. Jerusalem was to be the place of His rejection and death. Jerusalem was the center of Jewish pride and rebellion against God. Jerusalem had the reputation for killing the prophets. And yet in spite of all this, Jesus loved that city and its people. How He yearned to embrace its people! How He yearned for their salvation. And yet they had persistently resisted and rejected God’s messengers. And so they would do again. It would not be until His second appearance that Israel would greet Him as their King. Here is the heart of God revealed. While Israel would reject Him, by and large, He would not finally or fully reject them. He rejection and His death was God’s means of restoring His people. His death ultimately meant their salvation.

Conclusion

It should be evident that Jesus’ words, as recorded in our text, were directed toward Israelites. This does not mean, however, that they have no application to us. Let me reiterate some of the lessons which these verses have for contemporary men and women.

First, these verses warn us not to falsely assume that we are in the kingdom of God. Jesus’ audience was Jewish, and they wrongly assumed that they were almost automatically going to be included in the kingdom of God because of their relationship with Abraham and their association with Jesus. They were wrong, dead wrong. No one has ever been saved by virtue of their natural birth. This is why Jesus told Nicodemus, a well‑known Jewish religious teacher, that he must be born again (John 3:3). Neither has anyone ever been saved by an association with Jesus or the Bible, but only by a personal identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. This is why new believers are instructed to be baptized, to publicly identify themselves with Christ. Do not assume that you are going to heaven, my friend. Let Jesus’ words of warning shatter your assumptions and bring you to faith in Him alone. He is God’s King, and He is the only way into the kingdom.

Second, our text warns us of the folly and futility of merely theoretical religion. The man with the question wanted to talk academically and theoretically. He wanted to keep his religion “upper story” (mind alone), as Francis Schaeffer would put it. I find that many of the “touchstone issues” and doctrinal matters over which Christians debate and divide are merely philosophical matters, things which we can spend a lot of energy arguing about, but which have little practical value. For me, the doctrine of limited atonement was one such academic hobby horse. But this doctrine, true or false, has very little pragmatic relevance. It is one of those safe issues, so far as practice is concerned, for we can proudly hold it (one way or the other), fight over it, and yet do nothing with it.

I am learning that the “camels” of the Christian life (to use Jesus’ term) are those things which are clearly stated, emphatically stated, and intensely practical. They have clear biblical commands associated with them. Let’s get out of the realm of the theoretical, and get on with the practical. The world is dying. Men will spend eternity in hell. Jesus is coming again. Let’s get with it. Jesus would not allow this man (or those who stood by listening) to have the luxury of living in the realm of the theoretical. Instead, Jesus told men to diligently strive to enter into eternal life. We love the academics; Jesus calls for action. This is not to advocate thoughtless action, but rather thought that leads to action.

Third, our text strongly suggests to me that we need to beware of evangelism that is too low key. Our Lord’s words in this text are very direct, and they strongly call upon men to act and to act decisively in order to be saved. Jesus is not offensive, nor is He pushy, but He is very direct in informing His listeners that they are not saved, and that they will not make it to heaven apart from decisive, disciplined action. While it is absolutely true that no man can work hard or well enough to earn his salvation, it is also true that the free gift of God will not be gained by those who think the matter unimportant, and who do not pursue that which God freely offers. Let us be on guard against being so low‑keyed in our presentation of the gospel that we negate or minimize the urgency of this matter. Just as the door was about to close for Israel, it will also soon be closing for the Gentiles. Time is short. Salvation is available now, at no cost, to those who diligently seek to enter through the narrow door, Jesus Christ.

Fourth, our text reminds us that there is a constant danger of elitism. I think that this man may well have been typical of the Israelite of his day—thinking of himself as one of the few, rather than as one of the many. There is a “cultist” mentality lurking about in all of us, the kind of mentality which loves to think of ourselves as being among that small group of those who have arrived, and looking down of the rest. It was certainly true of Israel’s spiritual leadership (cf. John 7:49). It is often true of churches and of individual Christians. True Christianity should look upon that large group of unbelievers as in desperate need of salvation, and seeking to add them to our ranks. True Christians should not look upon other Christians in terms of how they fail to know and to practice that truth which we alone seem to possess, but in terms of those vital and fundamental things which we all share in common.

Finally, our text in verses 31‑35 indicts a mindset bent toward fulfillment and painless spirituality. Jesus’ path was one which led to a cross. Jesus would not let either danger or pain deter Him from His calling. We readily turn from pain and danger and death as that which is inconsistent with following Jesus. If the servant is no better than his Master, and if we are His servants, we should expect danger, pain, persecution and a “cross” of our own. Let us toughen up, first in our thinking, and then in our lives. Let us be disciples, and not mere pleasure‑seekers.

Related Texts

Matthew 7:13‑23 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Matthew 19:23‑30 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Mark 10:23‑31 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” 28 Peter said to him, “We have left everything to follow you!” 29 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Luke 3:8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

1 Corinthians 9:24–10:13 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty‑three thousand of them died. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Colossians 1:29 To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured.

1 Timothy 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

2 Timothy 2:1‑13 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor’s crown unless he competes according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this. Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Hebrews 4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

! Lesson 48:
Table Talks
(Luke 14:1‑24)

1 One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2 There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3 Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. 5 Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they had nothing to say.

7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ 19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ 20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ 21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ 22 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ 23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”

Introduction

The meal table is (or at least has been) one of the social centers of the home. Think of some of your warmest memories, and many of them will be associated with meal‑time. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, usually include a festive meal, fellowship, and pleasant memories.

In our text, the entire section is centered about a meal table. A prominent Pharisee asked Jesus to eat at his home. A number of things took place at this table, but none of them were very pleasant. Indeed, I am inclined to think that when most of those seated at this dinner table went home they immediately went to the medicine cabinet and reached for the Rolaids. Of course they did not have medicine cabinets or Rolaids, but if they would have had such things, they would have been used after this meal. All‑in‑all, it was a most unpleasant occasion. It was not a time of friendly conversation and warm hospitality. It was a time of silent sullenness, of treachery, of self‑seeking on the part of those Pharisees who were present. It was a time of rebuke and sober warning from the lips of our Lord. It was not a pleasant meal. The “tension of our text” (as I sometimes speak of it) is here the tension which exists between Jesus and those sitting at table with Him.

The meal took place on the Sabbath. Things started off with a confrontation over the legality of healing a man on the Sabbath (vss 1‑6). The Pharisees silently and sullenly watched as Jesus healed a man of dropsy. They remained silent when Jesus asked them whether or not healing would be possible, and they were even more so when Jesus unveiled their own hypocrisy as to the keeping of the Sabbath.

When the guests jockeyed for position at the table, Jesus spoke to this evil as well (vv. 7‑11). While they believed that “getting ahead” socially required self‑assertion and status‑seeking, Jesus told them that the way to get ahead was to take the place of less honor and status. Status was gained by giving it up. One is exalted by humbling himself, Jesus said.

The Master then went on to direct a word specifically to the host (vv. 12‑14). He had apparently invited all the prominent people to his table on this occasion. Jesus told him that while men might seem to get more in return from inviting their friends, family, and prominent people to a meal, in heaven’s currency men were rewarded by God when they invited those who could not give anything in return—the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

The final words of our Lord in this section would have been the most disturbing to those present at the meal (vv. 15‑24). By this time, I believe that things were so tense you could have cut the atmosphere with a knife. It was exceedingly uncomfortable and to break the silence resulting from Jesus’ last words (and partly in response to His mention of “the resurrection of the righteous,” v. 14), a man called out, “Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (v. 14, NASB). Jesus’ response was even more unnerving. He went on to tell a parable which informed His listeners that while feasting at the banquet of heaven (that is, the kingdom of God) would be a blessing, it was one that they would experience. Indeed, Jesus indicated that the prominent people would turn down the invitation given them and that the guests would be those they would never have anticipated, indeed, that they would never have invited to their own banquets.

I call the title of this message “Table Talks,” but these are not friendly, casual, “fireside talks,” they are stinging words of rebuke to those who have not received Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. They are a shocking statement to those who viewed themselves as those who would be prominent in the kingdom of God that they will not even be present.

These words of our Lord are, once again, directed specifically to Israelites. This does not mean, however, that they have no relevance to us. The misconceptions of these prominent Jews are similar to those current in religious and Christian circles today. And while we may be greatly disappointed and grieved at the failure of certain “Christian” leaders in recent days, this text will remind us that we should not be taken by surprise that leaders often fail, and miserably. Let us look to our text and listen well to the teaching of God’s Spirit as we seek to understand it and have it applied in our lives today.

A Sick Man, A Sabbath
Healing, and a Sullen Silence
(14:1‑6)

1 One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2 There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3 Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. 5 Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they had nothing to say.

It was the Sabbath day, in some unnamed town of Israel. Undoubtedly Jesus had been in the synagogue that day, teaching. The “preacher” was invited to the home of one of the prominent Pharisees for dinner. It is my impression that the atmosphere was hostile and the mood unpleasant from the very beginning. Jesus did not, in my opinion, sour the mealtime conversation by saying something unpopular. Jesus does not seem to be invited for the hospitality of it, but for the hostility of it. I believe that word of Jesus had already come to these Pharisees, and they knew Him to be at odds with them, their beliefs and their practices. His message that day had probably confirmed their suspicions. It seems that He was invited so that some specific charge could be leveled against Him. Luke simply tells us, “they were watching Him closely” (Luke 14:1, NASB).

It appears that the guest list was made up of all the prominent Pharisees, and few others. Perhaps, I should say, just one other person—the man who was afflicted with a strange‑sounding ailment known as “dropsy” (verse 2). He seems hardly to have been there by chance. I think that the inference is clearly that this man was placed here, knowing that his ailment was obvious, and that Jesus’ compassion was so predictable, he would surely not be overlooked by Him.

I can visualize the stiff silence as they all watched Jesus eyes fix on the pathetic sight of this man, suffering from his sickness. Their eyes perhaps met those of their colleagues, knowing that the trap was working. Jesus missed none of this. Before healing the man, He turned to these silent skeptics and asked them whether or not the law permitted healing on the Sabbath (verse 3).[237]

Here was a touchy matter. Their traditions, their teachings, clearly forbade such healing. The Law of Moses, however, did not forbid healing on the Sabbath. Indeed, if the Sabbath was made for man, for his benefit and blessing, how could one refrain from healing on the Sabbath, if he had the ability to do so?

They would not answer the question. And why not? It was not because they had no beliefs or teaching on this issue. Perhaps they would not discuss the matter because they had heard that Jesus could easily show the folly of their position. Surely they did not want to discuss the matter in order to learn from Him, and thus to change their minds. Keeping silent, they thought, would perhaps result in His healing the man, and if they thought this they were right.

The man was unceremoniously healed, and then sent away (verse 4). But why was the man sent away? The meal does not yet seem to have been served (cf. verses 7ff.). He hadn’t eaten yet. Often, those who have been healed by our Lord want to stay with Him, to worship and adore Him. Why is this man not left to do so here? I think that it is because the man was never brought here to eat in the first place, but only as “bait” by which to trap Jesus. Knowing this, Jesus sent the man away immediately. He had played his role and served his function, as least so far as the Pharisees were concerned.

Jesus may have had other reasons for sending him away, however. I believe that this person had been used. His illness must have been very evident, and perhaps even grotesque. Frankly, this man’s infirmity had been “used” by the Pharisees. Jesus graciously healed the man, but He would not leave him there to be humiliated. But how would he be humiliated? Jesus had already drawn attention to the error of the teaching of the Pharisees as it related to healing on the Sabbath. Jesus was now about to show them their hypocrisy in terms of their own practice. I believe that Jesus did not want this man to be among those who were about to be rebuked, and perhaps even shamed for using one who was infirmed, and so He sent him away. This is an act of mercy and grace, just as the healing had been.

With the man gone, Jesus now asked a second question of the Pharisees. The first was a mater of principle; the second was a matter of practice. It would be one thing for Jesus and His critics to differ over principle. It was another when these critics differed in what they professed (and demanded of others) and what they practiced. And so Jesus exposes their hypocrisy (inconsistency) with these words:

“If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”

No matter what these Pharisees taught and demanded of others, they made exceptions for themselves. Let one of their sons, or even one of their oxen fall into a well on the Sabbath and they would “work” to get it out. They would do so immediately, without any hesitation or agonizing reflection. If, then, they would come to the aid of their son or their stock, why should Jesus not be allowed to heal the infirmed? Pharisaical hypocrisy was showing, again. The silence which results is the silence of sullen willfulness. If there was no willingness to discuss the matter, neither is their any intention of acknowledging their hypocrisy. Silence is the passive form of rebellion, but it is rebellion none the less.

Pecking Order and Position:
A Parable and a Paradox
(14:7‑11)

7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

In Israel, the meal table played a very important role, not only in the family, but in society as well. When an Israelite provided a meal for a guest, even a stranger, it assured him not only of the host’s hospitality, but of his protection. Lot, you will recall (Genesis 19), invited the angels of God into his home and provided them with a meal. When the men of Sodom wanted to do these guests harm, Lot offered his daughters to the men to sexually abuse, in an attempt to prevent harm from coming to his guests. This is shocking to us, but it tells us the meaning of a meal.

Also in Israel (as elsewhere), the meal table was closely tied to one’s social standing. “Pecking order” was reflected in the position one held at the table. Places at the table were something like “chairs” in a band—they all have rank. In my high school band, as in virtually all others, there was a “first chair” trumpet position, and then “second chair,” “third chair,” and so forth. We all eagerly sought to win “first chair.” Some believe that at the “last supper” Judas may have been seated in the chair of honor.

The Pharisees who attended this meal (not to mention many others) seemed to think that one’s table position not only reflected one’s position, but may indeed create it. Thus, people jockeyed for position at meal time, so that they could end up in a seat of honor. It was like musical chairs, except there was no music.

Where I grew up, unlimited hydroplane racing was a very popular sport. The Gold Cup races often took place on Lake Washington. How well I can remember boats like Slo Mo IV and Slo Mo V. The boats could cross the starting line at the sound of the starting gun. They were allowed to have a “flying start,” which meant that they would all mill about the lake, a good distance away, and then begin to charge the starting line at about 160 miles per hour. The first boat across the starting line (sometimes their timing was off and they crossed too soon and were disqualified) had the distinct advantage. For one thing, it could leave the rest of the boats not only in its wake, but also under its rooster tail of water, which was made visibility difficult, and sometimes drowned out engines.

I like to think of the meal scene where Jesus was present as something like the jockeying for position that took place in the Gold Cup races. Can you imagine the humorous antics which Jesus must have observed as all the guests tried their own techniques as getting to sit in the best seats? It was nearly time to eat. The guests would soon be seated. Everyone began milling about, just happening to be standing beside a chair of honor. How subtle it was all supposed to be. Jesus saw it all, and spoke to it.

As I have thought more about this incident at the table, it occurred to me to wonder where Jesus ended up sitting. Here He was, Israel’s Messiah, sitting at a table. What a perfect prototype of the kingdom of God. But was Jesus sitting at the seat of highest honor? Was He sitting in the seat of the host? I hardly think so. It would appear that while the others jockeyed for position, Jesus sat back, watching. When He finally arrived at the table, there would only have been one place left—the seat of lowest honor. Here is the King of Israel, sitting, very likely in the place of the lowest person. How tragic, in one sense, and yet how appropriate, given His calling (cf. Philippians 2:4ff.).

Jesus did not deal directly with the position‑seeking, but only responded on the basis of it. Instead, He told a parable. They all knew, of course, what He referred to. He told them that they should avoid seeking the place of honor, for in so doing they actually set themselves up for humiliation. Suppose that a more important person came, after they had seated themselves in that individual’s chair. The host would have to ask them to sit elsewhere, and the only place left would be (thanks to the other self‑seekers) the place of lowest position. How humiliating it would be, in front of all the rest, to be unseated in such fashion! As our kids would put it, this would be a real “put‑down.”

On the other hand, if one were to take the lowest place, then the only way to move would be up. The host might then come to you and move you up higher, in front of all. What a blessing this would be, to be honored publicly before all.

In verse 11, Jesus moved from the parable to a principle which underlies His teaching:

“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Here is a paradox indeed. The way up is down. To try to “work up” is to risk being “put down.” Those who wish to be honored must be humble and seek the lowly place. Those who strive to attain the place of honor will be humiliated. The ways of our Lord and His kingdom are not man’s ways.

Guidelines for the Guest List
(14:12‑14)

12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Our Lord’s words in verses 7‑11 were directed towards the guests, who were jockeying for position at the table. The host, however, had no need of doing this, for his chair was guaranteed. He had the only reserved seat. But there is much evil to be exposed on the part of the host, for those he invites are those who promote his standing. The same spirit is seen in the host, but in a different way, and thus Jesus deals with this, too. He is going to leave no one’s sins unveiled.

It is not just where one sits at the table that gives one status, but also whom one is sitting with at that table. I remember someone saying that status would be to be sitting in the Oval Office with the President of the United States, to have the red phone ring, and for the President to hand it to you, saying, “It’s for you.”

I do not know this as a fact, but it occurred to me as I studied this text that the Jews of that day may not have been introduced to the “potluck dinner.” We all know that a potluck dinner is one that everyone contributes to. It has become a part of our culture, and very often when we invite someone to our table for dinner they ask what they can bring. It would seem that this thought never occurred to the person of Jesus’ day. If people ate “potluck” then there would have been no need to reciprocate, but as it was, when on person invited another to dinner, they provided the entire meal, and the guest would reciprocate by doing likewise. This seems to be the backdrop for what Jesus is saying in our text.

When planning a banquet, the temptation is to invite those who are most likely to do us some good in return. Thus, one thinks first of inviting family members or rich friends, who will reciprocate in kind. We are tempted to give in order to get. Jesus taught that this practice should not only be revised, but reversed. In this world, men invite their friends and the rich, in order to gain from their reciprocal invitations and hospitality. In God’s economy, men are gracious to the helpless and to those who cannot pay them back, so that when the kingdom of God is established on the earth (at the resurrection of the righteous), God may reward them. Thus, Jesus advocated inviting as “guests” at our next banquet the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind (verse 13). Doing so assures us of God’s blessings in heaven.

While the words of our Lord in verses 7‑14 should be seriously taken and applied in a literal way, let us take note of the fact that Jesus was speaking a parable (verse 7, cf. v. 12). The parable and its principle is thus to be much more broadly applied.

Jesus Turns The Tables
(14:15‑24)

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ 19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ 20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ 21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ 22 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ 23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”

The Pharisees were concerned with their position at the table, not only the dinner table of their host, but also the table of the kingdom of God. The disciples had also become infected with this preoccupation with position, as we know from the gospel accounts. Jesus’ words must have caused all of those present at the meal great discomfort. Jesus had effectively exposed and rebuked their sinful ambition. Hearing the mention of the “resurrection of the righteous,” a clear reference to the coming kingdom of God, one man saw a way to defuse the situation, and so he called out, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”

There was one thing greatly wrong with this man’s statement: he spoke from the vantage point of one who would be sitting at that table. This man, like the other Pharisees, assumed that if anyone were to be at this messianic meal, this banquet of the kingdom of God, it would be him. Here they were, jockeying for position in a kingdom which they were not even going to be a participant in.

Jesus speaks a word of warning to this man and those like him with another parable in verses 16‑24. He tells of a certain man who plans a great feast, and who sends out invitations, well in advance, to all those guests He desires to attend. We would conclude that God is the host, that the feast is the kingdom of God, and that the invitation would be the covenant promises of the Old Testament, along with the announcements of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist, the last of these prophets. The invited guests are, we would know, the people of Israel, the Jews.

One would assume that all the invited guests implied by their deeds and words that they were going to be a part of God’s promised kingdom. It is only when the announcement is made that the feast is ready that the invited guests “welch.” They all have their excuses, of course. One man excuses himself to look at land he has just purchased, which apparently he had not inspected before the purchase. Another declines to “try out” his oxen, which he bought untested. A third has to stay at home with his wife, whom he has just married.

These invited guests—Israelites—whom God invited and who appeared to be planning on participation in the kingdom of God, failed to accept the invitation when it actually arrived. They had other, better, more important things, to do. In response, God now offers the blessings of participation in His kingdom to those who would not have been considered acceptable guests, the very ones (the poor, crippled, blind, and lame (verse 21) whom God has told His host to consider inviting to a feast (verse 13). But not just the rejected, lower, classes of Israel are invited, but even those unsuitable people along the by‑ways are compelled to come. God will not take “no” for an answer from them. It is not that they have chosen to be a part of God’s kingdom, but that God has chosen to make them a part of that kingdom. It is God’s sovereign purpose that has prevailed, not some superior wisdom on the part of Gentiles. Thus, there is no basis for pride.

What a word this is for Luke’s Gentile readers, the audience to and for whom he has written. This explains to Gentiles how it is that the blessings of the Jews can be experienced by the Gentiles, and how the majority of the Jews can fail (at this time) to grasp what God is doing or to accept it.

What a word Jesus has given to His Jewish audience! Let those who would strive to get first place in the kingdom be certain that they are even going to be in it.

Conclusion

What a lesson the words of our Lord in this text conveyed to the Jews of that day. They assumed that they had a place at the “table,” that is in the kingdom of God, and their only concern was which place that would be. They were concerned with their position in the kingdom, while it never occurred to them to be concerned with their possession of the kingdom. These Jews were not atheists, nor great “sinners” in any outward way (such as the tax gatherers and the prostitutes were, in the minds of some), they were very religious people, in fact leaders of their religion. They had no doubt about their salvation, but they were wrong. The last section of our passage is a solemn warning to the Jews that they will miss out of that which they presumed they had.

For the Gentile readers of this gospel, they find an explanation of the reason why the Gentiles have been privileged to enter into the blessings which God promised His chosen people, Israel. It is, however, not a flattering text, one which ridicules the Jews for their unbelief and which praises the Gentiles for their greater discernment, as evidenced by their faith in Israel’s Messiah for salvation. The Gentiles are those who are compelled to come, from the highways and byways. They are, as it were, the “bums” along the roadway.

Note, too, the insight which we gain from this passage on the interplay between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Our text attributes the failure of Israelites to enter into the blessings of the kingdom of God to their rejection of the invitation given to them. Luke does not tell us that the Jews were kept from the kingdom by God’s choice (election—which is, you understand, a biblical truth), but by their own choice. On the other hand, the salvation of the Gentiles is not attributed to their choice, but to divine compulsion. The sovereignty of God is thus emphasized with respect to salvation; the responsibility of man with respect to condemnation. Both doctrines are true, though they must be held in tension. Let us keep the perspective and the emphasis which we find in Luke’s account. Luke does not trade of God’s sovereignty for man’s free will, nor vice‑versa. Indeed, he holds both in tension (cf. Acts 2:23).

Let me pause right here for a moment. The reason why the Jews lost out on the kingdom of God was because they rejected God’s clear invitation, in the person of Jesus Christ, the King of Israel. Christ is still the key to man’s salvation, or may I say, more bluntly, your salvation. The only way men go to heaven (get into the kingdom of God—sit at the banquet table, as our text symbolically portrays it) is by receiving Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God’s King, God’s Savior.

In the Gospels, God is declaring to you an invitation to “come to dinner at His house,” as it were, to become a member of His kingdom, to sit as His table forever, forgiven of your sins, righteous in His sight through the work of Christ, and free to enjoy intimate fellowship with Him. If I have failed to make this invitation clear to you elsewhere in my exposition of Luke’s gospel, let me do it now. The “good news” of the gospel (for this is what “gospel” means) is that God wants you to enjoy fellowship with Him, in His kingdom, forever. To accept His Son at His invitation is to obtain the right to enter in. To reject His Son, or even to put off a decision to accept Him, is the cause for being condemned to eternal separation from Him and His kingdom.

A number of years ago, I taught a Bible study in our home. It was a study of the gospel of John. One of the couples that attended came to faith in Christ during the study. When the husband shared his testimony with me, he described his conversion in a way I had not heard before. He said that he could not identify a specific time when he was saved, although he knew it was in the last several weeks. He said that his conversion came “somewhere between chapter 3 and chapter 7 (I confess, I’ve forgotten the specific chapters).

What an interesting way of viewing one’s conversion, and yet a very reasonable one, for the person who has studied through a particular gospel account. The gospel accounts are written to build to a conclusion. They are written to bring us to certain conclusions, foremost among them is the conclusion that we are a sinner and that we can be saved only by trusting in Jesus as the Son of God who died in our place, bearing our penalty. I pray that as you have traveled through the chapters of Luke’s gospel the light has somehow come on, and you now know that you, too, are a child of God, assured of a place at His table.

There is yet another lesson, which is as applicable to men today as it was to the Israelites who listened to these words of Jesus centuries ago. The “external glue” of our text, which gives it a unity, is the dinner table. Everything which is said here is said at or near the dinner table, and about the dinner table. But there is an “internal glue” which should be recognized as well, providing us with an even deeper unity. That “silver thread” is the concept of self‑interest. Think about the ways in which self‑interest can be found at the heart of every sin which our Lord condemns in these verses.

In verses 1‑6, self‑interest is at the heart of the sinful actions and attitudes of the Pharisees. Self‑interest caused the Pharisees to reject Jesus, angry that He spent great amounts of time and energy with “sinners” and the unsuitable people, rather than with them. Self‑interest caused the Pharisees to want Jesus out of the way, lest He overthrow their system, and prevent them from all the “perks” which it afforded them. Self‑interest was undoubtedly the motivation for their asking Jesus to dinner, and for “using” a sick man’s ailment in an effort to entrap Jesus in some technical legal infraction. So, too, it was self‑interest that enabled the hypocritical Pharisees to excuse their acts of labor (pulling their son or ox from the well) on the Sabbath.

It was also self‑interest which motivated each person to seek to sit in the places of honor at the dinner table (verses 7‑11), which very likely left Jesus at the place of lowest honor, in a way fittingly appropriate, given the teaching of Philippians chapter 2 pertaining to the humiliation of Christ, leading to the cross.

Once again, self‑interest is the culprit, a root evil, in verses 12‑14. The reason why we are tempted to invite our friends, relatives, and the affluent, to our feasts, is that they can be counted on to return the favor. Self‑interest will always invite those who can pay us back, reciprocate, rather than to “waste” a meal on someone too poor or unable to return the favor.

Finally, in verses 15‑24, it was self‑interest that caused the Israelites of Jesus’ day to reject Him as Messiah. In the parable which Jesus told (vv. 16‑24), three individuals are said to have accepted (by inference, at least) the invitation to attend the feast, and yet the excuses for not attending were all matter of self (selfish, if you prefer) interest.

It is self‑interest which keeps men from coming to Christ for salvation. Men wish to enter into the kingdom, but do not wish to create any pain, displeasure, or sacrifice for themselves. Thus, self‑interest plays a prominent role in keeping men from Christ and thus from His banquet table, the kingdom of God.

Our culture is perhaps more permeated by self‑interest than any other people at any other time in history. We have a magazine on the rack at the grocery store entitled “Self.” We may laugh at the antics through which the Pharisees went to get the best places at the dinner table, but we also sign up for classes which teach us how to assert ourselves, so that we can be more successful. Nearly every problem which man experiences today is now linked (in some mysterious way) to a poor self‑concept. That which plagues the world is not self‑seeking, but rather the lack of self‑love and self‑assertion. We are truly a self‑oriented society, just as Paul described the culture of those in the last days (2 Timothy 3:1‑5).

But I do not wish to dwell on the self‑orientation of the unbelieving world, as evil as this is. I wish to draw your attention to the way self‑interest has become a primary motivation in the church, and in the lives of countless Christians (myself included). While we may not fight for the chair of honor at the dinner table (only because there is none), we will find Christians lining up for leadership training classes, for positions of prominence and public visibility. At the same time, those tasks which call for menial service, for little recognition or power or prominence seem to go begging those who would faithfully carry out this non‑glamorous ministry. We avoid ministry which has little immediate returns (such as praise, or increased numbers or growth). Ministry to those who are unable to pay us back, even with conscious gratitude, is shunned like the plague. Ministries where people don’t seem to appreciate us and our contribution are quickly left behind, replaced by some ministry which is more “fulfilling.”

I say to you my friend that “self‑interest” literally abounds in the church and in our lives. This is one of the reasons for the strife which the New Testament writers describe (cf. Philippians 2). Paul had to look long and hard to find a man like Timothy, who would be “genuinely concerned for your welfare” (Philippians 2:20). The reason for this is also given by Paul in this same text:

For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:21).

What a sad commentary!

Let us recognize how much self‑interest paralyzes and perverts our ministry, our worship, and our Christian walk. Let us learn from our text that our reward in heaven will be great, and that it comes to those who “give up their life” to gain it, while those who seek to save their lives lose them. May the Spirit of God work through the Word of God to replace self‑seeking with self‑sacrifice, to the glory of God and for our own good as well.

! Lesson 49:
How To Hate Your Wife
(Luke 14:25‑35)

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 “Suppose[238] one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29 For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30 saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.

33 In the same way,[239] any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. 34 “Salt is good,[240] but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Introduction

Some years ago, a special program was commenced in one of the youth groups at the church we attended. The program was called “the company of the committed.” The idea was to identify those core, elite, young people who really were committed to following Christ, and having a special program just (and only) for them. I had a good sound, at first. But I sensed that there was something wrong with it. As I was studying our text in Luke chapter 14 I realized that this passage helps us to see why such a program is suspect.

The problem which arose in that youth group, years ago, is one that is frequently repeated. There are some church and parachurch groups which cater to the “committed” and think that they are doing a commendable work. As we come to our text, it seems on the surface to teach that discipleship is restricted only to the committed, those who are willing to hate father and mother and other family members, those who are willing to give up all of their earthly possessions. Discipleship seems to be something like the Marines—a select group of highly committed people, a few good men and women. I think that the text teaches us something a little different.

As we approach this passage, I want to acknowledge that it is one of the most difficult passages in Luke to put together. It is not easy to see how the various parts of this passage fit together.[241] I am now convinced that our Lord deliberately spoke in a way that would not be immediately or easily comprehended. The final words of the passage, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” are words found elsewhere, which always seem to indicate that a difficult teaching is being given, and that only those who really wish to understand will be able to, after much thought.

The Tension of This Text

Perhaps the most crucial tension of the text is this: Jesus here requires every disciple to hate those whom He elsewhere commands us to love. We are told that to be His disciple one must “hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (v. 26). Elsewhere, however, we are not even given the luxury of hating our enemy, let alone those nearest and dearest to us. How, then, can Jesus command us to hate those whom we love, and those whom we are elsewhere commanded to love?

Jesus’ words are even more perplexing in the light of the very last words of the prophet Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, as we have it. In speaking of the coming of John the Baptist, of the Messiah, and of the Kingdom of God, the prophet concludes his prophecy with these words:

“And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:6, NASB).

If the coming of the Christ was to reunite parents and children, how can Jesus tell His disciples they must hate parents and children?

The key to resolving this tension is to be found in an accurate definition of the term “hate” as it is used here. That we shall do in a moment. We will then consider the remainder of this text and its implications for 20th century disciples. Let us listen well to these difficult, but important, words of our Lord.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text can be summarized in this way:

(1) Verse 25—The Setting

(2) Verses 26‑27—The Demands of Discipleship

(3) Verses 28‑32—The Decision of Discipleship

(4) Verses 33‑35—The Distinctive Nature of Disciples

In verse 25, the setting is described—a large crowd of people are following Jesus. Jesus turned around (v. 25b) and spoke (vv. 26ff.) to them of the demands (vv. 26‑27), decisions (vv. 28‑32), and distinctives (vv. 33‑35) of discipleship.

The Setting
(14:25)

We do not know exactly where Jesus was, but we assume that He was continuing to press on toward Jerusalem (cf. 9:51; 13:22). The Pharisees, who were in focus around the dinner table in the previous section (14:1‑24), are now left behind, and the focus is on a large crowd of people, following our Lord as He traveled. Some think that these folks knew who Jesus was, but did not understand the rigors of discipleship. I am inclined to think of these people as merely curious, caught up by Jesus, His miracles, and His teaching. They hardly realized, in my opinion, that they were following Him.

I can envision Jesus walking along the way from one town to another, encircled by His closest followers, and then, trailing along for a great distance, an animist endless stream of curious people. Jesus literally turned around to address this great multitude. He stopped them in their tracks with His words. Few, I suspect, grasped what He meant by what He said. I am inclined to see the crowd as vaporizing after Jesus finished, perhaps discussing among themselves on their way back home what He meant.

The Demands of Discipleship
(14:26‑28)

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:25‑28).

The words of Jesus are stunning. I can almost see the crowd reel in shock at the demands which Jesus placed on His disciples. The clear inference of Jesus’ words is that one can “go along with Jesus” without even being a true believer (cf. John 6:66). I think it is also implied that one can “come to Jesus” in saving faith, without becoming a disciple, a committed follower (cf. John 2:23‑25). These people were, as yet, only followers, on‑lookers.

If there is any one term that is crucial to our understand of Jesus’ words here it is the term “hate.” What does Jesus mean when He says that one cannot be His disciple without hating? Fortunately, the Bible gives us a very clear definition of this term, beginning in the Old Testament.

In Genesis chapter 29 we find the story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. We know that Leah was Jacob’s first wife, not due to his decision, but to Laban’s deception. Jacob really loved Rachel. In verse 30 we are told that Jacob “loved Rachel more than Leah. “ In verse 31, “the Lord saw that Rachel was unloved.” In verse 33, Leah named her second son Simeon, because, she said, “the Lord has heard that I am unloved.” This last term, “unloved” literally is “hated,” as the marginal note in the NASB indicates. Rachel was loved more than Leah; Leah was unloved; Leah was hated. To be hated, here is to be loved less than another.

In Exodus the same sense of “hate” is found. In chapter 20, God is giving Israel the Law. He begins by commanding Israel to have “not other gods” before Him (Exodus 20:3). In verse 5, however, God said,

“You shall not worship them or serve them [other gods]; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.”

To have other gods, is to love them about God. To have other gods is to hate God.

In Romans 9:13, we read Paul’s citation of Malachi 1:2: “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

We know that God chose Jacob above Esau, that He gave Jacob the preeminence and blessings that normally came to the oldest son. But God did not hate Esau in the way we think of hate. We see God’s compassion on Esau and on his descendants. God hated Esau in the sense that He loved Jacob more.

If we are not yet convinced, then let us listen to the Lord’s words in the parallel gospel account:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER‑IN‑LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER‑IN‑LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:34‑39, NASB).

Here, Matthew’s wording does not speak of “hating” father and mother and other loved ones, but of loving them more than our Lord. Thus, to “hate” in our text means “to love less than.” Jesus is saying that in order to be His disciple men and women must love Christ more than their parents, more than their mate, more than their children, more than their sisters and brothers.

We now know what Jesus meant by the word “hate.” But whom does He command His disciples to hate?

·         They are all people.

·         They are all people whom we would normally, naturally, love.

·         They are all relatives—family.

There does seem to be a deliberate, descending order. Parents are listed first, mate and children second, with siblings last. Initially, I was inclined to think that this was the order of our sense of obligation or duty. I now look at this differently, based upon Jesus’ words in verse 33:

“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus is coming to the conclusion of His instruction here. I believe that this verse sums up, in slightly different words, the demands of discipleship detailed in verses 26‑28. In verse 27 Jesus was talking about one’s family, but in verse 33 (a supposed parallel) He speaks of one’s possessions. Do these two sayings really speak of the same thing? I believe they do. I believe that Jesus is here speaking of one’s family as a part of one’s possessions which he or she must “give up.”

Allow me to explain. Family is often thought of in terms of duty. Family can make many demands on a person, demands that can distract (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:29‑35), demands that can interfere with discipleship. I believe that Jesus dealt the matter of duty to family in chapter 9 (vv. 57‑62). Here, I think that Jesus is speaking of one’s family in terms of his dependence, not his duty.

When I speak of our duty to our family, we speak of the demands which our family makes on us, so that we meet its needs. When I speak of dependence, I refer to the needs which we have, which our family provides for us. Family is thus a two‑way street: it demands certain things from us and promises to provide us with certain things we feel we need. Few people would persist at meeting the demands of his family without the promise of having certain of his needs being met in the process.

When Jesus speaks of one’s family as a possession, it, like all other possessions, does something for us. What is it that family is believed to provide, about which Jesus warns? Think for a moment about all those things which a Jewish family provided for a Jew.

(1) The Jewish family provided status. To be a child of Abraham was to be a cut above all others—a least a cut, but probably more. Being a Jew made one vastly superior to a Gentile. Thus, family gave the Jews status.

(2) The Jewish family was also mistakenly supposed to give one salvation. To the Jew, being a “descendant of Abraham” assured him of having a place in the kingdom of God. This is one of the false conceptions about which John the Baptist warned the Israelites (Luke 3:8). Paul, too, strongly insisted that not all physical descendants of Israel were true Israelites (Romans 9:6). If one’s family could get one to heaven, one would surely have a great sense of dependence upon his family. When an Israelite repented, he was also baptized, indicating a decisive break with all of this mistaken dependence upon his identity as a Jew. Paul, too, shows how his salvation turned his “gold‑plated” family pride to “dung.” There were certain elements of Judaism which Paul retained, but there was no dependence upon Judaism for his standing with God, his salvation (cf. Philippians 3:1‑11).

(3) The Jewish family also offered one security. An Israelite of Jesus’ day did not measure his future security in terms of his insurance policies, or his Social Security, or even his bank account; he measured it in terms of his family (cf. Psalm 127:3‑5).

I believe that when our Lord demands that His disciples must “hate” their family He means that they must give up their dependence upon family, and must depend totally upon Him. To be His disciple is not only to love Him more than anyone or anything else, it is to depend upon Him. Independence of God is at the core of sin, and dependence on Him is at the core of discipleship.

There is another element demand of discipleship, which is found in verses 26 and 27: hating one’s own life and taking up his own cross. I think that these two expressions speak of one reality. When one decides to follow Christ as His disciple, one must surrender any other source of “life” than Him, and one must relinquish all self‑seeking. Becoming a disciple of our Lord means to give up our goals and to pursue His goals. Just as in marriage the woman should find joy in giving up her goals and becoming a helper to her husband in reaching his goal (a not‑so‑popular idea today), so the disciple sets aside all his aspirations for those of the Master. And just as the Master takes up His own cross, so we, too, must take up that cross which God has ordained for us.

Please note that “hating one’s life” is not the same as “hating one’s self.” Self‑love is surely suspect, in spite of pop psychology, but so is self‑hate. The logical outcome of self‑hate is suicide; the logical outcome of hating one’s life is taking up the cross which Christ has for us.

Discipleship as a Decision
(14:28‑32)

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.”

Unlike many preachers of our day, Jesus did not desire a large following. He would rather have men count the cost of discipleship and opt to stay out than to merely go along with Him ignorantly. Jesus’ words here state that discipleship comes at a very high cost, but also imply that the price of discipleship often is collected later. Jesus informs these followers of what that cost will be, lest they commit themselves to a course they will not complete.

Our Lord cites two illustrations of those who commenced a project without counting the cost and determining if they had the needed resources. This first is that of a man who purposes to build a tower, but did not calculate the total cost, and so the tower was never finished. This “unfinished tower” became a monument to this man’s folly. What the man thought would bring his fame, brought him shame.

The second illustration is that of a king, who goes to war against another king, but without calculating whether or not he had the manpower to win. Because he was outnumbered two‑to‑one, he had to humble himself and surrender to his enemy, entirely at his mercy. Again, he was put to shame because he commenced without counting the cost.

In thinking about both of these illustrations, I believe that what they have in common is the key to understanding what our Lord meant to teach us by using them:

(1) Both the builder and the king committed themselves to a course of action without having counted the cost.

(2) Both the builder and the king discovered, after they committed themselves to a course of action, that they did not have the resources to complete what they had started.

(3) Both the builder and the king failed to finish, and ended in humiliation and shame.

(4) In both instances, the builder and the king should have sat down and reflected, rather than acting quickly.

Noting these common characteristics, let us now consider what Jesus meant for His listeners to learn. What was Jesus trying to say, especially to these crowds, who were following along after Him?

First, I believe that Jesus wanted all men to know, in advance, that the price of discipleship was high. Yes, they were all enthusiastic and eager now, but Jerusalem was coming, as was the cross. Jesus did not want men and women following Him without knowing that there was a “cross” for them as well. Jesus wanted men to calculate the cost of following Him as His disciple.

Second, Jesus wanted men to choose to be His disciple purposefully, rather than to unthinkingly follow after Him. If Jesus was not after a large following of uncommitted followers, neither was He pressing them for a quick decision. The very difficulty of His words caused the people to have to go away and ponder what He meant. Furthermore, in His two illustrations, Jesus said that each man should have sat down and considered what he purposed to do. Sitting down implied that some time and much thought should have been devoted to this matter of discipleship. Quick decisions are only for those who want unthinking commitment; slow, deliberate decisions are for those who want long‑term commitments.

Third, Jesus not looking for those who had the resources to follow Him, but for those who, after thinking about it, knew they did not. For me, this is one of the most important conclusions I have reached from my study of this text. At first, I thought that Jesus was, like the Marines, “looking for a few good men,” those few who would count the cost, and who found in themselves sufficient commitment and resources to follow‑through in their commitment to the end.

But then I realized that none of the disciples of our Lord followed through. When the “going got tough,” so to speak, the disciples “got lost.” They all forsook Jesus, even Peter, who assured Jesus that he was committed, that he would never forsake Him (cf. Luke 22:31‑34). If Peter, James, and John, the three closest followers of Christ, could not follow through, why would we dare to think that we would?

It also occurred to me that in both of the illustrations which our Lord used, both of the men failed to follow through. Neither had the means to finish what they had started. Do we think that we have the means to be His disciples? Do we think that our level of commitment is sufficient to sustain us when family and friends forsake us, as the Bible says they will?

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER‑IN‑LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER‑IN‑LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:34‑39, NASB).

I maintain that no one has the resources in and of himself to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, any more than he or she has the resources to earn God’s favor and eternal life. This is precisely why Jesus began by teaching that in order to be His disciple one would have to “hate” his family, to renounce his dependence upon family, so as to depend fully upon Christ alone. Our Lord is not trying to get these followers to muster up enough commitment to become His disciples, but to reckon with the reality that no one has the resources to follow Him, apart from His enablement. Discipleship, then, is not following Christ with sufficient means to do what He commands, but with utter dependence upon Him to enable us to do His will. Both the willing and the doing come from Him, and not from us. The whole concept of the “company of the committed” collapses, simply because no one is that capable or that committed. The key element of discipleship is not obedience, for we are incapable of that in and of ourselves, but dependence, for without Him, we can do nothing.

Christ’s Conclusion
(14:33‑35)

“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Verse 33 really makes sense, when approached in the light of this view of discipleship, which we have just outlined. Discipleship is not a matter of how much we have to offer, but of renouncing all that we think we have to offer. The cults all seek disciples, but they usually do not encourage their “disciples” to “give up” all their possessions, but to “give them away,” namely, to give their possessions to the leader. In this way, the disciples of a cult sustain their leader. The cult leader does not sustain them. Jesus wants it the other way. To be His disciple you do not bring anything to Him, to prove your commitment and worthiness, you leave all behind, trusting only on Him and on His faithful provision of all that we need to do what He calls us to do. This is true discipleship. Discipleship, like salvation, begins by recognizing the high price required, and that we are unable to meet it, and thus coming to Christ empty‑handed, looking to Him to do what we cannot.

Verses 34 and 35 conclude this passage. They explain for us why Jesus discouraged a large following. The key to the impact of His disciples is not their large number, but their distinctiveness. Very little salt is required to season a large quantity of food because salt has a very distinct flavor. When salt loses its distinctness, it loses its value. Great quantities of salt do not make up for its loss of saltiness.

So, too, great numbers of disciples do not guarantee great impact. It is not the sheer number of disciples that matters, but it is their distinctness, their utter differentness from the world. The world will take little note of a large group of people who think, feel, and act like them. The world will take note of a very few “disciples” who are Christ‑like, whose lives are distinctive.

This is, I believe, our Lord’s view of discipleship, but I fear that it is not the thinking of many Christians, or even of Christian leaders. I fear that the reason is due to the fact that we view discipleship through the “political model,” rather than the “prophetic model.” The political model holds that given enough votes, anyone can be elected and any law can be passed. The political model finds its power at the polls, and thus numbers are the major consideration. In the prophetic model, it matters not that only one prophet speaks. What matters is that this one prophet is right, and that he speaks for God. The Joseph’s, the Daniel’s, the Nathan’s were not effective because they were great in number (Prophets were a lonely bunch —no wonder Elijah thought he alone was left!), but because God empowered them and spoke through them.

When we recognize that power and impact does not come through the number of disciples, but through their dependence upon God and their distinctive lifestyles, then we understand why Jesus did not seek a large following.

The final verse, “Let him who has ears, …” is one that is found several times in the gospels. It always is used in a context where our Lord’s words are not going to be understood by the majority, and where Jesus encouraged His listeners to ponder His words carefully to learn their meaning. Let these last words have their full impact on us as well, then, for not all will grasp what Jesus is saying, especially apart from serious meditation on this text.

! Lesson 50:
Lost and Found
(Luke 15:1‑32)

Introduction

I have always had a special joy in finding lost things. One of my best “finds” was a C4 automatic transmission, laying right in the middle of the road. I was on my way to the office when I encountered it. I stopped in the middle of the street, picked up this transmission, and put it in the back of my station wagon. After checking with all the nearby mechanics and turning it in to the police for the required time, I claimed it as my own. I did not call all of my friends or celebrate with a banquet, but this find was a source of enjoyment to me.

We all rejoice in finding lost things. The most dramatic example of this in recent times was the rejoicing of the nation as Jessica McClure emerged from a well shaft, where she had been “lost” for several days. Great sums of money and many hours of time were expended in trying to recover this lost child. Great was the celebration which followed her recovery.

Our text is Luke’s account of three parables, each of which describes the finding of a lost item, and each of which describes the joy and celebration which resulted. At first I thought that all three “finds” were of the same kind, but after study, discussion with others, and reflection, I have concluded that the third “find” is very different from the first two. I hope to share this in a moment, along with its implications.

As you well know, the story of the prodigal son is one of the most familiar stories in the Bible. This presents us with one of the greatest hindrances to our study, interpretation, and application of this text. To a great degree, our understanding of this text is filtered through our own experience. Parents who have or are presently struggling with wayward children will tend to identify with the father of the prodigal, and look at this text for guidance and comfort for them in the midst of their pain and adversity. Those who have fallen into sin will focus upon the wayward son and on the loving and forgiving heart of the father. Few of us will choose to identify with the older brother, and yet, in the context of chapter 15, he is the central figure, his sin is most in view, and his reaction to his brother’s repentance and return is our Lord’s explanation for the grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes.

Let us attempt to set aside the previous interpretations of this parable, as well as our own predispositions and needs, and seek to study this text in the light of its context. Let us seek to find out where the older brother was wrong, and to learn how his attitudes and actions characterize and condemn sin in our lives. Let us seek the illumination of God’s Spirit as we approach this very important passage of God’s Word, so that we may learn what our Lord wanted His audience to understand.

The Structure of the Text

I have chosen to deal with the entire 15th chapter in this lesson, rather than to break it up, as I often do. The reason is that the full impact of the third parable (that of the prodigal son) is best grasped in the light of the setting (vv. 1‑2) and the first two parables (vv. 3‑7, 8‑10). The structure of the entire chapter can be summarized as follows:

(1) The Pharisees’ Response To Jesus’ Association with Sinners—Verses 1 & 2

·         The Situation: All the tax‑gatherers & sinners coming to hear Jesus

·         The Complaint: Jesus welcomes sinners and even eats with them

(2) Man’s Response to the Lost, Compared with Heaven’s—Verses 3‑10

·         The Parable of the Lost Sheep—vv. 3‑7

·         The Parable of the Lost Coin —‑ vv. 8‑10

(3) The Older Brother’s Response to the Return of His Sinful Brother—vv. 11‑32

The Setting
(15:1‑2)

Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear[242] him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man[243] welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

Even after our Lord’s strong words about the cost of discipleship (if chapter 15 follows chronologically after the end of chapter 14), and the exhortation for those who had ears to hear, there are many coming to Jesus to hear what He was teaching (v. 1). It was a different matter with the Pharisees and scribes. They were grumbling. Specifically, they were grumbling about the fact that Jesus “received sinners[244] and ate with them” (v. 2). Why should this be such an offense to the Pharisees and the scribes? What did it matter to them if Jesus chose to associate with sinners?

From early in the book of Luke, the Pharisees chaffed over Jesus’ association with sinners, and the mood of joy and celebration which dominated the scene of His eating together with them (Luke 5:29ff.). The Pharisees found no joy in repentance of sinners at all. What did give them joy? And what was it that caused them such pain to have Jesus associating with sinners and enjoying them? I believe that the fullest explanation of this is to be found in Matthew’s gospel, in the 23rd chapter. In this chapter, Jesus stripped away all of the facade of self‑righteousness and spirituality which surrounded the Pharisees. He sternly rebuked them, thus precipitating His own execution. What was it in Matthew 23 which characterized the Pharisees and scribes, and which helps us to understand their agony at seeing sinners flock to Jesus? Let me summarize several pertinent characteristics of the Pharisees, as our Lord exposed them:

(1) The Pharisees loved the place of honor at banquets (Matthew 23:5). They loved attention. They found banquets to be occasions where they could attract attention to themselves, where they could be in the limelight. No wonder the Pharisees were distressed about the “banquets” Jesus attended. He was in the place of honor, not them. And in addition to this, the tables were not occupied by people of prominence, people who would enhance the image of the Pharisees (especially if the Pharisee sat in a position of higher honor, cf. Luke 14:7‑11). Jesus was, in the minds of the Pharisees, upstaging them.

(2) The Pharisees loved to restrict the “saved” to a select few, the elite of Judaism (Matthew 23:13). The Jews, as a group, felt superior to the Gentiles, but the Pharisees felt superior to other Jews (John 7:45‑49). They wanted to keep the “saved” to a very small number, and to keep the undesirable element out. Jesus, by association with the masses, the “hoi polloi,” threatened to pollute this pure group of pious people.

(3) The Pharisees loved to focus on the technicalities (Matthew 23:16‑24). The Pharisees set themselves up as the elite, based (to some degree) upon their expertise in very complex rules and regulations. Jesus condemned this in Matthew’s account. We know from the recorded teaching of Jesus, along with the fact that His teaching attracted the common people, that His teaching was simple (e.g. parables), and was not complex and complicated, so as to leave the masses in a fog. When Jesus taught simply, He threatened to undermine the complicated, technical teaching of the Pharisees, and thus they opposed people pursuing Him to hear His teaching.

Let me illustrate this, to be sure that my understanding of this issue is clear. The IRS has done it again. They have given us a new set of rules for figuring our income taxes. Anyone who has tried to read the instructions knows how complicated it can get. No wonder people are flocking to their accountants or those who professionally prepare tax forms. Suppose that someone were to come along with a one‑paragraph explanation of all the rules (impossible as it seems), easily understood and applied by the masses. How many people do you think would go to the professionals? Now you see why the masses went to Jesus. He could make the truth simple; the Pharisees made it mind‑bogglingly complex.

(4) The Pharisees sought to protect and promote their own hypocrisy by concentrating on external “sins,” rather than inner attitudes and motivations (Matthew 23:13‑14, 25‑36). The Pharisees looked at sin as an external thing, rather than a matter of the heart. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasized the internal aspects of sin (cf. Matthew 5‑7). To associate with those whose outward lives were sinful was to challenge the entire system of spirituality which the Pharisees had developed, and that was to avoid outward, socially unacceptable, sin, and those who did such evils. Therefore they could not passively accept the opposing view of spirituality of our Lord, which enabled Him to have contact with sinners, and yet not be defiled by it.

Jesus knew why the Pharisees and scribes were grumbling. The three parables which He spoke in response, were directed toward the Pharisees and scribes (cf. vv. 2‑3). The first two parables reveal that the Pharisees, in some cases, had great compassion on certain “lost” items, and they also greatly rejoiced when they found them. The third parable, the parable of the prodigal son, reveals the attitudes of the Pharisees which caused them to resent the salvation of sinners, rather than to rejoice in it.

The Lost Sheep
(15:3‑7)

Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety‑nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety‑nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Jesus began by directing His critics’ attention to their own attitudes and actions as it related to a lost sheep. Which one of them, if they owned 100 sheep, would not leave the 99 to search for but one lost sheep? After a diligent search, would they not rejoice greatly at finding the one lost sheep? Would they not tenderly put the sheep on their shoulders, lovingly carrying it back to the fold, rather than “kicking it back,” scolding it all the way? And would they not then let their friends know of their success and have them over to celebrate the finding of the one lost sheep?

The assumption is that every one of the Pharisees would have responded to the loss and finding of one sheep just as Jesus suggested. In a similar way, Jesus added, all of heaven rejoices over the repentance of one lost sinner. Heaven, too, rejoices more at the repentance of one lost sinner, more than over the 99 “righteous” who seemingly did not need to repent.[245]

When you think about it, the parable of the lost sheep presents us with some haunting questions. Would it be wise, even profitable, for a man to put 99 sheep at risk, leaving them unprotected in an open field, to search for one lost lamb? That one lamb may well have been killed, or it might never be found. And would finding this one sheep be such an occasion of joy that one would want to celebrate with all his friends. Stop and think about the expense of having a celebration banquet, to celebrate the finding of one sheep. The celebration will undoubtedly be a banquet feast, with lots of meat served. Let’s say, then, that five sheep and perhaps a couple of goats are slaughtered, not to mention the cost of the other food. One might have to sell off or kill five sheep to celebrate the finding of one. That is not good economics. It is a very sentimental story, but once the reality of it sets in it just doesn’t seem to square with real life. Let’s put this question in hold, momentarily.

The Lost Coin
(15:8‑10)

“Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Just as the sheep rancher would be touched by the loss of but one sheep, the loss of part of the family finances would deeply touch the woman of the house. It would seem that the loss of that one coin was equal to one day’s wages. The woman would “turn the house upside‑down” to find that one lost coin. She would light a lamp to illuminate her search, and then she would sweep and clean until she found it. We get the impression that she would not stop until the lost coin were found.

When the coin is found, she, like the sheep rancher, would rejoice greatly at finding it. She, too, would call her friends and neighbors, so that they could rejoice with her. Once again, it is assumed by our Lord that all of His audience would be nodding their heads in agreement. They would search for the lost coin, just as they would rejoice in finding it.

Once again, heaven’s joy at the repentance of one sinner is like this (note, “in the same way,” v. 10, for the second time). The angels, as Peter and Paul both inform us (1 Peter 1:12; 1 Corinthians 11:10), are most interested in what is going on here on earth. They know that it is the plan and purpose of God to save men, on the basis of the shed blood of the Son of God. It is as though the angels were leaning over the rail of heaven, straining to see just one saint come to repentance and faith. Great effort is expended in reaching the lost and when the sinner repents, the angels rejoice in seeing God’s purposes fulfilled.

Heaven’s joy at the salvation is surely appropriate, and, in one sense, it is like the joy of the woman who found her one lost coin. But is the woman’s effort justified? Would she not have found the lost coin eventually? Should she be so happy at finding this coin? Is it such a momentous thing that she should be bothering to call all of her friends to share this with them? Once again, the search and the rejoicing seems to be overdone, when it comes to the sheep and the silver (coin).

Observations Concerning the First Two Parables

It is my contention that the first two parables are a pair, emphasizing the same truth. The second parable begins with the expression, “Or suppose,” indicating that the second parable is like unto the first. The third parable is to be seen as distinct, focusing attention on a different area. Note with me the following characteristics of the first two parables, which is a key to our understanding what Jesus meant to be understood by them, as well as the basis upon which the third parable can be interpreted.

(1) In both parables, sinfulness is not stressed (in going astray, getting lost), but lostness.

(2) In both parables, the owner takes the initiative, seeking the lost.

(3) In both cases, the owner seeks diligently and persistently.

(4) In both cases, the owner rejoices and invites and expects his neighbors to do likewise.

(5) In both cases, the rejoicing of the one who has found the lost item is likened to the rejoicing of heaven to the salvation of one sinner.

(6) In both cases, it is not men who are lost, but things, and it is man (generically speaking, for there is both a man and a woman) that seeks diligently to find what is lost.

(7) In both cases, I believe, the parable is not primarily intended as a picture of God’s seeking after lost men, but of men seeking after lost things.

This last observation is the most crucial one for us. Earlier, it was my understanding that the first two parables described God’s heart for the lost. This cannot be the case, for several reasons. First, Jesus begins the first parable with the words, “Which one of you, if … ” Jesus was not describing God’s response to that which is lost, but their own. The Pharisees could easily agree that if they lost one sheep or one coin, they would diligently seek to find it, and they would greatly rejoice in finding it. Second, the over‑zealous attitude of the Pharisees toward finding that which was lost or the extreme joy at finding it is explained. Should one abandon the 99 sheep, leaving them vulnerable to getting lost or to attack by wild animals? Is it not abnormal to notify all of one’s neighbors as to the finding of but one sheep, and to expect them to celebrate this with him? This over‑zealousness is not characteristic of God, but it is believable in men. Third, the joyful response of heaven is likened to that of heaven, but in a way that suggests similarities and contrasts to the actions and attitudes of the Pharisees in seeking that which was lost. Fourth, the first two parables speak of men’s zeal in searching for and finding lost possessions, not lost people. The Pharisees were “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14), and it is therefore not hard to see how they would leave 99 sheep to seek one lost sheep, or to turn the house upside‑down to find one lost coin. A materialist would easily identify with the mental torment of losing even one out of 100 sheep or one out of 10 coins. A materialist can’t stand to lose anything, and he (or she) would rejoice in finding what was lost.

The Pharisees were like Jesus in that they did have compassion, as can be seen in the tenderness of the shepherd toward the lost sheep, which he placed over his shoulders. The Pharisees cared very much for that which was lost, and they rejoiced greatly concerning the recovery of what was lost. The critical difference between Jesus and the Pharisees is that they cared about possessions, while Jesus cared about people. The Pharisees were hypocrites. They grumbled that Jesus could gladly receive back repentant sinners and rejoice in their salvation, yet they would diligently search for lost possessions and celebrate when they found them. The first two parables, then, expose the misplaced compassion of the Pharisees. They also contrast the “love for that which was lost” in the Pharisees with that of the Lord Jesus.

The Pharisees were “out of sync” with heaven. Why were they unwilling to seek to save sinners and unable to rejoice at their repentance? Why were they unwilling to associate with them? This is what the third parable will tell us. The third parable depicts the loving and forgiving heart of God (in the father), the repentance of the sinner (in the younger brother), and the sullen joylessness of the Pharisees (in the older brother).

The Tale of Two Sons
(Better Known as the Parable of the Prodigal Son)
(15:11‑32)

Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

I am now convinced of one thing: the parable of the prodigal son is not recorded in Scripture primarily as instruction to parents of wayward children. I understand this parable in its context as Jesus response to the grumbling of the Pharisees and scribes because of Jesus’ acceptance of and rejoicing with repentant sinners. If the first two parables reveal to us that the Pharisees did care (too) much about “lost possessions,” this parable exposes why they are not concerned about lost people. In Luke 15, this parable serves as the Lord’s final, forceful response to the grumbling of the Pharisees at His response to sinners.

There are really three persons in focus in this parable, not just one: the younger brother, the father, and the older brother. In order to understand and interpret this parable accurately, I will focus our attention briefly on each of these three characters. I will also forewarn you that I will not be as sentimental in my interpretation of this parable as some have tended (wrongly, in my opinion) to be. For us, this story may seem to be a very heart‑warming incident, only slightly tarnished by the sulking older brother. For the Pharisees, this was a humiliating exposure of their sin and their hypocrisy. It did not produce “warm, fuzzy feelings,” at least not for those Pharisees who understood what Jesus was saying to them. Let us concentrate, then, on each of the three central characters of this parable.

The Younger Brother

The younger of two brothers one day approached his father with the request that he allocate to him his share of the inheritance earlier than would be customary, although not altogether out of the question:

“A man might leave his goods to his heirs by last will and testament (cf. Heb. 9:16f.), in which case he was bound by the provisions of the Law. This meant that the first‑born received two thirds of the whole (Dt. 21:17). But he could make gifts before he died and this gave him a freer hand (SB). The rules for disposing of property are given in the Mishnah (Baba Bathra 8). If a man decided to make gifts, he normally gave the capital but retained the income. He could then no longer dispose of the capital, only of his interest in the income. But the recipient could get nothing until the death of the giver. He could sell the capital if he chose, but the buyer could not gain possession until the death of the donor.”[246]

The father granted the son’s request, and shortly thereafter the son left his father, his family, his country, and departed to a distant country, where he squandered his possessions in a sinful lifestyle. The money eventually ran out, and at the same time, a famine fell upon that part of the world, bringing this young man to desperate straits.

The young man was forced to hire himself out as a slave, and his job was the unpleasant task of caring for swine. Even the pigs, it would seem, were better cared for than he. It was in this state of want that the young man came to his senses. He recognized that he could live better as a slave of his father than as a slave in this foreign land. He knew that this would necessitate facing his father, and so he rehearsed his repentance speech, one that he was never allowed to finish.

The young man realized his folly and he returned to face his father. He had hoped only to be received as a slave; his father received him as a son. He had hoped, at best, for a little bread; his father provided a banquet. The young man did not gain all the material possessions he had lost, but he did regain the joy and privileges of his status as a son.

Let me emphasize two aspects of this story which relate to the younger brother. First, there is no attempt to minimize the seriousness or the foolishness of the sins of the younger son. Jesus did receive sinners and eat with them, but He never minimized sin. The seriousness of the young brother’s sins can only be understood in the light of his identity (I am assuming) as an Israelite. As an Israelite, this young man would understand several things about the blessings which God promised His chosen people. God was going to bless His people in the land. The young man left the land and went to a distant one. God was going to bless His people for obeying His law. This included the necessity of living a life that was very distinct (holy) from that of the heathen. This young man went and lived among the heathen as a heathen. Then Old Testament had very specific legislating to assure that the inheritance of each family was kept within the family, and that the children cared for their parents. This young man deserted his family, permanently lost his portion of the inheritance, and left his father in a potentially precarious position (he had just lost 1/3 of his father’s resources, and had lost his ability to look after him). For an Israelite, nothing could be lower than to be the slave of a heathen, and to have as one’s job the care of swine.[247] This younger son, I say, acted in a very wicked and foolish way. I can envision Jesus’ audience sucking in their breath in shock and horror at what this man had done. I can see the Pharisees becoming bug‑eyed and red‑faced with anger at this man’s sin. Jesus did not attempt to minimize this younger son’s sin.

If the younger son’s sins were great, so was his repentance. Second, let us look at the characteristics of the younger brother’s repentance. The younger brother’s repentance was required by his sin, he very great sin, as we have just emphasized. The process of repentance began, I believe, when the younger brother began to suffer the painful consequences of his sin. It was only when he ran out of money and friends, and when he began to suffer hunger pangs that the young man “came to his senses.” Repentance begins, then, with seeing things straight, with seeing things as they really are. Repentance begins by seeing one’s actions as sinful, first in the sight of God, and then in the sight of men. Thus, the words of the son to his father, “I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight” (v. 18, NASB). The son’s repentance then led him to his father, whom he had offended, and to whom he acknowledged his guilt and sorrow. The son’s repentant spirit is reflected in his deep sense of unworthiness. He does not speak of or claim any rights. He hopes only for mercy. There are no demands. The son’s repentance touched the heart of his loving father, and paved the way for his restoration and rejoicing.

The Father

While the sheep‑owner and the housewife accurately depicted the concern of the Pharisees for their possessions, it is the loving father of this parable who depicts the heart of the loving Heavenly Father, who longs for the return of the sinner, who willingly grants forgiveness, and who rejoices in the return of the wayward. This father gave the son what he had asked for. He allowed the son to go his own way, even when he could have prevented it (at least he could have refused to finance the venture). The heart of that father never forgot the wayward son. It was no accident that the father saw the son coming “from a long way off” (v. 20). The father ran to meet the son. He did not force the son to grovel. He did not even allow the son to finish his confession.[248] The father quickly restored the son to his position as a son.[249] The father commanded that there be a celebration. And when the older brother refused to participate, the father sought him out and appealed to him to join in the celebration, which he saw not only as permissible, but as necessary.[250] The father was as gracious to the older brother as he was to the younger. How great the love of this father. How much like the Heavenly Father he is.

The Older Brother

The older brother we know to be the one in the parable who represents the Pharisees and scribes, who grumble at Jesus’ reception of sinners. Notice that the older brother is out in the fields working when the younger brother returns. The father, on the other hand, is apparently waiting and watching for the younger son’s return. He does not know of the younger brother’s return until his attention is aroused by the sounds of celebration coming from the house. He learns from a servant that his brother has returned, that the father has received him, and that a celebration has been called. The mention of the killing of the fatted calf is the “final straw” for the older brother. He became very angry and refused to go in to celebrate with the rest, even though this celebration was called for by the father.

When the father came out to his older son, to appeal to him to join in on the celebration, the older son refused. The words of the older son are the key to understanding his desires and attitudes. Give attention to those things which this son mentioned to his father, which are the basis of his actions, his anger, and his protest:

(1) I have worked hard, but you gave me no banquet. The older brother was at work in the field when his younger brother returned home. It would seem that this older brother thought that the basis for obtaining his father’s favor was his works. The father’s answer suggests the opposite. As a son, the older brother possessed all that his father had. He did not need to work to win his father’s approval or blessing, he need only be a son. This emphasis on works is the error of the Pharisees as well. The were “hard at work” with respect to keeping the law, as they interpreted it, supposing that this was what would win God’s approval and blessing.

(2) You have given your other son a banquet, when all he did was to sin. This is, of course, the flip side of the first protest. The older brother expected to be rewarded on the basis of his works, and he would likewise have expected his younger brother to have been disowned due to his works (sins). It was not the younger brother’s sins which resulted in the father’s celebration, but in his repentance and return. The older brother not only failed to comprehend grace, but he resented it. There are many similarities between the prophet Jonah in the Old Testament and this older brother.

(3) I have never neglected a command of yours. Not only does this son think that his works should have merited his father’s blessings, he also is so arrogant as to assume that he has never sinned. How could he say that he had never neglected a command of his father when, moments before, his father had commanded that there be a celebration, and the older brother had refused to take part? Is this not disobedience? The Pharisees, too, thought of themselves as having perfectly kept God’s commandments.

The problem of the older brother, then, is self‑righteousness. His self‑righteousness is such that he expects, even demands God’s approval and blessings. His self‑righteousness is so strong that he resents the grace of God and refuses to rejoice in it. The older brother failed to see that he was a sinner, and he also failed to understand that God has provided salvation for all sinners who truly repent. What the older brother did not think he needed (repentance and salvation) he resisted and resented in others, and thus he could not, he would not share in the celebration.

The father’s words to this son are significant. He reminded this older brother of the blessings which he had in staying home. He had, during those years when the younger son only had the fellowship of pagans and pigs, the fellowship of his father. The father said, “My child, you have always been with me… ” (v. 32a). This, for the older brother, was not enough, for he would have preferred to have been with his friends (v. 29). The father’s second statement was to remind the older son that he possessed all that was his: “… and all that is mine is yours” (v. 31b). This, too, did not seem enough to this older son.

The Differences Between the Two Sons

How different these two sons were, in some ways:

(1) The younger son left home; the older stayed home.

(2) The younger son was prodigal (wasteful); the older son was productive (a worker).

(3) The younger lost his inheritance; the older did not.

(4) The younger did not any longer feel worthy of his father’s blessings; the older did.

(5) The younger realized his sins; the felt righteous.

(6) The younger repented; the older resented.

Similarities in the Sons

I have always thought of these two sons in terms of their differences. It was only in my study for this message that I came to realize the many similarities in the two. Consider the similarities in these two sons with me for a moment.

(1) Both sons wanted a celebration—a banquet. The younger brother “partied” with the pagans in a foreign land. The older son protested to his father that he had not been given a party.

(2) Both sons wanted to celebrate WITHOUT THEIR FATHER. The younger brother partied in a foreign land, with the wrong kinds of friends. The older brother refused to celebrate with his father (and younger brother), but he indicated a strong desire to have been allowed to have a banquet WITH HIS FRIENDS.

(3) Both sons seemed to feel that joy and celebration were not possible with their father. The younger brother left his father, his family, and even his nation to have a good time. Joy, to this fellow, was not possible in the confining environment of his faith and his family. The younger brother, too, seemed to feel that joy was not possible with his father, and thus he wanted to celebrate with his friends, not his father. Slaving seemed to be the principle governing him in his relationship with his father, not celebrating. I understand the “fatted calf” to have been the symbol of celebration. The father’s words to his older son seem to say, “The fatted calf (celebration and joy) were yours to enjoy at any time.” The older brother did not think so. Neither did the Pharisees, for their early protest to Jesus had to do with His celebrating (cf. Luke 5:27ff.).

