Tag Archives: Self-Sacrifice

The Root of Excellence

30 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The effort to be eloquent will produce a rhetorician; the concentrated purpose to move men to live for God in Christ, will produce, in the end, an orator, and the two are as far from each other as the poles.

Young men, “covet earnestly the best gifts, yet show I unto you a more excellent way.” Seek men, not the reputation of eloquence or the incense of applause. Let your motto be the words of McAll, “I do not want their admiration, I want their salvation;” and as you labor thus for their best interests, wrestling with God for them, and with them for God, you will be led to the best methods in a natural way, and eloquence will come before you are aware of it, bringing its attestation with it in the persons of those who have been, under God, transformed and transfigured by your instrumentality.

Thus again, we come round to the truth which I wish to strike as the key-note of these addresses, that SELF-RENUNCIATION IS THE ROOT OF EXCELLENCE. It is told of Pousa, the Chinese potter, that, being ordered to produce some great work for the emperor, he tried long to make it, but in vain. At length, driven to despair, he threw himself into the furnace, and the effect of his self-immolation on the ware, which was then in the fire, was such that it came out the most beautiful piece of porcelain ever known.

So in the Christian ministry, it is self-sacrifice that gives real excellence and glory to our work. When self in us disappears, and only Christ is seen, then will be our highest success alike in our own lives and in the moving of our fellow-men. We get near to the secret of Paul’s greatness, when we hear him say, “According to my earnest expectation and my hope that Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death; ” and in the measure in which we imbibe his spirit, we shall rise to his efficiency. The worker, equally with the work, must be offered up in sacrifice to Christ, if at least the work is to be worthy of Him and of His cause.

William M. Taylor, The Ministry of the Word
1876, Yale, Lyman Beecher Lectures

This Willinghood to Self Sacrifice

20 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

But that is not precisely the point which I wish at this time to make out of His words. I want you to mark that this willinghood to sacrifice self in the service of others is the distinctive feature of ministerial greatness. The people are not for the minister, but the minister is for the people; and he is to lose himself in their service and for their benefit. See how Paul had learned this lesson,when he says,” We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus, the Lord,” i.e., supplying the ellipsis “we preach not ourselves lords, but Christ Jesus, Lord, and ourselves your servants, for Jesus’ sake.” f Nor was this a mere momentary outfiashing of sentiment with the apostle, for we find him describing it as the principle of his life that he made himself servant unto all that he might gain the more ;  and even when he was explaining what seemed to his readers to be a dereliction of duty towards them, he said, “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy.” f So also Peter in exhorting the elders is careful to warn them to exercise their oversight “not as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

Now I put this in the forefront, because, as it seems to me, misunderstanding here, goes very far to account for the ministerial failures over which the churches mourn, and for the partial character of the successes which have been made by many who were otherwise admirably adapted for the work. I can never forget the impression made on me in the early portion of my Liverpool ministry, when a brother who had just come with me from the study of a neighbor, where we had heard him railing for a long time against his people, said to me, “The truth is, he seems to think that the congregation exists for him, but the right-hearted minister recognizes that he exists for the congregation. Depend upon it, his work will be a failure.” And a failure it was. But all unconsciously to himself, the brother who predicted that, preached a most powerful sermon to me, for if I have been blessed with utmost harmony between my people and myself, and if, in any measure, I have been useful to them, it has been because I have tried to remember and lay to heart these simple words.

The office of the preacher is that of a helper of his fellows. His special duty is to lead them to Him who is their Helper and Redeemer, and to assist them in the understanding of His word, and in the application of its principles to their daily lives. He is not in the ministry, in order that he may be feted and flattered, and made the altar on which the adulation and incense of his people are to be laid. He is not set to receive the sacrifices offered by his hearers, but rather ought he to make himself a sacrifice on their behalf, aye, even though sometimes his devotion to them may be met with ingratitude; yet, none the less is it to be continued by him. Hardly can we find a more sublime spectacle in itself, or a more appropriate model for the Christian minister, than that presented by Paul, when he says, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.”

