Training of the Twelve: The First and Last

15 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Matthew, Obedience

Tags

A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, First and Last, Laborers in the Vineyard, Matthew, Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:1-16, Obedience, parable, Paradox, reversal, reward, Self-denial, self-denial, Self-Sacrifice, Service, The Training of the Twelve

Immediately following the declaration of reward for those who follow him, Jesus makes the paradoxical promise:

But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:30 (ESV)

Jesus illustrates this proposition with the parable of the “Laborers in the Vineyard”. [1]In the parable, certain workers are hired in the morning for a set wage. As the day progresses, more men are hired without a wage specified (“whatever is right, I will pay you”). When it comes time to make payment, the foreman begins to make payment, starting with the last hired. They are a paid a denarius – the precise wage offered to the first hired workers. When the foreman gets to the first hired workers, they suspect that they will be paid more than the denarius to which they originally agreed. They are paid a denarius, as agreed, and respond with anger.[2]

The owner of the vineyard responds:

14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.” Matthew 20:14–16 (ESV)

Bruce rejects the interpretation that parable means that all believers will receive the same from the Lord on the Last Day[3]. Bruce compares the other parables on work and wages and notes that they plainly state a difference in reward based upon the difference in work. Moreover, in the parable of the Laborers and the Vineyard, the owner makes a substantial differentiation in pay, in that the final workers are paid a far higher rate than those first hired.[4]

What then gives a key to Bruce’s understanding: First, context: the parable begins and ends with the paradox of the reversal of first and last. Second, the heart of the workers: The first hired received a specified wage and showed themselves to be discontent when they were not paid better than others. The last hired went without the promise of a specific return.

From this, Bruce derives the discipleship lesson that service – right service – depends not upon the extravagance or “greatness” of the work performed, but rather the heart attitude, the soul motivation of the worker. The one great in work may be the one last in heart – and vice versa.

Since Jesus gave this instruction to the twelve, we must realize that all believers could fall into this trap. Bruce lists three specific elements which can infest one’s Christian walk:

First to fear:

Those who make sacrifices for Christ’s sake are in danger of falling into a self-righteous mood of mind, when the spirit of self-denial manifests itself in rare occasional acts, rather than in the form of a habit.

Those who make sacrifice for Christ only on occasion are those who do not rightly treasure the service of Jesus. Self-denial crosses our the most immediate desires of our flesh. When it comes only on occasion, we indicate that the glory of God is not our first thought. We will serve – but only sparingly. We will give – but only under compulsion. We will share – but not with unfeigned love.

Second to fear:

There is great danger of degeneracy in the spirit of those who make sacrifices for the kingdom of God, when any particular species of service has come to be much in demand, and therefore to be held in very high esteem.

When the work is held to be esteemed by people – even (or perhaps especially) by people in the church – then the worker will be tempted to do the work to seek the praise of people. God will not reward “service” which seeks human applause.

Third to fear:

The first are in danger of becoming the last when self-denial is reduced to a System, and practiced ascetically, not for Christ’s sake, but for one’s own sake. That in respect of the amount of self-denial the austere ascetic is entitled to rank first, nobody will deny. But his right to rank first in intrinsic spiritual worth, and therefore in the divine kingdom, is more open to dispute. Even in respect to the fundamental matter of getting rid of self, he may be, not first, but last. The self-denial of the ascetic is in a subtle way intense self-assertion. True Christian self-sacrifice signifies hardship, loss undergone, not for its own sake, but for Christ’s sake, and for truth’s sake, at a time when truth cannot be maintained without sacrifice. But the self-sacrifice of the ascetic is not of this kind. It is all endured for his own sake, for his own spiritual benefit and credit.

Bruce thus last out the traps for service and self-denial: Sin and pride can creep into the smallest and most unlikely space:

Lying behind the parable is the thought that we serve in the kingdom of heaven not so much for the reward we receive as for our delight in the service itself. Do we serve willingly and gladly, simply because we love our Lord and Master?

Iain D. Campbell, Opening Up Matthew, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2008), 121.

[1]

While Jesus shifted to a different point in this parable, it was related to his point in his conversation with the rich young ruler and the disciples. Our entrance into heaven depends on God’s grace, not on our righteous works. In the same way, our reward in heaven will be based on God’s reckoning, not our human calculations. Rewards are indeed meritorious, but they are calculated from God’s perspective.

Stuart K. Weber, vol. 1, Matthew, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 317.

[2] Bruce compares this parable with the Prodigal Son, wherein the first hired workers match the elder brother; the last hired, the prodigal:

This parable has at times, rightly, been paired with that of the father and his two sons in Lk. 15:11–32. The point is not identical, but they share the challenge to recognise the goodness of the outcome of the action of the landowner/father. Solidarity plays a greater role in Lk. 15 than in Mt. 20, but in both cases one’s perspective towards what God is now doing is chiefly in focus; what he is doing is good and to be rejoiced in.

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 813.

[3] Compare:

Luke 12:47–48 teaches that there are degrees of punishment in hell; Matt 20:1–16, that there are no degrees of reward in heaven. [9 highlights] Neither of these facts is commonly known or understood in Christian circles. To be sure, every individual will have a highly unique experience before God on Judgment Day (see esp. 1 Cor 3:10–15). But no text of Scripture supports the notion that these differences are perpetuated throughout eternity. [8 highlights] The very nature of grace and perfection preclude such a concept.36 The reason we object to equal treatment for all is precisely the objection of the workers in this parable—it doesn’t seem fair. But we are fools if we appeal to God for justice rather than grace, for in that case we’d all be damned. [9 highlights] Nor will it do to speak of salvation begun by grace but ever after preserved by works. True salvation will of necessity produce good works and submission to Christ’s lordship in every area of life, or else it never was salvation to begin with. But all who are truly saved are equally precious in God’s sight and equally rewarded with eternal happiness in the company of Christ and all the redeemed. Jesus has now finished his answer to Peter’s question of 19:27.