(4) Neither son seems to have really appreciated or loved their father, even though he loved both of them. The younger son did not enjoy his father, so he left him. The older brother did not leave him, but did not enjoy him either. In response to the father’s words to the oldest son, “My child, you have always been with me,” the older son’s response, though unstated, seems to have been, “So what?” or, “Big deal!.”

(5) Both sons were slaves. The younger son was first of all enslaved by his passions (sins), and also by a foreign employer. He returned to his father, hoping only to be received as a slave, but not dreaming that he could be a son again. The older brother was really a slave, too. Listen to his words to his father,

“But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders’” (Luke 15:29).

Because this brother thought he had to work for his father’s approval and blessings, he was no less a slave than his younger brother.

(6) Both sons were materialists. The younger son loved material things—money—more than his father or than his family, because he asked for his portion at the expense and risk of his family. The younger wanted his inheritance to spend on himself. The older brother, too was a materialist. His anger toward his brother and his unwillingness to receive him back was due to the fact that he had squandered part of his father’s possessions. If the younger brother wanted money to spend, the old brother wanted it to save, and thus (it would seem) to make him feel secure. Both sons loved money; they only differed in what they wanted to do with it, and when.

(7) Both sons were sinners. The Lord had left unchallenged, at the beginning of this chapter, the assumption on the part of the Pharisees that while others might be “sinners,” they themselves were righteous. But this final parable proves this assumption to be entirely false. The sins of these two sons were very different in their outward manifestations, but inwardly they had the same roots.

You see, we tend to appraise sin (and “sinners”) by merely external standards and criteria. Jesus always looked at the heart. We quickly grant that stealing, murder, rape, and violence are wrong, especially when they are perpetrated on us. But Jesus goes on to show us in the gospels that prayer, giving, preaching, or showing charity can be sinful, when the motive of the heart is wrong. We would look at the compliant, hard‑working older brother and commend him. There is no outward rebellion here. No, there is not, at least not until the celebration. But the inward attitudes and motivations of this older brother as just as evil, indeed, they are more evil, for there is much self‑righteousness concealed behind his outward conformity to his father’s will and to his hard work.

Conclusions

The message which these three parables brought home to the Pharisees and scribes is painfully clear: they had too much compassion on their own lost possessions, but they cared little for lost people. This is why they could not rejoice at the repentance of lost sinners. But there is even more than this. It isn’t that the Pharisees and scribes found it impossible to rejoice; they actively resisted—they grumbled. The bottom line was that the Pharisees wrongly believed that it was good works which merited God’s favor, rather than His grace manifested toward sinners. The older brother was angry with the father because he felt he did not get what he deserved (a banquet), while the younger brother got what he didn’t deserve (a banquet). The older brother’s works didn’t work, but the younger brother’s repentance did. That is the way God’s grace works—it is bestowed on unworthy people, sinners, who do not trust in their good works, but in God’s grace.

This explains the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus. He came to bring salvation to sinners, by grace, through faith, and not of works:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, begin justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:21‑24).

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (Ephesians 2:8‑9).

The problem of the Pharisees was that they were too good for their own good. They viewed others as “sinners,” but not themselves. They believed that they, by keeping the law, could earn God’s favor, and that unworthy sinners would be condemned to hell. They failed to see themselves as unworthy sinners (like the prodigal did), and thus they not only rejected God’s grace, they disdained it.

My friend, it matters little whether you are a socially acceptable sinner—like the Pharisees—or a socially unacceptable sinner—like the prodigal. In either case, you are worthy only of God’s condemnation. What matters is that you know you are a sinner, that you are unworthy of God’s favor, and that Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary is God’s gracious gift to you. All you must do is to repent—to admit your sin, and to receive God’s gift of eternal salvation.

There are many lessons here for Christians (saved sinners), as well as those who are, as yet, unrepentant sinners. Joy is to be one of the characteristics of the Christian. Joy is rooted in God’s grace. We can rejoice in our own salvation, and thus we can also share in the joy of others who come to repentance as well. It seems to me that many Christians are “sad sacks,” devoid of joy, because they have lost sight of their own salvation by grace, and they are not involved in leading others to it. The apostle Paul was motivated by joy, even in the midst of great suffering, danger, and tribulation (cf. all of Philippians). Paul found great joy in the salvation and growth of others:

For who is our hope or joy or drown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? For you are our glory and joy (1 Thessalonians 2:19‑20).

I fear the we often fail to experience the joy which God has for us because we are not participating in the grace of God as it is at work in the lives of others, as well as in us.

I am reminded as well by our text that our grasp of the lostness of men is, to a large measure, the degree of our involvement in seeking the lost and our rejoicing when they come to repentance. We fail to evangelize, not because we lack the training or the methodology, but because we lack the deep sense of man’s lost condition, of the destiny they face, and of the delight of salvation which is available to them in Christ.

I think that there is much to be learned by Christians in the area of separation and holiness. We, like the Pharisees, seem to think that our holiness is measured by the distance we keep from “sinners.” The Bible speaks of holiness in terms of the closeness we keep to Christ. If, in the gospels we find Christ closely associating with sinners, then we can both have union with Christ and intimate association with sinners at the same time. Our concept of separation is the very thing that hinders us from evangelizing the lost, and it is one of the things which causes sinners to shun us, even as we do them. Let us give serious thought to the matter of biblical separation, for much that passes under this label is counterfeit.

Jim Peterson, in his excellent book, Evangelism as a Lifestyle, indicts the church for its failure to reach pagan unbelievers, those who have little or no contact with or knowledge of Christianity. There are many such people in our neighborhood and in our nation. Such “pagans” are not to be found only in far away countries. I fear that our failure to reach such pagan unbelievers with the gospel and then to integrate them into our churches is due to our twisted concept of spirituality. Let’s clear this matter up, so that Christianity can cut across social lines and into our culture.

I have implied earlier in this message that our definition of “sin” and of “sinners,” like those of the Pharisees and scribes, are often more social in nature than they are biblical. “Sinners” in our minds are those who are characterized by certain socially unacceptable activities. Sin, from a biblical point of view, is often characterized more in terms of attitudes. This does not mean that certain actions are not necessarily evil. Adultery is always evil, for example. But it does mean that many actions which appear righteous and spiritual—prayer, for example—may be evil, if the attitude behind the action is evil. “Sinners” to the Pharisees were more a social category than they were anything else. The Bible tells us that sinners are not just those in a certain segment of society, but that they are those whose attitudes and actions are contrary to the will and purpose of God. Let us think through our definition of sin much more carefully.

The parable of the prodigal and his proud brother serve to instruct us in the area of worship. Neither son (the younger son changed, happily) was able to enjoy their father for who he was. Both viewed him only in terms of the “good things and times” he could provide. For the younger son, the father was the provider of the inheritance, so he could indulge his fleshly desires. For the older son, the father was the owner of the fatted calf, the one who, if willing, was able to throw a party for he and his friends. But neither son found the father desirable to be with and to enjoy his person.

We are very much the same way with God. We most often tend to think of Him as the giver, rather than as the gift. We come to Him in prayer, not for the fellowship and communion we can have with Him, but for the things we want Him to provide for us and for our enjoyment. True worship is enjoying God for who He is, not just for what He gives. The older brother was not able to see himself as greatly blessed because he had been with his father, while the younger had been apart from him. Let us seek to enjoy our heavenly Father for who He is.

Finally, our text forces us to ask if we, as a church, welcome sinners, or whether we, like the Pharisees, send them a clear message that they are not wanted. If we understand the grace of God, we will welcome sinners as those, like us, who are unworthy of God’s favor, and rejoice when they experience grace as we have. We will not seek the salvation of those whom we will not also welcome into our fellowship. Let us seek to have the mind of Christ in warmly receiving sinners, like us.

!  Lesson 51:
Does Christ Commend a Crook?
–or–
“The Sting”
(Luke 16:1-13)

Introduction

When I was growing up, my father and I hitchhiked to Portland, Oregon, where we hoped to buy a used pickup, cheap. We were grateful to catch a ride with a very interesting fellow. He, like my father, was a school teacher, or at least he had been one. From the skills which he had developed in the classroom, he had moved into the world of industry. His new job was to “get rid of trouble‑makers,” but in a way that would not violate any laws or arouse the anger of the unions. He would simply be placed alongside a trouble‑maker on the job, and then would make the fellow so miserable he would quit, of his own free will.

That is another story. What was of great interest to me and my father was to hear of this fellow’s experiences in the classroom, which had made him such an expert in handling trouble‑makers. He told us that he had taught school in New York City. The situation was so bad that there were policemen stationed in the halls. Teachers were routinely assaulted and intimidated. He learned the realities of life quickly.

On his first day of class, things seemed to start off well. The students all sat relatively quietly in their seats and gave some attention to him. But, at a pre‑determined time, the entire class got up out of their seats and went to the back of the classroom, where they proceeded to “shoot craps.” This teacher did not react. But the next day he came prepared. He had taken note of the fact that at the place where they “shot craps” there was a metal plate. (This plate seemed to give them the right surface on which to carry on.) He wired the plate, and the next day, when the class went to the back to carry on their game, he charged the plate. Things happened quickly, as you would expect. One extremely large fellow walked up to the teacher and said, “Nice touch, professor. Nice touch.”

I think you can tell that, on the one hand, the fellow did not appreciate getting zapped with electricity. And yet, on the other hand, he had a kind of admiration for the way in which this teacher had handled things. The teacher was shrewd in dealing with this difficulty. I guess that I should go on to tell you that someone in that class invited him “out back” after school, to “have it out.” This teacher was also a golden gloves boxing champion in his weight class. After the principle informed him that he was “on his own,” the teacher went “out back” and whipped the toughest fellows in class. That was when the real education began.

My point in telling you this story is that it is possible for one shrewd person to appreciate the shrewdness of another, even though he has suffered from it. The student did not really appreciate getting zapped, but he could not help but appreciate the motivational methods of the teacher. Perhaps this young thug wasn’t uninterested in winning friends, but he did have an interest in influencing people. To see the teacher do a masterful job at influencing his class was, in one sense, an inspiration.

The same can be said for the rich man in our text in Luke chapter 16. He surely did not appreciate being “ripped off” by his steward, but he did at least have an appreciation for the skill, the shrewdness, of the steward in making provisions for his future. The steward, who was about to lose his position, had used his position and his master’s possessions in such a way as to “make friends” and thus to prepare for his own future. Even the master had to agree that the steward was shrewd. Perhaps, in the words of that young thug, the master could have said to his steward, “Nice touch!”

The Tension of the Text

The tension of our text should not be difficult to identify. While it is not so hard to see how the rich man might commend his steward, is it possible that Jesus actually commended this crook? Can our Lord, who hates sin, commend a crook? The question is a legitimate one. As you read through the commentaries you will find many creative efforts to “get our Lord off the hook,” by somehow qualifying the steward’s actions and thus minimizing his treachery.[251] I believe that our text resolves this tension, in a very interesting way, but let us hold this issue in suspension until after we have studied our text more carefully.

The Structure of the Text

The parable of the unjust steward is but one part of a larger whole. The entire 16th chapter of Luke revolves about the central theme of material possessions. Let me begin by briefly outlining the structure of the entire chapter:

(1) The Unjust Steward—Vv. 1‑13

(2) The Pharisees’ (who loved money) Protest & Jesus’ Response—Vv. 14‑18

(3) The Rich Man and Lazarus—Vv. 19‑31

The entire chapter, then, revolves about one’s attitude toward and use of material possessions. Our story, the parable of the unjust steward, is not the sum and substance of Jesus’ teaching on the subject. It is just one part of the piece of chapter 16. Beyond this, chapter 16 is but a part of the much broader teaching of our Lord on the subject of possessions throughout the entire gospel of Luke (followed up by Acts).

With this overall structure in mind, let us now give attention to the structure of our passage, which is as follows:

(1) The Parable of the Unjust Steward—Verses 1‑8a

(2) Jesus’ Interpretation and Application of the Parable—Verses 8b‑13

Background

The subject of money and material possessions is one that Luke has been speaking to throughout the book of Luke. What we find in chapter 16 is not the final word on the subject, but it is more specific in its application than previous references, in my opinion. Let us briefly review what Luke has reported Jesus to have said on the subject thus far in this gospel:

LUKE 3

John the Baptist is beginning his public ministry of preparing the people for the coming of Christ. He tells them to prepare the way of the Lord. He tells the multitudes that they need not only to repent, but to, “bring forth fruits in keeping with your repentance” (v. 8). In other words, they must practice what they profess. When pressed by the crowds as to what they must do, John gave three specific applications for three different groups.

(1) Those who had material goods (clothes & food) were to share with those who did not have them (v. 11).

(2) Tax‑gatherers were not to collect more than was due (v. 12).

(3) Soldiers were to be content with their wages and not to extort money from others through a misuse of their power (v. 13).

NOTE: EVERY ONE OF THESE THREE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS HAS MATERIAL POSSESSIONS IN VIEW.

LUKE 4

Jesus introduced His ministry by citing Isaiah’s prophecy, which spoke of the good news being proclaimed to the poor and the oppressed, in the terminology of the Old Testament year of jubilee, at which time Israelites were released from their debts (cf. vv. 18‑19).

LUKE 5

Before Jesus called the twelve to be His disciples (chapter 6), He commanded them to launch out and to make a great catch, which served as a promise of His provision—of men who would believe (disciples), but perhaps also of the material needs of those who would follow Him as His disciples.

LUKE 6

In Luke’s account of the “Sermon on the Mount” (here, more clearly than in Matthew 5) Jesus stressed the blessings which came to the poor (not “poor in spirit,” as in Matthew), and the woes which were to come upon the rich (cf. 6:20‑26).

Later on, Jesus taught His disciples to give to those who would not likely repay, promising that God would repay them in return (vv. 34‑38).

LUKE 8

Jesus Himself was “poor” and was provided for by a group of women, who followed along, providing for Jesus and the rest from their own means (vv. 1‑3).

LUKE 9

Jesus sent out the 12 to preach, but without any provisions. They were to prove themselves worthy of their hire by their preaching and ministry (vv. 3‑6). In other words, the disciples had to trust God to empower their ministry, and thus their material provisions would result from the gratitude of men for their ministry.

In verse 25 Jesus asked what good it would do a man to “gain the whole world, but lose his own soul.”

LUKE 10

Jesus sent out the 70 to preach, again without taking provisions (vv. 1‑12).

LUKE 11

In the so‑called Lord’s Prayer, Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (v. 3).

In response to the Pharisees fetish about ceremonial cleanness Jesus told them, “… give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you” (v. 41).

LUKE 12

Verses 13ff. Jesus is asked by one brother to tell the other to divide the inheritance, to which Jesus replies, in part,

“Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (v. 15).

“For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. For life is more than food, and the body than clothing” (vv. 22‑23).

“But if God so arrays the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you, O men of little faith! And do not seek what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, and do not keep worrying. For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father know that you need these things. But seek for His kingdom and these things shall be added to you. Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity; make your selves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (vv. 28‑34).

LUKE 14

Jesus told His audience that when they have a banquet, they should not invite those who can pay them back, but those who can’t, so that God will pay them back (vv. 12‑14).

In the story of the banquet which was given, and to which many in the end declined from coming, material acquisitions were prominent in the excuses (bought a field, a yoke of oxen, vv. 15‑24).

“So therefore no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (v. 33).

LUKE 15

The prodigal son squandered all his possessions; the older brother saved his, but both were preoccupied with possessions.

All of this is simply to remind ourselves that thus far in Luke’s gospel Jesus has had a great deal to say about material possessions. What Jesus says about possessions in chapter 16 is thus built upon the foundation laid in the previous chapters. We can, I believe, summarize Jesus’ teaching up to this point with the following principles:

(1) Jesus turned the way men should view money upside‑down.

(2) True repentance and faith will dramatically change the way a follower of Christ thinks and acts with regard to material possessions—from getting it and keeping it (e.g. “bigger barns”), to giving it away.

(3) The reason for this radical change in one’s thinking about money is that the true disciple comes to realize that money cannot get him the things that are really important, but that Christ can.

·         The Christian ceases to trust in money and trusts in God.

·         The Christian ceases to serve money, and to serve God.

(4) Money and material things are temporal—they don’t last. The best that we can do with money is to use it now to produce those things which will last. By using money on earth as God instructs us we lay up lasting treasure in heaven. One way of the ways to invest money on earth to gain eternal blessings is to help the poor and needy.

With this backdrop, let us press on to the parable of the “unjust steward,” seeking to learn the lessons which God has for us in it.

The Parable of the Unjust Steward
(16:1‑8a)

1 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’ 3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’ 5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 “‘Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied. “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’ 7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’ “‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied. “He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’ 8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.

A certain rich man had a steward working for him who squandered[252] his possessions. I take it that this means he must have helped himself to too much that belonged to his master. I can imagine that in our culture this would mean padded expense accounts, lavish meals and accommodations, a limousine, and the like. This man was consuming much of his master’s wealth, but producing very little. He was not working for his master, but for himself. Unlike Joseph, who saw his stewardship as a sacred trust, and who thus refused to “use” his master’s wife, this steward seems to have helped himself to everything that was within his reach.

Word got to the steward’s master,[253] who fired the man, effective at a future date. During this short time, the steward was expected to get his master’s accounts in order so that he could be replaced. This short period of time was not intended for the steward’s benefit, but for the master’s. The steward, however, was highly motivated. He was to old to “dig ditches” and he was too proud to beg. He must think of some way that he can make use of his master’s goods during this short time to prepare for his own future.

Like a flash,[254] it came to him. He would make use of his position and his master’s possessions in the little time that was left, in such a way as to provide for his needs far into the future. While his position and his master’s possessions would be taken from him, he could make friends who would take care of him. And so he set out to do it. He called in each and every one[255] of his master’s debtors. Each seems to have been a party to this “scam,” but each is benefited by a significant reduction in their obligation to the steward’s master. Thus, all are indebted to the steward.

Before we consider the master’s response to being “ripped off” or our Lord’s commentary on this parable, let us take note of the wickedness of the steward, as seen in his deeds. The steward was unrighteous, both at the beginning of the parable, and at the end. The steward was not just unrighteous as a person, he was unfaithful as a steward. He was unfaithful to his task and to his master. This unfaithfulness is what necessitated his shrewdness in preparing for his future. Every indication points to the fact that the allegations against the steward (squandering his possessions) were accurate. The steward did not change for the good, he only became more shrewd in doing evil. The steward’s attitudes and actions were all motivated by self‑interest. He involved others in his sinful “scam.” It is inconceivable that the rich man’s debtors were not co‑conspirators with the steward. They knew what they were doing. The steward, then, appealed to their greed.

In the telling of this parable, Jesus did not minimize the evil this man did, nor did He in any way commend him for doing evil, but His master did commend him. Probably, the biggest surprise of the parable is that the master, who has just been “ripped off” by his steward, is able to praise his steward. This praise is not for the good that he has done his master, nor for the ethical aspects of his deed, but simply for the shrewdness which he displayed.

The critical question here is this: Why can a man who has just been “ripped off” by his employee, a man who has suffered a substantial and irretrievable loss, commend a crooked employee? The answer to this question is given by our Lord in verse 8. Jesus’ answer is the key to the interpretation of this passage, so let us consider it very carefully.

“And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind [literally, “their own generation”] than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8).

The first part of verse 8 is the conclusion of the parable. The story concludes with the account of the master’s praise of his steward’s shrewdness. In the second half of verse 8 our Lord begins His commentary on the parable. How are we to understand and apply this parable? What does it mean? The answer comes from our Lord, who begins to interpret this story in the second half of verse 8 with an explanation of why the master can praise the shrewdness of his unrighteous steward. That there is an explanation coming is indicated by the “for” (both in the NIV and the NASB), which precedes the statement, “the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”

Our Lord’s words here indicate several important realities. (1) Both the unrighteous steward and his master appreciated (valued) the same thing—shrewdness. You don’t commend a man for something you disdain. (2) Both the unrighteous steward and his master were members of the group which our Lord characterized as “the sons of this age.” The contemporary expression, “it takes one to know one” fits here. The master could recognize and appreciate “shrewdness” because he valued it and he practiced it, and as such he was “one” with his steward. (3) Neither the master nor his steward were members of the group identified as the “sons of light.” I take it that this means neither of them knew God—they were unbelievers.

I do not think that I am going too far afield to say, then, that the master commended his steward’s shrewdness because he knew that he would have done the same thing in the same circumstances. You do not praise what you would not do, or wish you could have done.

Now, the critical question: Did Jesus praise the steward for his shrewdness? We can easily see that the master praised his steward’s shrewdness, and we can even understand why he would do so. But would Jesus join with the master in his praise of this man’s shrewdness? The answer is a dogmatic, No! This answer, in my opinion is clear, even though few commentators have accepted it, choosing rather to see this parable as teaching Christians to be more shrewd, more like the world in the way we handle money.[256] Let me enumerate the reasons why this conclusion is an inescapable one.

(1) Jesus never commended nor advocated shrewdness to His disciples here. The word “shrewd” or “shrewdly” is found twice in the parable (v. 8), but not in the Lord’s interpretation and application of it (vv. 9‑13). Never does our Lord imply or state that Christians should be shrewd, in any way that approximates the shrewdness of this “unrighteous” steward.

(2) The concept that is most frequently is found in our Lord’s interpretation and application of the parable is FAITHFULNESS. Faithfulness and shrewdness are, in this text, diametrically opposed. The steward “had to” be shrewd because he had been unfaithful. Disciples that are faithful do not need to be shrewd.

(3) Shrewdness does characterize Satan (Genesis 3:1) and the unbelieving world (Luke 16:8), but it should not characterize the Christian. The steward and his master are both identified by Jesus as unbelievers. Does the Bible ever teach us to act like the world? Does it not teach us the exact opposite? We are to be “wise as serpents” and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16), but we are not to be shrewd as this steward was. More about this later.

(4)Since the steward is unrighteous and his master, like he, is one of those known as the “sons of this age,” in contrast to the “sons of light,” how can we possibly conclude that the master symbolizes God and the steward, the saint? This, to me is one of the most critical points. The only way that we can really conclude that Jesus was commending shrewdness is to see the master as typifying God. But I would challenge you to prove that Luke would be trying to picture God as a rich man after all that he has already written about wealth and poverty (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 6). How can God be typified by an unbelieving rich man, and the Christian by a crooked steward? Jesus told us instead that both these men are typical of the values, conduct, and commendation of an unbelieving generation.

(5) Jesus’ words of explanation are a description of how wicked men think and act, but not a commendation of this nor a recommendation of it to the saints. In the book of Proverbs, we can find a number of statements which describe the wicked “ways” of evil men, but in none of these instances do we find their conduct being recommended to us as that which we should imitate, but rather that of which we should be aware, and which we should avoid:

The rich man’s wealth is his fortress, The ruin of the poor is their poverty (10:15).

A bribe is a charm in the sight of its owner; Wherever he turns, he prospers (17:8).

A wicked man receives a bribe from the bosom To pervert the ways of justice (17:23).

A gift in the secret subdues anger, And a bribe in the bosom, strong wrath (21:14).

In each of these cases, life is being described as it is, not as it should be. So it is in the parable of the unjust steward. Jesus is telling a story which describes the skill which unbelievers have of working within their generation to make money, and to look out for themselves.

(6) As in all other areas of Christian living, God’s blessing in the area of finances is not based upon man’s skill or shrewdness, but on His faithfulness to His promises. If the responsibility of man is to be found here, it is to be found in the area of faithfulness, which our Lord commended, not shrewdness, which he characterized as typical of unbelievers.

(7) “The things which are highly esteemed by men are detestable to God.” In verse 15 below, where Jesus will interpret this parable, He tells us that God’s values contradict man’s. He said that the things men commend, God condemns. The unbelieving master and his steward may commend shrewdness, but God condemns it. What God condemns, He does not commend. The parable, then, does not teach shrewdness as God’s way for His followers, but a way to be avoided by His followers.

(8) The Lord’s application of the parable in verses 9‑13 is characterized more by contrast with the world than comparison to it. The only area of comparison, in which the disciple is clearly urged to be “like” the steward is in the matter of making friends with unrighteous mammon, and even in this there are many differences between the way the steward acted and the way in which disciples are to act.

One problem could easily, and correctly be raised: Why does Jesus elsewhere teach His disciples that they were to be “shrewd”:

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10”:16).

The term rendered “shrewd” here in the NASB is the same term that Luke employed in our text. Doesn’t this challenge the interpretation I have proposed? I think not.

The same Greek or Hebrew term does not always convey the same meaning. For example, the same term that is sometimes rendered “tempt” is also rendered “test.” We know that God does not “tempt” anyone (James 1:12), but we also know that He does “test” us (John 6:6), and we are told to “test” ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5). The same term is used in each case, but its meaning is dictated by the context.

The term adjective “shrewd” and the adverb “shrewdly” are both found in our text, with the adverb appearing only here. The adjective, however, is used more frequently. It is interesting to note that when Matthew used the term, it tended to have a positive connotation (“wise”). When the apostle Paul used the term, it was mostly in a negative vein (roughly equivalent to “arrogantly wise” or “falsely wise”). Luke, in this text, has clearly indicated by the context that we are to understand “shrewdness” in a negative way, as a vice, rather than as a virtue. We are, I believe, to be wise, even shrewd, like serpents, but we are not to be shrewd like the steward. His shrewdness was intrinsically evil, in motive and in method. The serpent’s shrewdness is not so in my opinion.

Thus, Jesus’ intent is not to teach disciples to be wise. If wisdom were the ideal to strive for, He would not have made the model a crook, nor would He have had his master commend him. Jesus is here teaching His disciple to beware of a shrewdness which uses people for one’s own selfish interests, rather than a sacrificial simplicity which serves. It is interesting, by the way, that in the New Testament, those who give are instructed to do so “with simplicity,” with singleness of motive, and not with the hope of gain (cf. Romans 12:8, giving attention to the marginal note in the NASB).

But why does Jesus spend so much time telling us about the steward, if we are not to be like him in being shrewd? This is an excellent question, with some fascinating answers. First, Jesus is teaching by contrast. He has told this story so that we can see, in very practical terms, what we are not to be like. Second, this steward’s shrewdness was (and is) typical of the way unbelievers act. If Christians are to put off worldliness—worldly ways of thinking and acting—then we must be clear on what worldliness is. This story gives us a very clear picture of one dimension of worldly thinking. Third, in this parable Jesus exposes the hypocrisy and wickedness of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees, we will be told shortly, were “lovers of money.” As such, they greatly valued having it, and thus they resorted to some very unscrupulous means of obtaining it. They were “shrewd” in the matter of making money, and they were also proud of it. Thus, when Jesus began to tell this story, the Pharisees must have thought to themselves that when it came to the skill of making money, they were the epitome of astuteness, of skillfulness, of shrewdness.

It was undoubtedly with some misgivings that they listened to Jesus as He told of the cunning shrewdness of this steward. His shrewdness was pressing the line of ethics very hard. But the real shock came when Jesus spoke those final words of explanation in verse 8. Jesus here characterized shrewdness as sinful, as typical of the way unbelievers (sons of this age) think and act. If they thought themselves to be shrewd (and surely they did), then if Jesus’ explanation were allowed to stand their shrewdness was proof, not of their spirituality, but of their sinful secularity. Their shrewdness Jesus used as an indication of their unbelief. This story of the unjust steward is thus an exposé of Pharisaism. No wonder the Pharisees were upset as these words (v. 14).

Jesus’ Commentary of
the Parable of the Unjust Steward
(16:9‑13)

9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. 10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? 13 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

There are lessons to be learned in contrast with the unjust steward and his master. These, Jesus will teach us in the following verses. But when Jesus begins, He begins with a point of commonality. The unjust steward “made friends” by the use of his master’s money, or we might better say, through “unrighteous mammon.” He had used that which was his master’s, which was in his care, to make friends for himself. Christians can practice what initially looks similar, but when carefully considered is vastly different. Let us look at our Lord’s words of commentary on the parable, to learn what it was He intended us to gain from it:

(1) Make friends for yourselves by the use of material possessions, v. 13. In verse 13, Jesus carried over from the parable of the unjust steward, a parallel to what Christians should practice. The unjust steward saw that his days were numbered, and that he would not be able to take his master’s money with him. He then began to use his master’s money in such a way as to make friends, because they would outlast his master’s money. He used his master’s money to make friends.

Christians should act similarly, but not the same. We, like the unjust steward, are stewards. We do not own anything, but we are given custody of certain resources by God for a time. We need to understand that our Lord’s return is at hand (or that our death will come), and that we cannot take money with us. Money will not last, but we will last for all eternity. The way we can use money so that it will last forever is to “make friends” of men, who will gratefully receive us in heaven. I know of no other application of this more important than evangelism. By using our money in ways that manifest Christ to men and which draw men to Christ in faith, we “make friends,” we invest in men’s souls, so that they will await us in heaven. Thus, though money will not last, investments in men’s souls will last. In this way, we can imitate, in a measure, the unjust steward. He at least can to see that friends outlast money.

In this verse (9), note that Jesus represented money as having two characteristics: (1) it would not last—it would fail; and (2) it was, in some measure, unrighteous. Jesus called it the “mammon of unrighteousness.” Money is not intrinsically evil, but it is often associated with evil. It has a kind of taint, but even so it can be used so as to produce a righteous end—the salvation and edification of men. I think the expression, “mammon of unrighteousness,” was aimed at the Pharisees, who tended to equate righteousness with money. Did they view money to be a righteous thing; Jesus called it the mammon of unrighteousness, because the love of material things is often at the root of various kinds of sin. As the apostle Paul put it:

But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many of pang (1 Timothy 6:9‑10).

(2) Jesus did not advocate shrewdness to his disciples, but faithfulness. Jesus never uses the word “shrewd” when applying this parable. He does use the word faithful, however. The unrighteous steward was certainly “shrewd” in relationship to his master, but he was not “faithful” to him or to his stewardship. Jesus seems to link the “making of friends” with being faithful stewards. Unlike the unjust steward, we are to be faithful stewards.

(3) Jesus indicates that being faithful stewards serves God’s interests, man’s interests, and our own, and all at the same time. Take note of the fact that the steward “got ahead” by “using men” and by abusing his master and his money. Faithful stewards gain, but not at the expense of anyone. Faithful stewards are obedient and honoring to God, they pursue the best interest of their fellow men (what is more in men’s best interest than their eternal salvation?), and at the same time they prepare heaven for themselves. Everybody wins. What a difference!

(4) Jesus indicates here that money, in and of itself, is not a very important thing. To be precise, Jesus tells us that money (or perhaps more broadly and accurately, material things) is (are) a “little thing.” “Unrighteous mammon” is contrasted, by our Lord, with “true riches” (v. 11). And while money is not our own, the “true riches” will be (v. 12).

(5) Jesus teaches us that while money is a “little thing” it has an important function of serving as a proving ground, testing our ability to handle more important things. Thus, the faithful steward, who uses unrighteous mammon to achieve righteous ends, will exchange what is temporary for what is eternal, and what is unrighteous mammon for what is true riches.

All of these principles which Jesus taught were intended to encourage His disciples to be “faithful stewards,” rather than shrewd, unjust, stewards. In the last verse of this paragraph, Jesus sums up the matter of mammon by saying that one must choose whether or not money will be his god:

“No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

We may wonder how it would be that one would ever have to choose between two “masters,” one of which is money. This is precisely the temptation which would confront the steward, for he must either be faithful to his master, using his master’s money to further his master’s interests, or he can choose to serve his master’s money, therefore using his master and his money as a means to his own, self‑serving interests. Such was exactly what the unjust steward did.

As we will see in the next verses, one reason why the Pharisees could not love God (although that asserted that they did) was because they loved money. The Pharisees loved money, and thus they were devoted to it. They were so devoted to it that they became shrewd, as the “sons of this age.” One who would truly love God and men cannot love money.

Conclusion

As I was thinking through this passage, something suddenly occurred to me, which, in our day and time is unusual: WHEN JESUS TALKED ABOUT MONEY, HE DIDN’T TAKE AN OFFERING.

Did you ever think of this? Preachers today talk a great deal about money. Some seem to talk of nothing else. Jesus also talked a lot about money, but he never took an offering afterwards. Too many who talk about money today are quick to “pass the plate.” They would love to rid us both of our materialism and of our money. Watch out for such folks.

Having gotten this matter out of my craw, let us press on to see what our Lord’s words have to teach us about money and material possessions.

First, our text provides us with the proper motivation for good stewardship. Prophecy is designed to motivate godly living, and this has much to do with being faithful stewards in terms of our material possessions. The unrighteous steward was motivated to give up his squandering ways and to begin to be shrewd, because he knew that his days were numbered, he could not take his master’s money with him, and he was going to give account. Prophecy indicates that we must leave money behind, that time is short, and that we will give account. Most of us, if we were honest, would admit that we are squanderers. This is not better than being a swindler, for both are misappropriations of the Master’s money. Let us consider the nearness of our Lord’s return and let it motivate us to better stewardship.

Second, I find that our text causes us to see the relationship between “heaven” and “friends.” The unjust steward not only used his master, he also used his friends. There was no selflessness, no sacrifice, no taking up of his cross, but only self‑interest evident in the steward’s actions. The “friends” of the steward were of an inferior type.

Notice how Jesus speaks of heaven here. He is speaking to a materialistic society, but He does not describe it in terms of its “golden streets,” as we see in the last chapters of the book of Revelation? Why? Can’t you just see heaven if Jesus let in those who loved money? They would all be out with their little miner’s picks and assaying the value of the gold in the streets of heaven. But Jesus chose to describe heaven as a place where one’s friends would be. Evangelism is many things, but one of these is the process of making friends. One of the blessings of heaven will not be its streets of gold, but its saints, especially if we have used our lives and our “mammon” to win men and women to Christ, to pave their way, as it were, to heaven, where they will await our arrival. This was the viewpoint of the apostle Paul:

But we, brethren, having been bereft of you for a short while—in person, not in spirit—were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. For we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, more than once—and yet Satan thwarted us. For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? For you are our glory and joy (1 Thessalonians 2:17‑20).

Third, our predisposition to accept shrewdness as a virtue which God commends us should serve to instruct us that shrewdness is more a appealing “virtue” than other, more godly, options. Why are we so ready to find our Lord commending a crook? Why are we so willing to accept shrewdness as a virtue? Because, I fear, we find shrewdness more appealing than its biblical opposite—sacrifice. For someone to see us a shrewd would be viewed as a compliment. But it is not so with our Lord. Shrewdness in material things presupposes too much priority and emphasis being placed on material things. We would prefer to spend more time and effort in trying to be shrewd, for this would serve to camouflage our own greed and love for money.

Fourth, if shrewdness wins men’s commendation, sacrifice does not. It took a while to realize it, but Jesus did not advocate shrewdness in the use of material things. To a large degree, He advocated stupidity, at least so far as the “sons of this age” are concerned. How wise do you think unbelievers would think us for giving away our possessions, for not pursuing wealth, but God, for selling our possessions, rather than saving them, for loaning money to those who may likely not be able to repay us? There is absolutely no way that we can obey our Lord’s teaching and commands concerning material goods without looking absolutely stupid to the “sons of this age.” Do not expect to be considered shrewd by unbelievers. They may well look on the unjust steward as shrewd. They may even compliment this crook. But do not think that they will compliment you.

And why, my friend, should we expect it to be any other way. God’s ways are not man’s ways. The message of the cross is not regarded as “wisdom” by unbelieving men, but foolishness. We should not expect our ways to be hailed by men as wise and shrewd. If wicked men are regarded as shrewd by their own kind, we should not be surprised, nor should we expect them to commend the “sons of light.”

This is Easter Sunday. This has not been an Easter message, as you well know. But this text does relate to Easter. Easter is, for the Christian, the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is our assurance of the righteousness of Christ, and of the satisfaction of God toward Christ and His work of redemption (forgiving of sins) on the cross of Calvary. It is God’s approval on all that the Lord Jesus said and did while on the earth. It is also the Christian’s assurance of his own resurrection. This certainty of life after death, the hope of heaven, is that which motivates us to live our lives distinctly from that of unbelievers in this age. It is what motivates us to use material possessions very differently, so that we will indeed lay up treasures in heaven, rather than on the earth.

But all of this is foolishness to the unbeliever. We readily acknowledge this. If you are reading this message and thinking to yourself, “This is foolishness,” that is precisely what one would believe, apart from faith in God, in heaven and hell, and in His word. I cannot convince you, my friend. I would not try. That is the task of God’s Spirit, who convinces men of the truth (cf. John 16:8‑11). May He do so in your life today.

! Lesson 52:
The Rich Man and Lazarus
(Luke 16:14‑31)

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight. 16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “

Introduction

A long time ago, I made the statement from the pulpit that I would rather conduct two funerals than conduct one wedding. The reason is simple. At weddings, everyone is happy. It is a joyous occasion. Two people, very much in love, are joining together. It is a time long awaited. Everyone can feel the excitement and share in the joy of it all. Quite frankly, the mood is such that one could say almost anything and people would leave delighted. I can just hear someone saying, “Good word,” at the end of the ceremony, even if a nursery rhyme had been recited.

It is not so at a funeral. People are not happy at all. Someone they loved has been snatched away by death, never again to be seen or heard in this life. And not only is there the painful reality of the loss of a loved one, but also the frightening reminder that we, too, must die. What one says on such an occasion is of great moment. This is why it is so sad when the gospel is not preached, for there is no hope apart from the good news that Jesus has died and has risen, so that we, too, might be forgiven of our sins and live eternally in fellowship with God.

An older woman and her daughter‑in‑law happened to be in the audience on this particular occasion, when I spoke of my preference for funerals. To my knowledge, I never met this woman. Nevertheless, on that day she turned to her daughter‑in‑law and said, “When I die, I want you to call that man to preach at my funeral.” She did die, years later, and I received a call from the daughter‑in‑law. She told me that she and her mother‑in‑law were Gypsies. She told of her mother’s death, and of her request of years back that I deliver the funeral message. I did so, gladly. I delivered the funeral message from our text in Luke chapter 16. There was, to my knowledge, just one or two Christians. It was a tragic funeral because so few shared the hope of the gospel which this woman had found.

At the end of the service, I walked to the rear of the little chapel, virtually ignored by most of the people who had come. A young woman came up to me, a woman whom I doubt was saved. She said something very encouraging to me, however. Her comment on the message was this: “What you preached was what my grandmother believed.” I believe that it was.

When I preach a funeral message, I have always done so with the knowledge that I represented Jesus Christ, and with a sense of responsibility to proclaim the gospel, the good news of forgiveness and salvation in Him, which is the only basis for hope in the face of death. In addition to this, I also have the sense that I am speaking not only for God, but also for the one who has died, even if that person is not a Christian. I say with full assurance that the message I am bringing is that message which the one who has died would want me to proclaim. I say this, based upon the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We shall see why this is so.

This account of the rich man and Lazarus is of very great importance to every one of us. In recent years, there have been many who have died and then been revived, reporting their “after‑life” experiences. I do not wish to doubt or to debate each and every experience. I do wish to say, however, that none of these experiences are inspired, inerrant, and authoritative, as this account is. Even the apostle Paul refrained from describing what seems to have been his “life after death experience” (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:1‑5). This story of the rich man and Lazarus is, I believe, a parable, but its description of the fate of men after death is both true and unchanging. Let us listen very carefully to these words. If the rich man was not able to warn his brothers, he can warn us, if we will listen.

Background

The Lord Jesus has been speaking to the crowds, among whom are Pharisees. They are not at all pleased with what they have seen and heard from Jesus. The grumbled against Jesus for receiving sinners and even eating with them (Luke 15:2). In response to this, Jesus told three parables, all of which dealt with the finding of something lost. While the Pharisees could identify with the rejoicing of one who found something material (a lost sheep or a coin), they could not rejoice in the return of a repentant sinner, even though all of heaven did so. This is because they hated grace. They did not believe they needed grace, and they did not appreciate it being manifested to anyone else, especially the undeserving (which are always the recipients of grace). If Jesus was out of step with the Pharisees, they were out of step with God and with heaven.

In chapter 16, the grumbling of the Pharisees turned sour—to scoffing. This scoffing was the result of yet another parable, the parable of the shrewd steward. This steward was unrighteous. He had been squandering his master’s possessions, but when he learned that he was soon to be unemployed, he became very shrewd, using his master’s money to gain friends, who would minister to him in the future. While the master commended his wicked steward for his shrewdness, Jesus did not. Jesus taught that His disciples should, like the steward, make friends for the future, but in an entirely different way. The watchword for disciples was not shrewdness but faithfulness. In verses 9‑13, Jesus laid down the principles which should govern the way in which the disciples viewed and used material possessions.

What especially angered the Pharisees, however, was something else. Jesus had identified this evil man as a shrewd man, when it came to money. The Pharisees, whom Luke now tells us were “lovers of money” (v. 14), were very shrewd in their use of money, in such an evil way as to make the unjust steward look like a saint. The steward ripped off a rich (and evil) master. The Pharisees were “ripping off” little old ladies, as Jesus put it in Matthew’s gospel, they were robbing widows’ houses (Matthew 23:14). That for which the Pharisees prided themselves, Jesus viewed as wicked. In His parable of the unjust steward, Jesus identified the shrewd as unbelievers, contrasting them with saints. Now, the Pharisees, who were proud of their skill in making money were mad. That did it! Grumbling turned to scoffing.

The Structure of our Text[257]

Jesus’ teaching in verses 14‑18 is in response to the scoffing of the money‑loving Pharisees (v. 14). He deals first with their fundamental (root) problem in principle (vv. 15‑18). He then illustrated the problem with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (vv. 19‑31).

The unity of the entire chapter is evident in many ways. The thread which unifies the chapter is money. The unjust steward used his master’s money to serve his own interests, rather than to serve his master. The rich man will also use his money for his own interests, ignoring the needs of Lazarus, who lay at his gate. Both parables begin with virtually the same expression: “There was a certain rich man … ” (vv. 1, 19). Verses 14‑18 enable us to understand the evil of these two rich men, which was descriptive of the wickedness of the Pharisees, by showing the source of their sin.

The Scoffing of the Pharisees
(16:14)

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

The Pharisees, it would seem, had previously been mumbling and grumbling to and among themselves (cf. 15:2). Now, however, they seem more vocal and more public. Their reaction has turned from discontent to disruption. The kept on scoffing,[258] so as to become “hecklers” of Jesus. His words on the subject of money had proven to be too much. Luke tells his readers here that the Pharisees were “lovers of money,” an expression which is found only elsewhere in the New Testament in 2 Timothy 3:2. Luke tells us this fact because it helps us to understand why the Pharisees would be so distressed by Jesus’ teaching on money in the previous parable and its interpretation. They loved money and they were shrewd in the ways they found to gain it, to keep it, and to use it to indulge themselves.

But what, specifically, were the Pharisees scoffing about? The text does not tell us exactly, and perhaps we would do best to leave it at that. Given the Lord’s words in response to their scoffing, we might conjecture what they would be scoffing about. They judged on appearances. Jesus was talking a great deal about money, and how to use it. They could well have said to themselves and others, “Who is this expert on money, anyway? Who does He think He is? How much money does He possess? He is so poor that He has to have women of means accompany Him, to provide for His needs!” They may very well have mocked Jesus’ teaching, based upon His poverty.

But you see, Jesus’ poverty was that which proved His qualification to teach on money. Jesus did not have money because He did not take money. He had no vested interest. He had no desire to get rich and to live luxuriously. Thus, Jesus could speak as one who was disinterested, rather than as one who was preoccupied with money and material things.

The Wrong Judge
and the Wrong Standard
(16:15)

In response to these scoffers, Jesus did not bother pointing out that the Pharisees were really “lovers of money.” The reason is, I believe, that Jesus was interested in the source of their problem, not just in symptoms. Loving money was a serious problem, but it was not the root of their problem. In verses 15 Jesus exposed the root problem—The Pharisees sought approval from the wrong person, on the wrong basis:

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable[259] in God’s sight.

The underlying problem of the Pharisees was that they were seeking their approval from the wrong source, and they were seeking to be judged according to the wrong standard. They were striving to be justified by men, and their standard had to be that which men could see and evaluate—outward appearances.

This simple observation explains the actions of the Pharisees and also their reactions to Jesus. Because the Pharisees wanted the approval of men they acted in a way that would attract attention to themselves, in a way that would make them look righteous, as men might judge it. The Pharisees were into long prayers, they visibly fasted, and made contributions, and took the places of prominence at banquets and the like. Their clothing, too, was ostentatious—they lengthened their phylacteries. The Pharisees were repulsed by the fact that Jesus associated with sinners, and even ate with them. They were proud of the fact that they kept their distance. No defilement for them! They meticulously washed themselves ceremonially, and they observed Sabbath regulations. In all of this, Jesus said, they were hypocrites, because their hearts were wicked, because they were not really righteous at all.

It is God, however who justifies, and not men. God does not judge on the basis of outward appearance, but He knows and bases His judgment on what is in man’s heart:

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do no look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him [Eliab, cf. v. 6]; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

God’s standards differ greatly from man’s, indeed, they are the exact opposite. Those things which men highly esteem, Jesus said, are an abomination to God (Luke 16:15).

What were some of the things which men esteemed in Jesus’ day, which God abhorred? I believe that there are many things which could be listed under these two contrasting categories, but to simplify matters, let me simply outline the two categories which we find in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20‑26):[260]

In the context of our passage, there is a very clear illustration of what our Lord was talking about when He said that God detests the things which men highly esteem (v. 15). The Pharisees, and, according to Jesus’ words, the “sons of this age” esteem shrewdness, and thus the master could commend his steward, even though he had ripped him off. God’s values are not man’s values, just as His ways are not man’s ways (cf. Isaiah 55:8).

Now we can see why the Pharisees valued money so highly. Money, to the Pharisee, was one of the external proofs of piety. After all, had God not promised to prosper His people Israel if they kept His laws (cf. Deuteronomy 28:1‑14), and to bring them great poverty and adversity if they disobeyed (Deuteronomy 28:15ff.)? Money was the proof of piety that would cause an externalist to love. The Pharisees’ love of money was an indication of their attachment to external standards and appearances, so that they could obtain the praise of men. In the process of seeking men’s praise, they also obtained God’s condemnation.

The Keepers of
the Law are its Corrupters
(16:16‑18)

In verse 15, Jesus indicted His opponents as playing before the wrong audience, according to the wrong standards or rules. In verses 16‑18, Jesus accuses those who prided themselves as the “custodians of the Law” as being its corrupters:

16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus began by referring to the fact that the former dispensation had ended with John the Baptist, and the at His appearance there was inaugurated a new age, a new dispensation (v. 16). This new dispensation was welcomed by many, in fact, Jesus said, men were pushing and shoving to get into this kingdom. Men were violently trying to force their way in. This, then, was regarded as a welcome change.

But the coming of the new dispensation did not do away with everything that had to do with the old. The Old Testament did not terminate with the coming of Christ. As Jesus said elsewhere, He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). The two commandments which Jesus taught simply summed up the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12; 22:40). Paul, who rigorously held the line for grace, rather than law, said that the salvation which was accomplished in Christ was that which was that “to which the Law and the Prophets testify” (Romans 3:21).

There is a vast difference between the Mosaic Covenant, which was but a temporary solution (a putting off, a buying of time) to the problem of sin, and the New Covenant. With the coming of Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection, the Mosaic Covenant was put away, replaced by a new, better, covenant, as the book of Hebrews forcefully argues. The expression, “the Law and the Prophets” was one that summed up the entire Old Testament revelation, and not just the Law given through Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Law and the Prophets was that revelation which provided men with a divine standard of righteousness, a standard to which no man could attain, and thus all men are condemned as sinners. The Old Testament, the “Law and the Prophets,” still serves this same role as a divine declaration of the standards of righteousness. Thus, the apostle Paul can say that the one who “walks in the Spirit” will fulfill the requirement of the Law (Romans 8:4).

This Old Testament revelation is that which the Pharisees prided themselves for preserving. They, unlike the “sinners” of their time, “loved the law,” and sought to preserve it, or so they thought. But the exact opposite was the case. Once again the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is evident. Jesus, like the Pharisees, was committed to the preservation of the “Law and the Prophets,” the Old Testament revelation, despite the change of dispensation that occurred as a result of His incarnation. Thus, He insists that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the law to fail.” Here is something to which the Pharisees could say, “Amen!” But could they?

The Pharisees were adamant about their fidelity to the “law,” but this was heavily weighted in the direction of the Law of Moses, and thus of that old covenant.[261] Jesus persistently spoke of the “Law and the Prophets,” for this was the sum total of the Old Testament revelation, not just a portion of it. While the Pharisees focused on the outward aspects of religion, the Old Testament prophets persistently called Israel’s attention to the “heart issues” of the Law. No wonder the prophets were all persecuted and put to death. Note these words of the prophet Isaiah, as they bear upon the Pharisees and the text which is to follow. Notice how the outward appearance is hypocritical in the preceding context of Isaiah, but the heart of the nation is corrupt:

1 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? 6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? 8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. “If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. 11 The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun‑scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well‑watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail (Isaiah 58:1‑11).

The Old Testament prophets thus had much to say about the “heart issues” of life. God’s revelation in the Old Testament was seeking mere outward conformity, but inward conformity to the will of God. No one portrays this “heart” better than David, and David confessed that the source of his “heart for God” was the Law of God (cf. Psalm 119).

On the surface, the Pharisees and the Savior seemed, for once, to agree, on the importance of the Old Testament revelation, except that for our Lord it was the Old Testament as a whole, including the prophets, and for our Lord it was a matter of the heart, and not merely of outward conformity to the Law (cf. Matthew 5‑7).

The final verse of this section, verse 18, is a biblical (Old Testament) indictment of the Pharisees’ disregard for the Law and the Prophets. While they claimed to obey and to seek to promote and preserve the Law, the Pharisees actually set it aside. A case in point was the matter of divorce. Jesus thus lays down the Old Testament standard concerning divorce, which stood in dramatic contrast to the stand taken by the Pharisees:

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

To my knowledge, this is the only reference to divorce in the gospel of Luke. Elsewhere in the gospels, we know that the Pharisees questioned Jesus about His position on divorce (cf. Matthew 19:3). We can rather easily imply that the Pharisees were much more liberal on the conditions under which divorce was permissible than our Lord. Jesus contrasts the “liberal” view they held with the biblical view consistently held to in the Bible. The bottom line is this: God hates divorce; divorce is sinful; divorce causes sin.

Men had come to accept divorce, to take it very lightly. There were conditions under which divorce was permissible, but men always sought to expand them. While men wished to talk about the exceptions which permitted divorce, Jesus insisted in stressing the rule, in holding to the divine standard. He expresses that standard again. God’s ideal for marriage is that one man and one woman should remain married so long as they live.

Verse 18 is a specific illustration of the charge Jesus made against the Pharisees: The Pharisees had capitulated to the standards of men, and had set aside the Law and the Prophets. They had come to live in accordance with what men approved. Jesus challenged them, showing that they had turned their backs on what God approved and disapproved. Men had come to “highly esteem” the freedom to change wives; to God, this was an abomination. The so‑called custodians of the law were really its corrupters.

I must take a momentary aside at this point, for surely those who have experienced the ravages of divorce are feeling especially uneasy. Does divorce categorically condemn one to being a sinner? I am inclined to say yes. But, lest the divorced somehow feel that they are the focus of attention, the object of scorn, let me remind you that the purpose of the law was to prove every man a sinner. Thus, those who have experienced divorce must also be joined by those who have had an immoral thought (and who can be excluded here), for Jesus taught that immoral thoughts constitute adultery, too (Matthew 5:31‑32). Anger constitutes murder. On and on the list of sins and sinners goes and grows.

The purpose of the Law was to prove men sinners, and to promise them a provision for sins—the Lamb of God. If the revealed Word of God proves us sinners and pointed us to Christ, it serves us well. Regardless of what our sins may be, the shed blood of Christ covers them all, for all who believe. Let the divorced not feel singled out by our Lord’s words. They were chosen because this was one place where the conservative Pharisees had become far too liberal, and where they had set aside the standards of the Word of God for those of their culture. They had thus sought justification by men, in accordance with appearances, rather than justification from God, based upon a clean heart.

The Rich Man and Lazarus
(16:19‑31)

Two very important charges have been laid down against the scoffing Pharisees in verses 15‑18:

(1) They have sought the approval of men (based upon what men can see—appearances), not of God (based upon the heart).

(2) They have set aside the revelation of God, which exposes the heart.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus graphically illustrates both of these points:

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

In dealing with this passage, I will divide it into three sections: (1) the rich man and Lazarus in life—vv. 19‑21; (2) the rich man and Lazarus after death—vv. 22‑23; (3) the rich man’s requests—vv. 24‑31.

The Rich Man and Lazarus in Life (vs. 19‑21)

Verse 19 begins almost identically with verse 1: “There was a certain rich man … ” This rich man “had it made.” Jesus’ description of his life is incredibly similar to the fate of the one on whom Jesus pronounced woes in his Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20‑26). So, too, with Lazarus. He epitomized all that Jesus called “blessed.” Failing to name the rich man is typical of parables, and the naming of Lazarus is unique. This name means “the one God helps.”[262]

The rich man was wealthy, and enjoyed all the benefits of his wealth. He was magnificently dressed. We get the impression that his wardrobe was filled with expensive garments. He ate well, and he lived happily. Life was good to this man. From all appearances, and from a superficial reading of Deuteronomy 28, this man, the Pharisees would have supposed, was a righteous man. Surely he would go to heaven when he died.

Lazarus was the exact opposite. He was a poor man, a virtual beggar. He was placed[263] by the gate to the rich man’s house. His clothing is not described, but we can well imagine how bad it was. His food was whatever scraps he might get from the rich man’s garbage—fighting off the dogs to beat them to the food. He had sores and these the dogs licked. He was precisely the kind of person that the Pharisees would brand a “sinner,” a man whom, in their minds, was worthy of hell.

These two men lived in close proximity to each other. I believe that Lazarus was in close enough proximity to this rich man’s living quarters that he could see the entourage of people coming and going. He could hear the laughter. He could smell the aroma of the sumptuous meals being prepared in the kitchen. He knew what he was missing.

And if Lazarus was painfully aware of the bounty and blessings of the rich man, but evidently not a sharer in them, so, too, the rich man had to have been aware of the pathetic plight of Lazarus. He would have had to walk past Lazarus every time he left or entered his house. This means that he would have had to have consciously chosen to ignore his need. The rich man thus used his wealth to indulge himself, but not to minister to the needy. This was a clear violation of the Old Testament standard of righteousness.[264]

Based upon appearance alone, one could see how the Pharisees would have judged these two men. They would have justified the rich man and condemned Lazarus. The fate of these two men after their deaths shows man’s judgment to be wrong. Thus, their destiny after death will illustrate our Lord’s indictment against the Pharisees above, namely that they sought to be justified before men, according to appearances, rather than before God, based upon the heart.

The Rich Man and Lazarus in Eternity (vv. 22‑23)

It was only after both men died that God’s judgment was evident. Here, the roles of the two men are almost exactly reversed. Now, it is the rich man who is in torment, and Lazarus who is blessed. The change occurred at the deaths of the two. On earth, one can imagine that the rich man had a very ostentatious funeral. Lazarus’ funeral would have been basic. It is even possible that his body may have been cast unto a dung or refuse heap. From a heavenly viewpoint it was decidedly different. We are told that the soul of Lazarus was escorted to “Abraham’s bosom.” Of the rich man we are simply (even tersely) told that he died and was buried.

The identification of the place of Lazarus’ above as “Abraham’s bosom” is both interesting and highly significant. In our parable, Lazarus is not said to be in the presence of God, but in the bosom of Abraham. We must remember that this parable is told to an Israelite, for an Old Testament point of view. I believe that in Old Testament times there was a kind of “holding place” for the souls of those who died. I believe this holding place had two separate compartments, so to speak. One was reserved for the righteous, the other for the unrighteous. Each compartment had its eternal counterpart. The above of the righteous had heaven as its eternal counterpart, while the place of the wicked was a prototype of hell. The rich man and Lazarus are thus each in their own place.

The place of Lazarus’ bliss was called “Abraham’s bosom.” From his place of torment, the rich man addresses Abraham as “Father Abraham.” I can almost see the faces of the Pharisees flinch as Jesus spoke the words “Father Abraham,” for this rich man thus addressed Abraham as his “father,” and Abraham called him “Child.” The Pharisees believed that all one needed to get into the kingdom of God was a birth certificate which proved they were a physical descendant of Abraham (cf. Luke 3:8). Here is a rich man, an offspring of Abraham, in hell (or rather, its prototype). What a striking way to remind the Jews that being a physical descendant of Abraham was not a guarantee of one’s salvation.

The place of bliss was “Abraham’s bosom.” I believe that we may find a clue to the meaning of this expression in Matthew 8:11:

“And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God” (Matthew 8:11; cp. Luke 13:29).

Lazarus was represented as reclining in Abraham’s bosom. The occasion when a man would lean on the bosom or breast of another was at the meal table, as John did with our Lord (cf. John 13:23, 25; 21:20). Thus, it may well be that Lazarus is being portrayed as reclining at a banquet meal with Abraham.

The circumstances of the rich man and Lazarus are thus almost exactly reversed after death. The rich man, who lived in luxury, now lived in agony. He was distant from Abraham’s bosom, but was aware of what was taking place there. Lazarus, who had suffered greatly in his life now was in bliss. While he had struggled in order to get the scraps from the rich man’s table, now he reclined at Abraham’s table, leaning on his bosom! While it was formerly Lazarus who looked upon the bounty of the rich man, but did not share in it, now it is the rich man who beholds Lazarus in bounty and blessing.

It would seem that the rich man’s “hell” is something like solitary confinement in a prison. There may be others there with you, but you are hardly aware of them, nor is there any real fellowship. What you are aware of is the bliss of the righteous. It is as though hell has a one‑way picture window, and each resident of hell is given a pair of binoculars. The wicked are thus enabled to see the joy and bliss of the righteous, but it appears that the righteous are unaware of the suffering of the wicked. The wicked can see out, but the righteous cannot see in, so to speak.

The Rich Man’s Requests (vv. 24‑31)

It would be easy to think that the bulk of the parable might be devoted to a description of the bliss of Lazarus and the agony of the rich man. In fact, the larger portion of the parable is devoted to two requests which are made by the rich man. Before we look more closely at these requests, take note of several observations. First, both requests were denied. Second, the first request of the rich man had to do with his personal comfort, while the second was for the eternal well‑being of his immediate family (his five brothers). Third, both of his requests are the Abraham send Lazarus to do something. In my opinion, the rich man still looks down upon Lazarus, viewing him as a kind of servant, not as a superior.

The rich man’s first request was the result of his torment, his suffering. The flames were causing him great discomfort. He plead for mercy, asking that Lazarus be sent to him with the smallest quantity of water, to cool his tongue.

His petition was denied, based on two factors. First, the rich man’s fate was a just one. He had gotten just what he had deserved. He had his “good things” in life. Now, justice demanded that he get what he deserved. His suffering was a just penalty. Justice would not allow Abraham to diminish his suffering. Second, hell and heaven are divided, with no access between the two. There was, Abraham said, a great fixed chasm, located between the two abodes. The wicked could not cross over to the place of blessing, and the righteous could not (to show mercy, such as to take water to the suffering) cross over to the place of the wicked. Thus, the rich man’s petition must be denied. Hell is the irreversible destiny of some, with the choice of entering it being made in one’s life.

The rich man’s second request still involves the service of Lazarus, but this time he does not request that Lazarus ease his suffering, but that Lazarus go to his five brothers to warn them not to come to this place. The rich man now understands that men’s choices must be made before death, and that their decisions remain after their deaths.

Abraham responded negatively to the second request, as well as to the first. There was no need for someone to be sent from the grave to warn the lost. Moses and the Prophets served this purpose well. Let the lost listen to the Old Testament revelation. That, Abraham maintained, should serve as a sufficient warning.

The rich man protested, however. He insisted that while men may not heed the Old Testament Scriptures, they could not ignore the message of a man who had returned from death. They thought that “signs and wonders” could do more than the Word of God. This is but a continuation of the request that Jesus prove Himself by performing some miracle as a proof of His person and His power.

Abraham’s answer was short and pointed. He said that if his brothers refused to listen to Moses and the Prophets, they would not be convinced by a spectacular appearance from the grave. There is a very significant principle underlying this answer. Man’s failure to believe is not due to any lack of evidence, but due to a closed heart, determined to disbelieve any amount of evidence. The problem, to put it differently, was not a lack of external evidence (appearances), but a willful rebellion of the heart against God. The hearts of this man and his five brothers were unbelieving. Such unbelief was not solved by a preponderance of the evidence, but only by a change in the heart. Once again, the outward appearances are not the issue, but the heart is.

Jesus would soon be crucified, and He would soon rise from the dead. That empty tomb in Jerusalem did not result in a host of conversions, for it was not appearances which were the problem, but the closedness of men’s hearts. If men were to believe in Christ for Salvation, they would have to believe in the Christ of which the Old Testament Scriptures foretold. Thus, when Peter preached his Pentecost sermon, he grounded his preaching on the Old Testament Scriptures, on the “Law and the Prophets” (cf. Acts 2:16‑36).

Conclusion

The Pharisees rejected Jesus for two principle reasons. First, they sought to win men’s approval, based upon outward appearances, rather than God’s, based upon the heart. Second, in so doing they had rejected the Old Testament Scriptures, the “Law and the Prophets,” exchanging the divine standard of righteousness for a human standard.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus dramatically illustrates these two errors. Based upon appearances, it would seem that the rich man would be pronounced righteous and enter into God’s kingdom, and Lazarus would be rejected and condemned. The outcome after these two men died was just the reverse. Appearances, Jesus proved, were deceptive. Men would “highly esteem” the rich man, but God rejected him. Men would despise Lazarus, but God justified him.

What, then, was the basis of the rejection of the rich man and the justification of the beggar, Lazarus? We are immediately tempted to suppose that the answer is an external one—something we can judge by appearances. We are inclined to suppose that God judged these two men on appearances, only He did so with a reversed system of values. God condemned the rich man and justified the poor man. God must save the poor and send the rich to heaven. This conclusion would be the same kind of error that the Pharisees practiced, with a reversed system of external values.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus concludes in such a way as to indicate what really justifies a man. The rich man was not condemned because he was rich, any more than the poor man was justified for being poor. These outward conditions (riches and poverty) were fundamentally irrelevant to the eternal destiny of these men. A godly rich man would have used his wealth differently, but it was not his works that would have saved him. The real basis for justification or condemnation is to be found in the context of the rich man’s concern for his lost brothers. The issue was whether or not these men were rich or poor, but whether or not these men believed the Scriptures, Moses and the Prophets. It is not riches nor poverty which determines one’s destiny, but belief or unbelief.

Thus, the last portion of the parable illustrates the second charge of our Lord against the Pharisees—that they had exchanged the eternal, unchanging standards of the Law and the Prophets for the ever‑changing standards of their society. The Pharisees, who saw themselves as the custodians, the guardians of the Law, were really its corrupters. In so‑doing, they sealed their own fate. While they may appear to be righteous on the outside, while men may consider them to be righteous, their fate would be the same as the rich man, unless they believed and repented.

Belief and repentance was what the Old Testament revelation was given to produce. These Scriptures were not given to provide an external standard of righteousness which men, if they worked hard enough, could achieve. The Scriptures were given to convince all men that they were sinners, miserably and hopelessly lost. But these same Scriptures provided a temporary means of escape—the sacrificial system. Sins could thereby be put off for a time, like one might receive an extension on an unpaid debt. These same Scriptures spoke of an ultimate salvation which God would accomplish, based upon a new covenant, and upon the sacrificial death of Messiah, who would bear the penalty for a man’s sins, and on the basis of whose righteousness men could be declared righteous as well. Note Paul’s summation of all this as found in Romans chapter three:

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19‑26).

What an incentive our text is to unsaved men to turn to Christ and to be saved. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us several facts about hell which should be the source of great consternation to the lost:

(1) Hell is a real place. It comes after death, but it is a certainty.

(2) Hell is a real place, even though it seems fanciful now.

(3) Hell is the place which justice requires, for it is there and there only that the evils of life are made right. I often hear people protesting against hell, insisting that a loving God could not sent anyone to such a place. But God is also a just God, who cannot overlook evil. The love of God sent Jesus to the cross of Calvary, to bear God’s wrath on sin, to those who reject the love of God in Christ must bear the wrath of God in hell.

(4) Hell is that place where men suffer torment. That torment seems to include physical pain (the heat of the flames in our parable), as well as the mental anguish resulting from seeing the joy of heaven, but being removed from it, and the anguish of worrying about loved ones still living, who will share the same fate.

(5) Hell, once entered, is an irreversible fate. There was no passage possible between heaven and hell. Once a person is in hell, he or she is there forever.

(6) Hell is that place to which many go, thinking that they were going to heaven. The Bible teaches that there is a way which seems right to a man, but its ends are the ways of death. The self‑righteous Pharisees never dreamed they would populate hell.

(7) Hell is that place to which men go because their hearts are not pure before God, and who have not believed the Scriptures, either regarding their sin, or God’s salvation in Christ.

There is certainly a strong message in this parable to those who may feel religious, but who are not really saved. Such was the case with the Pharisees. But there is a very grave danger of the errors of the Pharisees creeping into genuine Christianity.

We, like the Pharisees, are in danger of using external criteria by which to judge spirituality, both in ourselves and in others. When we do so, we, like the Pharisees, will place too great a value on money. We will, like them, become lovers of money. The “prosperity gospel” of recent times equates spirituality and prosperity. This is a most serious error, for in such cases, money becomes our master. As Jesus said above, man cannot serve two masters. When God is our Master, money becomes a means of serving Him. But when our god is money, God becomes the means of making money, of making us prosperous. The prosperity gospel has made God the means to riches, not riches a means of serving God.

There are many other ways in which we falsely measure spirituality by external standards appearances. Some, as I have indicated, measure spirituality by one’s wealth. Others change the labels, and equate spirituality with poverty. Others, with a particular spiritual gift, or a particular form of ministry (usually public, popular, and “successful”). Some measure spirituality by the way one’s children turn out, or by the number of days and nights one spends at the church, or in church-related activities.

This error of externalism is much more serious than we may initially recognize. I fear that the motivation for much that we do, or do not do, is a desire to win men’s approval, or to avoid their disapproval. Divorce, for example, was something which few Christians would have considered as an option, just a few years ago. Now it would seem that many Christians are not only considering it, but doing it. Why the change? I do not think it is because men’s understanding of the Scriptures have changed all that much, but because our culture (even our Christian culture the value system of the church and of our fellow Christians) has changed. Men and women may have refused to divorce in the past, not because it was displeasing to God (God hates it, you will recall Malachi 2:16), but because society would look down upon them for divorcing. Now, when society approves, Christians feel free to divorce. We see in this that we, too, are more eager for man’s approval, than for God’s.

And we do these things, all the while maintaining that we are biblicists. We believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and applicable to our lives. We would oppose those who would say otherwise. But in the nitty gritty practice of the Word of God, we, like the Pharisees, often put God’s standards aside when they conflict with those of our culture. Let us seriously consider whom we are striving to please. The New Testament, like the old, has plenty to say about pleasing men (cf. Romans 2:29; 12:17; 14:18; 1 Corinthians 10:33; Galatians 1:10; Ephesians 6:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:4).

We would do well, I believe, to explore those things which our culture highly esteems, and then to consider whether or not these things are well pleasing in the sight of God. I fear that the values of our culture ­­those values which may be an abomination to God have been adopted into our Christian culture without thought. Our secular culture, for example, highly values “a good self image,” which is dangerously close to, if not identical with, self love. Our culture values aggressiveness and assertiveness. God esteems meekness and humility. He teaches us to submit ourselves one to another. Let us carefully evaluate our values, and to consider the condition of our hearts. Only the Word of God can and will expose this (Hebrews 4:12­13), so let us turn to the Scriptures, and not to our society, even as our Lord has taught.

! Lesson 53:
Taking Sin Seriously
(Luke 17:1‑4)

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

3 So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Introduction

We tend to think of sin as a “singular” matter, that which a particular person commits, for which he or she is individually responsible. That is true, but it is not the total picture. Let me illustrate.

In last Sunday’s newspaper, there was an article entitled: “Women in Prison: Why and How They Got There.” The article begins with these words:

Through the ages, poets have sung of the pain of misplaced affection, and mothers have harangued their daughters against getting mixed up with the wrong kind of man. Mama was right—especially in the case of a woman who breaks the law. Today, huge numbers of women are serving time in prisons because, at least in part, they ran around with the wrong guy.

