• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Category Archives: Matthew

Thomas Manton, The Temptation of Christ, Sermon 1.a

08 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Matthew, Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Matthew 4, Preaching, Sermon, Temptation of Jesus, Thomas Manton

SERMON I

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil.—

Matt. 4.1

Jesus Tempted, Giovanni Battista

The first step in exegesis is an examination of the grammatical/logical elements of the text:

This scripture giveth us the history of Christ’s temptation, which I shall go over by degrees.

In the words observe:—

1. The parties tempted and tempting. The person tempted was the Lord Jesus Christ. The person tempting was the devil.

2. The occasion inducing this combat, Jesus was led up of the Spirit.

3. The time, then.

4. The place, the wilderness.

Following this outline of the elements, he proposes an observation of what is to be learned from the text:

From the whole observe:—

Doct. The Lord Jesus Christ was pleased to submit himself to an extraordinary combat with the tempter, for our good.

Next he provides the elements of his sermon, which will be both an examination of the elements and an exhortation based upon the same:

1. I shall explain the nature and circumstances of this extraordinary combat.

2. The reasons why Christ submitted to it.

3. The good of this to us.

Now the examination:

I. The circumstances of this extraordinary combat. And here—

Manton looks at the Who, What, How, When

A. The persons combating—Jesus and the devil, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. It was designed long before. Gen.3:15 ….

B. The manner of the combat. It was not merely a phantasm, that Christ was thus assaulted and used: no, he was tempted in reality, not in conceit and imagination only. It seemeth to be in the spirit, though it was real; as Paul was taken up into the third heaven, whether in the body or out of the body we cannot easily judge, but real it was. I shall more accurately discuss this question afterwards in its more proper place.

He emphasizes that this was a historical reality. Even though it involved at one non-physical being (the Devil), we should not consider spiritual engagements as less real. Next he considers, how did this come about:

C. What moved him, or how was he brought to enter into the lists [who arranged for this combat to take place] with Satan? He was ‘led by the Spirit,’ meaning thereby the impulsion and excitation of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. Luke 4:1.

From this, Manton draws a deduction: 

He did not voluntarily put himself upon temptation, but, by God’s appointment, went up from Jordan farther into the desert.

At this point, Manton begins to draw a lesson. He presumes that the life of Jesus is exemplary for the conduct of our life. This is consistent with Peter’s teaching that Jesus’ conduct [at the passion] is exemplary for our life. 1 Peter 2:21. Paul writes that we are being conformed into the image of Jesus. Col. 3:10. Paul applies this in particular to our response to difficulties. Rom. 8:28-29. And so, Manton’s application in this manner is warranted. 

We learn hence:—

1. That temptations come not by chance, not out of the earth, nor merely from the devil; but God ordereth them for his own glory and our good.

He then provides examples, Job 1:12; Luke 22:31; Matt. 8:31

If we be free, let us bless God for it, and pray that he would not ‘lead us into temptation:’ if tempted, when we are in Satan’s hands, remember Satan is in God’s hand.

2. Having given up ourselves to God, we are no longer to be at our own dispose and direction, but must submit ourselves to be led, guided, and ordered by God in all things. So it was with Christ, he was led by the Spirit continually. Luke 4:1; Romans 8:14.

From the factual conclusions, Manton draws a conclusion as to our conduct:

3. That we must observe our warrant and calling in all we resolve upon. To put ourselves upon hazards we are not called unto, is to go out of our bounds to meet a temptation, or to ride into the devil’s quarters. Christ did not go of his own accord into the desert, but by divine impulsion, and so he came from thence. We may, in our place and calling, venture ourselves, on the protection of God’s providence, upon obvious temptations; God will maintain and support us in them; that is to trust God; but to go out of our calling is to tempt God.