Craig Blomberg, vol. 22, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 304-05.

[4]

D. Brown:—1. True Christianity is a life of active service rendered to Christ 2. God rewards us for this service, though not of merit, but of pure grace. 3. There is a reward common to all laborers, and special rewards for peculiar services. 4. Unreasonable and ungrateful conduct of the murmuring laborers, and the rebuke administered to them on the day of account. 5. Encouragement for those called at a late hour. 6. Strange revelations of the judgment day: some of the first will be last, some of the last first, and some of the greatest note in the church below, will be excluded altogether.

John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 358.

The Training of the Twelve: The Rewards of Self-Sacrifice.4

09 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2 Corinthians 6:1-10, A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Isaiah 54:1-6, John Bunyan, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Self-denial, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve

Finally, what of the gifts as actually received? The gifts as given by Jesus come as a surprise. Matthew records:

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 (ESV)

Peter could have easily envisioned the “new world” as age in which Jesus thrusts out the Romans and rules Israel. But the new world did not come as Peter imagined. Indeed, Jesus first brings the Apostles to be the human instruments for kingdom as seen in the church: this could not have been Peter’s understanding at that time:

⁷ But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. ⁸ Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” ⁹ (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? ¹⁰ He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) ¹¹ And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, ¹² to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, ¹⁴ so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. ¹⁵ Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. Ephesians 4:7–16 (ESV)

And, the in the time to come, certainly there will be a peculiar place for the apostles.

Bruce makes an additional interesting observation concerning the gifts we receive in the present age. This point seems at odds with what we experience. The godly are often persecuted. The apostles were constantly injured by the world

¹ Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. ² For he says, “In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. ³ We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, ⁴ but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, ⁵ beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; ⁶ by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; ⁷ by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; ⁸ through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; ⁹ as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; ¹⁰ as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything. 2 Corinthians 6:1–10 (ESV)

When considered on its face, the promise of Jesus seems bizarre if not simply untrue.[1]

But consider again the promise of Jesus:

who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions,

Consider that last element: “with persecutions”. What connection does that bear to the whole? Bruce suggests that the loss we suffer for Christ will cause to transform the valuation of what we have:

Still it must be confessed that, taken strictly and literally, the promise of Christ does not hold good in every instance. Multitudes of God’s servants have had what the world would account a miserable lot. Does the promise, then, simply and absolutely fail in their case? No; for, secondly, there are more ways than one in which it can be fulfilled. Blessings, for example, may be multiplied an hundred-fold without their external bulk being altered, simply by the act of renouncing them. Whatever is sacrificed for truth, whatever we are willing to part with for Christ’s sake, becomes from that moment immeasurably increased in value. Fathers and mothers, and all earthly friends, become unspeakably dear to the heart when we have learned to say: “Christ is first, and these must be second.” Isaac was worth an hundred sons to Abraham when he received him back from the dead. Or, to draw an illustration from another quarter, think of John Bunyan in jail brooding over his poor blind daughter, whom he left behind at home. “Poor child, thought I,” thus he describes his feelings in that inimitable book, Groce Abounding, “what sorrow art thou like to have for thy portion in this world! Thou must be beaten, must beg, suffer hunger, cold, nakedness, and a thousand calamities, though I cannot now endure the wind should blow upon thee. But yet, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you. Oh! I saw I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the heads of his wife and children; yet I thought on those two milch Kline that were to carry the ark of God into another country, and to leave their calves behind them.” If the faculty of enjoyment be, as it is, the measure of real possession, here was a case in Which to forsake wife and child was to multiply them an hundred-fold, and in the multiplied value of the things renounced to find a rich solarium for sacrifice and persecutions. The soliloquy of the Bedford prisoner is the very poetry of natural affection. What pathos is in that allusion to the Mitch Kline! what a depth of tender feeling it reveals! The power to feel so is the reward of self-sacrifice; the power to Jove so is the reward of “hating” our kindred for Christ’s sake. You shall find no such love among those who make natural affection an excuse for moral unfaithfulness, thinking it a sufficient apology for disloyalty to the interests of the divine kingdom to say, “I have a wife and family to care for.”

Without undue spiritualizing, then, we see that a valid meaning can be assigned to the strong expression, “an hundred-fold.” And from the remarks just made, we see further why “persecutions” are thrown into the account, as if they were not drawbacks, but a part of the gain. The truth is, the hundred-fold is realized, not in spite of persecutions, but to a great extent because of them. Persecutions are the salt with which things sacrificed are salted, the condiment which enhances their relish. Or, to put the matter arithmetically, persecutions are the factor by which earthly blessings given up to God are multiplied an hundred-fold, if not in quantity, at least in virtue.

Such are the rewards provided for those who make sacrifices for Christ’s sake. Their sacrifices are but a seed sown in tars, from which they afterwards reap a plentiful harvest in joy. But what now of those who have made no sacrifices, who have received no wounds in battle? If this has proceeded not from lack of will, but from lack of opportunity, they shall get a share of the rewards. David’s law has its place in the divine kingdom: “As his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike.” Only all must see to it that they remain not by the stuff from cowardice, or indolence and self-indulgence. They who act thus, declining to put themselves to any trouble, to run any risk, or even so much us to part with a sinful lust for the kingdom of God, cannot expect to find a place therein at the last.

I do not deny Bruce’s observation. However, I think there is something more in the promise.

¹ “Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord. ² “Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes. ³ For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities. ⁴ “Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. ⁵ For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. ⁶ For the Lord has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God. Isaiah 54:1–6 (ESV)

If the exchange were merely temporary goods for more temporary goods, then Jesus sounds like a television huckster promising that “God will give you money if you send me money!” Now, Jesus never denies our needs and indeed teaches us to pray for our needs. But a mere promise of more stuff for giving away stuff would cause us to fall afoul of the mercenary charge we considered earlier. However, if the reward were a gospel-reward, the birth of spiritual children and the increase of the household of God, the reward matches the sacrifice and is a natural consequence of the effort.