Karl Rasmussen, executive director of the Women’s Prison Association in New York, maintains that although no specific data on the subject exist, 85 percent of the women he has seen over the years wouldn’t have gone to prison if they hadn’t got romantically involved. ‘They hook up with a thief, a drug dealer, a robber,’ he says, ‘and get caught up in crime out of misguided loyalty, for what they think is love.”[265]

It isn’t just men who get women into trouble. Take Adam and Eve, for example. The Scriptures make it clear that while Eve was deceived, Adam was not, but he abdicated his role of leader and followed his wife into sin—knowingly (cf. 1 Timothy 3:14). I believe it is safe to say that people seldom sin independently. Just as our legal system recognizes that there are accessories to a crime, so the Lord Jesus, in our text, stresses that there are accessories to sin.

If the first sin in the Bible involved on person leading another, as it were, into sin, the second sin of the Bible involved one person refusing to take any responsibility for the well‑being of another. You remember the story of Cain and Abel, his brother, from Genesis chapter 4, where Cain sought to defend himself by responding to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9).

We can see, then, not only from experience, but more importantly from Scripture, that sin is not just a “solo” experience. In Luke chapter 17 Jesus spoke about sin as an interpersonal matter, rather than merely as an individual matter. The first two verses are a warning concerning the seriousness of influencing others in such a way as to encourage them to sin. In terms of the first sin in Genesis chapter 3, Jesus spoke words, which if obeyed, would keep us from being “Eve’s” to the “Adam’s” of this world. The last two verses deal with the positive role which they can play in the life of one who has sinned. Again, in Genesis chapter 4 terms, Jesus told us how it is we are to be our “brother’s keeper” when he does sin. The unifying element in these verses is “sin” and the overriding emphasis is that the disciples of our Lord should (1) take sin seriously, and (2) take sin personally.

The Structure of the Text

Looking at the 17th chapter of Luke as a whole, there is little disagreement as to what the segments or divisions of the chapter are:

(1) Not causing your brother to sin—verses 1‑2

(2) What to do when your brother sins—verses 3‑4

(3) Faith and the disciple—verses 5‑10

(4) The healing of the ten lepers and the gratitude of one—verses 11‑19

(5) Jesus’ teaching on the coming of the kingdom of God—verses 20‑37

The struggle is to determine what the relationship is between these “parts” of the whole. Some, indeed, despair of finding any unity in this chapter at all. Plummer , in his commentary on Luke, entitles this section, “Four sayings of Christ” (p. 398). He goes on to say, “They have no connection with the much longer utterances which precede them.… And the four sayings appear to be without connection one with another.”[266]

I acknowledge the difficulty which these verses pose for us in finding a unified theme, but this, for me, is simply a “tension of the text,” a difficulty which serves to stimulate my study of this text. It is my presupposition that Luke has been developing a very orderly argument, even as he has indicated in his introduction (1:1‑4). This order is not, to the best of my understanding, chronological, but logical—it is a logical development of the gospel, its issues, and its opposition. I therefore must seek for a unity of thought in the entire chapter, and I must seek to find the thread of continuity between this chapter and those which both precede and follow. I must therefore differ with Plummer (“fools rush in … ”), refusing to view Luke’s words here as a kind of “catchall of miscellaneous sayings.” Luke is not that kind of writer. He has no “Fibber Magee’s closets” in his developing argument. Let us therefore seek to grasp Luke’s unity of thought, recognizing that the failure to grasp it is ours, and not that of the author (who ultimately is the Holy Spirit).

Background

Throughout the gospel of Luke, there has been a building opposition to Jesus and His teaching on the part of the Pharisees. This was that religious group who, in their minds, held firm to the Old Testament Law of Moses, and to its standards. The were “hard on sin” and they sought to use their influence to expose Jesus as a fraud, a law‑breaker, rather than the One who came to fulfill the Law.

The opposition to Jesus began in chapter 5, when Jesus not only healed the paralyzed man who was lowered through the roof, but told him that his sins were forgiven as well. Such words, the Pharisees, correctly reasoned, could only be spoken by God. But Jesus failed to conform to their concept of Messiah. Jesus associated with sinners. They shunned sinners. Jesus called Matthew, a tax collector, to be one of His disciples, and then ate together with him and other sinners (Luke 5:27ff.). He even celebrated with them, enjoying it! Jesus spent more time with sinners than with them—the righteous. This was too much. From here on, the Pharisees looked for reasons to accuse Jesus, to discredit Him before the crowds. The violation of the Sabbath became one of their principle charges against Him.

The Pharisees opposition to Jesus has been intensifying in the last couple of chapters immediately preceding our text in chapter 17. In chapter 14, Jesus was eating at the table of a Pharisee on the Sabbath, and there He healed a man (14:1‑4). Although the Pharisees kept silent, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy (14:5‑6). He then went on to expose their self‑seeking motivation in having dinners in the first place (14:7‑11). He taught that dinners should be given to benefit others, not to benefit the host (14:12‑14). He explained the rejection of the Pharisees and of others of Israel’s leadership in a parable that revealed their self‑interest, and which also explained the Lord’s seeking of the outcasts of society (14:15‑24).

In chapter 15, Jesus told three parables about that which had been “lost,” showing how the compassion of the Pharisees was selfish, while that of God was gracious. The refusal of the Pharisees to rejoice in the repentance of sinners was shown to be out of step with heaven, and to be motivated by self‑righteousness. The “older brother” of the parable of the prodigal was an ugly portrait of the Pharisees, one which they did not appreciate.

If in chapter 15 the Pharisees were grumbling against Jesus, by chapter 16 they are more angry, more vigorous, and more public in their opposition to Him. After the parable of the “unjust steward,” the Pharisees became scoffers. Luke explains to us that they were “lovers of money” (15:14). Jesus then exposed the Pharisees, who prided themselves as “custodians of the Law” to be the corrupters of it. Instead of seeking justification from God, based upon the heart, they played before the audience of men, hypocritically acting in accordance with men’s values (which are diametrically opposed to God’s—16:15), giving the appearance of righteousness, so that men would praise them. Jesus pressed this point home with the parable of the “rich man and Lazarus,” in which the rich man, who would have been the Pharisees’ hero, went to hell, while Lazarus (whom they would have condemned) went to heaven. Jesus turned their system upside‑down.

The teaching of Jesus in chapter 17 can hardly be divorced from this backdrop. Indeed, I understand Jesus’ words to be a thinly veiled indictment of the Pharisees, using their sin as an illustration of what the disciple should not do. Let us now consider our passage in this light, seeking to learn what Jesus was teaching His disciples, in the light of the context. We shall then seek to learn the meaning of his words to us as well.

Sobering Word on Stumbling Blocks
(17:1‑2)

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

We live in a fallen world. Sin is, in this sense, inevitable, and so are those things which tend to prompt it. In biblical terms “the world, the flesh, and the devil” are all being utilized to promote sin. The world seeks to “press us into its own mold” (Romans 12:2), to cause us to adopt its values and to imitate or join in with it in its evil deeds. The flesh is that fallen nature within us, which prompts us to act on our own behalf, to pursue our own pleasures, even at the expense of others. The devil employs both the world and the flesh for his own devious purposes, and even, at times, personally solicits men to sin, as he did with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), and with our Lord (Luke 4).

These inducements or encouragements to sin are beyond the control of the Christian. In our Lord’s words, they are, “bound to come” (verse 1). There are times, however, when the Christian is actually the source of the stumbling block. Peter, for example, served as a stumbling block to our Lord, when he sought to turn Him from the way of the cross:

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men” (Matthew 16:23).

In this instance, Peter did not (and could not) succeed. So, too, in other cases, the offended party may not fall into the sin we made attractive to them, but we are nevertheless guilty of promoting the evil.

I believe the (NIV) translation can be misleading, therefore, in translating the term rendered “stumbling block”[267] by other versions, “things that cause people to sin.” Technically speaking, we cannot make another person sin any more than we can make him or her do that which is pleasing to God. We can influence people in either direction. We are a “stumbling block” to others when we influence people in the direction of sin. This is the exact opposite to the command of the Scriptures to, “stimulate one another to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24, NASB).

Lest we think that the term is always negative, that it always connotes sin on the part of the one who is a stumbling block, remember that our Lord was a “stumbling block” to the Jews:

Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 9:32‑33).

But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23).

The Danger of Being a Stumbling Block

In our text, Jesus never said what the fate of a stumbling block would be. He does tell us, however, what would be better for that stumbling block than his ultimate fate. Jesus said that being drowned in the sea, with a millstone hung around his neck, would be a better fate than that which could occur. What is that which could occur? While Luke does not tell us, listen to these disturbing words from the gospel of Matthew, word which cause us to agree with Jesus that drowning in the sea is better:

“Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all STUMBLING BLOCKS, AND THOSE WHO COMMIT LAWLESSNESS, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:40‑42, NASB).

Can a Christian Be a Stumbling Block?

When we look at this text in Matthew’s gospel, we will immediately see that the “stumbling blocks” here are viewed as unbelievers. These are those who are the “tares” among the “wheat.” These are those who will be “cast into the furnace of fire.” The “stumbling blocks” of Matthew seem not to be believers. It should also be noted that in Matthew chapter 18 that “the world” is the source of the stumbling blocks, and that those who are caused to stumble are the “little ones who believe” (verse 7). Thus, it would seem, the stumbling blocks are unbelievers; the ones caused to stumble are unbelievers.

When we come to Luke chapter 17, we find something similar, if not identical. When Jesus spoke to “His disciples” about the danger of being a stumbling block, He did not use the pronoun “you,” but He rather spoke of the more impersonal “him” and “he”:

And He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were bung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:1‑2, NASB, emphasis mine).

It is my opinion that in the context, it is the Pharisees who are especially in view here when spoke of the seriousness consequences which would befall the one who became a stumbling block to others. In Luke, the Pharisees have been the most vocal and visible and viscous in their attacks against our Lord. It is this group who has sought to discredit Jesus, and has sought to turn men and women from following Him.

Does this mean that only unbelievers can be a stumbling block? Not at all. Peter was acting as a stumbling block to our Lord when he sought to rebuke Him for speaking of His death, a death which would be for the salvation of all who would believe. But when Jesus rebuked Peter in this case, He did not call Him “Peter,” but “Satan.” Peter, in this moment, spoke for Satan; he thought not God’s thoughts, but men’s; he spoke not as a disciple, but as the enemy himself. Thus, I believe that Christians can surely become a stumbling block to others, but when they do so they cease to speak for God, and they cease to function as a Christian. At this moment in time, they speak for Satan, they speak as an unbeliever. Not that they are an unbeliever (or that they would become one), but that they function as one, they are indistinguishable from one, for the moment. At the bottom line, being a stumbling block is a satanic thing, that which is characteristic of unbelievers, unbelievers destined to hell. How unbecoming of the Christian. How serious a sin.

The Saint’s Business:
Seeking to Restore the Sinner
(17:3‑4)

So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

If it is the unbeliever who serves Satan’s purposes by enticing others to sin, it is the Christian’s business to seek to restore the sinner, when he or she has fallen. How inappropriate to influence one in the direction of sin. How Christ‑like to seek to restore the sinner.

Just as the title of “stumbling block” primarily fits the Pharisee, so too the Pharisee is in view in these two verses. The Pharisees were abusing their leadership in an attempt to turn people from listening to, believing, and following Jesus. The teaching of our Lord as to how the disciples should respond to a sinning brother is in direct contrast to the practice and teaching of the Pharisees. The Pharisees felt that the most “spiritual” response to the sinner was to shun him or her. In the case of the “woman taken in adultery” (John 8), they would happily have stoned her. How different is our Lord’s approach.

It is assumed here by our Lord that just as stumbling blocks are inevitable (v. 1), so sin, even among our brethren is going to happen. Because of this, Jesus teaches His disciples what their response should be to sin in the life of a brother (verse 3).[268] I believe that the expression “your brother” in verse 3 is pointed and purposeful. The older “brother” of the prodigal seems to have disowned the younger brother (“this son of yours,” Luke 15:30, NASB), something which his father will not allow to stand unchallenged (“this brother of yours,” 15:32, NASB). So, too, the Pharisees seemed to disown their Jewish brethren, when they put them into the category of “sinners.”

By the use of the expression, “your brother,” Jesus may well be implying a couple of important truths. First, He may be informing His disciples that they are not responsible to correct and rebuke mankind in general, but only those whom they know, with whom they closely identify. The Pharisees (not to mention others of us) seemed to love to condemn those outside of their own circles, those on the “other side of the tracks.” Jesus tells us that we are responsible to correct those whom we know, those whose sins are personally known to us. Second, He may be reminding the disciples that their sinning bother is still their brother. We cannot, like the self‑righteous older brother of the parable of the prodigal, disown those close to us who sin.

Third, the fact that we are responsible to rebuke and to forgive our brother implies that we must also be alert to the kinds of sin which he or she is most likely to commit. If this brother is close to us, then he is also like us, which means that we must begin by being sensitive to those sins which so easily can beset us. How easy it is to focus on the (visible, cf. 16:15) sins of others, rather than on the (perhaps more socially acceptable) sins of which we are guilty. We may, for example, march on the abortion clinics and speak against homosexuality, but we go easy on sins such as pride, self‑righteousness, greed, and ambition—those sins which are most characteristic of us.

If one takes sin seriously, then learning of sin in the life of a brother obligates him to act in a way that seeks to bring that brother to repentance. This begins with rebuke. Rebuke seeks to bring that wayward brother to a realization of the sinful nature of his actions, and also to bring him to an awareness of the seriousness of sin, and thus to take the appropriate action—to repent. If this brother repents, he is to be forgiven.

From the wording of verse 3, one may wonder if Jesus taught that forgiveness should only be granted if the sinner repents. Does repentance precede forgiveness? Certainly not in the case of our Lord. On the cross, He cried out, “Father, forgive them … ” (Luke 23:34). Forgiveness is first granted, and then it is experienced by those who repent. Jesus taught that forgiveness was to be granted if the sinner repented, not because we are to withhold forgiveness, but because not all sinners repent. Repentance may not occur, but when it does, we dare not withhold forgiveness. The point here is also that this forgiveness is to be conveyed (verbalized) at the time the sinner repents.

Three Characteristics of Forgiveness

I believe that verse 3 is more general, while verse 4 gets more specific, dealing especially with those cases in which the one who rebukes the sinner might be tempted to withhold forgiveness. In verse 4, Jesus gives three characteristics of forgiveness which are most important.

(1) Forgiveness is to be granted, Jesus taught, to those who have sinned against us. It is one thing to forgive one who has sinned against God, or against others; it is quite another to forgive the one who has sinned against us. Jesus requires His disciples to forgive personal offenses.

(2) Forgiveness is to be granted, on the basis of a verbal confession alone. Frankly, words are cheap. We know how often confession and repentance can lack genuineness and sincerity. Our children, like us, can quickly evoke a hasty, but insincere, “I’m sorry,” in a tone and attitude which betrays a lack of honesty. Knowing this, and the tendency we will have to demand some “proof” of repentance—proof which will undoubtedly take time (thus forestalling our forgiveness and reconciliation)—Jesus teaches that forgiveness must be immediately granted, on the basis of a verbal confession alone.

(3) Forgiveness is to be granted, Jesus said, even to those who sin against us repeatedly and habitually. It is a habitual sinner who is most difficult to forgive—repeatedly, and on the basis of a confession alone. The wife of an alcoholic, abusive, husband has heard, “I’m sorry,” too many times. Humanly speaking, she will come to doubt, even to despise, the “repentance” of her mate. She surely wants to see a change in behavior before she will believe that he has changed, or that he will. Jesus teaches that forgiveness is granted by faith, not by the works of the offending party. It is no wonder, then, that the apostles will ask the Lord to increase their faith in the very next verse. The ability to forgive on the basis of these requirements is only possible by faith.

Conclusion

In this text, our Lord teaches us that we must take sin seriously. It is not in our text, but in both Matthew (5:27‑32) and Mark (9:43‑50) our Lord has very sobering words for His disciples on the seriousness of personal sins, those sins which become a stumbling block to us. He teaches that it would be better to sever a limb or a bodily member if that would keep us from sin and from hell. While we would like to tone down these words, if taken seriously we must take sin seriously.

If we would take sin seriously, we must look for those forms of sin to which we are most susceptible. Let us not focus on those sins which characterize another culture, another group, another segment of society. Let us not focus primarily on those sins which are external, which are based upon outward actions and appearances alone, but on those sins of the heart. Let us also beware of the fact that our wicked hearts are exceedingly deceptive, and thus we can even succeed at re‑defining “sin” in such a way that appears to be a virtue, rather than a vice. For example, the Corinthian saints were not shamed by the sin of one of their members, who lived with his father’s wife. Indeed, they were proud of it (1 Corinthians 5:1‑8). How could this be? Because they had re‑defined apathy and disregard for sin as “tolerance,” which they saw as a virtue. Many of our sins have been “sanctified” by new, more pious labels, but they are still sins; indeed they are even more insidious sins. These sins can only be known as the Spirit of God applies the Word of God to our lives (cf. Psalm 119; Hebrews 4:11‑12).

In our text, the disciples of our Lord are taught that we must take sin (and its consequences) so seriously that we are constantly on guard not to become a stumbling block in the life of another. If we take sin seriously, we do not wish to sin ourselves, nor do we wish to encourage sin in the life of another. There are two questions we must ask at this point. First, “What is it that characterizes a stumbling block?” Let me briefly list a few characteristics for you to consider more carefully and prayerfully:

Characteristics of Stumbling Blocks

(1) Stumbling blocks increase the temptation to sin. To put the matter just a bit differently, the stumbling block makes sin harder to resist.

(2) Being a stumbling block is very much a matter of misused influence. Stumbling blocks are generally “stronger,” more mature, more influential than those they adversely influence (“little ones”).

(3) Leaders, then, are in great danger of becoming a stumbling block.

(4) Stumbling block may or may not deliberately intend to be such; they may or may not be conscious of the impact of their deeds.

(5) Stumbling blocks may or may not cause the other person to sin. A stumbling block makes sin more appealing, although he may not succeed at causing the other person to sin.

(6) The stumbling block issue has some desire or attraction to the weak.

(7) The stumbling block may or may not be a believer.

(8) The occasion of stumbling may not only be appealing, but may well not be evil, in and of itself (e.g. the “liberties” of 1 Corinthians and Romans 14).

Second, we must ask ourselves, “What are some of the ways in which we can become a stumbling block to another?” Consider these ways as a starting point:

Ways we can cause others to stumble

(1) Competition—cf. Matthew 18:1ff.; also Mark 9—when we seek to get ahead of our brethren, we will not seek to build them up, but rather to tear them down; we construct ways in which to see to it that our brethren fall. (Note that the disciples’ arguing over who was the greatest brought about our Lord’s words about stumbling blocks in both Matthew and Mark).

(2) False teaching—Malachi 2:8; Romans 16:17; James 3; Revelation 2:14 (?).

(3) Flattery—Proverbs 7:21‑22; 26:28; 29:5.

(4) Ungodly rebuke & counsel—Job’s friends/Peter & Jesus (Matthew 16:23)

(5) Use of liberties which are detrimental to weaker brethren—Romans14:20; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:2.

(6) Passing judgment on others—Romans 14:13 (?).

(7) By abusing our position or power / setting a bad example—James 3. Sexual, physical, psychological abuse of children (?)

(8) By not living in the light, but continuing in the deeds of darkness: 1 John 2:10. 2 Corinthians 6:3 (cf. vv. 1‑13).

(9) By “judging,” I take it, imposing standards above the Scriptures—cf. Romans 14:13; cf. James 4:11‑12.

Finally, if we take sin in the life of a brother seriously, we will do everything possible to turn that brother from his sin when he falls. The Pharisees prided themselves for taking sin seriously. They, however, looked for sin in others, and then withdrew from those whose sins they found personally offensive. The Lord, who came to seek and to save sinners, calls upon His disciples to do likewise. Thus, we show that we take sin seriously when we seek out our sinning brother and do all we can to turn him from that sin to God, by repenting.

It may be that you are reading this message and you have never yet received the forgiveness which God offers you in the person of Jesus Christ. What hope this text should give to you. Jesus’ disciples are instructed in this text to act as he does, to seek to bring sinners to repentance. His disciples are to be as eager to forgive those who have sinned against them as Jesus is to forgive those who have sinned against Him. This is why it was so easy for sinners to come to Jesus, but so hard for the righteous to come to Him. Jesus loves to forgive sinners. If you have never experienced His forgiveness, do so today. Jesus has suffered and died on the cross of Calvary. He has suffered God’s condemnation for your sins. All you must do is to repent and to receive that forgiveness. Do it now.

! Lesson 54:
Putting Faith in Perspective
(Luke 17:5-19)

And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree,’ Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you.

But which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’? But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me until I have eaten and drunk; and afterward you will eat and drink’? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

And it came about while He was on the way to Jerusalem, that He was passing between Samaria and Galilee. And as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten leprous men, who stood at a distance; and they raised their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” And when He saw them, He said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And it came about that as they were going, they were cleansed.

Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? Were none found who turned back to give glory to God, except this foreigner?” And He said to him, “Rise, and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

Introduction

Jesus’ words seem to be too much for the disciples. Sin, Jesus has made very clear in the first four verses of chapter 17, is to be taken most seriously. We are, in addition, our brother’s keeper. For these reasons, we dare not become a stumbling block to our brother. If this were particularly true of the Pharisees, it is also true for disciples. Furthermore, the disciple of Jesus must not only actively seek to avoid being a hindrance to others (verses 1-2), he must aggressively seek to restore one who has fallen into sin (verses 3-4).He must, Jesus said, rebuke the fallen one. The goal is repentance and reconciliation. Thus, even though a brother has repeatedly sinned against us, we must forgive when he comes with a statement of repentance. This, after all, is all that God requires of us for forgiveness.

The apostles are seemingly taken back by what they hear. How can they possibly be expected to do this? Should they repeatedly forgive a habitual sinner, solely on their profession of repentance? It seems like an impossibility to them. Such a miracle would require great faith, they conclude, much more faith than they possess. If they are to obey Jesus, He must increase their faith, and so they all ask for greater faith. Jesus’ reply is indeed puzzling. One would hardly think that Jesus would be opposed to men seeking great faith, but that is exactly what it appears He does.

How many times I have thought that the reason why I could or would not obey a command of our Lord was that I had too little faith. Concluding that our problem is one of insufficient faith, we seem to have but two options. First, we can conclude that faith is God’s problem, and thus we are not responsible until He provides it. That almost seems to be the mindset of the apostles in our text. The second approach is to try to conjure up the faith, on our own. This is virtually futile. Nowhere does Jesus teach us how to build faith in the way we try to build our bodies. In this text, Jesus will teach His disciples and us that it is not a problem with the quantity of their faith, but a failure to grasp the nature of faith, and to act accordingly. Let us look, then, to our text, to see what it is about faith that we need to learn, along with the apostles.

Structure of the Text

(1) Being your brother’s keeper—verses 1-4

(2) Not causing him to stumble—verses 1-2

(3) Seeking, rebuking, and forgiving when he falls—verses 3-4

(4) Faith in the disciple’s life—verses 5-10

(5) Request for faith—verse 5

(6) The power of a little faith—verse 6

(7) A word about obedience and gratitude—verses 7-10

(8) Faith, Cleansing, and Gratitude—verses 11-19

Context

Verses 1-4 of chapter 17 can be viewed under the caption: “You are your brother’s keeper.” These verses especially emphasize the responsibility of a disciple in the context of sin, which we are to take very seriously. Verses 1 and 2 instruct the disciple to beware of causing a brother or sister to stumble. Verses 3 and 4 instruct the disciple concerning his responsibility to seek out, to rebuke, and to forgive the brother who has sinned. The goal of these actions is to bring the sinning brother to repentance, and to be reconciled with him as quickly as possible. The forgiveness for which our Lord calls is to be granted …

(1) To the one who sins against us.

(2) To the one who repeatedly sins against us.

(3) To the one who sins against us and (only) says he has repented.

Such forgiveness is difficult to grant. How easy it would be to protest that granting forgiveness to one only on the basis of a verbal “I’m sorry” may be wasted, for the “repentance” may not be sincere. Jesus does not instruct the disciple to “test” the sincerity of one’s repentance, but to respond to it. We might say, in the light of the following words of our Lord, that the disciple must accept an offending brother’s repentance on faith.

As I understand our text, it is Jesus’ words about forgiveness which precipitate the apostles’ petition for more faith. They seem to understand that forgiveness must be granted by faith. They also appear to believe that such forgiveness would require more faith than they possessed. Thus, they petitioned the Lord to give them greater faith, with the implied commitment to obey His instructions when such faith was theirs.

The Themes of our Text

Before we begin to deal with the problems and interpretations of our text, let us be certain that we identify the major themes of this passage. These themes are skillfully woven together by Luke to convey a message to the reader. We cannot understand the relationship between these themes or their message until we first identify them. The themes, as I understand them are these:

(1) [Jesus’] Authority (position: masterhood and slavehood)

(2) Forgiveness

(3) Faith

(4) Gratitude/thanks (cf. vv. 9, 16)

(5) Worthiness

(6) Obedience

I do not wish to imply that I fully understand any one of these themes, nor the way in which Luke wove them together to form a message. I do wish, however, to make some suggestions, which hopefully will prove helpful to you in your continued study of this text.

The Tensions of our Text

The difficulties which our text presents the student are many. Some scholars, as indicated in the last lesson, have come to despair of their being any connection between the various segments of our chapter, and even question that these segments relate to the surrounding context. I do not question the unity of these segments, that is, that there is a logical argument being developed here. The biggest problem for me is to determine what that argument is. In addition, there are several other nagging questions which spur me on to a more careful consideration of these verses.

First, what is the relationship between the forgiveness which Jesus required above, the faith for which the disciples asked, and the concept of our unworthiness as disciples below? Second, why the change from “disciples” in verse 1 to “apostles” in verse 5? Third, what is the relationship between the Lord’s teaching on the unworthy slave (verses 7-10) and the story of the 10 lepers, only of whom returned (verses 11-19)? Fourth, did the nine lepers actually manifest faith? Fifth, was that healing (or salvation) which the one returning leper received different from or greater than that which the other nine received? If so, how, and why?

A Plea For Faith
and a Puzzling Response
(17:5-10)

And the apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree,’ Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you.

But which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’? But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me until I have eaten and drunk; and afterward you will eat and drink’? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

I understand that this petition for more faith is the direct result of Jesus’ commands above pertaining to rebuking wayward brethren and the granting of forgiveness, under circumstances which would be extremely difficult. Note the change, here, from the term disciples (verse 1) to apostles (verse 5). I understand the “disciples” to be that larger group of followers of our Lord, those who truly believed in Him, as contrasted with the unbelieving Pharisees (cf. 8:1-3). The “apostles” on the other hand were the twelve, the smaller group of disciples. This group was much more informed because Jesus had spoken many things to them which the larger group did not hear (cf. Mark 4:33-34; 9:28; John 2:24-25).

But why are we told that the apostles (plural) petitioned Jesus for greater faith? Often we may not be told who among the apostles spoke. At other times, we are informed as to who the speaker (or spokesman) was. But here we are given the impression that many, if not all, of the apostles spoke, asking for greater faith. I believe that they may all have spoken at once, or perhaps one after the other, but that all (or most) of the disciples spoke because they strongly sensed the need for faith. They thought that in and of themselves they could not do what Jesus had commanded.

For some time I had the impression that this was a very pious petition. How could one be more spiritual than to ask for more faith? This has the same pious look that Solomon’s request for wisdom has (cf. 1 Kings 3). I am no longer convinced that this was such a spiritual request. Indeed, I am inclined to view it as a camouflage. I think that the apostles were sincere in their request, but that something must have been wrong with it. It does not seem to me that faith is what was lacking here, but simple obedience. Think this matter through with me as we consider our Lord’s puzzling response.

First, Jesus’ response, as recorded in verses 6 through 10, has a certain proportion which should be instructive to us. Only one verse, verse 6, is positive in nature, while the next four verses are more negative, that is, they are more corrective in nature, as is indicated by the first word of verse 7, “but.” This would suggest, when taken with other facts, that Jesus is not affirming their response as much as He is correcting it.

Second, Jesus seems to be teaching that very little faith is required in order to accomplish incredible things. The apostles’ request implies that what Jesus required necessitated great faith, and that their supply was deficient. Thus, they asked Jesus for more faith, assuming that they did not have enough. Jesus’ answer was that it took only a very little quantity of faith to achieve much. With the quantity of faith equivalent to that of a mustard seed—a very small seed indeed—they could uproot a tree and transplant it into the sea. Did they then need more faith—really? Jesus’ answer seems to question their premise that they had too little faith.

Third, Jesus purposely used an illustration of the power of faith which did not relate directly to forgiveness. When “faith-brokers” today speak to men about exercising faith, the do so with the most “tempting” illustrations, illustrations which incite the gullible listener to action. They tell a person, for example, if you have the faith to send in $10, God will bless you with $100. If Jesus wanted His disciples (apostles) to exercise faith, would He not have used an illustration which showed that faith would produce incredible forgiveness? Instead, Jesus taught them that faith in the quantity of a mustard seed would enable them to command a tree to be uprooted and to be transplanted to the sea. Who cares? Who is interested in transplanting trees in this way? Jesus used this illustration to prove His point, but not to motivate them to exercise faith in the area of forgiveness.

A friend of mine pointed out that this request of the apostles is most interesting in the light of the power and authority already granted them by our Lord. They had been sent out to preach the kingdom of God, with the power and authority to heal and to cast out demons (Luke 9:1ff.). In spite of such great power, some of which seems to abide with them on an on-going basis, they found that they did not have sufficient “faith” to forgive. Now this is truly an amazing thing. In the following verses, Jesus is going to sharpen the focus of the apostles, so that what they really lack will become evident. There is a deficiency, I believe, but it is not in the quantity of the apostles’ faith.

Fourth, and most significantly, we should note that while the disciples made a very clear request for increased faith, Jesus is not said to have granted it. This is such an obvious fact that we hardly even notice it, and yet it is very crucial to understanding our passage. The disciples asked Jesus for more faith, but Jesus did not grant it. A lack of faith must therefore not be the problem.

Lessons on Gratitude
(17:7-19)

In verses 7-19 Luke provides us with two lessons on gratitude. The first lesson is taught by our Lord to the apostles. He compares His relationship to them to the relationship between a master and his slave (verses 7-9). He then applies this to the attitude of His disciples toward their obedience (verse 10). The second lesson comes to us from an incident which happened sometime in the ministry of our Lord, which Luke records at this point because of its contribution to the subject of gratitude. Ten lepers call upon Jesus to have mercy, and all ten are healed, but only one returns to thank the Lord Jesus, and this man is a Samaritan. In the first instance, it is the master who is not obligated to have gratitude towards the obedience of his slave; in the second, it is the recipient of God’s grace who is to have gratitude toward God. Let us consider these two lessons on gratitude, and then seek to discover how they relate to faith and forgiveness.

The Hard-Working Slave
(17:7-10)

But which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’? But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me until I have eaten and drunk; and afterward you will eat and drink’? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

As was often the case, Jesus began to teach with a story. He speaks from the vantage point of a culture which practices, understands, and to some degree accepts slavery. We will find this lesson very strange indeed, even distasteful. Remember, however, that the slave belonged to his master. He belonged completely to him. Thus, the master could be very severe in his demands, especially in comparison to our culture. Jesus’ words indicate that what He was about to say was something with which all would agree, given that culture. He begins, “Which one of you.…” This is very similar to the first two stories Jesus told of “lost things” in chapter 15. There, it was Jesus’ opponents, the Pharisees, who were represented by the “you” (cf. Luke 15:4, 8). He will make His point, then, based upon the attitudes and value systems represented by His apostles.

Any of the apostles would understand the relationship between a master and his slave. None of them, if they had a slave who had either been out all day plowing or tending sheep, would be welcomed home that night with a hot meal. Instead, the master would rightly expect his slave to clean up, change his clothes, and then fix him his meal. Only after this would the slave be free to care for his own needs. And when the slave had perfectly carried out all of his duties for the day, no one would expect the master to come to him, put an arm around his shoulder, and tell him how good a job he had done. Masters felt no obligation to pamper their slaves, nor to praise them.

In our society, our Lord might have told the story of the man who filled out his income tax form. The form was neatly filled out, with all the supporting facts and figures. Along with the form, mailed before April 15th, there was a check for the taxes which were due. Surely, Jesus might say, this man would not expect a call or a thank you note from the IRS or from the President of the United States, expressing the government’s gratitude for obedience to the laws of the land. Paying taxes is our duty, one for which we expect no gratitude if we obey exactly as required, but one which we expect punishment for failing to perform.

Nobody among the apostles would have argued this point with the Master. But why was this true? Why was it granted that the master need not pamper or praise his slave, but expect him to serve him sacrificially and faithfully? I think that there is one principle reason, and it is almost too simple to repeat: because the master was the master, and the slave was a slave. The underlying principle might therefore be summarized: MASTERS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEMAND COMPLETE OBEDIENCE FROM THEIR SLAVES, BUT SLAVES HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING FROM THEIR MASTERS.

Put in different terms, PRAISE AND SERVICE ARE PURELY A MATTER OF POSITION.

The Lord, in verse 10, puts the principle into very practical terms, applying it to His disciples. It is apparent that the Lord is to be viewed as the Master, and the disciples, His slaves. They, like slaves, are to see themselves as under obligation to obey the Lord completely. Having done so, they are not to expect praise or reward, either. Instead, they are to look upon themselves as “unworthy slaves.”

Our Lord’s words raise two important questions. The first is raised by another text of Scripture; the second, by a very popular contemporary emphasis. This first question is this: WHY DOES JESUS SPEAK OF HIS DISCIPLES AS SLAVES HERE, WHEN HE SEEMS TO REVERSE THIS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN?

You will recall these words, spoken by our Lord in the 15th chapter of John’s gospel:

“You are My friends, if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves; for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you” (John 15:14-15, NASB).

Note, in the first place, that regardless of whether or not one is a “slave” or a “friend,” they must obey in either case. A slave, by his position, must obey; a friend, by Jesus’ definition, must obey, His commands. Obedience is not set aside, but reaffirmed. Second, Jesus is not saying that the role of a slave is set aside altogether, but only that it is set aside in the matter of being informed of what the Master is doing. A slave is not told the master’s plans and purposes, but is only given instructions. A friend, on the other hand, is privy to the purposes of his friend. Jesus is therefore setting aside the role of a slave in this dimension, but not in every dimension. That is why Paul and others can so frequently (and accurately) refer to themselves as the Lord’s slaves (cf. Romans 1:1).

The second question is one that is culturally necessitated: WHY DOES JESUS INSTRUCT HIS DISCIPLES TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS UNWORTHY SLAVES, WHEN OUR CULTURE IS TELLING US THAT MEN NEED A BETTER SENSE OF THEIR SELF-WORTH?

Frankly, this is a good question. I will leave it to those who advocate a “good self image” to explain. I cannot. Jesus’ words, in my estimation, are too clear to brush aside. It is the Pharisees who had a “good self-image” and were destined for hell. It was those who knew themselves “unworthy” who came to Jesus and found grace and forgiveness.

Our Lord’s words in this text teach us a vitally important principle, which can be summed up in this way: FAITH ALWAYS OPERATES IN THE ARENA OF GRACE AND MERCY, AND IS EXERCISED BY THOSE WHO KNOW THEMSELVES TO BE UNWORTHY.

I believe that Jesus’ words here in verses 6-10 serve as a corrective to the erroneous thinking of the apostles, who asked for greater faith. The important thing, Jesus says, is not the amount of faith, but the attributes of faith. Faith is not here a matter of quantity, but of quality. The disciples’ thinking was that they lacked sufficient faith. Jesus’ answer was that they lacked an accurate understanding of the nature of faith. I believe that Jesus is, in these verses, condemning what we might call Pharisaical faith, a “faith” which is based more upon the possessor of it than its object, a faith which is based more on one’s performance than on God’s character.

Jesus would have us learn that while a master has every right to demand total obedience from his slaves, and the slave has every obligation to obey his master completely, the master has no obligation to be grateful to his slave, even though he obeys him completely. Pharisaical faith becomes a kind of “work” which obligates God to respond. Biblical faith requires obedience to God, without any demands on Him at all. Biblical faith thinks in terms of duty; Pharisaical faith thinks in terms of benefits, obligated by faithfulness.

The Pharisees really believed that by their outward compliance with the Law—that is, their interpretation of it—that they could merit God’s favor. They saw, for example, that their prosperity was the logical and necessary outcome of their piety. Thus, they felt little gratitude toward God, for what they got, they deserved (in their minds). Gratitude, to them, was an obligation which fell more on God, than upon them.

God warned the Israelites of this danger, even before they entered the promised land. In the early chapters of the book of Deuteronomy, God reminded His people of His blessings, all of which were a matter of grace, in spite of their disobedience, grumbling, and all around nastiness. He also warned them that when they entered the promised land they would, once again, partake of the fruits of His grace, but that they would be inclined to credit themselves for these blessings. In other words, Israel would look upon God as obligated to bless them, rather than to be grateful for His grace.

Be careful that you do not forget the Lord your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. He led you through the vast and dreadful desert, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today. If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. Like the nations the Lord destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 8:11‑20, NIV).

But what does all this have to do with faith and forgiveness? Everything! First, I believe that Jesus is teaching us that faith always operates in the realm of grace and mercy. If the Pharisees thought that God owed them His blessings, Jesus taught just the opposite. Jesus taught that those who would have faith must first recognize their own unworthiness, and must approach Him on the basis of His grace, not on the basis of our merits.

I decided to track the subject of faith through the gospel of Luke, and learned something very interesting. Faith, in Luke, is closely associated with a sense of unworthiness. The first instance of “faith” which is mentioned in Luke is the healing of the paralytic man, who was lowered through the roof of the house in which Jesus was teaching. Luke tells us that it was upon seeing the faith of the stretcher-bearers that Jesus responded to the paralytic, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you” (Luke 5:20, NASB). Why did Jesus say this, rather than to first heal the man? And why did the man not ask Jesus to be healed? He could speak, we would assume. I think the man felt a deep sense of unworthiness to approach Jesus and to ask for healing. Jesus therefore dealt with that which hindered the man most—his sin. It was this man’s sin which made him conscious of his unworthiness, and so Jesus first pronounced forgiveness. And then He healed him.

The second instance of faith is much clearer. In Luke chapter 7, we are told of the great faith of the Centurion, who begged Jesus to heal his slave, but not to bother to come to his house. I always viewed the great faith of this man in terms of his request for a “long distance” healing. But I now believe that a part of the greatness of his faith was his awareness of his unworthiness. Faith begins with a knowledge of our unworthiness, and thus appeals to God on the basis of His grace and mercy, rather than on the basis of our merit. Incidentally, Luke (alone) informs us that while this centurion knew he was unworthy, the Jewish elders specifically appealed to Jesus to grant his request because he was worthy (Luke 7:3).

The third instance of faith in Luke is found in the same chapter (7:36-50). Our Lord was eating a meal in the home of one of the Pharisees. During the meal a woman with a tainted reputation came, and from behind the Lord, washed His feet with her tears, kissed them, and anointed them with an expensive perfume—the most costly thing she had. When the host Pharisee

saw this, he thought that Jesus must not have known of her past. How could a true prophet allow this woman to touch Him? Jesus contrasted this woman’s hospitality with the reception (or lack of it) He had been given by His host. But the important thing to note in this text is that the woman, by her actions, revealed that she felt utterly unworthy of the Lord. The Pharisees, on the other hand, felt too worthy, but by the treatment they gave the Lord Jesus, did not consider Him worthy of the normal social graces. Jesus sent this woman away with the reassuring words, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (7:50).

In Luke 8 we find the next instance of faith. When the disciples were fearful because of the storm, Jesus rebuked them for their lack of faith (8:25). Then, a woman with a hemorrhage (of 12 years) came to Jesus from behind and “stole,” as it were, a healing from Him. Jesus would not allow this healing to be a clandestine one, and thus He called the woman forward to confess her faith and actions, and to make known the fact that she had been cleansed. He sent this woman away with words very similar to those spoken to the woman who anointed His feet, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace” (8:48).

Why did this woman not ask Jesus for a healing? Why did she try to “steal” it unnoticed? To have pressed her way through that crowd was an incredible feat. She surely could have called out for help and healing, but she did not. I think that the woman’s actions are explained by the fact that she did not wish to draw attention to herself, or to “bother” the Master. It is my opinion that she, like the others, did what she did out of a deep sense of unworthiness. She knew she was unworthy (she was unclean, you will recall), but she also believed that merely a touch of Jesus’ garment would heal her.

The next reference to faith is in chapter 12, verse 28, only here it is not the presence of faith, but the lack of it which is stressed. Having little faith, Jesus taught, was the source of worry about food and clothing. This text does not directly bear upon our text.

In chapter 17, the portion of Luke with which we are presently concerned, faith is mentioned three times (verses 5, 6, & 19). In the next chapter, we have the story of the self-righteous Pharisee and the tax-gatherer (18:9-14). The verse which immediately precedes this story reads as follows:

“I tell you that He will bring about justice from them speedily. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

I believe that the story of the self-righteous Pharisee and the penitent sinner has a direct connection to this verse, in which our Lord spoke of finding faith on the earth. I believe that one of the characteristics of faith is a sense of unworthiness on the part of the one who beseeches or approaches God. I believe that unbelief, on the other hand, is betrayed by a sense of self-confidence, which foolishly supposes that one is really worthy of God.

In the last part of chapter 18 (verses 35-43) we read of the blind man who persists in calling out to Jesus, pleading for mercy (cf. v. 38). Some who were in the crowd tried to silence him. Obviously, they did not think that he was worthy of the Master’s attention. This man did not think so either, but he did not request justice, but mercy. Only the unworthy petition God for mercy, and that is just what this man did.

The final occurrence of the term “faith” is found in chapter 22 (verse 32). Here, Jesus is speaking to Peter, who, like the Pharisee above, is brimming with self-confidence. When Jesus spoke to Peter about his failure, he assured His Lord that he most certainly would not do so (22:33). Jesus told Peter that while Satan had demanded to “sift him like wheat” (v. 31), He had prayed for him, that his faith would not fail (v. 32). What might cause Peter’s faith to fail? Was his failure to come so great that he might feel so utterly unworthy that he might despair of ever being used of God again. If faith is rooted in a sense of unworthiness, then his faith need not fail, for he was unworthy, but faith looks to God when we really are unworthy. Thus, he faith would not fail, his faith would work in the knowledge of his unworthiness and seek God’s grace.

The use of “faith” in the gospel of Luke (and the other gospels as well, I suspect) leads me to this conclusion: FAITH FUNCTIONS ONLY THE CONTEXT OF MERCY AND GRACE, AND THUS IT IS EXERCISED ONLY BY THOSE WHO KNOW THEMSELVES TO BE UNWORTHY. FAITH NEVER LOOKS TO GOD TO RESPOND TO US IN GRATITUDE, BUT ALWAYS RESPONDS TO HIM WITH GRATITUDE.

Consider with me how this conclusion makes sense of our text. Jesus commanded His disciples to forgive those who sin against them, even if that person sins and repents seven times a day. The disciples, like us, are going to wonder whether of not this makes sense. How do we forgive someone who is not worthy of it?

Jesus’ answer is as follows. First, if He is the Master and we are His slaves, we are obligated to obey Him fully, whether we understand why or not. His demands are never to great, for He is the Master, and we are His slaves. Second, while it may take faith to forgive as Jesus has said, it is not just the quantity of it which is the problem, but the quality of it. Faith is that system on which those who are unworthy of God’s favor approach him and live for Him. Would we suppose that those who sin against us are unworthy of our forgiveness? Let us not forget that we are unworthy of God’s forgiveness, along with all of the rest of His blessings. The forgiveness which we are commanded to show to others is a matter of grace, and is thus unmerited. We who live by grace must also manifest that same grace to others, as God manifests it to us.

This is why our Lord stresses the subject of gratitude in these verses. The slave is not to expect gratitude from the master; the slave is to show gratitude toward the master. It is our gratitude, based upon the grace of God in our lives, which is the fuel for the forgiveness which we are to manifest toward others. Thus, Jesus has turned the subject. Faith is an issue here, but it is not the need for more faith on the part of the disciples as it is to remember the basic principles on which faith operates. Faith operates in the realm of grace, and grace should produce gratitude. This gratitude is the disciple’s motive for forgiving others. Those who are forgiven much are expected (on the basis of grace) to forgive.

The Grateful Leper
(17:11-19)

Just as gratitude is the key to understanding the first half of our text, so it is likewise the key to the last half. Let us now consider the story of the ten lepers, only one of which demonstrated gratitude.

And it came about while He was on the way to Jerusalem, that He was passing between Samaria and Galilee. And as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten leprous men, who stood at a distance; and they raised their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” And when He saw them, He said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And it came about that as they were going, they were cleansed.

Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? Were none found who turned back to give glory to God, except this foreigner?” And He said to him, “Rise, and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

The time and the place may have changed, but the subject of gratitude has not. Once again, it seems, Luke reveals that his unifying principle is not chronology or geography, but the logical development of his argument(s). At some point in time, Jesus was passing near Samaria. Coming upon a certain village, He encountered ten lepers. They kept their distance, as was prescribed, but they did not keep quiet. They cried out for mercy, and Jesus was more than willing to heal them.

Jesus chose to heal the lepers in a different way, however. Rather than to reach out and touch them (which Jesus had done before, Luke 5:13), He instructed the men to go to their respective priests. They were not yet healed. They were to go in obedience, and if they thought about it, they would probably have reasoned that Jesus must intend to heal them, for they were to go to the priest to be pronounced clean (cf. Leviticus 14). All ten lepers departed in obedience to the Lord’s instructions. On the way, they were all healed.

We know from Jesus’ words that all ten lepers were healed (verse 17), and yet only one of the ten returned, and this one man was a Samaritan. It is implied that the other nine were Israelites. The one who returned did so in order to thank Jesus and to praise God for his healing. Since this man “glorified God” (v. 15) and “thanked Jesus” (v. 16), it would seem that he had come to recognize, to some degree, the deity of our Lord. At least he regarded his healing as having come from God through Jesus.

It was true, of course, that Jesus had commanded the ten to go to their priests. In this sense, the nine who did not return were only being obedient to what Jesus had commanded. Jesus had something to say about this, however. He asked several questions. Whether these were addressed to His disciples or to the one man is not clear. What is clear is that Jesus commended the gratitude of this one leper, and criticized the failure of the others to do likewise.

Luke, of course, has a special message in this, for the one man was not a Jew at all, but a Samaritan. Jesus made a point of referring to this one grateful leper as a “foreigner” (v. 18). Once again, we are being prepared for the gospel to be proclaimed and accepted by the Gentiles, while spurned by the Jews. These nine ungrateful recipients of God’s grace are typical of the nation Israel, while this one grateful Gentile is a prototype of the many Gentiles who will believe and will praise God.

Jesus’ words to this man sound very similar to those which He has spoken before: “Rise, and go your way; your faith has made you well” (verse 19).

Once we become aware of the fact that the term rendered, “has made you well” literally means “saved,” there is a question which must be asked and answered: “Is Jesus pronouncing a special blessing upon this one man, which is above and beyond that received by the other 9?” All ten men were healed, so in what sense is this one leper “saved”? In the New Testament, the term “saved” is used to refer to eternal salvation and to physical healing. Which way does Luke (and the Holy Spirit)n intend for us to understand it here?

Luke appears to use the term “save” in three primary ways. First, the term can describe a physical healing and even an exorcism (cf. 8:36, 48, 50). Second, the term can refer to the saving of one’s physical life, as when Jesus was challenged to come down from the cross and save Himself (23:35, 37, 39; cf. 9:24). Third, the term is used, perhaps most often, of eternal salvation (7:48, 50; 8:12; 18:25-26; 19:10). In some cases, it would appear that there is a blending of the first and third uses, so that physical healing and spiritual salvation are both depicted by the term “saved” (e.g. 8:36, 48).

How, then, does Luke use the term “save” here? It is my opinion that Luke uses it with the added sense of spiritual salvation. In the sense of being healed, all ten lepers were “saved.” But in the sense of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and in giving thanks to Him as such, only this one leper did so. I believe that his “salvation” goes beyond the cleansing of his leprosy to the cleansing of his sin.

Conclusion

The central issue in our passage is forgiveness. The focus of the disciples was on faith. Jesus did not minimize the need for faith, but neither did He affirm that a lack of faith was their problem, and thus that granting more faith was the solution. Jesus’ response in verses 7-10 and the account of the one grateful leper focus on obedience and gratitude. The slave of verses 7-10 is to faithfully obey his master, but not to expect him to show gratitude, for the master has the right to expect obedience of a slave, and has no obligation to be thankful for it. So, too, when the disciple is obedient to Christ, he does not see it as meriting anything from God, nor does he equate his worthiness with it, for all men, even the most obedient of them, are unworthy of divine favor.

If this is true, as it must be, then what we need is not a system of rules to keep, for in keeping them there is no merit, no reward. If we are unworthy even at our best—even when we keep all of God’s commandments—then what we need is not Law, but grace. Grace is God’s favor bestowed upon us because we are unworthy, not because we are worthy. Grace and mercy are prompted by our unworthiness, while God’s gratitude cannot even be prompted by our best efforts.

How foolish, then, were the efforts of the Pharisees, and all other legalists, then and now, to try to earn God’s favor. We will never favorably impress God. We can never put Him under obligation to us. If we would gain anything from God it will be on the basis of our unworthiness and on the basis of His grace. And the way that these things are obtained is not by our works, but by His grace, through faith. Faith, Jesus is saying, is operative only in the arena of grace and mercy, which is bestowed only on the unworthy.

It is the grace of God, poured out freely upon sinners, which produces gratitude, and it is this gratitude which serves to motivate the recipient of grace to also bestow it on others. Thus, just as God has forgiven us of our sins against Him, solely on the basis of our confession of sin and repentance, so we are to forgive others on the same basis. It is not a greater faith that is required for us to do this, but a better understanding of what faith is and how it works.

The second story reminds us that the grace of God should not only be manifested in our freely forgiving others, but also should be seen in our worship and praise of God. Loving God and loving men are the two great commandments of our Lord, and of the Law. If gratitude for God’s grace should prompt us to forgive our fellow man, so it should motivate us to worship and praise God. The 9 lepers obeyed God and were cleansed, but they never recognized Jesus for who He was, nor did they every worship and praise Him. They were the recipients of God’s grace, and didn’t respond to it in faith, worship, and praise.

What a perfect picture of the nation Israel. Over the centuries God had poured out His grace upon the nation. His blessings can be found throughout the Old Testament. And yet, for all the blessings of God on Israel, and for all their attention to obeying the law (feeble and failing as it was) the nation never, as a whole, came to worship and adore God, and when God was manifested in the flesh, they did not know it was Him. The nine ungrateful, unbelieving, unsaved lepers, while outwardly cleaned up, were still inwardly unclean. How sad to come so close to God and yet not know or worship Him.

The one Samaritan leper differed little from the other nine, but in a very important area. He recognized that his healing was from God, through Jesus. He not only obeyed Jesus’ command, but He returned to worship and adore Him, to give Him thanks, because He had come to recognize Him as God’s salvation. Because of this, he was saved.

This man is a picture, a prototype of all of those Gentiles who were to be saved by recognizing Jesus to be God’s salvation. This man did not have all of the benefits which the Jewish lepers did, all of the background, all of the exposure to the Scriptures, but He did come into contact with Jesus, and when He did he not only obeyed Him, He trusted in Him as the Messiah. And because of his faith, he was saved. The Jewish lepers obeyed and were blessed, but they were not saved. This man obeyed Jesus, too, but his salvation came as the result of his faith, not his works. So it is with all who find eternal life in Christ.

While the disciples preferred to think in terms of increasing their faith, Jesus chose to emphasize the arena of faith, and especially the grace of God and the gratitude which should result. It is God’s grace, received with gratitude, which should motivate our forgiving others (and all other ministry to men) and our worship of God.

While legalism seeks to motivate men on the basis of fear and guilt, Christ motivates us on the basis of grace and gratitude. It is no accident that Paul introduces the applicational portion of the book of Romans with these words,

I URGE YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, BY THE MERCIES OF GOD, TO PRESENT YOUR BODIES A LIVING AND HOLY SACRIFICE, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, WHICH IS YOUR SPIRITUAL SERVICE OF WORSHIP (Romans 12:1).

Here, my friend, is the basis for all that we do in the Christian life—it is the grace and mercy of God, granted to those who are unworthy of it, which produces gratitude. It is on the basis of this grace and the resulting gratitude which we are to live, both in our service to men and in our worship of God.

It occurred to me as I have reflected on the Lord’s command to forgive and the apostles’ petition for greater faith that the key to our obedience is not only in petition, but in praise. How often, when we pray, we ask God for something, rather than to praise Him for what He has given. How often we assume that the reason we have not acted in obedience is because we lack the faith to do so. Many times, I believe that we lack the gratitude to act, rather than the faith to act. Often, it is not that we lack the means to obey God, but that we lack the motivation to obey Him. Peter tells us in his second epistle that God has given us all that is necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), and this through the knowledge of Him. Let us therefore take praise much more seriously. Let us not seek petitioning God for that which we truly lack, but let us also grow in our grasp of all that He has given, and give thanks to Him.

I challenge you to search the Scriptures and to study the subject of gratitude, looking up such words as “thanks,” “thanksgiving,” “thankful,” and “praise.”

In our church, we observe the Lord’s Table (communion) every week. Some think that this is too frequent, even though the churches of the New Testament did it no less frequently. Some think it can become meaningless and repetitious. I believe that a remembrance of our Lord’s death for us, a remembrance of His grace showered upon us by means of the cross, is the basis for our gratitude, and that this gratitude thus becomes the motivation for our loving both God and men. Let us never cease to recall our unworthiness and His grace, and thus to become people marked out by their gratitude.

! Lesson 55:
Sign-Seeking and the Coming of the Kingdom
(Luke 17:20-37)

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” 22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” 37 “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

Introduction

One thing that Jesus has pointed out about the Pharisees (not to mention others) is that they tended to appraise things by appearances. The Sermon on the Mount, as recorded by Matthew, makes much of this. The Lord Jesus told men that sins were not merely external (murder, adultery, etc.), but internal (anger, lust, greed). So, too, righteousness was not so much the doing of external acts (fasting, tithes and offerings, long prayers), but in the attitudes of the heart. In chapter 16, Jesus accused the Pharisees of being far to external in their orientation:

Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things, and they were scoffing at Him. And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Luke 16:14-15).

Is it not easy to understand that when it came to the coming of the promised kingdom of God, men would expect its arrival to be signaled by various external “signs and wonders”? And who but the Pharisees would expect to observe them and recognize the kingdom first. In the gospels of Matthew and Mark, we

are told it was the Pharisees who persistently challenged Jesus to prove Himself by performing sings (Matthew 12:38; 16:1; Mark 8:11).

In our passage, the subject is the kingdom of God and its coming. The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom was to come. Jesus briefly answered their question, in a way that showed they would not, indeed they had not, recognized the kingdom as having already come. From this starting point, Luke records the teaching of our Lord on the coming of the kingdom which was raised by the questioning of the Pharisees.

It is most important to take note of the fact that there are three errors described in our text, all of which have to do with the second coming. The first is the error of the Pharisees (verses 20-21). The second error is that of our Lord’s disciples (verses 22-25). The last error is that of the people as a whole, the masses (verses 26-32). From a study of our text, and from a study of the gospels as a whole, we can see that no one fully understood the prophecies of the Old Testament and how they would be fulfilled in Christ. At best, some had bits and pieces of the story, but no one could put them all together. If this is true, we should be instructed that none of us, who live in the 20th century, have a complete understanding of Bible prophecy. We may, like some in Jesus’ day, feel that we are experts in the area of the coming of the kingdom, but we, like they, are not. We, too, have many misconceptions concerning the return of our Lord and the establishment of His kingdom on the earth. We need these words from the lips of our Lord as much as the people of His day needed them.

In our study, we will focus our attention on these three errors, their causes, and their remedy. We will seek to learn how the second coming, the coming of our Lord’s kingdom, can play a vital role in our lives, and how our lives play a great role in terms of our eagerness for the coming of our Lord and His kingdom. We will see, as well, that the three errors described in our text apply to matters other than the second coming, too. Let us listen well to these inspired words about the second coming, its relationship and its relevance to us.

The Structure of the Text

Our text contains two main paragraphs, the first of which concerns the Pharisees (verses 20-21). The second paragraph is significantly larger and contains our Lord’s instructions directed to His disciples (verses 22-37). The subject of both paragraphs is the coming of the kingdom of God. The text can be subdivided into the following sections:

(1) The Pharisees and the Kingdom of God (vv. 20-21)

(2) The Disciples and the Kingdom of God (vv. 22-37)

(3) The Danger of over-zealous expectation (vv. 22-25)

(4) The Danger of worldly preoccupation (vv. 26-32)

(5) Summation (vv. 33-37)

The Context of the Text

It is fairly easy to determine the paragraph structure of our text. It is not so easy to determine the length of the passage to study in this lesson because Luke is developing an argument and thus there is an on-going interconnection of the paragraphs. The principle subject of our text is the coming of the kingdom of God. The subject does not end with our text, however. In chapter 18 it goes on. The petition of the woman in verses 1-8 is for justice, and the point of the parable is that the Lord’s disciples should not grow weary in prayer. Especially in view is praying for the coming of His kingdom, at which time justice will be brought to the earth. The prayer of the persistent widow is followed by two other prayers, that of the self-righteous Pharisee and of the penitent tax-collector (18:9-14). These prayers reflect the pride and self-righteousness which the Lord will judge at His coming, and the repentance and faith which He will reward when He comes.

Thus, the flow of thought moves from the timing of the coming of the kingdom (the question of the Pharisees) to the nature of that coming, the dangers associated with it, and the appropriate attitudes for true disciples. In chapter 18 steadfast prayer for the coming of the kingdom is urged, followed up by the character of those who will possess the kingdom. The story of the rich young ruler instructs us as to the hindrances to the kingdom which are experienced by the rich. The Lord then reminded His disciples that His death would soon occur in Jerusalem, something which the still could not grasp (18:31-34). The last story of chapter 18, that of the healing of the blind man (18:35-43) provides us with an example of persistence in prayer.

There is a close connection between 17:20-37 and the preceding context of Luke. The Pharisees have, of course, been prominent, largely due to their opposition to Jesus, His teaching, and His practice. The immediately preceding texts have dealt primarily with how disciples should live their life in the present, but we will soon discover that our attitudes and actions in the present have much to do with our attitude and actions with regard to the coming kingdom of our Lord. Let us save this matter for later on.

The Pharisees’ Question and Jesus’ Response
(17:20-21)

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

It is interesting that it would be the Pharisees who would approach Jesus with this question—interesting, but not surprising. The Pharisees looked upon themselves as the experts in spiritual matters. No doubt they would have expected Messiah to have come from among their elite group. They seemed to look upon themselves as the accrediting agency for all spiritual ministries. I understand that the Pharisees’ question about when the kingdom was to come was an implied rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. I believe that it was but another of their efforts in a long-standing commitment (cf. Luke 11:53-54) to trip up the Lord Jesus and to thus be able to publicly discredit Him.

As usual, Jesus was not taken back by their question. Jesus’ answer has two parts. The first part of His answer pertains to the “careful observation” of the Pharisees (note the “your” in verse 20). The second part of Jesus’ response pertains to the people of Israel at large (note “people” in verse 21). The general thrust of our Lord’s response is that neither the Pharisees nor the people would recognize the coming of the kingdom.

I believe that the Pharisees wrongly thought they had everything under control. They had a very neatly packed religious system. They had their beliefs carefully organized, and they had a very precisely laid out code of conduct—a law for every occasion. Thus, they had a theological formula for the kingdom and its coming. They felt, I think, that they would simply apply the standards they had set up to every potential “Messiah” and would thus be able to judge when the true Messiah had come. They seemed to think, as well, that they would have ample time to apply their tests and to come to their conclusions. The term that is translated “careful observation” in the NIV is one that was used by the ancients for a doctor who carefully observed the symptoms of a patient, in order to diagnose his illness (very appropriate for Dr. Luke). The same term was used for the “careful observation” of the heavens, but those who were experts in astronomy. One could watch the course of a planet, or could plot the trajectory of a comet, and thus be able to forecast where it would be at a certain time.

The Pharisees may very well have thought that they could deal in the same fashion with the arrival of the kingdom of God. They would simply apply all of their standards and tests (assuming, of course, that they were absolutely correct and infallible) over a period of time, and then in a very cautious and scientific way pronounce the true Messiah to be such. Surely they would be able to tell the real thing.

Jesus said otherwise. They would not be able to do so, and neither would the people at large. They would not be able to point to the Messiah or the kingdom and say, “Here it is” or “There it is.” The question must therefore be, “Why?” I do not think the answer is that there are no indications of His coming, but that the expectations of what they “King” and the “kingdom” would be like were so distorted that they would never recognize the real thing. The concept of the kingdom was so secular, so earthly, so materialistic, that the kingdom of our Lord was never seriously entertained as an option. Jesus simply did not fit the preconceived expectations of the Pharisees and the people, and neither group had any thought of changing these. Thus, Jesus simply had to go. And this was in spite of the fact that Jesus did produce many signs, attesting His identity as Messiah (cf. John 9:16; 11:47; 12:37).

The last statement of our Lord, reported in verse 21, is the most perplexing of this paragraph: “The kingdom of God is within you.”

Just what does this mean? Is Jesus saying that the kingdom is a spiritual matter, a matter only of the heart, and thus an “inside” thing? It think that while there is some truth here, it was not at all our Lord’s point. The specific term used may never have been used with the meaning “among.” This I can readily accept. But perhaps the unusual term “within” is stressing two things at once. First, the kingdom of God was already present in the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Second, however, while Jesus was “in their midst” (so to speak), He was never one of them, never one of the Pharisees, and never one with the Jews either. Jesus was utterly different in that His kingdom did not conform to the Pharisaical expectations nor to the popular ones. Jesus was “within” His people, but not “one of them” in the sense of what His kingdom entailed.

Lest we conclude that no one could recognize the King and His kingdom, let us recall that several people did, even at His birth. Those whose expectations conformed to the prophets of the Old Testament, and who were illuminated by the Holy Spirit could and did recognize the King. Mary, Elizabeth, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and John the Baptist all recognized Jesus as the coming King, and spoke of the coming of His kingdom. While the words and works of Jesus should have been sufficient evidence, the hardness of men’s hearts prevented them from seeing the obvious, no matter how hard they looked.

Jesus’ Response to His Disciples
(17:22-37)

Several observations are necessary before we proceed with our exposition of these verses.

(1) The kingdom of God is viewed as a whole, encompassing all aspects of it, including the first and second comings of Christ.

(2) Though Jesus focused on the first coming in His response to the Pharisees, He stresses the second coming in His instruction to the disciples.

(3) Though the coming of the kingdom of God means many blessings to those who eagerly await it, the emphasis here falls on the judgment of God which will come upon sinners at His return.

(4) The emphasis of our Lord in these verses is on the dangers which face men in conjunction with the coming of the kingdom, especially those which can lead them astray.

(5) While Jesus is speaking to His disciples, He is also speaking of those dangers which face men in general, especially the unbelieving world.

With these observations in mind, let us look at what our Lord has to say, beginning with His words directed to the disciples, concerning the dangers which they face in relationship to the coming of the kingdom.

The Coming of the
Kingdom and Excessive Zeal
(17:22-25)

22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

The disciples of Jesus face a different danger, and for different reasons. The Pharisees rejected the kingdom of God because the rejected the Lord Jesus as the Messiah. The disciples, on the other hand, had come to love Him and were deeply committed to Him. Jesus warns His disciples of the dangers that face them because of their love for Him, and their desire to see Him.

The disciples’ understanding of the coming kingdom and how it will be established is distorted, too. Jesus must therefore remind them of His coming rejection and death. In addition to this, Jesus will not be physically present with then after His ascension, and thus for a time they will yearn for His physical presence. This personal, physical presence will take place (on earth) at the time of the second coming, at the time when the kingdom of God is established on the earth.

In His physical absence there will be hard times for the followers of Jesus, who will be rejected and persecuted even as He was to be. In such times of adversity, a great hunger for Christ’s kingdom and His presence on the earth will be experienced by those who love the Messiah. This eagerness for His coming has its potential problems, for the danger will be to be distracted from their devotion and duty by going off after everyone who claims or who is thought to be a “messiah.” We know from other texts on the coming kingdom that many will arise with messianic claims, some of whom will do mighty signs and wonders. This will tempt some to follow them, and thus to be distracted from their devotion to the true Messiah, and to what He has called them to do in His absence.

There is a “cultishness” in all such movements, for in order to follow such “messiahs” they will have to leave their present place of service. Each of these false messiahs will have a following, but they will not be regarded by all as God’s Messiah, nor will they institute the kingdom. Jesus instructs the disciples here that chasing after messiah’s, as though they might miss His coming is foolish and unnecessary. When He returns, it will be universally known and evident. There will be no mistaking it. Thus, there is no need to worry about missing out on this kingdom and no need to follow-up everyone who claims to be the king.

When I was younger and lived in the Northwest, I used to go salmon fishing. Usually, this meant using a large plate, called a dodger, which was followed by a hook, on which a herring was placed as bait. That dodger accomplished several things. First, it flashed in the water, attracting the attention of the fish (or so the manufacturer told us). Second, the dodger wobbled in the water, due to its shape, causing the herring to appear injured, so that the salmon would think it was an easy catch.

The dodger did something else, though—it tugged on the line, appearing to the novice to be a fish. To the inexperienced fisherman, more precisely, to the eager, inexperienced fisherman, every little tug on the line gives the promise of a catch, and so the line is constantly being reeled in to see if a fish is there. It won’t be. But all the time that the line is being reeled in, the chances of catching a fish are reduced. The poor herring on the end of the line is being worn out (and thus must be replaced).

The experienced fisherman knows that these little “tugs” are to be expected. He also knows that when a salmon is on the hook, there will be no doubt about it. You know when you’ve hooked a salmon! Thus, the key to effective fishing is patience and endurance. This is precisely what Jesus is teaching His disciples—not to be confused or mislead by every tug on the line, every hint of a claim to the messiahship, but to faithfully endure, trusting, worshipping, and serving Him, knowing that His coming will not be missed, by anyone. Being over-eager can therefore have its dangers. Our eagerness should be expressed through those energies which serve Him, not which seek to discover Him in some false messiah.

The Blinder of
Worldly Preoccupations
(17:26-37)

26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” 36 37 “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

In verses 20 & 21, Jesus had told the Pharisees that neither they, nor the people, would recognize the kingdom of God, even though they were looking for it. We have not yet heard the reason why this was true. I believe that verses 26-37 provide us with an explanation and application. Jesus reserves this explanation for here because He is using it as an example and as a warning to His disciples. Apart from the miraculous work of God in their conversion, the Pharisees will not be able to grasp this warning, but the disciples will better understand, at least later on. We know from the second epistle of Peter that he learned from this incident, for he, too, refers to the lessons which could be learned from both Noah and Lot with respect to the coming judgment of God (cf. 2 Peter 2:5-8).

Several lessons are taught by the Old Testament incidents concerning Noah and Lot. Both men, as we know from the book of Genesis (Noah, Genesis 6-9; Lot, chapter 19), lived among wicked men. Both men (and at least a part of their families) were taken out of God’s judgment, which was poured out upon the rest. In the cases of both men, the judgment of God was poured out on a wicked generation and many died. And in both cases, no one seemed aware that the judgment of God was coming until it was too late.

But why did none of the people seem to sense that God’s judgment was at hand? Was there no warning? We must say, in the first place, that there was no spectacular warning of impending judgment. There were no “signs and wonders.” There was, however, the testimony of that ark, which was being built over a period of 120 years. Peter refers to Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). Peter implied (2 Peter 2:7-8), as Moses also did (Genesis 19:9-11, 14), that God’s judgment was at hand. There may not have been any spectacular warnings, but then neither was there anything but Jonah’s preaching to the wicked Ninevites. They had heard all they needed to.

Back to my question, then, “Why did none of the people heed the warnings of judgment which God had provided?” The answer is quite clearly suggested by the Lord’s description of the activities they were engaged in at the time judgment fell upon the unsuspecting people. Simply put, everybody was going about their daily activities of living. People were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, buying and selling, planting and building. It was “life as usual” for these people when the end came. They never realized that judgment was coming upon them.

It is interesting to note that while the people of Noah’s day, as well as those of Lot, were exceedingly wicked. Jesus did not emphasize this, however. He did not say that when the end came, the people were busily engaged in their sinful practices. There is nothing intrinsically evil about eating and drinking, about marriage, or about one’s daily. These people were judged for their sin, but they were caught off guard doing what everyone does. Indeed, when we look beyond to verses 34 & 35, the one that is taken and the one that is left are both doing the same things.