And finally an observation as to human will and the power of God:

4. Compare the words used in Matthew and Mark, chap. 1:12, ‘And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.’ That shows that it was a forcible motion, or a strong impulse, such as he could not easily resist or refuse, so here is freedom—he was led; there is force and efficacious impression—he was driven, with a voluntary condescension thereunto. There may be liberty of man’s will, yet the victorious efficacy of grace united together: a man may be taught and drawn, as Christ here was led, and driven by the Spirit into the wilderness.

Manton now come to when this took place.

D. The time.

1. Presently after his baptism. Now the baptism of Christ agreeth with ours as to the general nature of it. Baptism is our initiation into the service of God, or our solemn consecration of ourselves to him; and it doth not only imply work, but fight. (Rom. 6:13, 13:12 ….).  

Which raises the question of why would Jesus be baptized?

….His baptism was the taking of the field as general; we undertake to fight under him in our rank and place.

What is the connection between the baptism and the temptation? The temptation comes immediately upon the baptism and the Father’s recognition of Jesus as the Son (Mark 3:16-17)

2. Thus many times the children of God, after solemn assurances of his love, are exposed to great temptations.…God’s conduct is gentle, and proportioned to our strength, as Jacob drove as the little ones were able to bear it. He never suffers his castles to be besieged till they are victualled.

Why does the temptation come immediately before his public preaching ministry (his prophetical office):

3. … Experience of temptations fits for the ministry, as Christ’s temptations prepared him to set a-foot the kingdom of God, for the recovery of poor souls out of their bondage into the liberty of the children of God: … Christ also would show us that ministers should not only be men of science, but of experience.

4. The place or field where this combat was fought, the wilderness, where were none but wild beasts: … In this solitary place Satan tried his utmost power against our Saviour.

This teacheth us:—

a. That Christ alone grappled with Satan, having no fellow-worker with him, that we may know the strength of our Redeemer, who is able himself to overcome the tempter without any assistance, and to ‘save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him,’ Heb. 7:25.

b. That the devil often abuseth our solitude. It is good sometimes to be alone; but then we need to be stocked with holy thoughts or employed in holy exercises, that we may be able to say, as Christ, John 16:32, ‘I am not alone, because the Father is with me.’ Howsoever a state of retirement from human converse, if it be not necessary, exposeth us to temptations; but if we are cast upon it, we must expect God’s presence and help.

c. That no place is privileged from temptations, unless we leave our hearts behind us. David, walking on the terrace or house-top, was ensnared by Bathsheba’s beauty: 2 Sam. 11:2–4. Lot, that was chaste in Sodom, yet committed incest in the mountain, where there were none but his own family: Gen. 19:30, 31, &c. When we are locked in our closets, we cannot shut out Satan.

Schopenhauer on Happiness.6 (Anxiety; Comparison with Jesus)

30 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Matthew, Philosophy, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anxiety, Arthur Schopenhauer, Happiness, Schopenhauer, Sermon on the Mount

Here he raises something which sounds rather useful, but upon consideration seems to be difficult to apply:

Only those evils which are sure to come at a definite date have any right to disturb us; and how few there are which fulfill this description. For evils are of two kinds; either they are possible only, at most probable; or they are inevitable. Even in the case of evils which are sure to happen, the time at which they will happen is uncertain. A man who is always preparing for either class of evil will not have a moment of peace left him. So, if we are not to lose all comfort in life through the fear of evils, some of which are uncertain in themselves, and others, in the time at which they will occur, we should look upon the one kind as never likely to happen, and the other as not likely to happen very soon.

For instance, we may assume that our philosopher was an anxious fellow and thus found himself worrying about things which may never happen. Or perhaps he had such a friend: the advice to “calm down” makes sense. The mere act of being anxious does nothing to solve a problem; one has an unpleasant sensation currently, but the current sensation does nothing to change tomorrow.

However, preparing for contingencies is wise. By preparing today, perhaps I can avoid an event tomorrow.

Moreover, how can we really know the probabilities of future events? Sure some things are less likely, but unlikely things happen.

