Podcast
Trinity Evangel Church
Hosted by Trinity Evangel Church · EN
Sermons from Trinity Evangel Church in Marysville, WA
28episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Tempted by the Devil
2w agoTap to summarizeTempted by the DevilOr, A Battle of WillsIf the theme of Luke’s gospel is that the found would be faithful, then we’d benefit from an example of being faithful. Before that, actually, we need one who is faithful for us, faithful when we were lost. We need a faithful representative, someone who is better than Adam, someone faithful from beginning to end. We learn a lot in the account of Jesus’ temptation in Luke 4:1-13. Luke includes it as part of the preparation section before Jesus begins His public ministry. Starting in Luke 3:18 the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus at His baptism fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. Then the Father spoke His pleasure in the Son establishing identity. Then the genealogy showed Jesus’ human ancestry, not only with royal blood, but human blood, a “son of Adam” (3:38). Now Jesus will be tested in a spiritual battle against the great and ancient rebel. It is a battle of wills. Can the devil get Jesus to act on His own will instead of His Father’s? The devil got the first man to fall. He didn’t beat Adam by force, he pulled at Adam’s will; Adam preferred his own way over God’s Word. The first man was in a garden with all sorts of food and with a woman to help. Jesus is alone, in the wilderness, hungry. Adam was tempted at a point of strength, Jesus is in a position of weakness. This comparison between men partially explains why Luke put the genealogy before the temptation account. The two sons of God are similar, and thankfully, also not. Scripture records only a few direct battles between the devil and a man: Adam, Job, and now Jesus. But the devil came at Adam through a serpent, and he came at Job from behind the scenes; neither man saw his enemy. Only here does the devil come face-to-face. There are three final temptations that come at the end of 40 days without food. Mark and Luke indicate that there had been testing throughout the 40 days (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13), but these three appear together at the end. Matthew and Luke have the same three, but put in a different order. Matthew ends with the devil promising kingdoms, Luke drives toward Jesus in Jerusalem. It stands out that incarnate Word quotes the inspired Word in response to all three tests. God’s Word is relevant. It’s also remarkable that Jesus uses three quotes from Deuteronomy. I’ve thought many times about this question from Howard Hendricks in Living by the Book, “When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–11), He defeated the devil three times by saying, ‘It is written.’ All three responses are quotations from the book of Deuteronomy. I’ve often thought, If my spiritual life depended on my knowledge of Deuteronomy, how would I make out?” There is more here than all the demons in hell can stand, so it’s worth our time to meditate. We’ll take the first temptation in context today. The question to keep asking: whose will wins? Divine Test: Led by the Spirit (verses 1-2) The specific test doesn’t come until verse 3, but it depends on the context. Jesus hadn’t eaten for almost six weeks. And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. (Luke 4:1–2 ESV) Not only had Jesus done nothing wrong to be in this position to be tempted, He was in this position to be tempted by divine appointment. He was full of the Holy Spirit, and being led by the Spirit. Could the second Person of the Trinity ever be disconnected from the third Person? Not in deity. But in His humanity, the Spirit descended on Him like a dove and was part of this testing outside the public eye. Remember that Israel was tempted for 40 years in the wilderness, in between the exodus from Egypt and the Promised Land. The wilderness was “great and terrifying…with fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground” (Deuteronomy 8:15). They also hungered, and complained, and made idols. “They soon forgot [God’s] works; they did not wait for His counsel” (Psalm 106:13). Verse 2 says the length of time and that during that entire time He was being tempted by the devil, an ongoing, or at least reoccurring thing. Devil is diabolos, from which we get the diabolical. This name emphasizes him as the slanderer, the accuser. Matthew also refers to him as “the tempter” (Matthew 4:3). He twists words to lead astray. Halfway through verse 2 a new sentence starts. Jesus ate nothing during those days, so when 40 days were done he was hungry, “famished” (NET). Matthew wrote that Jesus had been “fasting” (Matthew 4:2), intentionally food-less for sake of prayer and communion with God. Would He keep on depending? It’s good to avoid triggers to temptation. Don’t put yourself in the way of evil. As we sing, be careful little feet where you go. And, in this case, not only was the environment Spirit chosen, Jesus had been faithful to this point. Faithfulness had put Him in a position to test His faithfulness. We need Him to not make excuses now. Scriptural Text: Fed by the Word (verses 3-4) They know each other. They’ve been at it for a while. What have the temptations been so far? Did the devil mock His servant suit (Philippians 2:7)? The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” (Luke 4:3–4 ESV) This taunt is not a test of Jesus’ identity. It tests Jesus’ motivation. There are different ways (in Greek) to form a conditional if/then statement, and the way it’s phrased assumes as true that Jesus is the Son of God. The devil isn’t asking for a show of supernatural power in the miracle of turning a stone into bread. The devil is asking Jesus to use His power to serve Himself, like the Father isn’t providing. “Don’t worry about the Father. Do what you know you need for you.” This is why Jesus answers the way He does. He doesn’t respond to prove who He is, He responds to prove that He is submissive. It is written, leads to a quote from Deuteronomy 8:3. And in context, Moses reminds the people that the Lord took care of them in the wilderness. He gave them manna, but they had to depend on Him. They had to trust His Word, that He would provide, and He did, every day. Matthew quotes the rest of the verse: “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Would you rather have a tent full of bread over God’s promise to give daily bread? Note: “Your word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against You” (Psalm 119:11). The Word is a shield, a light, and food. Deuteronomy 8:3 affirms it’s a type of food. The Word was part of Jesus’ arsenal. How much more do we need the Word for as food and sword against the evil one? The deeper point is stronger than “know your Bible”: all three replies to temptation come from Deuteronomy 6–8, Moses' sermon to Israel about their wilderness testing. Jesus isn't reaching for random proof-texts; He's consciously standing where Israel stood, forty days for their forty years, retaking Israel's exam and passing it. The LORD tested them to know what was in their hearts, whether they would obey or not (Deuteronomy 8:2). It was a battle of wills. The devil wanted Jesus to act on His own will instead of His Father’s. Conclusion Whose will wins? That was the battle, and it is still the battle. Jesus passed the test that Adam failed in a garden of plenty and that Israel failed in the wilderness. The devil wanted Jesus to act on His own will; the Son would live on nothing but His Father’s Word. Don’t let the devil convince you that he can get you a good thing faster than your Father in heaven. We know we can’t eat devil’s food, but we are tempted to get good things that it seems God is slow to give. Think: a spouse, vindication of your reputation, fruit from sowing and sacrifice. So for your own battles, two things: You don't get the devil himself, thank God. You might get hellish trouble, trust God. And trusting God in the trouble is not the easy road. Resisting is the only way to find out how strong temptation is. “No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.” (Mere Christianity) Jesus resisted to the very end, so He is the only one who knows temptation’s full strength, and He is the one who helps the tempted. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Hebrews 2:18 ESV) Don’t give in, AND, don’t think that being faithful is easy. Follow in the footsteps of the Faithful One. Charge Jesus said that in this world we would have afflicting trouble. He knew what He was talking about. He walked into and against the fiercest storm the devil could hurl at Him. Jesus also said, TAKE HEART, I have overcome the world (John 16:33). Beloved, He is faithful, so walk ...
