MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

11. Israel’s Hour of Decision (John 6:1-71)

Introduction

Nearly all of us have had the experience of having unexpected guests drop in and end up staying for dinner. While I was attending seminary, my wife and I began to invite people from church over for dinner. Though times were difficult, Jeanette had prepared some cabbage rolls, stretching our meager supply of hamburger to the point where we could invite someone home for dinner. We went to church that morning, not knowing who we would invite. After the service Jeannette informed me that she had invited one couple, and I added that I, too, had invited a couple. There was no problem we thought for there were plenty of cabbage rolls for all. When we arrived home with our guests, the house was filled with smoke. The oven had been turned up too high and the dinner was burned to a crisp. Jeannette could not understand how it could have happened, since she checked the oven just before she walked out the door. The only problem was that I checked it, too. It was a five dollar stove, and it had no thermostat as most ovens do today. You judged the oven temperature by the height of the flame. Well, to me it didn’t look high enough, so I set it up just enough to burn up the entire dinner.

You can imagine the consternation at our house that Sunday with two families arriving for dinner and nothing but ashes in the oven. Well, as bad as that was, it could not compare to the situation in John chapter 6 where somewhere around 20,000 folks showed up and stayed late for dinner. This, as you will recognize, was the situation facing our Lord and His disciples prior to the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 men.

The significance of this miracle is apparent even at the surface, for it is the only miracle (with the exception of the resurrection) which is recorded in all four gospels. Of far greater importance, this event was indeed the ‘hour of decision’ for the nation Israel. Jesus had long since been written off as a candidate for Messiah by the Jewish leadership, but His popularity among the masses was at its peak. The discourse on the ‘bread of life’ which was the sequel to this miracle was the determining factor for many which caused them to cease following Jesus as their potential Messiah. It is for this reason that we shall give our attention to this crucial event in the life and ministry of our Lord.

The Feeding of the 5,000
(John 6:1-15)

It is only when we put all of the gospel accounts together and get a composite picture that we can ascertain the setting for this great miracle. Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee for several reasons. First of all, Herod had just put John the Baptist to death (Matthew 14:1-12), and he was also eager to see Jesus (Luke 9:9). It was not without good reason that Jesus retired to a desert place on the mountains near Bethsaida, just outside the jurisdiction of Herod.

Second, the disciples had been sent out as apostles to proclaim the message of the Kingdom (Mark 6:7-13). As a result of their taxing ministry, the Lord recognized the need for rest and relaxation, as well as time for reflection. It was to be a time of retreat (Mark 6:31).

Third, to put all of the factors together, the Messianic expectations of the people were at an all time high, dangerously so. Since John the Baptist was dead, all eyes were upon Jesus as his successor. The Jews were ready to throw off the shackles of Rome. Further, the apostles had just been on a campaign preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God. Thus, expectations were heightened. Finally, it was the time of the Passover (John 6:4); there were many zealous Jews who had made the pilgrimage to the Holy Land and the spirit of religious expectation and enthusiasm, due to the season, was unusually high. All of these factors combined to make an explosive situation, one which should be allowed to cool off if at all possible.

For these reasons, our Lord and His disciples set off for the other side of the lake by boat, rather than by land so as not to attract attention. Perhaps because the ship was well-known,140 it was recognized as it made its way to the other side of the lake. Many people ran ahead by land, gathering a larger and larger crowd as they went. Some of these people actually arrived before the little ship, while the rest arrived somewhat later.

When the Lord saw these sheep without any shepherd (remember that John was now gone) He was moved with compassion. He began to teach them much about the Kingdom, as well as to heal many who were sick (Luke 9:11). It would seem that early in the day our Lord raised the question of how this large group was to be fed (John 6:5ff.). As the day wore on,141 the impact of our Lord’s earlier question began to grip the disciples. Their solution was to send the crowds away and let them fend for themselves. There is probably a great deal of their humanity disclosed here, for they had come expecting a quiet day with the Lord to themselves. They had probably seen all the people they cared to on their preaching tour.

The impossibility of the situation was brought out by our Lord’s discussion with Phillip. According to Shepard,142 Phillip, in bookkeeper-like fashion, computed the cost for each person to receive even a bit of a snack. When the disciples were told to assess the situation more carefully, five loaves (not loaves in the sense that we know them but more like biscuits that didn’t rise) and two small sardine-like fishes were found in the possession of a boy. But how could this be of any help?

Our Lord instructed His disciples to have the men sit in companies of 50 or 100, the women and children sitting apart from the men, in typical Jewish fashion.143 After blessing the loaves and fishes,144 Jesus distributed the food by means of the disciples. Although the meal was not a luxurious one,145 it was very adequate, for all who ate were filled (John 6:12). The unused portions were collected so as not to be wasted, and, significantly, there were twelve baskets146 full, one for each disciple to carry, as I would take it, an object lesson.

This miracle has been variously explained. The liberals, trying at all costs to avoid the supernatural, have explained this as a ‘miracle’ in the hearts of the crowd. These selfish folks had brought plenty of food along, we are told, but they did not want to share it with those who had none. When the example of the generous little boy was put before the crowd by Jesus, everyone felt ashamed and brought out their food to share with the rest. Surely this does not fit the gospel accounts. Others say that it was a sacramental meal, with each person receiving a mere tidbit, just as we do in a communion service. It is hard to see how the crowds could be ‘filled’ by such a fragment. It is also hard to see how so little food could be divided among such a large crowd. The only logical interpretation is to understand it as the gospel writers have recorded it as a full-fledged miracle. If we are not willing to accept it as such, then let us call these writers deceivers and their works mere fiction.

Matthew and Mark inform us that Jesus forcefully instructed His disciples to get into the boat and go on ahead of Him to Bethsaida, while He remained behind to dismiss the crowds. John tells us the reason for what must have seemed highly unusual to the disciples: the crowd had determined to make Jesus their king. Jesus had sought retreat from the crowds, due to their heightened messianic expectations, but instead they gathered about Him, and now He performed this miracle which further added fuel to the flames of their hopes for Messiah. It was difficult enough to deal with the crowd alone. His disciples (with their own messianic hopes running high, perhaps higher than the crowd’s) would have only made matters worse.

Walking on the Sea
(6:16-21)

Our Lord, having dismissed the crowd, went off by Himself to pray (Matthew 14:23). He may have originally intended to walk to the other side of the lake, just as the crowds had come. Looking out from His mountain place of prayer, Jesus may have seen the disciples struggling at the oars, and set out across the lake to help them. As the Lord drew near they supposed that they were seeing a ghost, and cried out in fear (Mark 6:49,50). Immediately, as our Lord got into the ship, the winds became calm and they were at their destination. The amazement of the disciples was due to their hardness of heart (Mark 6:51-52). In particular, Mark informs us that they did not understand about the loaves (6:52). If I understand the passage correctly, the incident with the loaves should have proved Jesus to be One greater than Moses. If the disciples had realized that they were with One Who was greater than Moses, then just as the Lord had provided bread from above, so He could make a path through the sea. They should not at all have been astounded at what took place, for it was the logical corollary to the feeding of the 5,000.

Discourse on the Bread of Life
(6:22-59)

The miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 was a sign (John 6:14) which pointed to a deeper spiritual truth about the person of Jesus Christ. John is the writer who records the discourse on the ‘bread of life’ given by our Lord on the following day. The crowds interpreted the miracle in the light of their distorted messianic hopes. Since Jesus was not this kind of messiah, He sent the crowds away in bewildered disappointment. In this discourse, He indicated the difference in His program, correcting their misconceptions.