What, then, is our Lord’s point in telling His disciples that those who were destroyed were simply going about their normal activities? Here, the Lord Jesus is not stressing who will possess the kingdom or why men are “left” or “taken.” Instead, He is underscoring the reason why men can be totally unaware of the coming of the King and the kingdom, so that it comes upon them totally unprepared. Jesus has just told the Pharisees that neither they nor the masses would recognize the fact that the kingdom had come. Now, I believe that He tells us why. They reason is that men do not look for the kingdom when their “life” is wrapped up in this life, and especially in the “things of this life.”

In both Noah’s day and in Lot’s, people were preoccupied with “living.” Life to them consisted of the earthly, temporal things which bring men pleasure, meaning, and joy. “Life,” as Jesus is using the term here, is not just one’s physical existence, but one’s source of meaning and significance. When people’s “lives” are caught up in the pursuits of living, they become insensitive to spiritual matters, and in particular to those warnings of the Scriptures and the saints concerning God’s coming and His judgment. The same spiritual dullness which unbelievers face because of their worldliness (finding their “life” in the world, in temporal things), Christians can experience (cf. Luke 21:34-36). Look at Lot and his family. Lot’s sons-in-law refused to leave Sodom, and thought Lot was out of his mind. Lot himself was most reluctant to leave. While Lot’s wife left Sodom, her heart was still there, and thus she turned back to see all that she love, her “life” going up in smoke.

In verses 26-37 there is a blending of historical illustration with future application. Jesus was likening what happened in the days of Noah and Lot to what was yet to happen to Israel. Thus, He said,

“… on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let not the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house go down to take them away; and likewise let not the one who is in the field turn back. Remember Lot’s wife” (verses 29-32).

Mrs. Lot is the specific illustration here. I wonder if, as they were leaving Sodom, she suddenly turned and said, “My new sewing machine. I simply must have it!” Whatever it was, Mrs. Lot’s treasure was in Sodom. She hated to lose it. She had, at least, to have one last, longing, look.

Jesus is speaking of a very particular event in verses 30-37. It is a part of the overall program of the coming kingdom of God. The emphasis is on the judgment side here, rather than on blessings. We are certainly not being told of the “streets of gold” but of the hellish sufferings of a sinful generation. Men will not be prepared for it. Those who are present at the time of this judgment must flee without any delay, without any turning back, without trying to save anything which wrongly brought “life”—namely, it would seem, worldly possessions.

In this time of judgment, two will be in bed. One will be taken and one will be left (verse 34). My (NASB) text tells me that two men will be in the same bed. It is possible, as some translations render it, that it is really a man and wife who are thus pictured. It is also possible that it is two men, but without any sense of immoral conduct. In those days a bed was not like the “beds” which we have today—single, twin, standard, queen, king, water, etc. In those days there were no bedrooms usually and thus the whole family slept together on the floor, on what must have been mats, at best (cf. Luke 11:7, where the head of the house speaks of he and his children being in bed).

The second case is that of two women, both of whom are going about their daily duties in the grinding of grain. One is taken, and the other is left. But where is the one taken to? It is possible here to see a reference to the rapture, that event when the saints are removed from the earth to be spared the judgment of God, poured out on the earth in the time of the great tribulation. But it is also possible to see the ones taken as those taken in judgment, just as many are said to perish in the tribulation.

The disciples, in verse 37, ask the question, “Where?” They are asking, as I understand them, where those who are taken away are taken to? “Where are they taken to, Lord?” The answer of our Lord is vague, but we must conclude that the place was very bad, as was their fate. They were told that where the (dead) body is, there the vultures would be gathered. It is thus to death that those taken are taken, but this gruesome fate is not carefully detailed. Who would want to hear more on this matter?

I understand our Lord’s words here to be more directly relevant and applicable to his audience. I believe that Jesus is specifically speaking of that judgment which God is going to bring upon Jerusalem and upon those who have rejected and have crucified Him. I understand Jesus to be referring to the “sacking” of Jerusalem by Rome, under the leadership of Titus, in 70 A.D. When news reaches this unsuspecting city, everything must be left and those who would be saved must leave everything behind and flee for safety outside the city. This subject will be taken up in much greater detail by our Lord (according to Luke’s account) in chapter 21. As is typical with Luke, he seldom goes into detail on any subject until he has first, earlier in the writing, introduced his subject and prepared his reader for it.

Conclusion

Our text the Savior informs us of three dangers with reference to the second coming. The first danger is that of shaping the second coming in accordance with our own desires and expectations. Neither the Pharisees nor the people of Israel would not recognize the coming kingdom because they had false pre-conceptions of what the King and the kingdom would (must) be like. When Jesus failed to fulfill these expectations, He was rejected, and ultimately put on the cross. The Pharisees had a very intricately worked out set of standards and codes of conduct for virtually any occasion. Would we think they would have done otherwise with the kingdom of God? Thus, though the Pharisees were watching closely for the kingdom, they were looking for the wrong kind of kingdom, and they would insist that this kingdom conform to their standards. Given this set of values and expectations, they would never see it. And as Jesus said, they had not seen it in Him, even though He stood in their midst, even though His message was consistently about the kingdom of God, and even though John had introduced Him as the King.

It is here that you and I need to be very careful, too. We are a part of a Christian community that (rightly) places much emphasis on the coming of our Lord. The difficulty is that we have worked out such an intricate plan as to how and when (the sequence of events) this will happen, we, like the Pharisees, have begun to view ourselves as the experts. We actually seem to think that we will stand by, watching it all happen, checking each event off on our list. My friend, I do not think that we can know most of the details about the coming of our Lord’s kingdom until they actually occur. We are no more likely to have things all figured out than did those upon whom the first aspect of our Lord’s coming came. If you had asked Simeon or Anna, Elizabeth or Zacharias or Mary how the kingdom of God was going to come, they would not have been able to say, “Well, there will be this little baby born … ” They knew it when they say it, because their hearts were tuned to the right frequency, so to speak. But they did not know what would happen until it did. Let us beware of feeling to expert about the coming of the kingdom. And let us be particularly careful not to demand that God’s kingdom conform to our understanding of it, our expectations for it, or our distorted and even sinful desires of what it should be.

The second danger is that which posed a threat to the disciples: over-eagerness to see the Lord Jesus again, manifested in a chasing after every potential “messiah” which may arise. Our Lord’s return cannot (as the Pharisees supposed) be all figured out in advance, but we can be assured that we will know it when it comes. The emphasis of our Lord is not on us finding or discovering Him and His coming kingdom, but on how He will find us. Repeatedly, Jesus urged His disciples to be faithful and diligent when He returned. Let us therefore focus our attention and our efforts on being found faithfully carrying out the task which He has given us, and that is making disciples of all nations. We ought not to be chasing after every self-proclaimed messiah, but we should be bringing others to the true Messiah, by faith.

The third danger is that of worldly pre-occupations, which diminishes our desire for the kingdom, and dims our view of its reality, and dulls our desire for it to come. When our “life” is found in Christ, and we can give up all else, all other things in which the world find “life” then we will eagerly await His return, and we will work to hasten it. This is why Jesus has had so much to say about possessions. Possessions will possess us if we find our “life” to be wrapped up with them. When we use our possessions to further the kingdom, then we lay up treasure in heaven, and we quicken our hearts toward heaven.

The way in which we go about our daily life determines our hunger for heaven, and our sensitivity to its nearness. I fear that many of us have this reversed in our minds. We seem to think that if we study the kingdom of God enough, our hearts will be warmed to it, and we will then let loose of those earthly things which sap us of our spiritual strength and desire for God. It seems to me that Jesus is saying to opposite. If we would have a heart and a hunger for heaven, then let us obediently give up all that the world spells “life” and then our hearts will yearn for heaven.

These three dangers are relevant not only to the coming kingdom, but to all other areas of our life as well. Take, for example, our desire for godliness. Some, like the Pharisees, have a neatly packed definition of spirituality, with all kinds of external check points. They think that by merely “following the program” men will be spiritual, and that anyone who is not “in the program” (whatever that program may be—and there are many programs) cannot possibly be spiritual.

There are those as well whose desire to be godly and to sense God’s personal presence in their lives is so great that they lack stability and endurance. They are persistently chasing off after some new claim of spiritual vitality. They go to this church and then the next, the follow after one “spiritual” leader after another. A misguided desire to be spiritual can be the source of many cultish pursuits. Spirituality, like the kingdom of God, will finally and fully come in time, when God has sovereignly determined it would, and in the way He has chosen. We should not seek to be “spiritual” per se, but to be obedient and faithful to Him who both saves and sanctifies.

As I have thought about this text, it has been very helpful to me in putting “signs and wonders” into perspective. Some read the book of Acts and then either demand or yearn for the same kinds of signs today, thinking that such would persuade the wicked to repent. Such is simply not true. The daily lifestyle of men, determined by their values, determined by their definition of “life,” is what speaks most loudly. As Jesus put it in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’” (Luke 16:31). It is not more signs and wonders that are most needed, but a simple proclamation of the gospel, accompanied by a biblical lifestyle and conduct. If men would be saved, they will be saved by heeding the Word of God. Let us proclaim it to them.

If you, my friend, have not yet trusted in Christ as your Savior, you should do so today. Jesus tells us in this text that you will not have any warning signs of the coming day of judgment, any more than the preaching of the gospel. There will be no time to repent when that day comes. If you would believe and obey, if you would acknowledge your sin and trust in the work of Christ in your place, do it now. The day of judgment does draw near. Let neither you nor I be unaware or apathetic about its coming. Let us find in Christ that our judgment has already been meted out, and that all that we await is our salvation.

! Lesson 56:
Piety, Persistence, Penitence, and Prayer
(Luke 18:1-14)

1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’ “ 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Introduction

In studying Luke chapter 18 it may be good to pause and look back on the gospel of Luke from the vantage point of the Book of Acts. Dr. Luke wrote both of these books as companion volumes. We seldom study or teach them as such, although we probably should. These books were written a number of years after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. They were written at a time when the church was born and was rapidly growing. It was also a time when the church was predominantly Gentile, but when the Judaizers were working very hard to make law-keeping Jewish proselytes out of Christians and treating them as second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. Furthermore, it was a time when the first generation of believers, including the apostles, were about to pass from the scene.

The Books of Luke and Acts made a great contribution to the church in many ways, but pause with me to consider two specific areas which will shed light on what we are about to study in Luke. First, it was becoming evident that the kingdom of God was not likely to commence as quickly as some thought and hoped. As we now well know, there was to be some period of delay between the first and second comings of our Lord. The kingdom of God would be established, but not immediately. When Luke wrote this gospel the saints were coming to this conclusion, and Luke’s writing was intended to demonstrate that this delay was hinted at, indeed clearly implied, by our Lord’s words to His disciples. Our text in verses 1-8 points to this delay and to its implications.

Second, the church Luke described in the Book of Acts was constantly hounded, resisted, and rejected by the legalistic Jews who wished either to Judaize Gentile saints and the church or to keep them at arm’s length as second-class citizens of the kingdom of God. This opposition to the church by the Judaizers is a frequent theme in Acts, and Luke sets out to describe its roots and its remedy in the gospel account which he penned. By describing the opposition to our Lord by the Pharisees in the gospels, Luke prepares us for the opposition to the church by the Judaizers in Acts. Just as the Pharisees looked down on Jesus and the “sinners” He attracted and received in the gospel of Luke, the Judaizers looked down on Paul and the Gentile Christians. Why, after reading Luke, should we be shocked to see the opposition of the Jews to the church in Acts? Furthermore, in his gospel Luke sets out to show us very clearly that while the Pharisees (not to mention the Jews in general, including the disciples) rejected and resisted the grace of God being bestowed on Gentiles (especially Samaritans!—cf. Luke 4:16-30; 9:51-56), Jesus from the very outset purposed to save them, and He would not be hindered from doing so (cf. Luke 4:24-27).

My point is to establish that we are intended to understand this passage in Luke and, indeed the whole gospel, not only in the light of what has gone before but also in the light of what is going to happen (which is dealt with in the Book of Acts). We should understand the Book of Acts in the light of the preparatory writing of the gospel of Luke. Thus, Luke is indeed a prerequisite to understanding Acts. Much of the error in interpreting Acts may be the result of an inadequate grasp of Luke and its preparatory message.

Our text contains two major paragraphs. One unifying element is the common ingredient of prayer, which is a theme in both paragraphs. In the first (verses 1-8), we have the prayer or petition of the persistent widow which is constantly put before the unjust judge. In the second paragraph (verses 9-14), we have the prayer of the self-righteous Pharisee contrasted with the penitent prayer of the tax-collector.

Take note that in our text the Lord Jesus is teaching His disciples two lessons in contrast. The first lesson, that of perseverance in prayer, is taught by contrasting God, the righteous Judge who will speedily bring justice to the earth, with the unrighteous judge who reluctantly and only under duress gives the persistent widow the vindication and justice for which she petitioned. In the second paragraph, Jesus taught the attitude which is prerequisite for all prayer—humility. Thus, we see the smug self-righteousness of the Pharisees contrasted with the repentant contrition of the tax-collector. The underlying spirit of both is revealed by their prayers.

In this text we can learn much about ourselves from our prayer life. We will also find that Jesus has much to teach us about the kind of prayer befitting the saint who awaits the coming kingdom. We should consider carefully these words spoken by our Lord and recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Luke for our instruction and edification so that we may live in a way that is pleasing to Him, by His grace.

The Context of the Text

The gap between Jesus and the Pharisees began early in Luke’s gospel (chapter 5) and has been ever widening as the ministry and the message of the Lord Jesus Christ has unfolded. The Pharisees have already decided that Jesus will not be their Messiah, and thus they have begun to seek various occasions to renounce Him publicly (11:53-54). Their opposition to Jesus has progressed from questioning (11:53-54, etc.) to grumbling (15:1-2), to outright scoffing (16:14). Jesus has not been taken back by this nor has He in any way let up on them. He has already spoken some scorching words, directly renouncing their pride and hypocrisy (cf. 11:37-52). But in addition, He has spoken numerous parables which put the Pharisees in a bad light (cf. chapters 15 and 16).

One of the problems of Pharisaism was that it was hypocritical (12:1, etc.). Their hypocrisy was rooted in a desire to please men rather than God, which resulted in a conformity to human standards and values rather than God’s law (16:14-18). This resulted in an emphasis on appearances rather than on the attitudes of the heart (16:15). Thus those whom Pharisaism and others would have praised, Jesus cast in a very different light. Of those who would have been condemned on the basis of external appearances, Jesus spoke favorably. Talbert points out the way in which our Lord has consistently been overturning the contemporary value system, as outlined by Luke:

“The story fits into the general theme of status reversal in the third gospel. The New Age will overturn the values and structures of the present evil age. We meet this theme in the birth narratives (1:51-53) and in the Sermon on the Plain (6:20-26). In the travel narrative (9:51–19:44) Jesus’ teaching anticipates this eschatological reversal even now in overturning the estimate of what is virtue and what is vice. Consider 10:29-37 (good Samaritan/bad priest and levite); 10:38-42 (good inactive Mary/bad active Martha); 11:37-41 (good unclean/bad clean); 12:13-34 (good poor/bad rich); 14:7-11 (good humble/bad exalted); 15:11-32 (good prodigal/bad brother); 16:19-31 (good Lazarus/bad rich man); 18:18-30 (good poor/bad rich). Into this thematic context 18:9-14 fits (good tax collector/bad Pharisee) as another example of Jesus’ reversal of values. How can it be? What is wrong with so obviously good a man as the Pharisee? What can be right about so obviously perverse a person as the publican?”[269]

In the 17th chapter of Luke’s gospel, the focus has changed to the coming kingdom of God, introduced by the question of the Pharisees concerning the timing of the coming of the kingdom (17:20). Jesus briefly answered their question and then turned His attention to His disciples, instructing them concerning the kingdom. The topic is still the kingdom of God when we come to chapter 18. Verses 1-8 have to do with the disciple’s need to persist in praying for the coming of the kingdom (even though its arrival may appear late), and adversity, persecution, and injustice may suggest that the coming of the kingdom and the establishment of justice on the earth therefore seems unlikely. The second paragraph in chapter 18 turns from prayer for justice to prayer for mercy. Here, the self-righteous prayer of the Pharisee is contrasted with the penitent prayer of a tax-collector. Jesus turned the tables once again by saying that it was the penitent tax-collector who went away justified, rather than the pious-appearing Pharisee.

The Unjust Judge
and the “Won’t Quit” Widow
(18:1-8)

1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up [“lose heart,” NASB]. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about [“did not respect,” NASB] men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’ “ 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

The rendering of the NIV above indicates that Jesus was still speaking to His disciples, and so it would seem, though the text literally says that Jesus “was telling them a parable.…” The coming of the kingdom of God is still in view, and the disciples are Jesus’ primary audience. Before we consider the meaning of the parable, let us be clear in our minds what the telling of this parable and its message implies. Luke begins the parable, untypically, by telling us what its meaning will be: “to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart”[270] (v. 1).

The parable of the “unjust judge,” so-called, is more accurately (so far as the emphasis of the parable is concerned) the parable of the undaunted widow, or as suggested in my title above, the “won’t quit widow.” The application which our Lord made was to unceasing prayer. But implied in this are several realities, realities already apparent at the time of the writing of this gospel. First, the coming of the kingdom was not going to be immediate as the disciples surely wished it would be (cf. Acts 1:6). There was little need for our Lord to teach His disciples persistence and perseverance in prayer if the kingdom were quickly coming. The implication here is that there will be some delay (humanly speaking) before the kingdom comes.

Second, there were to be some difficult days for the disciples prior to the coming of the kingdom. The reason the disciples might “lose heart” (v. 1) is that persecution and opposition and injustice would be intense, and thus they may be inclined to wonder (from outward appearances) whether justice will ever be established on the earth. The use of the term “lose heart” in the rest of the New Testament is often closely linked with adversity, and so it is here as well in my opinion (cf. 2 Cor. 4:1,16; Gal. 6:9 (note, “in due time”); Eph. 3:13 (“lose heart at my tribulation”); 2 Thess. 3:13 (“do not grow weary of doing good”).

The parable of the persistent widow is occasioned by the fact that Jesus’ coming will not be immediate but that it will occur later on in time. In addition, during this time of “delay” men will react to and resist Christians just as they did Christ. Thus, there is a real danger of Christ’s disciples losing heart and ceasing to pray for the coming of His kingdom as they ought. This is suggested at the beginning of the paragraph and at the end as well. The last words of our Lord in this paragraph are, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”

I believe Jesus is saying something like this: “You can count on the fact that I will return and that I will bring about justice on the earth when I come. The issue for you to concern yourselves about isn’t whether I will fulfill My promises, but whether you will be found faithful when I return.” We need not worry about our Lord’s faithfulness, but only our own.

There is another inference from this paragraph we need to note carefully. The words of our Lord indicate there will be no real, complete, and ultimate justice on the earth until He does return and establish it on the earth. The reason we must persistently pray for justice and not lose heart is that there will be much injustice until He comes again. There are some who seem to be saying these days that Christ will only come to the earth after we (the church) have established justice. That simply is not true, either to this text or to the rest of the Scriptures pertaining to the coming of His kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount speaks of present pain, mourning, persecution, and sorrow, and of ultimate blessing when He comes with His kingdom. Let us not be confused on this point.

One last introductory observation: Jesus did not draw the disciples’ attention to the words of the widow, but to the words of the unjust judge: “And the Lord said, ‘Hear what the unrighteous judge said … ’” (v. 6).

Why would Jesus draw attention to the words of the judge who was unrighteous, rather than to the woman whose example the disciples were to follow? Let us bear this question in mind as we study this parable.

Luke’s account of the telling of the parable begins, quite untypically, with the interpretation already given (v. 1). The actual parable begins not with the widow but with the unrighteous judge. Given the attention focused on this judge both at the beginning of the parable and at the end, I take it Jesus wants us to view him as the central character. This judge, both by our Lord’s analysis (v. 2) and by the man’s own reckoning (v. 4), was not a very savory fellow; he neither feared God nor respected man. It is this dimension of the judge’s character on which our Lord focuses.

That unrighteous, uncaring judge was continually pestered by a widow. It seems she was being unjustly dealt with by another, and she thus appealed to the judge for justice to be carried out. It was expected that the judge, in the name of justice, would pronounce in her favor and would compel the one who had wronged her to make things right.

The judge frankly did not care about God nor about men. He was thus moved neither out of fear for God nor out of any love for mankind. He could have “cared less,” we would say. It seems that some time passed. The wrong done the widow was ignored by the judge, as well as her frequent petitions. If he could have gotten away with it, the judge would have ignored this woman. But she would not have it so. She persisted, and pressed, and persevered. She pled for justice.

The judge became weary of her frequent petitions. He also came to view her actions as potentially damaging to him. She was certainly a nuisance, and she may even have posed some kind of threat to him. The expression translated “wear me out” in verse 5 is literally rendered “hit me under the eye” in the marginal note of the NASB. I doubt that this woman actually posed a physical threat, but she did seem to pose some kind of threat. It was now to the best interest of the judge to give the woman what she wanted, so he granted her request, not out of a positive motivation but out of a selfish, defensive one.

Jesus, at the request of one of His disciples, has already taught them a lesson in persisting in prayer (cf. Luke 11:1-13, esp. vv. 5-9). The disciples were told the story of the friend, who by persisting at knocking at the door of a friend, would eventually get what he needed. Why then is He teaching this lesson here? The issue in our text is specifically prayer related to the coming of Christ’s kingdom. I believe here it is not the persistence of the widow which is in focus, but rather the character of God which inspires and rewards persistence.

The unrighteous judge granted the widow justice, not because it was the right thing to do, not because the Old Testament law required it, and not because a helpless widow requested it, but simply because it served his interests best to do so. The unrighteous judge administered justice on the widow’s behalf because he was selfish.

The focus of this parable is not on the widow but on the unrighteous judge, because his character is then used to teach us by contrast about God’s character. The woman persisted in her petition because that judge was a wicked man who would act only out of self-interest, and she literally wore him down. She got what she wanted from him because he was evil and would put his ease and best interests above anything else.

In sharp contrast, the Christian is taught to persist in prayer because of the character of God, which is the opposite of that of the judge. God is righteous; the judge was unrighteous. God has chosen His disciples—they are called “His elect” (v. 7), and He cares about His disciples because He has chosen them. But the unrighteous judge has no feelings and no relationship to the widow. He has no compassion toward her, while God has great compassion on His elect. The unrighteous judge delayed because he didn’t care about God or man; the Lord Jesus delays out of compassion on guilty men, giving them time to repent and be saved. The unrighteous judge only cared about reducing his “pain,” while the righteous Judge came to suffer the greatest pain of all—the just wrath of God—in order to save fallen man. The unjust judge brought about justice slowly and reluctantly, but the Just Judge of all the earth will hastily bring about justice when He returns to the earth.

It is time to be realistic about why sinful men ever bring about justice. To be quite frank, they only do it for their own self-interests. It is not righteousness which prompts men to act in favor of justice, but self-interest. Government officials are looked upon as duty bound to promote justice, but if the justice they are obliged to administer is not in their own self-interest, don’t plan on it taking place, at least quickly. If unjust men will not bring about justice because it promises them no pleasure or benefit, then persistence may force them to act in self-interest to reduce the pain of our persistence.

How very different with God. God is good. God is righteous and just. God does not need to be forced to bring about justice by His saints. God has promised to do so, and He will. His love of justice, His love for His own (and His compassion for the oppressed) predispose Him to act to bring about justice. It is this positive aspect of His character which promotes the perseverance of the saints in prayer, while it is the very wickedness of the unjust judge which required the same perseverance from the widow. The character of God is our motivation not to lose heart and to press on in prayer for His coming and for the establishment of justice on the earth.

The Pompous Pharisee
and the Penitent Publican
(18:9-14)

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

There are a number of critical differences in this second paragraph when compared with the first. Both paragraphs share the common theme of prayer, but the differences are great. In the first paragraph, the disciples are addressed; in the second, it is the self-righteous. These are those “who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else” (v. 9). While this category includes more than Pharisees, it certainly does include the Pharisees. In the first paragraph, it is the character of the One Who is petitioned that is in focus; here, it is the character of the one praying who is highlighted. In the first paragraph, it is justice that is sought; in the second, it is mercy and forgiveness.

There are three characteristics of this group Jesus is addressing:

(1) They were trusting in themselves and not in God.

(2) They were trusting in their own righteousness, not in God’s mercy and grace.

(3) They were looking down on others.

Jesus painted a verbal picture of two men, teaching a lesson by way of contrast. Both men came to the temple to pray. The first man was a Pharisee. He was clearly the one who displayed all three of the characteristics described by our Lord as outlined above. The other man was a tax-collector. By all outward appearances and in accordance with the value system of the Pharisees, there was no question as to who was the righteous man and who was the sinner, no doubt as to who would enter the kingdom and who would be excluded.

Jesus had a surprise in store for His audience, as usual. He went on with the story, beginning with a description of the prayer of the Pharisee. This Pharisee came to the temple and stood in prayer, as was the custom, and as the publican did also (v. 13). The Pharisee stood some distance from the publican (v. 13) and from all that we know from other contexts (e.g. Luke 14:7), I would suspect that this Pharisee found a very prominent place, while the publican found a place out of the public eye. The Pharisee wanted to be seen and approved by men (16:15); the publican did not, not even daring to look upward towards heaven (18:13).

The words attributed to this Pharisee are not, as I understand our text, the words which he spoke but rather those which he thought to himself. Jesus knew the thoughts of men (5:22; 6:8; 12:16-19) and could thus reveal them. The Pharisee was too shrewd to say what he was thinking. His words were not pious-sounding enough. He wished, hypocrite that he was, to appear to be very pious and godly to those who could only view the outward appearance of things. Thus, in Matthew’s account we read this accusation from our Lord:

“Woe to you; scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widow’s houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation” (Matthew 23:14).

Jesus stripped all this away by revealing what the Pharisee was really thinking as he appeared to be praying. Luke therefore tells us that this Pharisee was “praying thus to himself” (v. 11). From all outward appearances, the Pharisee could have appeared to be repentant. From the length of his prayer, one might have thought he was confessing many sins or at least praying for the “many sins” of others. It was not at all as it appeared.

Consider with me several characteristics of the “prayer” of the Pharisee:

(1) The attitude of the Pharisee was one of self-trust, self-righteousness, and contempt for others. These are the very attitudes which Jesus underscored at the beginning of the parable. These were the attitudes which characterized Jesus’ audience and the Pharisee.[271]

(2) The standard by which the Pharisee judged righteousness and unrighteousness was external, focusing only on outward deeds rather than on the heart. It was a very selective list of sins which the Pharisee listed, just as the “righteous deeds” were selective. It is no surprise that this man chose to major on what he thought to be his strengths and to minimize or ignore his sins.

(3) The Pharisee judged himself in terms of those sins which society found unacceptable, rather than in terms of what offends God. Put differently, the Pharisee thought in terms of “crimes” more than in terms of “sins.” Swindlers, unjust, adulterers, and tax-collectors were all looked upon as “crooks.” Once again, human standards are in view. The things which the Pharisee looks down upon as sin are those things which society shuns as unacceptable (cf. Luke 16:14-18).

(4) The standard which the Pharisee used was comparative, not absolute. The Pharisee did not use the Law as his standard of measuring righteousness; rather, he compared himself with the publican. He saw himself as righteous simply because he was, in his opinion, better than the publican.

(5) The Pharisee boldly approached God, seemingly without regard for His holiness or with a sense of his own unholiness. He almost seems to expect God to be grateful for his presence and prayers.

(6) The Pharisee thanked God for nothing other than what he was, in and of himself. There was no mention of God’s graciousness, no realization of having been blessed by God. All this Pharisee thanked God for was that which he had achieved for himself.[272]

(7) The Pharisee did not ask God for anything, because he did not believe that he lacked anything. The Pharisee was self-sufficient. He trusted only in himself, and he found himself sufficient; thus he asked nothing of God. While some of us may ask for too much or too often, this man didn’t ask at all.

(8) This Pharisee not only saw himself as fully complying with the law, but he actually thought he had gone beyond it.[273] The law did not require all that this Pharisee claims to have done for God in the keeping of the law, with respect to his outward acts of religious worship and service.[274] Here is the epitome of arrogance. The law was given as a standard of righteousness, to show all men they are sinners. The law presents men with an impossible standard, which shows that works cannot save and that men must cast themselves upon the mercy and grace of God. But this Pharisee not only gets an “A” in obedience to the law, he thinks he has an “A+.”

(9) This Pharisee is overflowing with self-love but is desperately lacking in love for God and love toward man. In our day we are being taught and told that man’s problem is that he thinks too little of himself. Low self-esteem has been identified by some as the cause of virtually every human malady. This Pharisee has more than his fair share of self-love, but he has all too little love for either God or man. Those who tell us that we must first love ourselves, before we can love God or our fellow-man, may need to look again at their creed.

The tax-collector is just the opposite. He seems to have avoided public notice, and his only audience so far as he is concerned is God. He dares not look up to heaven. He knows he is a sinner[275], and he is genuinely repentant. He is one of the blessed who presently “mourns,” as our Lord has said in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:21). He looks not at any righteousness which he has earned, but only for that which God may grant out of grace and mercy. He offers nothing to God, except his penitence. He asks God for mercy and forgiveness of his sins. He is neither conscious of the Pharisee who is present afar off, nor of any other. He has no comparisons to make between himself and others. He only sees himself against the standard of the Law and of the holiness of the God in whose presence he stands. Indeed, he sees his sin as so great that he refers to himself as “the sinner.” In his mind, there is none who compares with him in his fallenness, while in the mind of the Pharisee, there is none to compare in his righteousness. The publican does not even dare to make any promise as to what he will do in the future. Here indeed is humility, honesty, and genuine repentance.

Just as Jesus could speak, revealing the thoughts of man, so He now will speak for God.[276] The Pharisee will go home just as he came, proud, self-righteous, and condemned. The penitent tax-collector will go home justified, because he has come to God as a sinner on the basis of His character—His grace, His mercy—and His provision (of salvation through atonement).

According to Jesus, no man is too sinful to be saved, only too righteous. The Pharisee not only does not want God’s grace, He disdains it. The reason, in his mind, is that he does not need it, for his righteousness (in law-keeping as he defines it) is sufficient, indeed, more than enough. The penitent sinner goes away justified, by grace, while the Pharisee goes away condemned, by his own works and words.

Conclusion

There are two very fundamental elements which are to be found in our prayers. The first, according to verses 1-8, is persistence based upon the character of God. The second, according to verses 9-14, is penitence (humility, repentance, based upon our character, or should I say the lack of it.) The two passages on prayer must go together I believe, because there must be a balance in the way we approach God. On the one hand, we can pray with persistence for the coming kingdom of God and for the establishment of justice on the earth, knowing that the character of God assures us that He will come, that He does hear and answer our prayers, and that He will quickly bring about justice.

On the other hand, we must not lose sight of the fact that when we come to God in prayer we must also come with an awareness of our own fallen character. Thus while we pray for justice, we also pray for mercy, for we are totally unworthy of anything but divine wrath. I suspect that a self-righteous Pharisee could have said “Amen” to what Jesus taught in verses 1-8. Perhaps they prided themselves in their persistent prayers for the coming of the kingdom. But the kingdom they sought was a totally different kind of kingdom. It was a kingdom which they earned and which in their minds, they deserved. It was a kingdom which God brought to the earth as an obligation based on their full (indeed, beyond full) obedience to the law.

Let us never suppose that self-righteous Pharisees are beyond saving. They are not! By his own confession, one of the most self-righteous of all Pharisees was saved to become an apostle to the Gentiles, an apostle who was captivated by the grace of God. But in order to be saved, Saul, who became Paul, had to reckon all of the “assets” of his self-righteousness in which he had formerly taken great pride as liabilities, as “dung,” no less. Paul now warns his readers against those who would teach a righteousness by works:

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:2-14).

The Pharisees’ kingdom was a segregated one. It was a kingdom from which “sinners” were excluded. The likes of the tax-collector and, worse yet the Samaritans and Gentiles, would have no part in this kingdom. Their kingdom allowed, in fact encouraged, them to look down on those who were not so clean on the outside. Their kingdom had nothing to do with grace and mercy, but only with merit, and so those who failed to live up to the standards of the Pharisaic system were shunned, and rightly so in their minds.

A works-oriented system of salvation leads to pride, and pride leads to contempt for others. Grace is the opposite. It sees all men as condemned by the law, without distinction, without exception. It sees all as being saved only because of the grace of God, by means of the shed blood of Christ:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:19-24).

This is the reason Paul reacted so strongly to Peter when he withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, in deference to the Jews who arrived and who looked down upon Gentile saints. To Paul such action was an error of the worst type, because it was a denial of the gospel and of the equality which it brought to all who were saved by grace alone (cf. Galatians 2:14-21).

One of the commentators on this passage has pointed out a very interesting “twist” on the interpretation and application of this text concerning the self-righteous Pharisee. To show that in our culture the Pharisee and the publican have changed places, T. W. Manson cites that now the sinner thanks God that he is not smugly and hypocritically self-righteous, as the Pharisee is:

“‘It is one of the marks of our time that the Pharisee and the publican have changed places; and it is the modern equivalent of the publican who may be heard thanking God that he is not like those canting humbugs, hypocrites and kill-joys, whose chief offense is that they take their religion seriously. This publican was a rotter; and he knew it. He asked for God’s mercy because mercy was the only thing he dared ask for.’”[277]

There is no virtue in being an honest, out-and-out sinner as though this were superior to being a hypocrite. Some, finding hypocrisy a frequent, but intolerable sin (in others), have come to pride themselves in being public, even to the point of flaunting their sin. There is no virtue in this.

Applications

There are a number of applications which flow out of our text. Let me conclude by pointing these out for your consideration:

(1) We should not expect a heathen governmental system to act out of character, godliness, or virtue, but out of self-interest. The heathen judge, while only a character in a parable, is nevertheless typical it would seem of those who are in positions of power in government. We deceive ourselves when we think men will do what is right because it is right. Generally speaking, men do what is right when it serves their own interests. As a friend of mine noted, congressmen do take note of letters and calls from their constituents, mainly because they want to be reelected. When we seek to persuade government officials to act in the cause of justice, let us remember that they will normally act in a way they believe will most benefit them.

(2) The evangelical movement, known as the “reconstruction movement,” does not seem to appreciate the fact that our Lord always spoke of an unjust world until the time of His coming, at which time He would bring about justice. There are those who would tell us that we must bring about justice on the earth, and then the kingdom of God will come. I understand it in just the opposite order: Jesus comes, and then He establishes justice. Until that time, we are not to lose heart, but we are to continue in prayer for the coming of that kingdom. It is not that we cease striving to practice and promote justice, but that we do not deceive ourselves into thinking that we will bring it about, apart from the return of our Lord.

(3) The parable of the Pharisee and the publican provides us with valuable insight into the very recent preoccupation with self-esteem. If anyone had “self-love,” the Pharisee had it, in abundance. If anyone had “a poor self-image,” the publican had it. Why is it then that we speak of a poor self-image as a curse and a good self-image as a blessing when Jesus spoke in just the opposite way? A poor self-concept is well-founded, for we are sinners, and it can be the beginning of the most wonderful blessing God has ever provided for man—salvation. Salvation begins with the realization that we are sinners, undeserving of God’s blessings, and thus we must seek Him on the basis of His grace and His mercy and not on our “worth.” I fear that for many, like the Pharisee, a “good self-image” is linked with self-righteousness. Let us allow our Lord to define whether a “good self-image” is really so good or not.

(4) A day is soon coming when the thoughts of our hearts will be publicly exposed. The Scriptures speak often about the fact that not all sins are immediately evident (e.g. 1 Timothy 5:24), but that they will someday be made public (Romans 2:15-16; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 10:17-18). Let us be sure that our sins will find us out, or should I say that our sins will be found out. We do not need to wait until then, for the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2) and the Word of God are given to expose our secret sins so that they can be dealt with now and not later (cf. Hebrews 4:12-13). Let us, like David, look to God to make our secret sins known to us, so that we may seek His grace in forgiveness and in forsaking them (cf. Psalm 19:12; 139:23-24).

(5) There are no “sacred” activities which are exempt from sinful motives and actions. The seemingly “pious” Pharisee is seen to be exceedingly wicked when his thoughts and motives are revealed by our Lord. Even in the act of “prayer” (or at least the appearance of it) there can be great sin. Some Christians seem to think that certain activities are automatically pious, like preaching, for example. They are shocked when the pride, or power peddling, or greed, or immorality of preachers is exposed. They should not be so naive. No act is free from temptation and the fallenness of man. Every act, even the most pious, is tarnished by our sin. Let us beware of thinking that certain activities are somehow exempt from sin.

May God give us the humility, the penitence, the prayer life, and the grace that He gave this tax-collector. And may God deliver us from the pride and self-righteousness of the Pharisee. May God bring about justice and mercy, for His sake.

! Lesson 57:
Blessed Babes and a Miserable Millionaire
(Luke 18:15-30)

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” 28 Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” 29 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

Introduction

My youngest daughter, Jenny, has particularly enjoyed a book entitled, Dear Pastor.[278] The book contains selections of various letters written to pastors. Arnold, age 8, wrote:

“Dear Pastor, I know God loves everybody but He never met my sister.”

A ten year old from Fort Wayne, who name is Tom, wrote these words:

“Dear pastor, If God gives everybody brains I think he forgot about my best friend Mary.”

Carla wrote:

“Dear Pastor, Are there any devils on earth? I think there may be one in my class.”

Annette, age 9, from Albany, wrote:

“Dear Pastor, “My mother is very religious. She goes to play Bingo at church every week even if she has a cold.”

It is obvious from this that children are painfully honest. They are unlike adults in that they do not care to conceal the truth. In our text, Jesus tells His disciples that men must receive the kingdom of God like children. Jesus did not say that men had to become children, but rather that they must become child-like, in some way, in order to enter the kingdom of God. The question that we must answer, then, is, “In what sense must we become child-like in order to enter the kingdom of God?” The answer to this question is not so universally agreed upon, nor does it lie on the surface, for us to quickly determine. And yet if we desire to enter into the kingdom of God, the answer is vitally important. It is no mere matter of curiosity or intellectual pursuit. In our study of this text, I believe that we will learn the answer, that we will learn what child-like characteristic men must have in order to enter into the kingdom of God.

The Structure of Our Text

Our text contains two major paragraphs, describing two separate, but related incidents. The first paragraph, verses 15-17, contains Luke’s description of our Lord’s response to the disciples’ attempt to hinder parents bringing their children to Jesus, for Him to touch, to pray for, and thus, to bless. The second paragraph contains the incident of the “rich young ruler,” who came to Jesus to learn what he must do in order to obtain eternal life, along with the response of Jesus and His disciples (verses 18-30).

There is, I believe, a clear thread of continuity which ties these two paragraphs together. In the first place, all three gospels include both incidents,[279] both of which are found together in each gospel, and in the same order. Second, both paragraphs deal with how men enter into the kingdom of God. In the first paragraph, child-likeness is an aid, an essential element. In the second paragraph, being rich is a hindrance. Thus, in this passage, as so often in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus reversed the values of His day. Even the disciples were astounded at what Jesus said here.

The Background of Our Text

There has been an intensifying opposition on the part of the Pharisees to Jesus, His ministry, and His message. The Pharisees have been miffed because Jesus received sinners (15:1-2), and they were greatly distressed by His teaching about money (cf. 16:14). Jesus accused them of seeking the approval of men, rather than of God, and on the basis of appearances, rather than on the attitudes of their hearts (16:15-18).

The subject of prophecy (the timing of the coming of the kingdom) was raised by the Pharisees in verse 20 of chapter 17. Jesus warned that the Pharisees would not recognize His coming (the coming of the kingdom of God) by carefully watching the signs either (17:20-21). He then taught His disciples about the characteristics of His coming, with an emphasis on their continued faithfulness and perseverance (17:22–8).

In the verse 8 of chapter 8, Jesus turned from the subject of the timing and characteristics of the coming of the kingdom to the characteristics of those who would enter into this kingdom. Throughout the New Testament, the character of the recipients of the kingdom is emphasized much more than the timing of His arrival. It is not as important to know when His kingdom is coming as it is to be ready for it when it comes, so that we may enter that kingdom. Jesus was referring to the character of those who would enter the kingdom when He asked, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

The setting of our text, the subject at hand, is that of the character of those who will enter into the kingdom of God, when it is established on the earth. To put the matter in more contemporary terms, the issue at hand is, “Who are those who will go to heaven?” I think you will agree with me that there is no more important question in all the world. It was such an important matter that Jesus could urge the rich young ruler to give up all of his wealth to be added to that group who would enter into eternal life. The issues of our text are eternal ones. Nothing matters more in this life, or the next, than the things which Jesus is speaking of here. Let us listen well to His words, for they are words of life.

The Blessing of the Babies
(18:15-17)

Matthew 19:13-15 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-34 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Luke 18:15-17 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

In both Matthew and Mark’s accounts, the immediately preceding context is that of our Lord’s teaching on divorce. Can it be that when Jesus held to a very high view of the sanctity of marriage, the people concluded that He also highly esteemed the family, and that they were thus encouraged by His words to bring their children to Him to be blessed?

Whatever the reason, a number of people brought their young babies to Jesus[280] to be blessed. Unlike the other two gospel writers, Luke emphasized the fact that these children which were brought to Jesus were infants—babes.[281] The parallel accounts of Matthew (19:13-15) and Mark (10:13-16) make it clear that these babes were being brought to Jesus to bless by placing His hands on them (Mark 10:16) and praying for them (Matthew 19:13). We are told that Jewish children were brought to the rabbi for a blessing on their first birthday.[282]

There are several questions which arise from these three short verses, questions which are essential to understanding this incident, its meaning, and its application:

(1) Why did Jesus react so strongly to their efforts to hinder the children from being brought to Him?

(2) Why did the disciples seek to prevent the parents from bringing their children to Jesus?

(3) What is the specific characteristic of child-likeness to which our Lord is referring, which is necessary for anyone to enter into the kingdom?

Let us seek to find the answers to these questions, so that we can ponder the meaning of this event.

First, why would Jesus react so strongly to the actions of His disciples? From our text in Luke, the distress of our Lord is not directly referred to, but in Mark’s account we read that Jesus was “indignant” because of the actions of His disciples. Jesus really was greatly distressed by His disciples’ actions.

The answer to the first question, I believe, is both simple, and clearly stated in the text: the gospel itself is at issue. Jesus’ very emphatic words end this paragraph:

“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all” (Luke 18:17).

The way in which children were freely accepted by our Lord was similar to the way in which all men must enter into the kingdom of God. For the disciples to hinder children’s access to Him was therefore a distortion of the gospel itself.

There is a very forceful parallel to our Lord’s strong reaction in the response of the apostle Paul to Peter’s actions with regard to his withdrawal from eating with Gentiles, after the arrival of a Jewish delegation. The account is recorded in the book of Galatians, chapter 2. Peter had gladly eaten with Gentile Christians until a group of legalistic Jews arrived. At this time, Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles and ate with the Jews. Paul’s reaction was a strong one. He publicly called Peter to task for his hypocrisy.

Paul went on to explain the seriousness of Peter’s actions, actions which on the surface may have seemed to be only a misdemeanor, a social blunder. Peter’s actions were, however, a denial and distortion of the gospel, for his separation from the Gentiles gave credence to the Jewish contention that Jewish Christians were superior to Gentile believers. The Jews wanted to maintain a superior posture. They wanted the Jews to convert to Christianity by converting to Judaism as well. Paul reminded Peter and the rest that the Law made all men equals, for all men were equally condemned, without distinction, by the Law. And it was not by law-keeping, but by faith in Jesus Christ that all men were saved. Thus, there is no distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The church is a new body, which tolerates no distinctions other than that between a believer and an unbeliever. There is one new body, one new man, made up of all saints. When this truth is compromised, the gospel is corrupted. Thus, Paul reacts strongly. This is precisely the same situation with our Lord’s response to the actions of the disciples. A rebuke was required because a clear demonstration of the gospel was being threatened.

The second question has to do with the reason why the disciples sought to hinder the children from being brought to Jesus in the first place. It is my opinion that the disciples resisted the children for the very reason(s) the Lord welcomed them. It is not difficult to imagine how things may have gotten to this point. The disciples had probably taken on themselves the self-appointed task of “filtering” those who were allowed to “get through” to Jesus. There were just too many people, they could have reasoned, for all to be allowed to approach Him. They disciples may have encircled our Lord, something like the President of the United States’ secret service people. When a powerful or influential person sought access to Jesus, I think that the disciples facilitated his approach, reasoning that this man could do much for their cause. When someone who was very sick approached Jesus, the disciples might have allowed them to get through because the miracle which Jesus performed would be good publicity. (If all this seems too crass, too calculating, too unspiritual, take a second look at the disciples’ discussions and disputes among themselves, as to who would be the greatest, and who would sit closest to our Lord, with the greatest power.)

When babies were brought to Jesus, to be blessed, it seemed like an unnecessary and an unprofitable bother to the Master, and so the disciples took it upon themselves to send the parents and children away, giving them the impression that they should not “bother” Jesus in this way. They hindered the children from coming to Jesus because they were not significant enough, because they had nothing to offer. They were “takers,” but not “givers.” They were a liability, not an asset, to the cause of the kingdom, or so the disciples thought.

Jesus set the disciples straight. They children were to be allowed to come to Him for a blessing. But why? Why were they encouraged to come? And more importantly to our study, in what way must everyone come into the kingdom as these children came to Jesus? In what way(s) must everyone who is saved receive the kingdom of God? The answer to this question, my friend, is crucial. It is crucial to all who would understand our text, for it is the key to the entire passage. And it is crucial to all who would enter into the kingdom of God, for this child-like quality is required of all who would enter.

The third question is the most important one: What is it that characterizes a child, which must characterize the way we receive the kingdom of God? There are two answers which are most frequently proposed,[283] both of which, in my opinion, fall short of reality, and of biblical teaching. The first child-like characteristic is that of humility. I must begin with the biblical assertion that children, like their parents, are sinners, and they are born this way (Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:9-18). Proverbs speaks often of the foolish, wayward way of the child, which necessitates correction and warning (Proverbs 22:15; 23:13-14). A child is not naturally humble.[284] In fact, children, from the very beginning are very demanding, they expect our attention, now!, and if we fail to give it to us, they let us know. Children often but into conversations, because they fail to have a sense of humility.

The second “virtue” of a child, according to many, is that of faith. We are told that children are naturally trusting, by nature. I believe that the book of Proverbs tells us that children are naturally gullible, and this is not the same as faith. Faith trusts in the right people; gullibility trusts in the wrong people. This is why Proverbs says so much about the kind of people to associate with, and those with whom we should not associate. It tells us of those people who would lead us astray, whom we must avoid. Children do not possess faith in a virtuous way, in my opinion.

What, then, is it about children that we must imitate? Our text provides us with several important clues. First, our text informs us that the children who come to Jesus are very young children. Luke tells us, in fact, that they are babies. Babies do not trust, nor do they practice humility. Babies are carried to Jesus. They make no conscious decisions. They speak no words. They understand no words. The next clue comes from the next paragraph: the rich young ruler speaks of his “works” from the point of his childhood onward. It is just as though Luke has put these two paragraphs side-by-side in order to show us something very important by contrast. The rich young ruler wishes to talk about that which he has done, since childhood, in order to earn God’s favor. Jesus takes children in arms, and tells everyone that they must enter the kingdom of God like these children come to Him.

Let me approach this matter from an Old Testament mindset. There were essentially two covenants which governed God’s dealings with men. The first covenant was the Abrahamic Covenant. This covenant contained God’s promise to bless men of all nations through Abraham and his seed, based solely upon His goodness and character and faithfulness. The sign of this covenant was circumcisions, which was performed on boy babies on their 8th day of life. The second covenant was the Mosaic Covenant, in which God promised to bless Israelites, on the basis of their obedience to His law. The Mosaic Covenant, as I understand it, was not binding upon a Hebrew youth until he was 13 years old (the Bar Mitzvah of today is the entrance into this relationship, making the child a “son of the law”).[285] The sign of the Mosaic Covenant was the keeping of the Sabbath.

The Pharisees constantly harassed Jesus about His breaking of the Sabbath. They, along with virtually all of Israel, viewed the blessings of God as coming through the keeping of the law and thus through the Mosaic Covenant. The blessings of salvation, which God promised, were to come through the Abrahamic Covenant, and ultimately through what the Old Testament prophets spoke of as a “new covenant” (cf. Jeremiah 31:31). I believe that Jesus was using the coming of the children to Him to be blessed as an illustration of the way in which all men must come to Him for a blessing. That is, if we would come to Jesus for a blessing, we must not come in our own strength (the babes were carried), we must not come through our own understanding, our own wisdom, our own good works. We can only come to Christ in our helpless state, looking to Him and to His grace alone. We must come out of our weakness and helpless state, not out of our own righteousness. Here is the difference between all of those who came to Jesus and were “saved” and those who were “healthy” and thus never were saved, because they were too healthy, too good, to pious to need grace. The thing which commends children to Christ is their helplessness, not their goodness. And this is precisely what must characterize every person who comes into the kingdom—they come as those who are helpless and undeserving, entering into His blessings because of God’s goodness and grace, not due to their own merits. Here is the child-like quality which must characterize all who would enter into His kingdom.

The Rich Young Ruler
(18:18-30)

Matthew 19:16-30 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Mark 10:17-22 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Luke 18:18-23 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

Matthew 19:23-30 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Mark 10:23-31 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Peter said to him, “We have left everything to follow you!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Luke 18:24-30 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

Before we attempt to interpret the story of the rich young ruler, let us begin with several important observations.

First, the rich young ruler was rich.[286] This explains why the young man left Jesus, and failed to follow Him, as he was invited to do. It does not explain—may I repeat—it does not explain why Jesus said what he did to this man. Luke tells us that Jesus instructed the young man to sell all of his possessions, to give the proceeds to the poor, and to follow him, because of what the man had just said:

“And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, ‘One thing you lack …’” (Luke 18:22a, emphasis mine).

It would be easy—too easy—for us to take our Lord’s words about selling all of his possessions and telling ourselves that they don’t apply to us, because we are not rich, like he was. But remember, Jesus said the same thing to His disciples before (Luke 12:33-34). While all may not be required to take these words literally, we must all take them seriously. It seems to me that we must all relinquish the right of possession of our goods, even though we may not all be required to sell all that we have.

Second, the rich young ruler was young. We know this fact, not from Luke’s gospel, but from the gospel according to Matthew (19:22). As a friend of mine pointed out, this means that the wealth of this man was inherited, because he did not have time enough to have earned it. It means, as well, that this person’s prosperity was no sign of his own piety, even from the vantage point of the Israelites.

Third, the rich young ruler was a ruler.[287] We do not know exactly what kind of ruler this man was, but we must conclude that he was at least of man of considerable power and influence. This is significant when we remember that the young man fell at the feet of our Lord.

Fourth, the rich young ruler was very much attracted to Jesus. Jesus was a very special person to this young man. He ran to Jesus and fell on his knees before Him (Mark 10:17). He was not like the Pharisees, opposed to Jesus. He was drawn to Him. When the young man left, he left very saddened by the fact that he would not be following Jesus. (The Pharisees left mad, not sad.)

Fifth, Jesus was very much attracted to the young man. Jesus looked on the young man and loved him (Mark 10:21). Jesus’ words, spoken to this man, were designed to draw Him, not to repulse Him. Jesus wanted the man to be a disciple. I believe that Jesus was grieved when the man left, saddened by the Master’s words.

Sixth, that everything which Jesus said to the rich young ruler were intended to draw him to Himself, to encourage him to become a disciple. Jesus was not trying to put this man off. He was not trying to create any barriers. He was not even trying to test his commitment, but was endeavoring to encourage him along the path of discipleship.

Seventh, the questions which the young man asked, and the answers which Jesus gave, were from the perspective of the law. The law could not save this man, any more than it could save any man. The law could only condemn, pointing men to the need for a Savior. The rich young ruler came to Jesus asking what he could do. He came, based upon his performance of the law, and looking for some other good deed(s) to perform. Jesus therefore responded on the basis of the law, for that was this man’s frame of reference. The man first had to be lost, dependent and helpless like a child, before he could be saved. This was the role which the law played—to show men to be sinners, deserving only of divine wrath. Jesus thus chose to dwell on the law, as a means to pointing the man to his sin, and then to grace.

Eighth, this young man, even though convinced that he had kept the law, found no assurance from the law. It is amazing, but true. This man seemed to have everything. He was very rich. And yet it was he (Matthew 19:20) who first raised the question about what he lacked, only to be answered by our Lord (Luke 18:22).The law gave this man no assurance of eternal life.

Jesus dealt with the rich young ruler by focusing his attention on the matter of “goodness” or “righteousness” in two major areas: (a) His own goodness, and thus His identity as God, who alone is good; and, (b) the young ruler’s lack of goodness—sin— as defined and demonstrated by the law, and thus his need for grace—to be blessed by God as a little child.

From a composite of the three parallel passages, the young man seems to have used the word “good” in two ways in his questions to Jesus. First, the young man used the word “good” as a description of Jesus:

“Good teacher, what shall I do to obtain eternal life?” (Luke 18:18b; Mark 10:17).

Second, he used the word “good” with reference to the work he must do to inherit eternal life:

“Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16).

I believe that this man must have used the word “good” with reference to both the character of Jesus and the nature of his deeds, which he thought he must perform in order to experience the blessing of entering into the kingdom. Thus, the entire question would have been: “Good teacher, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?”[288]

Jesus therefore asked the young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (verse 19).

Goodness was never attributed to a rabbi, but only to God.[289] Jesus wanted to press the young ruler to think about what he had said. Was Jesus truly good? If so, then He must also be God. Far from a denial of His deity, this was a challenge to the young man to recognize it and to act on it.

The amazing thing to me here is that Jesus does not seem to pause. He does not seem to press the man to give an answer. Instead, Jesus, seemingly without any hesitation went right on to say,

“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER’” (verse 20).

Why didn’t Jesus not pause for a response from the young ruler? Why did He then go on to the law, and to these specific commandments? The purpose of the law was to expose men as sinners, unworthy of God’s blessings (according to the Mosaic Covenant), and only worthy of His wrath. Before this man can really act on the goodness of the Lord Jesus, he must first come to the painful realization of his own sin. No man needs the goodness of God if he has goodness of his own. Jesus thus pressed the man to consider his righteousness in the light of the law, since this was the basis for his righteousness, in his own mind. He was thinking in terms of his works, and thus he was thinking in terms of law, not grace. He was trying to come to Jesus, as an adult, as it were, and not as a child (previous paragraph).Jesus was graciously and gently trying to show him that this way of approach was not possible.

The portion of the law to which Jesus referred was that which governed man’s relationship to man.[290] It may seem incredible to us that anyone could claim, as did this young man, to have kept these commandments perfectly.[291] Given a starkly literal interpretation (which Jesus refuted in the sermon on the mount—condemning the heart attitudes which underlie each sin), one can see how the man could claim to be blameless. He had not murdered, nor had he committed adultery. He did not need to steal; he had not lied in court, and he honored his parents.

Why did Jesus begin with that part of the commandments which dealt man’s relationship to man? Why did He not begin with the first commandments, which stipulated man’s relationship with His God? I do not know. I may be that a man’s relationship to his fellow man is more tangible, more easily seen to be lacking. Idolatry, or the lack of having God as the sole object of one’s love, obedience, and trust, are not so easily measured. Perhaps it was because men were more sensitive to the commandments which regulated horizontal relationships. Since men tend to judge on the basis of outward appearances, according to man’s judgment, to gain man’s approval, then these commandments Jesus referred to would be uppermost in the mind of the legalist, among whom the rich young ruler should surely be included. He was a friendly legalist, even one who felt kindly toward Jesus and wished to follow Him, but a legalist none the less.

The young man asked Jesus what he still lacked, even after having kept these commandments (Matthew 19:20). Jesus’ reply would give him the answer. But before we consider His response, let me point out that this young ruler was very perceptive. The rich young ruler rightly believed that even by keeping the law perfectly, he would still lack what was necessary to inherit eternal life. He was right in this. No man could keep the law perfectly, but even if he did, it would not make him worthy of the blessings of the kingdom, of eternal life. To draw upon Jesus’ earlier words, one who fully kept the law could only say, “We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty” (Luke 17:10). The truth of this is the reason why Jesus did not argue with the man about his claim to have perfectly kept the law. Even if he had done so, it would not have merited him a place in God’s kingdom, as the man himself implied. Thus, Jesus did not attempt to argue this point.

Several key questions remain for us to answer. First, why can our Lord say that the rich young ruler lacked only one thing, and what was it? Second, why, when the young man asked what he must do to obtain eternal life did Jesus answer him in terms of having treasure in heaven?[292] Third, why did Jesus seem to separate having treasure in heaven from following Him? Fourth, why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, as though this would make him perfect, and earn eternal life for him?

In seeking the answer to the first two questions, let us approach this matter from a broader perspective. Assuming there is only one thing that a man can lack, so as to fail to attain to eternal life,[293] what would that one thing be? I believe that the answer is clear: righteousness. The law was given to prove all men to be sinners—to lack the righteousness required for God’s blessings. Thus, the man’s problem was really singular. He failed to be righteous, even though he thought of himself as a law-keeper. And even if he did keep the law perfectly, he would still be but an unworthy slave (Luke 17:7-10). The law proved the young man, as all others, to be a sinner, lacking the righteousness which would merit God’s blessings under the Mosaic Covenant. The Law did teach, “Do this and live” (Leviticus 18:5), but no one did it.

How could this deficit in righteousness be solved? Once again, there was only one solution: the righteousness of Christ. Jesus had come to die in man’s place, bearing the penalty of his sins. He had come also to offer His righteousness in place of their sin. He came to save. He came as God’s only means of salvation (John 14:6). The problem of the rich young ruler would be solved only in Christ.

The second question is this: “Why did Jesus speak of having treasure in heaven, when the rich young ruler asked how to obtain eternal life? I believe that it was because this man had a wrong set of values. If he had truly valued Jesus for who He was, he should have gladly given up all that he owned to obey and follow Him. This, I believe, is why Jesus first focused the man’s attention of his use of the word “good” in relation to Himself. If he really believed Jesus to be good, he would realize that he was God, and should, like the man who bought the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46), have gladly sold all for that which is vastly superior.

Jesus spoke of “treasure in heaven” because the man’s great problem was that of his treasure, a wrongly valued treasure, an earthly treasure—his possessions, his wealth. Jesus speaks of “treasure in heaven” because it is that of ultimate, infinite, value. He speaks of it, I believe, because it is unlike earthly treasure. Money was this man’s idol, that which he loved more than God, and thus he could never love the Lord God with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength. God was a means, not an end, and money was this man’s end, his prize, his goal, his ultimate good.

Eternal life is a fringe benefit, and not the ultimate goal. The rich man wanted to live forever, but he did not really want God. He wanted to live forever, I fear, but with the kind of life he presently knew. He did not want a “better life,” but only a longer life, one that would not end. Jesus had to instruct him that “eternal life” is but a part of being one with God by faith in His Son, and that such “life” is different not only in its duration, but in its composition. This is why, in my understanding of this text, Jesus differentiated between “having treasure in heaven” and “following Him.” The disciples differed from this man in that they gave up all to follow Jesus, not in order to have eternal life. Jesus was the attraction, the goal, the ultimate good of the disciples. Money, and a long life to enjoy it, was the goal of the rich young man. He, it would seem, wanted to protect himself from the folly of the rich fool of chapter 12 and the rich man of chapter 16, and live forever, so that he would not have to be parted from his money. Thus, Jesus finds it necessary to first part him from his money if he would truly follow Him, and enter into life eternal.

When Jesus told His disciples to sell their possessions and to give the proceeds to the poor (Luke 12:33), the words were virtually the same as those found in our text, but the message is not the same. For the disciples, the issue was not salvation, not entering into the kingdom (Jesus had just told them that the Father had chosen gladly to give that to them, 12:32), but discipleship—following Him. For the disciples, this was not a work to do in order to earn God’s favor (or was it? cf. 18:28), but an expression of their faith in Him, and in His promises to provide for them. Possessions may not only keep a man from heaven, as they did the rich young ruler, they may also hinder one’s discipleship (cf. Luke 8:14).

Jesus’ Words to His Perplexed Disciples
(18:24-34)[294]

The rich young ruler was not the only person who was sad. From every indication, Jesus was saddened by his departure as well. It is only at the point of this man’s departure that any of the gospel writers tell us that he was rich. This was a key factor in his decision to depart, for Jesus’ words of explanation point to his riches as the root of his problem:

And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”[295] (Luke 18:24-25).

It was, then, according to our Lord, this man’s riches which kept him from the kingdom. Jesus told the man to rid himself of his riches, not so that he could merit his salvation, but so that the one barrier between him and heaven could be removed. This is why Jesus said the man lacked one thing. There was one thing keeping the man from heaven, one thing that meant more to him than God—his riches. To have rid himself of this idol would have freed the rich young ruler to trust only in Christ, and to follow Him. To keep his wealth meant that he could never put Christ first, could never love and trust in Him with a whole heart, as the law commanded.

This man’s problem was not seen as an isolated instance by our Lord, but as an illustration of how things tend to be. Rich people suffer from having too much, and when they realize that they must hold nothing more precious than God, they often chose to walk away, rejecting Christ and the salvation He alone can bring. True it was that God promised to prosper the pious, those who kept His law (Deuteronomy 28:1-14), but it was also true that the Old Testament warned against trusting in one’s riches, instead of in God:

Keep deception and lies far from me, Give me neither poverty nor riches; Feed me with the food that is my portion; Lest I be full and deny Thee and say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be in want and steal, And profane the name of my God (Proverbs 30:8-9).

It is in the context of the rich young ruler that we can best understand the words of our Lord, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).

The disciples were caught totally off guard by Jesus’ words. They had, like most of their Jewish brethren, equated piety and prosperity. They viewed riches as a sign of God’s favor. And now, Jesus was telling them something virtually contradictory to this. Jesus taught that one must become like a child to enter into the kingdom, but that most of the rich would never make it. This just didn’t make any sense to the bewildered disciples, who asked with utter astonishment, “Then who can be saved?” (Luke 18:26)

The answer of our Lord was, “The things impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27).

The salvation of the rich, humanly speaking, is impossible. It takes a miracle. And thus, our Lord told His disciples that while this was not humanly possible, it was with God. We could go on to say that the salvation of any person is humanly impossible, and that only God can and does save men. Thank God that the things impossible to men are possible with Him.

The disciples do not really understand, nevertheless Peter seems to serve as the spokesman for the rest when he asked, “Behold, we have left our own homes, and followed You” (Luke 18:28).

The inference of these words is more clearly stated by Matthew, who reports these additional words, stated as a question to the Lord Jesus: “What then will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27).

It is not a very pious question, really. Peter’s thinking, once again, was not according to God’s thinking, but man’s (cf. Mark 8:33). When you stop to think about it, Peter’s thinking was not all that different from that of the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler was not willing to give up his wealth to gain eternal life and to follow Jesus. Peter was asking Jesus what benefits there were for those who did follow Him. Both were thinking materially, and in terms of benefits. What’s in it for me?

Jesus’ answer to this question was as gracious as His response to the question of the rich ruler. Luke’s account emphasizes not only the eternal benefits (which Jesus also promised the young ruler), but the temporal benefits as well (not mentioned to the young ruler, who was already too concerned with the present “good things”). Jesus promised that those things the disciples held dear, but gave up to follow Him, would be rewarded 100 fold, in this life, and that eternal life would also be given in the age to come.

It is at this point that Jesus chose to reveal, once again, but in even greater detail, His impending rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection. Since the disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying (verse 34), why was this even said? We will look more carefully at this in the next lesson, but one purpose of Jesus’ words was to put everything in our passage into perspective.

Jesus foretold His sacrifice. The disciples, just before, had reminded Jesus of all they had given up to follow Him. Jesus’ response was a gentle correction, for they had not really given up anything at all. In reality, they had made a great investment. If a person can give up something and be repaid 100 fold in this life, and in addition receive eternal life, this is no sacrifice! But Jesus’ prediction of His coming sacrifice served to put all other “sacrifices” in perspective. Did the disciples think they were giving up a great deal. Let them ponder what the Savior was about to sacrifice—His very life!

And so this prophetic passage, which speaks of Christ’s sacrifice, serves to put all other “sacrifice” to shame. Little children have nothing to give, and thus they do not sacrifice. The rich ruler thought he had to sacrifice that which meant the most to him, and thus chose not to follow Him. The disciples, too, thought that following Jesus was costly. While they were willing to do so, they looked for a reward for doing it. But Jesus, in verses 31-34, taught us that the eternal life which He offers to men is not obtained by our sacrifices, but only by that which Christ made at Calvary, the sacrifice of His life, of His blood, shed for us. Here is the ultimate sacrifice, which puts all others to shame. Let us never glory in any sacrifice but His.

Conclusion

What a contrast this passage puts before us. The little child, who has nothing to offer, who does not even have the will or ability to approach God, is the one who is our example, as to how we enter the kingdom of God. And the rich young ruler, the man who has virtually everything, is typical of those who do not enter the kingdom. The three things this man possessed are the three things our culture most values. It values youth, for it is in one’s youth that he has his vitality, his health, his strength. It values wealth, for wealth affords us the ability to buy all the things we think are beneficial to us. It values power, for if we have power, we can control our environment, and we can keep others from controlling us.

And yet these three benefits are really hindrances to eternal life. In our youth, we foolishly suppose that we have time in our favor. We think very little about death, because it seems so distant, so remote. We think little about eternity, because the present is so inviting, so promising. Our wealth seems to offer us all that we could want, and so we hunger little for God. We relegate God to a distant second place, at best. We plan to call on Him at some other, less comfortable, time. And our power and position deceive us into supposing that we have everything under control, when it is only in our weakness that we are strong in His might, that we look to Him to do that which is not humanly possible.

When it comes to eternity, it is those who think they have the most “going for them” that have the greatest barriers to trusting in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and the righteousness that leads to eternal life. This is not to say that those who are poor, who are weak, and who have no position are a “shoe-in” in the kingdom of God. No one comes to the Father, except through Jesus Christ. Have you done this, my friend? Have you recognized that your greatest assets, in human terms, are really liabilities, if they cause you to think you do not need God’s grace? Have you realized that the things you love most are really idols, false gods, which turn your heart from worshipping and serving the only true God? May you cease to love the “blessings” of God and come to love God as the supreme Gift and Giver of all good things.

My Christian friend. Perhaps you do not possess wealth, power, or youth. You may be congratulating yourself on the sacrifices you have made for God. As I understand this text, and as I think through the Scriptures, there is a sense in which we are called to a life a self-denial and sacrifice. But there is also a sense in which we make no sacrifices at all. The man who found and purchased the “pearl of great price” (cf. Matthew 13:44-46) did not think of the price he paid as a sacrifice at all. It was a bargain. What good is it, Jesus said, if a man gained the whole world, to lose his own soul? What loss is it, to give up riches, power, and even life itself, if we gain God’s gift of eternal life, and experience the joy of our salvation? How can we speak of sacrifice when giving up things in this life results in a 100 fold blessing now, and an eternal blessing as well? We should think much more in terms of our Lord’s sacrifice, and much less in terms of our own. And yet even He rejoiced in the blessedness of giving up Himself for the salvation of lost sinners. What a Savior!

! Lesson 58:
From the Sublime to the Ridiculous
(Luke 18:31–19:10)

31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man[296] will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.” 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” 38 He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?” “Lord, I want to see,” he replied. 42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. 5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. 7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’” 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”

Introduction

My father is and was quite a guy. He is a retired school teacher. When I was growing up, he was the principle of a small elementary school. When I was in high school, I got a job at an automotive parts house. During the summer, I worked full-time. One summer, business at the parts house was a little slow, so my boss informed me that I would not be working full-time, but only as I was needed. I went across the street to the local Dairy Queen to get a second job, driving a small three-wheeled scooter, with a freezer on the back. I sold “Dilly Bars,” little blobs of ice cream with a stick in them, dipped in chocolate.

That was quite an experience. I had the thrill of attempting to climb some steep hills, and the trauma of trying to descend them, with a freezer on the back of my scooter. I was constantly followed around by little kids, all of whom wanted a Dilly Bar, and only some of whom had money. I was also hotly pursued by dogs—some rather large ones—trying to eat me, coming in the cart after me. I was continually having to escape, kicking the animals away as I fled. All in all, it was not a status job.