Transcribe →Wait for It
3w agoTap to summarizeWait for It
Transcribe →The Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch (Pt 2)
4w agoTap to summarizeThe Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch (Pt 2)Or, Sphere Sovereignty, Ordered Loves, and the Nature of RealityWe're back for part two, working through the title that was given to me for a conference talk. We took a whack at the first two protein packed piñatas last week. The Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch Abraham Kuyper’s quote hits it well: "Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not one square inch/[thumb’s-width] in the entire domain of human existence, over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'" The goal continues to be to show how comprehensive our confession of faith is, and to increase our confidence in that confession. Sphere Sovereignty It turns out that Kuyper's famous quote came in an address titled, "Sphere Sovereignty." Convenient! Kuyper was speaking at the inaugural convocation of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1880. In his context, the state funded, and so the state controlled, almost every sphere of life. There was a state church (which Kuyper eventually left and then started a new denomination in 1887, that not only called/installed but paid for their own pastors). Likewise, all education, primary and secondary, was under the state, and so the "free" part in the Free University meant free--before God and uncontrolled by state or church--to study and learn. Because there is a Lord above the state, the state is not sovereign. There are two implications: the state has limits to its authority and jurisdiction the state has direct responsibility to submit to the greater authority, who is the Lord Jesus It's reasonable to question if Kuyper got all his application correct with political pluralism, but this basic principle of the spheres is gold (maybe we could call it, General Equity Kuyperianism, ha). There are three big spheres of authority as made clear in God’s Word: the family, the state, and the church. While Kuyper never gave one complete list of additional spheres, he certainly thought Education, Science, Art, Journalism and Media and Entertainment, Business/Economics, Military, and more were spheres (or worlds) of life that, while overlapping in some ways, all have their own principles and that all answer directly to Jesus as Lord. Some think we’re trying to make the church the Lord of all. But that’s not it. Kuyper started his vocational life as a pastor, but he eventually quit pastoring for other important things. He started a daily newspaper, a university, and a new political party. He was in parliament and then served as prime minister in Holland for a term from 1901-05. He did not get everything right. I mean, he mocked Chiliasts (i.e., Premillennialists, let alone Dispensationalists), can you imagine? But he wore himself out in building and fighting in Jesus' name. From the same talk: [God's sovereignty or man's sovereignty are] the only two mighty antagonists that plumb life down to the root. And so they are worth people risking their own lives for and disturbing the lives of others." The Nature of Reality Though out of order from the title, I think we should consider reality then loves. One of the sincere, but short-sighted, emphases of MacArthurian preaching is what I might call Epistolary Evangelicalism. It's more or less the same narrow vision found in a Desiring God mindset, a 9 Marks movement, the Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition guys. And I get it. Christians are supposed to be devoted to the apostles' teaching (Acts 2:42), and we get that in the New Testament letters. The church is a big deal, the Bible is the only inspired book and ultimate authority. But the Bible is bigger than the epistles. What’s more, the Bible itself says not many should be teachers (James 3:1), which means that it must be possible to be a mature, complete in Christ sort of Christian (Colossians 1:28), and not have that spiritual maturity defined by how you can lead a Bible study. (In fact, those without the calling or gifting to teach would be less Christlike in trying to do so.) I'd add to that, most of our good new worship songs are almost entirely about redemption, which is worth praising God about, amen! But is salvation the end, or are we saved unto better image-bearing in our bodies on earth, being equipped to work and rule in the coming kingdom? I know Genesis 1 was before the Fall, but that is where we learn the story of nature's beginning. What is the most significant word in the creation account? You could make a case for the word "day," but I think more significantly is the word "good" (7x). We've got some Christians today arguing that family/spouse/kids are not good, that they are idols. We've got Christians who act like God was wrong to give us bodies, or extreme cases of professing Christians questioning God-given gender and sexuality. We've got Christians failing, in rebellion, to call good what God calls good. The nature of reality is that nature is real, nature is God's, nature is good. Reality is not limited to good being only in the invisible or heavenly. While adjusting for certain distinctions, the blessings of God as sung about in the Psalms are not so heavenly minded to refuse to recognize earthly good. (“Blessed the Man That Fears Jehovah”) We take the comments about creation as a display of God's power, which is right (Romans 1:20), but not complete. We should also take the comments about creation as a revelation of God's pleasure. He has power to sustain the cosmos, and He has sustained interest in it. God likes telling the sun every morning, “Come up again!” (Per Chesterton). The Lord cares how the grass grows in fields no man can see and how hair stops growing in places a man himself can’t see. The Lord is interested in how generations honor each other, how neighbors, even in a nation, love each other. He likes how many hours are in a day, what type of clouds form in the sky. He likes thumbs that strum guitar strings, He likes thumbs that hold pencils and hit the spacebar, He likes thumbs that snap and pinch and hold paintbrushes and put bandaids on your kids knees. Ordered Loves As image-bearers made to reflect God, what does "likeness" to God look like? Or we could ask more specifically for believers, what does it mean to be "complete in Christ"? Confess that He is Lord, submit to Him as Lord, yes, and amen. And there is more. Think about the great ministry mission in Colossians 1:28, to preach Christ, teaching and warning in all wisdom so that we and our people are like Christ. It’s near the end of the same chapter that includes verses 15-17. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15–17 ESV) Why does that context matter? I used to think that it proved His preeminence, so you better pay attention, and that it demonstrated His power, so you better pay attention...or else. It’s a brute fact of brute force. Those things are true, but isn’t it also to reveal what He cares about? If we are to be complete in Christ, won’t we care about what He cares about? We are finite, so we’ll never quite catch up. But our delights ought to grow in extent and depth more and more. This is not exactly what ordo amoris refers to, but it is not unrelated. Ordo amoris means “order of love.” The idea is often credited to Augustine, who did use the phrase (and who was also one of the first and most influential Christian dualists, ironically, prioritizing the “spiritual” over the material). But it means there is a hierarchy of affections. We should love things according to their true worth in relation to God. “it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love.” (City of God, Book XV, Chapter 22) Augustine’s Latin is: virtus est ordo amoris. Love God first, love those who are in front of you next: your wife and your family and your neighbor, even your enemy. Love the ones whose sin affects you. Love the ones in the spheres God has you in. Love the ones you can put your thumbs on. Love local politics first, then your own nation's. Conclusion The Lordship of Christ over every thumb's-width matters as a first principle, and it’s comprehensive. So as a first application, remember that you answer to Christ in every sphere of life because He made the world to work one way not another, and He is causing our love to abound still more and more in reflection of His own cares. You not only are allowed to love what Christ loves, you must. The ground is His, every thumb’s-width is His, and we are with Him. This is what drives courageous Christians for battling and building. Charge Don’t punt your loves. You will be tempted not only just to go through the motions, you will be tempted to see the weight of the glory of loving what God loves and think it too heavy. Christian, it is what He made and saved you for. Love the Lord, love all the things of the Lord. Benediction: Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abou...