The messianic kingdom for which the Jews waited was completely materialistic. Edersheim describes it this way:

“What they waited for, was a Kingdom of God—not in righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, but in meat and drink—a kingdom with miraculous wilderness banquets to Israel, and of coarse miraculous triumphs over the Gentiles. Not to speak of the fabulous Messianic banquet which a sensuous realism expected, or of the achievements for which it looked, every figure in which prophets had clothed the brightness of those days was first literalised, and then exaggerated, till the most glorious poetic descriptions became the most repulsively incongruous caricatures of spiritual Messianic expectancy. The fruit trees were every day, or at least every week or two, to yield their riches, the fields their harvests; the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to be reaped and winnowed without labour. Similar blessings were to visit the vine; ordinary trees would bear little fruit trees, and every produce, of every clime, would be found in Palestine in such abundance and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could conceive.”147

Not finding Jesus at the place where the 5,000 had been fed, the multitude made their way to Capernaum, and when they found Him they asked, “Rabbi, when did You get here?” (John 6:25).

Perhaps they sensed another miracle had taken place and were hoping to draw the details out of Him. But Jesus brushed this question aside, to get to the true motivation for seeking Him. They were not seeking Him for His presence, but for His presents. It was not Jesus that they sought, but some kind of ‘great society’ where men would no longer have to work in order to eat. To put it in yet another way, they did not receive the miracle of the preceding day as a sign, but only as a mere miracle (verse 26). They did not consider the purpose of the miracle, but only sought for the perpetuation of it. It was, at best, a kind of ‘soup line’ mentality revealed in those who were seeking after Jesus. Their eyes were not on the person, but on the provision.

As a sign, the feeding of the 5,000 signified that Jesus was a person who had to be taken seriously. More than this, He should have been acknowledged as One on Whom God had set His seal (John 6:27). Again we see that the miracles of our Lord were accomplished to authenticate the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God, Israel’s Messiah. It was not the person of Jesus that they sought, but His power: “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” (John 6:28).

They perceived Jesus to be no different than any other Jew. If He could work such miracles, so could they. They merely asked Him how to duplicate the works that He did. According to Jesus, the only work acceptable to God (and accomplished by God) is the work of faith. “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29).

The Jews perceived that Jesus was attempting to shift their attention from the bread of the previous day to Himself. Consequently, they urged Him to produce some spectacular sign to verify His claim to be their Messiah: “What then do You do for a sign, that we may see, and believe You?” (John 6:30).

Here the gauntlet was thrown down before our Lord. “If You are the Messiah, prove it!” “If Moses provided bread in the wilderness for forty years, let’s see You do better.” By this, they insisted that Jesus should produce better bread and for a longer period of time.

But this was exactly the point. They had fixed their focus only an the physical bread. Now they fixed their eyes on Jesus only as the instrument through which bread was given. Ultimately, it was not Moses who gave the bread, but God. The manna was bread from heaven. Jesus came not as a mere provider of bread, but as the bread from heaven. The superiority of Jesus over Moses was not just to be sought in the period over which the bread would be provided, but in the effect which it produced. The bread which was given in the wilderness did not give eternal life, for they all died (verse 49). The bread which God has provided in Christ is far better, for it gives eternal life. Those who taste of it will never again hunger or thirst for what it provides (verses 50,51).

Although Jesus attracted the multitudes with His works, He repelled them by His words as recorded in verses 32-59. His words were the truth necessary for the moment, both to correct misconceptions concerning Messiah and His Kingdom and to cool the feverish expectation of Messiah’s return in splendor and great power. What He did not accomplish by retreating to a remote spot, He achieved by His discourse on the bread of life. We shall summarize His teaching in seven striking statements.

(1) The issue is not one of physical bread, but spiritual. The kingdom which the Jews sought was almost exclusively material, while that which Jesus came to institute was primarily (though not exclusively) spiritual. He came not to provide free meals, but to satisfy man’s spiritual hunger by the free gift of salvation. Consequently, our Lord could claim that His program was vastly superior to that of Moses.

(2) Christ’s Kingdom was not one established by the good works of (as Israel supposed), but on the basis of faith (verse 29).

(3) Christ came not as a spectacular wonder worker but as the wonder. There was in Israel at this time (as with us in our own time) a craving for the spectacular. It was because of this that Satan challenged Jesus to make a spectacular death-defying leap from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:5,6). It was the spectacular provision of bread and the mighty miracles of Jesus which attracted the crowds. They sought the works to the neglect of the Worker. It was He that was the wonder, not so much His deeds. They were preoccupied only with the spectacular works.

(4) Those who are to enter Christ’s Kingdom do so by means of election and divine drawing. The Jews supposed that by virtue of their national origin and religious works they were assured of a place in the Kingdom. They thought that they could manipulate Messiah into adapting to their conception of the Kingdom. Quite the opposite was true, our Lord revealed. Entrance into the Kingdom is not ultimately a matter of our choice, but God’s. It is not we who bring God to us, but God Who draws us to Himself.

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).

“No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).

Every Israelite does not have a reserved seat in the kingdom, but only such as submit to the rule of Jesus as their Messiah. The issue is solely one of receiving Christ or rejecting Him (cf. John 6:36,40,45,47).

(5) The Kingdom of our Lord is not merely for the present, but also for eternity. We speak sometimes of our own age as the ‘now generation.’ By this we point out that those in our day live only for the present. So it was in Israel in our Lord’s manifestation as Messiah. Their concept of the Kingdom was material, not spiritual. It was present, not future. The Kingdom of our Lord Jesus is both present and future. The present manifestation is predominantly spiritual, followed in the future by more physical and material dimensions. So it is that our Lord spoke here of the future aspects of His Kingdom instead of what the Jews wanted now.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal Life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40).

“No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life” (John 6:47).

It is no wonder that the theme of resurrection is so prominent in their discourse.

(6) The watchword of the Kingdom is not self-satisfaction, but self-sacrifice. The Jews sought the Kingdom largely for what it would do for them. They projected their own desires into their concept of messiah. They had no intention of entering into a Kingdom which taught self-sacrifice and denial, much less a Messiah Who would die, rather than deliver them from the tyranny of Rome. But Jesus insisted in speaking of His destiny as that of giving His body and His blood for others:

“‘I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day’” (John 6:51,53-54).

Popular Reaction
(6:60-65)

The discourse on the bread of life revealed that Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom was diametrically opposed to the popular expectations of the masses in Israel. As a result, there was a negative reaction. “Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement, who can listen to it?’” (John 6:60).

The masses are not troubled because they cannot understand what Jesus has said but precisely because they have understood Him too well. It was not difficult to comprehend but hard to cope with, for it failed to line up with their own distorted views of the Kingdom of God.

Once again, Jesus made no effort to modify or re-state His doctrine so as not to lose popular support. He rather sharpened the issue. If they stumbled at His teaching, how much more would they be distressed at His ascension to return to the right hand of the Father (verse 62). They had chosen to understand God’s Word in an almost crassly literal way, while our Lord’s were more metaphorical. He did not teach the eating of His literal flesh, but of making His person and work a vital part of themselves (verse 63).148 The real problem, as always, was that of unbelief (verse 64), just as was the case with Judas. They appeared to be true disciples, but were in reality only thrill seekers and deadbeats, looking for a handout. Their unbelief was to be expected for they could only come by means of the Father’s drawing (verse 65).