Moreover, what about things which I know will happen? Should I be worried about such things.

His advice is: If it’s going to happen, it will. You don’t know; you can’t prepare; so don’t worry. I think a further part of advice is tied to his conception of the world. If the world is effectively random (in the sense that I can’t really know what will happen, and what will happen follows no prescription other than the laws of physics), a constant anxiety is a “natural” result.

In response, Schopenhauer offers only, look you’re just making yourself feel bad. That is true. But is sort of like walking blindfolded, knowing that at some moment, someone is going to hit in the head with a baseball bat. Sure feeling bad right now won’t stop the bat, but it is really hard to walk into such an end.

It makes a certain amount of “sense”, but it seems terribly difficult to maintain equanimity. The trouble with his advice is that the emotion is a proper interpretation of the world. The problem is not the interpretation, it is inability to alter the bad outcome.

There is no basis to not be anxious other than it feels bad.

Compare that with

Matthew 6:25–34 (ESV)

 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

Here, the command to not feel anxious is similar to Schopenhauer, on the ground that current anxiety does no good. But the counsel is based upon an assertion of providence: God is taking care of what is happening. The trouble with anxiety is not that it is ineffective. The trouble with anxiety is that it is irrational: the world is not running at chance.

Thus, at the level of immediate psychological sensation, the advice is similar; but the ground of the advice is fundamentally different. Schopenhauer: the world is random, so why concern yourself with what will happen? Your current bad feelings are warranted, but won’t help.

Or, you’re in a car which is careening out of control down a hill. You’ll crash in a few minutes or a few seconds; don’t know which. Being afraid makes all sorts of sense; but it really won’t slow down the car. Your emotion is rational, but ineffective.

Jesus: the world is under the providential control of God, so why are you worried? Your current bad feelings are based upon a misunderstanding of the world.

You’re in a car which is being driven by an ultimately skilled driver. There’s no reason to be afraid. Your fear is based upon a misunderstanding; it makes no sense.

 

A Brief Observation on Herod: Irrationality, Sin, Suppression and God

07 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Matthew, Sin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Herod, Irrationality, Magi, Matthew 2, Noetic Effects of Sin, Romans 1:18, Sin, suppression

Anonymous-Artist_The-Magi-Before-Herod-from-the-altar-frontal-of-The-Virgin-with-Roses-c.1350

Something which I had not sufficiently considered about Herod is that he believes. He is not merely responding to a political threat; he is a panic over God. At some point, I may wish to develop this idea: there are two interesting themes here: (1) the irrationality of sin and suppression; (2) the effect of God intruding into human conscious such knowledge has been previously suppressed.

A good parallel here would be Judas & Peter. Anyway, to Herod:

Matthew 2:1–2 (ESV)

 2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

The Magi approach Herod and speak of the one born the King of Israel.  Herod knows about this child. He has heard about the Messiah & he believes this to be true:

Matthew 2:3–6 (ESV)

3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

            6           “ ‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,

are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;

                        for from you shall come a ruler

who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

Despite this knowledge, Herod has apparently put the thought out of his head. Herod is not a decedent of David. To the extent he has taken thought concerning the Messiah, he has realized that the Messiah will replace him.

He goes to the religious authorities and asks them for more information on this child: specifically where will this child be born.

Consider this for a moment: Herod has successfully kept God at a distance from his conscious thought. He knows these things are true, but they are not Herod’s concern.

When God does intrude into Herod’s thought, Herod becomes “troubled.” He has been successfully suppressing the knowledge of God. But when God forces his way into Herod’s conscious life, Herod can only be troubled.

He seeks to figure out how to manage God, by managing the situation. Thus, he needs some information upon which to act: Where is this Messiah. The religious leaders can give him a city, but not a house. For that information, he turns to the Magi:

Matthew 2:7–8 (ESV)

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.”