Transcribe →The Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch (Pt 1)
Jun 14Tap to summarizeThe Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch (Pt 1)Or, Sphere Sovereignty, Ordered Loves, and the Nature of RealityThis (almost puritanically long) title was given to me for a talk at a conference, which I am glad to take a swing at. By my count there are at least five parts in the title that demand our attention, and, if we do it right, our affections. The five parts are like five piñatas bursting with some kind of smoked meat; it'll be hard not to hit something tasty and full of protein for our faith. So the goal for what I'm about to say is to show how comprehensive our confession of faith is, and to give us confidence in that confession. Second Introduction It will take us two weeks to knock the piñatas down, and before the main course meat, I do want to give us a sort of shish kebab appetizer. Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 3:22–4:1 ESV) A few observations. The theology we’re talking about—about the Lordship of Christ—affects how we see reality, and it is practical for our most mundane, and potentially frustrating, work on earth. the Lord is always attentive, not only when others aren’t watching, but even when others can’t see our hearts, and this is not a threat, it is good. the Lord has given, and upholds, different assignments in our relationships (and consider the entire paragraph, 3:18-4:1), and this is not a punishment, it is good. everyone answers to the Lord, servant and master, which means we can always please Him whether or not the other human is pleased, and this is not a burden, it is good. the motivation for our work transcends what we can see immediately in front of us, and this is not a hindrance, it is good. One relationship is determinative above all, our relationship to the Lord Christ. He cares directly. This is given as encouragement. Paul’s point wouldn’t be as relevant if everything was going great. Knowing that Jesus is Lord means we can deal with directions from (lawful) authorities that we think are dumb, and not feel the need to be dismissive or discouraged. The repetition/reminders that Christ is Lord would almost be obnoxious, except we need this kind of reminding. This is truth that does good work for slaves, and by application for everyone else. The Lordship of Christ These are fighting words. Jesus is Lord. It is the most basic confession of the Christian life. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). In context, in first-century Rome, this claim was a political heresy. Jesus rules over Caesar. The promise of salvation for our sins and eternal life in Jesus is good news, and it's also good news that Jesus is the Lord of lords. A few decades ago, in our 20th/21st century context, the statement that "Jesus is Lord" was a controversial statement among Christians. John MacArthur was at the forefront of the Lordship Controversy, "unleashing one verse at a time" to show that Jesus rules over our individual lives (The Gospel According to Jesus came out in 1988). It is as obvious as the Great Commission; Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, and to be His disciple requires learning "to keep/obey everything He's commanded" (Matthew 28:18, 20). Friends, it is not fantastic that in the church we've had so many pastors and theologians arguing against Jesus' lordship as if somehow this ruins grace. That's affected two things. First, it's tended to narrow the definition of grace to mean a covering for sin alone instead of a covering and a catalyst for obedience. Second, it's tended to imply that Christ only cares about a narrow portion of our hearts. But since Jesus is Lord, there are no neutral spaces, in our hearts, or homes, or anywhere under heaven, which is, you know, a big area. It's actually been a lot of effort to get Christians to stop acting like there are religious and other compartments in their personal lives, and so it shouldn't surprise us that there are Christians acting like there are a bunch of public parts in culture where Christ doesn't matter. Some of us have even convinced ourselves that there are areas of public life where Christ doesn't belong. Do we really need Jesus to do math or practice medicine? (If the state is Lord, then 2+2=5 might be the new math.) The price of oil is the same for Christians and Muslims and atheists, right? Aren't science and faith as un-mixable as oil and water? Doesn't religious liberty mean that we should be left alone to talk about Jesus when we want, but not that we should want to talk about Jesus when it comes to defining religious liberty in the first place? This was what I thought as a young Christian and as a young pastor. I got through seasons at three Bible colleges and graduated from the Master's Seminary still thinking that the lordship of Christ was relevant for my soul/the souls of men and irrelevant, maybe even unhelpful, almost everywhere else. Over Every Square Inch Little did I know how much this quote/phrase would cause me so many and better problems. Who knows how many times you've heard it. I remember first hearing "every square inch" late in 2004 in a message that John Piper gave about “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ.” I used the quote myself in a sermon about Solus Christus a few months later. It’s a quote from the Dutch pastor/politician, Abraham Kuyper. It's quite a quote, and there is a solar system worth of suns that shine from it. "There is not one square inch in the entire domain of human existence, over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'" (488) That is good; that'll preach. It's also just the second half of the original sentence, and also, it's not a great translation. The sentence begins: "Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not one square inch..." Hermetic means airtight or watertight, so all our thoughts can't help but touch all our other thoughts (there are no disconnected or isolated thoughts, let alone neutral ideas). George Camp was the first to translate this from Dutch into English, and it was picked up and repeated by some mid-20th century theologians, but it is a disservice. I happened upon the better translation in 2011 in a footnote in the introduction to a book by Kuyper about worship. I can't stop thinking about it. Our "one square inch" is the Dutch phrase een duimbreed (pronounced: "uhn-DOYM-brayt"). In God’s providence we have a lady who was born in Holland and raised speaking Dutch, and she and her sister were having dinner at our house the week I first read the footnote. Trying to not give anything away, I asked them to tell me what een duimbreed means. Before using any words, one of the sisters held up the thumb on one hand, and with her other hand pointed back and forth, from one side of the thumb to the other. I said, "so, a thumb's-width?" She said, yes, exactly. There is not one thumb's-width in the cosmos that is not claimed by Christ. A little further investigation has revealed that een duimbreed is often part of a Dutch idiom that is similar to our phrase, "wouldn't give/budge an inch." It's not just a measurement, it's militant, it's fighting words. The entire field is Christ’s, and He doesn’t yield any part. "Square inch" is fine, but as the kids say, meh. An inch doesn't exist, it's a way to measure things that exist. A thumb exists. It's meat and blood and bones. You have never picked up anything that Christ doesn’t own, or thumb-texted anything that Christ does not govern. Trump has never given a rogue thumb's up. Presumably Jesus never hit His thumb with a hammer even as an apprentice carpenter to Joseph, but our Lord Himself has thumbs. He knows and claims every thumb and thumb's-width in creation. (For more verses that establish this, just without the use of the word “thumb,” think John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, Romans 11:36, Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 24:1). I am emphasizing this because the sovereignty of God is easy to keep in two dimensions. The category is up in the clouds with Plato's perfect ideals, and less in a handful of Aristotle's dirt. I did not grow up a Calvinist, but when I did ask Calvin into my heart (that’s just a fun way to say it, not a soteriological confession), I was still a dualist. I have preached Kuyper's quote to honor Christ's lordship without actually honoring the fullness of Christ's lordship. No more! The truth of this is exhilarating. It is as exhausting as it is exhaustive. It means that what you do with your thumbs matters, not just when you're flipping pages in your Bible. Conclusion Do you happen to know the context of when Kuyper said this? More about this next time. But these truths are gifts to increase our thankfulness. “You are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:24). Charge What we believe fuels how we behave...
Transcribe →The Lordship of Christ Over Every Square Inch