The Decision of the Twelve Disciples
(6:66-71)

Those who followed Jesus were all called ‘disciples’ (cf. verse 66), but the dividing line was about to be drawn. When the masses heard the discourse they went their way in unbelief. When Jesus’ disciples were given the opportunity to back away, Peter answered for the twelve when he said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).

Here was the response of Jesus’ most intimate followers. They had no other options, for He was the only One Who had the words of life. Yet, even at this point, the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was known to the Master (vv. 70-71).

Conclusion and Application

Historically, the feeding of the 5,000 and the discourse on the Bread of Life was the turning of the tide of national sentiment away from Jesus as Messiah. With the death of John the Baptist, every eye was upon Jesus as his successor. But Jesus’ teaching made it clear that He did not come to conform to the popular thinking about Messiah.

By way of application to us today, it is most interesting to note that in Jesus’ presentation of Himself as Messiah, He refused to accommodate their entirely materialistic ideas and expectations. How different it is in our day and age when men and women proclaim the Gospel, not in terms of its spiritual demands, but in the light of its material benefits. We make it sound as though God is promising a utopian life of unusual and continual blessings for whoever gives at least lip service to Christ.

The real focus of the gospel of our Lord was not on the matter of self-gratification and indulgence, but rather on sacrifice and death. Jesus came to die for men’s sins and only those who have accepted the suffering Savior will reign with Him. Such is the great divide in Christianity. Many are those who name the name of Christ and who call themselves Christians. But when the matter comes down to suffering, they quickly go their way (cf. Mark 4:16-17).

Then, too, we are reminded by this passage that salvation comes not by mere mental ascent, the polite tipping of the hat to Jesus (as a good man, a good teacher, etc.), but by the bowing of the knee, by the actual and personal acceptance of His person and work on the cross of Calvary. It is not just a matter of believing about Him, but of trusting in Him alone for eternal salvation.


140 “St. Mark vi. 32 has it ‘by (or rather in) the ship,’ with the definite article. Probably it was the same boat that was always at His disposal, perhaps belonging to the sons of Jonas or to the sons of Zebedee.” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), I, p. 678, fn. 2.

141 “For already the bright spring day was declining, and what was called ‘the first evening’ had set in. For the Jews reckoned two evenings, although it is not easy to determine the exact hour when each began and ended. But, in general, the first evening may be said to have begun when the sun declined, and it was probably reckoned as lasting to about the ninth hour, or three o’clock of the afternoon. Then began the period known as ‘between the evenings,’ which would be longer or shorter according to the season of the year, and which terminated with ‘the second evening’—the time from when the first star appeared to that when the third star was visible. With the night began the reckoning of the following day.” Edersheim, Life and Times, I, p. 681.

142 J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), p. 262.

143 “In keeping with Eastern customs, according to which the women and children were kept apart, the men alone appear to have sat down in the order indicated. This explains why, as say the synoptic Gospels, they alone were counted, besides women and children.” Godet, quoted by R. C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), p. 166, fn. 3.

144 “There can be little doubt, therefore, that the words which Jesus spake, whether in Aramean, Greek, or Hebrew, were those so well known: ‘Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, King of the world, Who causes to come forth … bread from the earth.’” Edersheim, Life and Times, I, p. 684.

145 “When we read that these five were barley-loaves, we learn that, no doubt from voluntary choice, the fare of the Lord and of His followers was the poorest. Indeed, barley-bread was, almost proverbially, the meanest. Hence, as the Mishnah puts it, while all other meal-offerings were of wheat, that brought by the woman accused of adultery was to be of barley, because (so R. Gamaliel puts it), ‘as her deed is that of animals, so her offering is also of the food of animals.’” Edersheim, Life and Times, I, pp. 681-682.

146 “The word for basket here (kophinos) means a wicker container such as the disciples would have used for carrying provisions on a journey. Juvenal mentions it as used by poor Roman Jews. They carried their own provisions so as not to be defiled by eating Gentile food.” Ralph Earle, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 87.

147 Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 28.

“This may be illustrated from the prophecy concerning the messianic age in II Baruch 29:5, “The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each (?) vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor (about 120 gallons) of wine.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 364, fn. 87.

148 “The idea of eating, as a metaphor for receiving spiritual food and the benefits flowing there from, was familiar to the Jews. ‘In the Rabbinical literature, sacred instruction was called bread and those who eagerly absorb it were said to eat it.’ ‘Thy words were found and I did eat them’ (Jer. 15:16). In the Talmud Hillel says: ‘The Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already eaten Him in the days of Hezekiah.’ The Rabbis spoke of their instruction as ‘the whole stay of bread.’ It was a common saying among the Jews: ‘In the time of the Messiah the Israelites will be fed by Him.’” Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, p. 275.

Related Topics: Christology, Dispensational / Covenantal Theology

12. The Light of the World (John 9:1-41)

Introduction

“In 167 B.C. Antiochus’ army put a stop to the Jew’s sacrifices. The people of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Matthias, revolted and then fled to the desert. Their hiding place was soon discovered, and the pursuing soldiers demanded that they repent and surrender.

The Jews refused to give in, but they also refused to fight because it was the Sabbath. They would not block the entrances to their caves or fight in any way. Approximately 1000 men, women and children died without resistance, because they considered the Sabbath sacred.”149

The death of 1,000 people resulted from the sincere conviction that the Sabbath should not be violated. Although this event happened nearly two centuries before the healing of the blind man in John chapter 9, it does give us a feel for the intensity of the conviction of devout Jews that the Sabbath could not be broken. As a matter of fact, the intervening years between the days of Matthias and Christ did not weaken this conviction, but strengthened it.

The sect which especially set out to protect the Sabbath was the Pharisees. In the light of many pagan forces at work to corrupt the purity of the Jewish faith, the Pharisees took upon themselves the task of keeping Judaism pure of foreign and pagan influence. As a result, the Pharisees were separatists (the word Pharisee means separated). Initially devout and well-motivated, this sect became more and more rigid and legalistic. The central issue for the Pharisees was the preservation of the Sabbath.

“The Jerusalem Talmud contained 64 pages, and the Babylonian Talmud 156 double pages, with specific rules on observing the Sabbath.”150

The Pharisees succeeded in turning the Sabbath rest into a burden, rather than a blessing.

“The scribes drew up a list of forty works save one which were forbidden and which, if done knowingly, rendered the offender liable to stoning, and if done inadvertently demanded a heavy sin-offering in expiation. These thirty-nine works in the technical language of the legalists were called ‘fathers,’ and the subsections of derivative pieces of labour were called ‘descendants.’”151

For example, plowing was a ‘father’ prohibited on the Sabbath. Digging was a ‘descendant.’ Dragging a chair on the ground would make a kind of furrow, and therefore was forbidden, but dragging a chair on a hard surface was permitted. Another ‘father’ was carrying a load, and this prohibition was attended by a host of ‘descendants.’ To wear an unneeded garment was prohibited. A tailor had to leave his needle and thread at home, and a scribe could not carry his pen. One matter which caused a great deal of discussion was what a man could do if his home caught on fire on the Sabbath. Nothing could be carried out, but clothing, if it were put on one piece at a time, could be worn outside, taken off, and then one could return for another garment.152 People must have come from miles around to watch the spectacle as the house of a devout Jew burned down!

