Tag Archives: Luke

Stephan’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 3 (and a theory of Hebrews)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Exodus, Hebrews, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The perplexing aspect of Steven’s speech comes in the movement from verse 50 to 51. The entire section reads as follows:

Acts 7:44–53 (ESV)

44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

50  Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The trouble here is not the Temple as an idol per se (see Sweeney, J. (2002), “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-‘Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?”, TrinJ 23, NS, 185-210). I don’t think it lies in attacking the crowd because of the Temple. Jesus nowhere decried the Temple per se. 

When we look at the structure of the speech: proposed savior-rejected savior in the context of the people being returned to the land to worship God, we have to see the temple as somehow aligned with Jesus and also tied to the rejection of Jesus (which Stephen contends — and which leads to him being stoned to death): These people rejected, Jesus just as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses, and God (by idol worship).

The accusers draw this precise correlation as quoted in Acts 6:

 

Acts 6:13–14 (ESV)

13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This of course seems to derive from John 2:

John 2:18–21 (ESV)

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

And Mark 14:

Mark 14:57–58 (ESV)

57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

So the destruction of Jesus = the destruction of the Temple (in some manner) goes back to Jesus.

Saul was present and the writing of Hebrews:

This leads to something more speculative. The language in this section parallels themes and allusions used in the book of Hebrews. Here are two examples. First Acts 7:44 quotes Exodus 25:40, that the temple was to be built “according to the pattern that he had seen”. This verse is quoted in one other place in the NT, Hebrews 8:5, where the writer draws a connection between the heavenly tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:1–5 (ESV)

8 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Notice also that the heavenly tabernacle is not made by man (which is a point raised by Stephen). In Hebrews 9:11, the heavenly tabernacle is explicitly said to be not “with hands”.

Stephen’s speech also concerns itself with the wilderness rebellion. The accusation of Stephen’s speech is that his audience has not changed from the wilderness rebellion. And, the wilderness rebellion is a constant theme of the Hebrews.

Finally, Hebrews draws an explicit line between Jesus and the Temple, even referring to the veil in the temple as his “flesh” (Hebrews 10:20).

More parallels could be drawn between Acts 7 & Hebrews at the level what was written. But, there was a man Saul (soon to be Paul) who was present at Stephen’s murder. This event must have been formative for Paul, because Luke records it.

This speech which drew Jesus and the Temple together must have had a profound effect upon Paul. And, while most at present would deny Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is commonly granted that Hebrews was written by someone in Paul’s orbit (I tend toward Luke as the author of Hebrews myself).

Thus, we have a tentative theory of development (and yes, I unquestionably hold to plenary verbal inspiration): Jesus (John 2); false accusation (Mark 14); false accusation (Acts 6); development (Acts 7); unwritten process of development Saul-Paul-Luke (?) – culmination of the doctrine (Hebrews).

Jesus was not a Magician

22 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Here is an aspect of the temptation narrative of Jesus which I had not considered nor heard before: Jesus was not a magician (from Keener’s Miracles):

“Granted, Jesus was accused of magic by his detractors (Mark 3:22, probably also in Q Matt 12:24//Luke 11:15). This accusation was not, however, surprising, for it was the easiest charge to bring against wonder workers. In Q’s temptation narrative, Jesus rejects the temptation to transmute stones into bread (Matt 4:3–4//Luke 4:3–4); changing one substance into another, like changing one’s own form, was characteristic of magicians. Luke is eager to absolve early Christians as well as Jesus from the charge, by way of contrast with those who misunderstood or opposed them (Acts 8:9–11; 13:6–8; 19:11–19”

http://ref.ly/o/miracleskeener/1849202?length=610

The Church Today: The Road to Emmaus

04 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by in Bibliology, Luke, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

(From Setting Our Affections Upon Glory)

In this sermon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones works through the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, as recounted in Luke 24. The two men, dejected over the death of Jesus, set out on Sunday morning toward a town so small and insignificant that no one is quite sure where it was. Along the way, they are joined by a traveler unknown to them. Miraculously, their eyes were closed to the fact that they were with Jesus. He asks about their dejection. They ask if he is the only one who has not heard about “the things”.

Luke 24:19–21 (ESV)
19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.