Jun 14Tap to summarizeThe Lordship of Christ Over Every Square InchOr, Sphere Sovereignty, Ordered Loves, and the Nature of RealityThis (almost puritanically long) title was given to me for a talk at a conference, which I am glad to take a swing at. By my count there are at least five parts in the title that demand our attention, and, if we do it right, our affections. The five parts are like five piñatas bursting with some kind of smoked meat; it'll be hard not to hit something tasty and full of protein for our faith. So the goal for what I'm about to say is to show how comprehensive our confession of faith is, and to give us confidence in that confession. Second Introduction It will take us two weeks to knock the piñatas down, and before the main course meat, I do want to give us a sort of shish kebab appetizer. Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 3:22–4:1 ESV) A few observations. The theology we’re talking about—about the Lordship of Christ—affects how we see reality, and it is practical for our most mundane, and potentially frustrating, work on earth. the Lord is always attentive, not only when others aren’t watching, but even when others can’t see our hearts, and this is not a threat, it is good. the Lord has given, and upholds, different assignments in our relationships (and consider the entire paragraph, 3:18-4:1), and this is not a punishment, it is good. everyone answers to the Lord, servant and master, which means we can always please Him whether or not the other human is pleased, and this is not a burden, it is good. the motivation for our work transcends what we can see immediately in front of us, and this is not a hindrance, it is good. One relationship is determinative above all, our relationship to the Lord Christ. He cares directly. This is given as encouragement. Paul’s point wouldn’t be as relevant if everything was going great. Knowing that Jesus is Lord means we can deal with directions from (lawful) authorities that we think are dumb, and not feel the need to be dismissive or discouraged. The repetition/reminders that Christ is Lord would almost be obnoxious, except we need this kind of reminding. This is truth that does good work for slaves, and by application for everyone else. The Lordship of Christ These are fighting words. Jesus is Lord. It is the most basic confession of the Christian life. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). In context, in first-century Rome, this claim was a political heresy. Jesus rules over Caesar. The promise of salvation for our sins and eternal life in Jesus is good news, and it's also good news that Jesus is the Lord of lords. A few decades ago, in our 20th/21st century context, the statement that "Jesus is Lord" was a controversial statement among Christians. John MacArthur was at the forefront of the Lordship Controversy, "unleashing one verse at a time" to show that Jesus rules over our individual lives (The Gospel According to Jesus came out in 1988). It is as obvious as the Great Commission; Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, and to be His disciple requires learning "to keep/obey everything He's commanded" (Matthew 28:18, 20). Friends, it is not fantastic that in the church we've had so many pastors and theologians arguing against Jesus' lordship as if somehow this ruins grace. That's affected two things. First, it's tended to narrow the definition of grace to mean a covering for sin alone instead of a covering and a catalyst for obedience. Second, it's tended to imply that Christ only cares about a narrow portion of our hearts. But since Jesus is Lord, there are no neutral spaces, in our hearts, or homes, or anywhere under heaven, which is, you know, a big area. It's actually been a lot of effort to get Christians to stop acting like there are religious and other compartments in their personal lives, and so it shouldn't surprise us that there are Christians acting like there are a bunch of public parts in culture where Christ doesn't matter. Some of us have even convinced ourselves that there are areas of public life where Christ doesn't belong. Do we really need Jesus to do math or practice medicine? (If the state is Lord, then 2+2=5 might be the new math.) The price of oil is the same for Christians and Muslims and atheists, right? Aren't science and faith as un-mixable as oil and water? Doesn't religious liberty mean that we should be left alone to talk about Jesus when we want, but not that we should want to talk about Jesus when it comes to defining religious liberty in the first place? This was what I thought as a young Christian and as a young pastor. I got through seasons at three Bible colleges and graduated from the Master's Seminary still thinking that the lordship of Christ was relevant for my soul/the souls of men and irrelevant, maybe even unhelpful, almost everywhere else. Over Every Square Inch Little did I know how much this quote/phrase would cause me so many and better problems. Who knows how many times you've heard it. I remember first hearing "every square inch" late in 2004 in a message that John Piper gave about “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ.” I used the quote myself in a sermon about Solus Christus a few months later. It’s a quote from the Dutch pastor/politician, Abraham Kuyper. It's quite a quote, and there is a solar system worth of suns that shine from it. "There is not one square inch in the entire domain of human existence, over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'" (488) That is good; that'll preach. It's also just the second half of the original sentence, and also, it's not a great translation. The sentence begins: "Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not one square inch..." Hermetic means airtight or watertight, so all our thoughts can't help but touch all our other thoughts (there are no disconnected or isolated thoughts, let alone neutral ideas). George Camp was the first to translate this from Dutch into English, and it was picked up and repeated by some mid-20th century theologians, but it is a disservice. I happened upon the better translation in 2011 in a footnote in the introduction to a book by Kuyper about worship. I can't stop thinking about it. Our "one square inch" is the Dutch phrase een duimbreed (pronounced: "uhn-DOYM-brayt"). In God’s providence we have a lady who was born in Holland and raised speaking Dutch, and she and her sister were having dinner at our house the week I first read the footnote. Trying to not give anything away, I asked them to tell me what een duimbreed means. Before using any words, one of the sisters held up the thumb on one hand, and with her other hand pointed back and forth, from one side of the thumb to the other. I said, "so, a thumb's-width?" She said, yes, exactly. There is not one thumb's-width in the cosmos that is not claimed by Christ. A little further investigation has revealed that een duimbreed is often part of a Dutch idiom that is similar to our phrase, "wouldn't give/budge an inch." It's not just a measurement, it's militant, it's fighting words. The entire field is Christ’s, and He doesn’t yield any part. "Square inch" is fine, but as the kids say, meh. An inch doesn't exist, it's a way to measure things that exist. A thumb exists. It's meat and blood and bones. You have never picked up anything that Christ doesn’t own, or thumb-texted anything that Christ does not govern. Trump has never given a rogue thumb's up. Presumably Jesus never hit His thumb with a hammer even as an apprentice carpenter to Joseph, but our Lord Himself has thumbs. He knows and claims every thumb and thumb's-width in creation. (For more verses that establish this, just without the use of the word “thumb,” think John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, Romans 11:36, Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 24:1). I am emphasizing this because the sovereignty of God is easy to keep in two dimensions. The category is up in the clouds with Plato's perfect ideals, and less in a handful of Aristotle's dirt. I did not grow up a Calvinist, but when I did ask Calvin into my heart (that’s just a fun way to say it, not a soteriological confession), I was still a dualist. I have preached Kuyper's quote to honor Christ's lordship without actually honoring the fullness of Christ's lordship. No more! The truth of this is exhilarating. It is as exhausting as it is exhaustive. It means that what you do with your thumbs matters, not just when you're flipping pages in your Bible. Conclusion Do you happen to know the context of when Kuyper said this? More about this next time. But these truths are gifts to increase our thankfulness. “You are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:24). Charge What we believe fuels how we behave; ideas...
Transcribe →The Son of His Love
Jun 7Tap to summarizeThe Son of His LoveOr, Defining the RelationshipsThe last half of Luke 3 gives us the briefest account of Jesus' baptism and the longest list of Jesus' family tree. We might want the baptism part to be more extensive, we might want the genealogy part to be in an endnote, an appendix, a part of the book you don't feel guilty about not reading while still being able to say that you've read the whole thing. But both sections mean something, and both have significance. All four Gospels give an account of the baptism. It takes place at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Luke emphasizes more what happens after the baptism. Only Luke and Matthew provide genealogies; Matthew starts his Gospel by establishing Jesus as the end of the chosen line through Abraham and the royal line through David. Luke starts with Jesus and works backward all the way to the beginning. Both sections define Jesus’ relationship to God, as well as His relationship to man. He is the Beloved Son, the better Adam. Divine Affirmation: the Beloved Son (verses 21-22) John the Baptist is not done working, but Luke is done mentioning him. John was the one baptizing all the people, and we know that John was the one who baptized Jesus from the other Gospels. Luke moves the focus from John to Jesus, and moves the focus from the immersion in the river and to the announcement from heaven. What was the purpose of Jesus being baptized? Matthew’s account includes that Jesus said, “thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). He didn’t need to repent, He had no sin that needed forgiveness, but He did identify with Israel and with their need. Jesus had been baptized, and now He was praying. Maybe the least appreciated part of Jesus' life on earth was how much He prayed. Reading ahead in Luke, we find Jesus praying at key moments, which is only surprising if we forget that He was praying at all kinds of moments. What was He praying? Luke doesn't say. But heaven responds to Jesus' praying on earth. First, the heavens were opened, always a dramatic sign, and then the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove. It is the same Holy Spirit mentioned by John in Luke 3:16, but this isn't the Stronger-One baptizing others with the Spirit, the Spirit is coming on to Him. The language connects to Isaiah 42:1. Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1 ESV) I've yet to read a satisfactory conclusion on why a dove. After the Gospel accounts the dove has been used as a symbol for the Holy Spirit. Luke emphasizes the adverbial analogy, the manner of descending was graceful. Other writers suggest more the adjectival analogy, the appearance had a bird-form. Why a dove? Apparently, because. The Spirit descended and at the same time a voice came from heaven. The voice is not the Spirit. And based on the content of what the voice says, we identify the voice as of God the Father. He says, "You are my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased." Or we could read it, “the Son of mine, the beloved” (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός). Compare to a different Greek construction in Colossians 1:13, “the Son of his love” (τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ). All three Persons of the Trinity together in one scene. Who was this Trinitarian display and declaration for? The last time we heard from Jesus was 18 years ago. He was 12 years-old, He knew He was supposed to be caring about His Father's business in His Father’s house (Luke 2:49). Whatever it looks like for God to talk to God, the Persons with each other, the Son knew His role. The Father and Son had already talked about the mission. But isn't it reasonable to think that the Son already knew the Father loved Him and delighted in Him? Was Jesus tempted to doubt it? There is nothing wrong with a paternal exhortation, even a public one. And there is also something powerful about paternal joy. A public display of affection is not useless for Jesus and of great use to us. If the hearts of fathers and children are to be turned to each other (Luke 1:17; Malachi 4), wouldn't it look something like this? Fathers, be easy to please, even if hard to satisfy. Your son isn't Jesus, but you could do worse than imitate your Father in heaven. Human Representation: the Better Adam (verses 23-38) On one hand, there are no "fun" inserts in this list. It's just 77 "son of"s in a row. Luke's readers might not have also had Matthew's list (Matthew 1:1-17) to compare to like we do, which for us does provide some edification. But the direction Luke takes and the location of his list do mean something. Why put the list here? Matthew put it before his account of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. The list which goes through David (Luke 3:31) would have fit nicely before or after Luke's account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, "the city of David." But putting the genealogy here makes us deal with Jesus' fathers. He is God's Son (verse 22), He is Joseph's son (verse 23), which we know is by way of adoption. He was the son (as was supposed), of Joseph. Joseph took care of Jesus as his own. He took Jesus to the temple for His dedication (Luke 2:22), he took Jesus to the temple for Passover (Luke 2:41). Joseph taught Jesus his trade as a carpenter. To those who hadn't heard about how Mary got pregnant, Joseph appeared to be Jesus' dad. But the very next name after Joseph, and actually the 40 names between Joseph and David, are all different than the names Matthew has. What gives? There are a couple legitimate options. First, it could be that Joseph's father, identified as “Jacob” in Matthew 1:16, died and his mom remarried a man named “Heli” who was also in a different line of David’s sons, through Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5) rather than Solomon. The only reason for Luke to use this list of a “stepfather” would be a prophetic fulfillment about Jeconiah/Coniah (a name found in Matthew 1:11), a descendent of Solomon, who was cursed: "none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:24-30, especially verse 30). Heli's ancestry avoided the curse on Jeconiah, but still went back to David. But the curse is also avoided with the second option. The more reasonable answer is that this list traces back through Mary’s line. The primary objection is that her name isn’t mentioned, which is actually something. But Luke has been emphasizing Mary since the start. Luke includes the angel’s announcement to Mary, Simeon’s prophecy to Mary, Mary is treasuring things in her heart. The as was supposed in verse 23 leaves open not just the virgin birth, but that Heli was Mary’s father. It’s even possible that Heli had no male heir, adopted Joseph as his “son.” So Jesus had David’s royal legal status through Joseph, and Jesus had David’s royal blood through Mary. Of course Mary isn't named. That is indisputable. But the as was supposed means more than just household appearances. It allows that Heli is Jesus’ grandfather, Mary’s father. whether or not Heli took Joseph as his legal heir. Unlike Matthew who starts in the past with Abraham, Luke starts in the present and goes all the way to the beginning. The names from verses 32-34 are basically the same as found in 1 Chronicles 2:1-15 and Ruth 4:18-22. From verse 35, the lists are found in Genesis 11 and 1 Chronicles 1. Jesus is not just the seed of Abraham, He is not just the son of David, He is the second and better Adam. He is Son of God and Son of Man. These are details that Luke "followed...closely" and put into his "orderly account" (Luke 1:3) so that we could have "certainty" (Luke 1:4). By working in this direction, Luke finishes with Adam. The next scene (Luke 4:1-13) is Jesus being tempted by the serpent, the devil. Not to give too big a spoiler, Jesus will do what Adam didn't. He will pass the test, and so He will restore what Adam broke. So when He began His ministry He was about thirty years of age (verse 23). Conclusion Jesus is the Son of God, He is the Son of Man. The Father affirms His pleasure in the Beloved at the beginning, and will do so again at the Transfiguration (Luke 9:35). His relationships are defined: the Beloved Son to the Father in heaven, the better Adam among men on earth. The genealogy isn’t irrelevant minutiae, it’s the credentials of Jesus to save us from our sin in Adam, delivering us from the domain of darkness. As Christians, we give thanks to the Father who has “transferred us to the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). Praise God, He has adopted us to Himself as sons (Ephesians 1:5)! “He has blessed us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6)! Come behold the wondrous mystery He the perfect Son of Man. In His living, in His suffering never trace nor stain of sin. See the true and better Adam come to save the hell-bound man. Christ the great and sure fulfillment of the law; in Him we stand. (“Come, Behold the Wondrous Mystery”) Charge Beloved, remember, the first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. We have born the image of the man of dust, but by faith we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. The perishable will put on the imperishable because Jesus lives. So live in Him! Benediction: Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one anoth...
Transcribe →The Crooked Will Be Saved (Pt 2)
May 31Tap to summarizeThe Crooked Will Be Saved (Pt 2)Or, When the Word of God Came to JohnWhen the word of God came to John the point was clear: get ready for Jesus. John was the forerunner. He was the turning prophet, turning the hearts of the children of Israel back to God, and through God's Son. John proclaimed repentance, and he practiced a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke introduced us to John's ministry in Luke 3:1-6. He came to work in a crooked context. He came to tell sinners about salvation. He confronted the religious leaders who didn't show signs of repentance or faith. He exhorted those who listened on how to live. In Luke 3:10-17 there are some application questions, an identity question, and then verses 18-20 summarize John's ministry unto death. Pointing the Crooked Straight (verses 10-17) In the first part, three different groups of persons ask John what fruit of repentance looks like. In the second part, the people taken all together wonder if John might be the Messiah. In both parts, John points the crooked straight. Concrete Application (verses 10-14) John didn't reject everyone who desired his baptism. He was baptizing when more of "the crowds came out" to be baptized (verse 7) and he rebuked them. The people who actually listened to John's exhortations, the people in whom God's Spirit was working, were convicted and asked questions about what repentance looked like. “Okay, we accept what you’re saying. Now what are we supposed to do?” John answers nothing "religious.” There's nothing "sacred" or even what we might label "spiritual." There's no need to head back to do something worshipful at the temple, no special sacrifice to do. Fruit of Repentance: Generosity In general the crowds wanted to know, "What then shall we do?" John gives a clear answer, with concrete action. And for our own clarity, we need to remember at least two parts of the context to the answer. John says, give. Give what you have to serve those who don't have; the Haves and Have Nots. The items involve human basics: clothes and food (see 1 Timothy 6:8). The tunic was a layer of clothes next to the skin, what you'd wear under a cloak/jacket. You do not need to give the shirt off your back, but if you have an extra and someone has none, help a brother out. So also with food. Don't let a brother starve if you can help it. In this case words "Be warmed and filled" aren't enough (Jams 2:16). The fruit of repentance is practical, it is also personal. So remember the first part of the context: this is local, not global economics. See a need meet a need is one thing, obedience is required. Watch a YouTube ad about a need on the other side of the planet, maybe there’s a way you can help, but that requires more wisdom. The context is also not a call to economic marxism; we're not sharing common underwear. And remember a second part in context, this is what fruits of repentance look like, not the basis of salvation. John did not proclaim salvation by works. Good and sacrificial works are not a substitute for repentance any more than the liturgical sign of baptism can substitute for repentance. But what's in the heart comes out. The second and third groups are more specific, not just society but certain jobs. They are also jobs that most Jews probably despised. Fruit of Repentance: Honesty Tax collectors just hardly ever catch a break. They must come forward because they wonder if it's even possible to be a repentant tax collector at all. The tax system in first century Israel was layered, and stinky, like fertilizer. A guy would bid for a taxable parish, so to speak. He promised to bring in whatever Caesar wanted, plus some. He had to cover his costs. And he hired collection guys, who had a quota to fill, but there wasn't anyone "watching" to make sure that they only took their fair/fare share. John does not say that a man couldn't do the job, he said do the job honestly. Collect no more than you are authorized to do. You don't have to change the world, you don’t have to argue with your boss about how bad the system is, but you do have to be straight with your neighbor. Fruit of Repentance: Contentment Another group on the do-not-encourage list were soldiers. These aren't Gentile/Roman soldiers, but Jews stationed in various places. They also want to know if it's possible to do their job. And as he did to the tax-collectors, John does not say to get out of the army. They don't have to quit, they do have to quit using their power to shake down the ones they're supposed to be protecting. Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages. They might not make a lot of money, but not trumping up charges to harass and intimidate and steal money from others was a big deal. Be content. From vipers to honorable vocations. Love your neighbor, and do lawful occupations lawfully. Clear Identification (verses 15-17) The vibe was shifting, and people started to wonder if they were living in unprecedented times (they were). Was John the anticipated Savior (he wasn't)? That they were questioning in their hearts doesn't mean no one said it out loud, it more means that it was a deep hope. There were three groups with questions, and now there are three comparisons between John and Jesus. Jesus is stronger, His baptism is better, and He Himself is the Judge. No Comparison in Strength John made clear that he was not just a turning-prophet but a pointing-prophet. Look for the Coming One. He who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. This "Stronger One" is not a formal title, but maybe it should be. He is strong and great. Rabbis taught that even Hebrew slaves shouldn’t mess with another man’s sandals, like we might speak about the stigma of scrubbing public toilets. John says he's not even worthy enough to be that low. No Comparison in Baptism And this coming Strong One will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire, compared to John baptizing with water. The immersion into the life of the Spirit we know now came later at Pentecost, what does the with fire mean? The best option seems to be connected to the illustration in the next verse which refers to two ends. Some of the crooked are saved and given the Spirit, some of the crooked are judged. No Comparison in Judgment There is wheat and chaff. The same activity separates them, and their ends are completely different. The wheat is gathered, the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire. The fire is inextinguishable. The Barn or the Burn Pile, either heaven or hell. This is what John proclaims, it's what the Strong One will produce. A Crooked End (verses 18-20) Here's the end of John's ministry, as Luke prepares us to follow the beginning of Jesus' ministry (see Luke 3:23). John had the gift of exhortation. He kept on urging people. He preached good news, though John didn't have the message of death, burial, and resurrection (as we see in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5). The good news was forgiveness of sins. The good news was fruitful repentance. The good news was in the Strong One. John also spoke to power. Herod divorced his wife in order to marry his brother's (also named Herod, and their dad was Herod the Great) wife, Herodias, making both of them adulterers. John told tax collectors and soldiers how to be righteous in their vocation. Herod had a vocation too, that of a ruler, and his sins were vocational sins: an unlawful marriage, abuse of power, jailing the prophet who confronted him. Herod got the same call to fruit-bearing repentance the crowds got, but he refused it. He stayed crooked to the end. That's why Herod is chaff. Herod locked up John in prison, and John didn't come out alive. John is referenced later in Luke, but he does not appear again. Conclusion Luke’s purpose for the book of Luke (Luke 1:4) is to give certainty that the teaching is trustworthy. This section confirms that John’s message fits with “the way of the Lord” (Luke 3:4), as in, the law of the Lord in loving your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), and in the Lord’s teaching about the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12). We might take it for granted, but John’s exhortations were consistent both directions. The word of God that came to John (Luke 3:2) belongs in the story. The fruit of repentance isn't a superpower, the fruit is a simplepower, power to do the simple things generously and honestly and contentedly. Practical over pietism. Righteous living adds up, not only in your reputation but in your neighborhood. What if a whole city had honest tax collectors and law enforcement who don’t take bribes? Multiply that and you’d get a civilization. That said, righteous living also ruffles feathers, and can cause you to lose your head (as John did). But the Strong One knows, and the winnowing fork is in His hand. Are there common sins in your vocation? Don’t do those. Can you be generous, honest, and content? That’s good fruit. Do you have fruit? Maybe it’s not a show on the internet, but it would be known to your neighbor. The crooked are saved, and the saved walk straight in the way of the Lord. Charge If you were a fruit-bearing tree, you could be absolutely healthy and you’d still only bear fruit one season out of four. Sowing, watering, weeding, wa...
Transcribe →The Crooked Will Be Saved (Pt 1)
May 24Tap to summarizeThe Crooked Will Be Saved (Pt 1)Or, When the Word of God Came to JohnGod saves sinners. He makes the crooked straight. He finds the lost. God purposed to do so, He sends prophets to announce it. The salvation of the Lord is sovereign, it is gracious. Sinners deserve judgment, we all have sinned and have earned God's wrath. We are crooked, but God makes the crooked straight. At the right time, God gave His Word to a man named John who prepared the way of the Lord. He came preaching repentance, he came pointing to the Christ. Between Luke chapter 2 and 3 about 30 years have passed. Luke's account opened with an announcement given to the old priest Zechariah. The angel told him that he would have a son, that he should name his son John, and that his son would "turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God" (Luke 1:16). Here at the beginning of Luke 3 John begins that work of turning. The Word of God came to John (verse 2), and Luke recognized John as the preparing-prophet expected by the prophet Isaiah; prophet anticipate prophet. John proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. We might call his preaching negative, harsh, fire-and-brimstone. But it is also full of the hope of forgiveness, and clear in fruit. God makes the crooked saved. The work of John covers verses 1-20 and we’ll take it in two parts. Today we'll consider the context of John's work (verses 1-6) and the opening confrontation (verses 7-9). A Crooked Context (verses 1-6) John came crying out when the culture was crooked. The word of God came to John when things were a mess. It was a moral wilderness, a religious low point. Verse 1 is long, and unnecessarily long if the only thing Luke needed to establish was the date. A reference to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar is enough to put it on the world timeline. It was about AD 29. Luke names seven men, five in the political sphere and two in the Jewish religious sphere. The first five are sort of like Russian nesting dolls (a fitting illustration used by Garland), and from Caesar to Pilate to Herod and Philip and Lysanias, there are levels and layers of crooked men. Herod is named again in verse 19, a key figure in John's story, bookending this whole section (verses 1-20). A caesar (like a king or emperor) over the empire, a governor appointed by the caesar with regional authority, and three local tetrarchs, rulers over assigned territories though still under Rome’s power. This isn’t just historical information, it’s a jumble of political jurisdiction. Even the two religious guys set a crooked stage. There could only be one high priest at a time, and Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. But Annas was maybe like a mob boss, the one with power behind closed doors. (cf. John 18:13-27). The whole thing was a mess. It was a crooked state, dominated by crooked men. This is when the word of God came to John. John was not a scribe, studying the Law. He was not a priest, following the Law. John was a prophet, proclaiming God's message. He was in the wilderness (verse 2), which is where we last saw him (Luke 1:80). The next verse shows John nearer to the population. But the wilderness was not only a geographical place, it was a symbolic place. He would use wilderness analogies in his preaching (stones, snakes, trees). He proclaimed that it was time to prepare. He proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This is not Christian baptism, and no one today still practices John's baptism. It was a liturgical event that showed a change of mind, which is what repentance means. They needed to change their thinking, to reorient their lives. Since it’s the first time we’re seeing the word in Luke, do you know where our English word "baptism" comes from? It's what's called a transliteration, when you make a new word by taking the sounds of the word in its original language and writing it with the letters of the destination language. Here the the Greek noun is baptisma related to the verb baptizo. It means to dunk, immerse, plunge, put under. It does not mean pour or sprinkle. There are nice Bible guys who say that immerse is not the definition. But