Although we have only scratched the surface of the issue, you can easily see why our Lord viewed the regulations of the Pharisees as a heavy burden upon the Jews (cf. Matthew 11:28-30; 23:1-4). Those who were skilled in the Law also were skillful in devising ways to circumvent most of the meticulous rules which they had laid down.153 Worst of all, these traditions of the Pharisees were so intertwined with the Old Testament Law that to violate these traditions was viewed as breaking the Law of God.

Such was the backdrop for this healing of the blind man recorded in John chapter nine. As a result of this miracle, there was yet another head-on collision between the Pharisees and the Lord Jesus Christ. From this account, we learn of a blindness far more dangerous and devastating than that of the mere loss of (physical) sight. Here we find the blind given sight and the seeing blinded.

The Blind Receives His Sight
(9:1-12)

In John chapter 8, our Lord had a major confrontation with the Pharisees. He had openly claimed to be God (cf. vs. 58) and they had, in turn, sought to stone Him. Having hid Himself, He went out of the temple. It is possible that our Lord’s encounter with the blind man happened as He was leaving the temple.154 As Jesus passed by, He noticed a man who was blind. There is no indication that this man cried out to Jesus, nor that anyone drew our Lord’s attention to him. In fact, quite the reverse seems to be the case. From beginning to end, the restoration of this man was a healing at the initiative of the Lord Jesus.

When the disciples learned that this man had been blind from birth, they launched into a philosophical discussion, asking our Lord, “Whose sin resulted in this man’s blindness, this man or his parents?” (vs. 2). The disciples were not mistaken in making a connection between sin and human suffering, since all suffering is the result of man’s fall (cf. Genesis 3:16ff.). Moreover, sickness is sometimes the direct result of sin in the life of an individual (Leviticus 26:16; Deuteronomy 28:22; 1 Corinthians 11:30; James 5:15). The sins of the parents can also affect their children (Exodus 20:5). But the disciples doubtless reflected the thinking of their contemporaries when they came to the hasty conclusion that someone’s sin had caused the blindness. As R. Ammi put it: “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity.”155

To the Jew, great suffering could not be thought of apart from great sin. Our Lord’s response jolted His disciples back to reality when He responded, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).

By His statement, our Lord did not mean that this man and his parents were sinless, for “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). He did clearly imply that it was the purpose of God that this man suffer blindness, even from his birth. Rather than stress the human reasons for this man’s suffering, He turned His disciples’ attention to the divine purpose, that ‘the works of God might be displayed in him’ (vs. 3). We shall say more about suffering in the will of God later, but the response of our Lord to the question of His disciples is directed more to their attitudes and actions than to their doctrinal instruction. The disciples, like most of us, had rather philosophize about human suffering than to philanthropize. Our Lord had no time to probe into the specific cause of this man’s suffering. Time was late; His time was limited. They must do the work of God while there was the opportunity (cf. verse 4).

Just prior to healing this man, Jesus made this statement: “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:5). This Jesus said to establish a clear connection between the healing of this blind man and His claim to be the ‘Light of the world’ (John 18:12; cf. John 1:4; 12:46). What our Lord previously claimed He now demonstrated by this miracle.

The healing of this man was unusual from several vantage points. First of all, as we have previously remarked, it was apparently completely at the initiative of our Lord. Then, also, it was not marked with the simplicity of other healings of the blind (cf. Matthew 9:27-30; 20:30-34). Our Lord made clay from the dust and His spittle. With this mixture, He anointed the eyes of the man and then sent him to the pool of Siloam,156 instructing him to wash there. When he returned with his sight, it would appear that our Lord had long since departed.

Why, then, did our Lord heal this man in such a unique fashion? Let me suggest several reasons for the clay and the washing. First of all, we are told by some that spittle was thought by those in Jesus’ time to have medicinal value.157 By the use of the clay and the spittle, our Lord is said to have accommodated Himself to the popular beliefs of His day in order to strengthen the faith of the man.158 Also, as Shepard has suggested,159 our Lord technically violated the Pharisaical interpretation of keeping the Sabbath, for the mixing of the spittle and clay would be considered work, and the application of spittle on the Sabbath was expressly prohibited by Jewish tradition.160

Having noted these scholarly suggestions, let me suggest a couple of my own, much more pragmatic in nature. The smearing of the clay on the eyes of this man greatly facilitated his faith in a very practical way. Even if the man had his doubts about a man smearing mud in his eyes and promising healing, he had to wash his face anyway, and the pool of Siloam may well have been the closest place. Then, also, by having the man wash in the pool of Siloam, the actual miracle took place away from Jesus, and probably away from the gaping eyes of the Pharisees, who were looking for any cause to bring further accusations against Him. The confrontation in this account is between the healed man and the Pharisees, not Jesus and the Pharisees.

It didn’t take long for the word to get out that something strange had happened to this blind beggar. Not only was he no longer blind, but he no longer begged either (cf. verse 8). The neighbors were the first to notice the change, but they did not all agree as to how they should interpret what had happened. Some maintained that this man only resembled the blind beggar (verse 9). When they asked him to explain in detail all he could say was that a man named Jesus had accomplished it, and that he did not know where He was (verses 11,12).

The Blind Man Receives a Hearing
(9:13-34)

While Jesus gave him his sight, the Pharisees gave him a hearing. Those who had first witnessed that the man had been healed did not know how to handle the situation, so they brought the man to the Pharisees (verse 13). Although this was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin, it was no informal gathering either. It must have been some smaller body, convening as a preliminary hearing to see if there was sufficient cause to take more rigorous action.161

At this initial hearing, several points were established. The man apparently had been healed by Jesus, and most significantly, on the Sabbath. The evidence presented led to two contradictory conclusions. Some recognized that such a great work could not be anything other than the work of God. Others, pointing out that the Sabbath had been violated, concluded that Jesus could not have been from God (verse 16). Perhaps in frustration they turned to the man himself. No one was more qualified to judge this matter than the healed man himself. What did he think of Jesus? Without hesitation, he answered, “He is a prophet” (verse 17).

This conclusion was totally unacceptable to the opposing Pharisees. Consequently, they had to investigate the matter more fully. Perhaps this was some kind of hoax. Maybe this man only resembled the blind beggar, as some had already suggested. Perhaps his parents could shed some light on the matter.

The parents were guardedly tight-lipped. It was known to them that the Pharisees had already put the word out that anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue (or excommunicated).162 As a result, the parents confirmed the fact that this man was their son, and that he had been born blind. As to who had healed him and how it was accomplished, they would not conjecture. If the Pharisees wanted to know more, let them ask their son, for he was of age and could speak for himself (verse 21).

Again, the man was called before the Pharisees with the words, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24).163 The intent of this instruction is not just that the man should give all the glory to God for his healing, and none to Jesus, but it is in effect the swearing of an oath, promising to tell the whole truth.164 At this point, the man did not attempt to interpret the events of his healing, but he tenaciously held to the facts: before, he was blind, but now he could see. Whatever the Jews decided, they could not alter the facts.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that this man had been genuinely healed, and by Jesus, they probed into the manner of the healing. Perhaps there was something here to give the Pharisees a toehold and thus enable them to press charges against Jesus. And so they asked the man to repeat once more how the miracle was accomplished.