Jesus hears out their story and then responds:

Luke 24:25–27 (ESV)
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

When they come to their resting place, they sit to eat. Jesus blesses the meal and gives them bread. As he hands them the bread, he vanishes from their sight. The story then takes this peculiar turn. They do not speak of their amazement that Jesus vanished. Something else takes their attention:

Luke 24:32 (ESV)
32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

MLJ uses this story to explicate the trouble of the church. Now his sermons was given in 1969, but the trouble and the solution are every bit as applicable today. First, concerning the trouble: he sees the dejection of the men to be like the dejection of the church:

And the more we commune and reason and talk, the more depressed we become, like these men on the road to Emmaus. But I think the ultimate explanation of these men is that they’re so certain of the death of our Lord they have forgotten all about the resurrection, They’re looking so much at the fact that he was put to death and buried that they have become absolutely blind to everything else. Now this is a very extraordinary psychological condition, and I suggest you that it is the condition of the church today. We are all looking so much at our problems and our difficulties that we have become blind to solution. We are experts in our problems. Never has the church been so skilled in analyzing its difficulties. The books that come off the presses almost daily give expert analysis and diagnosis. But there is never any solution. We spend the whole time reasoning and communing and talking together concerning our difficulties and this has a paralyzing effect. (73)

Someone might quibble here and say that our many books of analysis do provide solutions. Yet, I must say that very few books give precisely the solution which MLJ takes from this passage.

When reading through the sermon I thought to myself: Yes, the solution is that they did not know that Jesus had risen from the dead; and, too often, I live and forget that Jesus has not only suffered but has entered into his glory. That is quite true, and that is what Jesus did teach them.

But that still leads the more immediate question: How is this known? I know it, but how is it known? Jesus did not just say to these men, I am alive! He did do that on other occasions, but he did not do that here with these men. Is that not peculiar? And isn’t it strange that the first words out of their mouth were not “Jesus is alive! And he just disappeared!” (And yes, resurrection and vanishes are, to use an antiquated phrase “passing strange”; but that is precisely the point of the epiphany in this story).

The men spoke of their burning heart as the Lord opened the Scripture to them:

That is the significant and wonderful fact. It was not after they recognized him, after their eyes were open, that their hearts began to burn. The hearts were burning when they still regarded him as a stranger. It was as he open the Scriptures when they were walking together on the way. Thank God for this.

It was not seeing the Lord that made their hearts burn; it was as the Lord opened the Scriptures. That is a great encouragement to us, now. If it were merely a matter of seeing the Lord, then what hope could there be for us now? We will not see the Lord with our eyes until he returns. But the Lord has given us the Scripture; and the Lord has sent us the Spirit to open the Scriptures to our hearts.

Thus, when we look at the troubles in the Church we must first think, How am I living as I believe the Lord has died and left all this trouble to us, alone, to resolve? Yes, we must have the latest management tools, and studies and all. (That is not to say that there are better and worse ways to manage and lead — anymore than it is to say that pressure systems and temperature have nothing to do with rain. Yes, signage and parking and all matter; but none of those are the real point).

The Church is a divine creation, the work of the Word and Spirit. If we have trouble, our chief trouble is that the life of the church is drying up. The greatest trellis in the world will not bear the vine aloft if the soil is poison and dry. The trellis matters only for a healthy vine, to give direction. Yet when our troubles arise, we are too quick to study the trellis and to build the trellis and to forget the source of life: Spirit & Word. (And yes, pick up The Trellis & The Vine).

(Now is always the case with the Doctor, the sermon is littered with asides and observations, turns of phrase which are a marvel and worth your time. Do yourself good and read this volume from front to back yourself.)

Jesus was laid in the manger because there was no room in the guest room

07 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Luke, New Testament Background

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Luke 2:7 reads: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”

Modern English translations keep the word “inn” at the end of the word, apparently due to the fame of the KJV translation at this point. However, the word is not “inn” as in a public accommodation. As the article cited below from Biblical Archaeology makes plain, the idea that Mary and Joseph would desire a “private” place to have a baby may just be a western cultural prejudice.

Dr. William Varner (Professor The Masters College) posted on facebook:

“How Greek can mess up our Christmas plays.”

Where did Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem? Luke tells us that after the birth, Mary put the baby in a “manger,” or feeding trough, because there was “no room for them in the καταλυμα – kataluma” (Luke 2:7). While this term was translated as “inn” by the KJV, Luke elsewhere uses it to mean a “guest room” (Luke 22:11, the site of the Last Supper). When Luke does wants to speak about an “inn,” he uses the Greek word πανδοχειον – pandocheion (Luke 10:34, in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

Thus there was no mean innkeeper denying them access at the door of a non-existent inn. The passage doesn’t mention him anyway!