John's work around the Jordan let him do full-body dunks in the river. Luke recognized John as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 40:3-5. Matthew and Mark reference one verse, but Luke quotes more. Prepare the way of the Lord. What was Isaiah referring to? Initially he looked to Israel’s return from exile in Babylon. But the glory of the Lord did not re-fill the temple at that time, and the King did not come. The anticipation, and the theme, are still relevant. John cried out. He called for men to get prepared as God was about to work. God was even coming. So get straight (verse 4), and this is what God will do, make the crooked (skolios) straight (verse 5). God is going to save sinners. All flesh is a reference to the global target of the gospel, even as the gospel is the power of God to salvation to the Jew first and then the Greek (Romans 1:16). Confronting the Crooked (verses 7-9) Matthew said this confrontation was specifically with the religious leaders among the Pharisees and Sadducees (see the almost exact message in Matthew 3:7-10). Luke leaves it with crowds. They are Jewish crowds, and they were coming out to be baptized. John calls them snakes, you brood of vipers. It's an image sometimes used in the OT, and not in an inviting way. It pictures snakes fleeing a field on fire, and John thinks that these people know that the fire is coming. What made him think that their hearts weren’t right? How did he know? He was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15), and he may have picked up on their conversations and their vibes. He exhorts them to prove their repentance. This is not just preparing for Jesus, this is pre-cross. Even still, John isn't offering a way to work oneself into salvation. He's saying that real repentance has real fruit. So, straighten up. Those who heard him were thinking to themselves that they were okay because they were part of the right group. But being right with God has never been about genetics, even though sons of Abraham are more responsible because they've had the revelation about the Lord. “Don’t even think that.” God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. The stones are not getting saved in this hyperbole, they are giving birth. The image of the axe...to the root pictures being cut off, cut down, severed, ready for the burn pile. The crowd was full of crooked men. They needed to be made saved. Conclusion John was a prophet preparing sinners to receive the Lord, not a pastor preparing saints to follow the Lord. He was a rough man with a sharp message. Are there any “vipers” at TEC? Do we have those who think they’re good with God because they usually come to church on Sundays? By God’s grace, our flock is not quite in the wilderness. And yet, like the Jews in John’s day, God has given many promises—and fulfillments—that people take for granted. There are many who profess faith in Christ who do not possess Christ, who are not possessed by Him. They do not give attention to the Word of God. Their lives are crooked even if they use the name of Christ. John’s call to repent in Luke 3 is to religious crowds, so do not be surprised if “Christians” need to be saved. What kind of fruit does repentance produce? Verses 10-14 raise that very question, and John gives very concrete answers. We'll look at them next week. God makes the crooked straight. Charge Christian, your life is in Christ. You are in Him, He is in you. You want to see fruit of your faith, and good. So abide in the Vine. Apart from Him you can do nothing. As you abide in Him and as His words abide in you, you will be much fruit, and so the Father is glorified. Benediction: And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9–11 ESV)
Transcribe →His Father's House
May 17Tap to summarizeHis Father's HouseOr, The Son Knew Where He BelongedIn what is arguably the key verse in Luke, Jesus says, “For the Son of Many came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). In this story, the Son of God is “lost,” at least to His earthly parents. They need to find Him, though He says He was right where He belonged. Only Luke includes this story in Jesus’ life. It is also the only text of Scripture in which Jesus Himself speaks before He began His public ministry. Jesus is 12, on the front steps of manhood, an astonishing adolescent. Why did Luke include it? So far angels have witnessed to the identity of Jesus, before and after His birth. Shepherds and strangers have witnessed to the identity of Jesus. And now Jesus Himself speaks about His identity. He knows who He is, where He belongs, who is Father is, and what He was supposed to be doing. It turns out pre-teens can know some things. This story is included so we can know about Jesus, and know those things for certain. It was typical for Jewish boys to begin studying God’s Law in earnest around 12 years old heading toward Bar Mitzvah at 13, affirmed as a “son of the commandment” and so responsible to obey. This is a year before that, and Jesus shows a surprising amount of maturity and understanding. His behavior also reveals significant lack of understanding even from Joseph and Mary. Lost - Not Where the Son Was Expected (verses 41-48) Men in Israel were called to Jerusalem for three feasts every year: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. It's time for the Passover feast in the spring, and apparently Joseph and Mary made it their annual habit to go together. Whether or not they took their son with them on previous trips, Jesus came with them when He was twelve years-old. They stayed until the feast was ended which meant staying for seven days. Then it was time to head home, but Jesus did not leave with them. It was a group trip, a caravan from Nazareth or at least the region. There were family members and friends. If they did not go through Samaria, the trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem was around 80 miles, about a four day journey at 20 miles per day. That's a lot of vulnerability, and going in a group made travel a bit more secure. Luke doesn't say how many were in the group, but it was enough for a 12 year-old to get lost in. (They apparently didn't number off like we do for our Raggant Romps.) Jesus certainly knew that the group was leaving. He'd have been with His parents every night, and they'd have discussed the plans. But in the morning as everyone had breakfast and made final packing choices, the boys must have been playing or doing something, and when the group started out Jesus stayed behind. Joseph and Mary didn't concern themselves about it until finishing a full day of walking (verse 44). They assumed Jesus was just somewhere else in the caravan. But Jesus was not among them, and the relatives and acquaintances couldn't say where He was either. So in the morning they backtracked. By the time they found Jesus it had been three days, counting day one out, day two back, on the third day found. And they found Jesus in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions (verse 46). This is presumably then the third day of Jesus having the conversations. Why didn't He do this while the Passover activities were happening? What was He doing at night, and how did He fend for Himself in terms of things to eat and a place to sleep? He didn’t notice that Joseph and Mary were gone? This may be the nicest way Luke talks about the religious leaders in the whole book. This is the only time he refers to them as teachers, and Jesus is conversing not condemning. Everyone is impressed. They are amazed at what the boy knew and the answers He gave (verse 47). But Mary doesn't ask how He got His understanding, she asks how He could not understand how she and Joseph are feeling? Son, why have you treated us so? (verse 48) “What have you done to us?” A son should know better. They've been worried about Him. It caused them great distress that they didn't know where He was. How can He be so insensitive, even disrespectful? They’ve been “anxiously looking” (NASB). Found - Right Where the Son Belonged (verses 49-52) There might be only one twelve year-old on the planet that could have replied the way Jesus replied and not have it be adding smart-aleck insult to injury. Kids: do not try this at church. We know Jesus did not sin, we see that His parents don't rebuke Him, nor do any of the "teachers." It's not sin, but it certainly is a kind of nerve. It looks aloof, though He's fully aware of where He belongs. We’d expect a son to say something like, “Sorry, mom, I got lost in discussion, and sorry I didn’t tell you where I was.” But instead He said, Why were you looking for me? This has to be rhetorical, not actual. He didn't think that they wouldn't care. Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house? Mary had just said, “your father and I” were looking, and Jesus refers to His other Father. There is also a translation question, though it's more interesting than solving. There is a missing word: “in the … of my Father it is necessary (for me) to be.” There's an article (dative plural), but no (dative plural) noun, and that expects something as understood. One way to understand it, as the ESV, is that Jesus knew He needed to be in His Father's house, so the Temple. Another way to understand it, so the KJV, is that Jesus knew He needed to be about His Father's business, as in, learning and teaching the things of Scripture. Doing the ministry isn't dependent on a place, but being in a place isn't where Jesus stays either. His parents must have understood His words, though they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. Even knowing what we know now, this provokes more questions than it answers. Why now? Why not when He was 11? Or 13? Why does He go home with them after this? What did He do for the next 18 years? Jesus apparently got up, and they apparently started walking, and He followed them home to Nazareth. He was submissive to them. It's not that He was rebellious by staying behind, but they weren't sure. We don’t hear from Him again until He’s 30. As she did after the visit from the shepherds 12 years earlier (Luke 2:19), Mary treasured up all these things in her heart. The last verse in the opening section of Luke's book summarizes the first 30 years of Jesus' life. Jesus kept on growing. This is clearly the human nature, since in His divine nature He was God. Here, in the Second Person of the Trinity in the flesh, He increased in favor with God. Jesus was truly man. He grew. He was twelve and then He was thirteen. He didn't skip childhood, didn't fake adolescence. He lived at home with His parents until He was 30 (though because he’s not mentioned, it seems Joseph passed away sometime during these years). Jesus was truly God. No other boy could say, “My Father” like this. It’s the first explicit Christological self-disclosure on record. The Son knew where He belonged. Conclusion Mary got her first taste of Simeon’s prophecy (2:35), though there is more pain to come. The three days of searching were a quiet rehearsal for a much harder Friday-to-Sunday. Two final comments: You don’t have to be Jesus in order to learn more about and love and talk about and obey God’s Word when you’re 12. For that matter, you don’t have to wait until 30 to “do” ministry. You might not amaze your teachers with your understanding, but you are capable of increasing your understanding. If you have “lost” Jesus, look in the Word. You will always find Him there. Charge Beloved, you can increase in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. You can, and, by God’s grace, you will. Read your copy of God’s Word, read it again and again. Pray to your Father in heaven, pray day and night. Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus. Benediction: [May your] hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2–3 ESV)
Transcribe →Eyes on Salvation
May 10Tap to summarizeEyes on SalvationOr, The Strange Things Strangers SayHere we meet two surprise witnesses, hear a song about global salvation, a warning of personal pain, the praise of a prophetess, and track a twelve-year transition in one verse. Luke has been threading parallel accounts of two boys up to this point. Announcement and announcement, then birth-circumcision-naming and birth-circumcision-naming. But Jesus has been getting more of the attention, we know why, and the rest of Luke 2 adds more. It's been 40 days since Jesus was born, and Joseph and Mary travel with their Son to Jerusalem to fulfill God's law, a fact mentioned three times in verses 22-24. But it's what else happens while they're at the temple that really stands out. Two strangers give witness to this special son, an old man named Simeon and a very old woman named Anna. Before now there were strangers to Joseph and Mary, and afterward they do not appear again. They say strange things, they see things about Jesus not everyone could. Though Luke doesn't quote it, the Law in Deuteronomy 19:15 required a minimum of two witnesses, and these two strangers leave no doubt in their witness. They had no relation, nothing to gain personally, but they gave witness by the Spirit to the salvation of the Lord. Parents’ Obedience (verses 22-24) This is a three-for-one. It's one trip to the temple to satisfy three different requirements. Under the Law a mother was impure for 40 days after giving birth to a son (Leviticus 12:2-6), then she needed to offer sacrifice. In addition, the firstborn was to be presented (Exodus 13:2). But presenting the firstborn didn’t require coming to the temple, so that suggests a third part as Joseph and Mary dedicated Jesus to the Lord’s service (as in 1 Samuel 1-2). The plural of their purification is a surprise, since the father was not considered unclean. But maybe Joseph helped with the bloody delivery and so was included. And here are the famous two turtledoves, as the offering of those who couldn't afford the lamb (Leviticus 12:8). No way that His parents perceived at this point that Jesus was the Lamb. From the beginning Jesus’ parents fulfill the law, and we will see that Jesus perfectly does so Himself. He was “born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). Simeon’s Song (verses 25-35) This guy is a stranger to Joseph and Mary, and there is nothing special about his person. He is not called a prophet or a priest, he is not said to live on the temple grounds, he is not a man of importance in the city. He is an otherwise random dude, living in Jerusalem, but living by faith. The end of verse 25 says that he was waiting for the consolation of Israel. And in a moment it will be clear that the consolation is a person, the Messiah. We sing "Israel's strength and consolation, hope of all the earth, thou art." We read Isaiah 40:1, “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.” Three statements about Simeon and the Spirit: 1) the Spirit was upon him, 2) the Spirit had given him a message, and 3) the Spirit moved him to go to the temple that particular day. The supernatural message is unique. It had been revealed to him that he would not die before he saw the Lord's Christ. How long had he had this revelation? Months? Years? How many people had he told? Family? Co-workers? Kept it silent? How many people thought he was crazy, except for the fact that his reputation was that of being righteous? God, by His Spirit, was giving witness to God the Son through this stranger, and feeding the faith of Jesus' earthly parents. Their obedience to the law is right, but in God’s providence it set them up to meet Simeon. He shows up, walks up, and took their six-week old son up in his arms and started blessing God. Verses 29-32 are the third song in the opening chapters of Luke's book. We’ve read the Magnificat of Mary and the Benedictus of Zechariah, Simeon's song is often called the Nunc Dimittis, the first words in the Latin transition that mean “Now You let depart.” Now, Lord, you are letting your servant depart in peace. Simeon doesn't need to see anything else. The Christ is born, that's what he was promised in his lifetime. His eyes have seen your salvation, even as the angel announced the birth a Savior to the shepherds (Luke 2:11). Simeon had eyes on salvation, and salvation was just a month and half old. What has not been emphasized so far in Luke is the global nature of this saving mission. Verse 32 leaves no doubt: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel. Also connected to the prophesies in Isaiah 40:5 and 49:6. The prophets anticipated not only Messianic rule over all the nations, but worship of the Messiah among the nations. Joseph and Mary's Son would be light, He is truth, He is the one who shows the vanity of idols and in Him is the answer to guilt and the hope of eternity. But the explicit reference to the Gentiles would have sounded strange. Even more so, their Son is the glory for God’s people, the Jews. Quite a song, and Jesus' parents marveled at the stranger's insight. Simeon wasn't done. He blessed them and then said specifically to Mary (perhaps as a hint that Joseph would not be around through the entire time), three things about Jesus: 1) Jesus will divide (fall and rise), 2) Jesus will pierce (Mary’s sorrow), 3) Jesus will reveal (hearts laid open). This is even more strange. There are two groups, those that would fall and those that would be lifted up. It's similar to the Cornerstone, either a thing others tripped and stumbled over, or the foundation upon which building happens. There won’t simply be dismissal of Jesus, He will be a dividing line. As for what would pierce through your own soul, that seems to be the heartache of seeing how her Son would be treated, even to death on a cross. And the third part belongs with the first two, showing especially the enmity toward God and His law and righteousness; Jesus reveals hearts, in particular the hostility in many hearts. These are strange words from a stranger, but Simeon had eyes on salvation. A Prophetess' Praise (verses 36-38) It seems that Simeon was old, such that he anticipated dying, not as if he heard at 27 that he'd not die before he saw the Christ. But this woman is over 100. Verse 36 has a decent amount of detail about her, not that she was well known, but this is the sort of historical record that would be more difficult to invent and get past the fact-checkers. Though the ESV in verse 37 says that she was eighty-four, the Greek really does say that she'd been married for seven years and then she was a widow for eighty-four years. So if she was married around 14, her husband died when she was 21, she's now about 105. Her life, for over eight decades, was given to worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. We don't get any quotes from her, but she also, by the Spirit, happened to come at the very hour, and began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. It’s strange, not only that Anna is a stranger to Joseph and Mary, but even as a woman and a very old widow, that her witness helps make faith more certain. She’d been dedicated in her service to God for 84 years, and now she had eyes on salvation. Simeon waited for the consolation of Israel and Anna speaks to those waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. Conclusion Another transition in verses 39-40. Joseph and Mary were obedient to God's law, and then went back home to Nazareth. As for Jesus Himself, even more than John's growing and becoming strong in spirit (Luke 1:80), Jesus grows and becomes strong, filled with wisdom and with signs of God's favor all over Him. Simeon's eyes saw salvation in his arms. Anna's eyes saw redemption in the temple. Mary's eyes would see her Son on a cross. Salvation has come, and strangers gave witness. It’s not a coincidence it is for the certainty of our faith. Jesus is the Consolation and Redemption. He is the watershed, dividing line. In Him many hope, Jews and Gentiles. Toward Him many hate, Jews and Gentiles. Jesus is the Savior of the world, and still a stone of offense. He is light to the nations and glory for Israel. Charge Give thanks to God for His salvation in Jesus. Live as those who are being saved, live as an aroma of Christ. We are not sufficient for these things, but God gives us His own Spirit in order to lead us and to spread the knowledge of Christ everywhere. Benediction: But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:18 ESV)
Transcribe →