The patience of the man gave way to exasperation. He knew all too well that they had no interest in the matter other than to find fault with Jesus. The man turned the tables on his inquisitioners and asked them a question: “I told you already, and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” (John 9:27).

Here the motives of the Pharisees were laid bare. They did not seek truth, but some shred of evidence that they could use against Jesus, to prove He was not the Messiah. They did not seek this for their sake so much as for the crowds who still generally held Him a likely candidate.

That little word ‘too’ may be significant, for it may indicate that this man has progressed to the point in his thinking that he included himself among the disciples of our Lord. This is the way that the Pharisees took it, for in verse 28, they referred to him as a disciple of Jesus.

The choice confronting the man was to decide whose disciple he would be. They were disciples of Moses, while he followed Jesus. Assuming their traditions to be a part of God’s Law, they thought that Moses was on their side. This also meant that Jesus was a Sabbath-breaker by their definition, and that, as such, He could not be One sent from God. He must be a sinner. He would have to choose between Moses and Jesus. The point they failed to notice was that Moses, like Jesus, was authenticated as God’s messenger by the miraculous works that he performed.

The blind beggar had not only gained his sight, but he was continually gaining insight into the true motives of his inquisitors. They had no interest in the facts. Their minds were made up. They were simply looking for some loophole in the facts which would make room for their preconceived ideas. With this insight, he turned the tables and put the Pharisees on the defensive. He manifested a boldness in the truth that is unmistakable.

“The man answered and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. We know that God does not hear sinners; but if any one is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him. Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:30-33).

There was an obvious note of sarcasm in this indictment of the Pharisees by the one who had been healed. How could they possibly conclude that He was not sent from God when He did that which no other prophet had done? How could they defend their position as religious leaders when they had no explanation for His appearance or actions? Their position was so weak and indefensible that even this untrained layman could shoot holes in it. He had lost all respect for their authority, and no longer feared whatever penalty they might mete out to him. He wanted no part of their religion anyway. Let them throw him out.

The self-righteous Pharisees were cut to the quick. All semblance of impartiality and calm judgment were swept aside by the stinging rebuke of the former beggar. In this debate between the beggar and the bigots, the beggar won. This is evidenced by their response to his rebuke:

“‘How dare you, a man whose sins have brought about blindness, speak to us in such fashion,’ they retaliated. And with this they excommunicated him” (John 9:34, my paraphrase).

The Blind Sees and the Seeing Are Blind
(9:35-41)

Just as our Lord initiated the restoration of sight to this blind man, so He now sought him out to grant him spiritual sight. The Savior did not hasten the spiritual birth process. His physical healing set the process in motion. The opposition of the Pharisees, far from hindering his conversion, compelled him to it. The failure of Pharisaism was all too evident. If the Pharisees were wrong, then Jesus must be right.

When our Lord found the man He asked him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (verse 35).165 He was willing to accept Jesus as a spokesman for God, but did not yet know who the Messiah was. And so it was that he asked who the Messiah was, that he might believe on Him. The One Whom he had beheld with his restored eyes, the One to Whom he had been driven by the obstinance of the Pharisees, the One to Whom he spoke; this One was the Messiah. With this, the man fell at the feet of Jesus in acknowledgement and adoration of His person. And with this bending of the knees came the full sight of the blind man, both physical and spiritual.

But while the healed man bent his knees, the Pharisees stiffened their necks in rebellion and resistance. Our Lord’s coming resulted not only in the restoration of sight to the blind, but also in the blindness of those who professed to see: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).

There is no contradiction in these words of our Lord with what He said elsewhere to the effect that He did not come to condemn men, but to save them (e.g. John 3:17; 12:47). Our Lord’s purpose in coming to the world was to accomplish salvation. But in the process of His coming as the ‘Light of the world’ (John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46), He exposed the sinfulness of men. Those who reject the light and refuse to turn from their sins and receive His pardon seal their own condemnation. I may go to my office late at night to get a much needed book, and in the process encounter a burglar who, because of my call to the police, is captured and convicted. What was done for one primary purpose may result in something different. Such is the case with the coming of Christ as the light of the world.

The Pharisees, who were now watching Jesus like a hawk, seeking any infraction of their meticulous rules, could not help but overhear this statement of Jesus and ask, “We are not blind too, are we?” (John 9:40).

They, no doubt, hoped for a simple “No,” while expecting a stinging ‘“Yes.” Jesus explained their guilt in more detail. They would not be blind if they were aware of the issues. But their problem was not a lack of evidence. Their sin was manifested in their refusal to admit that the evidence was true. They refused to let the evidence persuade them to come to the only logical conclusion. Because they claimed to perceive the issues, they were blind, and by their own admission (verse 41).

Conclusion and Application

Historical Interpretation

As I understand this passage in the context of John’s gospel, it serves several purposes. First of all, this healing accredits the claim of our Lord Jesus to be the ‘light of the world,’ especially as it was made in chapter 8 (verse 12). This miracle authenticated the claims of Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah, just as the miracles of Moses identified him to Israel as a prophet of God. The blind saw the implications of his healing and knelt in worship before Jesus. As the blind man himself reminded the Pharisees, there was no record of a man ever receiving his sight. More than this, the giving of sight to the blind was viewed in the Old Testament as a work of the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). It is not without significance that Jesus is recorded to have performed more miracles of restoring sight than of any other kind of healing (cf. Matthew 9:27-31; 12:22f.; 15:30f.; 21:14; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke 7:21f.).

In addition to providing evidence in defense of the claims of Jesus, His miracles practically forced men to come to a decision about him. In this chapter, we can see that the healing of the blind man divided those who learned of it. Some could not resist the compelling nature of the evidence, while others could not accept it. But in either case, it pushed people off ‘dead center.’ No one remained neutral about Jesus. Even the opposition of the Pharisees forced people to arrive at a strong conviction in the matter. Humanly speaking, the blind man might have given no more thought to his healing had the Pharisees not made such an issue of it.

Implications and Applications

This passage has a great deal to say to men today: First of all, it addresses those who have attempted to remain neutral on the issue of Jesus Christ. Let me say to you, my friend, that there is no such thing as neutrality concerning Jesus Christ. To attempt to remain neutral is only a more sophisticated way of rejecting Him. As our Lord Himself said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

The apostle John wrote: “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:12).

Once again, our Lord said, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matthew 12:30).

Those who profess neutrality have failed to take the words of Scripture seriously enough. Those who witnessed the claims and actions of Jesus knew that they must either accept Him for Whom He claimed to be, or utterly reject Him. In this sense, the logic of the Pharisees was not too far from the truth. If Jesus was not the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, the Savior of the world, then He should have been done away with. Such a man would have been a menace to society. But if He was right, then men must fall before Him as the Creator of the universe, and the Redeemer of men to Whom all things will be put in subjection (cf. Philippians 2:9-11).

Whatever you do this morning, my undecided friend, do not go away tipping your hat to God by acknowledging that Jesus was a good man, a good teacher, a good example for us to follow. If He was not the Son of God, He was an imposter, deceived and deceiving. Do not give Him what He does not deserve. But if, as the gospel writers tell us, He not only healed the blind and raised the dead, but also claimed to be God in human flesh, then you must accept Him as your Savior or reject Him as a fraud. There is no middle ground. You must face the compelling force of the miracles and teaching of Jesus.