[1]

Such renunciation finds a hundredfold recompense even νῦν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ. Set in contrast with ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ, this can only mean an earthly recompense, but it is open to question what form that recompense is to take. Quite apart from the dubious desirability of a hundred mothers or children, there is little in the story of the early church or in subsequent history to suggest that Mark could have taken this promise literally; disciples and missionaries have not generally been conspicuous for their material gain. We should think of the less tangible rewards of discipleship, and of the extended family of the followers of Jesus (see 3:34–35).32 These far outweigh the security and enjoyment of possessions and family to which the rich man had returned. But there is an addition to the list which draws attention because of its different form (μετὰ διωγμῶν rather than καὶ διωγμούς); this is the sting in the tail. The disciples’ experience νῦν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ is characterised not only by gain but by persecution (a further indication that material prosperity is not the issue here). What they have already witnessed of people’s response to Jesus gives weight to this warning, and they cannot have forgotten his sombre words in 8:34–38. More such warnings will follow (10:39; 13:9–13).

R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 408.

The Training of the Twelve: The Rewards of Self-Sacrifice.3

08 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A.B. Bruce, Boasting, Cheap Grace, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, humility, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Matthew 10:32-39, Pride, Romans, Romans 4:1-5, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve

Bruce explains the effect of the rewards of God:

These great and precious promises, if believed, would make sacrifices easy. Who would not part with a fishing-boat for a throne? and what merchant would stick at an investment which would bring a return, not of five per cent., or even of a hundred per cent., but of a hundred to one?

The promises made by Jesus have one other excellent effect when duly considered. They tend to humble. Their very magnitude has a sobering effect on the mind. Not even the vainest can pretend that their good deeds deserve to be rewarded with thrones, and their sacrifices to be recompensed an hundred-fold. At this rate, all must be content to be debtors to God’s grace, and all talk of merit is out of the question. That is one reason why the rewards of the kingdom of heaven are so great. God bestows His gifts so as at once to glorify the Giver and to humble the receiver.

Consider how such rewards have the effect of creating the appropriate understanding of both disciple and Master. Human beings are very uncomfortable with the extraordinary weight of the Gospel – the sheer generosity of it – when rightly understood – overwhelms our pride. Consider the matter at some length: We have two minds when it comes to our standing before God. On one end we tend to consider it nothing, a matter we are owed and thus we take following after Christ lightly. Sin is nothing and holiness is nothing and forgiveness without cost – the “cheap grace” mentioned by Bonhoeffer. In fact, this problem appears in a form in the very next episode, where Jesus warns James and John of the cup to be drank.

In Matthew 10:38 (the first mention of the cross in the NT) Jesus lays out the bitter cost of discipleship; it will be everything:

³² So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, ³³ but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. ³⁴ “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ³⁶ And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. ³⁷ Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:32–39 (ESV)

It is overweening pride which causes one to value the gift of God too lightly – and for these people, Jesus lays out the cost: everything. Yet, pride can cause us to fail in the other direction: We think and hope that we can pay something toward the gift of God. It is on this ground that much religion falls: the extraordinary penance of many throughout the world is a matter of extraordinary pride: but God will not sell. He will give bountifully, but he will not sell so that no one may boast:

1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:1–5 (ESV)

Christ will cost us everything and then will reward us with gifts so great as to be beyond anything which we have lost. Indeed, when we see rightly, we will learn that we have lost nothing but our pride.

The Training of the Twelve: The Rewards of Self-Sacrifice.2

07 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, C.S. Lewis, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A.B. Bruce, C.S. Lewis, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Rewards, Sacrifice, Self-denial, The Training of the Twelve, The Weight of Glory

Now, about these rewards: I remember a conversation as an example of the problem of rewards: If we are serving for rewards, does not that make us mercenary? Isn’t it beneath a Christian to serve Jesus to receive a reward?

C.S. Lewis can help here. In “The Pursuit of Happiness: C. S. Lewis’s Eudaimonistic Understanding of Ethic”, David Horner writes of the matter raised by Lewis’ sermon “The Weight of Glory”:

Although Lewis’s subject in this sermon concerns Christian discipleship more generally, he begins with a point about ethics. With characteristic awareness, Lewis knows that the legitimacy of being motivated by the promise of Heaven’s rewards will at first appear to be morally out of bounds for the Christian. The view in most “modern minds” of Christian ethics, and of Christian discipleship more generally, is that doing the right thing is most essentially a matter of self-denial, sacrifice, and “disinterested” fulfillment of obligation. Any positive relation that morality has to our own happiness or well-being-any essential connection between “doing good” and “my good”-is ruled out. Put differently, the “pursuit of happiness,” for us, is not a specifically moral pursuit. At best it is nonmoral, a matter of prudential self-interest: something in which we should perhaps be legally free to engage, in view of the Declaration of Independence, but only as long as our pursuit stays within the bounds of moral obligation. All too often, the pursuit of happiness represents to us something actually immoral: “because I want to be happy” is probably the most common reason we hear-or give-for justifying morally wrong behavior. This way of thinking about ethics, especially Christian ethics, has attained an almost self-evident status among Christians and critics of Christianity (e.g. Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand) alike.

But Lewis disagrees, as does the weight of ancient and medieval thought, both pagan and Christian, up until the late Middle Ages. Classical thinkers viewed happiness as intrinsically connected to ethics; indeed, they considered happiness to be the starting point of all moral thought. Moral action, in their view, is grounded rationally and normatively in the pursuit of happiness. These thinkers were, in other words, “ethical eudaimonists”: they understood moral action to be grounded in the pursuit of eudaimonia (Greek: well-being or flourishing – traditionally translated as “happiness”).

http://www.cslewis.org/journal/the-pursuit-of-happiness-c-s-lewis%E2%80%99s-eudaimonistic-understanding-of-ethics/#_ftn2, accessed September 6, 2012.