Before we go on, consider the irrationality of Herod. Yes, he was a famously dangerous and vicious man. But this even portrays a peculiar kind of irrationality. He knows God is doing something right here, right now. God has intruded into his world. God has so controlled history that a child is being born at a particular moment in history and this known even by Magi from the Parthian Empire.

But he thinks he has a play. If he gets to the right house, he will be to kill the child.

This is the bizarre calculation of sin: Paul begins his argument in Romans with the proposition that God in fact knows, and we humans know that God knows and yet delude ourselves into thinking that God won’t know this time.

More consciously this stunt is attempted, the more bizarre it becomes in practice. Herod knowingly wants to kill the promised Messiah. Why does he believe that he’ll be able to outsmart God? How does he think God will let him get away with this?

The gate is narrow — what does that look like?

22 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by memoirandremains in Matthew, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alexander Maclaren, Beatitudes, Poor in Spirit

Brethren, there is only one way into the true and full possession of Christ’s salvation, and that is poverty of spirit. It is the narrow door, like the mere low slits in the wall which in ancient times were the access to some wealth-adorned palace or stately structure—narrow openings that a man had to stoop his lofty crest in order to enter. If you have never been down on your knees before God, feeling what a wicked man or woman you are, I doubt hugely whether you will ever stand with radiant face before God, and praise Him through eternity for His mercy to you. If you want to have Christ for yours, you must begin, where He begins His Beatitudes, with that poverty of spirit.

Alexander Maclaren, The Beatitudes and Other Sermons (London: Alexander and Shepheard, 1896), 8–9.

James Denney, The Deadliness of Slander

04 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by memoirandremains in James Denney, Matthew, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Blaspheme, Historical Jesus, Malice, Matthew 12:31-32, Slander, Unpardonable Sin

From his collected sermons, The Way Everlasting

This sermon concerns the slander of Jesus recorded by Matthew:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Matthew 12:31–32 (KJV 1900).  It discusses what it means to commit the “unpardonable sin.”

This text is striking: Jesus, who came to bring forgiveness of sins, is here stating a sin is not forgivable. To understand this text, we must first we must put aside our false stereotype of Jesus:

The tradition of Christian art has taught us to think of Jesus as living a life of untroubled calm; His countenance in pictures may be pensive or majestic or compassionate, but it is always in repose. Anything strained or overwrought would seem out of place. But here we see that alike upon friends and enemies He made a different impression. He was rapt, as He taught the multitudes, in a lofty excitement. When He encountered those who were regarded as possessed by evil spirits, the Spirit that was in Him reacted with intense vehemence against their delusions and degradation; the Gospels are full of the peremptory and commanding words that He spoke as He set them free. If we think of a scene like the cleansing of the temple, when zeal for His Father’s house consumed Him like a flame; or of His baptism, when He saw the heavens open and heard the Father’s voice; or of the hour when He turned on Peter with the terrible rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan”; we can feel how untrue is that conception of Jesus which represents Him as immovably placid. Perhaps it would be truer to think of Him as habitually rapt, exalted, intense. Certainly this is how we must think of Him on the occasion on which he is presented to us in the text. 

 James Denney, The Way Everlasting: Sermons (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 242–243. Jesus’ ministry was often a shock to those around. Even his own friends and family did not rightly understand him:

31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Mark 3:31–35 (KJV 1900). Denney explains this:

A life and work like that of Jesus must often have seemed baffling to those who were about Him and who had a natural affection for Him. We can understand how His mother and His brothers had a true though misplaced concern for His welfare. If there were a son or a brother in our house to whom the one thing real was the kingdom of God, who broke every earthly tie to give himself completely to it, who spent whole nights on the hillside in prayer to God over it, who was so absorbed in it that he could not find time for his necessary food and apparently did not care, should we not be tempted to think that he needed looking after? No doubt the friends of Jesus should have known Him better than they did. They ought to have had greater sympathy with Him, greater appreciation for His work. They ought not to have made it possible for Him to say, with the bitter accent of experience, “A man’s foes are they of his own household”. But though they sinned in these respects, it was not a hopeless or unpardonable sin. Their hearts were not really shut against Jesus; they were not deliberately and malignantly opposed to His work. I do not say this as though the sin of their speech could be explained away. If they were alarmed on Jesus’ account, they were irritated and annoyed on their own; they were provoked that One who ought to have been able to take care of Himself should persist in causing needless anxiety; and their petulant exclamation, pardonable though it was, was gravely wrong when we remember who was its object. Nevertheless, it was only petulant, not malignant. It was something they could and would be sorry for afterwards; they would repent and it would be forgiven.