The problem came when I needed to be at both jobs at the same time. My father was willing to help me, but he was not much into automobiles, and so he could not fill in for me at the parts house. This left only one option—the Dilly Bar scooter. Only now can I begin to fathom the sacrifice it was for my dad to get into that cart and drive around the neighborhood, followed by kids and dogs. But the most humbling event was the day that a woman came up to the cart to buy a Dilly Bar. To my father’s embarrassment, and to the woman’s astonishment, they recognized each other. The woman was the wife of one of the school board members, and my father was the principle of the school. My father was always good at handling awkward situations like this, and so he quickly said to the woman, “Like to buy a Dilly Bar and help a boy through college?”

Our passage consists of three paragraphs, each of which involves a significant amount of humiliation. Jesus’ rejection by His own people, His mocking, scourging, the spitting of His persecutors, and His cruel death on a Roman cross were the deepest humiliation. The blind man who received his sight had to undergo a humbling experience to get Jesus’ attention, in spite of the stern warnings of those who wished him to be silent. And Zacchaeus, the little rich man, who was not able to see over the crowd, humbled himself to climbing a tree so as to catch a glimpse of the man from Nazareth, the One who might be the Messiah.

I believe that humiliation binds each of these very different events together. In addition, I think that one can say that there is also the common theme of misunderstanding apparent in all three incidents. Jesus’ very clear statements about His up-coming rejection, persecution, and execution were not understood at all by the disciples. And the purposes of Christ were not understood either, as we can see in the next two episodes, where in both cases, men either tried to prevent men from coming to Jesus (as they did the blind man), or they resented Christ’s coming to them (as Jesus went to the house of Zacchaeus). The purpose of Jesus, “to seek and to save what was lost” (19:10), was simply not grasped at all.

Background

The subject of the coming kingdom of God has been in view since the question as to when the kingdom would come was raised by the Pharisees in chapter 17. In chapter 18, the focus changed from the timing and circumstances of the coming kingdom to who it would be who would enter into it. Jesus taught that those who would enter His kingdom would be not be those who expected to enter. And so the self-righteous Pharisee is not justified, but the penitent tax-collector is (18:9-14). Jesus taught His disciples that while the rich young ruler, and those like him would have much difficulty getting into the kingdom (18:18-27), those who were child-like would possess it (18:15-17).

The rich young ruler sadly left the presence of the living Lord because of what he did understand. He understood that his possessions could not come before his Lord. Strangely, the disciples continued to follow Jesus, but they really did not understand. Peter, apparently speaking for the rest of the disciples, said to the Master, “Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You” (Luke 18:28). The inference seems to be this, “Lord, we have left all to follow you. What’s in it for us?”

The Lord’s answer was gracious and encouraging. He told them that they would not leave this things as some great sacrifice, for they would indeed gain greatly, not only in heaven, but in the present age. They would receive a many fold return, in the present, and eternal life as well (verses 29-30).

The Ultimate Sacrifice
(18:31-34)

I believe that the revelation of our Lord to His disciples in verses 31-34 was intended to put their “sacrifice” into perspective. Did they think that they were giving up everything for the kingdom of God? In reality, they were not giving up, but gaining, as our Lord’s immediately preceding words indicate. There was really only one sacrifice on which the kingdom of God was based, and that was the sacrifice which the Lord Jesus would make—the sacrifice of His own precious blood, to atone for the sins of the world.

Before we look at the prophecy of our Lord’s death which He gives to His disciples here, let us refresh our minds as to those specific statements Jesus has already made, as recorded by Luke. The following are not the only references to the Lord’s death, but they are those which are the most direct:

Luke 6:20-23 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.

Luke 9:20-31 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem.

Luke 9:43-45 And they were all amazed at the greatness of God. While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Luke 12:43-45 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk.

Luke 13:33-35 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Luke 17:24-25 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

In Luke’s gospel we find a progressively revealed indication of the rejection, maltreatment, crucifixion, and resurrection of our Lord. Luke has informed us that Jesus will be rejected by the Jewish leaders (9:21-23), betrayed by one of His own (9:43-45), rejected by His generation (17:24-25), and now rejected and crucified by the Gentiles (18:31-34). Luke, in writing this gospel for a Gentile audience, does not wish them to miss their own role in the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. The prophecy of His suffering and death, given in 18:31-34 is very specific and detailed. It is totally different from the vague predictions of the fortune tellers and false prophets.

The amazing thing for me is that even with such a specific prophecy, the disciples had no idea what Jesus was talking about (verse 34). The reason for their lack of understanding is given in our text: the meaning was hidden from them—God deliberately withheld it. They were not ready for it. They would only understand Jesus’ rejection, crucifixion, and death after His resurrection.

There was no way that the disciples were going to raise a question about His meaning at this point. In the first place, what Jesus said was not what they wanted to hear. It was most unpopular. It did not fit in with their (human, cf. Matthew 16:23) expectations. Peter had tried to straighten Jesus out the first time He clearly spoke of His coming death, and he was strongly rebuked. I can see the disciples looking at each other, with puzzled glances, but also giving each other the high sign, not to raise any questions or to attempt to change the Master’s mind. They had tried this once before, and weren’t about to try it again. They had learned their lesson.

It is at this point that I wish to pause momentarily. At this point in their lives, the disciples understood very little of what Jesus was saying, nor did they grasp what He had come to do. It was not until after our Lord had fulfilled His task on Calvary, not until after He was raised from the dead, not until Jesus Himself had taught them (cf. Luke 24:27), not until the coming of the Holy Spirit, that the disciples were able to put all of this together.

Prophecy is never perfectly grasped until after its fulfillment. Jesus was not attempting to explain to His disciples what was about to happen, so that they could understand and have their minds and hearts at ease as all of these prophecies were coming to pass. Our Lord’s purpose was to underscore and draw their attention to the specific events of His death ahead of time, so that after its fulfillment they might understand that this was, indeed, inspired prophecy.

Why is it that so many Christians think that they can spell out the future, becoming experts in prophecy so that they can map out all of the details of the second coming? Why do we think that we can understand these things when no one else in history has done so. Even the prophets themselves were puzzled by their writings, and pondered what their meaning might be (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12).

If our Lord were to be graded by one of the homiletics (the science of preaching) professors in seminary, He would probably fail, for much (some might even say most) of what Jesus said was not understood by His audience. If the Lord Himself did not make everything He taught perfectly clear, how can we expect to do better? If our Lord did not make everything perfectly clear, with several very pointed applications, why is it that we think we must do so?

Frankly, there is a lot to be learned from hearing or reading that which we don’t understand. In the first place, we are (or should be) humbled by the fact that we don’t understand everything we hear. The problem with most of us is that we think we know too much, rather than to think we know too little. Not understanding keeps us meditating and praying for insight into the Word of God. Not understanding all we read or hear helps us to look forward to heaven, for it is there that we will know all things fully. And yet, having said all this, we still are resistant to the fact that we need to study those things which we do not understand, and we do not like having to wait until later on to know what it means. The disciples knew very little, but they did know one thing, that Jesus was sent from God, and that He was loving, powerful, and kind. They knew enough to follow him. That is all we really have to know. The rest is frosting on the cake. Let us learn to be content with what we do not know.

The Healing of the Blind Man
(18:35-43)

As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” “Lord, I want to see,” he replied. Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

Luke’s account of this event is not without parallels in the gospels of Matthew (20:29-34) and Mark (10:46-52). Matthew’s account informs us that there were two blind men healed on this occasion;[297] Mark’s account tells us the name of the man, Bartimaeus, and even his father (Timaeus).

This was a scene that was, at one and the same time, tragic and comic. Bartimaeus was sitting by the road as it led into Jericho (v. 35). Beggars always have certain spots picked out where the traffic is more frequent, and where, for some reason, there seems to be more generosity expressed (e.g. outside the temple). He could not see, so his begging would have been triggered by what he heard—a footstep, the sounds of passers-by talking, etc. The blind man would have heard Jesus approaching Jericho. He would have heard the sounds of the crowd from some distance. He asked those around him what was happening. Someone told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by.

Bartimaeus knew about Jesus, perhaps from what he heard as he sat along the street. You can imagine how the rumors would circulate about Jesus among the sick and the infirmed, especially concerning His miracles of healing. Bartimaeus began to call out to Jesus. He wanted healing and he believed Jesus was both able and willing. He did not call to Jesus by the name that was told him—Jesus of Nazareth—but rather by the name which identified Him far more accurately—Jesus, Son of David. The blind man may have had a physical handicap of blindness, but he knew that Jesus was more than a man; He was Messiah. Thus, Bartimaeus called to Jesus as Messiah, for He could heal the sick and give sight to the blind.[298] Bartimaeus pled for the one thing which touches the heart of a righteous God toward an undeserving sinner—mercy. He did not merit anything, but he did beg for mercy.

Those who were leading the way into town—probably the elders of Jericho—were irritated by the interruption and the unseemly disturbance which Bartimaeus posed. Here he was, yelling at the top of his lungs. He was being a nuisance. They therefore told him, in effect, “Shut up!” They sternly warned him to be still. Would they throw him in jail for disturbing the peace? How could Jesus, an important person, be bothered by such interruptions? He would not wish to stop for one blind man. The man must be silenced.

Jesus never seemed to conform to human expectations. He stopped, and ordered that the man be brought to him. At this point, Mark exposes the hypocrisy of those who once tried to silence Bartimaeus, for now they tell him to “take courage” (10:49). Mark also tells us that the man jumped up, threw off his coat, and went to Jesus. He was not going to be stopped. When asked by Jesus what he wanted, it did not take him long to speak up. He wanted to see. Jesus immediately healed him, informing him that it was his faith that had made him well (v. 42). Bartimaeus began following Jesus, and he may never have stopped. He also was glorifying God, which may also never have stopped. All the people joined in, giving praise to God.

Jesus Treed a Tax-Collector
(19:1-10)

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”

Tax collectors were not new to Jesus. Early on in His ministry, Jesus had attracted, and worse yet (in the eyes of the Pharisees), received them warmly. In Luke 5:30, Jesus was accused by the Pharisees for eating and drinking with “tax-gatherers and sinners.” It would seem that the two terms, “tax-gatherer” and “sinners” were synonymous to the Pharisees. There was hardly any lower form of life than these traitors. Jesus must have deeply offended the Pharisees when He told the parable of the penitent “tax-collector” and the self-righteous “Pharisee” in chapter 18 (verses 9-14), especially when it was the penitent tax-gatherer who went away justified, and the Pharisee went away unjustified.

Zaccheus was not just an IRS man, he was a “chief tax-collector.” He would have been thought of about as fondly as a high level drug dealer. He was rich (v. 19), and this wealth very likely came, in part, from his crooked dealings (cf. 3:12-13). For some unexplained reason, Zaccheus wanted to see Jesus. He may have yearned for more than this, but he made a diligent effort to see Jesus as He passed through Jericho.

But Zaccheus had a problem—he was a short man. I can visualize him bouncing up and down on his toes, trying to see above the taller folks who crowded ahead of him. “Boing, boing, boing,” he went, almost like a cartoon character, but his efforts were to no avail. Finally, he came up with a plan. He looked down the street, where he knew Jesus would have to pass. There it was! A tree. Perhaps not such a great tree, but a tree nonetheless. He could climb that tree and Jesus would pass by.

It would have been amusing, I think, to see this rich man trying to shinny up that tree. What a contrast this was to the way the rich young ruler must have come to Jesus. I envision him driving up, as it were, in a chauffeur-driven Mercedes limousine. But here, the rich little man Zaccheaus is scampering up a tree, perhaps falling a time or two, but finally getting high enough to see Jesus. There were probably little streams of perspiration running down his face. His clothing may have gotten soiled or spotted, maybe even torn. But he was now able to see Jesus.

While this rich little man is quite different, in many respects, from the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, he is also similar to him. Both men wanted to see Jesus. Both men would not be stopped by hindrances. And both men were rewarded by the Master. The difference between the two was that Bartimaeus called out to Jesus. He wanted to be noticed and summoned to come to Jesus. Zaccheus, on the other hand, may have wished to remain unnoticed. It was not a very dignified thing he did. We might even say it was child-like (cf. 18:15-16).

Jesus took note of Zaccheus, although we are not told why. He stopped, looked up, called him by name, and told him that he must come to his house. This “must” has the same feel to it as does this situation, described by John in his gospel: “He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. And He had to pass through Samaria” (John 4:3-4, emphasis mine).

Why did Jesus express the necessity of going to the house of Zacchaeus? Why the “must”? What was so necessary that it required going to the house of Zacchaeus?

As a tax-collector (a chief tax-collector, no less), Zacchaeus was considered a sinner, the same as a Gentile. Such a person should not be accepted into the hospitality of one’s home, Pharisaism would say (cf. Luke 5:29-30). One should most certainly not enter into the home of such a person, to accept their hospitality and to eat their food. In the process of doing so, one would defile himself, in violation of the law, as interpreted by Pharisaism. Jesus not only accepted an invitation, He invited Himself. This brought an immediate, strong reaction: “All the people saw this and began to mutter, ‘He has gone to be the guest of a sinner’” (verse 7).

This was not merely the reaction of a few. Luke tells us that they all began to grumble. Did this also include the disciples? Perhaps.

The explanation for our Lord’s actions comes in verse 10:

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (verses 9-10).

The purpose of our Lord’s coming was still not clear. First and foremost, Jesus came to save sinners. Yes, He would later establish the kingdom of God on the earth, but the basis of this kingdom, that which Christ must accomplish at His first coming, was the forgiveness of man’s sins. Men could not enter into the kingdom of God in their sinful condition. Jesus came to bear the penalty of man’s sins, and to provide them with His righteousness. This was the foundation of the kingdom.

Jesus came to seek and to save sinners. He did not come to associate with the rich and powerful. He did not come to provide positions and power for the disciples. He came to save sinners. To do so, He must associate with sinners. Thus, while it may offend the sensitivities and the social mores of His day, Jesus would go where sinners were, so that they gospel could come to them and they could be saved. If one’s goal is to save sinners, then being with sinners is simply a means to that goal. Jesus’ ministry was governed by His goal of seeking and saving sinners. Did Zacchaeus think that he had sought the Lord? He had. But the Lord had also sought Him.

What a beautiful picture of the tension that is maintained here between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The blind man called out to the Savior for mercy and received it. Zaccheus did not call upon the Lord, but the Lord called to him. The Scriptures clearly teach that no one who truly comes to Jesus for mercy, on the basis of faith, will be turned away. They also teach that anyone who comes to Christ for salvation does not come on their own initiative, but is drawn by God:

“WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED” (Romans 10:13, citing Joel 2:32).

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).

It is therefore God who both begins and finishes the work of salvation, and yet this man is not to be passive:

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of faith (Hebrews 12:2).

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, In order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in you faith supply moral excellence, and in you moral excellence, knowledge … (2 Peter 1:4-5ff.) .

God’s sovereignty does not remove our responsibility both to seek God and to obey Him. And yet when we do, we know that it is because God has caused us to will and to work His good pleasure. No man who truly seeks God as Savior will ever be turned away. Those who do seek, will find that they have first been sought by Him, the One who came to seek and to save the sinner.

It is only after reporting the grumbling of all who beheld Jesus going to the house of a “sinner” like Zacchaeus that Luke also informs us of the change which faith has brought to this man. It would seem that even before Jesus entered his house, Zacchaeus stopped and spoke to Jesus of his intended purposes, as a result of Jesus’ coming into his life. He would , he said, give half of his possessions to the poor. In addition, he would repay four-fold anyone whom he had defrauded (verse 8).

The first thing that I notice is that Zacchaeus offered a great deal to the poor, but not all of his possessions. Why only half? Did Jesus not require the rich young ruler to sell all? Notice that Zacchaeus’ offer is completely voluntary. Jesus has not laid this on him as some kind of condition. The man determined to do this, as an act of gratitude, not as a duty which he would be grudgingly perform.

Second, I believe that he offered to give only half of his possessions to the poor for a very practical reason—paying back those whom he had defrauded would require the rest of his wealth. In my mind, Zacchaeus did give away all he owned: half to the poor, and the other half to those whom he had swindled.

Third, I find this man’s offer to repay by paying back four times what he stole very interesting. When I look at those Old Testament passages which prescribe the repayment due to those from whom we have stolen, I find that the minimum repayment, as it were, was the return of the stolen goods, plus a 20% penalty—a kind of rental fee (cf. Leviticus 6:1-5). In other places repayment of stolen goods was determined on whether or not the stolen object could actually be recovered (cf. Exodus 22:1-5). The thing which impresses me about Zacchaeus’ offer is that he did not promise to make the minimum repayment, but the maximum one. Zacchaeus was willing to grant that his theft was of the worst kind, and was willing to make things right with this frame of mind. He did not minimize his sin.

This leads me to make another observation: while salvation is not by works, when genuine salvation comes to a man, his life radically changes. Salvation is a radical event, bringing men from darkness to light, from death to life, and from evil to righteousness. Genuine conversion produces change in the lives of those who are saved. Zacchaeus evidences a genuine conversion by the change which can be seen—a sudden change in his case—in his actions. May it be so of us as well. Men may not understand the change which has occurred in our lives when we have met the Master and been saved, but they should see change. That is part of what the book of James is all about.

The sinner, Zacchaeus, is now a saint. Salvation has come to his house. He will never be the same again. And yet, while the crowds could finally rejoice and praise God for the sight which blind Bartimaeus received (18:43), there is no record of any praise to God for the salvation of Zacchaeus. At least, I hope, there should have been a sigh of relief.

Conclusion

Two things impress me about our text, in addition to what I have already said. The first is that Jesus was seldom understood by men. His disciples did not understand His straightforward predictions of His rejection, suffering and death (cf. 18:34). The leaders did not understand the heart of Jesus, and thus sought to silence the blind man and keep him from Jesus. And seemingly no one understood what it meant to “seek and to save sinners” and thus all grumbled when Jesus invited himself to the home of a sinner. Prior to the cross, and to the coming of the Spirit, very little of what Jesus said was grasped by His audience, including His closest followers.

Should it come as a surprise to us, then, that when we live as Christians we are not understood either? The apostle Peter later tells his readers that misunderstanding should be expected, for God’s ways are not man’s ways:

For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you; but they shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead … Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange things were happening to you, but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation (1 Peter 4:3-5, 12-13).

The “way of the cross” necessitates being misunderstood, resisted, and rejected. That is what our Lord experienced, and it is what His followers will find to be their experience as well.

Finally, I find that all three paragraphs of our text contain the common theme of rejection and humiliation. Jesus’ atoning death for the sins of the world required not only death, but rejection and humiliation. His was a humbling death. It was not glorious, in one sense at least. The blind man humbled himself and endured the rejection and resistance of the crowd. He would not be silenced. He would not be stopped. He did receive mercy. But it was only through humiliation that he was to come to Jesus. So, too, for the rich man, Zacchaeus. Unlike the rich young ruler, who seemed to come to Jesus with his riches and pride, Zacchaeus climbed a tree, and he withstood the sneers and grumbling of the crowd. His, too, was the experience of rejection and humiliation.

The cross of Jesus Christ is a cross of rejection and humiliation. Our Lord willingly bore this cross. But the way to that cross is often also through rejection and humiliation. But what a blessing that way is, when it leads us to the Price of Life, to the forgiveness of sins, and to His mercy. Let us gladly seek the cross through the valley of rejection and humiliation, for this is the way our Lord came to His cross.

! Lesson 59:
The Nobleman:
His Slaves and His Citizens
(Luke 19:11-27)

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ 14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. 16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ 17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ 18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ 19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ 20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ 25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ 26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

Introduction

My friend Chuck was just released from prison. It was my joy and privilege to pick him up and take him to the airport. As we visited in the past few days, Chuck told me about some of the things which he did, and which his friends did, knowing his time was short. He told me that he had signed up to umpire an incredible number of baseball games in his last three days, somewhere between 8 and 13 as I recall. In the prison, and elsewhere as I understand it, there is an expression that is used which is interesting. If a man has three days left until his release, he will say, “I have two days and a wake-up.” That last day, as it were, is the time when he comes to life, when he does all that he needs to do, when he begins to think and act in light of what he will be doing from that time on.

It is interesting what we will do or not do, knowing that the time is short. Some Christians seem to think that believing the time before our Lord’s return is short has nothing but good results. That is not necessarily true. I have seen men go to prison, sentenced for many years, living as though their release were imminent. They fail to develop the mindset and the behavior patterns which are necessary for getting along as well as they can.

Our text is very interesting in that it depicts disciples as thinking that they have “a few days and a wake-up” before the kingdom comes. Jesus, on the other hand, seems to view this mindset as problematic. He tells this parable in order to correct, or at least to put into perspective this short-term thinking. We, too (or at least many of us), believe that the return of our Lord Jesus Christ is imminent, that is, it could be at any moment. In the case of people of Jesus’ day, the people were both right and wrong. The entrance of our Lord into Jerusalem did present Israel with their Messiah, but in the plan and purpose of God, He would be rejected, nailed to a cross, buried, and rise again, all to save men from their sins. It would not be until some time later that the kingdom of God would be established. Indeed, we still await the coming of that kingdom.

What, then, is wrong with looking for an imminent return of our Lord? Is Jesus trying to teach the people that they are wrong? Yes, in fact, He is doing that in our text. But it is not merely holding to an imminent return that is wrong, it is holding this view wrongly, in misapplying it, that we may err greatly. Just as the doctrine of God’s grace can be abused, even though true (cf. Romans 6), the doctrine of an imminent coming can be misused, too. Let us look carefully, then, at what is wrong with the “imminent kingdom” position taken by the people of Jesus’ day, and let us study our text carefully to see how this parable is intended to correct the error.

Background

The Lord has had His face set towards Jerusalem for some time now (cf. 9:51). He has spoken very specifically to His disciples about His rejection, suffering, and death at Jerusalem (cf. 18:31-34). His disciples were not able to understand, however. They, like many others, have their heads filled with glorious thoughts of the kingdom of God, the appearance of which they expect at any moment (19:11). The closer they get to Jerusalem (Jericho was about 17 miles away), the greater the expectation. Jerusalem was not only the capital of Israel, and the throne of the king (including Messiah, the Son of David), it was the place where they expected the kingdom to be commenced. Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem was viewed to be the official commencement of the kingdom. Reviewing these Old Testament texts, we can understand why:

You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, “Here is your God!” (Isaiah 40:9).

At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts (Jeremiah 3:17).

In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness’ (Jeremiah 33:16).

And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls (Joel 2:32).

The Lord will roar from Zion and thunder from Jerusalem; the earth and the sky will tremble. But the Lord will be a refuge for his people, a stronghold for the people of Israel. “Then you will know that I, the Lord your God, dwell in Zion, my holy hill. Jerusalem will be holy; never again will foreigners invade her (Joel 3:16-17).

Many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Micah 4:2).

This is what the Lord says: “I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain” (Zechariah 8:3).

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9).

“On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity (Zechariah 13:1).

On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south (Zechariah 14:4).

On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and in winter (Zechariah 14:8).

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text can be summarized as follows:

(1) Introduction—(v. 11)

(2) The Nobleman’s Departure—(vv. 12-13)

(3) The Rebellion of the Nobleman’s Citizens—(v. 14)

(4) The King Returns and Deals With His Slaves—(vv. 15-26)

(5) The King Deals With His Rebellious Citizens—(v. 27)

The Relationship Between
Luke 19:12-27 and Matthew 25:14-30

The marginal notes in the NASB, both in Matthew 25 and in Luke 19 seem to suggest that these two accounts are parallel. While there are some obvious similarities, the differences are far greater. Consider the differences, which become much more obvious when the two passages are compared side-by-side:

The Differences Summarized[299]

The Setting
(19:11)

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

Jesus had just told Zacchaeus that “salvation had come to his house” (v. 9). Some listened and believed that this meant that salvation had also come to the nation in the form of the kingdom of God. Jesus and His disciples were pressing on, drawing ever more near to Jerusalem, the hub of Israel, the focal point of biblical prophecy. The disciples, at least, regarded Jesus as the Messiah, albeit a very different one than that which was to be. As the distance between Jesus, the crowds who followed, and Jerusalem shrunk, the expectation exponentially multiplied. They thought of the kingdom as but a few miles and a few hours away. They believed the kingdom of God was imminent. That was the problem, it would seem. That is the very reason Luke gives us for Jesus telling the parable which follows. Somehow, this parable is to correct, or at least to clarify, the situation.

The Nobleman, His Destiny,
His Departure, His Slaves and Citizens
(19:12-14)

12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ 14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

The man of the story was a person of position and power, a “nobleman” (NASB, v. 12). He was soon to be a man of even greater power and position. He was about to become a king. In order to be appointed as such, he had to travel to a distant country. As I understand it, the kingdom which the nobleman was to receive was not a different kingdom in a distant land, but the kingdom which he had just left. It would have been something like a lawyer going to Washington D. C., to be appointed to a high position back in his home state. It would seem to men that this nobleman would return quite soon, to assume his position of power.

Knowing that he would be absent for a time, the nobleman called some of his slaves to him, to give them their orders for that period he was to be absent. He gave each of the ten slaves one mina. From the marginal note found in the NASB at verse 13, we can learn that this was equivalent to nearly 100 days’ wages. A talent, on the other hand (as mentioned in Matthew 25:15ff.), was worth about 50 times as much (cf. marginal note in NASB at Matthew 25:15). His command was specific. The slaves were all to “do business” (Luke 19:13, NASB) with the money, or, as the NIV puts it, to “put the money to work” until the master returned. The master expected to get back more than he put into the hands of his slaves. Money, as a friend of mine put it, has a time-value. Money should always increase over time, since it can always be loaned out at interest, or at least put in the bank, where it will be loaned out. They master thus expected to get back more than he left in the care of each slave.

The master not only had slaves, who were obligated to serve him, he also had citizens who should also serve him as their master. In those days, citizens were virtual slaves of the king. It would seem that the citizens were silent as the nobleman left their country. They did not like this man, nor did they want him to return to rule over them, once he was officially king. They seem to have gotten their courage in the nobleman’s absence. Thus, they sent a delegation to that distant place, informing their “king” that they did not want him to return, and therefore strongly suggesting that he not return.

It is not difficult to understand the story thus far, nor is it difficult to see its meaning with reference to Jesus, His “departure,” His rejection, and His return. Like the nobleman, Jesus came to the earth with great position and power. Like the nobleman, Jesus’ power greatly increased as a result of His departure. Jesus was rejected by men, hung on a cross, put to death, buried, raised, and then ascended to heaven, where He now is seated at the right hand of God. Jesus’ power is now even greater than it was when He first came to the earth (cf. Philippians 2:9-11). His return to reign over His people, His citizens has been delayed (from our human perspective), but He will surely come.

The King’s Return: Accounts Settled
(19:15-27)

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. 16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ 17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ 18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ 19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ 20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ 24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ 25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ 26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

After some time, the nobleman did return, but now as the king. The first thing he did, as king, was to settle accounts with his servants. Apparently Jesus did not mention any more than three of the slaves. One of them did very well, getting a 10-fold return on his master’s money. Another slave managed to use his master’s money to obtain a five-fold return. The third had no increase at all, for a very understandable reason: he had never put the money to any use. Instead, he simply hid the money in the ground. In effect, he lost money for his master, since there had been no gain at all.

The master dealt with the first two slaves in a similar way. The first slave, who seems to have been more diligent (he had the greatest increase, twice as much as the second slave), received his master’s commendation: “Well done!” The second slave was not commended with the same words as the first, but they reward in the same manner—each received a position of authority directly proportionate to their faithfulness with regard to the master’s money. The first slave presented his master with ten minas and received as his reward, the rule of ten cities. The second slave presented the master with five minas and received the rule of five cities as his reward. In both cases, their faithfulness as slaves in the use of their master’s money resulted in them becoming rulers.

The third slave who was mentioned was very different, and so was his master’s response. Notice that this slave is by far the focus of this parable. The first slave is allocated 2 verses of print; the second, another 2 verses. The account concerning the third slave involves 7 verses. It is evident, then, from the “law of proportion” that this third slave, while not the hero of the story, is the central figure. To relate this to the introduction in verse 11 we must say that this third slave personifies the problem which our Lord is addressing, the problem of thinking that the kingdom is imminent.

This slave did not put his mina to use, he did not “do business” with it. Instead, he hid it, neatly wrapped in a piece of cloth. Initially, I failed to distinguish what the slave in this parable did with the mina, from what the slave did with the talent in Matthew’s gospel. In Matthew, the slave buried the talent in the ground. In this parable, the slave wrapped the money up in a piece of cloth, and hid it somewhere. I can almost see it socked away in his drawer somewhere close.

The slaves words are all that we have to go by. They are also that by which the slave was judged by his master. His words, quite honestly, have been very perplexing to me. I have, however, come to the following conclusions.

(1) The master expected the slave to take his words literally and seriously, which the slave did not do. The master told all the slaves to “do business” with the money he entrusted to them. This slave did not do so. Hiding the money in a piece of cloth isn’t “doing business.”

(2) The master took the words of the slave seriously, judging him in accordance with what he said.

(3) The slave’s description of his master was far from flattering. It strikes me as totally out of place for the slave to tell his master that he is a “hard man” (NIV, “exacting,” NASB). I have the impression that the slave’s view of his master differs only slightly from that of the citizens, who do not want this man as their king.

(4) The slave’s description of his master may not have been accurate. The master did not challenge the viewpoint of the slave—that he was a harsh and demanding man, but this does not mean that the slave was correct. This was his perception of the master, whether it was correct or not. I personally think that the master was not harsh. After all, the master is a picture of our Lord, who will come as the King of the Earth.

(5) The slave’s words are hypocritical. The slave told his master that he feared him, because he was exacting, but the master refused to accept this explanation. If the slave had truly feared his master, he would have made an effort to produce a profit for him, which he did not do. He did not even go so far as to put the money out at interest, so as to get some return for the master. If the slave was truly fearful, he would have also been obedient.

(6) The slave’s words provide us with the key to understanding why he did not make an effort to “do business” with the master’s money, even when commanded to do so, and when he said that he feared him. I have come to the conclusion that the slave’s perception of his master is very similar to that of the citizens, who rejected him. Why did the citizens not want this nobleman as their king? Because they thought he would be a bad king. Just as the master had the right to reap what he did not sow, by being the master of tenant farmers, so the king also taxed the people, and gained benefits from their labor.

Personally, I think that the slave felt it was wrong for his master to lay claim to any of the fruit of the labor of others. I think that the slave felt his master was both unkind, uncaring, and undeserving of gain. I believe that he felt the master was wrong to command his slaves to “do business” and to make a profit. This explains to me why he would put the money away, and refuse to do that which his master specifically commanded.

(7) It is also possible that the slave may have failed to “do business” with his master’s money simply because he felt that the time was too short to engage in business. At the beginning of this parable, Luke told us that Jesus spoke the parable in addition to His other words, because the people were looking for the kingdom to come immediately. One of the things which a “short-term” mindset does is to discourage “long-term” planning and investing. If you receive a check for $10,000 but know that you will have to write a check for that same amount in a day, you generally will not seek to buy a certificate of deposit with it, or to buy a savings bond, or to put the money in your savings account. You will deposit the money in your checking account, simply because you know that it will only be a short time before it will be gone.

Did the wicked slave have the same mindset? Did he convince himself that doing business was foolish and unnecessary, since the kingdom was imminent? Did he feel that long-term investing of his master’s money was just plain foolish? It may very well be so. Long-term investing is foolishness to those who have but a short-term mindset.

Here is a very real tension in Christian living. We must hold two truths in tension as we seek to apply them. On the one hand, we must live in the light of an imminent return. Christ may come at any moment, and we should both be ready and watching for His return. But we must also live wisely, making good investments for His kingdom, knowing that His return may not be as soon as we think or hope. Many foolish things have been done by those who felt that the kingdom was imminent. On the other hand, many foolish things have been done by those who feel its coming is distant. We must hold both a short-term and a long-term view of life and ministry, and we must seek to hold these in tension.

(8) The king’s wicked slave did not lose his life in this parable, but he did lose his reward. In the parable in Matthew, the wicked slave is cast into outer darkness, where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth (25:30). The rewards that could have been his were forfeited. His mina was given to the slave who had proven most diligent.

The master’s final act was to deal with His rebellious citizens, those who had become bold when he left, and had sent a delegation to invite this “king-to-be” not to return. On his return, the king commanded that his enemies, those wicked citizens of his kingdom who rejected him, be brought before him, where they would be killed. These enemies are clearly representative of those inhabitants of the nation Israel who would reject Jesus as their Messiah. Just as these people refused to have “this one” (a very demeaning expression) as their king, so the nation Israel would reject Jesus as their king. They would profess to having only one king—Caesar (John 19:15). The 23rd chapter of Luke’s gospel is filled with references to Jesus as “king,” all of which are negative.

Conclusion

In the context of Luke’s gospel, this parable now begins to make sense. Jesus was nearing Jerusalem. Expectation was at an all-time high. Everyone expected the kingdom to commence upon our Lord’s arrival. This parable was then given by our Lord. The departure of the king to a distant land, and his later return signaled a time delay in the arrival of the kingdom of God. The people expected the kingdom to be established almost immediately, but this parable taught that there were some intervening events which must take place first.

The delay of the kingdom’s arrival had at least two reasons. In the first place, the king had to go away in order to gain the right to rule. Our Lord had to lay the foundation for His kingdom by laying down His life for the sins of the world, by making a provision for righteousness on the basis of His grace, so that men could be pronounced righteous and be allowed to enter into His kingdom. Jesus had to go up to heaven to be crowned king (cf. Philippians 2:9-11), and to wait for the Father’s appointed time for Him to return and to reign.

In the second place, the delay of the kingdom provided a time for the king’s servants to be proven, to be tested, so that those who were faithful could be rewarded by greater responsibilities in the kingdom. The delay in the coming of the kingdom enables the Master to test His servants in the use of the money that has been entrusted to them. To the degree that the slaves are faithful in the use of money—a small thing—they will be given greater authority, the authority to rule in the kingdom.

And finally, while the disciples (especially) thought of the kingdom of God in terms of political revolution and of personal position and power, this parable reminded them that the coming of the kingdom would begin with a time of judgment. A judgment in terms of those who rejected Christ as Savior, and also a judging of the followers of the Lord as to their faithfulness in serving Him, which will be the basis of their rewards in the kingdom.

The text has an interesting lesson regarding Jews and Gentiles. Remember that the gospel of Luke is purposed to be an explanation of the gospel from a Gentile perspective. Now who do you think the “citizens” in this parable represent? They represent the Israelites, The mass of Jews in Jesus’ day who rejected Him as their Messiah. And who would constitute the slaves? Slaves were most often foreigners—Gentiles if you would. Jesus has once again turned the world upside-down, for it is the (Gentile) slaves who become rulers, while the Jews, the “citizens” do not even enter the kingdom, but are slaughtered outside. The Gentile thrust of this gospel is once again evident. The way to honor and position is not competition and self-assertion (as the disciples seem to have been doing), but faithful service as slaves. To seek to preserve one’s independence, however, is to invite divine judgment.

As I was studying this text I wondered what the minas stood for. What did they symbolize? At first, I was impressed with the fact that everyone of the ten slaves got the same amount of money. Thus, I concluded that the gospel was that which has been entrusted to us, that which we are to invest in, to do business with until He returns. But I have changed my mind. I think that the minas stand for money, just as they plainly do in the text. The fact is that some of us have far too much concern for money—we love it too much, and we cling to it like the rich young ruler. But there are others who, like the wicked servant, disdain it altogether, and who feel that it is wrong to have money, and even more evil to try to use it. Jesus dispels such thinking as evil and wicked, for money that is used for the kingdom of God is invested in eternity, it is laying up treasure in heaven. For some of us, this is a lesson that needs to be heeded well.

My final question is this, my friend, “Are you a citizen or a slave?” Which are you? That is the most important distinction in the world. Your eternal destiny is determined by the decision you make here. Is Jesus the Messiah, the King of the Earth, or is He one to be rejected? If He is Messiah, then you are to be His slave, doing what He has commanded, looking for His return, but “doing business” faithfully until that day. You become a slave by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s King, who came first to die for the sins of men, and who comes again as the judge of all, and the King of the Earth. Your eternal destiny is determined by whether you are a citizen or a slave. May you be a slave, for Christ’s sake, and yours. And if you are a slave, may you (and I) be a faithful slave, one to whom the master can say, “Well done, good slave.”

! Lesson 60:
The Untriumphal Entry
(Luke 19:28-44)

Matthew 21:1-17 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them.

They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna in the highest!” When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?” The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant. “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him. “Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise’?” And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

Mark 11:1-18 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’ “ They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying that colt?” They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go.

When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” “Hosanna in the highest!” Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him SAY it.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: “‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Luke 19:28-48 After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it.’ “ Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?” They replied, “The Lord needs it.”

They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road. When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.

John 12:9-19 Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.

The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the King of Israel!” Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, “Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”

At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. Many people, because they had heard that he had given this miraculous sign, went out to meet him. So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”

Introduction

It was nearly 20 years ago that I heard this text used in a most unusual way. A friend had just lost a little girl, who died as an infant of an incurable disease. At the funeral, one of the elders of the church, Howard Prier, read the paragraph (I do not recall from which of the gospel accounts) which we have recorded before us in verses 28-34. How could a text pertaining the acquisition of a donkey possibly bring comfort to those who had just lost a child in death? Mr. Prier focused our attention on the phrase, “the Lord needs it.” All it took was this statement from the disciples, and the owners of these two animals were willing to let them be led away. And all it required for the Christian to release the little child to God’s care and keeping was the knowledge that, in His good purposes, God had need of the child. What a beautiful truth. What a marvelous application.

In the context of the passage before us, I am nevertheless faced with a couple of tensions. The first is this: Why is an entire paragraph devoted to the procuring of a donkey and its foal, when it seems like such an insignificant event? The second tension is occasioned by the great contrast between the joyful praise of the crowds and Jesus’ weeping: Why does the entrance of our Lord seem so triumphal, when our Lord’s assessment of it implies the opposite? Why does the people rejoice while the Savior weeps?

The Background of our Passage

The events of the entrance of our Lord into Jerusalem can only be understood in the light of a number of very important elements, all of which converged in this place at this point in time. First, Jerusalem was the destination of our Lord, toward which He had been heading for some time. From Luke’s gospel, and from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, we know that Jesus has been bound for Jerusalem for some time. Ever since the transfiguration of Jesus, He had been speaking to His disciples of going to Jerusalem, where He would be put to death (cf. Luke 9:31, 51). Even publicly, to some degree, it was made known that He would not be stopped from going to Jerusalem, to His death (Luke 13:31-35).

Second, all Israel knew that it would be in Jerusalem where Messiah would be enthroned as their King. In our previous lesson, I outlined a few of the Old Testament texts which looked for Messiah to appear in Jerusalem.[300] In the “triumphal entry,” Jesus’ presentation of Himself to Israel as their Messiah is seen as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 (cf. Matthew 21:4-5). All eyes were on Jerusalem, and Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem.

Third, the Passover feast was at hand, which brought many spiritual pilgrims to Jerusalem and fueled the fires of spiritual and messianic expectations. Spiritual Israelites from all over Israel would make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, just as Jesus’ family did, as recorded in Luke chapter 2 (verses 41 ff.). Edersheim writes,

“Everyone in Israel was thinking about the Feast. for the previous month it had been the subject of discussion in the Academies, and, for the last two Sabbaths at least, that of discourse in the Synagogues. Everyone was going to Jerusalem, or had those near and dear to them there, or at least watched the festive processions to the Metropolis of Judaism. It was a gathering of universal Israel, that of the memorial of the birth-night of the nation, and of its Exodus, when friends from afar would meet, and new friends be made; when offerings long due would be brought, and purification long needed be obtained—and all worship in that grand and glorious Temple, with its gorgeous ritual. National and religious feelings were alike stirred in what reached far back to the first, and pointed far forward to the final Deliverance.[301]

John specifically tells us that many came to Jerusalem from the country, to celebrate the Passover:

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover, to purify themselves (John 11:55).

Fourth, Jesus had performed a number of spectacular miracles, which attracted the crowds and further fueled their messianic enthusiasm. Blind Bartimaeus (Mark named him, Mark 10:46), accompanied by another unnamed blind man (Matthew 20:30), were given their sight in Jericho (Luke 18:35-43). The most spectacular miracle, however, was the raising of Lazarus, which happened very near to Jerusalem, in Bethany (John 11:1). The result of this miracle was even greater popularity for our Lord, with some believing in Him, and others not:

“Many therefore of the Jews, who had come to Mary and beheld what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done” (John 11:45-46).

This popularity alarmed the Pharisees, who met together to discuss the crisis, and who, from that day on, were intent on killing Jesus, based upon this counsel, spoken by Caiaphas:

“You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:49b-50).

Jesus therefore retreated, avoiding public exposure, until the proper time for His death came. He went to the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, staying there with His disciples (John 11:54). Many were seeking Jesus. He was the topic of conversation of those waiting at the Temple (John 11:56). Not only was Jesus sought, but also Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead:

Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him (John 12:9-11).

One can hardly grasp the mood of many at that moment in history. They were looking for Messiah, and Jesus was a likely candidate. The moment was right. They looked for Him, watching carefully for any indication of His identity. In contrast, the Pharisees and religious leaders were determined that He was not the Messiah, and that He would have no opportunity to attempt to be acclaimed such by the masses who would have wished He were their King. They were intent on putting Him to death, and were only looking for the right opportunity. These opponents of our Lord feared the crowds, and sought to do away with Jesus out of their sight.

Putting the Props in Place:
Arranging for Messiah’s Entrance
(19:28-34)

After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it.’” Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?” They replied, “The Lord needs it.”

The Mount of Olives is a hill outside of Jerusalem, which Luke tells us elsewhere is a “Sabbath day’s journey” from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12). It is a place of great significance. It was on the Mount of Olives that king David wept, along with his faithful followers, as he fled from Jerusalem and from his son, Absolom (2 Samuel 15:30). According to Zachariah 14:4, the Messiah was to appear on the Mount of Olives, which would be split in half, forming a great valley. It is here that the “triumphal entry” was staged. During His last week, Jesus spent His nights on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21;37). It seems also to be from the Mount of Olives that Jesus ascended (cf. Acts 1:12).

Jesus must have paused here on the Mount of Olives, before entering Jerusalem. He sent two of His disciples on ahead to procure a mount. It was not that Jesus needed a ride, for it was not a long walk into Jerusalem. To my knowledge, this is the first time Jesus is said to have ridden an animal. The purpose for riding into Jerusalem on a never-ridden foal of an ass was to fulfill prophecy, and thereby to proclaim His identity as Messiah. The prophecy is that of Zechariah 14:4:

And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south (Zechariah 14:4).

There is a whole paragraph devoted to a description of the details surrounding the procuring of this donkey and its foal in all three of the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). John alone cuts these details from his account. Why the detail in Luke and the other two gospels? Several responses can be given:

First, this was an important fulfillment of prophecy, which our Lord was intent on fulfilling precisely. While Luke does not stress the element of fulfilled prophecy as much as Matthew, this is nevertheless a factor. Jesus was, by His deed, declaring His identity as Messiah.

Second, the miraculous power of the Lord Jesus is portrayed. Some might think it a miracle that the animals were released to these two disciples. But Jesus’ exact knowledge of the whereabouts of the animals, and of the response of the owners, indicates our Lord is completely aware of and in control of His environment. The fact that the animal on which Jesus rode had never been ridden may be a hidden clue to His deity. In Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3, the animals which were to be sacrificed to God were not to have borne a yoke. Is the fact that this animal had never been ridden a clue to the fact that it was, as it were, an offering to God, something to be used in His service? I believe that our Lord’s choosing to ride on a never-ridden animal is a miraculous event. I can almost see the owners snickering to themselves, saying, in effect, “Just wait until he tries to ride this animal. Is he in for a jolt!”

Third, the fact that the disciples did not first ask to use the two animals, but only gave an explanation for their right to take them, is an indication of the Lord’s right to make use of anything man owns. Think of the various ways in which a previously unridden animal could have been acquired. Jesus Himself could have gone and asked to use it. He could have identified Himself as Messiah, and explained that He had certain prophecies to fulfill, and the use of that person’s animal would be an important contribution to His kingdom. Or, Jesus could have sent His disciples on a similar task. Once they explained who Jesus was, and then asked for the use of the animal, they surely would have gotten it. They could, of course, have promised to bring the animals right back, or could even have offered to rent or buy them.

Yet none of these things were done. Instead, these two disciples went into the village, and without previously asking permission, started to take the animals. All this was done in the sight of the animals’ owners. We would say that this act was “gutsy.” And remember that the two disciples are doing precisely what Jesus instructed them to do. They were told to locate the animals, to take them, and to give an explanation only if they were challenged, which they were. In effect, the owners were probably saying something like this, when they saw their animals being taken, “Hey, what do you think you’re doing?”

The amazing thing to me is that once told, “The Lord has need of it,” the owners cease to protest, allowing the two disciples to lead the two animals away, with no statement being made about their return. I wonder if they ever expected to see these animals again. Our understanding of the response of these owners must begin with an understanding the value of these two animals to their owners.[302] Wealth in that part of the world, was often measured in terms of cattle. Put into today’s culture, the ass and its colt would have been something like a red Porsche convertible. Can you imagine allowing two strangers to get into it and drive off, with only the words, “The Lord has need of it”? What was it about these words which satisfied the owners of these animals?

The key is to be found in the word, “Lord,” which, in every account is the same term. What did the word “Lord” convey to the people of Jerusalem, and to these people in particular? I believe that this term “Lord” was understood by the animals’ owners to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. I further assume that the term “Lord,” based upon its Old Testament roots, implied the deity of our Lord, and thus His sovereignty over all creation. The term “Lord” conveyed to these animal owners that Jesus was not only Messiah, but God, and thus He had every right to possess these animals, whether He ever returned them or not. His same authority is that which enabled and empowered Him to be in perfect control over this animal, which had never been “broken,” and which would normally have refused to bear Jesus as a burden, or to go where He wanted it to go.

Not only the act of riding this animal into Jerusalem, but also the way in which the animal was obtained was a statement by our Lord of His authority. And take note of the fact that His authority, at least in the obtaining of the animals, was not exercised by our Lord directly, but through His disciples, who were sent by Jesus, in His authority. The later implications of this will be spelled out by Luke in his second volume, the book of Acts.

The is a very obvious application here, as I see our text. Jesus, as the Messiah, has every right to possess what is ultimately His. If Jesus were the Messiah, if He was the divine Son of God, why did He lack anything? Why did He need to borrow these animals? Why did He not miraculously create two beasts? What we see here is consistent with our Lord’s first coming. His parents had no place to bear the child, other than a borrowed stable. Jesus had no home of His own (cf. Luke 9:58), and no means of support (Luke 8:1-3). He stayed, I assume, sometimes under the stars (Luke 21:37), and at other times it may well have been in borrowed quarters. Jesus was even buried in a borrowed tomb (Luke 23:50-53).

Why did the Creator of the Earth (Colossians 1:16) put Himself in need, so that He had to borrow what belonged to others? In the first place, everything does belong to Him. In the ultimate sense, the foal and its mother did not belong to men, but to God. They were only stewards of things. Thus, for the Son of God to “borrow” what belongs to others is really for Him to possess what is His. Second, as the Creator of the Earth, and as the Creator of man, our Lord also possesses man. Man is not free. God is free, free to do with what He created as He chooses (cf. Romans 9:19-24). Thus, for the Son of God to lay claim to these two animals was consistent with Him right to lay claim to all of His creation, including man. We are His possession, to dispose of as He chooses.

While their theology may not have been very well developed, and while the owners of the animals may not have been eager for them to be used (on they other hand, they may have delighted to have Jesus use them), they did not, indeed, they could not resist His will, even when conveyed through two of His disciples.

But back to my point of application. Do we really believe that Jesus Christ possesses all things, and that He has the right to lay claim to them, to dictate how they are used, at any time? I think that we are far less inclined to let go of things than those who owned these two animals. It is one thing to acknowledge our Savior as “Lord,” and as the possessor of all things; it is quite another to live this way. He has chosen to continue, even to this day, to lay claim on the possessions of men. He has chosen not to carry out His earthly work, not by supernaturally creating the means, but by laying claim on those means which He has placed in the hands of men. Our willingness to release possessions into His hands is a testimony to His lordship.

We know that when the Kingdom of God comes, the King will come, and He will possess His kingdom, and all that is in it. None are exempt. Those who have renounced and resisted His ownership will resist Him no longer. His enemies will be defeated and destroyed.

The Untriumphal Entry
(19:35-40)

They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road. When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

We would best begin to understand this event by recognizing several important details:

(1) We know that this incident was the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy (14:4), even though Luke did not make a point of saying so, as Matthew and John did.

(2) Not everyone in Jerusalem participated in the triumphal entry, but mainly those who could be called His disciples. From all of the accounts, it is evident that while there was a great crowd involved in welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem (cf. John 12:12), many of the people of Jerusalem were not involved. The whole city, Matthew tells us was stirred (21:10), but not all were involved. It would seem that the majority of those involved in this celebration were those not from Jerusalem, but those pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem, either to celebrate the Passover (John 12:12), or to follow Jesus there (Luke 19:37), or both.

(3) No one really understood the meaning and significance of what they were doing as they welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem. John informs us that even the (12) disciples did not understand what they (or Jesus) were doing:

At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him (John 12:16).

When asked by the Jerusalemites what was going on, and who this “Jesus” was, the crowd responded that He was a prophet, not that He was the Messiah:

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?” The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee” (Matthew 21:10-11).

Luke informs us that Jesus was praised for His miracles (Luke 19:37).

When we look at our Lord’s response to the “triumphal entry,” He regarded it as a rejection, and not as a reception of Him as Messiah (cf. Luke 19:41-44). Just as Jesus could say that those who crucified Him “knew not what they were doing” (Luke 23:34), so we see that the crowds did not know what they were doing here either.

Some of the disciples did regard Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem as the entrance of the Messiah, of Israel’s King, but they did not understand when His kingdom would be instituted, or how. Others seem to have regarded Jesus as someone less than this. Many, simply did not know who He was, or what was happening. One wonders how many got caught up in the excitement and the activity, without knowing what was happening at all.

I think that some did not regard Jesus as the Messiah, but thought that they could appoint Him as such. I wonder if those, who according to Matthew’s account (21:11), thought of Jesus as “the prophet,” also thought that they could almost forcibly make Him their King, as the people wanted to do in John 6:15. Jesus would therefore have not been regarded highly enough, but only as One who had the potential for being King, if the people appointed Him as such.

(4) We are not told that Jesus commanded this of His disciples, only that He refused to prohibit them from doing so. I cannot prove it, but I have the impression that Jesus did not tell the disciples what to do, once the two returned with the donkeys. The texts of all four gospels reads nearly the same (John’s version is, predictably, somewhat unique, but in agreement in the details). Jesus told the two disciples to go to the nearby village and to get the two donkeys they would find. There is no report that He told anyone what to do when they returned with the donkeys. An explanation for this is not difficult. The disciples knew the prophecies about Messiah. They knew Zechariah’s prophecy well, and thus, when Jesus sent two of them to get two donkeys, the connection between this command and Zechariah’s prophecy was self-evident to them. They did not need to be told what to do, they simply responded to the prophecy they knew was being fulfilled. And so Jesus did not need to tell the disciples what to do once the donkeys arrived. They spontaneously did what they knew should be done in the circumstances. Jesus refused to prohibit His disciples from this welcome, but it does not seem that He commanded them to do so.

A question should haunt us, at this point. If the “triumphal entry” was, in reality, a failure, a kind of fiasco, something which only our Lord really understood, then why did Jesus allow it to happen? Indeed, why did Jesus cause it to happen? Why would Jesus precipitate such an event, which did nothing more than to excite the crowds, but produced no kingdom?

I believe that there are several answers to this question. The first response is that it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to publicly identify Himself as the King of Israel, even though (and we might even say, in order that) He might be rejected and put to death. Many were wondering who Jesus was. Many wondered if He were the Messiah. His act of riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was His way of dramatically and emphatically saying, “I am the King of Israel.”

The second reason why I believe Jesus precipitated the triumphal entry was in order to affirm not only His identity as Messiah, but also His deity, and thus His right to be worshipped by all men. Just as the owner’s protest at the disciples’ taking of the donkeys was the backdrop to Jesus’ authority to possess them, so the protests of the Pharisees over the praise of Jesus is the backdrop to His right, as Messiah, to be praised. The Pharisees, of course, not only rejected Jesus’ deity (cf. Luke 5:21), but also His identity as Messiah. How, then, could they allow Him to be praised? They insisted that Jesus stop the people from praising Him. Jesus refused. He said that if the people were silenced, the stone would cry out. Jesus was the Son of God. He not only deserved praise and worship, it could not be silenced.

That is what you and I are to do now, my friend. If you acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, to be your Savior, then He must be praised. How is it that a rainy day can keep us from joining others in praising Him? How is it that a beautiful day can do the same, by giving us a “day out on the lake,” rather than with the saints, praising Him? It is one thing for those who deny Jesus as Lord to fail to praise Him. It is another for those who name Him as Lord and King to refuse to worship Him. Heaven is an eternity of praise. When He comes as King, every knee will bow to Him, and every tongue will utter His praise (Philippians 2:9-11). Let us not be guilty of keeping silent when we should be praising Him. And is not our bearing witness to Him a form of praise as well? Do we not refuse to praise Him when we fail to tell others of Him and of His love? Let us surpass the stones!

(5) The “triumphal entry” of Jesus provided a forceful impetus to the Jewish religious leaders to get rid of Jesus. The triumphal entry convinced the Pharisees that they must act both quickly and decisively to get rid of Jesus. He was winning the masses over. He must be stopped, and stopped quickly (John 12:19).

Jesus’ Response to His Reception
(19:41-44)

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

What an amazing contrast there is here between the joyful reception of Jesus by the crowds with our Lord’s tears. They thought they had received Him in a way that was appropriate and fitting; Jesus viewed the event as a disaster, and as leading to disaster, for Jerusalem.

Jesus wept as He approached the city of Jerusalem (v. 41). The reason for His tears is given to us in verses 42-44. First and foremost, Jerusalem failed to grasp “the things which make for peace.” Just what are “the things which make for peace”? In our day, this is a matter of great disagreement and heated debate. The “hawks” think that peace is obtained by might, by having sufficient arms to serve as a threat to any who would think of attacking us. The “doves” think that the absence of armament is the answer. In Israel, the believe was that Messiah would bring peace to the nation when He appeared. Thus, at the birth of the Lord Jesus the angels sang of “peace on earth” (Luke 2:14).

But how was this peace to be accomplished? By and large, it would seem that the majority of people thought that this peace would be accomplished by a sword, and by force. They therefore supposed that when Messiah came, He would utilize military might, and that He would throw off the shackles of Rome. When Jesus wept because Jerusalem did not know what would bring about peace, He wept because He knew what lay ahead for this wayward, wrong-thinking nation. Instead of Messiah’s coming bringing about the demise of Rome, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah meant the destruction of Jerusalem, at the hand of Roman soldiers. Jesus therefore spoke of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D.

It was not by Messiah’s use of force and power, nor by the death of Messiah’s enemies that the kingdom was to be brought about, but by Messiah’s death, at the hand of His enemies. It was not triumph which would bring in the kingdom, but the tragedy (from a merely human viewpoint) of the cross. God’s ways are never man’s ways. Man would have brought about the kingdom in many ways, but man would never have conceived of doing so by a cross, by apparent defeat, by the suffering of Messiah Himself, for the sins of His people.

Here, then, is a third implication of our Lord’s deity. If Jesus was Lord (that is, God), then not only does He possess the right to possess man’s possessions (vss. 28-34), and the right to possess man’s praise and worship (vss. 35-40), he also has the right to institute His kingdom in the way He sovereignly chooses, rather than by those means which men might prefer. Messiah will come to possess what is His, to receive man’s praise, and to bring about the kingdom in His own way. Men seemed to suppose that the kingdom would be founded on acts of power and might and by more miracles (cf. v. 37), but Jesus was intent on fulfilling the will of the Father, and thus to bring about the kingdom by personal pain, rejection, and suffering. Such is the way of His cross.

Why is it, my friend, that we still cling to the idea that where God is, there will be miracles, wonders, and prosperity, when the way of our Lord was one of need (as for the donkeys), of rejection, suffering, and pain? If we are to be followers of our Lord, need we not expect to take up a cross, even as Jesus said? And need we not anticipate rejection and suffering, even as was His experience? Just as men resisted God’s way of inaugurating His kingdom, so we continue to resist God’s way of doing things.

Jesus’ Attack: Not on Rome, but on Religion
(19:45-48)

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.

Did the Israelites expect Jesus to immediately wage an attack on Rome, and on its rule? Jesus did not do so. What Jesus did was to attack the Jewish religious system itself, and to renounce its evils. Jesus marched on the temple, for a second time (cf. John 2:13-16) and cast out the money-changers. This was the holiday season, and “business” there in the temple area must have been booming. But instead of using the temple for a place of prayer and worship, the religious leaders made it a place for personal gain. Jesus went back to the temple each day, and taught the people. For a short time, at least, the temple would serve its original purpose. Soon, that temple, as indicated earlier (vv. 43l-44), would be destroyed. God was going to see to it not only that the old temple was torn down, but that a new temple was created, a temple not made with hands, a temple where there was no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for all who are one in Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22).

Jesus’ attack on the religious system of His day was strongly reacted to by those with a vested interest—the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the leaders of the people. They were not yet able to kill Jesus, due to the crowds, but they were intent on putting Him to death at the earliest possible moment. The battle lines were drawn, but it was not between the Messiah and Rome, but rather between Messiah and religion, the Jewish religion.

Conclusion

The triumphal entry, then, was not only Jesus’ claim to be Israel’s Messiah, but also a clear declaration of His deity. He was also Israel’s Lord. His rights as Lord are therefore affirmed and demonstrated in these verses. He as Creator, has the right to possess men’s possessions. As a perfect and holy God, He has the right to possess men’s praise and worship. As the Lord, He has the right to attack the false religion of that day, and to replace it. All of these rights are the rights of the One who was not only Israel’s Messiah, but also Her God. They are the prerogatives of deity.

This declaration of our Lord’s deity, and of His rights as Israel’s Lord are very important, in the context of Luke. Jesus is about to be rejected by His own people, handed over to the Gentiles, persecuted, abused, and crucified. To some, it might have seemed that Jesus had “high hopes” which were unrealistic, and which failed. To some, the cross may have seemed both a disaster and a defeat. But just prior to His death, Jesus declared His deity, demonstrated His right to possess, to receive man’s praise, and to determine how the kingdom would be established. All of these things happened under protest, but could not be stopped. Jesus’ death on the cross was not an evidence of Jesus being overrun or overpowered by His opponents, but of His laying down His life voluntarily, for the sins of His people, as God’s means of establishing the kingdom. What a vital truth we see demonstrated here, just prior to our Lord’s death.

We are not like Israel, for if we have received Jesus as our Savior, we have received Him as Lord, as God, and as our Savior. We have come to acknowledge Him as the King of the Earth, whose kingdom will soon be established on the earth. Why, then, are we failing to practice those things which declare His prerogatives as the King? We say that He is Lord, and yet we resist letting loose of our possessions, so that His kingdom may be furthered. We say that He is Lord, and yet we are reluctant to praise Him as we ought. When we come to church, and even when we come to a worship service, so often our religion is as self-serving as was that of Israel. We think of ourselves, talk of ourselves, and ignore Him who is our God, our Creator, and our Redeemer. We think of His kingdom today in much the same terms as did the disciples of Jesus’ day. We think in terms of the power and prestige we will have, rather than in terms of the praise He should have. We look for miracles and wonders and we want to see Jesus overcome our enemies, and we do not want to think of a cross, of suffering or shame, or rejection by men. We want our religion to be one that is self-serving, rather than one which calls for self-sacrifice. But if Jesus is both Lord and Christ, then He must have His prerogatives, He will have His prerogatives. He should possess our possessions, our praise, and our submission to His ways of bring about His purposes.

! Lesson 61:
The Tempest in the Temple:
The Abuses of Authority
(Luke 20:1-18)

Luke 20:1-18 One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?” 3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?” 5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.” 8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. 13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!” 17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

Matthew 21:23-27 Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

Matthew 21:33-46 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. 38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

Mark 11:27-33 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” 29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!” 31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘From men’… ” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Mark 12:1-12 He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this scripture: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” 12 Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Introduction

In his excellent book, Shantung Compound, Langdon Gilkey describes the life of a diverse group of Westerners in China who were detained in a camp by the Japanese during World War II. In one chapter he described the development of a black market within the camp. Commodities like eggs, which were unavailable inside, became regular items on the menu, thanks to the black market. Gilkey then described how the Japanese ruthlessly shot the black marketeers, not to put the black market to an end, but rather so that they might take over the illegal business and make large profits by so doing.

The fact of the matter is that those who are in authority have great opportunity to abuse that authority in such a way as to take advantage of people and to make great profits for themselves. This is what the has recently taken place in the banking industry, and one factor in the collapse of many savings and loan corporations and banks. Those who have attained positions of power have abused that power, making loans to one another in the industry in such a way as to profit themselves, but at the expense of the stockholders or depositors.

Authority is always subject to abuse. Such was the case in biblical times as well. John the Baptist instructed repentant tax-collectors not to collect more than they had been ordered to collect, and the soldiers not to extort, both of which were an abuse of authority (Luke 3:12-14). The Jewish religious leaders had also abused their authority. This was nothing new to Jesus’ day, either, for the Old Testament prophets had rebuked Israel’s leaders for their abuse of their authority:

Ezekiel 34:1-17 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them. 7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them. 11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. 17 “‘As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats.

In this text from Ezekiel, the leaders of the nation Israel are rebuked for their abuse of authority, and they are told that God Himself would intervene, and that He would provide His own Shepherd to replace them, so that His flock, Israel, would be cared for. The Lord’s coming to the earth was the appearance of that Good Shepherd. The Lord marched upon Jerusalem, to a large degree, to rebuke the leadership of Israel for the abuse of their authority.

The issue which underlies this entire section of Scripture is that of authority. Jesus has clearly declared Himself to be Israel’s Messiah by His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He has claimed in so doing, not only His identity as Messiah, but also His deity. As such, He demonstrated His right as Messiah to possess His kingdom, including the two donkeys. The words, “the Lord has need of them,” spoken by His two disciples, was all that was needed to convince the owners of the donkeys that they could take their animals. The entrance of the Lord into Jerusalem, His acceptance of praise as Messiah, and His refusal to silence the multitudes, all pointed to His right, as God’s Son, to possess men’s praise. And, His entrance into the temple, His cleansing of it, and His taking possession of it to teach daily there, was proof of His authority to possess and make use of His temple.

This is where the crunch comes, for if Jesus would claim such authority, it was in direct competition with the “authorities” of Jerusalem, who saw themselves as the ones with authority. This leads to a major confrontation, which I have called, the “tempest in the temple,” and which will conclude in the crucifixion of our Lord on the cross of Calvary. The focus of this lesson will be on the initial challenge to Jesus by the Jerusalem Jewish authorities, and His response to them. We will seek to learn what abuses they had made of their authority, which prompted them to reject God Himself, and even to purpose to put Him to death. I believe that we will find that the same abuses of authority which were evident in that day, 2000 years ago, can be found today. The application of these verses will them become self-evident.

The Structure of the Text

The major section, of which our text is a part, is that of Luke 19:45–21:38. We might call this section, “Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple.” The chapters preceding this section all lead up to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem. The chapters which follow focus on the arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of our Lord.

Our text, technically speaking, begins in chapter 19, verse 45, with Jesus entrance into the temple, and His cleansing of it. Jesus then virtually took possession of the temple, daily going there to teach, and then retreating a short distance to the mount of Olivet to spend the night:

“Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet. And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him” (Luke 21:37-38).

It was while teaching at the temple that Jesus was confronted by the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem, and challenged as to His authority (20:1-2). Jesus’ response was first to ask them a question about authority, and then to refuse to give a direct answer (20:3-8). He then followed up with a parable, which forcefully answered their question, but in an indirect way that did not provide them with sufficient grounds to arrest Him (20:9-16a). When they heard His words, they responded with shock and horror (20:16b), and Jesus then followed up by referring to an Old Testament text from Psalm 118:22, which took His teaching even beyond the words of the parable He had just spoken (20:17-18).

Outline of the Text

Our passage can thus be outlined in this way:

(1) Jesus’ possession of His temple—(19:45-48)

(2) The Challenge of Jerusalem’s Leadership—(20:1-2)

(3) Jesus’ Counter-Question—(20:3-8)

(4) Jesus’ Answer by Parable—(20:9-16)

(5) Jesus’ Further Clarification—(20:17-18)

The Setting

Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem. He has, by His actions, announced His identity as Israel’s Messiah. He possessed the donkeys (19:29-34), the praises of the people (19:35-44), and finally His temple (19:45-48). Up to this point, the principle source of opposition to Jesus has been from the party of the Pharisees, who seem to have been dogging the heels of the Savior from very early on in His ministry (cf. Luke 5:21ff.). These Pharisees were not a part of the official leadership of Israel, nor were they particularly headquartered in Jerusalem, so far as I can tell. At least they do not seem to possess the principal positions of power, such as the priesthood. They seem to be more of a “lay ministry” than a part of the official structure.

It is at the Lord’s possession of His temple in Luke 19:45 that we see the torch of opposition to Jesus being passed (informally, perhaps unconsciously) from the Pharisee party to the Jewish religious and political leaders, the “priests, and the scribes and the elders” (Luke 20:1). There is a reason for this. For one thing, the Jerusalem leaders may not have been overly concerned with Jesus’ ministry and influence in the outlying parts of Israel, but only became threatened when Jesus invaded their territory, including the temple. They wanted to stop Him, but the Lord’s popularity with the masses was too great to ignore or to challenge (19:48). Thus, they waited for their chance. Their first attack came in the form of an official challenge to the authority by which Jesus did the things He had done (20:2). It is at this point that we pick up on the “tempest in the temple.”

Jesus’ Possession of His Temple
(19:45-48)

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a ‘den of robbers.’” Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.

We have already studied these verses in our previous lesson, and we have briefly reviewed them above. Nevertheless, they are vital because they do set the stage for all that follows in the next two chapters. The coming of Messiah to His temple is not an unexpected event, for the prophet Malachi spoke of it when he wrote,

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:1).

Thus, the Lord did come to His temple, to possess it. He began by purging it of those who had perverted its purpose. Mark’s account of this supplies us with greater detail on this (cf. Mark 11:15-16). Here, as elsewhere, Jesus was acting not only according to His Father’s will, but also in accordance with Old Testament prophecies. Those whom Jesus cast out of the temple were those who were selling merchandise.

It is interesting to note the wider context of the passages in both Isaiah 56 (v. 7) and Jeremiah (v. 7).

“6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:6-7).

1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message: “‘Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the Lord. 3 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. 8 But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless. 9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord (Jeremiah 7:1-11).

I find it most interesting that in the context of Isaiah’s words, the temple is described as a “house of prayer for all nations,” not just for Israel. Mark includes the words, “for all nations,” but neither Matthew nor Luke do. This is especially noteworthy since Luke is addressed to a Gentile audience. It would seem, then, that there are two abuses possibly in view here. (1) The selling which was occurring in the Temple may have been in the Court of the Gentiles, thus depriving them of a place for the worship of God. (2) The nature of the selling was such that aliens would be most victimized. In the first case, the Court of the Gentiles may have been “converted” into a place of business, so that there was no place of worship for the Gentiles, who were excluded from any closer proximity to the holy place. In the second case, it would be those who came from afar who would lack the sacrificial animals, and who would also lack the currency required for worship there at the temple. Thus, foreigners would be hindered from worshipping God in the temple, and even in the Old Testament the temple was seen as a place of worship for Gentiles and Jews.

In the text from Jeremiah 7, there is also a reference to the oppression of aliens (v. 6), as well as stealing (v. 9), but there is the added reference to “trusting in deceptive words” (v. 8). I view our Lord’s cleansing of the temple as the corrective for the former offenses, and our Lord’s teaching in the temple as the corrective for the latter. Jesus replaced and corrected the “false teaching” which had characterized the temple (coming from the Jewish religious leaders) with His own teaching. Luke alone tells us that it included the preaching of the gospel (20:1), as well as a more general “teaching.”

Luke tells us the response of the Jerusalem Jewish leaders to Jesus’ possession of the temple and His daily teaching there. They were incensed, and wanted to kill Him (19:47). I think it is significant that Luke begins, as it were, with these things, as the introduction to this great “tempest in the temple.” Jesus hit these men were it hurt—in their ego’s and in their pocket books. We know that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were accused of loving position and public prominence (Matthew 23:5-7). Jesus’ acceptance of the praise of the multitudes, and His refusal to stop it would have been interpreted by these leaders as robbing them of the esteem and praise they deserved. If tradition is correct, it was the religious leaders who controlled the concession stands in the temple (who else could have permitted them) and who gave these franchises out, making a great profit by doing so. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple deprived these leaders of something that meant a great deal to them—money. Jesus had rendered a powerful blow to the ego’s and the wallets of the Jerusalem power brokers. They would not let this pass unchallenged.