This gets to a point: We are so perverted by our thinking that we can believe that happiness is somehow separate from pursuit of God; that the right must somehow be painful and medicine to be good must be bitter.

It is true that the call of God can pinch our flesh. Peter’s comments discloses the pinch, “We have left all.” But Jesus responds with: You have completely misunderstood: You have left a lesser to gain a greater: You have left the temporal to gain the eternal. What does Lewis write:

If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you had asked almost any of the great Christians of old, he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative idea of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not thik this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by an offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.[1]

Lewis goes onto explain that a reward which is naturally connected to the activity is no mean and base desire, but rather exults the action:

We must not be troubled by unbelievers when they say that this promise of reward makes the Christian life a mercenary affair. There are different kinds of reward. There is the reward which has no natural connexion with the things you do to earn it, and is quite foreign to the desires that ought to accompany those things. Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not mercenary for desiring it. A general who fights well in order to get a peerage is mercenary; a general who fights for victory is not, victory being the proper reward of battle as marriage is the proper reward of love. The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but the activity is itself in consummation.

Jesus in offering reward does not offer some secondary matter, mere “filthy lucre”[2]. Rather, the promised reward does not take one away from God – rather, as shown in Revelation 21, the ultimate offer is of God himself:

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son” Revelation 21:1–7 (ESV).

[1] A copy of the text is available here: http://www.verber.com/mark/xian/weight-of-glory.pdf

[2]The oath to enter the Missouri Bar Association used to require one to abjure “filthy lucre” – that pledge is no longer required: http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1778, accessed September 6, 2012.

The Training of the Twelve: The Rewards of Self-Sacrifice.1

06 Thursday Sep 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Peter, Rewards, Sacrifice, Self-denial, The Training of the Twelve

The Rich Young Ruler leaves Jesus is sorrow, “for he was one who owned much property” (Mark 10:22). He could not part with his possessions to gain the treasure offered by Jesus. At this place, Peter speaks of what they had lost – and the Master responds:

²⁸ Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” ²⁹ Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, ³⁰ who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. ³¹ But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” Mark 10:28–31 (ESV)

Jesus, in his work of discipleship must transform the way in which Peter – and the others think. Our thoughts too easily fall upon ourselves, our present possessions and position, this current world.

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:1–2 (ESV)

How then does Jesus transform Peter and the others? First, Bruce notes the incongruity of the reward:

The first thing which strikes one in reference to these rewards, is the utter disproportion between them and the sacrifices made. The twelve had forsaken fishing-boats and nets, and they were to be rewarded with thrones; and every one that forsakes any thing for the kingdom, no matter what it may be, is promised an hundred-fold in return, in this present life, of the very thing he has renounced, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Jesus promises a hundred-fold reward. Rather than rebuke, Jesus lays out the reward in glowing language. Think of how often Jesus promises reward in exchange for sacrifice:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5:3–12 (ESV)

And we must note, that Peter learned the same lesson from his Lord:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1:3–9 (ESV)

Why would this be the model? Could not just God demand of us as slaves? We are in rebellion against him, he has every right to make demands without payment. Who could gainsay his decision? And even if we thought it unjust, what good would it do us to complain? Could our complaints stop God’s demands?

And yet, Jesus here lays out reward as the promise for merely doing what we ought. Jesus could have turned to Peter and replied, Seriously? I am supposed to be impressed? Fishing boats. Rather, the Savior teaches them of himself, his own mercy and grace:

But such words could not have been uttered by Christ’s lips. It was never His way to despise things small in outward bulk, or to disparage services rendered to Himself, as if with a view to diminish His own obligations. He rather loved to make Himself a debtor to His servants, by generously exaggerating the value of their good deeds, and promising to them, as their fit recompense, rewards immeasurably exceeding their claims. So He acted in the present instance. Though the “all” of the disciples was a very little one, He still remembered that it was their all; and with impassioned earnestness, with a “verily” full of tender, grateful feeling, He promised them thrones as if they had been fairly earned!

Although Bruce does not mention the point, there is a kind of rebuke in Jesus’ words. Why would they have doubted his goodness and abundance and joy in giving gifts? But Jesus does not even rebuke them on this ground.

Here are two lessons for practical discipleship: First, always exult and proclaim the unspeakable goodness and generosity of God in Jesus Christ. Our hearts are peevish by nature and complaints come too easily when following our Master. We sound like children complaining for the distance and traffic on their way to Disneyland. We do not serve Jesus for nothing – we serve for the reward (more on that in a bit).

Second, we must be exemplary of the kindness and patience of Jesus. Jesus does not rebuke Peter, but he does train him.

And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (ESV)

Paul requires patience – even the rebuke of the erring brother. This is not fluke of Paul’s thought, for he repeats it with Timothy:

²² So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. ²³ Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. ²⁴ And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, ²⁵ correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, ²⁶ and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:22–26 (ESV)

The Temptation of Jesus.3 What Did the Spirit Do?

24 Friday Aug 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, 2 Corinthians, A.B. Bruce, Ephesians, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Meditation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Peter, 2 Corinthians, A.B. Bruce, Ephesians, F. Godet, Holy Spirit, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Meditation, Paul, Peter, Temptation of Jesus

Matthew 4:1 (ESV): Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Mark 1:12 (ESV): The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

Luke 4:1 (ESV): And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness

Matthew and Luke write that Jesus was “led” by the Spirit; Mark that the Spirit “drove” Jesus into the wilderness. Which is correct?