I must also go on to say that this text exposes the real reason why men reject Jesus as their Savior. It is not an intellectual problem. Let me say it again; it is not, at its roots, an intellectual reason for which men reject Jesus. It is a moral problem. There was no deficiency in the evidence. The problem was that the Pharisees rejected the sheer weight of the evidence, because it did not conform to their preconceived ideas as to the conclusion. It was their presuppositions that killed them (so to speak). They had devised a religious system which outwardly seemed to comply with the Old Testament revelation, but which really defined a God under their control. The reason they rejected Jesus was because He did not conform to their preferences as to what God should be like. They had created a God after their own image, rather than conforming their theology to what God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

And so it is with men today. “I like to think of God as …” people say. And that is precisely their problem. It doesn’t really matter how you wish to think of God. The destiny-determining reality is that we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:23). When God does not conform to our preferences, our preferences must give way to the precepts of the Word of God. There is more than enough evidence in the Word of God to persuade any man who is open to the truth (and this, of course, is ultimately the sovereign work of God). No amount of evidence will persuade the one who has determined not to submit to God (cf. Luke 16:27-31). Men do not accept the gospel of Jesus Christ because they know that they must undergo a radical transformation of lifestyle, and rebels against God that we are, we do not (by nature) wish to do any such thing. That is why, in the final analysis, that our salvation must originate with God and not with us.

There is here as well instruction for Christians. We should be rebuked by the hardness of the disciples to the suffering of this man. We, like they, are all too inclined to speculate about the sins of others, rather than to minister to the misery of the suffering. We would rather philosophize than to philanthropize. If we would do His work, we must work while the opportunity is ours, to manifest the grace of God to men.

There is also instruction for the Christian in the matter of apologetics. I am amazed at how this untaught, unlearned beggar stood up to the most highly educated skeptics of his day. He refused to speculate, but tenaciously held to what he knew to be the facts, based upon his own experience with Jesus Christ. And so, I believe, must we stick to what little (“this one thing I know” verse 25) we know from our own experience to be true. The one thing men can’t explain is a life completely transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

I dare not depart from this text without a word on the matter of suffering and the will of God. First of all, it was a part of the decretive (purposed, determined) will of God that this man be born blind. Second, God is not untouched by suffering (as the disciples seemed to be), but rather was moved with compassion to heal this man. Our Lord came not only to deal with the symptom of suffering, but its root, which is sin. Although the Christian is no more exempt from suffering in this life than was our Lord, when the restoration of all things takes place, there will be no more suffering (cf. Romans 8:18-23; Revelation 21:4). For the time being, suffering is both for the glory of God and the good of the Christian. Although this man spent years in darkness, he came in contact with the ‘Light of the world’ because of his blindness, and came to see not only physically, but spiritually. That man will never, in all of eternity, look back on those years of blindness with regret. He came to experience the truth of Romans 8:28 that suffering, for the Christian, is for the glory of God, as well as the good of the saint.


149 “Man for Sabbath or Sabbath for Man?” William L. Coleman, Eternity, September, 1977, p. 58.

150 Ibid. p. 59.

151 E. M. Blaiklock,, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 38.

152 Ibid.

153 “The worst feature of it was that, when the mass of legislation proved impossible of performance, causistic subterfuges were devised by the same legal experts, as means of escape by which they and others could circumvent their own regulations. A most useful fiction was what was called ‘connection.’ A Sabbath-day’s journey was 2,000 cubits beyond the city; but suppose a man wished to go farther than that on the Sabbath. On Friday he could travel to the boundary and deposit food for two meals. This point then technically became his home, and on the Sabbath he could travel to it, and then continue as again. Or, to quote another example, it was unlawful on the Sabbath day to carry anything from one house to another. But suppose several houses looked on to one square or courtyard. The various inhabitants had only to deposit a little food here on Friday, and the whole area was considered as one house on the Sabbath, with all the neighbours able to go and come with what they desired. Another effectual method devised by the lawyers for evading their own Sabbath-observance regulations was that known as ‘intention.’ For example, it was not lawful to eat an egg which a fowl had thoughtlessly laid on the Sabbath day. But if one stated before hand that the hen was intended for the table, the egg might be legitimately eaten, as being something which had merely fallen off the doomed hen.” E. M. Blaiklock, Acts, p. 39.

154 “The connection between the close of the preceding chapter and the opening of this one appears so close, that one is apt to conclude that all happened on one day, and that a Sabbath (vs. 14). But the violence with which the former chapter closes, and the tranquility with which this one opens, renders that somewhat doubtful. At all events, the transactions of both chapters could not have been far apart in time.” David Brown, The Four Gospels (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint, 1976), p. 407.

155 R. Ammi, Shab. 55a (Soncino edn., p. 255), as quoted by Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 478.

156 There seems to be significance for John in the pool of Siloam, which he informs us means ‘sent’ (verse 7), but it is difficult to determine precisely what John intends for us to grasp. Charles Eerdman suggests, “Jesus had continually declared that he himself had been sent of God, and he is now intimating that he alone could heal; that he fulfilled all the blessings which Siloam typified. Each day of the feast of tabernacles a libation had been brought from that pool, to suggest the gifts of God to his people. Jesus is now saying that as the waters of Siloam will wash the clay from the eyes of the blind man, so he, the true Siloam, the One sent of God, will take away his physical blindness, and also will restore spiritual sight to the world.” Charles Eerdman, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1944), p. 86.

157 “We may here recall, that the use of saliva was a well-known Jewish remedy for affections of the eyes. It was thus that the celebrated Rabbi Meir relieved one of his fair hearers, when her husband, in his anger at her long detention by the Rabbi’s sermons, had ordered her to spit in the preacher’s face. Pretending to suffer from his eyes, the Rabbi contrived that the woman publicly spat in his eyes, thus enabling her to obey her husband’s command. The anecdote at least proves, that the application of saliva was popularly regarded as a remedy for affections of the eyes.” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), II, p 48.

158 “In so doing, He accommodated Himself to the current popular belief in the curative effects of saliva and clay, especially in the case of weak eyes, in order doubtless to stimulate initial faith in the man, as well as to technically violate the traditional rules.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), p. 360.

159 Cf. footnote 10.

160 Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, p. 360.

161 “Similarly, the formal question now put to him by the Jews was as much, if not more, a prepatory inquisition than the outcome of a wish to learn the circumstances of his healing.” Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 181.

162 “There were two, or as some say three, kinds of excommunication among the Jews, greatly differing in degrees and intensity; and Christ often speaks of them, as among the sharpest trials which his followers would have to endure for his name’s sake (John xvi. 2). The mildest form was exclusion for thirty days from the synagogue. To this period, in case the excommunicated showed no sign of repentance, a similar or a longer period, according to the will of those that imposed the sentence, was added: in other ways too it was made sharper; it was accompanied with a curse; none might hold communion with him now, not even his family, except in cases of absolute necessity. Did the offender show himself obstinate still, he was in the end absolutely separated from the fellowship of the people of God, cut off from the congregation—a sentence answering, as many suppose, to the delivering to Satan in the apostolic Church (1 Cor. v. 5; 1 Tim. i. 20).” R. C. Trench, The Miracles of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), pp. 188-189. Cf. also J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, pp. 361-362, Edersheim, Life and Times, II, pp. 183-184, Leon Morris, The Gospel of John, p. 488, fn. 35.