The comments helpfully posted links to two articles:

Bible Archaeology gives an extended examination of the text and explains how the baby was laid in a manger — a feeding trough — kept inside the house where the animals were kept at night (a very different world from most people today). The “inn” was the guest room, apparently already occupied by another guest:

The article provides a wealth of information, weighs through the evidence and ancient traditions, and interacts with the cultural understanding of middle eastern peasants and European professors. If you want to understand the matter fully, it is a good place to start:

https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/11/08/The-Manger-and-the-Inn.aspx#Article

The second link was to a review of Kenneth Bailey’s Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes:

Part 1 is “The Birth of Jesus”, and the first chapter incorporates material that had previously been accessible only in a journal article, expanding and supplementing it not only with additional text but also with more sketches of what typical rural homes in Palestine are like. Among scholars, Bailey’s argument about the cultural background of these stories, and in particular the likelihood that Jesus was born in a rural peasant home rather than an “inn”, has been found persuasive not only because of the points Bailey makes about the cultural setting (including the nature of hospitality and travel in this part of the world in the first century and even today, and the fact that feeding troughs (or mangers) were and are typically found in homes rather than separate barns or stables), but also because the term for a commercial “inn” is not found in the story. The presentation of the evidence and the likely meaning of the relevant details in Luke’s story are here made available to a wider audience. This material alone would be worth the price of the book.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2008/06/review-of-kenneth-e-bailey-jesus-through-middle-eastern-eyes.html

20131206-230557.jpg

There is a fierceness

12 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by in C.S. Lewis, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

51 He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; 52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.

Luke 1:51-53 (section of the Magnificat of Mary)

There fierceness even a touch of Deborah mixed with the sweetness of the
Magnificat to which most painted Madonnas do little justice.

C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms

The Madonna and Child and Musical Angels
(about) 1410
Starnina:

20130911-195342.jpg

An Opportune Time

25 Saturday May 2013

Posted by in Luke, Prayer

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Luke records the Devil’s temptation of Jesus in chapter 4, verses 1 – 13. He ends the story with the words, “And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.” The word translated as “opportune time” is chairos.

The Devil does not make a personal appearance again in Luke until chapter 22. He is mentioned in other places in the Gospel (e.g., “And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” Luke 13:16); but he is not a direct, present actor until he enters Judas:

3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve.
4 He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them.
5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money.
6 So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.

Luke 22:3-6. The word translated “opportunity” is the Greek word eu-chairos, a “good time”. In Luke’s construction, Satan has been busy looking for a opportune time to go after Jesus. Upon entering Judas he continued to seek for an opportune time.

When we read Peter’s description of the Devil (1 Peter 5:8), we see what the Devil was busy doing between chapters 4 & 22:

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Peter’s instruction, was the precise same instruction which Jesus had given to Peter, when the Devil in Judas (see also, John 13:27) was coming for Jesus:

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Mark 14: 38

Where our happiness lies

05 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by in Ecclesiastes, Humility, Puritan, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

John Cotton answers the question: Why would God ever let his people fall? For certainly God could stir the heart of a man to never lose its fervor. Yet the love of men grows cold; men walk carelessly; even the soundest believer will fall (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Genesis 12:13; Luke 22:61). What reason could have God to permit even his best servants to fail? Certainly God would receive more glory by the moral perfection of his people. Yet, yet, he lets them fall.

The capstone of Paul’s gospel presentation in Romans ends with the declaration that God transforms sin by means of mercy:

What use is there in such knowledge:

Use 3. To shew us where our happiness lieth, to wit, not in our own innocency, but in the covering of our sins, Ps. 32:1, 2; and therefore we seek for all our righteousness in Christ, Phil. 3:7–9; Rom. 3:23, 24.

John Cotton, Ecclesiastes

And this you shall have freely,

02 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by in Luke, Uncategorized, William Romaine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

It is a peculiar thing: faith to salvation hinges upon need of salvation. “Lost” is the only title which makes one fit to be saved. We easily think that we must be “good enough” for the salvation of Christ: but we can never be “good enough”. Indeed, to think oneself “good enough” and to try to be “good enough” both make us unfit for salvation.