Matthew: Begins with Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος (tote ho Iesous anechthe eis ten eremon hupo tou pneumatos)

ἀνήχθηanechthe: is the aorist, passive of ἀνάγω (anago) to lead up. The aorist here merely indicates a past event.

The root meaning of the verb used by Matthew is “to lead up” (see RSV, TNT, Phps). However, most translations do not render the verb literally, even though from the Jordan River valley one would have to go “up” to get into the Jordan wilderness.

The word translated was led up is not as strong as the one used in Mark (“was made to go”), but it is nevertheless important to avoid a word that means simply that the Spirit “went before him” or “showed him the way.” Translators should use “was taken” or “was conducted,” or if the active form is used, “took” or “conducted.”

Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 78.

Luke uses the word ἤγετο (egeto) the imperfect passive of ἄγω to go, lead, lead away. It is the same verb as Matthew without the additional element of “up”. The difference between the imperfect and aorist does not imply a contradiction: Matthew merely looks at the event of leading up as a whole; Luke that Jesus was continually led. In both texts the Spirit leads Jesus.

The biggest difference is with Mark who notes that the Spirit “drove” Jesus; Greek,ἐκβάλλει ekballei: from the Greek verb ἐκβάλλω ekballo, to force to leave, drive out, expel, send away, take out. This seems significantly more forceful than merely leading Jesus. And thus here, one may argue for a contradiction?

Not really. The Gospel accounts merely emphasize one aspect of the Spirit’s work over another. Matthew and Luke use near synonyms (lead up, lead). Mark makes it plain that the Spirit was not merely making suggestions to Jesus.

Whereas Matthew and Luke speak here of the ‘leading’ of the Spirit, Mark uses the more vivid verb ἐκβάλλει; the historic present (occurring here for the first of some 150 times in Mark) adds to the immediacy of the impact. While it would be an exaggeration to say that ἐκβάλλω always suggests violence (it does not in Mt. 9:38; Jn. 10:4; Jas. 2:25), it normally implies at least the possibility of resistance (the majority of uses in Mark are of expelling demons). This is unexpected here, where Jesus’ willing acceptance of his God-given mission has been clearly implied in the words ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα, but perhaps serves to underline the seriousness of the coming conflict which will be inaugurated ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. The use of ἐκβάλλω also reinforces the OT concept of the Spirit of God as a powerful force (cf Mi. 3:8).

R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 84-85.

ekballei ‘drives out’: the historic present is characteristic of Mark’s style. In Mark ekballō ‘drive out’ always denotes strong and, at times, violent action being used mainly of the expulsion of demons (1:34, 39, 3:15, 22, 23, 6:13, 7:26, 9:18, 28, 38, 16:9, 17); where people are involved force is always indicated (1:43, 5:40, 11:15, 12:8), while once it is used of the removal of an eye (9:47). In the present passage, the parallels in Matthew (anagesthai ‘be led’) and Luke (agesthai ‘be led’) may argue in favor of force for the Marcan ekballei ‘drives out.’ Cf. Jerome expellit and in English “drive” (AV, ASV, RSV, Moffatt, Berkeley); Zürich treiben.

Force is certainly involved. There is no need, however, of inferring resistance or unwillingness on the part of Jesus.

Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 32.

1:12 Mark used the verb ekballō a total of seventeen times, most often about exorcisms so that something stronger than “sent … out” is needed, something like “drove … out” (RSV, NRSV, REB) or “impelled” (NASB). The idea is that of divine necessity, not that Jesus was reluctant to go. The “desert” was the place of John’s preaching (vv. 3–4); it was also the place of Jesus’ temptation.

James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 44.

12 “Then the Spirit drove Jesus” (εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦνα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει). Perhaps a transitional verse composed from the absolute use of “the Spirit” in 1:10 (Gnilka, 1:56), but the presence and different use of the “Spirit” and “wilderness” motifs in Matt 4:1 and Luke 4:1 suggest that both temptation narratives opened in this fashion. The rendering “drove” (ἐκβάει) strikes some as unnecessarily strong (e.g., Pesch, 1:94, n. 35; Gnilka, 1:56–57) causing them to prefer the less forceful “led” (cf. ἄγειν in Matt 4:1; Luke 4:1). In either case, the context conveys the impression of the Spirit’s coming (1:10) and taking control of Jesus (cf. Luke 4:1) illustrated by his impelling Jesus to go into the wilderness.

Robert A. Guelich, vol. 34A, Mark 1–8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 37-38. Godet helps connect the ideas of driving and leading in his comment on Luke:

The expression was led by indicates that the severe exercises of the soul which Jesus experienced under the action of the Spirit absorbed Him in such a way, that the use of His faculties in regard to the external world was thereby suspended. In going into the desert, He was not impelled by a desire to accomplish any definite object; it was only, as it were, a cover for the state of intense meditation in which He was absorbed. Lost in contemplation of his personal relation to God, the full consciousness of which He had just attained, and of the consequent task it imposed upon Him in reference to Israel and the world, His heart sought to make these recent revelations wholly its own.

F. Godet, A Commentary On the Gospel of St. Luke, 5th ed., trans. E.W. Shalders (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, unknown), 209. One does not have to follow Godet in all of his position to see the importance of his explanation for our analysis. When we think through the matter of Jesus being “led” or “led up” in the wilderness, we may fall into the mistake of thinking Jesus was merely on a jaunt into the desert . Or, if we had only Mark’s “drove”, we might think of Jesus being forcefully and unwillingly cast out to his hurt.