The Challenge:
Who’s in Charge Here?
(20:1-2)

1 One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

It was bad enough that Jesus had entered Jerusalem as He had. It was a great blow to the owners of the concession stands when Jesus drove the merchants from the temple. But when He set up shop in the temple, teaching there daily, this was too much. This was their territory, their turf, the Jerusalem leaders believed, and thus they confronted Jesus in the temple in the context of His teaching there. Their challenge came as a question concerning His authority. The question was two-pronged, not simply one question put differently the second time. There were two questions in view:

(1) Just who do you think you are to do these things, anyway?

(2) Who gave you the authority to do these things?

The first question has to do with Jesus’ personal authority. Jesus was acting as though He owned the place, and so He did. The simple answer would have been, “I am the Messiah.” But while the people were entertaining this at least as a possibility, the leaders rejected the thought out of hand. No way! The second question had to do with Jesus official accreditation—Who sent Him? These leaders seemed to think that they were the accrediting agency. Jesus had not received their permission to come to town as He had, or to accept men’s praise, or to take over the temple. If the nation’s highest spiritual leadership had not authorized Jesus, who had? That was the issue. It was the issue of authority, both Jesus innate authority, and His delegated authority.

The questions are not bad ones, in and of themselves. The motivation is wrong, but the inquiry can be most beneficial. If Jesus is the divine Son of God, the One sent from God, then He has the right to say and to do as He pleases. He has the right to possess all things, as well as to proclaim His word as truth. Those of us who acknowledge Him as the divine Son of God should also acknowledge and submit to His rights and His authority as such. The Jerusalem leaders were, if nothing else, more consistent with their beliefs than we. They rejected Him as the divine Son of God and rejected His teaching. We profess to accept Him as the divine Son of God and ignore His teaching, so often.

Truth or Consequences
(20:3-8)

3 He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?” 5 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.” 8 Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

The issue was broader than Jesus, for John the Baptist had introduced Jesus to Israel as the Messiah. If the Jerusalem leaders were going to pronounce on Jesus’ authority, they would also have to deal with John’s, for if John was a divinely appointed prophet, a spokesman for God, then Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus forced His opponents to deal with the testimony of John before He would bear witness to Himself. Furthermore, if they refused to accept John’s witness, then they surely would not receive Jesus, either. Let them declare themselves, then, on the authority of John. What authority did he have? Who sent him? If they would answer this question, then Jesus would answer theirs.

Note that Jesus reduced the options to only two, indeed the only two possible options. Authority is either human or divine. Thus, Jesus pressed His opponents to declare whether John’s authority was from God, or whether John was simply acting on his own (human) initiative. Was John sent by God, or did he simply go on his own?

The deliberation of these leaders is amusing, enlightening, and tragic, all at the same time. Never do they explore this issue with a view to learning the truth. The are not interested in truth, but in consequences. They have their minds made up already, but they lack the courage to speak up and to have the crowds hear them. They differ with the majority. The majority held John to be a prophet. They rejected him as such. Thus, they must consider the consequences of any answer they might give. The sound far more like politicians here than they do spiritual leaders. What will the people do if we say this or that? This is their prime concern. They do not wish to lose their position or power. And so the whole discussion is merely pragmatic.

They dared not say what they really believed, and so they had to say nothing. Their answer was probably one of the most painful they had ever given, for they were forced to say, “We don’t know.” For those whose authority was based on their “knowing all,” this was a kiss of death. How they must have choked on these words, “I don’t know,” especially when they were convinced that they did know. Since they refused to answer, Jesus did as well. How could they demand an answer when they would not answer either?

The Parable of the
Vineyard and the Vine Growers
(20:9-16)

9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. 13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’[303] 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

The parable is, it would seem, but one of many which Jesus began to tell at this point (cf. Mark 12:1, where he tells us that Jesus began speaking in parables—note the plural here). It is a simple story, but it has a powerful punch. If Jesus would not answer the question as to His authority directly, His answer here is pointed and painfully clear, yet indirect.

The vineyard was a common symbol for the nation Israel.[304] God had, at the exodus, planted Israel, as it were. The Law of Moses defined that which God expected from His people. The vine-keepers of the parable are quite evidently the leaders of the nation. When Israel failed to produce that which God required,[305] God sent His prophets, who are the “servants” of the parable. The nation, through its leaders, consistently rejected the prophets, rejecting them and their message. Even though God had sent these servants, they were rejected and persecuted. John the Baptist, concerning whom Jesus had just questioned His opponents, was the last of these prophets, and they had rejected him, like all the rest.

The prophets were not regarded as having any authority over the vine-keepers. Eventually, the owner of the vineyard decided to send His own son. Surely they would recognize and submit to his authority. But instead, these rebels purposed to kill the son, thinking that this might somehow give them the possession of the vineyard and the right to continue to rule it. The owner of the vineyard would surely be justified in coming to His vineyard, destroying its leaders, and placing others in charge of it.

What a powerful message we find here. Men like John, were prophets, and thus had the authority to speak for God. John, as a divinely appointed spokesman for God, proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah. But just as Israel’s leaders had rejected other prophets, so the had done with John as well. Jesus, in this parable, is telling His audience that He is not a prophet; He is the Son. That is the basis of His authority. He owns the vineyard. He has been sent by His Father to possess what is His. But they will reject Him and put Him to death. And they do so with the full knowledge that He is the Son. They kill Him because He is the Son. This, we recall, is what Jesus’ opponents have already purposed to do (Luke 19:47). It is not so much that they do not know who Jesus is, as that they will not accept His authority. It is not the identity of Jesus that is in question, but His authority.

The Father of this Son, the owner of the vineyard, will be fully justified in destroying these leaders. And this He will do. He will also be justified in giving their positions of leadership to others. In this context, those who replace the leaders are Gentiles. Imagine this! Jesus is saying that He is the Son of God, that He comes in God’s authority, that they will kill Him, and that God will not only destroy them, but He will give their leadership to the Gentiles. The response of the Lord’s hearers is predictable—”God forbid!” This is the only place in the gospels that this expression, common to Paul, appears. It is a thought almost too horrible to consider. Jesus has lowered the boom on His opponents.

Jesus’ Further Clarification
(20:17-18)

17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

The parable of the vineyard did not say quite enough. It did forcefully answer the question of the Jewish leaders, as to Jesus’ personal authority, and as to who sent Him. The parable of the vineyard also was applied by our Lord to teach that the leadership role of Jesus’ opponents would be taken away and given to others (Gentiles, no less!), while the Jewish leaders would be destroyed. But this parable fails to portray the “rest of the story,” as Paul Harvey would say it. It fails to portray that the destruction of the wicked leaders of Israel is actually to be accomplished by the Son of God, the Messiah whom they rejected.

The Son who is rejected and put to death is the Son of God who will rise from the dead, and who will someday return to the earth to establish His kingdom. The Son is on the one hand, a “stone of stumbling,” a cause of stumbling to the Jews. This was our Lord’s role at that moment in time. In a “passive” way (the stone didn’t move, men stumbled over it) Jesus was a stumbling block to men who refused to acknowledge their sin and their need of a Savior. But this passive “stone of stumbling,” whom the builders (the leaders of the nation) rejected, will also be an active agent in their destruction. Now, He is viewed as a moving stone, a falling stone that crushes and grinds His enemies.

Conclusion

I believe that this question, raised by Israel’s leaders and answered by our Lord, reveals one of the key factors in man’s relationship with God—that of authority. Sinful man wants autonomy, he wants to retain his own authority, and the reject all other authority, especially that of God. Dr. Dobson’s question, which I have often heard him ask, “Who’s in charge here?,” is most appropriate.

Satan was given both beauty and power, but he was not content. He did not want to be under God’s authority, but to establish his own authority, to “be like the most high” (Isaiah 14:14). After Satan’s fall, he deceived Eve and prompted Adam to act independently of God’s authority, promising them that they would be like God, too (Genesis 3:5).

When God liberated the Israelites, He freed them from the authority of Egypt, but they were not really free, they became His slaves (cf. Leviticus 25:55). The Law of Moses became the constitution of the land. The land itself belonged to God (Leviticus 25:23), and the people of Israel lived on it only as long as they obeyed God as their king. But throughout the Old Testament times, the people of Israel rebelled against God’s authority, for which they were chastened (cf. Psalm 78). It is no great surprise that since the Israelites did not submit to God throughout their history, they would also refuse to submit to the authority of the Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The amazing thing is that Jesus did not come to the earth the first time to bring about His kingdom by the exercise of His authority, by sheer force, but by allowing men to reject Him, and even to nail Him to a cross, on which He bore the sins of men, even those who crucified Him. The message does not stop here, however, for the preaching of the gospel in the book of Acts informs the Israelites that the One they rejected, God raised from the dead, and He will return to bring justice to the earth and to subdue His enemies (cf. Acts 2). When He comes again, He will come “unveiled,” with His full splendor evident, and displaying His mighty power in the subjection of His enemies. How important it is to receive Christ as the rejected one, the redeemer, than to have to submit to Him as the mighty conqueror. I pray that you have done so, or that you will do so today, by simply acknowledging your sin, and Christ as your Savior, the One who bore your sins. The book of Revelation, the last book of our Bible, speaks much of Christ’s return, and much of His power and authority, which will become evident to all when He returns to reign on His earth.

Sin is largely a matter of authority. We sin, not because we lack the knowledge of what God requires, but because we refuse His authority. We would rather run our own lives, and live as we please. We would rather be like God than to obey Him. Sin rejects God’s authority and seeks to live autonomously, turning one’s back on God’s commands. While we may be more polite than the Jewish leaders were in challenging Jesus’ authority, our problem is one and the same.

The irony is that when we reject God’s authority, we do not become the masters of our souls and the captains of our fate. When we spurn God’s authority, we place ourselves under the dreadful authority of sin, and ultimately of Satan Himself. Imagine it. When the people of Jesus’ day rejected Him they said, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). They gladly traded a traitor (Barabbas) for the sinless Son of God, and the righteous rule of God for that of a hated, cruel, and heathen king, Caesar! When we reject God’s authority, God’s rule, we consign ourselves to the dominion of sin and of Satan. The “freedom” which Satan offers men is the freedom from righteousness and life, and the dreaded bonds of sin and of death.

I find it interesting to note that having authority is often a greater temptation for Christians than having possessions and wealth. The disciples could (almost proudly) claim to have left everything to follow Jesus, but their thirst for power and authority had not diminished at all. Indeed, with the approach of Jerusalem, the disciples became more and more eager for it. They argued with each other concerning who would be the greatest. James and John sought to use their mother to gain it for them.

Many Christians today seem to have no appetite for money (though the number of such seems to be demising), but may well have a great appetite for power. And why not? Who needs money if they have power? Money is simply a means to having power. If one can gain power some other way, money is not needed. Much of the strife which we see in the church and between Christians originates in a thirst for power. How, then, does the New Testament instruct us to deal with this great evil? How can the thirst for power be overcome? Let me make a few suggestions, based upon other revelation in the Scriptures.

(1) We must begin with a recognition that all authority belongs to God. While the manuscripts differ as to the originality of these words, they nevertheless express a very important biblical truth: “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13).

The centurion of Luke 7 understood very well that he was not so much of man of authority as he was a man under authority. When Pilate sought to impress Jesus with his authority, the Lord reminded him that his authority was delegated to him, and thus authority for which he would have to give account (John 19:10-11). Men of spiritual power recognize that this power is God’s and not their own. All power is ultimately God’s power, and thus all glory goes to God, not to men. A proper view of power begins with a grasp of who rightfully possesses it.

(2) Authority which we have been granted is thus a stewardship, and one for which we must someday give an account (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:1-5; Hebrews 13:17).

(3) Authority is simply a means of serving, and thus must be exercised in accordance with the principle of servanthood. I find it most interesting that Peter, who had been so intent on gaining authority, was given these words to convey to elders, who possessed authority in the church:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Power tends to corrupt, as men have discovered in history. Thus, Paul warned the elders of Ephesus that some would “arise,” drawing men after themselves, abusing the trust of authority given them (Acts 20:28-31). Part of the problem is that while some people love to dominate others, there are people who love to be domineered (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). Those in positions of leadership, who have God-given authority, must exercise it with great humility and with gentleness. It is the Christlike attitude of servanthood which we must strive, by His grace, to imitate, rather than the power-loving authoritarianism of the world (cf. Mark 10:35-45).

How sad, but true, that even in the church, a kind of bureaucratic type of thinking arises, similar to that of the Jewish leaders in our text. We, like they, can forget that the church belongs to Christ, it is His church, not ours, and that He is the one who is to benefit from it. But how often church leaders begin to look on the church as their own, and to protect their power and positions, rather than to use them as avenues of service. And how often we all go to church, expecting (even demanding) to gain from it, but forgetting that it is God who has the right to expect and to get gain. The church, like Israel, belongs to God, and its ultimate reason for existence is not our gain, but God’s. When we lose sight of this crucial truth, we can actually come to the point of trying to get rid of God so that we protect our own interests. Let us all beware of this attitude, which lurks beneath the surface of each of our souls.[306]

! Lesson 62:
God and Government
(Luke 20:19-26)

Matthew 22:15-22 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscrip­tion?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Luke 20:19-26 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immed­iately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. 20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretend­ed to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the gover­nor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teach­er, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 23 He saw through their dupli­city and said to them, 24 “Show me a den­arius. Whose portrait and in­scription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they rep­lied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And as­tonished by his answer, they became silent.

Mark 12:13-17 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integ­rity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a den­arius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they re­plied. 17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.

Introduction

Our text, and the question which the enemies of our Lord asked Him is one that is culturally rooted, but the Fourth of July, which we will celebrate tomorrow, helps us to gain some appreciation of the issues involved here. A number of English citizens had become discontent with the British Government and with life in the old country. They set out for the new world. When they arrived in America, the British government continued to view these people as their own citizens, under their authority, and thus obligated to pay taxes. This proved irritating to the Americans, who felt that the British were very far away, that they had no representation that government, and that taxation was therefore unfair. All of this exploded, in time, in the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was precisely that, a declaration of independence from British rule.

The Jewish people had more than irritation with the present government to spur them to thoughts of independence. God had founded the nation, beginning with the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, being realized at the exodus, and having several times been threatened by the captivity which came upon Israel due to their disobedience to God’s law. The Old Testament prophets had promised Israel that there would be a kingdom, based upon a new covenant (cf. Jeremiah 32-33), and that God would raise up Messiah, to rule on the throne of David (2 Samuel 7:10ff.; Luke 1:32). The introduction of our Lord by John the Baptist (Luke 3), along with the public appearance of our Lord (Luke 4) and His miracles (Luke 7:22), bore testimony to His identity as Messiah. His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was the “high point” of His public ministry, and the hopes of many were greatly fueled. Surely, many thought, Jesus has come to establish the promised kingdom, and to throw off all foreign dominion. Many were expecting a kind of “declaration of indepen­dence” from Rome’s rule. It is therefore little wonder that the first question which Luke records pertains to the payment of taxes. Just as taxation was the sore point in the American Revolution, so it was in Jesus’ day as well.

The payment of taxes has never been popular. Taxes are not a voluntary contribution. To fail to pay one’s taxes, or to pay less than one should is a sure way to get the attention of the government, and to discover how strong they feel about our payment of taxes. The payment of taxes is a very pragmatic matter, for governments do not run without money, tax money. But paying one’s taxes is also a symbolic act, evidencing his or her submission to the one that is paid. You will remember the argument of the writer to the Hebrews, who reasons that the one who pays a tithe is inferior to the one to whom the tithe is paid (Hebrews 7:1-10). Paying taxes is thus a practical acknowledgment of that government’s right to rule over us, and of our submission to its authority.

Specifically in our text, Jesus is being asked whether or not a law-abiding Jew (one keeping the law of Moses, that is) should pay taxes to Caesar. There is a more general question at issue, however. The interchange between Jesus and His questioners which Luke depicts here in our text is one that has to do with the relationship between God and government. We might even say that the question pertains to the relationship between church and state. It was an issue that was very much alive in Jesus’ day, and it persists as a hot issue to this very day. How is one who professes to trust in God’s Messiah to relate to a pagan governments? In our study of this passage, we will seek to understand the answer which our Lord gave His questioners, and then to explore its implications for men today.

Overview

From Luke 19:45 through the end of chapter 21 there is an on-going debate, taking place in the temple. I call this section, “the tempest in the temple.” It began with the Lord’s possession of the temple, His purging of it, and it continues with His practice of teaching there daily. Chapters 22 and 23 deal directly with the arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial of our Lord. Chapter 24 depicts the Lord’s resurrection and its impact on the disciples.

Our focus in this lesson and the next will be on the three questions which dominate the rest of chapter 20. The first two questions are asked by the enemies of our Lord, and the last is asked by our Lord Himself. The first concerned the paying of taxes, the second the resurrection, and the last, the “Son of David” who was also his “lord.” The questions are prefaced by an explanation (longer in Luke than in Matthew and Mark) of the motivation of the questioners (20:19-21a). At the end of the chapter, Luke sums up the section (unlike the other two gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark) with a strong word of warning from our Lord to His disciples, concerning the leaders of Israel, who are seeking to destroy Him.

Chapter 19 may be outlined in this fashion:

(1) The challenge of Israel’s leaders & Jesus’ response—(vv. 1-18)

(2) The response of Israel’s leaders to Jesus’ response—(vv. 19-20)

(3) “Should we pay taxes to Caesar?”—(vv. 21-26)

(4) “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?”—(vv. 27-40)

(5) “How can David’s Son be his Lord?”—(vv. 41-44)

(6) Jesus’ warning concerning Israel’s leaders—(vv. 45-47 )

It is very important to recognize that Luke is being selective in what he reports, as are the other gospel writers (cf. John 20:30-31). Both Matthew and Mark, for example, report another question, raised by one of the teachers of the law, concerning the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34).I believe that these three questions are but a sampling of those which were raised during this tense week in our Lord’s life. It is my conviction that not only the questions, but their sequence, is of great significance in the development of Luke’s argument, and in our understanding of the gospel. It is for this reason that I have chosen to deal with these questions carefully, rather than simply passing over them quickly, looking only on them as “catch questions” and little else. The issues

which underlie these questions are fundamental, and they spell out, to a large degree, how the leaders of Israel differed with Jesus and why they rejected Him as their Messiah.

The Setting
(20:19-21)

19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immed­iately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. 20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretend­ed to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the gover­nor.

Jesus had answered the challenge of the Jewish leadership, first with an embarrassing question, and then with a parable. They understood both quite clearly, and their response was dramatic. They attempted to arrest Jesus on the spot (v. 19). It would seem that the crowds prevented this. Matthew’s account is more specific here:

“When the chief priests and Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet” (Matthew 21:46).

It seems to me that the leaders actually tried to place Jesus under arrest, and that this provoked a strong reaction from the people, forcing the leaders to back off, and to develop a strategy that would facilitate a more “discrete” arrest and crucifixion. The game plan is most clearly spelled out by Luke.

The direct challenge of Israel’s leaders, as to Jesus’ authority, had backfired, bringing embarrassment to them. So, too, it would seem, their attempt to arrest Jesus publicly had failed. The motivation of the leaders was clear: they had been “put down” by Jesus, and they intended to get even. They were intent on getting back for the words He had spoken against them (v. 19). Before, they had purposed to put Jesus to death because of the threat He posed (19:47), but now it was more—it was a personal vendetta.

The goal of the leaders of the people is reported here by Luke: they intended to “catch Jesus in His words” and to “turn Him over to the governor” (v. 20). I believe that the statement of these two goals is very informative. Let us briefly consider both elements of their goal.

First, they purposed to catch Jesus in His words. It was by His words that Jesus put these leaders to shame. It was by Jesus’ words, the leaders supposed, that Jesus would be eliminated. It is also significant to me that the leaders of the people could not and would not attempt to discredit Jesus in any of His actions. Were it so that this could be said of Christians today! Jesus’ life was impeccable, and His miracles were irrefutable. They would not even try to take Jesus on in these areas. What a testimony to our Lord’s sinless life and limitless power.

Second, they sought to “turn Jesus over to the governor.” The solution to their problem, as the Jewish leaders reasoned, was a political one, not a spiritual one. They did not seek to deal with Jesus in any way prescribed by the Old Testament law. They did not, as did the psalmists of old, turn Jesus over to God for divine discipline. They turned instead to a secular government. Indeed, they turned to the very government which they despised. They would question Jesus about paying taxes to Rome, expecting Him to forbid it, and yet they looked to Rome to deal with Jesus. They government which they despised, they turned to, rather than to have Jesus govern them. Those factions of Israel which differed greatly and which strove against each other, now joined together to rid themselves of Jesus, the Messiah.

The turning to political powers in order to rid themselves of Jesus made a great deal of sense. No doubt, they reasoned, they could get this “self-acclaimed Messiah” to make statements against the power of Caesar, and thus they would be able to press charges of treason against Him. Furthermore, Rome was not particularly intimidated by the thinking or feelings of the masses (as was the case with the Jewish leaders). Were the Jewish leaders afraid of the masses and their support of Jesus. Let Rome deal with Him, with all of the power which their soldiers had and their skill at suppressing uprisings. They might be afraid of the people, but Rome was not.

And so a decisive turn of events has occurred. Jesus has come to Jerusalem and has challenged the leaders of the nation. They have rejected Him, and are intent on doing away with Him, but are fearful of the masses. They now have set out on a course of gathering evidence against Jesus, which they will use to have Him arrested, tried, and put to death. This is the backdrop to at least the first of the two questions which are being posed to Jesus, as recorded by Luke.

The Jewish leaders thus laid out a multi-pronged attack plan, outlined in verse 20:

(1) They “tailed” Jesus, watching his every move

(2) They sent spies to infiltrate Jesus’ ranks

(3) They asked questions of Jesus, intended to incriminate Him

To Pay (Taxes) or
Not to Pay: That is the Question
(20:21-22)

21 So the spies questioned him: “Teach­er, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Our understanding of Jesus’ response in this text must begin with an awareness of what is happening here in our text. Let us begin with several critical observations:

(1) The question is not whether or not any person should pay their taxes, but whether or not a Jew should pay taxes to a heathen, Gentile government.

(2) The issue is posed as a problem of the law, not as a matter of rebellion or personal preference. The question is, “Is it permissible?,” and the standard on which the answer is based is the Law of Moses.

(3) The question is posed so as to suggest that there is conflict between God and government, between “church and state” (in our terms).

(4) The question is posed so that Jesus is limited to but one answer out of two choices, already provided. The way the question was posed does not give Him the freedom to answer as He chose, but rather as they chose. The longer I am in ministry the more I am intrigued with the kinds of questions people ask, and the way in which they phrase them. Those who really want to learn leave the answer completely open. That is, when they ask a question, they do not limit the one they are asking to only certain possibilities. It is those who wish to prove something who limit the possibilities. I resent questions which restrict the freedom to answer them any way I choose, rather than the way the questioner has chosen.

(5) The entire event oozes with HYPOCRISY. Consider the following evidences of hypocrisy: In appearing to respect Jesus as a teacher, a man of truth.

·         In appearing to desire to know the truth.

·         In seeming to want to obey the government, but not being sure that they could or should, according to the Law. “Is it permissible?” Will the law let me do this?”

·         In appearing to have a problem with government, when the problem was Gentiles.

·         In appearing to desire to give to God, rather than to government, but in previous parable not wanting to give God His due.

·         In appearing to have God as a priority and government as secondary, when, in reality, they had chosen government over God, as would be most evident at the cross—”We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

So here was the question: “Shall we pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Not a bad question, when you think of it. The only thing wrong with the question was the intent of those who asked it. A sincere Israelite (which the questioner was posing to be) could have asked it. Should an Israelite pay taxes any longer to Rome, when Messiah was not present? Didn’t Messiah come to throw off the shackles of the Gentile rulers and to establish the promised kingdom? Why, then, should one pay taxes any longer to Rome? If Israel was to submit to Messiah, why should an Israelite pay taxes to some other king?

The answer, it seems to me, was obvious—that is, it seemed to be obvious. There could hardly be any doubt as to what Jesus should say. After all, He was claiming to be Messiah. He was claiming the right to rule. He was, indeed, bold in His denunciation of Israel’s leadership. Why should He not be as direct with regard to the political rule of Rome? Let Him now speak out on this issue. Let Him declare His position. And when He did, the Roman rulers would be called upon to crucify Jesus as a traitor, one guilty of treason.

Jesus’ View of Paying Taxes
(20:23-25)

23 He saw through their duplicity[307] and said to them, 24 “Show me a den­arius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” 25 “Caesar’s,” they rep­lied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

First, note from our Lord’s answer that it is given in accordance with the motives and intentions of the one who asked the question. I suspect that the same (essential) question, if asked by a genuine seeker after truth, would have been answered differently. At least it may have been answered more fully. Note how brief Jesus’ response was. This is a “knock-out” in the first minute of the first round.

Second, note that Jesus asked to see a denarius, a specific kind of money. Jesus first asked to be shown a denarius. The reason is more evident from Matthew’s account: “Show me the coin used for paying the tax” (Matthew 22:19).

A denarius was not just money, though it was that. The denarius was that form of money that was used for paying taxes to Caesar. In Jesus’ day there were different kinds of money. In his gospel, Matthew told of how Jesus paid the two-drachma temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27). The tax was not paid with a denarius, but with the drachma. This is the reason why the money changers were exchanging money in the courts of the temple—the temple tax could not be paid with a denarius. When Jesus asked to see a denarius, it was because this coin was the one used for paying taxes.

I do not know what was stamped on the drachma, but I would venture to say that neither the name nor the image of Caesar could be found on it. The denarius, on the other hand, was a Roman coin. Caesar’s name was inscribed on it, along with his likeness. It was a Roman coin. It belonged to Rome, in a way not unlike the way that our money belongs to the United States of America. If a government can issue money, it can also require that it be given back, especially in the form of taxes.

Third, note that Jesus again asked a question, and then based His answer on the basis of their answer to His question. The question of Jesus’ authority, raised at the beginning of this chapter, was dealt with by our Lord by asking a counter-question. When His opponents refused to answer the question about the source of John’s authority, Jesus refused to answer their direct question. So, too, in this text, Jesus asked to be shown a denarius, and then asked the simple question, “Whose image and inscription is on this coin?”

Fourth, Jesus’ answer was neither direct, nor complete. Jesus did not give a direct “yes” or “no” answer to the question put to Him. Later New Testament texts such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 will go much farther with this matter, instructing Christians to obey God by obeying government in every way that does not place one in disobedience to God.

Fifth, Jesus’ answer, in my opinion, took His opponents totally by surprise. I do not think that anyone expected Jesus to say, as He at least implied, that the people of Israel should pay taxes to Rome. It was not, in my mind, the wisdom of alone of Jesus’ answer that amazed His audience, but the content of the answer. Who would have ever dreamed that one claiming to be Israel’s Messiah would ever advocate paying taxes to a heathen government?

Sixth, Jesus’ answer is rooted in the fact that while government and God are distinct, they are not in opposition to each other.

Seventh, Jesus’ answer is based upon the fact of Israel’s rejection of Him as God’s Messiah, and of the role of the Gentiles in this world as a result. Jesus has already implied in the parable of the vineyard that the leadership role of the Jews—their priesthood, for example—will be taken away and given to the Gentiles (cf. v. 16). If Gentiles will be given spiritual leadership as a result of the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, why would God not continue to allow Gentiles to rule over Israel as a result of her disobedience, even as the Mosaic Covenant stipulated (Deuteronomy 28).

Eighth, this whole matter of God and government is not a new matter, but one often dealt with in the Old Testament, and one which will come to a head at the cross of Calvary. 1 Samuel chapter 8 provides us with a most enlightening backdrop to this question. You will remember there that Israel demanded that God give them a king, so that Israel could be like all the other (heathen) nations, and so they could have a visible leader, who would go before them and would fight for them. God told Samuel that it was not his leadership, but God’s that was being rejected. He also warned the people that they would be heavily taxed by their king, and that the price of this government would be high. The people nevertheless insisted and they got their king.

Jesus was Israel’s King, but they would not have Him. Instead of bowing the knee in obedience to Jesus as Messiah, the leaders of the nation determined rather to look to this Gentile government to serve their self-interest by putting Jesus to death. They chose a Gentile government over God. And if this statement seems too strong, remember the words spoken by none other than the high priests, when they said to the governor, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). Here, in our text, we see that the choice has already been made to reject Messiah and to depend of government. It is only a matter of time. Government was designed by God to be an extension of His rule, but sinful men have often looked to government as a replacement, a substitute for it. Such is the case here.

Ninth, this matter of what is due Caesar is not academic issue to our Lord, for He will render His very life to Caesar, and not just taxes. Jesus will give up His life on a Roman cross. That was what Caesar required of Him, but in the will and purpose of God this was the one and only means of redeeming sinful men, of redeeming Israel from her sins.

Tenth, Jesus suggests to us what the basis is for determining what belongs to God and what belongs to someone or something else. Jesus’ words strongly imply that tax money belongs to Caesar because his currency had his image and his words written on it. What belongs to God bears God’s image and has his writing on it. The Christian is begotten (again) in the image of Christ, and the Word of God is written in our hearts.

Finally, this would indicate that while tax monies may belong to government, people belong to God. It is one thing for governments to (rightly) require men to owe them taxes, but it is another thing altogether when governments think they also have the right to own people. This is only the prerogative of God, and not of government. Of money bears the image and the words of rulers, men bear the image and the Word of God. Men are created in God’s image, and those who have come to a personal faith in Him have His word written on their hearts (cf. Jeremiah 31:33).

The Outcome
(20:26)

26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And as­tonished by his answer, they became silent.

Once again, those who have endeavored to trap Jesus in His words have only trapped themselves. The Lord’s answer, as well as the Lord’s absolute and total control of the situation was disarming. Mouths seem to have been gaping. Minds were reeling. How could it have gone so wrong? It seemed like such a great plan. Jesus had won—again. But fools will rush in, as our next text will show. The answer which our Lord gave was not expected. They gave Him two choices, one of which He must choose, but He refused, telling them, in essence, that both choices were true. One must give government its due, which includes taxes. One must give God His due, which is our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And these two obligations often are not in conflict, as the questioners seemed to assume.

Conclusion

Why would Jesus, if He were the Messiah, not rid the Jews of Roman rule? Why would He tell His questioners (by inference) that they should continue to pay their taxes to Caesar? Why was the kingdom not quickly established? Why did Jesus Himself submit to Caesar and give up His life to these Gentiles, who put Him to death on the cross of Calvary?

The reason is really quite simple. Heathen rule was a symptom, not a root problem. From Deuteronomy 28 and other biblical texts we know that Israel’s subjection to Gentile rule was due to their disobedience to God’s law, to the Mosaic Covenent. The root problem is not Israel’s bondage to Rome, but her bondage in sin. Israelites thought of freedom mainly in political and governmental terms, while Jesus thought of it in redemptive terms, as freedom from the bondage of sin. Jesus therefore had to die on a Roman cross, not for His own sins, but as the sin-bearer, as the one who was punished for the sins of the whole world. When John the Baptist introduced Jesus he did not speak of Him as the One who would overthrow Rome, but as the One who taketh away the sins of the world.

True freedom, then is the freedom from the power and the penalty of sin, and it can only be obtained on the basis of the death of Jesus Christ. By acknowledging your bondage to sin and by trusting in Christ as your sin-bearer, you can experience the freedom from sin which Jesus came to bring about on the cross. When you have experienced this freedom, political freedom, while desirable, is no longer a compelling need. We will never experience the joy of a perfect government until Christ returns to the earth to reign as King. And this will happen in the good timing of God.

In the meantime, we are to submit to human governments, even pagan ones, so long as we do not violate the Word of God. Those who questioned Jesus wrongly concluded that government is contrary to and competitive with the rule of God. But New Testament teaching (cf. Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) instructs us that human governments are not contrary to God’s rule, but a part of it. God has placed governments on the earth to restrain sin until He comes. We are to obey government, not as the enemy of God, but as the agent of God.

There are two extremes to be avoided in our outlook on government. The first is to see government as the enemy of God, and to be always opposing ourselves to it. The other extreme is to view government too highly, as man’s salvation and security. It is all too easy to look to government for those things which only God can give. It is all too easy to turn from God to government. In our text, we see Israel’s leaders looking at Jesus, the Messiah, as the problem which they must be rid of, and a heathen government—Rome—as their deliverer. Just as Israel rejected God when they demanded a king, like the Gentiles (1 Samuel 8), so we reject God and look to government to save us.

Some Christians oppose government unnecessarily and unbiblically, using God as their pretext for rebellion and disobedience. Others seem to view government as the solution to all our earthly (and spiritual) problems. Some think that we can establish a righteous government on the earth and so clean it up that Messiah will come. I believe that only Messiah can clean up this mess, and that only after He comes will a righteous government exist. Let us keep government in perspective. It is not the enemy of God, but God’s agent. Let us obey government as to the Lord, in every way possible.

I find it very interesting that the religious leaders of Israel could not find a religious solution to the problem of Jesus. Jesus was not the problem, but the solution, and yet they failed to see it, or to accept it even if they did understand that He was the Messiah. Unfortunately, I find many professing Chris­tians resorting to political means and methodology because of our spiritual impotence. When we turn from dependence on God, we turn to human means and instrumentality. How often we depend more on politics than we do on the power of God to solve our problems. Let us find Him sufficient. Let us go about our task using the implements of spiritual warfare, not the secular crutches of politics. Let us look to God and not to men for the establishment of righteousness on the earth.

On this Fourth of July weekend, may I remind you that the gospel is our Lord’s “Declaration of Independence.” It is only by faith in His death on the cross that you can be truly free. He is the truth that sets men free. May you experience that freedom today.

! Lesson 63:
One Bride for Seven Brothers
(Luke 20:27-40)

Matthew 22:23-33 That same day the Sad­ducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Fin­ally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resur­rection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resur­rection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abra­ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Luke 20:27-40 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no res­urrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his bro­ther. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died child­less. 30 The second 31 and then the third mar­ried her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resur­rection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in mar­riage. 35 But those who are considered wor­thy of taking part in that age and in the res­urrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels.[308] They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abra­ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” 39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” 40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Mark 12:18-27 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no res­ur­rection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his bro­ther. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leav­ing no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the res­urrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are bad­ly mistaken!”

Introduction

In my college days, Ted was my partner on the cleaning crew. He and I were washing windows one afternoon. We were cleaning the windows of the dormitory in which we lived. In the basement of the dorm, classes were in session. Little did we realize that what was about to take place would create such a disturbance they would have to dismiss the classes. Ted was far up on his ladder, washing the outside of the second floor dormitory windows. In the basement below him, classes were in session. Then Dan arrived.

Dan was always into some harmless, but irritating mischief. He would set up his stereo system so that he could broadcast messages from his window. Today, as he walked by the ladder on which Ted was standing, he could not resist giving it a little shake. Those of us who have stood high up on such a ladder know the disconcerting feeling of that motion telescoping up the ladder, so that we feel tossed about in the air. My friend Ted was not pleased with Dan’s humor, and so he did the only thing possible at the moment—he wrung out his sponge on Dan’s head.

This was the beginning of a water war so great that afternoon classes had to be dismissed. It rapidly escalated to buckets full of water, not just thrown about on the outside, but thrown and dumped in the halls. The place was swamped. It was about this time that George, the head resident, was informed and appeared on the scene. Believe it or not, I was not involved in the water war. I was stationed on my ladder, outside of the dorm, two stories high. It was from this vantage point that I could see everything—more than I really wanted to.

George came into the dorm room in front of me, and looked out the window I was washing to see what all the disturbance was about. He saw me, inches away, busy at work. That was a shock. He looked down to see Dan, on the ground below me, drenching wet. It was no surprise for George to learn that Dan was in the middle of this disaster. George was playing out his supervisory role, dealing with Dan.

My friend Ted was not in sight. Not in sight to everyone but me, that is. Ted had gone back into the dorm to refill his bucket. (You should not need to ask why it was empty.) On his way down the stairwell, Ted looked out and saw Dan standing directly below him, two stories down. Do you have any difficulty deciding what Ted did? Ted was on his way to the window, one room to my right. From their positions, neither George, the head resident, nor Ted, my partner could see each other, because a wall separated them. I could see both. I could not warn Ted because I was standing face to face with George. I would not warn Dan. And so it happened. In front of George’s eyes, a bucket of water descended on Dan, and swamped him. I did the only thing one in my position could do, I shouted, “Run!” to Ted. Ted disappeared, just as George did, and both collided in the hall. I was there to see it all, and to hear George say to Ted, “Man, Ted, You hit him dead center!”

Now here were words I had never expected to hear from the lips of a head resident. How could he commend the “straight shooting” of a fellow who had just instigated a water war? I think the George was right. He knew that Dan was always in trouble, and that Ted was a hard-working, dependable fellow. In essence, George was acknowledging that Dan deserved just what he got. So he did. I have the same response to the words spoken by the “teachers of the law,” to what Jesus had said in response to the question of the Sadducees. These teachers, who seem to have been Pharisees, and who had thus been challenging Jesus from the very outset of His ministry (from Luke 5:17 on), here commend Jesus for having spoken well. The reason, of course, is obvious. Jesus had proven the position of the Sadducees to be wrong. He had taken their “best shot,” their most profound argument in favor of their case, and shown it to be shoddy thinking. The Pharisees, though their differences with Jesus were great, could not but commend Him for His words here. It is as though they had said, in George’s words, “Man, Jesus, you hit them dead center!”

The Background

Jesus had now arrived in Jerusalem, in a variety of ways demonstrating Himself to the Israel’s Messiah. A number of people received Him gladly, but no one understanding fully who He was, or the implications of His coming. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, and His daily possession of it for teaching and ministry was viewed as a serious threat to their authority and positions by the Jewish leaders, who had already purposed to put Him to death (cf. John 11:53; Luke 19:47). But when they challenged Jesus’ authority, Jesus became even more outspoken against them. The parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers (Luke 20:9-18) was a painful blow to them, for it not only identified Jesus as the Son of God, sent by the Father, but it revealed them as God’s enemies, who would be destroyed, only to be replaced by Gentiles. Before, their opposition was “nothing personal”; now it was something very personal. They wanted to arrest Jesus on the spot, but the masses would not allow it. They thus implemented a multi-pronged plan to have Jesus arrested and put to death by Rome.

One prong of this attack was the hypocritical question posed to Jesus concerning paying taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:21-22). Jesus’ answer was not only unexpected, but amazing. Never would they have thought Jesus could get out of this one, but He did. They would not have dreamed that Jesus would teach that taxes belong to Caesar, but He did. As a result, they were left utterly speechless.

It is this silence that afforded the Sadducees the opportunity they had been looking for. They were only too happy to use this occasion to pose yet another question to Jesus, one which they believed would establish their theological position, and which would stump Jesus as well. At this point, I do not think that the Sadducees cared about putting Jesus to death so much as they were interested in making themselves look good. They had an ax to grind (no resurrection, Luke 20:27), and they would gladly do so at this golden opportunity.

I think that the eyes of the other groups (Pharisees, in particular) were rolling when this interrogation began. I can hear one Pharisee saying to another, “Oh, for goodness sake, here they go again.” What joy these Pharisees had, watching the Sadducees go down in flames. While they had not successfully drawn blood with Jesus, they at least had the pleasure of watching one of their rival groups be discredited, publicly.

The Structure of the Text

(1) The Setting—(v. 27)

(2) A Passage, A Premise, and a Problem—Whose Wife?—(vv. 28-33)

(3) Jesus’ Answer—(vv. 34-38)

(4) Marriage is not for Heaven—(vv. 34-36)

(5) Moses and the Resurrection of the Dead—(vv. 37-38)

(6) The Response of Some Pharisees—(vv. 39-40)

The Purpose of the Question

The question of the one bride and the seven brothers is not a search for the truth. The Sadducees do not expect, indeed, do not want, an answer. They hope to stump Jesus, and thus to demonstrate how “foolish” ideas of a resurrection from the dead are. The purpose of this question is not to “get Jesus into trouble,” but to further the dogma of this group. If Jesus, the most noted and unstumpable teacher alive, could be stumped by their question, then He would become (reluctantly) an endorsement for their view.

This scene bears witness not only to the authenticity of this gospel record, but also to the predictable humanity of mankind. Even though these rival groups had come to some kind of alliance (formally or informally) to rid Judaism of Jesus, they still had their own pet dogmas and practices, their own “sacred cows,” which they could not leave alone, even for a short period of time. The rivalry and competition are still here, even in the midst of this inquisition.

The Sadducees
(20:27)

27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no res­urrection, came to Jesus with a question.

Perhaps the easiest way to describe the Sadducees is to say that they are the opposite of the Pharisees. If a Pharisee said “White,” the Sadducee would be almost certain to argue, “Black.” The contrast between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, according to Edersheim at least, can be found in three major areas: (1) their view of tradition (at least the traditions of the Pharisees), (2) their view of the supernatural, especially the resurrection of the dead, angels and spirits, and (3) their views on divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Sadducees were disenchanted with the traditions of the Pharisees, they rejected the concept of the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels and spirits, and they leaned heavily on the role of the responsibility of man. Luke here tells the reader (as do Matthew and Mark) that the Sadducees “say there is no resurrection” (v. 27). In Acts 23:8, Luke further informs us that the Sadducees do not believe in angels or spirits.

Geldenhuys summarizes the distinctives of the Sadducees in these words:

The Sadducees were the priestly aristocracy among the Jews by whom the political life of the people was largely controlled from the time of Alexander the Great onwards. They tried to live in close contact with the Roman rulers after 63 B.C. so that they might as far as possible promote the secular interests of their people. Consequently they took little interest in religious matters and in many respects clashed with the Pharisees, especially as regards the Pharisees’ attachment to the ‘traditions of the elders’ which made Jewish religious life so intricate. Everything which, according to their views, was not taught by ‘the law of Moses’ (the first five books of the Old Testament) was rejected by the Sadducees as forbidden innovations. So, as the Jewish scholar Montefiore puts it: “They were in a sense conservative. The letter of the Law was enough for them; they did not want the developments of the rabbis. In doctrine, too, they were against innovation.… Many of these priests, and many of the nobles and ‘rulers,’ possessed, I should think, but a very formal and outward religion. We may compare them with many of the bishops, barons and rulers of the middle ages” (Synoptic Gospels, part i, p. 102).[309]

In the past, I would have called the Pharisees the “conservatives” and the Sadducees the “liberals,” which is somewhat true. But in terms of insisting that doctrine be grounded in biblical revelation, the Sadducees wanted “chapter and verse,” while the Pharisees were content to cite their traditions. Note, too, that the Sadducees have not been mentioned in the gospel of Luke to this point, appearing only here, but referred to five times in the book of Acts (4:1; 5:17; 23:6, 7, 8). If the Pharisees were the moving force behind the opposition to Jesus before His crucifixion, death, and resurrection, it is the Sadducees who take up this role afterwards, for now the issue of resurrection has become a crucial part of the gospel message.

The main thing which Luke wants us to be aware of is that the Sadducees, who are pressing Jesus for an answer concerning the resurrection do not really believe in it themselves. The hypocrisy of the Sadducees is thus apparent and undeniable. They were asking Jesus about something they didn’t believe. Indeed, they were seeking to establish their premise that belief in a resurrection from the dead is both unbiblical and impractical.

The Question
(20:28-33)

28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his bro­ther. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died child­less. 30 The second 31 and then the third mar­ried her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resur­rection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

I cannot conceive of the question asked here as being an original one. It is no doubt that question which the Sadducees had found most effective in promoting their particular doctrine and practice. It surely was not new to the Pharisees, whose eyes must have rolled when they realized that it was being raised, again. The question was based upon a command given in the law by God through Moses. The command is found in the Deuteronomy:

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

The purpose of this legislation was to assure that each family and tribe in Israel was perpetuated by the bearing of children. When the oldest brother married, but died before having any children, the younger brother was to take the widow as his wife so that the first son would carry on the name and the leadership of the deceased. Other legislation assured that the inheritance of land would remain in the tribes and families. Here was a very practical law, given to assure future generations. One can especially see the importance of this legislation when you recall the fact that Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15), from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9-10), of the line of David (2 Samuel 7:8-16). How crucial it was for the tribes of Israel to perpetuate, for from such the Messiah would be born.

The Sadducees did not have this purpose in mind when they cited this text, however. They saw this text as a prooftext for their denial of the resurrection of the dead. Since by this law Moses made provisions for the perpetuation of a dead Israelite’s family line, the Sadducees seemed to have come to two conclusions. First, they seemed to conclude that immortality was not attained by resurrection from the dead, but by the carrying on of an Israelites family line through his offspring. Immortality was the perpetuation of a man’s name through his offspring. Second, they concluded that since a man’s younger brother had to assume the duties of his deceased brother, Moses must not believe that men would someday be raised from the dead. Why would such provisions need to be made for the perpetuation of a man’s offspring if he were someday going to be raised from the dead?

At first glance, it would seem that the argument had considerable weight. Did this legislation imply that men would not rise from the dead? The Sadducees thought so, while the Pharisees strongly disagreed. Jesus does not argue every point of error, but highlights two crucial errors in the thinking of His opponents. These Luke outlines in verses 34-36 and 37-38. Let us briefly consider these two errors of the Sadducees, as exposed by our Lord.

The Dispensational Error
(20:34-36)

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in mar­riage. 35 But those who are considered wor­thy of taking part in that age and in the res­urrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

The Lord Jesus was an advocate of a “new age” movement. That expression has many disturbing connotations today, but the fact remains that Jesus was arguing for a “new age,” as very distinct from the “old” order. The Sadducees thought of the kingdom in terms of the present, not in terms of the future. The kingdom to them (especially since they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead) is now. Consequently, there is no future age. It also follows that since the “kingdom” is thought of in terms of the present, it will not differ from the way things are now.

The entire argument of the Sadducees is predicated on a single premise: life in the kingdom of God things will be just like it is now. Consequently, the present institution of marriage is assumed by the Sadducees to continue on in the kingdom. Thus, a woman who was married to seven brothers would be in a terrible predicament in heaven, for she would have to choose one of them to live with.

Jesus’ answer was direct and devastating. He speaks of two ages, “this age” and “that age,” which are very different from each other. The kingdom of God will be very different from the way things are now. There will be no death, there will be no bearing of children, and there will be no marriage. Thus, the theoretical problem posed by the Sadducees is erroneous and non-existent. Resurrection will pose no problem for husbands and wives. Marriage is for now, but not for heaven.

People in this age die, and thus the need for God to spell out through Moses provisions for preserving the family name. People in the future age will not die, and thus there is no need for such legislation. One of the reasons why men will not die in that future age is that their bodies are different, too. Men in that future age will be “like angels,” which neither die nor reproduce. How different conditions will be in that future age, and thus how foolish of the Sadducees because they cannot see how present conditions can be continued after the resurrection. That is precisely the point. They can’t be continued. There is no inconsistency, then.

The Israelites all erred in placing so much emphasis on the “law of Moses,” the Mosaic Covenant, that they minimized the Abrahamic Covenant. They failed to recognize that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary, imperfect (unable to perfect), and provisional. They were partial to the law of Moses, I believe, because it offered them the opportunity (or so they supposed) to earn righteousness before God, while the new covenant would give it freely, on the basis of faith as a gift of God’s grace. Legalists do not like grace, however, and thus they will always opt for a system of works. Such was not what God had given in the law of Moses, but it was what the people had made of it. They therefore preferred the temporary to the permanent, the imperfect to the perfect.

Jesus’ words should have provided the Sadducees with much fuel for thought. What were some of the other ways in which “that age” will differ from “this age”? How is it that only some Israelites will enter into that age, to take part in it (by inference), and what is it that causes one to be worthy of it? Jesus did not give the answers to these questions, but He did challenge His audience to think about them. All of the answers would be very clear, after His crucifixion and resurrection. For the time being, they only know that those who enter into the kingdom are referred to as “children”—“children of God” and “children of the resurrection.” Resurrection, then, is the gateway to the new age. Surely those who reject it will not enter into the kingdom.

Moses and the Resurrection of the Dead
(20:37-38)

37 But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abra­ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

The second error of the Sadducees was their assumption that Moses rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Jesus now will demonstrate that Moses was a believer in the resurrection of the dead, contrary to the belief of the Sadducees. There were a number of clear Old Testament texts which spoke of the resurrection of the dead, to which our Lord could have referred, and to which the apostles will refer after our Lord’s death and resurrection (cf. Acts 2). Here are but two of the clearest:

Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits (Isaiah 26:19, NASB).

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).

If the Sadducees were wrong to think of the “kingdom” in “present terms,” they were also wrong to think that Moses did not believe in the resurrection. This our Lord goes about proving from the Pentateuch, which was the Word of God written by the hand of Moses. It was not enough for our Lord to prove the resurrection of the dead was taught in the Old Testament; He was intent on showing that Moses believed in it, for Moses was the one to whom they appealed.

Luke is careful to tell us the context of these words, written by Moses and spoken by God. These words come from an early portion of the book of Exodus known as “the bush” section. That is, these words were spoken to Moses by God from the burning bush. Both the precise words and the context are of great significance to us in the matter of the resurrection of the dead. Let us consider both briefly.

God identified Himself to Moses, and thus to Israel, as the “I am,” the eternal God. But further, God referred to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thus speaking of these patriarchs not as dead men, but as those who are alive, immortal. If God spoke of dead men as though they were alive, then this implied that these men would live again, they would rise from the dead. This is that which the writer to the Hebrews spoke, not only of these three patriarchs, but of all the Old Testament saints:

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own (Hebrews 11:13-14).

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19).

The matter of the Israelites’ resurrection from the dead was not merely an obscure and unimportant truth, vaguely referred to in the words of Exodus 3. In reality, resurrection is the thrust of these words, the assurance of which the writer to the Hebrews referred, and that which would serve the Israelites as a motivation for obeying the commandments which God gave through Moses from atop Mt. Sinai.

You see, the context of “the bush” section is the exodus of the nation Israel from Egypt. God was sending Moses to Pharaoh, to demand the release of His people. Furthermore, God was sending Moses to Israel, to call them forth from Egypt. For people to do as God commanded through Moses was to face the very real possibility of death at the hand of Pharaoh and his armies. Virtually every command of God to His people poses a threat to the true believer in Him and in His word. And yet our text indicates that in spite of the difficulties which seem to be present, dead men will rise, some to everlasting blessing; others to everlasting torment. It was God’s character as the eternal One, the I am, and His promise of deliverance from death which gave the Israelites confidence to obey God’s leading, even when it seemed to be the “way of death,” as the crossing of the Red Sea surely seemed to be, beforehand.

In his gospel, Luke has already made frequent reference to the resurrection of the dead, either directly or indirectly. Simeon, the saint to whom it had been revealed that he would not die until after he had seen the Messiah. Thus, on seeing the Christ-child, he could eagerly face death:

“Now Lord, Thou dost let Thy bond-servant depart In peace, according to Thy word; For my eyes have seen Thy salvation, Which Thou has prepared in the presence of all peoples” (Luke 2:29-31).

Herod feared that Jesus may have been John the Baptist, raised from the dead (9:7-9). Jesus taught that one’s actions ought to be based on the assurance of one’s resurrection, which was to be accompanied by rewards for obedience in this life:

“But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:13-14).

The God who is greater than death is the One who has assured mankind that all will be raised from the grave, some to their rewards, and others to retribution (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29). Because of this, Jesus taught, God views all men as alive. This is why our Lord referred to the dead as only sleeping (Mark 5:39; John 11:11-14). The resurrection was no small matter. It was, and is, one of the fundamental and foundational truths of the Bible. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, if there is no resurrection “we are of all men most to be pitied” (15:19).

And so the Sadducees are wrong on two counts. In the first place, they were wrong in their assumption that life in the future, in the kingdom of God, would be but a continuation of life here in this age. They failed to make a crucial dispensational distinction. This led them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead because it seemed that it would be impossible for men to continue in the present as they had begun on earth. Their second error was in supposing that Moses rejected the hope of resurrection, based on their erroneous understanding of the Law of Moses, and particularly of the legislation pertaining to the preservation of the oldest brother’s line of descendants.

The Stones Cry Out:
Jesus Praised for His Words
(20:39-40)

39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” 40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

What irony! The expressed purpose of the rulers of the Jews was to discredit Jesus by His own statements, to catch Him in His own words. And yet here we find some of the Jewish leaders praising the Lord for the words which He just spoke, words which were especially tough on some. This is, to me, a greater miracle than that of the rocks crying out in the praise of God. His answer was so powerful, His adversaries had to commend Him. While they differed with Him in many respects, they were firmly in agreement about the resurrection of the dead. The praise of the Pharisees will be short-lived, however, for in the next question, raised by our Lord Himself, Jesus will show the Pharisees they do not understand the Scriptures.

Conclusion

I believe that many questions were asked of Jesus during this period of time (which I refer to as “the great debate”). Why did Luke choose to record this particular question and Jesus’ answer, when we have not heard from the Sadducees before in Luke? I believe that that are at least two reasons: First, the Sadducees will become a more prominent and aggressive force in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8). Second, the issue of the resurrection of the dead is one that is crucial to the gospel. Paul clearly taught this, as can be seen in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. Jesus staked His credibility and His gospel on His own resur­rection (Matthew 12:38-40). The Holy Spirit will utilize the empty tomb as a powerful witness to the righteousness of Jesus Christ (John 16:10). The gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the truth of Christ’s resurrection, and thus the resurrection of all men. In introducing the Sadducees to us here, Luke is preparing us for their appearance and activity in his second volume, the book of Acts.

The resurrection of the dead is also crucial because it is the gateway to the future kingdom of God, it is the means through which God’s promises made to those who have died will enter into the blessings which God promised. All of the Old Testament saints died, without having received the promised blessings of God, but by means of the resurrection of the dead, they will (cf. Hebrews 11).

The degree to which we believe in the resurrection of the dead will determine the way we presently live. If we are assured of our own resurrection, we will boldly stand for Christ, neither fearing man, nor death. If we are certain of a future life in God’s kingdom, entered into by means of resurrection, then we will look at this life very differently. We will be encouraged to lay up treasures in heaven, rather than to hoard wealth on earth.

On the other hand, the degree to which we live obediently to the commands of our Lord in this life, the more we will cling to His promises concerning the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. The commands of our Lord to “sell our possessions, and to give to the poor” can now be seen as God’s gracious imperatives, designed to stimulate in us a hunger for heaven. Notice how the obedience of Paul to his calling, and even the afflictions and adversities of his life caused him to have a greater hunger and hope for heaven:

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you. 13 It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, 14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. 15 All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:7-18).

It is quite easy to look at the Sadducees with a very critical eye. How foolish, we might think, for them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when it is so clearly taught in the Scriptures. How evil for them to love this present evil world so much that they do not want that which is sure to come. But let me ask you, as I ask myself, how much do we believe in the resurrection of the dead? How does the certainty of our resurrection, and of the kingdom of God to come, impact our present lives?

When I was a boy not yet 16, I used to fear that the Lord would come before I got my drivers license. That seems foolish to me now, and yet I still have many earthly desires for the future, and I do not yearn for heaven as I should. Unlike the Sadducees, who at least were honest enough to admit to rejecting the resurrection and the future life, I hold to it. But my lifestyle and my values betray my lack of faith in this area. How much like the Sadducees we really are. We are so “blessed in this life” that we would set aside thoughts of the next. May God grant us a certainty of the resurrection, and a yearning for heaven that overturns the way in which unbelievers live.

! Lesson 64:
David’s Son
(Luke 20:41–21:4)

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more ques­tions.

Luke 20:41–21:4 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 Dav­id calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” 45 While all the people were lis­tening, Jesus said to his dis­ciples, 46 “Beware of the teach­ers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the mar­­­ket­places and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at ban­quets. 47 They de­vour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy pray­ers. Such men will be pun­­ished most severe­ly.” 1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich put­ting their gifts into the temple treas­ury. 2 He also saw a poor wi­dow put in two very small cop­per coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the oth­­ers. 4 All these peo­ple gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

Mark 12:35-44 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd put­ting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a frac­tion of a penny. Calling His disciples to him, Jesus said, I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Introduction

A friend of days gone by used to tell the story of his uncle, who had just purchased a new convertible, and was enjoying a ride in the Ozark Mountains (as I recall the story). He had the top down and the radio up. He did not notice the man in car behind him, eager to pass, and getting more and more irritated. Nor did he hear the man’s horn, blaring obnoxiously at him. Finally, the man behind had had enough. He found room to get by the uncle, but instead of going on by, he forced the fellow off the road, jumped out of his car and came alongside in a very hostile mood.

The uncle was quick to apologize. He was sorry, he said. He had been driving too slow and he had not been observant to see that the man behind wanted to pass him. He had said all that one could say to apologize, but the angry driver was not satisfied. He told him that he was going to yank him from the car and thump on him. Only that would appease his anger. The uncle realized that words would not suffice, and so he reached under the seat and pulled out his service 45 pistol, and pointed it at the enraged driver. It didn’t take that fellow very long to have a change of heart. Without hesitation he said, “I accept your apology,” turned and drove off.

That 45 changed things considerably. It did not change the hostile motorist’s attitude, but it did end the discussion. Jesus did not pull a 45 on His adversaries, but when our Lord drew His opponent’s attention to the 110th Psalm, it did end the discussion. Matthew informs us that from this time on no one dared to ask Jesus a question (Matthew 22:46). The debate was over.

The final words of chapter 20 are the powerful argument that could be raised in response to the challenges of this “tempest in the temple.” It was not just the words of Jesus, but the words of David in Psalm 110 that were produced with stunning force. The more I read this psalm, the more I am amazed at its message. And, the more I wonder at the restraint our Lord used, not drawing attention to all of the painful particulars which were there. For example, Jesus did draw attention to the fact that David referred to “his son,” the Messiah, as “his Lord,” but He did not ask the teachers of the Law (Mark 12:35), the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41), who the enemies of the Lord were. What a powerful passage! What remarkable reserve! Let us look more carefully to consider what Jesus intended to accomplish by bringing it to the attention of those who had gathered at the temple.

Background

Jesus had entered Jerusalem as the “King of Israel,” but His entry was not altogether triumphal. The people of Jerusalem and the leaders there were no so enthusiastic as were the masses who had come temporarily to that city. Some of the welcoming crowds were those who had followed Jesus there, while others seem to be pilgrims to the city for the Passover celebration. The leaders of the nation had already purposed to put Jesus to death (cf. John 11:47-51; Luke 19:47). The matter had not yet become personal, however. This all changed when Jesus marched on the temple, threw out those who violated its purposes, and appeared there daily to teach (Luke 19:45-48). It is the Lord’s possession of the temple in its cleansing and His subsequent teaching there daily which is the backdrop, the setting for all that occurs in chapters 20 and 21 of Luke’s gospel.

It was while Jesus was teaching in the temple that He was confronted by the leaders of the people. These Jewish leaders came from a broad spectrum of doctrinal and applicational points of view, from the Pharisees on the far right, to the Sadducees on the far left. They first of all confronted Jesus directly as to His authority. “Who do you think you are, and by whom were you sent?” was the essence of their two questions. Jesus first of all refused to give a direct answer, based upon their refusal to commit themselves on the issue of the authority of John the Baptist. If they regarded John as from God, then they had to accept Jesus as the Messiah, for John had thus introduced Him as such. If they rejected John’s authority—which they were inclined to do, but unwilling to take the heat for—they would incur the wrath of the masses, who believed John to be a prophet, sent by God and who spoke for Him.

In His parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers (Luke 20:9-18), Jesus did answer the question of the leaders, but in an indirect way, and to the people who believed Him to be from God. From the parable, He indicated that He was not merely a prophet, like John, but actually the Son of God. As such, He had the authority of God Himself, for He was God, and He also had the authority of the Father, who had sent Him. But there was more. He went on to indicate that His rejection by the leaders of Israel would lead to their removal and destruction, and, horror of horrors, that their leadership roles would be filled by Gentiles.

Now the rejection of Jesus was fueled by great personal animosity. It was a very personal issue with the leaders of Israel. If they had coolly planned to destroy Jesus before hand, now they could not wait to get their hands on him immediately. They tried, but were unsuccessful, and thus they resorted to a more devious and indirect approach (Luke 20:19-20). They had come to the decision that they could not handle Jesus, especially in light of the broad support which Jesus still had among the masses. They therefore planned a course of action which would legally kill Jesus, in spite of the support of the masses. They conspired to catch Jesus in His words, to entrap Him in some statement against Rome, so that the political authorities—the governor (Luke 20:20)—would arrest Him and put Him to death for treason.

The first question looked like it could not fail to incriminate Jesus. They asked Jesus, as One claiming to be Messiah, whether or not they, as Israelites, should pay taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:21-22). Would the King of Israel, who was foretold to be coming to throw off the shackles of Gentile rulers, advocate paying taxes to such a pagan? They Jews could not conceive of such thing. Jesus’ answer rocked them. Because it failed to achieve their intended purpose, because their hypocrisy was exposed, and because Jesus actually taught that taxes should be paid to pagan kings.

The Sadducees viewed the stunned silence that followed as their golden opportunity. They would seek to prove their point, that there was no resurrection, and they would “use” Jesus, the greatest teacher of that day, to do so. So they thought, at least. But Jesus’ answer showed that they had not thought their theology through very carefully. They based their whole argument on a passage from the law of Moses, from a temporary covenant, rather than on the basis of the new covenant and the promises made to Abraham. They had wrongly assumed that life in the kingdom would be like life on earth, and thus they had assumed that marriage would continue on in that future age. Jesus corrected this error. He also demonstrated that Moses could not be cited as rejecting the truth of a resurrection from the dead, showing from His own writings that He viewed God as the God of those who had died, but yet whom He considered alive, still. Moses not only failed to fit into their theological scheme, he refuted it.

The Pharisees and the Herodians had posed the first question, about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-16); the Sadducees had raised the issue of the resurrection of the dead. The teachers of the law, whom I assume to be Pharisees, cannot but praise the Lord for His answer (Luke 20:39). But now, Jesus has a question for them. It is a question about Scripture, a Scripture which I believe to be popularly understood as messianic—speaking of the Messiah. It was a Scripture which the Pharisees seemed to know well, and to teach on. Jesus was about to show the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41), the teachers of the law (Mark 12:35), how their theology failed to square with the Scriptures. Jesus turned the attention of His audience to Psalm 110, a psalm written by David, which spoke of Messiah to come. This is the same psalm to which Peter will forcefully use at the conclusion of his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:34-36).

How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?
(20:41-44)

41 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”[310]

The Pharisees enjoyed the way that Jesus had silenced and their opponents, the Sadducees, when they sought to entrap Jesus in such a way as to give credence to their rejection of the resurrection of the dead. Thus they could not restrain themselves from praising Jesus for His response, even though they had set out on a course of trying to catch Jesus in His words. But the Pharisees did not handle the Scriptures skillfully either, as Jesus is about to show. They failed to take the Scriptures seriously enough, as could be seen by their handling of Psalm 110, a psalm which Judaism held to be messianic.[311] Let us begin by looking at the psalm in its entirety:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.” Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head (Psalm 110).

In Matthew’s account, Jesus is reported as having asked the Pharisees directly about whose son the Christ was (22:41-42). In Mark and Luke, Jesus seems to be speaking to others about the teaching of the Pharisees. I see no contradiction. Jesus was daily in the temple, teaching the people. It was also here that our Lord was confronted and challenged by the leadership of the nation. I believe that Jesus asked the Pharisees directly, at this time of confrontation, and then referred to it in His subsequent teaching. They had all heard the question posed to the Pharisees by Jesus, and the answer that was given. Now, Jesus would challenge the crowd to think about what they had heard, and to come to their own conclusions.

When the Pharisees were asked, “Whose son was Messiah, the Christ?,” there was no hesitation in their response. Everyone who looked for Messiah’s coming believed he was to be the “son of David.” This was indicated by the prophets, who said that the Messiah would come through the line of David, and who would reign on the throne of David (cf. 2 Samuel 7:8-29; Isa. 9:5-7; Mic. 5:2). At the birth of our Lord, it was emphasized that Jesus was of the line of David, and that He had come to reign on His father’s throne (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4). In Luke 18:38, the blind man on the outskirts of Jaycee called to Jesus as the “Son of David.” The Messiah was to be David’s son. This seems to have meant two things to the Israelite. (1) Messiah would be of the Davidic line; and (2) Messiah would be a man—human. It was not carried through so as to be consistent with other revelation—that Messiah would also be divine, that Messiah was to be both man and God:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (Isaiah 9:6-7, NASB).

Jesus did not appeal to Isaiah to prove His point, but rather to the 110th psalm, a psalm of David. This psalm does not stress the humanity of Messiah. David did not refer to the Messiah as “his Son,” but rather reveals the words of the Father Himself (“The LORD,” v. 1), who speaks to Messiah, His Son and David’s Lord (“my Lord,” v. 1). It was taught in Scripture that Messiah would be the “son of David,” and yet David himself refers to Messiah as “his Lord.” How can this be? There was a clear, simple, but miraculous answer—the incarnation. Jesus Christ was, as the Old Testament Scriptures foretold, and as the New Testament writers attested and confirmed, both God and man, human and divine, through the miracle of the virgin birth. Before the birth of our Lord, the two aspects of His character and nature—the divine and the human—seemed in conflict, but not after His birth. The incarnation was a miracle, but it is the all-powerful God who promised it, and who brought it to pass.

I believe that Jesus chose Psalm 110 over all other available texts for several reasons:

(1) Since the Messiah was commonly understood to be a “son of David,” who could speak with more authority on his son than David?

(2) The 110th Psalm went far beyond the issue of Messiah’s humanity and His deity, referring to His coming in power to overthrow His enemies. In addition to speaking of Jesus as Israel’s King, it also taught that He would be her priest, of an entirely different order than the Aaronic priesthood. This must have been a rather disconcerting thought to the priests.

(3) Psalm 110 reveals the attitude of David, as Israel’s leader, to the superiority of his Son. In ancient times, some kings killed their offspring, so that they could not take over their throne. Other kings would have taken great pride in their son, saying repeatedly, as it were, “That’s my son!” David gratefully anticipated the day of his Son’s enthronement, and he wrote a psalm of worship in response to God’s revelation to him. David welcomed His Son’s greatness, his superiority to himself.

(4) Psalm 110 confronts the Israelite with a very perplexing problem, a problem which is central and foundational to the Israelite leaders’ rejection of Jesus as the Christ. The Psalm clearly teaches both the humanity of Messiah (a son of David) and His deity (David’s Lord). This was the fundamental problem which the leaders of Israel had with Jesus. If you could sum up the grievance of the Jewish leaders with Jesus, I believe it would be this: ALTHOUGH JESUS WAS MERELY A MAN (in the eyes of the Jews who rejected Him), HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO ACT LIKE GOD

From the very early portions of Luke’s gospel, the issue of our Lord’s humanity and His deity were stressed. In the birth narratives, Jesus’ birth was a miraculous one, so that the offspring of Mary and of the Holy Spirit—the virgin birth of Christ—was an utterly unique person, the God-man, Jesus the Christ, who was at one and the same time, fully man and fully God. In the fifth chapter of Luke’s gospel, Jesus told the man lowered on his pallet through the roof that his sins were forgiven. The Pharisees immediately objected, on the basis that only God could forgive sins (Luke 5:21). They reasoned, “How can a man claim divine prerogatives?” The answer was simple: “Jesus could claim to forgive sins because He was both man and God.”

This issue persisted throughout the life and ministry of our Lord, and came to its climax in the final week of our Lord’s earthly life and ministry, commencing with the triumphal entry, aggravated by the Lord’s cleansing of the temple, and by His teaching there. The question of Jesus’ authority, as recorded by Luke in chapter 20 (verses 1 & 2) was an outgrowth of the Israelite leadership’s rejection of our Lord’s claim to deity.

By citing this passage from Psalm 110, Jesus made it clear that they not only had a grievance with Jesus, who claimed to be both human and divine, but more so, they were inconsistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, even those written by King David, which spoke of Messiah as a man and as God. The citing of Psalm 110 by our Lord brought the central issue into focus, and showed it to be a truth taught clearly by the Scriptures.

Finally, David’s response to the fact that His son was superior to him was to provide a contrast with the attitude of the leaders of Jesus’ day, who resented Jesus superiority, and whose jealousy was so strong they purposed to put Him to death. That contrast becomes clear as we move to the next section, where the real motives of the Pharisees are exposed by our Lord.

The Messiah’s Foes
(20:45-47)

45 While all the people were lis­tening, Jesus said to his dis­ciples, 46 “Beware of the teach­ers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market­places and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at ban­quets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

The problems of Jesus’ foes were, in the first place, theological ones. For the Sadducees, it was the issue of the resurrection. For the Pharisees, it was the issue of Jesus’ deity that was the central bone of contention. Jesus has now addressed both of these issues in the preceding verses. He now moves on to the practical problem of the Pharisees, who are His principle focus. One problem was the that of abused authority, of wanting those things which belong to God, and to His Christ, who is God. They loved the position, prominence, power and prestige of leadership. They resented Jesus for “outranking them” and for rightfully becoming the object of men’s worship and praise.