163 It is difficult to read the words of Isaiah 66:5 without thinking of this incident in John 9: “Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word; Your brothers who hate you, who exclude you for My name’s sake, have said, ‘Let the Lord be glorified, that we may see your joy.’ But they will be put to shame” (Isaiah 66:5).

164 “The phrase (Give glory to God) is a solemn charge to declare the whole truth. Compare Josh. vii. 19; I Esdr. ix. 8; (1 S. vi. 5). The man by his former declaration (v. 17) had really (so they imply) done dishonour to God. He was now required to confess his error: to recognise in the authoritative voice of ‘the Jews’ his own condemnation, and to admit the truth of it.” B. F. Wescott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1973) , p. 146.

165 The expression ‘Son of Man’ was deliberately chosen by our Lord so as to avoid, in this intense period of opposition, a crystal clear statement that He was the Messiah. The blind man understood the implications of this expression, but the opposition could not build a case on it. For a more detailed analysis of this expression, ‘Son of Man,’ see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, pp. 172-173.

Related Topics: Christology, Soteriology (Salvation), Evangelism

13. The Resurrection and the Life (John 11:1-53)

Introduction

A couple of years ago I attended the funeral of a young woman who died of cancer. The woman who had passed way was a young mother, 32 years old, who left behind a husband and two young children. It was indeed, in human terms, a tragic death. The minister who conducted the funeral was the pastor of a very large and liberal church. I will never forget his message, for it was instrumental in my life to completely change my way of handling a funeral service. In the course of his message, he made this statement: “I am convinced that it was not the will of God for this young woman to die.”

It was hardly more than a week later that I was called upon to preach a funeral message from behind the very same pulpit that this liberal pastor had stood. My family and I had slipped away to Houston for a couple of days of retreat. We had just arrived when the call came that an acquaintance had passed away, and that, if possible, the family would like me to handle the service. I can still remember my thoughts as I was driving back to Dallas, pondering what I would say. I had been reading in the gospel of John, chapter 11, when all of a sudden the matter of a Christian view of death came into sharp focus against the backdrop of the funeral service I had attended just a few days before. It is that view of death which I would like to share with you as we come to the greatest miracle in the life and ministry of our Lord, the raising of Lazarus from the grave. An account recorded only in the gospel of John, chapter 11.166

Comfort in the Purpose of Death
(11:1-6)

From the last verses of John chapter 10, we would conclude that Jesus was in Perea, approximately 20 miles from the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus when word reached the Master that Lazarus was gravely ill (John 11:3). As we piece together the details of the account it would seem that even at the time word reached the Savior Lazarus had already passed away.167 Mary and Martha are known to us from Luke 10:38-42. In the 12th chapter of John, we are told of Mary anointing the feet of Jesus in preparation for His death and burial. In the urgent message sent to the Master, there was evident a confidence and faith in Him as both Savior and Friend. He was simply informed of the situation. No suggestion was made as to the course of action He should take. They knew Jesus would do what was best.

What Jesus actually did was a complete surprise, for we would have expected Him to heal (or raise) Lazarus from a distance (cp. Matthew 8:5-13). At the very least, we would have expected Him to immediately go to Bethany. But instead He purposed to stay where He was for two days (verse 6). The disciples would hardly question the decision of Jesus, assuming it a matter of common sense. Bethany was only two miles from Jerusalem (verse 13), and the Jews had already attempted to put Jesus to death there (John 8:59; 10:39). No sense putting your head in the lion’s mouth. But concern for personal safety was not the issue at all to Jesus, as we shall see later. The reason for our Lord’s delay was due to the divine purpose for Lazarus’ death.

“But when Jesus heard it, He said, ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified in it.’” (John 11:4).

Here is where the liberal preacher whom I mentioned before was absolutely wrong. It was the will of God for that 32-year-old mother to die of cancer. Just so, it was the will of God for Lazarus to die, while the Savior Who could have healed him was 20 miles away. If God is God at all, He is God of all. It is impossible for God to be God and not to be responsible (ultimately) for all that occurs. By this I do not mean to say that God is the source of all evil, but that God is responsible for including the existence of evil, tragedy, and suffering in His plan. He does not cause sin, but He does purpose to employ its commission to further His purposes (cf. Genesis 50:20).

The immediate outcome of God’s will for Lazarus was for him to die (verse 14), but the ultimate goal was for him to live (verse 23). It is for this reason that the Master spoke of his temporary condition of death as sleep, for he would soon be awakened.

God’s purpose in the death of Lazarus was to glorify Himself, through the glorification of His Son (verse 4). Although there were other times that Jesus raised men from the dead, this was done after Lazarus had been dead for four days. While others had been raised from death in more out of the way places (cf. Matthew 9:22-26; Luke 7:11-17), this took place at the very heart of Judea, only two miles from Jerusalem. This was the high-water mark of the miracles of our Lord. In the raising of Lazarus, Jesus was shown to be the ‘resurrection and the life’ (verse 25). No greater evidence of His person can be found in all of the Gospel accounts.

This was the word of comfort which Jesus sent back to Martha and Mary: Lazarus is only temporarily dead, and better yet his momentary death would be used to the glory of God through the exaltation of the Son. And this, my friends, is precisely where we must find comfort as well. Whenever the Christian comes face to face with death, whether the reality of his own, that of a relative or friend, or that of a stranger, whether saved or unsaved—we are to find comfort in the fact that this death, every death is for the glory of God.

You will understand that I am momentarily departing from our text, but we have come to a point too crucial to pass by without comment. Let me suggest several reasons why death is to the glory of God. First of all, death reveals God to be holy and just, a God Who cannot overlook sin, but Who must punish sin. He is a God Who deals decisively with sin. Centuries ago God told Adam concerning the forbidden fruit,

“But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

Paul wrote, ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). Contrary to popular opinion, death does not make God look bad. It shows how offensive sin is in God’s sight. It reveals God’s holiness and justice in dealing with it so severely. The fact that every man will die reveals that God is absolutely consistent and unwavering in His judgment on sin.

Second, death brings glory to God in that it is the ‘last enemy’ over which our Lord Jesus Christ will prevail, and in so doing He will manifest Himself as Lord of all (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). Third, I would suggest that death is designed to bring glory to God through the victorious testimony of His saints in the face of death. The world dreads and avoids every suggestion of it. The Christian does not delight in it, for it is an ugly reminder of sin, but he does not dread it. Instead, he considers it a defeated enemy. Death to the Christian is a necessary step in entering into the presence of the living God (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58; Philippians 1:19-24; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8).

I have lingered long on the fact that death is a part of the purpose and plan of God to bring glory to Himself. In this, we may find comfort. But in the midst of the fact that God has purposed death to glorify Himself let us not miss another clear and resounding strain which permeates the first six verses of John 11—that is the depth of the friendship and love which existed between Jesus and Lazarus and his sisters: “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus” (John 11:5).

Throughout the entire account of the raising of Lazarus, the intimate friendship and love of Jesus for this family is underscored. And herein is one of the most comforting of all principles to strengthen and comfort us in the face of death: THE PURPOSE OF GOD IS NEVER SEPARATED FROM HIS LOVE FOR HIS OWN.”

So often those who stand solidly on the truth of the sovereignty of God (as I pray I do) tend to depreciate the love of God. God’s purposes never sacrifice the best interest of His own. God’s love for His own is never surrendered to His purposes. The two go hand-in-hand. What a comfort we should find in that truth!