William M. Taylor, The Ministry of the Word
1876, Yale, Lyman Beecher Lectures

Training of the Twelve: The First and Last

15 Tuesday Jan 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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.

Mutual Self-Sacrifice in Marriage

27 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in 1 Peter, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Mortification, Philippians

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Whose Kingdom?

“Marriage is a beautiful thing that only reaches what it was designed to be through the methodology of a painful process” (What Did You Expect, 52).

Love is the end which God produces through the power of the Spirit: “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart” (1 Peter 1:22). “7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:7-8).

However, by nature, we are self-centered. The sin we possess in our flesh and the sin we produce in our lives merely build upon and increase the intensity and depth of our sinful selfishness. This selfish runs directly counter to the demands of marriage:
“What all this means is that sin is essentially antisocial. We don’t really have time to love our spouse, in the purest sense of what that means, because we are too busy loving ourselves. We actually want our spouse to love us as much as we love ourselves, and if our spouse is willing to do that, we will have a wonderful relationship” (What Did You Expect? 47).

[I remember reading of a poet who fell in love with one woman while he was already married to another. When he informed the first wife, he could not understand why she was not happy. After all, if she wanted him to be “happy” wouldn’t she be pleased with his new passion?]

Yet, our new life in Christ requires us to live outside ourselves, for love entails seeking a good which does not necessarily mean my person and private privilege:

1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:1-4

In marriage, this demand is heightened: the wife and the husband are required to sacrifice their own personal concern and give up their immediate desires in favor of the good of another. The submission of the wife, the self-sacrifice of the husband are demands of love of the most extraordinary sort. I think we do a disservice to Christian marriage when we pretend the goal of marriage can be obtained by some sort of effort and education. The demands of marriage are supernatural.

You see, the demand of marriage is a demand that requires extraordinary holiness, extraordinary mortification of sin. It is not merely a matter of communication skill, it is a matter of death to self, death to sin and life to God in Jesus Christ. Paul makes plain that the law cannot kill sin — this is a work of the Spirit:

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:12-13.

Marriage is a blessing to us in its very difficulty. The success of marriage — true success — requires holiness, it requires walking in the Spirit (consider it thus: what would marriage be like if you were to walk in the Spirit and if your spouse were to walk in the Spirit? What would be the marriage where the fruit of the Spirit did abound? Galatians 5:22-24).

The difficulty of marriage gives rise to the incessant need to seek holiness. “[T]he trouble you that you face in marriage is not an evidence of the failure of grace. No, those troubles are grace. They are the tools God uses to pry us out of the stultifying confines of the kingdom of self so that we can be free to luxuriate in the big-sky glories of the kingdom of God” (What Did You Expect? 52).

Thus, marriage is merely a particular instance of the common work of God to use trials as a means to produce conformity to Christ (Rom. 8:29). Twice in the NT, we are told trials are a basis for joy because they are means of transformation (Rom. 5:3-5; James 1:2-4).

Marriage inherently presents the raw materials for trial: the close relationship, the conflicted expectations, the differences between the sexes, the curse of Genesis 3:16, our own sin, the bad examples from which to “learn” — such things makes trial in marriage almost unavoidable.

God, then, in his goodness presents only one means of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13): we must learn to love our neighbor — and more so, our brother or sister (for my wife will be my sister in Christ long after death ends our marriage). I must learn to sacrifice my self, my pride and live for the good of another (and must do likewise). In so doing, obedience of faith creates a perfect correspondence between what I must do in obedience to God and what will produce the greatest happiness within my marriage.

The unhappiness of marriage comes from seeking to force another to become what I want. The joy of marriage comes from the mutual self-sacrifice of love.

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

09 Sunday Sep 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

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 in A.B. Bruce, Discipleship, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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 Doctrine of Self-Sacrifice.5

28 Saturday Jul 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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.