But the combination of descriptions give us some depth to the state of Jesus as he went into the wilderness. Without question, the progress came at the direct work of the Spirit upon Jesus. The event came immediately after the miraculous designation of Jesus as the Messiah. The effect upon the mind and heart of Jesus must have been profound. The overwhelming work of the Spirit upon the incarnate Son was without question necessary to prepare and work out the battle which Jesus would undertake for the next three years. Bruce in the Expositor’s Greek Testament helps here too:

The first thing the Spirit does is to drive Jesus into the wilderness, the expression not implying reluctance of Jesus to go into so wild a place (Weiss), bu the intense preoccupation of mind. Allowing for the weakening of the sense in Hellenistic usage (H.C.), it is a very strong word, and a second instance of Mark’s realism: Jesus thrust out in to the inhospitable desert by force of thought….The one work ekballei tells the whole story, speaks as far as may be the unspeakable. Mt. and Lk. have tried to tell us what happened, but have they given us more than a dim shadow of the truth?

Expositor’s Greek Testament, 343.

You see, when we come to the word “led” we may easily fall into assumptions concerning the way in which such was accomplished. Should we read merely one account without considering the elements provided by the other Gospels, we may think of Jesus as somehow mindless in this matter. But let us ask ourselves: How does the Holy Spirit typically work? The Holy Spirit opens the heart to understand the words spoken by the prophets and apostles:

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. Acts 16:14 (ESV)

In Ephesians Paul prays:

17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, Ephesians 1:17–18 (ESV)

Peter explains that the source of transformation in the believers’ lives came from words and the Holy Spirit:

¹⁰ Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, ¹¹ inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. ¹² It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. 1 Peter 1:10–12 (ESV)

In Second Corinthians Paul explains that the Spirit must open the heart to receive the words:

¹² Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, ¹³ not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. ¹⁴ But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. ¹⁵ Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. ¹⁶ But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. ¹⁷ Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. ¹⁸ And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. ¹ Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. ² But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. ³ And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. ⁴ In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. ⁵ For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. ⁶ For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:12–4:6 (ESV)

How then would we expect the Holy Spirit to work upon Jesus “full of the Spirit”? Godet and Bruce noting the mental aspect, the profound meditation of Jesus wrought by the Spirit help to understand the relationship between “led” and compelled. A heart full of the Spirit would be without question a heart of dire compulsion toward the things of God.

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.5

28 Saturday Jul 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians, A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Jesus, John Calvin, John Piper, Luke, Mark, marriage, Matthew, money, Piper, politics, Renunciation, Self-denial, Self-Examination, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve, voting, Wealth

The fifth and final reason is perhaps most important: Bruce writes:

This theory, then, is in the first place based on an erroneous assumption–viz., that abstinence from things lawful is intrinsically a higher sort of virtue than temperance in the use of them. This is not true. Abstinence is the virtue of the weak, temperance is the virtue of the strong. Abstinence is certainly the safer way for those who are prone to inordinate affection, but it purchases safety at the expense of moral culture; for it removes us from those temptations connected with family relationships and earthly possessions, through which character, while it may be imperilled, is at the same time developed and strengthened. Abstinence is also inferior to temperance in healthiness of tone. It tends inevitably to morbidity, distortion, exaggeration. The ascetic virtues were wont to be called by their admirers angelic. They are certainly angelic in the negative sense of being unnatural and inhuman. Ascetic abstinence is the ghost or disembodied spirit of morality, while temperance is its soul, embodied in a genuine human life transacted amid earthly relations, occupations, and enjoyments. Abstinence is even inferior to temperance in respect to what seems its strong point–self-sacrifice. There is something morally sublime, doubtless, in the spectacle of a man of wealth, birth, high office, and happy domestic condition, leaving rank, riches, office, wife, children, behind, and going away to the deserts of Sinai and Egypt to spend his days as a monk or anchoret.[16.12 The stern resolution, the absolute mastery of the will over the natural affections, exhibited in such conduct, is very imposing. Yet how poor, after all, is such a character compared with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and model of temperance and singleness of mind; who could use the world, of which he had a large portion, without abusing it; who kept his wealth and state, and yet never became their slave, and was ready at God’s command to part with his friends and his native land, and even with an only son! So to live, serving ourselves heir to all things, yet maintaining unimpaired our spiritual freedom; enjoying life, yet ready at the call of duty to sacrifice life’s dearest enjoyments: this is true Christian virtue, the higher Christian life for those who would be perfect. Let us have many Abrahams so living among our men of wealth, and there is no fear of the church going back to the Middle Ages. Only when the rich, as a class, are luxurious, vain, selfish, and proud, is there a danger of the tenet gaining credence among the serious, that there is no possibility of living a truly Christian life except by parting with property altogether.

Although not quoted by Bruce, this understanding is more consistent with the remainder of Scripture and in particular apostolic teaching. Paul will help us here. First Paul living in the state one was called:

17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 (ESV)

Paul then goes onto explain how one is to live in relationship to one’s life and possessions:

29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 1 Corinthians 7:29–31 (ESV)

Calvin explains this passage:

As though they had none. All things that are connected with the enjoyment of the present life are sacred gifts of God, but we pollute them when we abuse them. If the reason is asked, we shall find it to be this, that we always dream of continuance in the world, for it is owing to this that those things which ought to be helps in passing through it become hindrances to hold us fast. Hence, it is not without good reason, that the Apostle, with the view of arousing us from this stupidity, calls us to consider the shortness of this life, and infers from this, that we ought to use all the things of this world, as if we did not use them. For the man who considers that he is a stranger in the world uses the things of this world as if they were another’s — that is, as things that are lent us for a single day. The sum is this, that the mind of a Christian ought not to be taken up with earthly things, or to repose in them; for we ought to live as if we were every moment about to depart from this life. By weeping and rejoicing, he means adversity and prosperity; for it is customary to denote causes by their effects. The Apostle, however, does not here command Christians to part with their possessions, but simply requires that their minds be not engrossed in their possessions.

John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Co 7:29. The fault lies not in the things but in our relationship to the things. This is, of course, a great element of the book of Ecclesiastes.