Salvation is a gift, not a wage. God gives salvation only to the weak and needy:

29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them.30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Luke 5:29-32.

William Romaine explains:

And this you shall have freely, without any merit, or work of the law: for this righteousness comes wholly by grace, and is for you a sinner, as such, and is to justify you from the condemnation of the law, to turn its curses into blessings, and its threatened punishment into happiness. And this it can do for you perfectly and everlastingly, so that being found in this righteousness, there is no grace promised in time, or glory in eternity, but it shall be yours.
The Lord God promises them to you in the fullest and freest manner, to you without any exception or limitation, being a sinner, and ungodly, though one of the vilest and basest, yet to you, as such, is the word of this salvation sent.

And it is all yours in the comfortable enjoyment of it, through believing.

You are to bring nothing to recommend yourself, but

“I am a sinner, and my right and title to a finished salvation is clear from the warrant of God’s word” — if you believe with your heart in the righteousness of Christ.

The divine command is, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ: the promise is,

whosoever believes in him,
shall not perish,
shall receive remission of sins,
shall be justified from all things,
shall have everlasting life.

Why then do you lean to works [that is, why do you trust in personal ability to be perfect], since salvation is by faith?

Why do you disquiet yourself about attaining the righteousness of the law [why are anxious about being perfect], and thereby suffer the law to disturb the peace of your conscience, since you have a far better righteousness, which ought to reign there [the righteousness of Christ can calm your conscience if you receive by faith] even the righteousness of faith ?

[But what about me? I am a believer, but my faith is not very strong? I falter and stumble. I am not good enough to continue to receive from Christ.]

You have as good a title to [right to] Christ and his righteousness as the strongest believer in the world; because your right comes from the soundness of faith [if your faith is real, it does not matter how “strong” it is] apprehending [taking hold of] Christ, and not, as your legal spirit [our natural tendency to seek self-justification]
would tell you, from the degree or measure of it.

Only remember, how highly you dishonor the infinite love and free salvation of Jesus, and how much you rob your own soul of its peace, and of its growth in-grace, by your weak and little faith. Think upon these things, and entreat the author and finisher of your faith to strengthen it in your soul. [Your weak faith does not keep you from salvation, but it does keep you peace. When you see the loss of peace, you should ask God to strengthen your faith and give you peace and assurance.]

William Romaine, A Treatise Upon the Life of Faith, 1809 [slightly modernized].

A Song for Simeon

28 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by in Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Luke 2:21–35 (ESV)

21 And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” 25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, 29 “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; 30 for my eyes have seen your salvation 31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.” 33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

 

A Song for Simeon

 

Lord, the Roman hyacinths are blooming in bowls and

The winter sun creeps by the snow hills;

The stubborn season has made stand.

My life is light, waiting for the death wind,

Like a feather on the back of my hand.

Dust in sunlight and memory in corners

Wait for the wind that chills towards the dead land.

 

Grant us thy peace.

I have walked many years in this city,

Kept faith and fast, provided for the poor,

Have taken and given honour and ease.

There went never any rejected from my door.

Who shall remember my house, where shall live my children’s children

When the time of sorrow is come ?

They will take to the goat’s path, and the fox’s home,

Fleeing from the foreign faces and the foreign swords.

 

Before the time of cords and scourges and lamentation

Grant us thy peace.

Before the stations of the mountain of desolation,

Before the certain hour of maternal sorrow,

Now at this birth season of decease,

Let the Infant, the still unspeaking and unspoken Word,

Grant Israel’s consolation

To one who has eighty years and no to-morrow.

 

 

According to thy word,

They shall praise Thee and suffer in every generation

With glory and derision,

Light upon light, mounting the saints’ stair.

Not for me the martyrdom, the ecstasy of thought and prayer,

Not for me the ultimate vision.

Grant me thy peace.

(And a sword shall pierce thy heart,

Thine also).

I am tired with my own life and the lives of those after me,

I am dying in my own death and the deaths of those after me.

Let thy servant depart,

Having seen thy salvation.

Mystical Bedlam.2

28 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by in Genesis, Luke, Preaching, Puritan, Thomas Adams

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Mystical Bedlam.2

The first entry on this sermon can be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/mystical-bedlam-1/

Puritan sermons typically follow a logical structure. The most common logical mechanism was to state a proposition and then break the proposition down into component parts. Adams’ structure follows that basic scheme.