244–245.

And then there was the response of the leaders, those whom Jesus rebuked so strongly in our text. They did not merely misunderstand Jesus with misplaced sympathy: they spoke against him. Denney turns to the modern “historical Jesus” research and readers: those who decide to judge Jesus and decide what he may and may not be, according to their own lights:

The friends of Jesus who said “He is beside Himself” had lost for the moment or had not yet attained any real sense of what He was; they spoke of Him as if He were just one of themselves, who in an excess of zeal was like to go off His head. Their attitude is reproduced by a great many people who, without thinking what they are doing, really take the measure of Jesus in their own minds, point out His limitations, assign Him His place, show where and how far He paid tribute to His time,—betray, in short, in their whole relation to Him, the twentieth century’s sense of its own superiority to the first. I am not going to deny that the twentieth century is in many ways superior to the first; nor even that it was part of the reality of our Lord’s manhood that He should be man of the particular age in which He was born, and not of another; but if we cease to feel through all such distinctions that Jesus is the Lord, we shall run great risk of falling into the sin in question. Do not let us consider it a sin of no consequence because it is pardonable. It is pardonable on the same condition as other sins—namely, that it is repented of, confessed, renounced. To

247.

What then was the sin of these leaders to Jesus  “who threatened everything the scribes counted dear.” (249):

It was not the exclamation of men who were irritated at the moment and forgot themselves, so to speak; that could have been repented of and forgiven; it was the deliberate and settled malice of men who would say anything and do anything rather than yield to the appeal of the good Spirit of God in Jesus. This is the blasphemy against the Spirit, the sin which in its very nature is unpardonable. Jesus calls it eternal sin. It is sin which, look at it as long as you may, is never turned by repentance into anything else; and therefore it has no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in that which is to come.

249–250. What then is necessary for this sin today:

The terrible solemnity of these words has oppressed many hearts. People of sensitive conscience have been tormented with the dread that they had committed the unpardonable sin—that without knowing it, or in some hasty but irretrievable word or act, they had placed themselves for ever beyond the reach of mercy. It would be wrong to say anything which encouraged sinful men to think lightly of their sins, but it is surely clear from what has been said already that this fatal sin cannot be committed inadvertently. It is the last degree of antipathy to Christ to which the soul can advance, the sin of those who will do anything rather than recognize in Him the presence of God.

 250. Now perhaps we do not break out in this sin in all its plain manifestation, but there hints and similarities in it when we disparage the good work of the Spirit in others.  “Perhaps we are naturally grasping and mean, and our selfish nature resent the reproof of another’s generosity.” (251). “It is the sin of refusing ot acknowledge God when he is manifestly there, and introducing something Satanic to explain and discredit what has unquestionably God behind it.”

Conversely, “It is a sign of spiritual health when we are quick to recognize and to welcome goodness, and our joy in the appreciation of it is one of the surest indications that we ourselves have a place in God’s kingdom.” 253.