John Piper gives an interesting political application:

Christians should deal with the world. This world is here to be used. Dealt with. There is no avoiding it. Not to deal with it is to deal with it that way. Not to weed your garden is to cultivate a weedy garden. Not to wear a coat in Minnesota is to freeze—to deal with the cold that way. Not to stop when the light is red is to spend your money on fines or hospital bills and deal with the world that way. We must deal with the world.

But as we deal with it, we don’t give it our fullest attention. We don’t ascribe to the world the greatest status. There are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. We use the world without offering it our whole soul. We may work with all our might when dealing with the world, but the full passions of our heart will be attached to something higher—Godward purposes. We use the world, but not as an end in itself. It is a means. We deal with the world in order to make much of Christ.

So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

By all means vote. But remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).

Read the whole thing here, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/let-christians-vote-as-though-they-were-not-voting

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.4

27 Friday Jul 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Jesus, Luke, Mark, marriage, Matthew, money, Renunciation, Self-denial, Self-Examination, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve, Wealth

There is a sense in which freedom from normal social concerns can ease one’s Christian ministry. Indeed, missionary activity to dangerous locations, such as a Muslim country, may be best (in some cases only) be undertaken by means of unmarried persons. And certainly, one does not enter the calling [as opposed to the work of wolves, who for some reason seem to soak up tremendous resources from the professing church which could have been distributed to the true work of the Gospel] of Christian ministry for greater material ease.

However, even though such may of occasion be a good means to a good end, we should not take Jesus as having commanded poverty. Bruce lays out five reasons for seeing Jesus’ observation as counsel to be applied where appropriate rather than a command to be obeyed.

First [I am re-ordering Bruce’s arguments], consider the structure of Jesus’ statements. In neither case did he command the disciples to engage in such behavior: He did not command divorce, celibacy (which obviously was beyond the already married disciples, such as Peter whose mother-in-law Jesus healed, Mark 1:30) or poverty:

On the assumption that abstinence is necessarily and intrinsically a higher virtue than temperance, it is illogical to speak of it as optional. In that case, our Lord should have given not counsels, but commands. For no man is at liberty to choose whether he shall be a good Christian or an indifferent one, or is excused from practicing certain virtues merely because they are difficult. It is absolutely incumbent on all to press on towards perfection; and if celibacy and poverty be necessary to perfection, then all who profess godliness should renounce wedlock and property. The church of Rome, consistently with her theory of morals, forbids her priests to marry. But why stop there? Surely what is good for priests is good for people as well.

Jesus did not voice a command, but gave counsel. To turn it into a command would require the end of humanity(this is a second reason: if this were a command given to all, humanity would necessarily die out for no one would conceive children or operate farms):

The reason why the prohibition is not carried further, is of course that the laws of nature and the requirements of society render it impracticable. And this brings us to the [] objection to the ascetic theory, viz. that, consistently carried out, it lands in absurdity, by involving the destruction of society and the human race. A theory which involves such consequences cannot be true. For the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of nature are not mutually destructive. One God is the sovereign of both; and all things belonging to the lower kingdom–every relation of life, every faculty, passion, and appetite of our nature, all material possessions–are capable of being made subservient to the interests of the higher kingdom, and of contributing to our growth in grace and holiness.

A third reason is experience:

The ascetic theory of Christian virtue, which so soon began to prevail in the church, has been fully tested by time, and proved to be a huge and mischievous mistake. The verdict of history is conclusive, and to return to an exploded error, as some seem disposed to do, is utter folly. At this time of day, the views of those who would find the beau-ideal of Christian life in a monk’s cell appear hardly worthy of serious refutation. It may, however, be useful briefly to indicate the leading errors of the monkish theory of morals; all the more that, in doing this, we shall at the same time be explaining the true meaning of our Lord’s words to His disciples.

The unfortunate evidence of the church is that life in a monastery did not produce holiness (even if holy men and women did live in monasteries). The comical drunken and debauched friar appears in more than one story as evidence to the original commonplace.

A fourth reason to not see Jesus as preaching utter material and social renunciation is the incident of the children which Matthew places between the discourse on marriage and then on wealth:

¹³ Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, ¹⁴ but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” ¹⁵ And he laid his hands on them and went away. Matthew 19:13–15 (ESV)

Bruce comments:

One word may here aptly be said on the beautiful incident of the little children brought to Jesus to get His blessing. Who can believe that it was His intention to teach a monkish theory of morals after reading that story? How opportunely those mothers came to Him seeking a blessing for their little ones, just after He had uttered words which might be interpreted, and were actually interpreted in after ages, as a disparagement of family relations. Their visit gave Him an opportunity of entering His protest by anticipation against such a misconstruction of His teaching. And the officious interference of the twelve to keep away the mothers and their offspring from their Master’s person only made that protest all the more emphatic. The disciples seem to have taken from the words Jesus had just spoken concerning abstaining from marriage for the sake of the kingdom, the very impression out of which monasticism sprang. “What does He care,” thought they, “for you mothers and your children? His whole thoughts are of the kingdom of heaven, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage: go away, and don’t trouble Him at this time.” The Lord did not thank His disciples for thus guarding His person from intrusion like a band of over-zealous policemen. “He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.3

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

A.B. Bruce, Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Clement of Alexander, Discipleship, Jesus, Luke, Mark, marriage, Matthew, money, Renunciation, Self-denial, Self-Examination, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve, Wealth, Who is the Rich Man Who Shall Be Saved?

This background brings us to the question posed by these two incidents:

It is an inquiry of vital moment what our Lord really meant to teach on the subjects of marriage and money. The question concerns not merely the life to come, but the whole character of our present life. For if man’s life on earth doth not consist wholly in possessions and family relations, these occupy a very prominent place therein. Family relations are essential to the existence of society, and without wealth there could be no civilization. Did Jesus, then, frown or look down on these things, as at least unfavorable to, if not incompatible with, the interests of the divine kingdom and the aspirations of its citizens?