The first major proposition: Man’s heart is a vessel. This proposition is developed in four subpoints:

I.          Man’s Heart is a Vessel.

            A.  The possessor: the sons of men.

            B.  The vessel is a heart.

            C.  The heart holds evil.

            D.  The vessel is full.

 

IA: The possessor: the sons of men.

            1. General discussion re: “sons of men”         

            2. Note on corruptibility

                        a. Spiritual corruption

                        b. Natural corruption

IA1: General discussion re: “sons of men”. 

Adams takes the proposition from Ecclesiastes 9:3, “The heart of the sons of men” and proceeds to define the term, “sons of men” by referencing Luke 3:38, “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”  The movement from “sons man” to son of Adam may not be immediately apparent. The warrant for the move lies in the use of the word “adam” for man in Ecclesiastes 9:3: all the sons of adam (sons of Adam) possess hearts full of evil.

In making the move from Adam, the individual to adam the generic man, Thomas Adams has good exegetical grounds: Ecclesiastes as a whole concerns itself with the effects of the Fall which resulted from Adam’s sin. Thus, even though he speaks generically about “man” with the word “adam”, he has in view the unity and catastrophe of humanity in the first Adam.

Thomas Adams does not explain all the basis for his reference to Luke 3:38. This is a good model for a preacher: not exegetical decision can or should be laid bare before a congregation. While showing the point from the text is necessary, it is not necessary to explain the basis of every cross-reference.

From the reference to Adam, Thomas Adams draws the following point: “All his posterity [Adam’s posterity] [being] the sons of men; we receiving from him both flesh and the corruption of flesh, yea, and of the soul too”( 255).

Thomas Adams draws out two elements of corruption: spiritual and physical.

IA1a: The Spiritual Corruption we Inherited From Our Parents [Adam and Eve].[1]

i. The problem:

A. Our corruption begins at the very first moment of conception: Psalm 51:5. “I was born a sinner, saith a saint” (255).

B. Gen. 5:3: Adam begat Seth in his own likeness. “Adam could not propagate that which he did not have in himself; virtues are not given by birth, nor doth grace follow generation but regeneration….[the image of Adam means] that corruption which descended to Adam’s posterity by natural propagation” (255.). Further proof, Rom. 5:12.

C. “This title, then, ‘the sons of men,’ puts us in mind of our original contamination, whereby we stand guilty before God, and liable to present and eternal judgments” (255).

ii. The solution: From this flow of thought, Adams runs straight to the Gospel: If this is so, if I have necessarily inherited corruption, then we must ask “Who can be saved?” Note that Adams does not force the movement to the Cross (as is done too often by lesser preachers). Rather, merely by telling the story inherent in the text (because it lies in the overarching stream of the Bible’s narrative), Adams presents the problem which compels the response. The Bible tells the story for which only Christ is the answer.

A. “I answer, we derive from the first Adam sin and death; but from the second Adam, grace and life” (256).

1. The question is then whether we live after the flesh or afte the Spirit? Adams works with both 1 Cor. 15:50 and Romans 8:1, 13-14: “if we are led by the Spirit … with love and delight, we are the sons of men made into the sons of God” (256). Note that Thomas Adams uses the original phrase “sons of men” in contrast to the new status, “sons of God”. By referring back to his original topic, “sons men”, Thomas Adams keeps the hearer oriented. The similarity of sound between the phrases makes it easy for hearer to understand and remember the movement from first to second birth.

B.  “It is our happiness, not to be born, but to be new-born, John 3:3. The first birth kills, the second gives life”( 256). Adams returns to the general theme of his answer, this time working it in a slightly different manner. The repetition helps to drive home the point. The variation makes it interesting and helps to expand the understanding. Note the clever balanced sentences he uses to make the point clear and memorable, “Generation lost us; it must be regeneration that recovers us” (256).

C. He then considers a possible objection: But certainly not everything about our first birth is worthless. To this he answers, “Merely to be a son of man is to be corrupt and polluted” (256).

D. “There is no ambition good in the sons of men, but to be adopted the sons of God: under which degree there is no happiness; above which, no cause of aspiring” (256).

[1] Incidentally, the question of whether “Adam” was a symbol or a man plainly played no part in Thomas Adams’ theology – nor the theology of those in church.