Another problem of the Pharisees was that of hypocrisy. They wanted to appear righteous, to practice that kind of “righteousness” which could be seen and applauded by men (Luke 16:15). But the greed of the Pharisees led them to abuse their authority in another way: they used their power and position to take advantage of the weak and the powerless. In Jesus’ words, they “devoured widows’ houses.” To mask this, they made a great show of their “righteousness” by praying lengthy prayers. (It is interesting, by way of contrast, to note how short the recorded prayers of our Lord are.)

For their wickedness and hypocrisy, the Pharisees would be even more severely punished, for they had abused their stewardship of leadership. But what is the logical connection between what Jesus has just asked, pertaining to David’s son being also his Lord, and this? There is a very clear connection, I think. Consider it with me for a moment.

Look once again at that portion of Psalm 110 which our Lord has cited: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Not only has David called his son his Lord, but he has cited the Father’s words to the Son, which speak of a time of waiting, and then the overcoming of His enemies, whose overthrow paves the way to the establishment of His eternal throne.

Jesus’ question was an obvious and potent one, but there is an unstated question here, one which our Lord’s enemies could hardly have missed: “Who are Messiah’s enemies?” If Jesus were the Messiah, as He claimed, and as John had testified, then they were His enemies. They were the ones whom God would overthrow. And this is precisely what Jesus had suggested in the parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers earlier in this chapter (vss. 9-18).

These words of indictment, which are very briefly stated by Luke, are given in much greater detail in Matthew 23. But the indictment in both cases comes immediately after the question about David’s Lord. The enemies of Messiah are the enemies of Jesus, and these enemies are not Gentiles, but Jews, indeed they are the leaders of the nation, who have prostituted their power and position for their own gain, at the expense of the most vulnerable. The outcome was that the widows, those whom the law instructed Israelites to protect, were the victims of the leaders of Israel. No wonder they resisted Jesus, and no wonder God was about to destroy them.

Now, the contrast between David’s response to the revelation that his Son would be greater than he, and the attitude of the leaders of the nation Israel toward Jesus can be seen. David, upon hearing that his son would be his Lord, rejoiced. It was a day David longed to see. It was different with the leader of Israel and Jesus. The Lord’s words indicate that they came to enjoy the position, the prominence, the power, and even the riches that came with their position. They did not wish to relinquish this to anyone, not even Messiah. Thus, while David rejoiced at the knowledge that Messiah, his son, would be both God and man. The leaders of Jesus’ day rejected the deity of Messiah flat, especially in the person of Christ. Jesus’ citation of Psalm 110 forced them to reject this doctrine—the doctrine of Messiah’s deity—from the Scriptures themselves.

Note one more thing about Psalm 110. The second (unquoted) stanza of the psalm talks of the Messiah, not as Israel’s King, but as her Priest. How would you have felt, if you were one of the priests of that day, to have been reminded of this psalm, which spoke of a new order of priest, an order of which you were not a part? As Jesus had warned in the parable of the vine-growers, the position of the leaders would be taken away. The priesthood of a few would become the priesthood of all believers, especially (in this age) of Gentiles. And the Great High Priest would be Christ Himself, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. These would be sobering words to one who sought to preserve his position, and at the same time sought the destruction of Messiah.

The Contribution of
the Weak and Powerless
(21:1-4)

1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich put­ting their gifts into the temple treas­ury. 2 He also saw a poor wi­dow put in two very small cop­per coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the oth­­ers. 4 All these peo­ple gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

It is somewhat perplexing as to why these first four verses of chapter 21 are divided, so that there is the suggestion that they relate more to the disciple’s comments on the glory of the temple (21:5ff.) than to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, at the end of chapter 20. The NASB version seems to leave them connected to chapter 20, while the NIV does not. In Mark’s account, however, the “widow’s offering” is kept as a part of chapter 12, with chapter 13 beginning with the disciples’ words about the temple.

It would seem to me that these four verses are placed here by Luke in contrast to the Pharisees, to show how God’s ways differ so greatly from those of men. The Pharisees loved riches, and they viewed wealth as an evidence of piety. God, in their minds, would be impressed by the wealthy, and would be especially pleased by the size of their contributions. In these last verses of Jesus has condemned the “rich and famous” and He commends the insignificant gift of a widow. While the Pharisees have “devoured widows’ houses,” it is the gift of one such widow which is the focus of our Lord’s praise and instruction. An insignificant amount of money greatly pleased Jesus, because of what it meant to her. It was her life, her livelihood, all that she had to live on. In giving this money, she evidenced her trust in God to provide for her needs, and to sustain her life. Her trust was in her God, not in her money. Poverty was no reason to cease in her giving to God. How many of us, on the other hand, are sure to have all of our needs met, first, and then to give God the left-overs?

What a rebuke to those of us who excuse ourselves from obedience to God because we have so little to give. You will recall that the one steward who “hid his master’s money” was the one who thought he had so little, while those with greater amounts did more. It was not the size of the gift, but the sacrifice and the faith which prompted it which Jesus praised. How different is our Lord from those who are in leadership and in large ministries today.

Finally, there is an implied contrast between the widow’s offering in verses 1-4 and the disciples’ admiration for the temple in verses 5 and following. Jesus was impressed with what took place in the temple—with the widow’s offering; the disciples were impressed with the temple itself—with its beauty and splendor. Man truly looks on the outward appearance, and God on the heart, here, as always.

Conclusion

We have now come to the “bottom line” in the on-going opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus. Their real contention is with Jesus’ self-acclaimed authority. This authority was different from and higher to any that they possessed, as was quickly perceived by the masses:

The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

Jesus’ authority to forgive sins was challenged in Luke chapter 5. His authority to enter Jerusalem as its King, and to possess the temple was just challenged. And the basis for His authority is rooted in His identity. Thus, the question of the religious and political leaders, as we might paraphrase it, “Just who do you think you are, anyway, claiming to have the authority to forgive sins, receiving men’s praises, and possessing the temple?”

If Jesus was the Messiah, He did have the authority to do everything He did. And if He was the Messiah, then according to the Scriptures, He was both man and God. Other texts clearly taught the humanity of Messiah—that He was to be the “son of David.” The psalm which David wrote, and to which Jesus referred, also taught the deity of Messiah, for David’s son could only be David’s Lord if He was Lord, if He was God.

The problem which the leaders had with Jesus was His authority, which was rooted in His identity. Jesus was a man who acted like God because He was the God-man, God incarnate. If the Jewish leaders did not like this, they must take the matter up with God and with His revealed Word, for this is not just what Jesus claimed, it is what the Scriptures taught. Even David, whose son was to be the Messiah, spoke of Him as His Lord. If the deity of Jesus Christ were granted, everything which He did and said would be explained and vindicated. The incarnation of our Lord is the bedrock foundation of everything which He did and said. Reject this truth and Jesus’ authority is nullified. Accept it, and we must submit to Him as Lord.

In a very excellent chapter in his book, Knowing God, J. I. Packer writes about the crucial role played by the incarnation of our Lord, and how the truth of His deity, mixed with His humanity, explains all that Jesus said and did:

But in fact the real difficulty, because the supreme mystery with which the gospel confronts us, does not lie here at all. It lies, not in the Good Friday message of atonement, nor in the Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of incarnation.… This is the real stumbling-block in Christianity. It is here that Jews, Moslems, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many of those who feel the difficulties above mentioned (about the virgin birth, the miracles, the atonement, and the resurrection), have come to grief. It is from misbelief, or at least inadequate belief, about the incarnation that difficulties at other points in the gospel story usually spring. But once the incarnation is grasped as a reality, these other difficulties dissolve.

If Jesus had been no more than a very remarkable, godly man, the difficulties in believing what the new Testament tells us about his life and work would be truly mountainous. But if Jesus was the same person as the eternal Word, the Father’s agent in creation, ‘through whom also he made the worlds’ (Heb. 1:2, RV), it is no wonder if fresh acts of creative power marked His coming into this world, and His life in it, and His exit from it. It is not strange that he, the author of life, should rise from the dead. If He was truly god the son, it is much more startling that He should die than that He should rise again. `’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies,’ wrote Wesley; but there is no comparable mystery in the Immortal’s resurrection. And if the immortal son of God did really submit to taste death, it is not strange that such a death should have saving significance for a doomed race. Once we grant that Jesus was divine, it becomes unreasonable to find difficulty in any of this’ll it is all of a piece, and hangs together completely. The incarnation is in itself an unfathomable mystery, but it makes sense of everything else that the New Testament contains.[312]

The leaders of the nation did not reject Jesus’ deity because they failed to understand His claim to be God, nor because the Old Testament failed to indicate that Messiah would be both divine and human, but because to do so would have required them to submit to His authority, to obey and worship Him, to repent of their sin, to cease receiving the glory, praise, and preeminence which their leadership roles had come to provide for them. They, unlike the humble widow, and unlike David, would not place their trust in Jesus, nor render to Him the worship and adoration He deserved. Like Satan, they would glory in their position and power, and uncontent with what God had given to them, they would seek to usurp that which belongs only to God. Their animosity toward Jesus was so great that they would rather have a pagan—Caesar—for their king, than Messiah.

In the light of the character and conduct of the Jewish leaders, take note of the way in which they had come to handle the sacred Scriptures. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees limited the Scriptures to that which they could grasp and were willing to accept. The Sadducees did not wish to think of an afterlife and they could not envision how it would work out (marriage and all), and so they rejected it, even though a number of Scriptures clearly taught it. Similarly, the Pharisees believed in one God, and thus they rejected the clear claims and inferences of Jesus (e.g. the statement, “Your sins are forgiven, …” Luke 5:20-23) to be God. They also believed that since Messiah was a man, he could not also be God, yet He was.

In addition to limiting divine revelation to that which can be humanly grasped and understood, the Pharisees and Sadducees limited themselves and others to an “either/or” mentality. Either you obeyed God, or you obeyed government, but surely you could not do both. Thus, the question about paying taxes. Jesus differed by saying that both God and government should be obeyed. Either Messiah was man or He was God, but it never entered their minds that He might be a God-man.

These two errors—(1) limiting divine revelation to that which is humanly comprehensible, and (2) limiting to one of two options—when joined together led to a fatal flaw in dealing with divine revelation. Problems posed by the Scriptures led to the rejection of truth, only because it could not be understood fully, but not because it wasn’t clearly revealed.

The confrontation between the Jewish leaders and Jesus in our text reveals the fact that there were two major factors involved in their rejection of Jesus, and especially of His authority (rooted in His deity). The first factor was their practice, their lifestyle. The wickedness of the Pharisees, as summarized by Jesus in verses 45-47, explains from a particle point of view why they would not want to submit to the authority of Jesus as Messiah. Jesus would “clean up” their lives, just as He cleansed the temple, and they wanted none of this. It was the holiness of Jesus which they most loathed. Their excuses for rejecting Jesus were hypocritical, and theological. They sought biblical reasons for their rejection, but they were all shown to be distortions of the truth.

A recognition that the theology of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the basis (the excuse) for their denial and rejection of Jesus as the Christ forces me to reevaluate the role of theology. Let me begin by saying that theology—the systematic study of God and of biblical revelation—is a vitally important matter. Most of us are not nearly the students of theology that we should be.

But let us also remember that theology is distorted by our sin and our human limitations. Theology is, at best, the summation of biblical truth as we understand it. Theology differs from biblical revelation as the truth does from our interpretation of it. When Jesus came to the earth and did not conform to the theology of the Pharisees, or of others, men should have conformed their theology to Christ, rather than to insist that Christ conform to their theology. I fear that for some of us we have forgotten how distorted our theology can become, and we begin to view it as having an equal footing with the Word of God itself. Theology, by its very nature, is limited to our level of understanding, but God’s Word surpasses our understanding, not often understood until its fulfillment, and not ultimately understood until eternity, for we now “see through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Let us therefore hold our theology a bit more loosely, a little more tentatively, especially in those areas where evangelicals disagree. The fundamentals we must hold fast, but let us be on guard against “straining gnats and swallowing camels.”

How often we, like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, are guilty of narrowing the possibilities to one of two options, of going through life with an “either/or” mentality. The Pharisees thought that Messiah was either God or man; Jesus declared from Scripture that He was both. Some thought one must obey either human government or God; Jesus taught that we must do both. We often fight about the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, as though either one or the other can be true, but they are both true.

As I have pondered this text and the questions which the enemies of our Lord have put to Him, it occurred to me that the One to whom all the questions were asked was Himself the answer. I am sure that you have often seen or heard the expression, “Christ is the answer,” but I have never seen that statement so relevant or applicable as I have in the setting of our text. Christ was bombarded with questions, all of which He handled beautifully, but the tragedy and irony of these things is that Jesus, the One who was questioned so vigorously, was the answer. The reason why they persisted with their questions is because they refused to accept God’s answer to their problems.

Stop to ponder this for a moment. The Jews were stunned to hear Jesus teach that Jews must render obedience both to God and to a pagan government. How could this be? Christ is the answer. He surrendered to the will of the Father, and so doing surrendered Himself into the hands of Rome, to be nailed to the cross of Calvary. Jesus lived out the answer to the problem of the Jews. How could Messiah be both God and man? Christ is the answer. Christ is both God and man; He is God incarnate, or, as the Old Testament prophet foretold, He is “Immanuel”—God with us (Isaiah 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23). There were yet other questions. For example, the question which Peter will raise later on in his first epistle (1 Peter 1:11). The problem with which the prophets struggled was this: “How can the Christ be One who suffers, and yet who triumphs? How can He be a sufferer and also a triumphant ruler? How can one harmonize suffering and glory, in the same Savior?” Christ, I repeat, is the answer. We now can see that He came first to suffer so as to save, and He will come again to reign in righteousness and power, subduing His enemies.

The longer I live, and observe life, and study the Scriptures, the more I am convinced that the one solution to all of life’s problems, to all of life’s questions, is Christ. I do not believe that there is any question to which He is not the final and ultimate answer. Christ is not only the solution, He is the resolution of life’s unanswered questions and problems. Our Lord brings together those inscrutable and seemingly incompatible aspects of life. He brings together, for example, a righteous God and sinful men. He reconciles Jews and Gentiles, the most irreconcilable of foes (Ephesians 2). He joins together humanity and deity, divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He is the Great Reconciler of those things which seem irreconcilable. To come to Him in simple repentance and faith is to find the solution to all of life’s problems. To turn from Him is to face countless irreconcilables with the most feeble attempts at human resolution.

This text confronts us with a very important insight into the problems of life, and into the problems which we find in the Scriptures (problems, I might add, which are there by design). This insight may be expressed as a principle: EITHER OUR PROBLEMS WILL DRAW US TO CHRIST, OR THEY WILL DRIVE US FROM HIM

It is a very simple truth, but a vitally important one. To the Pharisees and Sad­ducees, problems were their pretext for drawing their own conclusions, in direct denial of the Word of God. To Jesus, problems were intended to draw men to God. It was those with great problems who came to Christ for help and healing. The seem­ingly unsolvable problems raised by the Scriptures caused men of faith to turn to God and to wait for His resolution to the seeming contradictions of the prophetic promises, which pertained to two comings, not one. It was the problems of prophecy which pointed to Christ as the marvelous resolution of them by God, in a way that men could not have predicted, could not understand, and were even reluctant to accept when He stood in their midst. Problems are designed by God to draw men to Himself. If we reject God’s purposes for problems, they will ultimately turn us away from Him, rather than to Him, due to our own willfulness and sin.

My prayer for you, my friend, as well as for myself, is that we shall find Christ a sufficient answer for all of our questions. Those questions which are vital and eternal have a clear answer now, in Christ. Those questions yet unanswered, have a future and certain answer, in Christ. Christ is the answer. I pray that you have found Him so, and that you will continue to do so.

! Lesson 65:
Jerusalem in the Last Days
(Luke 21:5-38)

5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” 8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceiv­ed. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” 10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and govern­ors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your be­ing witnesses to them. 14 But make up your mind not to worry before­hand how you will defend your­selves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, bro­th­ers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 All men will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By standing firm you will gain life.

20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfill­ment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Introduction

The temple fascinated both Jesus and His disciples, but how different were those things which attracted them. Jesus was attracted by a widow, and a contribution which would have little or no impact on the receipts of the temple that day (Luke 21:1-4). The small gift of this widow was singled out by Jesus, above all of the large contributions which were given at that time, for this was all the woman had. She gave out of her need. The others gave out of their abundance. She gave two small and almost worthless coins, but these were all that she had. Jesus commended her gift because it was evidence of her love for God and her faith in Him to care for her needs.

The disciples were attracted by something different, something more tangible, something more inspiring and impressive. They were awe-struck with the magnificence of the temple. What attracted their attention was that the temple was beautifully adorned. Luke alone informs us that at least some of these adornments were the result of gifts that were donated.

The temple was both great and glorious, especially to the disciples of our Lord. The disciples were not from Jerusalem, but from Galilee. We would say that they were “hicks” from the “sticks.” They would have seldom have gone to Jerusalem,[313] and thus they would behold the grandeur of the temple as tourists. And the temple was indeed an awesome sight, as Geldenhuys points out:

“The original temple of Solomon was an exceptionally magnificent building, but was destroyed in 586 B.C., by the Chaldaeans. It was rebuilt by Zerubbabel and his companions after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. This rebuilt temple was comparatively small and simple. Herod the Great (who ruled over the Jewish people from 37 to 4 B.C.) was a great lover of architecture. And it is due to him that the temple, with its environs on the temple mount, was built up to such a massive and artistic building complex (nearly five hundred yards long and four hundred yards wide). Herod the Great drew up a grand architectural plan according to which the whole temple with all its surrounding buildings had to be rebuilt. He even caused a thousand priests to be trained as builders to do the work (so that the Jews could not accuse him of having the temple built by ‘unclean hands’). With this rebuilding a commencement was already made in 19 B.C., but it was only completed in A.D. 63 under Agrippa II and Albinus. This reminds us of what the Jews said to Jesus in reply to His figurative words about the breaking down and erection of the temple. They understood Him to speak of the temple building and then said: ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou build it up in three days?’ (John ii. 20). When they uttered these words (c. A.D. 28), the temple was therefore already forty-six years in rebuilding. It would take another thirty years and longer before it was to be completed. And it had been finished for hardly seven years when in A.D. 70 it was completely destroyed in fire and blood notwithstanding the fanaticism with which the Jews tried to defend it.”[314]

The backdrop to our text is thus the temple and its great beauty. The response of our Lord to the disciples’ awe will evoke two questions, the first pertaining to the timing of the coming of the kingdom, and the second seeking to learn the sign which would precede and prove that His kingdom was at hand. Jesus did not answer the first question, and He indicates a number of evidences that His return is near. But our Lord’s focus is not on the conclusion of history so much as on the conduct of His disciples in the interim period, a period of considerable length, and of much difficulty.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of this text is a bit difficult, because there are two major events in focus, but neither of them are dealt with completely separate from the other.[315] Nevertheless, we can generally view chapter 21 in this way:

(1) The beauty of the widow’s contribution to Jesus—(vv. 1-4)

(2) The beauty of the temple and Jesus’ teaching—(vv. 5-38)

·         The destruction of temple & its implications—(vv. 5-24)

·         The second coming of Christ & its implications (vv. 25-38 )

Our lesson will largely be limited to verses 5-24, which may be broken down in this way:

(1) The disciples’ awe and Jesus’ awful revelation—(vv. 5-6)

(2) The disciples’ question and Jesus’ response —(vv. 7-24)

·         The question—(v. 7)

·         Do not be deceived and follow false messiah’s—(v. 8)

·         Do not be frightened, and fail to be witnesses—(vv. 9-19)

·         Do not seek safety within Jerusalem—(vv. 20-24)

The Background of our Text

Jesus had marched on Jerusalem. While there was an enthusiastic crowd to greet Him, Jesus knew that this was not the day of His coronation. There would be a cross before there was to be a crown, as He had already told His disciples on a number of occasions. Jesus wept over this city, for He knew that as a result of its rejection of Him as Messiah, a day of judgment was coming upon it:

“If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:42-44, NASB).

That official rejection of Jesus is now virtually complete. The leaders of the nation have conspired to put Jesus to death. They have challenged His authority and have asked Him questions which were designed to incriminate Him. These have failed. The leaders have only been embarrassed, causing them to be more resolute in their determination to kill Jesus. All that remains is for Judas to be introduced, and for his act of betrayal to be carried out, leading to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. Just as Jesus’ debate with the leaders of Jerusalem is over, so is His teaching of the masses coming to a close. Now, the Lord is concentrating much more on His disciples, preparing them for the treacherous days ahead. They are still “starry-eyed” and optimistic, but Jesus’ words will at least momentarily sober them, or at least puzzle them, for they pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Lord’s disciples, and the dangers which accompany discipleship.

Our Approach

In this lesson, we will begin by making some very important observations concerning the entire prophetic passage. We will then focus our attention on verses 5-24 and the destruction of Jerusalem. We will seek to identify the event, to understand Luke’s description of it, and then to consider the practical implications of this event for the disciple of our Lord.

Observations

Before we begin to look at the text in detail, let us be sure to get a feel of the passage by making several important observations:

(1) Two principle events are in view in our text: the destruction of Jerusalem, which is soon to come, and the second coming of Christ, which will take place after some protracted period of time.

(2) These two events are not neatly separated in our text, nor is our text chronological in its organization.

(3) Our Lord’s dealing with these two events, separated in time, is not to distinguish them so much as to intertwine them.

(4) Luke does not describe the destruction of the temple, and so his two works were either written before the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. or he chose not to describe the event or to allude to it.

(5) Jesus dwells more on the disciples’ conduct than He is on satisfying their curiosity as to either the exact time of fulfillment, its sequence of events, or even some specific sign which unmistakably identifies the end as at hand.

(6) While we view the destruction of Jerusalem as past history and the second coming as unfulfilled prophecy, Luke and the disciples viewed them as both future.

(7) The things which Jesus says to His disciples as “you” cannot all happen to them, and thus “you” must refer to Israel or Israelites corporately, and not just to the disciples individually.[316]

(8) The mood of this text is sober. There is no hype, and much warning about the dangers which lie ahead for Jesus’ disciples. It describes the times ahead, up to the second coming as dangerous and difficult. There is no “prosperity gospel” to be found here, but rather a sobering warning about the days ahead.

(9) The subjects of the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming are not introduced for the first time here. Luke 17:20-37 and 19:41-44 both deal with these future events.

The Disciples’
Fascination With the Temple
(21:5-6)

5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

As we have already seen, the temple was an awe-inspiring sight. The disciples were understandably impressed. Was it possible that the disciples’ attachment to the temple was based upon some false assumptions concerning it? For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was about to establish His throne in Jerusalem, would He not make the Temple His headquarters? Did this not mean that their “offices” would be in the temple? If such was their thinking, then no wonder they were impressed with this building. What great facilities this building would provide them.

But this was not at all to be the case. The Lord’s coming would really usher in (or at least intensify) the “times of the Gentiles,” which would be signaled by the downfall of Jerusalem and the destruction of this temple. The huge stones, so impressive to the disciples, would not be left standing on one another.[317] What “cold water” this must have been, poured out, as it were, on the ever warming hopes of the disciples.

The Disciples’ Questions
(21:7)

7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Jesus had been very specific about the destruction of the Temple, but vague as to the time when it would take place. The disciples want to know exactly when these things will take place, and the sign which will signal that they are just about to occur. The disciples, like most of us today, are concerned about the wrong things. They wish to know information which will be of no real benefit to them, largely to satisfy their curiosity. Jesus is much more interested in their conduct than their curiosity, and so He virtually avoids their questions, teaching them instead what they do need to know—how they should conduct themselves in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem, and His second coming. This we see in the next passage.

The Destruction of Jerusalem
and Its Practical Implications
(21:8-24)

8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceiv­ed. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” 10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and govern­ors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your be­ing witnesses to them. 14 But make up your mind not to worry before­hand how you will defend your­selves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, bro­th­ers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 All men will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By standing firm you will gain life.

20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfill­ment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Though our Lord has little interest in satisfying the curiosity of His disciples concerning the timing of these events, He has a great interest in teaching them about their conduct in the light of these events. How different is His focus from our own. There are many differences and much debate about the timing and the sequence of events in matters of prophecy, but there can be little doubt as to what our Lord’s emphasis is here—on the disciple’s conduct. The conduct of the disciple can be summed up in three somewhat negative statements, which are given in the text above:

(1) Do not be deceived, so as to follow false “messiah’s” (v. 8).

(2) Do not be frightened, either by unsettling world events, or by persecution directed at you personally (vv. 9-19).

(3) Do not flee to Jerusalem for safety when it is under siege (vv. 20-24).

In verse 8, Jesus warned of the danger of following false “messiah’s.” When times are bad, it is easier to accept ready solutions to our problems. The false “messiah’s” have been with us throughout the history of the church. They claim to come in our Lord’s name. Indeed, they are bold enough to claim to be Him. Naturally, they must also claim that the time of the “kingdom” has come. I believe that it is not the “messiah” which is so attractive in the final analysis, but the “kingdom” which he promises. Jesus here outlines very difficult days ahead for His followers. The false “messiah’s” promise “good times,” which is synthetic “good news” for troubled saints. Jesus warns His disciples not to follow such fakes.

Luke’s account has but one verse of warning concerning the false “messiah’s,” but Matthew has much more to say on this subject. He reports of Jesus teaching that these “counterfeit Christs” will be accompanied by “great signs and miracles” (24:23-24). He further informs us Jesus warned that many will “turn away from the faith” in following such “savior’s,” and that the love of most would grow cold (24:10-13). These last days will be difficult ones for the followers of Jesus. To be too eager to escape these tough times will cause one to be susceptible to such errors.

In verse 9 Jesus turns to the difficulties which may tempt the true believer to deny or to distort his faith and practice. The great danger which is in view is that of fear. Fear is both the enemy of, and the opposite of, faith. Verses 9-11 speak of the dangers facing men in general, less personal forms: wars, revolutions, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. These are not personal forces, but they can have a great personal impact upon an individual. The last days are going to be chaotic, dangerous, and foreboding, but these “dark hours” are the occasion for light, the light of the gospel (cf. Ephesians 5:8-14; Philippians 2:15). All of these chaotic events cannot and must not be avoided, for the kingdom of God will come only after these things have come to pass (v. 9). The cross always precedes the crown.

In verse 12 the difficulties of the disciple become much more personal. Now, the Lord speaks of the persecution which believers in Christ must suffer by virtue of their identification with Him. The persecution spoken of here is characteristic of that which has taken place down through the history of the church, but it is that which directly affected the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking. Luke, in his second volume, the book of Acts, gives a historical account of some of the sufferings of the saints in the days after our Lord’s ascension.

The difficulties of these hard times is no barrier to the gospel, however. Indeed, these hard times provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate and to proclaim the hope which we have in Christ. Believers will be brought forward, and charged publicly, and thus they have the opportunity for a public witness, whether before Jewish opponents in the synagogues,[318] or Gentile opponents, such as kings and governors. In such cases, the saint is not to plan his testimony in advance, but rather to look to the Lord to give the right words for the moment. Stephen’s powerful message (recorded in Acts 7) is but one example of the faithfulness of God to give His servants the right words to speak.

The persecution which men will face will be even more personal, however. Not only will we be opposed by the enemies of the gospel, such as religious and political leaders, but we will be opposed by our own families. Saints in those hard times will be betrayed by their closest relatives, handed over to persecution, and even to death. Now, the hard words of Jesus concerning the disciple and his family (Luke 14:26), make a great deal of sense. The “hard words” of Jesus were intended for the “hard times” ahead, times such as those described here in chapter 21. If we are going to be betrayed by our own family, we must have chosen Christ above family, or we will forsake the faith in such times.

Disciples are not to be apprehensive about what they will say in their own defense,[319] because the words will be given them at the time of need (v. 14). Men need not fear the rejection of family if they have already chosen Christ above all others (v. 16). Men and women of faith need not fear persecution, and even death, because true life, eternal life, is found in Christ (vv. 17-19). It sounds contradictory for our Lord to say that some will be killed for their faith in Him, and then, in the very next sentence to affirm that “Not a hair of you head will perish” (v. 18). How can both statements be true? The problem is at once resolved when we distinguish “real, eternal, life” from “mere physical existence.” In our Lord’s discussion with the Sadducees He taught that with God, all are alive, for God raises the dead. To hold fast to one’s faith, and to die in faith is not to die at all, but to live. As Jesus elsewhere taught,

“For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it” (Luke 9:24).

The third warning of our Lord to His disciples is found in verses 20-24, where the context is the coming destruction of Jerusalem (of which the destruction of the temple was a part). This would happen in the lifetime of the disciples who were with Jesus. It was a warning particularly relevant to them, for most of the saints would have fled from Jerusalem by the time of its destruction, but not the apostles:

And on that day [of Stephen’s stoning] a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles (Acts 8:1b, NASB).

Persecution was to be God’s instrument for removing His church from Jerusalem before its destruction. The disciples (here called apostles), however, would remain behind. Jesus’ words are most relevant to them. When they saw the

Roman army coming to besiege the city, they should flee from it, so as to escape from the wrath of God[320] at the hands of these soldiers. The action which our Lord called for would have first seemed to be suicidal. Under normal circumstances, one who lived in the open ground would have fled to the fortified city for safety: “In time of war country people would come into walled cities for protection. Jesus tells His hearers that in view of Jerusalem’s impending destruction they should keep as far from it as they could.”[321]

The destruction of Jerusalem would prove to be as devastating as Jesus had forewarned:

“According to Josephus (The Jewish War, vi, 9) 1,000,000 Jews perished at that time with the destruction of Jerusalem (through famine, pestinences, fratricide, and the Roman sword) and 97,000 prisoners were taken and carried off everywhere. Josephus probably exaggerates. But in any case it is certain that hundreds of thousands perished. The Roman historian Tacitus states (Historiae, v, 13, 4) that the normal population of Jerusalem was 600,000 before A.D. 70. And if we bear in mind that before the investment of the city the Jews poured into Jerusalem in tens of thousands for the Passover and could not again return to their homes and thus remained in the city throughout the five months’ siege, it may be understood that hundreds of thousands would perish in the over-populated city. In any case not a single one was left alive in the ruined city.”[322]

In this destruction, foretold by our Lord, a number of the purposes of God would be accomplished. The old order would be done away with. The priesthood would be done away with. The way would be made for the church to be established as the dwelling place of God, the “new temple” (cf. Ephesians 2:18-22). The temple made with human hands would be no more. The Jews would be removed from their land. The times of the Gentiles would be in full swing. Until the Lord’s return, Jerusalem would be the pawn of the Gentiles, to deal with as they chose (in my opinion, this includes the present order in Israel, which exists only because of the Gentiles intention of dealing thus with the Jews).

Conclusion

Jesus’ words here contain a number of important lessons for those of that day, as well as for saints of all ages. Let us consider some of them.

First, the Lord’s words here should have laid to rest the disciples’ visions of an immediate kingdom, with Jerusalem and that temple as its headquarters. That temple was soon to be destroyed, Jerusalem to be sacked, and the times of the Gentiles to prevail for an indefinite period of time.

Second, the Lord’s words clearly spelled out “hard times” ahead for those who would follow Him, rather than “happy days,” as nearly all, including the disciples, hoped for. This was true for those disciples, and for the early church (cf. Acts), but it is just as true for saints of all ages (cf. 2 Timothy 3). There are many today who offer men immediate glory, peace, and good times, but who do not talk of suffering, persecution, and endurance, as Jesus does. Men love to hear of the blessings of the future kingdom as being realized and experienced now. That simply is not the way Jesus told it, my friend. Jesus consistently spoke of hard times to those who would follow Him. He did not dangle promises of immediate relief from suffering and pain, but warned that the way of the disciple was difficult. Jesus was right, and all who differ on this point, are wrong. Those who would follow Jesus should expect the path of adversity and persecution. That is just what Jesus promised.

Third, Jesus here teaches us that times of adversity, chaos, and opposition are days of opportunity for the proclamation of the gospel. We do not need “good times” to preach the gospel. The gospel is “light” to those in “darkness,” and it offers hope to those in despair. That is why Jesus can say that that the gospel is cause for rejoicing for those who weep, who hunger, and who are persecuted for His name’s sake (cf. Luke 6:20-26; Matthew 5:1-12).

Fourth, in order to maximize the opportunity that lies before us, the disciple of Jesus must beware of deception and following false “messiah’s,” must not be afraid, even in the midst of chaos and persecution, and must not seek safety where God’s wrath must abide.

Allow me to expand on this last point by establishing a principle, one on which the teaching of our Lord in this text is based, as I understand it: THE DISCIPLE OF CHRIST SHOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED TO THAT WHICH GOD WILL DESTROY, AND SHOULD NEED SEEK SALVATION IN THAT WHICH GOD HAS CONDEMNED.

Jesus responded to the awe of His disciples toward the temple by informing them that it was to be demolished. Jesus was teaching them, I believe, that they should not be attracted to that which God was about to destroy. They also had a great love for and attraction to Jerusalem, and yet Jesus told them that in the day of His wrath on Jerusalem, they should flee from this city, not flee to it. They should not seek salvation in that place which had rejected Him as Messiah, and which He now was to reject (for a time) and to destroy.

What a lesson for each of us. How often I am attracted to earthly things, things which are to be decay and fail in my lifetime, or which God will destroy in the renovation of the earth. If prophecy should teach us anything, it is to stop placing too much value on that which God has told us He would destroy. Peter learned this lesson well, as we can see in his second epistle:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat? But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 2:10-13).

We need not understand the details of prophecy, nor to know the times or the signs of the times, but we do need to know the outcome, and thus we need to order our lives accordingly. We need to love the things of this world less, and the things of the next more. We need to have our trust in Him alone, and to seek to share the gospel with a world that is under condemnation, and soon to be destroyed in judgment.

! Lesson 66:
The Second Coming of Christ
(Luke 21:25-36)

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, be­cause your redemption is drawing near.”

29 He told them this par­able: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yoursel­ves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 “I tell you the truth, this gen­eration will certainly not pass away until all these things have hap­pened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunk­enness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unex­pectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to es­cape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Introduction

It often takes a while for things to “sink in” with me, but I think I finally have a bit of a clue as to why the disciples were so excited about the temple and its beauty. You will recall that in the early verses of this 21st chapter of Luke the disciples were awe-struck with the splendor of the temple. Jesus quickly told them not to get too worked up about it because it would not be there that long. But the question has lingered, “Why would the splendor of the temple be such a big deal for the disciples?” Then it suddenly struck me. It is not a very pious thought, but then few of the disciples’ thoughts about the kingdom and their place in it were pious, until after the cross.

Office space is what this was all about. The disciples, I suspect, had visions of having their own offices in this beautiful building. Jesus had marched on Jerusalem. He had, in many regards, taken possession of the temple, not only by its cleansing (29:45-48), but also by going there daily to teach the masses.

The Messiah was predicted to reign in Jerusalem, from the temple. If His disciples were to have a part in this reign, then surely they would “office” in the temple. Aha! So now I can see why the splendor of the temple was such a big thing.

The splendor of the temple was to be short-lived, however. Jesus told His disciples that not one stone would be left standing on another. It would not be He, nor His disciples who would “reign” from Jerusalem, not at least for some time. The temple and the city of Jerusalem were to be surrounded and sacked by the Gentiles, and this city would be trampled by the Gentiles until the “times of the Gentiles was fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). Jesus has, up to this point, emphasized the nearer prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. In verses 25-38 He will turn His attention to the more distant future, and to the time of His return to the earth. His emphasis, here as usual, will be on the practical implications of prophecy on our daily lives. Let us listen well to His words, especially in the light of this statement, made in our text: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (21:33).

If our Lord would have His disciples “calm down” about the temple, because it was about to “pass away,” surely He would have us approach His words with great excitement and expectation, knowing that they will never pass away.

The Structure of the Text

We have seen from our previous lesson that verses 7-38 have to do with prophecy, with the events of the future and their implications. To a large degree, verses 7-24 have focused on the near prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but not necessarily entirely so. So, too, verses 25-38 have to do with the second coming of Christ, but not exclusively so. The structure of verses 25-38 may be outlined as follows:

(1) The Coming of the Son of Man—(vv. 25-28)

·         Signs which precede it (v. 25)

·         The response of unbelievers (vv. 26-27)

·         The response of the saved (v. 28)

(2) The Parable of the Fig Tree—(vv. 29-31)

(3) Two Promises: Things That Won’t Pass Away —(vv. 32-33)

(4) Jesus’ Words of Application and Exhortation—(vv. 34-36)

Our Perspective and this Passage

There are many difficulties with some of the details of our text, which at least be put into perspective. Chronologically, our passage deals with events which are all future to the listener, but which are greatly separated in time. Some events, like the destruction of Jerusalem and persecution for following Christ, will be experienced by the listener within a reasonably short time (as the book of Acts will report). Other events—those associated with the Lord’s second coming—will occur much later on, at the “end times.” And still other events will take place in the intervening times. Some events will happen more than once, such as the destruction of Jerusalem. It was to be “trampled by the Gentiles in the near future (which proved to be 70 A.D.), just as it will again be trampled by Gentiles at the end times:

2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth” (Revelation 11:2-3).

Thus, we cannot view the Lord’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem as only occurring once, in the lifetime of His listeners. Some events will be, as it were, types of things yet to come. The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be one of these.[323] We should bear in mind also that even those events which take place at the end times are a part of an extensive program, which take some time to accomplish, as we can see from the book of Revelation.

Another perspective is the people involved. The people referred to in these verses are those of the various time periods. Thus, the people of that generation in which Jesus lived, those in the intervening years, and those who are alive at His return are in view at various times, or in some cases at all times. In addition, however, the people would include believers and unbelievers, whose perspective and response would be very different. Also, it would seem that there will be those believers who are not alert, and who would thus interpret events quite differently from those who eagerly await His return. All of these dimensions must be kept in mind when we seek to interpret and apply our Lord’s words.

Finally, the end times are viewed here, not from the perspective of the blessings which they will usher in, but from the aspect of divine retribution. According to our Lord’s words in verse 22, these are “days of vengeance.” As you read through the entire prophecy, this fact becomes more and more evident. Jesus could have chosen to speak of the blessings which await the believer (as Peter does in 1 Peter 1:6-9), but He chose instead to speak of divine judgment. This is because the destruction of the temple is an outpouring of God’s wrath.

Signs of the End Times
(21:25-28)

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.[324] 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, be­cause your redemption is drawing near.”

Verse 25 depicts the end times as being signaled, not by a sign, but by various signs. In particular, the coming of our Lord will be preceded by cosmic chaos. In the heavens, sun, moon, and stars will be affected. On earth, the sea will be tossing and roaring. One must decide how literally to take these,[325] and not all will agree. Nevertheless, I am inclined to see them as literal.[326] In the first place, we know that the heavens, can greatly affect the earth. For example, the moon’s gravitational pull creates our tides in the seas. Second, and more importantly, the prophecies of the book of Revelation speak of cosmic and earthly chaos in what seems to be literal terms:

12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Revelation 6:12-17).

8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed … 12 The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night (Revelation 8:8-9, 12).

2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth” (Revelation 11:2-3).

3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died. 8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire … 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him (Revelation 16:3, 8-9).

God created the cosmos, the heavenly bodies, the earth, and the seas. He also sustains them. Though men have rejected God, they often presume that the things He controls and “holds together” (Colossians 1:17) will remain constant. They predict time and location on the basis of the heavenly bodies. By means of astrology, men even regulate their lives by the heavens. The heavens and the earth are going to pass away, however, and there will not longer be any sea. The heavenly disorders are but a sign of the destruction which lies ahead.

Men will not ignore these signs. Indeed, they will be terrified by them, as Jesus indicated in verse 26. Many will not, however, repent of their sins, so as to be saved. They will continue to “eat, drink, and marry” (cf. Luke 17:26-29). Life will go on as usual, with men living in terror, but also in continued rebellion against God. This may seem inconceivable, but it is true, and we can see illustrations of this going on today. Aids has become a virtual epidemic. It is fatal, and there is no cure for it as yet. Many are terrified at the thought of contracting this disease. The homosexual community, not to mention others, are demanding that the government do more to curb and to cure this deadly disease, and yet they refuse to even discuss forsaking the sinful lifestyle which spreads the disease. Even though terrified by the disease, life goes on as usual in the homosexual community. The only modification that men will make in their practice is to strive to practice “safe sex,” when “godly sex” would stop the disease dead in its tracks. And so men may be frightened to death by a dangerous situation, and yet persist in living just as before at the same time.

The signs which the unbelieving world distort or deny are the same signs which the saint will heed. The signs which bring terror and fear to the unbeliever, will bring courage and hope to the saint. Thus, Jesus instructed believers to “stand up and to lift up their heads,” because their redemption was near (Luke 21:28). The reason is that these signs precede the return of the Lord Jesus, and His return in great power and glory (21:27). When He comes, He will deal with His enemies and ours. He will remove the wicked, as He will reward the righteous. His coming should bring terror to His enemies, and joy to His friends.

The Parable of the Fig Tree
(21:29-31)

29 He told them this par­able: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yoursel­ves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

This parable is a simple story, as most of our Lord’s parables were. It pertains to the timing of the events Jesus has foretold. Jesus here teaches what we might call a “seasonal” approach to prophecy, rather than a “specific” approach. Jesus never encourages the setting of dates, just as He refused to indicate a single sign which would accompany and accredit His coming. He did not want his disciples to be ignorant of the approach of His return, as would be the case with all unbelievers. How, then, were His disciples to recognize that His return was near? Not by a single sign, but by a sensitivity to a combination of events which indicated that the “season” of His return was at hand.

This is an agricultural analogy, the discerning of the season by observing the signs of its arrival. When the fig tree (and all the others as well) begins to put out leaves, we know that it is Spring, and that summer cannot be too far off. We can, of course, look at our calendars, but we should all recognize that seasons don’t always follow a calendar. The farmer recognizes the season by noting those evidences of its arrival. Jesus has likewise just informed His disciples (of all ages) of the evidences of the “season” of His second coming. Those who would like to know the exact time of His arrival will not be happy with our Lord’s answer. His nearness of His return will be sensed by those who are alert to and aware of the evidences of its arrival.

Two Promises
(21:32-33)

32 “I tell you the truth, this gen­eration will certainly not pass away until all these things have hap­pened. 33 Heaven and earth[327] will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

There are two promises in these verses. The first is straightforward, but perplexing. It pertains to the fulfillment of the events predicted here. The second has to do with the words of our Lord. Both have to do with “that which won’t pass away.”

In verse 32, Jesus said that “this generation” would not pass away until all of “these things” had come to pass. The difficulty with these words should be obvious. How can Jesus say that “this generation” would not pass away until all these things come to pass when “all these things” occur over what we can now see to be nearly 2,000 years? The events described in these verses encompass many generations, so that no one generation will see all of them fulfilled in their lifetime.

The difficulties with this verse have led some to attempt to redefine the term “generation,” so that it may be taken more broadly, to mean either “mankind” or “Israel.” I do not think that the context of Luke (or the term “generation” itself) will allow this broadening. I believe that that generation was specifically in view. That generation had a particular privilege and a particular responsibility, both related to being those who witnessed the coming of the Christ. That generation also had a particular judgment, due to its rejection of Messiah:

49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all (Luke 11:49-51, emphasis mine).

I understand, therefore, that when Jesus said “that generation” would not pass away until “all these things” had come to pass, He was referring to that generation of Israelites. How, then, do we square this with the fact that “all these things” must come to pass, when we know that some will fall upon generations to come? My best answer is that “all these things” really happen twice, not once. They will happen once, to that generation. And, they will happen a second time, in the last days, related to Christ’s return. Thus, Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., in fulfillment of our Lord’s words. And so, too, Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles again, during the tribulation (Revelation 11:2-3). There is also a sense in which much of what our Lord predicted would happen (e.g. persecution, betrayal by family, etc.) is something which saints have experienced throughout the intervening centuries.

Our Lord’s words, then, have relevance to those who heard Him speak these words. They also have had relevance to the saints over the centuries. And they will be relevant to the saints of the last days as well. No one dares to take these words idly, as though they will relate to a future people at a future time. Jesus does not allow this mentality to prevail.

The second promise is a related one. If the first promise related to the immediate relevance of His words, the second promise related to the eternal quality of his words. The first promise spoke with respect to the immediate value of His words, and the second to the long-term impact of His words. Jesus’ words were true for those who heard Him speak them, but they would be no less true for any saint, even though he might read them centuries later.

Two things strike me about this last promise of our Lord. First, I note that Jesus speaks here with an authority far greater than that of any other prophet. Jesus speaks here as God, not just as a man, and not even just as a prophet. Other prophets could, at best, say, “Thus saith the Lord.” Jesus here speaks of His words, words which will not pass away, as eternal words, and as His words. Jesus was speaking as God. His words were His own words of divine revelation.

Second, Jesus spoke of His words as eternal, never failing. Words, in our day and time (as then) are cheap. Words meant little. In time, even those who may have meant well may forget their word, or break it. Jesus assures His disciples that His words will never fail. Men tend to trust in material things, both because we can see them, and because they appear to have promise of lasting. Jesus here indicates that His words outlast heaven and earth. If we value things on the basis of how long they will last, nothing has greater value than the Word of God. Why is it that we so often value those things which are destined to perish above those words of God which will never perish?

The Application:
Admonition and Encouragement
(21:34-36)

34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunk­enness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unex­pectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to es­cape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

In these final verses our Lord underscores the application of this prophecy to His followers. In verse 34 Jesus warned His disciples that they, like the unbelievers, could be caught off-guard by His return. The signs of His coming, brushed aside by the lost, might not be comprehended by the saint. Thus, the Christian would not realized that the season of His return was at hand. The reason in not in a lack of evidence or of signs, but of a dullness of mind and heart which causes the saint to miss these signs, and to fail to see them as such.

Our Lord listed three specific evils which would distract the saint, so as to cause him or her to miss these signs and their significance. The first evil is that of dissipation.[328] This is the “hangover” resulting from drunkenness. The last thing one suffering from a hangover wants is “input.” I believe that the saint may be tempted to “grab all the gusto he can get,” knowing that the end of this world may be near. Thus, he or she may over-indulge in that which this world offers, and then be rendered dull and insensitive to what is really going on.

The second evil, drunkenness, if very much related. If dissipation is the result of drunkenness, drunkenness is the cause of dissipation. We are dealing with cause and effect. Drunkenness may well be a temptation for the suffering, afflicted, persecuted saint, who is also aware of the chaos taking place in the created universe, and who wishes to blot out the danger and the pain by anesthetizing his brain. Thus, dullness results.

The third and final evil is “worry,” the preoccupation with the “anxieties of life.” These are the very things Jesus has warned us against in the earlier chapters of Luke. They include unnecessary and unbelieving worry about our food, our clothing, and our basic needs. In times of great persecution worry might seem more justifiable, but not according to our Lord. Worry about such things only misappropriates our energies to worthless endeavors.

All three of the evils specifically identified by our Lord affect the heart and the mind of the saint, dulling him or her to the “signs of the times,” which should serve to show that they season of Christ’s return is at hand. These are the some of the major dangers facing the saint. In verse 36 our Lord turns to those activities which can promote preparedness, as opposed to those activities (listed above) which hinder it. Watchfulness or alertness toward the times in which we live is one antidote to apathy and dullness of heart and mind. A ready and expectant spirit inspires careful observation of the times, in comparison to the Scriptures which our Lord has provided.

The second antidote is prayer. “Watch” and “pray” are terms that are often found together. Those who are not watching are not praying, and those who are not praying are also no watching. Prayer here is focused on two matters: (1) Being able to escape the destruction occasioned by the coming wrath of God. Perhaps also, prayer that they will escape the wrath of those who oppose the gospel. (2) That we may be able to stand before the living God, who is our Judge and the Judge of all men.

Conclusion

There is no more awesome event than that coming day, here spoken of by our Lord, the day of His wrath. We, like the Israelites of old, tended to think of the “day of the Lord” only in terms of blessings. If there was to be any judgment, it would be on the Gentile “heathen.” But as God told Israel (cf. Amos 5), the “day of the Lord” was a day of judgment on all who were disobedient to Him. The forms and rituals of their religion were an offense to Him. What He sought was their repentance. The theme of judgment was thus a very important one, and it is that which our Lord focused upon in His teaching here in our text. Let us not fail to take heed to this coming reality and its implications for us.

The coming judgment of God is one of the realities to which the Holy Spirit will bear witness (John 16:8-11). It was the “bottom line” of Peter’s message to Israel in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2). If you have not come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ, it is a coming reality that you should take very seriously. Then wrath of God is that which every person on earth deserves, as the due reward for his or her sin. Jesus came to the earth not only to speak of God’s wrath, but to bear it personally. The Good News of the Gospel is that Jesus has born the eternal punishment we deserve. Salvation is the escape from God’s wrath which men can experience through faith in Christ. If you acknowledge your sin, and trust in the death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary, as being the payment for your sins, you will be saved from the wrath which is yet to come on those who will not accept the payment which Christ has already made.

What a vast difference there is for men with respect to the coming day of His wrath. When our Lord comes to the earth again, it is to give men what they deserve. For sinners, it is eternal torment. For saints, it is deliverance—salvation—not because they deserve it, but because the Lord Jesus Christ has purchased it, at the cost of His life.

The Second Coming of Christ is, then, for sinners, the day of God’s vengeance, of destruction; for saints, it is the day of their deliverance. That deliverance includes salvation from their enemies, as well as from the presence and power of sin. For the sinner, the “day of the Lord” is something to dread; for the saint, a delight. For the sinner, the day will be unexpected, a shock; for the saint, it will be one that has been eagerly awaited, and sensed to be near for those who have discerned the “season” of His return.

The day of the Lord should be a truth that radically changes the Christian’s lifestyle. Knowing that the material world will vanish, we should not place too much value on material things. Knowing that the Word of God will never pass away, we should find it of infinite, eternal, value. And knowing that undue indulgence of earthly pleasures will dull or sensitivity to the time of His return should motivate us to live a disciplined life, a life marked by self-control, not self-indulgence. Neither should we worry or be anxious about the things of this life, knowing that this concern will also hinder our prayers and watchfulness.

Let us live our lives in the light of this reality—that Jesus Christ is to return to the earth to judge the wicked, and to bring deliverance to His saints. Let us live as though the material world is a vapor, and the unseen world (including the Word of God) is our only certainty.

! Lesson 67:
 Preparations for the Passion of Christ
(Luke 21:37–22:6)

37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38 and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple. 1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Introduction

At times, my family does not like me to be around when we are watching a television program. You see, I have a way of anticipating the conclusion of the movie, and I tell them how it will end. They would rather have the suspense. In fact, the more accurate I am, the more upset they get with me.

I have come to the conclusion that the fate of the “villain” of the movie is directly proportionate to his meanness in the movie. A villain that is mean and nasty and cruel is sure to come to a terrible end. He will not simply be arrested, nor will he just die peacefully. He will die some horrid death, giving the viewer a kind of satisfaction that justice has been meted out. It is almost always bound to work out this way, and so I predict it, so as to ruin the suspense of the plot.

If there is one thing that our literature and films do well it is to expose the villain early in the plot, setting him up for his just reward at the end of the drama. The worse the villain is portrayed, the greater the agony of his downfall (and likely his death) at the end. Early on in a movie, we are all given clues as to who the villain is, and also who the hero is. As the plot “thickens” the character of each is more clearly and precisely depicted, but we know who the “bad guy” is, and to the degree that he is mean, he will suffer at the end of the movie. A murder mystery is different, but here the writer of the movie entertains the viewer by toying with his or her desire to know who the bad guy is.

In the New Testament, Judas is represented as the betrayer of our Lord, but he is hardly painted as a “villain,” at least in the same sense that the movie-makers do so today. Luke is a very fine and skilled writer. He has highly developed literary skills. Nevertheless, Luke does not make a classic “villain” of Judas. He does not, as we might expect, often refer to Judas, always putting him in a bad light, so that we expect him to do some terrible thing. He does not use Judas for his own literary purposes, so that we almost eagerly await his downfall and destruction.

If you will notice, Judas receives very little attention in the gospel of Luke, and the same could be said for the other gospel accounts as well. A look in the concordance will show that in Luke’s gospel Judas is only referred to by name in chapters 6 (v. 16) and 22 (vss. 3, 47, 48). Luke does not, as we might expect, make a villain of Judas, so that we eagerly await is demise. In fact, Judas receives far less attention than we would expect. The “tension of the text,” as it were, is this: Why is the betrayer of our Lord given so little attention? Beyond this, why does Luke emphasize the role of Satan in the betrayal of Jesus? This we shall seek to learn from our study.

Our approach in this lesson will be to consider Judas in the light of all the gospel accounts, seeking to trace the sequence of events which led to his downfall. We will then turn our attention to Luke’s account, in order to try to discern his unique emphasis and its implications for us.

Judas Chosen as One of the Twelve

13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor (Luke 6:13-16).

In each of this and the other two gospel accounts of the choosing of the twelve, Judas is named, identified as the one who would betray Jesus, and is listed last. The fact that Judas was one of the twelve will become important as we consider our next category, the sending out of the twelve.

Judas Sent Out as One of the Twelve

1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick (Luke 9:1-2).

The sending out of the twelve is recorded in each of the synoptic gospels, and this text in Luke is the one I have chosen to refer to, since we are studying Luke. The point of this passage is that there is every indication Judas performed all the miracles that the other 11 did. I understand from this passage that Judas not only preached the “gospel of the kingdom,” but that he was used of God to cast out demons and to perform healings. Some might doubt this, but it would seem that Judas was only one of a number who performed miracles in the name of our Lord, yet without really being a child of God:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23).

I don’t know who Judas’ partner was, with whom he was teamed up and sent out, but I doubt that this disciple had anything different to report back than any of the others. Judas, without knowing Jesus as the rest, nevertheless experienced the power of God working through him, but to no avail, to no advantage for him. Perhaps some even came to faith through Judas’ preaching, but Judas himself did not really believe that which he proclaimed. That Judas was an unbeliever, I imply from these passages, in which our Lord spoke of His betrayer:

Judas’ Betrayal Foretold

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him (John 6:70-71).

“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that the Scripture would be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

In John 6:70 Judas was called “a devil,” and so he was, for we shall see that the devil later entered into him. In the Lord’s high priestly prayer (John 17), Judas was viewed as the one “doomed to destruction.” Every indication is that Judas was not one of our Lord’s flock, a true believer. From the text in Matthew chapter 7 we know that one did not have to be a true believer to be able to perform miraculous works in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Last Straw—
The “Wasted” Perfume

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was re­clin­ing at the table. 8 When the dis­ciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for bur­ial. 13 I tell you the truth, wher­ever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” 14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16 From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over (Matthew 26:6-16).

It is important to take note of the fact that the incident which I refer to as the “last straw supper” is not necessarily reported in its “proper” chronological order. Both Matthew and Mark refer to the meal shortly before our Lord’s betrayal, using the story as an explanation for Judas’ actions. Luke does not record the story at all. Only John records the story before the triumphal entry, which I believe is the actual chronological sequence.

In this account, given to us by Matthew, we find that the woman is here unnamed, and that “the disciples” are those who protest at the waste of money in the anointing of our Lord (Mark’s account suggests that perhaps only “some” of them protested—cf. 14:4). While Matthew reports that the disciples protested, he also indicates that there is a direct relationship between the anointing of Jesus, the protest of the disciples, the rebuke of our Lord, and Judas’ decision to betray our Lord. It was this incident that proved, for Judas, to be the last straw. Matthew alone tells us that not only was payment promised Judas (as the other accounts indicate), but that he was actually paid, thirty silver coins.

John’s account (which I consider to be a report of the same incident, even though this presents certain problems) gives us a slightly different perspective and emphasis, which proves to be very helpful:

1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “ It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me” (John 12:1-8).

Here, it is Mary who is identified as anointing Jesus’ feet (not His head, as Matthew reports—though both were probably done). The dinner is one held in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, as we would have expected. But here, John tells us that Judas protested, and he does not mention any other disciples doing so. This leaves us with at least two explanations. First, Judas is selected here because he was one of those protesting, and he was to betray our Lord. In other words, Judas was simply following the lead of the others. The second (and more likely) option is that Judas is the one who first verbalized a protest, and the others followed his lead. Thus, John refers only to Judas’ objection because he was the ring-leader. Matthew informs us that the rest agreed with him and thus joined in the objection. Either option leaves us with the conclusion that Judas and his fellow-disciples were thinking along the same (wrong) lines.

John has much more to tell his reader. In the first place, John tells us that the dinner was held in Jesus’ honor. Jesus was the honored guest. The use of the perfume was an act of worship. For Judas (and then at least some of the others) to view the use of the perfume as a “waste” was to betray a lack of appreciation for the “worth” of the guest of honor, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was not worthy of a gift worth one year’s wages. Judas may have been able to judge the worth of the perfume, but he had not rightly esteemed the worth of the Savior.

John’s account provides us with yet another explanation for Judas’ response. Judas was a thief, motivated by his love of money. Judas was the “keeper of the bag,” the treasurer of the group. The money seems to have been used for meeting the expenses of the disciples, as well as for giving to the poor (cf. John 13:29). Judas was taking money from the bag. Perhaps he viewed this as his “commission,” his percentage, his fee. No one else seems to have known he was helping himself to the funds until later.

I cannot help but wonder what Judas did with the money. Did he hide it somewhere? Did he have a “Swiss numbered account”? Was he saving the money up? Or was he sneaking into town for a “big mac,” or perhaps going to the local pub, returning late at night with the smell of liquor on his breath? No matter what he did with the money, it was not his to take. And whether he squandered it, like the prodigal, or saved it, like the rich fool, he loved money more than his Master. I think that one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that Judas betrayed his Master for money. Greed seems to be the principle motivation of this pathetic figure. “How much will you pay me … ?” was his question to the Jewish leaders.

Judas was deprived of his commission from the perfume, which could have been a tidy sum. He seems to have justified his selling of the Savior in his mind as getting what was rightfully his. How deceitful and twisted the human mind can become, especially with the deception and temptation of Satan as a catalyst.

It was, then, at this supper that Judas made one of the most disastrous decisions of his life, the decision to betray the Master for money. Everything would snowball from here on, but the decision was made, the payment was accepted. All that was needed now was for the opportunity to arise and for the act to be carried out.

Incidentally, it should not be overlooked that Judas’ decision to betray his Master, and his proposition to the Jewish leaders, caused them to change their plans and to set aside a decision which they had previously reached—the decision not to attempt Jesus’ arrest and assassination during the feast:

Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. “But not during the Feast,” they said, “or the people may riot” (Mark 14:1-2).

Arresting Jesus during the feast was simply too risky, they reasoned. Thus, they had determined not to make their move until the feast was over. This was not within the plan of God, however, for Jesus must be sacrificed as the Passover Lamb, at the appointed time. It was Judas’ unexpected (but most welcomed) offer which caused the leaders to set their decision aside. This was too good a deal to pass up. In this way, the sinful choice of Judas was used by God to achieve His divinely determined purposes, and thus to fulfill prophecy.

The Last Supper

And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.” 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you” (Matthew 26:21-27).

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” 19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely not I?” 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “One who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. but woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:17-21).

1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. 2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; … 21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.” 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.” 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. “What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night (John 13:1-3, 21-30).

In Matthew and Mark’s parallel accounts of the “last supper” Jesus is said to have indicated to His disciples that one of them would betray Him. The disciples are greatly saddened, and one by one they say, “Surely, not I, Lord?” Is this an expression of over-confidence, something like that of Peter? Jesus then gave a solemn word of warning, perhaps especially aimed at Judas. He said that He would surely be betrayed so that the prophecies would be fulfilled in this regard, but He warned that the one who betrayed Him would have been better off not to have been born. Surely this was so.

Luke’s account adds an interesting comment (cf. Luke 22:21-24). He passes over the sorrow of the disciples, and the “soul-searching,” to the degree that it happened. Luke informs us that the conversation seems to have quickly deteriorated into a finger-pointing session, where the disciples seemed to look more at one another to find the culprit than to look within themselves. Indeed, they actually ended up in an argument over which of them was the greatest. From a search for the great sinner, the disciples moved to a scrap over the greatest success among them. How typical, of them, and of us.

John’s account is distinct, as usual, giving us yet another perspective on this event. John begins by reminding the reader that the devil had already prompted Judas to betray the Lord Jesus. He further informs us that when Peter prompted John as to who the betrayer was,[329] Jesus indicated that it was Judas, though no one seems to have understood this at the time.

By giving Judas the piece of bread, Jesus indicated to the disciples (in answer to John’s question) that Judas was the betrayer. But by taking the bread, Judas appears to have consciously accepted his role as the betrayer, and this after (so it seems) the warning of our Lord of the danger of doing so. I see this “passing of the bread” to Judas as a kind of counter-communion. Judas had asked Jesus if he was the one, and Jesus had indicated that he was (Matthew 26:25). Now, Jesus said that the one who took the bread was the betrayer. When Jesus handed Judas the bread, he took it. Anyone else of the disciples would have pushed it away. Who would have willingly accepted this role? Only Judas.

Notice from John’s very precise account that it was only after Judas had taken the bread Jesus offered him that Satan entered into Judas. Was Judas “possessed” by Satan? It surely seems so, but this was the result of his own choice. It was not something forced upon him, unwillingly. Satan first prompted Judas at the “last straw supper,” when the expensive perfume was used to anoint Jesus, and then he chose to conspire with the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus. But Satan possessed Judas only after Jesus had indicated to him that he would betray Him, and after His strong words of warning. Judas made a number of choices, all of which were wrong, and which finally resulted in his possession by Satan. This possession, it would seem, enabled him to carry out the dastardly deed of betrayal.

The Betrayal

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. 50 Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him (Matthew 26:47-50).

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”[330] 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him (Mark 14:43-45).

1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. 4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 “I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me” (John 18:1-9).

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all give us a similar picture. Jesus was in the garden, along with the eleven disciples, as His custom had been (cf. Luke 21:37). Judas led the leaders and their assistants, armed to the teeth, to Jesus, identifying Jesus by giving Him a kiss. John’s account gives us a further insight, by telling us that when Jesus identified Himself, His enemies fell back to the ground. What authority! All of the accounts tell of the cutting off of the ear of one of the arresting party. While Luke tells of the healing of this man’s ear, John tells us that it was put who wielded the sword. Now why does this fail to surprise me?

The wonder of the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus, and of the accounts leading up to it is the gentleness and kindness of our Lord in His dealings with Judas. Jesus foretold of His betrayal. He seems to have given Judas great privileges and position among the 12. He warns Judas of the danger of carrying out his intended act. He gives him permission to leave them and to carry it out. But even at the time that Judas kissed Him, Jesus still spoke warmly (“friend,” Matthew 26:50) to him. What amazing mercy and compassion! What love! This makes the act of Judas even more detestable.

Remorse and Suicide

1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2 They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:1-5).

Only Matthew includes an account of the remorse of Judas after the arrest of Jesus, and of his efforts to reverse what he had done. But there is no repentance here, only regret. Judas cast away the money and took his own life. What a tragedy. There is no sense of satisfaction here, as there often is at the conclusion of a contemporary movie, for Judas is not really a villain, but a tragic victim of his own sin and of Satan’s schemes. Note also the callousness of the religious leaders to Judas’ remorse. Their actions and attitudes seem, to me, almost more evil than those of Judas. How willing they are, like Satan, to exploit the sinful inclinations of others. How glad they were for him to do the dirty work.

Judas Replaced

16 and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” 18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’… 25 to take over this apo­s­tolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs” (Acts 1:16-20, 25).

It is Luke, the author of both the gospel of Luke and of the historical account of Acts, who tells us not only of the death of Judas (as Matthew did), but also of his replacement. One additional element here is the emphasis on Judas as fulfilling the Scriptures, and also on the “scriptural necessity” (as the disciples saw it, at least) of replacing Judas.

Summary

Thus, although Luke’s account of Judas is sparse, we can see this sequence of events in the New Testament pertaining to Judas:

(1) Judas chosen as one of the twelve

(2) Judas sent out as one of the twelve

(3) Judas’ betrayal foretold by Jesus

(4) Judas’ exposure to the teaching of Jesus, not only as to His up-coming death, but also on the danger of loving

(5) The “last straw supper” when Judas was angered by the waste of money on the worship of Jesus, and at which time Satan tempted him to betray Jesus

(6) Judas’ seeking out of the Jewish leaders, who wished to be rid of Jesus, his striking a bargain with them, and receiving payment for his betrayal

(7) Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and His pattern of teaching in the temple and returning to the Mount of Olives at night

(8) The last supper, at which time Jesus again foretold of His betrayal, indicated that Judas was the one, and warned him of the danger

(9) Satan’s entry into Judas, after he took the bread from Jesus

(10) Judas’ betrayal of Jesus in the garden and Jesus’ arrest

(11) Judas’ remorse, suicide, and replacement

Luke’s Unique Emphasis

We can see that there is a great deal more to the man Judas than that which Luke has reported. In comparison with the composite account of Judas which we have just pieced together, Luke’s report is very brief, very concise, very much played down, so far as what could have been made of this man as a kind of literary “villain.” What is Luke’s emphasis? How does his brief account help to further his own argument, as laid out in this gospel?

In the first place, we need to be reminded that Luke is writing to a Gentile audience, and so the Jewish disciple, Judas, and his betrayal are not as much emphasized. In the second place, Luke has his eyes (figuratively speaking) on the cross. He is giving us these details as background for what is coming, not unlike Matthew and Mark, only more concise. Luke does not wish to have us focus on how Jesus came to the cross, but on the cross itself, and its consequences for all mankind. He does not seek to emphasize the human element in Judas’ sin so much as he does the satanic aspect. Judas became, due to his own sin and greed, a tool of Satan in his plot to murder the Messiah. From the divine point of view, Judas’ sinful proposition to the Jewish leaders was used of God so as to perfectly fulfill God’s purposes and the biblical prophecies, so that the “Lamb of God” would be sacrificed on the Passover, even though the Jewish leaders had decided against such action (Mark 14:1-2).

Conclusion

In spite of the brevity of Luke concerning Judas, there are a number of lessons that can be learned. As we conclude, allow me to focus on three areas which are relevant to us.

The first area concerns Judas, and that which we can learn from him. I should warn you that the things we learn about Judas are not necessarily comforting. We tend to think of Judas as an unbeliever and a traitor, and thus we place him in a category all by itself, rather than to see Judas as a man not all that different from ourselves, which is exactly where the discomfort comes from. Consider the following characteristics of Judas:

The Characteristics of Judas

(1) Judas was a man who seemed, for a good period of time, to be a genuine follower of Jesus.

(2) Judas was a man who had experienced and had been a channel of God’s power.

(3) Judas was very much like the other disciples, who did not stand out from them, nor was he ever suspected by them as a traitor.

(4) Judas seems even to have been somewhat of a leader among the disciples.

(5) Judas’ downfall came from a flaw evident earlier in his life, in a secret sin.

(6) Judas was a man who seems to have loved money too much and Jesus too little.

(7) Judas was a man who heard Jesus’ teaching, but failed to obey it.

(8) Judas’ failure was progressive, taking place over a period of time, and by means of a sequence of decisions.

(9) Judas was not forced to sin by Satan, but was surely tempted and assisted in his fall.

(10) Judas was made vulnerable to Satan’s involvement by his sin of greed. Satan was able to get a “death grip” on Judas by means of his fleshly desires and their dominion in his life.

(11) Judas did not choose to follow Satan, but to follow his own lusts.

(12) While it is clear to the reader that Judas became possessed by Satan, we do not know that Judas was ever consciously aware of this. To put it differently, Judas made choices which resulted in his possession by Satan, but we are never told that he actively sought to be possessed.

(13) From Judas’ twisted point of view his sin was not all that bad (he merely pointed out Jesus), and it was justifiable (after all, he did deserve the commission—in his mind).

(14) Judas was a man who was not born a traitor, but became one, by a progressive sequence of wrong choices.

If our text teaches us a great deal about Judas, we also learn some important characteristics of Satan. Consider these characteristics:

(1) Satan can work freely through religious leaders, as well as through the secular powers (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

(2) Satan can work through believers (e.g. Peter, cf. Matthew 17:23; Luke 22:31; Acts 5:3) as well as through unbelievers.

(3) Satan is perfectly willing and able to work through secondary causes (like greed), rather than openly and directly. In particular, Satan works through the world (external pressure) and the flesh (internal pressure).

(4) Satanic possession does not always take the form of foaming at the mouth and unusual behavior. It may seem to act in a normal, even in a spiritual way.

(5) While Satan’s control is more evident to us in the life of Judas, he is ultimately in control of every unbeliever (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3).