Bruce then notes that within a couple of hundred years, the church began to develop the position that both renunciation of marriage and wealth prepared one for more exalted Christian service:

This question up till the time of the Reformation was for the most part answered by the visible church in the affirmative. From a very early period the idea began to be entertained that Jesus meant to teach the intrinsic superiority, in point of Christian virtue, of a life of celibacy and voluntary poverty, over that of a married man possessing property. Abstinence from marriage and renunciation of earthly possessions came, in consequence, to be regarded as essential requisites for high Christian attainments.

This led to a doctrine of average and perfect Christians. Bruce develops this point by quotations and summaries of the monastic movement. However, a noticeable exception to this trend can be seen in Clement of Alexandria’s Who is the Rich Man Who Shall be Saved, also known as The Rich Man’s Salvation. Without going the entire piece, suffice to say that Clement took a position much closer to Bruce (and to the Reformation tradition) than some other men would make in the future. Consider for example the following extract:

Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth. Are you able to make a right use of it? It is subservient to righteousness. Does one make a wrong use of it? It is, on the other hand, a minister of wrong. For its nature is to be subservient, not to rule. That then which of itself has neither good nor evil, being blameless, ought not to be blamed; but that which has the power of using it well and ill, by reason of its possessing voluntary choice. And this is the mind and judgment of man, which has freedom in itself and self-determination in the treatment of what is assigned to it. So let no man destroy wealth, rather than the passions of the soul, which are incompatible with the better use of wealth. So that, becoming virtuous and good, he may be able to make a good use of these riches. The renunciation, then, and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul.

Clement of Alexandria, “Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?”, trans. William Wilson In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 595.

The Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.2

25 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in A.B. Bruce, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

A.B. Bruce, amazement, Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, James A. Brooks, Jesus, Leland Ryken, Luke, Mark, marriage, Matthew, money, Puritan, Puritan work ethic, Puritans, Renunciation, Self-denial, Self-Examination, Self-Sacrifice, The Training of the Twelve, Wealth, Worldly Saints

A second and similar incident of instruction came before the disciples: the rich young man. First the interaction with the young man:

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Matthew 19:16–22 (ESV)

Now this event completely perplexed the disciples (as it had the young man). The disciples seemed to have been under the impression that to be rich meant to be favored by God:

And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! Mark 10:24 (ESV)

Interestingly, neither Matthew nor Luke record the amazement of the disciples. There are two obvious reasons for this: (1) Mark’s Gospel routinely records the amazement of people around Jesus (see, https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/amazement-in-mark/); (2) Mark often provides more intimate or vivid details of the events than the other Gospels.

James Brooks provides some background for their amazement:

The event became the occasion for a brief discourse. Jesus’ statement must be contrasted with the Jewish attitude toward riches. The dominant Jewish view was that riches were an indication of divine favor and a reward for piety (Job 1:10; 42:10; Ps 128:1–2; Isa 3:10).[1] Although provision was made for the protection and assistance of the poor (Deut 15:7–11; Prov 22:22–23), rarely was poverty associated with piety. The Psalms sometimes picture the poor as the righteous who rely on God for aid (Pss 37:14, 16; 69:32–33; 86:1–2). The Psalms frequently portray God as the special help of the poor. Especially during the Maccabean period (142–63 B.C.), the rich became associated with the priestly aristocracy ready to compromise with foreign oppressors; the poor, with those who remained faithful to God (cf. T. Jud. 25:4; Pss. Sol. 10:6). The Qumran community apparently used “the poor” as a self-designation (1 QM 11:9, 13; 13:14; 1QH 5:13–22, in which “the poor” parallels those eager for righteousness; 1QpHab 12:3, 6, 10; 4QpPs 2:9–10; 3:10).

The teaching of Jesus was nonetheless revolutionary in its time and remains scandalous even today. However, Jesus did not condemn riches as evil in themselves. They are a temptation, a hindrance, a diversion. They provide false security that makes radical trust in God difficult.

James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 163-64.

Jesus went onto explain:

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Matthew 19:23–30 (ESV)

Bruce explains how this sounded to the disciples:

In the observations He made He did not expressly say that to part with property was necessary to salvation, but He did speak in a manner which seemed to the disciples almost to imply that. Looking round about, He remarked to them first, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” The disciples being astonished at this hard saying, He softened it somewhat by altering slightly the form of expression. “Children,” he said, “how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” hinting that the thing to be renounced in order to salvation was not money, but the inordinate love of it. But then He added a third reflection, which, by its austerity, more than cancelled the mildness of the second. “It is easier,” He declared, “for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” That assertion, literally interpreted, amounts to a declaration that the salvation of a rich man is an impossibility, and seems to teach by plain implication, that the only way for a rich man to get into heaven is to cease to be rich, and become poor by a voluntary renunciation of property. Such seems to have been the impression made thereby on the minds of the disciples: for we read that they were astonished above measure, and said among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”

[1] It is a commonly reported “fact” that the Puritans held such a view. Here is a typical example I found on an educational website, “Since God was an all knowing and powerful force the puritans saw their wealth as a gift from God and a sign that they were correct.” As is common with this oft repeated “fact”, no citation to original sourcse is provided. Moreover, despite having read widely throughout Puritan literature, I have not seen such a belief as common at all among the Puritans. In fact, while the Puritans did see money as among the material gifts which God may bestow upon someone, it was not at all a point of belief that money proved one was godly. Thomas Watson noted that persecution was the more common outcome for the godly (see his sermons on the Beatitudes). Samuel Willard wrote, “As riches are not evidence of God’s love ….” For an examination of the Puritans relationship to money, see Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints, chapter 4 “Money” – where Ryken quotes the source documents to prove his point.