 

 

 

James Denney, Wrong Roads to the Kingdom.2

07 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Ecclesiology, James Denney, Matthew, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Ecclesiology, James Denney, Wrong Roads to the Kingdom

The first post on this sermon may be found here

The Second Temptation entailed an appeal to the spectacular:

Then the devil taketh Him unto the Holy City, and he set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, If Thou art the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee; And in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest haply Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God

Denney explains the heart of the temptation as follows:

The second temptation is of quite a different kind. As Jesus looked out upon the society around Him, He saw that one of the simplest ways of winning ascendency over men was to appeal to their love of the marvellous. If He only dazzled their senses sufficiently they would throng to His feet, and He would be able to do anything with them He pleased….The idea is that miraculous works, dazzling, overwhelming, dumb-foundering, are the basis on which the kingdom of God can be built. Overpower the senses of men with wonders, and you will win their souls for God. This was for Jesus radically false, and it contained a temptation which He steadily resisted. He never worked a miracle of ostentation or display: His miracles had all their motive in love, and it was the love in them which bore witness to God.

James Denney, The Way Everlasting: Sermons (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 195. There is an obvious and direct appeal to the function of the Church:

This temptation also has its lesson for all who are interested to-day in the coming of God’s kingdom. There is always a tendency in the Church to trust to methods which appeal rather to the senses than to the soul, or which are believed to be reaching the soul though they never get past the sense. They may be cruder or more refined, sensational or connected with the symbolic side of worship, but the common character of all is that they fall short of being rational and spiritual.

James Denney, The Way Everlasting: Sermons (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 196. He continues:

How little there is in the Gospels about methods and apparatus! Jesus had no church nor hall; He spoke in the synagogues when He had the opportunity, but as willingly and prevailingly in the fields or by the the seashore, in a boat or a private house. He had no choir, no vestments, no sacraments, and we may well believe He would look with more than amazement upon the importance which many of His diciples now attach to such things. “He spake the word unto them,” that was all. The trust of the Church in other things is really a distrust of the truth, an unwillingness to believe that its power lies in itself, a desire to have something more irresistible than truth to plead truth’s cause; and all these are modes of atheism. Sometimes our yielding to this temptation is shown in the apathy which falls upon us when we cannot have the apparatus we crave, sometimes in the complacency in which we clothe ourselves when we get it and it draws a crowd. This is precisely the kind of crowd which Jesus refused to draw. The kingdom of God is not there, nor is it to be brought by such appeals. It is not only a mistake, but a sin, to trust to attractions for the ear and the eye, and to draw people to the church by the same methods by which they are drawn to places of entertainment. What the evangelist calls “the word”—the spiritual truth, the message of the Father and of His kingdom—spoken in the spirit and enforced by the spirit, told by faith and heard by faith—is our only real resource, and we must not be ashamed of its simplicity.

James Denney, The Way Everlasting: Sermons (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 197–198.

Denney would be horrified were he to see the nonsense and spectacle which is used to draw attention to church. We can see by means of Denney’s sermon that this spectacle is succumbing to the Devil’s temptation.

Here is a video discussion which well addresses this issue:

Matthew 4:1-25 Sermon

20 Saturday Oct 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Matthew, Sermons, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Matthew 4, Sermons

https://memoirandremains.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/matthew-41-25-destroying-the-works-of-the-devil.mp3

Repetitions in the Baptism and Crucifixion

04 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Matthew, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Comparison of Jesus Baptism and Crucifixion, Crucifixion, John the Baptist, Matthew, Matthew 27, Matthew 3

the-crucifixion-philippe-de-champaigne

This is just a tentative list of repetitions. While listening to the story on Good Friday, last, I was struck by “If you are the Son of God” in Matthew 27 — because it was precisely the words of Satan in the temptation. Then I thought of the difference in the sky: it was torn open in the baptism; it was closed in the crucifixion.  Anyway, here are some notes to develop to some day:

Baptism Crucifixion
All Jerusalem went out to see him The crowd before Pilate
Pharisees and Sadducees Chief priests and the elders
John hesitates to baptize Jesus Pilate hesitates to kill Jesus
John warns them to repent Let him be crucified
Even now the ax is laid at the root of the tree His blood be on us
The heavens were opened There was darkness over the face of the land [the heavens were closed]
the Spirit of God descended like a dove and coming to rest on him; My God, My God why have you forsaken me
this is my beloved Son the soldier, truly this was the Son of God.
Satan, if you are the Son of God those who passed by, “if you are the Son of God”
Satan tempts Jesus with bread they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall
Satan tempts Jesus at the temple You who would destroy the temple and in three days build it up
All these will I give you [kingship] the soldiers mock Jesus as king

This is King of the Jews

 

How to become humble

18 Monday Sep 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Humility, Matthew, Uncategorized, Worship, Worship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Beatitudes, humility, Poor in Spirit

Humility flows not from thinking badly about oneself (that is still pride that I am not better); rather it flows from not thinking of oneself. It is not obtained by looking to oneself, but is obtained by looking one greater.  True humility before God and worship are inextricably linked:

Poverty of spirit is born of the conscious meeting with God. It lives by the constant daily, hourly realisation of God. Therefore it keeps a man strong, it makes him stronger than all the self-asserting vaunters who trust in themselves, or in their brains, or their rank, or their money, or their power of making a noise—it makes him strong, because he is always feeling the true source of his strength, always in touch with his Inspirer. He is not casting about wildly to find support in other men’s appreciation of him; the sources of his strength are present to him—they are ever with him; he is and God is—and in his case the unforgotten Voice ever says, “Fear not, for I am with thee, I have called thee by thy name, and thou art Mine.” He cannot vaunt himself, he cannot push himself, he is but an instrument, and an instrument that can only work as long as it is in touch with its inward power; the ‘God within him’ is the source of his power. What can he be but poor in spirit, how can he forget, how can he call out ‘worship me,’ when he has seen the Vision and heard the Voice, and felt the Power of God? Poor in spirit, emptied of mere vain, barren conceit, deaf to mere flattery he must be, because he has seen and known; he has cried “Holy, Holy, Holy,” he knows God, and henceforth he is not a centre, not an idol, but an instrument, a vessel that needs for ever refilling, if it is to overflow and do its mission. His is the receptive attitude; not that which receives merely that it may keep, but that which receives because it must send forth. And so he accepts all merely personal conditions, not as perfect in themselves, but as capable of being transmuted by that inward power, which is his own, yet not his own—his own because God is within him, not his own because he is the receiver, not the inspirer. His cry is ever, “Nevertheless I am alway by Thee, for Thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel: and after that receive me with glory. Whom have I in heaven but Thee: and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.”

Robert Eyton, “The Benediction on the Poor in Spirit,” in The Beatitudes, Second Edition. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd., 1896), 18–19.

Jonathan Edwards and Dale Carnegie

29 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Jonathan Edwards, Matthew, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

coveteousness, Jonathan Edwards, The Kind of Preaching People Want

dalecarnegie-2books220px-jonathan_edwards_engraving

 

It all depends upon how you look at it. The first quotation is from Steven Watts’ Self-Help Messiah, Dale Carnegie and Success in Modern America (2013), page 147:

Carnegey [sic] may even have glimpsed his own future. “He who can tell us how to earn more money, lengthen our lives, better our health, increase our happiness, is sure of an attentive audience,” he wrote. “If you know what people want and can show them that they will get it following your proposals, success is yours.” 

And Jonathan Edwards sermon, “The Kind of Preaching People Want”. Here is an excerpt:

If ministers were sent to direct men how they might fulfill their lusts, they would be much better received than they are now. For instance, if ministers were sent to direct people how they might gratify their covetousness, and to tell them of means by which they might grow rich and get abundance of the world, they would be a great deal better received and harkened to than they are now. They would listen to such directions as these with much greater diligence than they do when the minister directs them how they may get heaven and obtain everlasting riches.

In The Salvation of Souls, edited by Bailey and Wills, pp. 62-63.

And as a bonus, Jesus:

Matthew 6:19–21 (ESV)

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 629 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...