(6) Regardless of Satan’s success in working through the lives of men, his activity is subject to the control of God and it ultimately produces that which God has purposed and promised. Satan’s plan to kill the Messiah was the purpose of God. Satan thought that killing Christ would thwart God’s promises, but it ended up thwarting him, forever. The cross of Christ has brought about Satan’s downfall.

I fear that while there are times that Satan is credited with things that are not of his doing, there are also times when Satan’s involvement is simply not detected. All sin, in the final analysis, is to his liking, and is a part of his program and of his control over those who do not believe. Satan’s control in the lives of men and women seems to be strengthened over time, due either to his deception, or due to the decisions which ­men make which give him a strong grip in their lives. Luke reminds us here that Satan is very much “alive and well on planet earth.”

I hope that we have seen that the way in which Satan worked in the life of Judas is like the way that he works in the life of every unbeliever. Satan promotes and entices men to act in a way that seems to be to their own best interest, but which ultimately extends his control over their lives. Satan’s way of working in the lives of the saints is not all that different. He seeks to influence us through the pressures the world exerts upon us, and to stimulate the inner urges of the flesh, so that he ­can have control of us indirectly.

How is it that the Christian can avoid the pull of Satan? How is it that we can win over the world, the flesh, and the devil? If the warning of our text is that Satan can work on (Luke 22:31) and through (Matthew 16:22-23) a Peter, the encouragement is that while a Judas will fall hopelessly, never to be restored, a Peter will fall only temporarily. We should be warned by the similarities between a Peter and a Judas, but we should not leave our text without being reminded of the crucial differences between them. Consider these differences with me as we conclude:

(1) While Peter denied his Lord for a short time, Jesus was his Lord. Put in its briefest form, Peter was saved, and Judas was not. Judas did not lose his salvation, he never possessed it (compare Matthew 7:21-23).

(2) While Peter may not have prayed, as our Lord urged that he do (Luke 21:36; 22:45-46), Jesus never ceased to pray for him (Luke 22:32).

What crucial differences these are. The difference between a Judas and a Peter can be boiled down to one thing—faith. Peter was saved, and thus had the shed blood of Christ to pay for his sins, and the intercession of Christ to sustain him. Judas was lost, and thus was left to himself.

Which of the two are you, my friend? Are you a Peter—fallible, stumbling, self-confident, but saved? Or are you a Judas, looking good for a time, but really being a tool of Satan, who will suffer the eternal judgment of God. I urge you to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Do it today.

! Lesson 68:
The Last Supper
(Luke 22:7-23)

Matthew 26:17-30 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Pass­over?” 18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ “ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Pass­over.

20 When evening came, Jesus was reclin­ing at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answer­ed, “Yes, it is you.”

26 While they were eat­ing, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the cov­en­ant, which is poured out for many for the for­give­ness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” 30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:7-23 Then came the day of Un­­leavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Fol­low him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.” 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Pass­over.

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apos­tles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suf­fer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfill­ment in the king­dom of God.” 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to be­tray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23 They began to question among them­sel­ves which of them it might be who would do this.

Mark 14:12-26 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was cus­tomary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ dis­ciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Pass­over?” 13 So he sent two of his dis­cip­les, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man car­rying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the own­er of the house he en­ters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Pass­­­over with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” 16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” 19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Sure­ly not I?” 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who be­trays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Introduction

The story was told of a great revival that broke out through the ministry of a well-known evangelist of by-gone days. There were various accounts told of the response of that evangelist on the night when the power of God’s Spirit fell on the audience, causing many to repent and come to saving faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. One version portrayed a very lengthy night of soul-stirring prayer. At a later date a Christian leader had the opportunity to ask the song leader, who accompanied the evangelist what happened that night, after they returned home. The song reported that rather than a lengthy and pious prayer, the evangelist, exhausted from the demands of the day, plopped into his bed with the words, “Good night, Lord, I’m tired.”

That man’s account is believable. But so often stories seem to be embellished with the passing of time. Family folklore is this way. The war stories of my seminary days are a lot more dramatic now than they were some years ago. As time goes on, we tend to glorify and to horrify the past, making our accounts of past events greater than life. This is simply a human phenomenon. We expect it to happen, and so most of us tend to discount stories of the past a little, to compensate for the exaggerations which accompany history.

Looked at from this point of view—expecting the past to be glorified—we find Luke’s account (and, the other gospel accounts as well) of the last supper amazingly brief and unembellished. Somewhere 30 to 50 years after our Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension, the gospel of Luke was written (depending upon which conservative scholar you read). In spite of all the time which passed, and of the great significance of the “Lord’s Supper” or “Communion,” neither Luke nor any other gospel writer makes a great deal out of the celebration of the last Passover, just before our Lord’s death. I am not saying this celebration was unimportant, but rather that because of its importance, I would have expected it to have been a more detailed account. This brevity is the first of several “tensions of the text.”

There are other tensions as well. Why is nearly as much space devoted to the preparation for the Passover meal as for the partaking of it? Furthermore, why was Jesus so eager to partake of the Passover, when it preceded and even anticipated His death? Finally, why is there such confusion and consternation (including a deletion of some of the text) over Luke’s account of the Lord’s Table, in which it appears that the (traditional) order of the bread and wine may have been reversed?

Events Surrounding the Last Supper

Before we begin to look more closely at the partaking of the Passover, let us pause for just a moment to remind ourselves of the broader setting in which this event is found. The Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem have already determined that Jesus must die (not to mention Lazarus, John 11:47-53; 12:9-10).After the meal at the house of Simon the Leper, at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, “wasting” her expensive perfume on him, Judas decided to betray the Lord, approached the chief priests, and received an advance payment (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:1-6). Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and after He cleansed the temple, the sparks really began to fly, with the religious leaders making every effort to discredit Him, or to get Him into trouble with the Roman authorities (Luke 20:19-20). When these efforts, as well as their attempts to penetrate the ranks of our Lord’s disciples miserably failed, the chief priests were delighted to have Judas approach them with his offer. It was only a matter now of waiting for the right chance. This could have been the Lord’s celebration of the Passover, along with His disciples.

At the meal itself, a number of events took place. It would seem that the Lord’s washing of the feet of the disciples was the first item on the agenda (John 13:1-20). During the meal, once (cf. Matthew 26:20-25; Mark 14:17-21), if not more (Luke 22:21-23), the Lord spoke of His betrayer. The meal seems to have included some (perhaps most all) of the traditional Passover elements, and in addition, the commencement of the Lord’s Supper, with words that I doubt the disciples had ever heard at a Passover meal (Luke 22:19-20). John’s gospel avoids giving us yet another description of this ceremony. He, unlike the other gospel writers, includes an extensive message known as the “upper room discourse” (John 14-16), concluded by the Lord’s “high priestly prayer” of intercession for His followers, which may have been prayed during the meal time, or perhaps later on in Gethsemane (John 17). The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) report the disciples’ argument about who would be the greatest, along with our Lord’s response (cf. Luke 22:24-3), the Lord’s specific words to the over-confident Peter (Luke 22:31-34), and then His words about being prepared to face a hostile world (Luke 22:35-38). With this the party is said to have sung a hymn and to have departed to the Garden of Gethsemane, where our Lord prayed, with little help from His disciples (Luke 22:39-46). The arrest of Jesus then follows, concluding in His being handed over for crucifixion.

The point in all of this is simply to remind you that the meal was a lengthy one, during which time the Passover was memorialized, and also the Lord’s Supper was inaugurated. It was also during this time that a great deal of teaching took place, as recorded primarily by John. The so-called “Last Supper” was but a part of a larger whole. We must therefore study and interpret it in this broader context.

Background: The Passover

It is beneficial to briefly review the meaning of the Passover Meal before we look at our Lord’s last Passover celebration. It think it is important to begin by drawing attention to these remarks by Plummer, one of the well-known scholars who has written a classic commentary on the gospel of Luke:

“… we are in doubt (1) as to what the paschal ritual was at this time; (2) as to the extent to which Jesus followed the paschal ritual in this highly exceptional celebration; … ”[331]

These days it has become very popular to reenact the Passover, showing how many of the elements have a kind of symbolic, prophetic element. These descriptions of the Passover ceremony come not from the Scriptures, however, but from tradition—traditions which are not necessarily accurate, and even if they were correct, we have no assurance that they reflect a genuine faith and obedience to the Word of God. May I remind you that Jesus often rebuked the Jews for their traditions. We have no assurance that these traditions are entirely correct, nor that Jesus personally observed them. Thus, I am committed to an interpretation which takes only the information supplied to us by the Scriptures themselves.

The Passover itself began at the exodus of the Israelite nation from Egypt. The word which Moses brought to Pharaoh from God, “Let My people go, …” was challenged by Pharaoh: “Who is this God, that I should obey Him?” The plagues were God’s answer to this question. But while Pharaoh often agreed to release the people of Israel, he would renege once the pressure was off. The final plague was the smiting of the eldest son of the Egyptians, which resulted in the release of the Israelites. The first-born sons of the Israelites were spared by means of the first Passover celebration. The Passover animals were slaughtered, and some of the blood was placed on the door posts. When the death angel saw the blood on the door posts, he “passed over” the house. This celebration was made an annual feast for the Israelite nation, with a number of stipulations:

Exodus

11 “This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.” 14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the genera­tions to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD—a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Is­rael. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, be­cause it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Cele­brate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regu­lations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it.” 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it (12:11, 14-20, 43, 48).

“Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning (34:25).

Leviticus

The Lord’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month (23:5).

Numbers

4 So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, 6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the Lord’s Passover. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regu­lations. 13 But if a man who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to cele­brate the Passover, that person must be cut off from his people because he did not present the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. That man will bear the consequences of his sin. 14 “‘An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must do so in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the alien and the native-born’” (9:4, 6, 10, 12-14).

“‘On the fourteenth day of the first month the Lord’s Passover is to be held (28:16).

Deuteronomy

1 Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover of the Lord your God, because in the month of Abib he brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Sac­rifice as the Passover to the Lord your God an animal from your flock or herd at the place the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his Name. 5 You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the Lord your God gives you 6 except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary of your departure from Egypt (16:1-2, 5-6).

There are a number of stipulations and regulations governing the observance of the Passover, as can be seen from the texts above. First, the Passover is to be partaken of only by those who have embraced the faith of Israel. No “uncircumcised” person could eat of it. This did not exclude foreigners who had accepted the faith of Israel, as evidenced by circumcision. Second, the Passover was to be observed on the 14th day of the first month, at the time when the Israelites first partook of the Passover lamb in Egypt. The animal was to be slain on the evening of the 14th, and the meal to follow shortly afterward. Third, no bones of the animal were to be broken, and no leftovers were to be kept until the next day. Fourth, the Passover celebration also commenced the Feast of Unleavened Bread. No yeast was to be used, and all leaven was to be removed from the dwellings of the Israelites on the first day of the celebration. Finally, the Passover animal could only be slaughtered at the place which God would designate (Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6), which would later be specified as Jerusalem.

Preparations for the Passover
(22:7-13)

7 Then came the day of Un­­leavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Fol­low him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.” 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Pass­over.

There is a note of urgency expressed in verse 7, for the day came when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. The Passover must be celebrated in Jerusalem, and the lamb had to be sacrificed and eaten at the appointed time. Matthew’s gospel is even more emphatic here:

He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house’” (Matthew 26:18-19).

Jesus sent two of his disciples to make the necessary preparations, two of His most trusted disciples, Peter and John. These were two of the three who were in the “inner circle” of the three disciples (Peter, James, and John), whom Jesus sometimes took along, apart from the others (cf. Luke 9:28). What was so important that two of His most trusted disciples had to prepare the Passover? This becomes evident in the directions Jesus gave as to the place where the Passover meal was to be eaten.

If I were Peter or John, I would have been somewhat distressed by Jesus’ directions. He did not give the name and the address of the man with whom arrangements had been made.[332] When you think about it, there is a kind of “cloak and dagger” dimension to this account. The disciples were sent on what amounted to a treasure hunt. They were to find an unspecified place by going into the city and being found by a man who would be identified only by the fact that he was carrying a water pot. It is not even said that the man would speak to them, but they were to follow him to the house he entered. There, the owner of the house (presumably another man) was to be asked where the guest room was where the “Teacher” could eat the Passover with His disciples.

Had it not been Jesus who gave these instructions, one would probably have not been very inclined to follow this plan. There is a certain similarity in these instructions to those given to the “two” (unnamed) disciples who were to obtain the mount on which Jesus was to ride into Jerusalem in His “triumphal” entry (Luke 19:30-31). The purpose for the two sets of arrangements was the same, and thus required a vagueness in each case.

It had already been determined by the religious leaders in Jerusalem that Jesus should be eliminated, earlier (cf. John 7), and now with even greater determination after the raising of Lazarus (cf. John 11:45-53). The one thing which the religious leaders needed was privacy. They wanted to arrest Jesus, away from the curious eyes of the crowds, who favored Jesus, and who would very likely revolt at the sight of Jesus being arrested and put to death by the religious leaders (cf. Luke 19:47-48; 20:19-20; 22:3-6).

Luke gives the account of Judas’ agreement with the chief priests and officers (22:3-6) just before the Lord’s instructions concerning the preparation for the last supper (22:7-13). This order of events is significant, for had Judas known in advance the place where the Passover was to be eaten, he could have arranged for Jesus’ arrest there. And this would have been an ideal time, for everyone would be off the streets, eating the meal with their own families. Jesus’ gave instructions which assured that this meal would not be interrupted, and that his arrest would take place in the garden of Gethsemane, later that night.

There is, by way of application, a wonderful truth to be seen in these verses. Whenever God truly calls on us to do that for which we feel unprepared and at “loose ends,” that which seems ill-defined, we shall discover that He has long before gone before us, making the necessary arrangements. The two disciples would surely not have felt “in control” of this situation, just as the two disciples who went to fetch the Lord’s mount for His entry would have felt matters were not very well defined. But in each case the text is clear: they found things to be exactly as Jesus had described them. While the disciples may not have been confident that things would work out well, they did.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you believed that God was leading you to do or say something, but you really didn’t know how things would work out? Have you ever done something in obedience to what you believed to be the leading of God’s Spirit, only to find that He had been there long before you arrived? When God instructs us to do something that He intends to come to pass, He will always have gone before us, preparing the way for us. All we need to do is to obey, trusting that things will work out as He has planned. While we may not know the outcome as the two disciples did in our text, we may be assured that it will be just as God has ordained it. How wonderful it is to walk in obedience to His will and His word, and to watch Him open the doors before us, preparing our way. And how wonderful to know that what God has not told us is for our own good.

The Last Supper
(22:14-23)

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apos­tles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suf­fer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfill­ment in the king­dom of God.” 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But the hand of him who is going to be­tray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23 They began to question among them­selves which of them it might be who would do this.

Characteristics of the Last Supper

As we begin to consider the “last supper” let us start by considering some of the characteristics of this event.

(1)The “last supper” was a segment of a larger whole. Even in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the account of the actual celebration of the “last supper” brief, but in the gospel of John, it is not even recorded. John’s gospel gives us a much fuller account of our Lord’s rather extensive teaching on this occasion, known as the “Upper Room Discourse.”

(2)The account of the “last supper” is not only brief, it does not “read back” into the event the greatly enhanced understanding of this event in the light of later events, such as the death of Christ on the cross. It is not until Acts and the epistles of the New Testament that the full meaning of “communion” is seen. Luke waits until later to spell out this unseen significance. Luke describes the event from the historical perspective of those who were there, not from that of those saints who can look on the event in terms of its added meaning in the light of the cross.

(3)The “last supper” was the last supper in that it marked the end of one dispensation and the entrance into another. It instituted the age of the “new covenant” and anticipated (at the cross) the end of the period of the “old covenant.” The “last supper” is unique, never to be reenacted. It is the closing of one chapter, and the beginning of a new one.

(4)The “last supper” was the inauguration of a new “church” ordinance, although it was not recognized as such at the time. The church will go back to this celebration as the historical roots of its celebration of “communion,” but the disciples had no grasp of the newness of this celebration at the time.

(5)The meaning and significance of this celebration of the “last supper” was almost totally missed by the disciples. They did not understand what Jesus was doing, and they were busy thinking about the identity of the betrayer, their own sadness, and who was the greatest among them.

(6) Jesus did not seek to explain to His disciples, at this point, all that He was doing meant. Indeed, in the fuller teaching of John’s gospel, it was clear that they would not understand.

(7)The last supper was not, in its observance, a glorious occasion. Re­gard­less of how the artists might have portrayed it, this was a time of confusion, of fear, and of self-seeking on the part of the disciples. Jesus was the only one present who knew the meaning of what He was doing.

(8)The “last supper” was a modification of the Old Testament observance of the Passover. But there is little information given to us about the “ritual” that was observed by our Lord, or even that Jesus followed the normal Jewish ritual of that time. The part of the celebration that is emphasized is that which was utterly foreign to the Passover celebration, that which our Lord added.

(9) The mood of the “last supper,” especially for the disciples, was dominated by the gloom of our Lord’s betrayal and of His imminent death on the cross. The disciples did not know what was about to take place, but there was a sadness, a heaviness, in their spirits, knowing that something ominous was about to occur.

(10) In spite of and in contrast to the disciples, Jesus approached this meal with eagerness: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (v. 15).

The Meaning of the Meal

Having familiarized ourselves with the context and characteristics of the “last supper,” I now wish to turn our attention to the meaning of this event, as Jesus reveals it to the disciples here. There is a problem with this passage, as you should know. The basic problem, it would seem, is that there are too many “cups” here, and thus the order of events given by Luke seems to contradict that found in the other gospel accounts. One easy solution is to retreat to the ceremony which allegedly took place at the celebration of the Passover, and to point out that there were numerous “cups.” The solution which some ancient copyist(s) seem(s) to have taken is simply to exclude the last half of verse 19 and all of verse 20. No everything matches, nice and neat. I think there is a much simpler explanation—one which points to the “punch of the passage”—which can be seen by this simple arrangement of the verses in view:

The Celebration and Jesus

15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suf­fer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfill­ment in the king­dom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

The Celebration and the Church

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Luke’s account, more dramatically than the other two, emphasizes the fact that the “last supper” had two distinct meanings. The extra cup is no problem when viewed from the standpoint of Luke’s structure. Verses 15-18 refer to the significance of the Passover for the Lord Jesus. The reference to “eating” (the bread, presumably) and “drinking” is to its meaning for Him, as Israel’s messiah. The reason why He can say that He has eagerly desired to eat the Passover is revealed in verse 16: He will not eat it again until its fulfillment in the kingdom of God. So, too, for the cup. He will not drink the cup again until the kingdom of God is fulfilled.

Now this is a very important point, I believe. Normally, we tend to look at the Passover as being a prototype of the death of Christ on the cross. Jesus, in verses 14-18, looks beyond the cross, to the crown. The joy set before Him is the kingdom, and the suffering of the cross is the way this joy will be realized. Thus, Jesus focused on the joy of the fulfillment of the Passover and was encouraged and enabled to endure the cross because of it.

The eating of the first Passover did involve the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, but it was done so as to deliver the first-born sons of Israel from death. It was done as well as a preparatory step to the exodus, their release from Egypt by Pharaoh, their crossing of the Red Sea, and their entrance into the promised land. Thus, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb was not focused only on the preservation of the lives of the firstborn, but on the possession of the promised kingdom.[333] In the same way, Jesus saw this Passover as prophetic, as anticipatory of the coming of the kingdom, and in this He could rejoice.

For the disciples (and, indeed, for the Jews) the Passover meal had a very different significance. For them it was the end of one order, and the entrance into another. It spelled the end of the Mosaic covenant, and the inauguration of the new covenant, that which the prophet Jeremiah prophesied (Jeremiah 31:31). That which God promised Abraham was to be realized and accomplished through the faithful obedience and sacrificial death of the Messiah, whose death inaugurated a new order, based upon the new covenant. The full meaning of the meal, and of our Lord’s death would only be grasped after His death and resurrection. It surely was not grasped at this moment by the disciples.

Warning to His Betrayer

They were quickly distracted by what Jesus said next. He told them that He was to be betrayed, and that His betrayer was at the table, one of them (verse 21). At a time when Jesus’ rejection, suffering, and death were imminent, here He is, reaching out one last time to Judas, warning him of the destiny which awaits him if he follows through with his plan to betray Him. Both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are underscored by Jesus’ words. The Son of Man was going, as it had been predetermined by God, and yet woe to that one who would do it. Judas was going to be held accountable for his actions (verse 22). How sad that Judas did not heed this warning.

How sad it was that one could be so close to the Savior, could have heard so much, and yet did not believe. How many people have thought themselves saints, when they were really wolves and not sheep, falsely religious, but not Christians (cf. Matthew 7:13-23). Judas was warned. He was even urged to turn from his course, but he did not. How tragic is this man.

While the disciples are different than Judas, they are not that different. The principle difference between Judas and the other eleven was that they believed, they were saved, and Judas was not. Judas did not lose something which he once possessed, for he never possessed it. But the disciples are so like Judas in that they are thinking mainly of themselves, and not of Jesus. They, too, are seeking their own self-interest. And so, the discussion among them as to who would betray Jesus quickly deteriorated into an argument as to who was the greatest. How typical—of them, and of us.

At the most “spiritual” times, in the most pious of surroundings and ceremonies, our sinful desires are still present. The significance of the Passover, and of the Lord’s supper has nothing to do with what we add to it, but only with what Christ Himself has done. In that alone we can rejoice. The amazing thing is that the disciples and even Judas, for all their sin, did not ruin this meal for the Savior. They did not ruin it because He observed it in the light of what God was doing, not in what men were doing. There is no benefit to rituals or ceremonies, my friend, there is only benefit in Christ. It is what he has done that gives any ritual significance. May we approach the Lord’s table as the Savior did, with great joy and anticipation, looking back, but also looking forward to that day when the kingdom of God shall come.

! Lesson 69:
Perspective, Personal Ambition, and Prophecy
(Luke 22:24-38)

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gen­tiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Ben­e­factors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the great­est among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I con­fer on you a kingdom, just as my Father con­fer­red one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was num­bered with the trans­gressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its ful­fill­ment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Introduction

Fred Smith, a friend of mine, once said to me, “John Calvin would have made an excellent golfer.” He waited for a response. I bit, and he explained. “You see,” Fred quipped, “John Calvin taught that everything that comes naturally is the wrong thing to do. In golfing, you never do the thing that feels right.” I have played just enough golf to believe that Fred was right. Likewise, in skiing, when one seems to be losing control and gaining speed going down hill, the way to solve the problem is to lean forward. But the natural inclination is to lean back, gain speed, and lose the ability to steer the skis.

Calvin, if indeed he taught as Fred claims, was right too. How often the natural thing to do is the wrong thing, at least when it comes to the Christian life. In many, many, areas of life, if we asked ourselves how we would naturally handle a certain situation or accomplish a particular goal, and then do the opposite, we would be right, biblically speaking. Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the earth, that the mourners will rejoice, that one gains his life by losing it, and that one acquires wealth by giving it away. Jesus’ way of doing things is very often the opposite of the way we would think things should be done. For this reason Donald Kraybill entitled his book on this subject, The Upside-Down Kingdom.[334]

Our text consists of three major sections. In verses 24-30, Luke gives an account of a dispute between the disciples as to who was regarded as the greatest, and Jesus’ words of correction and instruction. In verses 31-34, Jesus informed Peter of his three-fold denial, which was soon to occur; but He did so in such a way as to give Peter encouragement and hope after he failed. In the last paragraph, verses 35-38, we come to one of the most difficult texts in the gospels, one which has caused Bible students to scratch their heads.

Remember as we approach these three paragraphs that these are the last words of instruction Jesus gave to His disciples, at least as Luke’s account in concerned. These are very important words, indeed, words that had great meaning for the disciples, and words which contain important lessons for us as well. It is not just the disciples of days gone by who have a problem of sinful personal ambition and who reflect an ungodly and destructive spirit of competition. When we look at the Corinthian church, we find this problem of self-assertion and status-seeking was still one of the major hindrances to the unity and ministry of the New Testament church. In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul wrote that of all those whom he might have sent, those who were both saints and ministers (of a kind), he had only one man who was not self-seeking, and that man was Timothy. All the rest “seek after their own interests” (Philippians 2:21), Paul said. If we but look about the church today, we see that power struggles, ambition, and self-seeking are everywhere—everywhere. Jesus has the answer to this problem, and Luke has recorded the answer in our text. Let us listen well to our Lord, for His words are desperately needed today.

The Setting

Long before, Jesus had set His face toward Jerusalem, where He was to be rejected by the religious leaders and the nation, and where He would be crucified by Roman hands. Jesus has come to Jerusalem, where He made His entrance, to be received by many, but not by the leaders of the nation, and not really by most Jerusalemites. Jesus cleansed the temple, driving out the money-changers, arriving there early in the morning, and then leaving in the evening, to camp out (it would seem) on the Mount of Olives. The Jews sought to publicly challenge and embarrass Jesus, to challenge His authority, and to entrap Him in His words, but this plan failed miserably. They also sought to infiltrate His ranks, in order to obtain inside information which would enable them to arrest Him privately and to put Him to death out of the sight of the crowds, who still favored Him.

But it was through none of these efforts that their plans to destroy Jesus were realized. It was one of Jesus’ own followers who volunteered to turn Jesus over to them conveniently when the opportunity arose, for a price. The actual betrayal is coming quickly count, but not yet. Jesus has gathered with His disciples to observe the Passover meal. At the meal table, Jesus has much to teach the disciples, for this is His last opportunity to speak to them before He is separated from them by His arrest, trial, and crucifixion. It seems to be sometime during the meal that the dispute broke out among the disciples, a dispute which provides the occasion for further instruction and admonition by our Lord. This is the setting for our entire section of Scripture.

The Dispute
(9:24)

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which [one] of them was considered [regarded, NASB] to be greatest.

It is impossible to determine from Luke’s account whether the dispute arose before the washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13) or after. It would seem most likely that it arose before, perhaps in connection with the disciples’ eager rush to find the best seats at the table. Where one sat at a meal table in that part of the world indicated how important he was (cf. Luke 14:7-11; Matthew 23:6). It would seem that as the disciples entered the upper room where they were to partake of the Passover Lamb, they rushed past the basin where a slave would normally have washed the feet of the guests (and where no slave was present), in order to gain the best seats. Perhaps the disciples argued because those who thought themselves to be the greatest lost out in the race for the chief seats. Peter, who may have been the oldest, and thus a likely candidate for “first chair,” seems to have been more removed from Jesus than John who was reclining on Jesus’ breast and who also may have been the youngest (cf. John 13:23-25). If this were the case, then Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet was indeed a timely lesson. This act would certainly exemplify our Lord’s claim to be among them as “one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

But why the great concern about where one sat at the dinner table, about who was regarded as the greatest? I think the answer is quite simple: the disciples seemed to think that whoever was the greatest at the time the kingdom was inaugurated would also be the greatest in the kingdom. It is much like those who want to purchase tickets for the finest seats at the Super Bowl, tickets which are in very limited quantities and in great demand. They will go through great efforts and sacrifices to wait in line for hours to be at the head of the line when the ticket office opens.

When I lived in Washington State, one of my favorite sports events was the Gold Cup unlimited hydroplane races sometimes held on Lake Washington. These boats would be out on the lake some time before the starting gun went off. In fact, there was a one minute gun which was fired to serve notice that in exactly one minute, the starting gun was to be fired. While the boats would be in various places before the one minute gun went off, they would all congregate in the same general area, and then, with each driver carefully watching his speed, his position, and the one minute clock in the cockpit, the boats would all race down the lake, passing under the Lake Washington bridge at 160 miles per hour, hoping to cross the line first, a split second after the starting gun was fired.

Every driver knew his chances of winning the race were far better if he began the race in front of all the others. If he were not first, the driver would have to constantly fight the wake of the boat or boats ahead of him, rather than run on relatively smooth water. The boat would also be caught in the rooster tail of water shooting high into the air behind the lead boats. The rooster tail threatened to literally drown out the engine of the boat behind. To start first meant a good chance of staying in front all the way through the race. I believe this was the way the disciples felt about where they were seated at the Passover Celebration, as well as the way they felt about who among them was regarded as the greatest. It is my assumption that the disciples did not consider how Christ regarded them, but rather they debated as to their ratings with the masses. It was not the reality of who was the greatest which was the concern of the disciples, but only the perception of it. Their standing before men seems to be the issue.

Ironically, but not accidentally I think, Luke places his account of this dispute among the disciples concerning who was regarded as the greatest immediately after the verse in which we are told the disciples were discussing who it was among them who might be the betrayer of whom Jesus had just spoken. It is as though the disciples were more interested in their own greatness than in identifying who among them was the traitor. There is little time to look for traitors when one is disputing about his greatness.

I do not know just how “civil” or “subtle” this debate was. Among many, the struggle for position and power can be very polite, very orderly, and very underhanded. Here, I am inclined to see the disciples as more frank and not so subtle. Remember that James and John were known as the “sons of thunder.” These fellows were the kind who could have come to blows over such matters, at least before they met the Master.

We should not move on without also pointing out that this dispute over who was perceived to be the greatest did not erupt here for the first time. It seems to have been the cause for debate frequently among the 12. In Luke chapter 9 (verse 46), after the transfiguration of our Lord and the successful sending out of the 12, the disciples argued about who might be the greatest. Often, it would seem, the disciples’ discussion about their greatness came in the context of Jesus’ disclosure of His rejection, suffering, and death (cf. Mark 9:31-34).

Jesus’ Correction of
the Disciples’ Competitiveness
(22:25-30)

25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gen­tiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Ben­e­factors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the great­est among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I con­fer on you a kingdom, just as my Father con­fer­red one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus began by contrasting what we might call “Christian greatness” with “Gentile greatness.” In verses 25 and 26, Jesus contrasted the conduct of “great Gentiles” with that of “great disciples.”[335] The Gentile kings “use” their greatness; they let others know they have it; they flaunt it. Gentile kings do not simply lead; they dictate and dominate; they “lord it over” others. This dictatorial rule seems to be justified, in their minds at least, by their claim to be “Benefactors.” They had themselves called by the title, “a doer of good,” and thus their being a “public servant,” a doer of good for the people seems to have justified their abuse of power. We hear of men who justify the abuse of power by labor union leaders on the same premise. “I don’t care if there is corruption and graft in the leadership. They have done a lot of good for me.”

How different the disciple of Jesus must be. Jesus does not here argue against greatness. He accepts the fact that some men are great, greater than others. All are not equal. The issue here is not whether some saints should be greater than others, but rather how they use their greatness. Jesus said the first characteristic which should mark the great Christian is that they don’t use their position. While they may be the greatest, they are not to act like it, or to demand they be treated like it. They are to be like the youngest; they are to regard themselves and act like the one who has the least power. (Many of us know how “bossy” older brothers or sisters can get, and how they think they can tell younger siblings what to do.) They would thus speak gently, when they could get away with being harsh and severe. They will not seek to force others to serve them. Instead, they will be characterized by servanthood. They will use their position and their power as a platform of service. The benefits which they could claim for themselves they will pass along to others. In short, Jesus taught His disciples that they should manifest greatness in exactly the opposite way the Gentiles do. They should live in an “upside-down” kingdom.

If verses 25 and 26 contrast the conduct of the great Gentiles and great Christians, verses 27-30 tell us the reasons why this should be so. If verses 25 and 26 contrast the manifestations of greatness (between the disciples and the heathen), then verses 27-30 contain the motivation and the means of true greatness, that greatness which characterizes Christ, His disciples, and the nature of the kingdom of God.

The disciples were not to pattern their lives after the heathen, but rather after their Master. The greatest, Jesus pointed out, was the one who sat at the table—who was served—while the one who stood, the servant, was the lowest. There was no argument that Jesus was the greatest, and yet He told them He was the one who serves (verse 27). When Jesus told His disciples above that the greatest must be the servant of all, He was simply reminding them that they must be like Him. He was not asking them to do anything which He was not doing Himself. How can it be that the greatest—Jesus Christ—is the servant? That answer will be found in the last paragraph of our text.

It would appear Jesus is saying that His disciples are never to possess a position of greatness, power, or leadership, but this is not the case. Jesus says in verses 28-30 that His disciples are giving up position and power in this life because they are to obtain it in the next, in the kingdom of God. Jesus never commands men to give up life, money, family, and power for nothing. He calls upon His disciples to give up the temporary and imperfect riches of this life in order to lay them up for the next. These riches are temporary; they are subject to decay and theft. The true riches of heaven will never perish. So too with position and power. We are to give up “first place” and its prerogatives in order to be given a place of honor in His kingdom. In His kingdom, the disciples are promised that they will sit at the table—His table, and that they will be given thrones on which they will be seated, and from which they will rule.

The disciples’ preoccupation and debate over their own position, prestige, and power was inappropriate for several reasons. Those Jesus has mentioned thus far are: (1) this is the way the heathen behave; (2) it is the opposite of the way Jesus has manifested Himself, even though He is the greatest of all; and, (3) the preoccupation with greatness is untimely, for that which the disciples were seeking will not come in this life, but in the next.

It is neither the disciples’ accomplishments nor their own greatness which gain them a place of power in the kingdom, but it is the Lord who wins this for them. Their blessings and privileges in the kingdom are those which Christ Himself achieves, and then shares with His followers. The Messiah does not “ride on the shoulders of His disciples,” as they seemed to have thought, propelled by their greatness; rather they are carried to their blessings by Him.

Jesus’ Words of Prophecy to Peter
(22:31-34)

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

It seems to me that Peter was one of the main characters in this debate over the disciple’s perception of greatness. (I suspect James and John were also very much a part of this argument.) Jesus’ words to Peter then would be very directly related to His role in the debate over greatness. Jesus’ words must have smarted as the elder statesman of the group, who thought he was the greatest, heard from Jesus that he would not even survive the next few hours without denying His Lord, three times no less! If Peter felt he was considered the greatest, surely he must also have looked at himself as one of the most loyal, committed members of our Lord’s band. It must have been inconceivable for him to think of himself as such a weakling that he would deny his Lord when the going got tough.

The two-fold reference to Peter (the nickname Jesus gave him, meaning “the rock”) as Simon must have hurt, too. This was Peter’s “natural” name, the one which characterized him, to which he always answered, before he met the Master. It seems to suggest that Peter would be acting like his old self, and not as a disciple of the Lord when he denied Him. He would be acting in his own strength, and not that which the Lord gives.

It was not just that the “old Simon” was going to prevail in the next few hours and thus fail. Jesus informed Peter that Satan himself was involved in what was to take place.[336] It amazes me that Satan had the audacity, the arrogance, to demand anything from the Lord. It further amazes me that Jesus did not forbid Satan to “sift” Peter (and the rest—the “you” here is plural = “to sift you all”). Why didn’t Jesus simply forbid Satan from attacking Peter and the others? The answer must be that Jesus intended to use Satan’s dirty tricks to serve His own purposes for the disciples’ good.

Peter’s failure was for his own benefit and for the benefit of all the disciples. While the Master would not prevent Satan’s attack, He would pray for Peter’s faith not to fail. Thus, while Peter was destined to fail, his faith would not. Jesus therefore predicted not only Peter’s failure but also his restoration. And when he had turned back, Jesus instructed, Peter was then to strengthen his brethren. Peter could not be used when he was too “great,” too self-confident, too self-seeking. But after he failed, after he experienced the grace of God, then Peter could lead men. It was not greatness Peter needed to experience, but grace, and this was soon to come.

Peter protested, insisting that Jesus’ words would never come true, and that he would remain faithful, even unto prison and death. There is a sense in which this was true, for it was Peter who drew his sword, seeking to prevent Jesus’ arrest, and cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant. But in the final analysis, Peter was calling our Lord a liar. Peter, as someone has pointed out, was willing to trust his own feelings of love and of self-confidence rather than to trust in these words of prophecy, words from none other than the Lord. Jesus therefore must once again reiterate the fact that Peter would deny Him, and not only once, but three times.

Jesus’ Puzzling Words
About Satchels and Swords
(22:35-38)

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was num­bered with the trans­gressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its ful­fill­ment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied

This passage is, without a doubt, one of the most problematic texts in the Gospel of Luke. The difficulties are obvious:

(1) When Jesus sent out the 12 (chapter 9) and the 72 (chapter 10), He appeared to give them guidelines and principles which would govern their future missionary journeys, even (perhaps especially) after His death, burial, and resurrection. Now, it would seem that He is throwing out all that He had told them.

(2) In the previous sending of the disciples, Jesus gave them assurance of His presence and protection (cf. 10:3, 18-19), but now it would almost seem as though Jesus were telling these men that they are on their own, and that they will have to handle their protection themselves.

(3) Later texts seem to indicate that Jesus did not want His disciples to do that which He seems to be commanding here. When Peter attempted to resist the arrest of Jesus by drawing his sword, Jesus rebuked him with words that clearly forbade the use of force (cf. Matthew 26:52). Neither the Book of Acts (which Luke wrote) nor any of the epistles reiterate or reinforce the practice which Jesus appears to have advocated here.

There is then no question that this is a difficult text, and that these words are hard to understand. But if we believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, then we must also assume there is a solution, one we are expected to find. As I approach this passage and the difficulties it presents, I do so with several assumptions, which I should spell out before we press on:

(1) The difficulties in this text (I normally refer to these as the “tensions of the text”) are by divine design. They are designed to catch and to hold our attention, to cause us to meditate and to pray, and to study the Scriptures carefully.

(2) This text cannot be understood in isolation, but only in the light of its immediate context, as well as the Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments).

(3) Jesus has deliberately connected and contrasted (“But now,” v. 36) His instructions here with those laid down in Luke 9 and 10. The nature and the extent of this contrast is a crucial factor, which we must determine.

(4) Jesus’ words here may have long-range implications and applications for these men, but for the moment they must have a very immediate and practical application.

The disciples have a very immediate problem, and immediate dangers and temptations, concerning which they will be encouraged to pray (cf. Luke 22:46). Peter will soon reach for his sword for which he will be rebuked. In John 16, which depicts the same scene but supplies additional teaching, Jesus told His disciples He had much more to say to them, but they were not able to bear it at the moment (John 16:12-13). This seems to be a signal that what He was then telling them concerned the most immediate and urgent matters.

(5) The words of Jesus were not to be taken in a starkly literal way. In the same context in John’s gospel (at least at the same general time frame—at the table with His disciples in the upper room), Jesus said He was not then speaking literally to them (John 16:25). Jesus rebuked Peter for taking His words literally (Matthew 26:50-54).

(6) The key to understanding the meaning of Jesus’ words in Luke 22:35-37 is to be found in context in Isaiah 53:12, the passage Jesus cited as an explanation and basis for His puzzling words.

The Meaning of This Mysterious Text

If we are to understand the meaning of our Lord’s words, we must first consider the context. The setting was described by Luke in verse 24. The disciples were debating among one another which of them was considered to be the greatest. This debate is far from new. It has been going on for a great while. We find the disciples arguing over this matter in chapter 9 (v. 46), immediately after Jesus told them of His coming betrayal (9:43-45). I think the power which had been bestowed on them in their first missionary journey (9:1-6) had already begun to go to their heads. Not only do they argue about who was the greatest, but they wanted to destroy a Samaritan village by calling down fire from heaven (9:51-55).

In chapter 10, the 72 were sent out (10:1-16), and it is obvious from the response of the disciples on their return that they were greatly impressed with the power they had at their disposal (10:17). Jesus did not debate the authority they had been given, and even went on to describe it in terms beyond their own awareness (10:18-19). Nevertheless, the disciples had lost the proper perspective, and so Jesus gently admonished them with these words:

“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20, NASB).

Not only were the disciples wrong in seeking greatness and in competing with one another to do so, but they were also wrong in seeking greatness as men perceive it. The text does not state this directly, but it likely implies it. The disciples, Luke informs us, were debating “as to which one of them was considered to be greatest” (Luke 22:24, emphasis mine). The question is, “Considered the greatest, by whom?” Surely not by the Lord, but rather by men. In judging their standing in terms of human approval, they became guilty of the same sin as that which characterized the Pharisees:

“You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15, NASB).

Even if one of the disciples was right, as was “number one” of Jesus’ followers, as his ratings went with the crowds this would still be worthy of a rebuke from the Lord, for they were playing to the wrong audience. Their hearts were not seeking God’s approval, but men’s.

The preoccupation with position and power was a long-standing problem with the disciples, and Jesus was addressing it here for the last time before His death. This, it seems to me, is the cause of Jesus’ enigmatic words to His disciples. Jesus pointed out that the Gentiles love to be perceived as the greatest, and they accomplish this by “lording it over” those under them, and they seek to become known as benefactors. The disciples’ behavior is to be the opposite. Even if they are great, they are to be behave as the youngest, and they are to use their power to serve others, rather than to demand that men serve them.

Peter must have perceived his greatness not only as a result of his age but also as a consequence of his faithfulness and commitment. Jesus graciously “let the air out of Peter’s tires” of self-confidence by informing him that in spite of his bold pronouncements of fidelity and loyalty, he would fail three times over, and in a very short time. The final paragraph in this section, verses 35-38, addresses this same evil—the disciples’ preoccupation with position, power, and prestige.

The key to the correct interpretation of Jesus’ words is to be found in the text to which He referred—Isaiah 53:12. Jesus explained His puzzling words to His disciples with this statement:

“It is written: ‘And he was num­bered with the trans­gressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its ful­fill­ment” (Luke 22:37, NIV).

Interestingly, the NASB uses the term “criminals” instead of “transgressors” here. This may very well be influenced by these words, contained in Mark’s gospel:

And they crucified two robbers with Him, one on the right and one on the left. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was reckoned with transgressors” (Mark 15:27-28, NASB).[337]

One can easily understand how the term “criminal” could be chosen here. After all, did those who came to arrest Jesus and His followers not come out, armed to the teeth, something like a SWAT team? And did not Jesus point out that in so doing they were dealing with Him as a robber, a criminal (cf. Luke 22:52)?

The word in the original text which is found here is not the normal word we would have expected to be used of a criminal, although this meaning may be acceptable. The original (Hebrew) term employed in Isaiah 53:12 is one which refers to a “rebel,” one who defiantly sins against God. This may very well result in criminal acts, but the term “transgressor” is, I think, a better translation. Mark is, of course, correct. The fact that Jesus was crucified between two criminals did fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12, but it did so in a kind of symbolic way, so that it also left room for a broader, more sweeping fulfillment. Jesus was numbered (perhaps, as has been suggested, “allowed Himself to be numbered”) among transgressors, and the two thieves were surely that. But it could also be said that since Jesus was now dealt with as a criminal, His disciples were regarded in the same way. Jesus and His disciples were considered transgressors.

Jesus had, to some degree, set Himself up for this accusation. From the very beginning, the “higher class” religious leaders objected to the fact that Jesus associated Himself with very unsavory characters. Technically speaking, men like Matthew probably were criminals before they met the Master. Jesus said, after all, that He did come to seek and to save sinners. Surely criminals too are sinners

Jesus here said that His instructions to His disciples were to assure that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 was fulfilled. What did this prophecy predict, and why was Jesus making such a point of drawing the disciples’ attention to it? I believe Isaiah 53:12 is the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus’ words. Let us briefly consider the passage in which it is found. This passage, as you will recognize, is one of the greatest (and most beautiful) messianic texts in the Old Testament. The apostles and the epistles will point to it as one of the key messianic texts. And yet only here, in the gospels, do we find this prophecy identified as Messianic, and as being fulfilled by our Lord. It is a magnificent text.

52:13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness— 15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

If you were to ask one of the disciples upon what they had based their messianic hopes and aspirations, they would surely respond that their expectations were based upon the Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom of God and the Messiah. In reality though their expectations were based on only some of the prophecies, namely those which conformed to their own desires. They would have undoubtedly turned to those passages which spoke of Messiah’s coming in order to judge the wicked and to liberate Israel. The one text to which they would not have referred is the text above in Isaiah 52 and 53. There would be at least two reasons for this. First, this text was not recognized or viewed as messianic until after Christ’s coming. Second (and, to a large degree, the explanation for the first observation), this text did not speak of a triumphant King, but rather of a suffering Savior. It did not fit their expectations. This is precisely the text to which our Lord calls the disciples’ attention, a text which He speaks of as having to be fulfilled through Him and through His disciples as well. What was it about this text that did not appeal to the disciples (or anyone else), yet which Jesus saw as coming to fulfillment?

There is one thing about this prophecy which characterizes it as a whole, yet which I have never before noticed. The entire prophecy utilizes a kind of literary contrast. The Messiah will be the King of Israel, who will mete out judgment to sinners, and yet He will also be the Suffering Savior who dies for the sins of His people. He is innocent, yet He will bear the guilt of men. He is greatly esteemed by God and is elevated to the pinnacle of position and power, and yet He is regarded by men as a sinner (a criminal, if you would), whose rejection, suffering, and death is viewed as just. He who is God is viewed as justly condemned by God. He who bears the sins of men is viewed by men as bearing the guilt of His own sins. The Messiah is perceived by men in a way precisely opposite that of God. Men look down upon Him as worthy of God’s wrath, yet it is He who alone is worthy (righteous), but who bears the sins of men.

The application of this prophecy to the circumstances of our text in Luke’s gospel is incredible. Jesus was not only speaking of the necessity of His fulfillment of this prophecy (as Mark’s gospel informs us—of His being crucified between two criminals), but of the broader implications of the prophecy. Men would reject the Messiah because He would not conform to their expectations of Him and of His kingdom. While God would look upon Messiah as the sinless Son of God, men would view Him as a sinner, condemned by God. Men wanted a kingdom in which they would have riches, freedom, power, and pleasure. Messiah would bring, at least initially, rejection and suffering. And so men would reject Him.

The disciples were debating among themselves who was perceived to be the greatest. They were thinking in terms of a “scepter,” but Jesus spoke to them of a “sword.” The disciples were thinking in terms of a crown, but Jesus was headed for a cross. Jesus, in so doing, was fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Messiah and His kingdom, but the disciples were wholly missing the point of His coming. What the disciples did not understand was precisely what this messianic prophecy was saying, that the glorious kingdom of righteousness was to be brought about by a “king” who was rejected as a sinner. The crown, as it were, was to be preceded by a cross. Indeed, the cross was God’s means of gaining the crown. All of this was revealed through this prophecy of Isaiah. Yet the disciples failed to grasp it, because they were looking at matters through the eyes of their own ambition.

If God’s Messiah was to be regarded and even rejected as a criminal, this also meant that His disciples would be regarded as such. Were the disciples debating who would have the highest position, the most power, the greatest prestige? Then the disciples were wrong. They, by association with Christ, were to be regarded as criminals, not kings. They would thus need to think in terms of swords (not literal ones, however), not scepters. They must be ready to endure men’s rejection and persecution, not men’s honor and praise. In so identifying with Christ and suffering with Him, the disciples would eventually enter into the victories and joys of His future kingdom, as He had just told them (Luke 22:28-30).

In the broader context of Isaiah’s prophecy and of our Lord’s rejection, suffering, and death, I believe we can now better understand Jesus’ words to His disciples in our text. When Jesus contrasted the disciples’ future experience with that in the past (“But now,” verse 36), He is not overturning every principle and instruction given to the disciples earlier. By and large, the principles and instructions laid down in the sending of the 12 (chapter 9) and the 72 (chapter 10) were those given to govern the missionary outreach of the church as practiced after Pentecost and as described by Luke in his second volume, the Book of Acts.

The “But now” of our Lord in verse 36 is intended to focus the disciples’ attention on the change which was occurring in the minds of the people of Israel toward the Messiah. Jesus asked His disciples if they had lacked anything when they went out before. They responded that they had not lacked anything at all. But why didn’t they lack anything? Because they were popular, as was their message, and the “Messiah.” But now a more complete picture of Messiah is available, and the people do not like what they see, even as Isaiah predicted.

Incidentally, we have a foreshadowing of this sudden change of popularity in the gospel of Luke. At the very outset of our Lord’s public ministry, He went to the synagogue in Nazareth, and He introduced Himself as the fulfillment of a very popular messianic prophecy. At that moment, these people were very open to the possibility that this one might be the Messiah (Luke 4:16-22). But when Jesus went on to speak of His messianic ministry as including the blessing of the Gentiles, the people could not tolerate Him any longer, and they were intent on putting Him to death (Luke 5:23-30). How prophetic this early incident in the ministry of our Lord was, and how much in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah to which our Lord referred.

No, the disciples need not occupy themselves with thoughts of the kingdom which included popularity and position and power. They must prepare for the rejection and persecution which Messiah was prophesied to experience, in order to eventually enter into the blessed kingdom in time to come. The crown (12 thrones even, verse 30) would come, but not until the cross was borne. What a cause for sober reflection these words of Jesus should have brought to the disciples.

Were Jesus’ words intended to be taken literally? Certainly not. Jesus rebuked His disciples for seeking to use the sword to prevent His arrest. Nowhere in the Book of Acts or the epistles do we ever see the use of force advocated in proclaiming or defending our faith. The sword rightly belongs to the state (Romans 13:4). If we are to bear a sword in our fight, it is a spiritual sword, for it is a spiritual war (Ephesians 6:10-20). Jesus’ words in Luke 22 did draw attention to the contrast in the “climate” of this hour, with that atmosphere which prevailed at the time He sent out His disciples earlier, but even at that time Jesus had much to say about opposition and rejection. It was not that Jesus had not said anything about rejection, but just that the disciples had not experienced it, and neither were they disposed to think about it—until now. Jesus’ words here in Luke 22 then should not be viewed only in terms of contrast, but also for clarification—clarification of what had already been said but which had been overlooked because of the aspirations and ambitions of His disciples, fueled by their power and popularity, thus far, with the masses.

Conclusion

There are many points of application to these words of our Lord, addressed to His disciples so long ago. Let us consider just of few of the implications of these as we conclude.

First, we should expect rejection and persecution also, just as the disciples were instructed by our Lord. If you would, the disciples were suffering from a kind of “dispensational disorientation.” They were eager and willing to enter into the joys of the kingdom of God, when they should have been expecting and enduring the rejection of Christ, as prophesied by Isaiah. Why is it then that the gospel is still being proclaimed as the doorway to immediate popularity, prosperity, power and prestige? Because it is the way we would prefer things to be, rather than the way our Lord and the prophets have promised it would (and must be).

Second, we must, like the disciples, decide whether we are to view the world through the eyes of our own ambition, or through the lens of God’s revealed Word. The words of our Lord were intended to call the disciples to live in the light of what the prophets and He had been consistently predicting—the misunderstanding of, rejection of, and death of Messiah, in order to bear the sins of men and to bring about (ultimately) the kingdom of God. It would not then be by a sword, but by the shed blood of the Savior, that men would be saved. The disciples should not expect power, prosperity, and prestige, but rejection and persecution. Bottom line, the disciples must learn to live in the light of what God says, rather than in the light of what they want, or even what they, for the moment, see. God’s Word is to be our guide, not our own ambitions or desires. Faith is not based upon what we see, or even what we want to see, but on what God has said, even though that is not yet visible to the natural eye.

Third, God’s ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. The disciples were arguing about a crown while Jesus was speaking of a cross. The Messiah was rejected as a sinner by men, but received as the sinless Son of God by the Father. We must give up our lives to gain them, give up our wealth to gain true riches, serve others to be great. It is often true that man’s values are the reverse of God’s, and that His ways are incomprehensible to man. If we would think and act God’s way, we must do it in accordance with His word.

Fourth, we should not pray to avoid failure, but that our faith does not fail. So often our prayers seem to focus on the avoidance of failure, rather than on the endurance of our faith. Jesus promised Peter that he would fail, but that his faith would not. Failure taught Peter that it is grace that sustains us, not our own performance—as great as our affirmations of its magnitude might be. When we pray, either for ourselves or for others, let us pray that faith will endure and even be strengthened, not that we will not fail.

Fifth, if you would enter into the kingdom of God, you must see yourself as the sinner and Christ as the sinless Son of God. Isaiah’s prophecy indicated that men would regard the Messiah as a sinner. The assumption, borne out by the Scriptures, is that we see ourselves as righteous, and the Son of God as a sinner. If we would come to experience God’s salvation and enter into His kingdom, we must reverse our thinking—we must repent. We must see that it is we who are sinful and He that is sinless. We must see that it is we who were deserving of God’s wrath, and He who is worthy to reign over all the earth. On the cross He bore our sins, and He suffered God’s wrath for us. By trusting in His worth and His work, as personified and worked out through His Son, Jesus Christ, we can experience God’s forgiveness and salvation. In short, we must repent, and we must see things as they are, as God’s Word describes them.

! Lesson 70:
The Garden of Gethsemane
(Luke 22:39-46)

Matthew 26:36-46 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troub­led. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sor­row to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little far­ther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is pos­­­sible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 40 Then he re­turned to his dis­cip­les and found them sleep­­­ing. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temp­ta­tion. The spirit is will­­ing, but the body is weak.” 42 He went away a second time and pray­ed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43 When he came back, he again found them sleep­ing, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he returned to the discip­les and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sin­ners. 46 Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!

Luke 22:39-46 Jesus went out as us­ual to the Mount of Olives, and his dis­cip­les followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He with­drew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Fa­ther, if you are will­ing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven ap­pear­ed to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he pray­ed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. 45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the dis­ciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

Mark 14:32-42 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his dis­ciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply dis­tressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is over­whel­med with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” 35 Go­ing a little far­ther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if pos­sible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “every­thing is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” 37 Then he returned to his dis­ciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” 39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Re­turning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sin­ners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my be­tray­er!”

Introduction

The six verses of our text underscore for us that the significance of a text cannot always be determined by its length. Sometimes, as we see here, we must discern the significance of the text by its weight or its density. Several indicators point to the crucial importance of our passage. First, the prominent activity of our passage is prayer. From a combined view of Gethsemane gained by a comparison of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find that our Lord instructed the disciples to pray three times. They were to pray that they would not fall into temptation. Jesus prayed and persevered. The disciples did not, and they failed. Jesus spent what appears to be at least three agonizing hours in prayer. From what we have already seen in Luke, prayer often accompanied (or, better yet, preceded) very important events. Thus, Jesus was praying when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at the outset of His public ministry (Luke 3:21). Jesus was in prayer when He was transfigured before the three disciples (Luke 9:29). Jesus is likewise in prayer here in the Garden of Gethsemane. Thus, past experience has taught us to look for something very important to take place in the very near future.

Second, this is our Lord’s final act, before He is arrested, tried, and put to death. So too these are His last words spoken to the disciples, His final instructions to them. A person’s last words are very often of great import, as these words of our Lord are to the disciples, and to us.

Third, there is an emotional intensity to what is described here. The disciples, Luke tells us, are overcome by sorrow, which is manifested by their drowsiness and slumber. Jesus is, according to Matthew and Mark, “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34). Never before have we seen Jesus so emotionally distraught. He has faced a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee, totally composed and unruffled. He has faced demonic opposition, satanic temptation, and the grilling of Jerusalem’s religious leaders, with total composure. But here in the Garden, the disciples must have been greatly distressed by what (little) they saw. Here, Jesus cast Himself to the ground, agonizing in prayer. Something terrible was going to happen. Jesus knew it, and the disciples were beginning to comprehend it as well.

The Setting

The Passover supper has been eaten. Jesus has concluded His “upper room discourse,” as recorded in John’s gospel, including the high priestly prayer of Jesus for His disciples, in chapter 17. Jesus and the disciples have sung a hymn, they have left the upper room, and they have crossed the Kidron to the Mount of Olives, and specifically to the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke mentions only that the party went to the Mount of Olives, for his Gentile readers would not have known the precise location that some of the Jewish readers (of other gospels) would have recognized.

The cross now looms large on the horizon. Jesus will pray in the Garden, returning twice to His disciples, only to find them sleeping. He will urge them to pray that they enter not into temptation, and then He will return to His own agonizing prayer.[338] In Luke’s account, Jesus was still speaking the words of verses 45 and 46 when Judas and the arresting party arrived (verse 47). The arrest of Jesus would lead to His trials, and then to His crucifixion. The cross was not only near in time, it was also heavy on the mind of the Savior.

The Text

One can quickly see that Luke’s account of the agony of our Lord in Gethsemane is considerably shorter than those of Matthew and Mark. Luke, for example, does not set the three disciples (Peter, James, and John) apart from the other eight, even though these three were taken by our Lord, to “watch” with Him at a closer distance. Neither does Luke focus on Peter, although in the other accounts, Jesus specifically urged Peter to watch and pray. While Matthew and Mark indicate three different times of prayer, with our Lord returning twice to awaken His disciples and urge them to pray, Luke refers to only two.

The unique contribution of Luke to the account of the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane is to be found in verses 43 and 44. These verses have been omitted by a very few manuscripts, which has caused some to question their originality. It is my opinion that these verses are not only original, but that they are the unique contribution of Luke to the gospel narratives of the event. It is much easier to see how a copyist could have left them out than to comprehend how they could have been added. We will look carefully at these two verses and consider their unique contribution.

The Superhuman
Suffering of Jesus in Gethsemane

39 Jesus went out as us­ual to the Mount of Olives, and his dis­cip­les followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He with­drew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Fa­ther, if you are will­ing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven ap­pear­ed to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he pray­ed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Jesus was pressing on to His own cross, even while in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke tells us that Jesus “went out as usual to the Mount of Olives” (verse 39). Furthermore, we are told that the Savior and the disciples “reached the place” (verse 40). This was all a part of the plan. While Jesus had deliberately been secretive about the location of the place where the Passover meal was to be celebrated, He was completely open and predictable about the place where He would be on that fateful night. He followed His custom, He acted according to a very predictable pattern. Judas would know exactly where to lead the arresting officers, at “the place,” the place where they had stayed every night. There is no elusiveness here, for it was Jesus’ time to be betrayed. He will be taken, but it is not by surprise. Everything is proceeding according to the plan, and according to our Lord’s predictions.

On reaching “the place” Jesus instructed His disciples to pray. There was a specific purpose, a particular object in mind, “that you will not fall into temptation” (verse 40). They were to pray that they would not succumb to temptation. Notice that Jesus did not conduct a prayer meeting, as we sometimes have. He left the disciples in one place, while He went off, by Himself, to another. Neither does Luke or any of the other writers tell us that Jesus prayed for His disciples, as He did in John 17. Furthermore, Jesus did not ask His disciples to pray for Him, as though He might succumb to temptation. It was the disciples who were in danger of failing, not Jesus. Nowhere in this text (or its parallels) do I see any reference to Jesus being in danger of forsaking His path to the cross. Neither the Lord Jesus nor the plan of salvation were in danger here. That had been settled in eternity past. Throughout the account of our Lord’s life in the gospel of Luke we have seen only a resolute purpose to do the Father’s will, to go to Jerusalem, to be rejected by men, and to die. That resolute spirit continues here.

Three times Jesus urged His disciples to “pray that they would not fall into temptation,” that is, that they would not succumb to it. To what temptation was our Lord referring? I believe that the temptation is specific, not general, and that it can be known from the context of our Lord’s words. What was it, in the context, that the disciples were in danger of doing, that would be considered succumbing to temptation? The temptation, as I see it, was based upon the disciples’ predis­position to view their circumstances in the light of their own ambition and desires, and their own distorted view of how and when the kingdom would come. Early on, Peter had attempted to rebuke the Lord for speaking of His own death (Matthew 16:21-23). This, however, is not recorded in Luke’s gospel. In the immediate context of Luke’s gospel we find the disciples debating among themselves as to who was perceived to be the greatest. We also find Peter boldly assuring Jesus of his faithfulness, even though Jesus has already told him he would fall. The danger is that the disciples would attempt to resist our Lord’s sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary, even as was the case when Peter drew the sword in an attempt to resist His arrest (Luke 22:49-51). In addition to this, there was to be the scattering of the disillusioned disciples when their Lord was arrested, and when their hopes of an immediate kingdom were dashed on the rocks of His rejection by the nation Israel. To put the matter briefly, the disciples were going to be tempted to resist the will of God for the Savior and for themselves, rather than to submit to it.

Having charged His disciples with their duty to pray for themselves, Jesus went off from them a ways—about a stone’s throw, Luke tells us—and began to pray Himself. Our Lord’s prayer, while it had three sessions, and it took up a fair amount of time, could be summed up in these words, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

For what is our Lord praying? What is He asking from the Father? Is Jesus, at the last moment, trying to escape from His commitment to go the cross? Is He seeking to change the Father’s mind? Does the fate of all mankind hang in the balance here? Was there a very real danger that Jesus might change His mind?

Let me point out first of all that it was not Jesus who was in danger of changing His mind. Jesus was seeking to learn from the Father what His will was. Jesus was, all along, committed to do the Father’s will. From a purely hypothetical viewpoint, Jesus could have told the Father He had changed His mind, and that He was not going to the cross. Jesus has not changed His mind about obeying the Father; He is asking the Father if He has changed His mind, as it were. Our Lord’s submission to the Father’s will is never a matter that is in question. If there is any question, it is what the Father’s will is. In one way, Jesus is simply seeking one last “reading” as it were as to what the Father’s will was. And even at this, there was never really any doubt.

Second, Jesus was probing the matter of the cross with His Father to see if there was any other way to achieve the salvation of men. Jesus is asking the Father whether or not there is any other way for the sins of men to be forgiven. The answer is obvious, for the purpose and plan of God stands, and is faithfully pursued by the Lord Jesus.

Let me pause for a moment to underscore this very important point: THERE WAS NOT OTHER WAY FOR MEN TO BE SAVED THAN THROUGH THE INNOCENT AND SUBSTITUTIONARY SUFFERING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Jesus had said it before. He was the way, the truth, and the life. No man could come to the Father, except through Him, except through faith in His death on Calvary, in the sinner’s place. How often we hear men speak of the cross of Calvary as a way, one option among many as to how men can attain eternal life. Let me say that if there were any other way Jesus would not have gone to the cross, and the Father would not have sent Him. The prayer of our Lord in the garden underscores the truth of the New Testament that there is but one way, and that way is the shed blood of the sinless Savior, shed for sinners.

Third, we should note from our Lord’s prayer in the garden that He greatly dreaded “the cup” and that it was this “cup” that Jesus was asking be removed, if possible. Why is “the cup” such a dreaded thing? What is “the cup” to which Jesus the Lord Jesus is referring? The answer is crystal clear in the Bible. Let us consider just a few of the passages that speak of this “cup” which our Lord dreaded so greatly, and we shall see that His dread was fully justified.

The “Cup” of God’s Wrath

For not from the east, nor from the west, Nor from the desert comes exaltation; But God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another. For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, and the wine foams; It is well mixed, and He pours out of this; Surely all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink down its dregs. But as for me, I will declare it forever, I will sing praised to the God of Jacob. And all the horns of the wicked He will cut off, But the horns of the righteous will be lifted up (Psalm 75:6-10, NASB).

Rouse yourself! Rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk from the LORD’s hand the cup of His anger; The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs (Isaiah 51:17, NASB).

Then I took the cup from the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations drink, to whom the LORD sent me: Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, and its kings and its princes, to make them a ruin, a horror, a hissing, and a curse, as it is this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his princes, and all his people; and all the foreign people, … (Jeremiah 25:15-20a).

And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If any one worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:9-11).

What, then, is the “cup” which our Lord dreaded? It is the cup of God’s wrath, poured out on sinners. It is the cup which will be poured out in those who are unrighteous, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. It is the “cup” which was foretold in the Old Testament, and which is still prophesied in the Book of Revelation. It is the cup of the wrath of God, beginning with the Great Tribulation, and enduring throughout all eternity. The cup[339] which our Lord dreaded drinking was the wrath of God, manifested in eternal torment.

No wonder our Lord was “sorrowful and troubled” (Matthew 26:37), and His soul was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38). Jesus’ agony was due to the cross which loomed before Him. He was not in agony because He would be forsaken by men, but that He would be forsaken and smitten by God. Jesus was dreading, suffering in the anticipation of His bearing of the sins of the world and the wrath of God which they deserved.

This text tells us that because Jesus bore the wrath of God (the “cup,” as it were) in the sinner’s place, it is not necessary for men to drink this cup as well. Salvation comes when a person comes to faith in Christ as the One who was innocent, and yet died in their place, bearing the wrath of God which their sins deserved. Those who reject Christ and His atoning sacrifice must bear the wrath of God, which will be poured out on unbelievers in the future. It is this wrath to which the Book of Revelation refers (see text above).

There are many disagreements among evangelicals as to when and how the Lord’s return will come, but one thing seems certain to me, based on our text: No Christian will go through the Tribulation, the future outpouring of God’s wrath upon an unbelieving world. All who are godly will suffer “tribulation” (small “t”), which is the wrath of unbelieving men toward God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:12), but the Great Tribulation (big “T”)—the outpouring of divine wrath on sinful men—will only come upon the unbelieving. The Great Tribulation is a horrifying repeat of the agony of Calvary, which men must endure because of their rejection of the Savior, and it will only come upon unbelievers.

A Problem Passage

43 An angel from heaven ap­pear­ed to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he pray­ed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Verses 43 and 44 pose a problem for some. First, these verses are not found in a very few of the “older” manuscripts. Since “older” is not necessarily “better,” and since only a few manuscripts omit these verses, I find it easy to assume that the verses are original. The very fact that these verses are difficult to understand and that they are not found in the parallel accounts is strong evidence for their originality, in my opinion.

Assuming that the verses are genuine, the problem of interpreting them remains. The two verses might, at first look, seem to be in reversed order. One would tend to think that Jesus should have been strengthened by an angel from heaven at the end of his time of prayer in the garden, not somewhere in the middle. One must also wonder how it is that an angel could strengthen Jesus at all. How could an angel “strengthen” the Son of God? If this is not a problem in your mind, imagine that it was you who was dispatched from heaven to go to the earth and strengthen the Son of God. What would you have done? What would you have said or done?

Fortunately for us, the term “strengthened” is found one more time in the New Testament, in Acts 9:19, where Paul was said to be “strengthened” after taking some food, after his three day fast (which commenced by the appearance of the Lord to him on the road to Damascus). Here, it is evident that Paul’s strengthening was physical in nature. It would seem that our Lord’s strengthening by means of an angelic ministry at the end of His temptation was also primarily physical (cf. Matthew 4:11).

But why would Jesus have needed physical strengthening here? Matthew and Mark both tell us that our Lord was sorrowful to the point of death. I take this very literally, and not in some metaphorical sense. Luke, a doctor you will recall, tells us that sorrow was the cause of the disciples’ drowsiness (22:45). If these disciples were sleepy from their sorrow, with as little knowledge of the situation as they had, how do you think the sorrow of our Lord must have affected Him. Luke does not leave us to our imaginations here. He tells us that Jesus’ agony was so great that “his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground” (22:44).

I believe that our Lord’s sorrow was so great that He was virtually at the point of death. I believe that apart from supernatural sustenance (brought by the angel from heaven) Jesus would not have died on the cross, He would have died in the Garden of Gethsemane. So great was His agony at the thought of the cross and all that it implied, our Lord was sorrowful to the point of death. The physical strengthening was, no doubt, intended to carry our Lord on through all of the physical and emotional demands of His arrest, trials, and crucifixion, but it was also given to Him to sustain Him through His night of prayer. Thus, after He was strengthened, Jesus returned to His prayer in the garden, praying, as Luke tells us, even “more earnestly” (22:44).

The suffering of our Lord was not merely Him, in his humanity, struggling with the ugly realities of the cross. It was a supernatural suffering, the unique, unparalleled, suffering of the sinless God-man, who alone could fathom the depths of God’s righteousness, man’s sin, and the measure of divine wrath which these required. Jesus was supernaturally strengthened because He supernaturally suffered. We do Him a great injustice to liken Him to us, and His sufferings to what ours would have been in such a setting.

An Explanation and a Rebuke
(22:45-46)

45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the dis­ciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

The last two verses conclude the section on the Garden of Gethsemane and lead us right to the point of our Lord’s arrest. In verse 47, Luke will go on to tell us that it was as Jesus was saying these words (of verses 45-46) that Judas and the arresting party arrived on the scene. In a general description of the disciples as a whole, Luke informs us that when Jesus returned to the place where His disciples were to be “watching and praying” He found them asleep. Luke alone tells us that their sleep was induced by sorrow. This was not merely physical fatigue, or the lateness of the hour, nor apathy. The disciples, I believe (cf. “The spirit is willing, but the body is weak,” Mark 14:38) wanted desperately to stay awake and to “keep watch” with Him, but could not. Their sorrow, perhaps somewhat vaguely understood or recognized by them, was too much for them.

The human weakness of the disciples did not totally excuse the disciples, however, and thus the final rebuke of the Savior in verse 46. They were urged, one final time, to awaken, to arise, and to pray, so that they would not fall into temptation. There was no more time, however, for Judas had now arrived, along with a group that was heavily armed, coming on Jesus as though He were a dangerous criminal, a robber, perhaps.