Comfort in the Possibility of Death
(11:7-16)

The real concern of the disciples was not distress over the death of Lazarus (for they did not yet comprehend that he had died (verse 13), but over the possibility, better yet, the probability, of their own if they went with Jesus into Judea. After the two days had passed, Jesus announced to His disciples168 that they were going to Judea. To them, this was suicide (verse 8). At this point of fear for the future over what seemed certain death, Jesus laid down another principle for Christians of any generation concerning danger in the service of the Master:

“Jesus answered, ‘Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him’” (John 11:9-10).

Jesus had already been shown to be the light of the world (John 8:12; 9:5). If the light of the world is in us (as He surely is when we are engaged in His service), then there is no danger of harm or injury outside of God’s will. Men only stumble in the absence of the light. The disciples need not fear physical harm for the light of the world is with them. The principle then boils down to this: “THERE IS NO PERIL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF GOD-GIVEN DUTY, ONLY IN ITS NEGLECT.”

When we commit ourselves to doing God’s will, we have, so to speak, a charmed life so long as we are fulfilling God’s purpose for our lives. When we are in real danger is when we depart from divine duty to pursue our own selfish desires. Men have suffered and died in the service of the King (as did our Lord Himself), but such was the purpose and plan of God for them when they did. No matter how great the danger may appear, it is a mere illusion when we are on a divinely appointed task. So long as God has work for us to do and we are busily engaged in that work, we are indestructible.

Having laid down this principle, our Lord went on to explain to His disciples that Lazarus was physically dead, and that this death was, in part, for the strengthening of their own faith. The disciples did not fully comprehend what our Lord had said, but as Thomas169 expressed as their spokesman, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him” (John 11:16).

They would rather die with Him than live without Him. These men were not so much afraid to die for the Savior as they were uncertain as to how they could live for Him.

Comfort in the Presence of Death
(11:17-37)

I would like to pass by many of the details of the death and burial of Lazarus170 in order to highlight the significant factors which brought comfort to Martha and Mary in the presence of the death of Lazarus. He brought comfort by His presence, His promise and His person.

(1) Comfort in the presence of Jesus. More than any other factor, it was the absence of Jesus at the time of the death of Lazarus which plagued Mary and Martha. No doubt, the thought expressed by both sisters to our Lord had been repeated to each other often during the absence of the Master: “Lord, if only you had been here …” (John 11:21,32).

The mere presence of Jesus was sufficient to calm the troubled hearts of these two who grieved over the death of their brother, Lazarus. It was in His physical presence that He manifested His deep concern and sympathy over the suffering of His own. Jesus wept171 (verse 35) and was deeply moved in His spirit172 (verses 33, 38). Some have suggested that here we see the real humanity of our Lord revealed in His expressions of grief and emotion. I would personally prefer to look upon this as a reflection of the deity of our Lord. When our Lord was deeply moved with the pains and sorrows of His children, it was not merely as man, but as God. Compassion is a divine attribute, more so than a human one. God is deeply touched with our sufferings. It was not the ugliness of sin which brought our Lord to tears, nor was it the awareness of His coming death or the hypocrisy of those who stood by, rather Jesus was deeply moved by the sorrow of those He loved (cf. verse 33).

When I was a student in seminary, my wife and I promised our girls that as soon as we moved from campus housing we would let them have a pet of their own. When we finally moved into another home, we purchased two kittens. After several days, it became apparent that one of them was desperately ill. When we left for church, one was in its final struggle with death. After church, we came home to find that the one kitten had died. I cannot even today speak of my daughter’s emotional trauma without becoming emotional myself. Now those of you who know me well know that I would not weep long over the death of a kitten, but I want you to know that both my wife and I shed a lot of tears that afternoon. You see, I was moved, not so much at the loss of a cat, but at the sorrow of my daughter. And so it is with God. Whenever we suffer, our Lord is deeply touched. When you and I face the ugly realities of death, even today we may be assured of the fact that we can find comfort in the presence of our Lord.

(2) Comfort in the promise of Christ. This brings us to the second basis of comfort in the presence of death, and that is the promise of our Lord when He said,

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die” (John 11:25,26a) .

The promise of Jesus to these sisters, even at the time of the first report of the illness of Lazarus was that his sickness was not to terminate in death (verses 3,4). That promise of the Master was a source of great comfort, even in His absence. But for us, that promise was forever guaranteed when our Lord Himself rose triumphant from the grave. If death could not hold Him, neither can it stand between Him and us. Our hope of life beyond the grave is grounded on His promise, and His promise is certain because of His power over death and the grave (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12ff.).

(3) Comfort in the person of our Lord. Mary and Martha found comfort not only in His presence, and in His promise, but in His person. The promise of our Lord to Mary and Martha was rooted in His person. Jesus said to them, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25a). Those who find in Jesus merely a good man, a famous teacher, will find no great comfort in Him at the time of death and sorrow. Perhaps the confession of faith expressed by Martha is even greater than that of Peter, for even at this hour of great trial and testing, she could make this affirmation of faith in the person of Christ: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world” (John 11:27).

Those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God come into the world to save sinners, the One Who is the resurrection and the life, need have no fear in the presence of death. Those who trust in His person are assured of His presence (Hebrews 13:5), and can rest in His promises.

Comfort in the Power of Christ Over Death
(11:38-44)

The most amazing feature of this miracle is its brevity and simplicity. Nowhere is there to be found any of the embellishments of other spurious writings from this age. Jesus simply ordered the stone to be removed,173 and with a loud voice, ordered Lazarus to come forth.174 Even after four days in the tomb, when all hope of recovery was gone,175 Lazarus came forth.

With the current obsession with life after death, men today would have desired much more detail about what Lazarus experienced during these four days. We should have liked to hear John’s account of the conversations which took place between these who were reunited, but without comment John passes such matters by. This miracle was performed as a sign. Our Lord’s prayer was primarily for the benefit of those who stood by. What was important was the response of men to the miracle which had taken place.

Culmination in the Condemnation of Christ to Death
(11:45-53)

For some, yes many, of the Jews, this miracle compelled them to acknowledge Jesus to be their Messiah, just as Martha had previously affirmed (verse 45, cf. vs. 27). The raising of Lazarus was a sign that, to them, could not be ignored. As a result, many came to faith in Christ.

To those who chose to disbelieve, this miracle was not a matter which could be ignored either. When word quickly reached the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (verse 46), they called a meeting of the Sanhedrin to decide what should be done. They had to acknowledge it was a miracle. They even granted that it was a sign (verse 47). But they stubbornly refused to come to the conclusion this sign demanded. Although they refused to believe, the masses seemed to be turning to Him as Messiah.

If there was ever any doubt as to the real reason why the Jewish leaders refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, verse 48 spells it out in the clearest terms: “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” Money and power, these were what the Jewish leaders refused to cast at the feet of Jesus. His kingdom was not the kind for which they had hoped. They desired their own position in the present regime far more than what He seemed to offer them. They, as do all who are part of ‘the establishment,’ want the status quo. They had power, influence, prestige. More than this, they had wealth. If Jesus were heralded as Israel’s king, the Romans might view this as treason. The Jewish leaders would be held accountable, and the whole establishment would be snatched from their hands. This was too high a price for them to pay.

What all of the Sanhedrin council members had been secretly thinking was now boldly expressed by Caiaphas, the Sadducee who was the high priest: “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:49b, 50).

This statement by Caiaphas is to be understood on two levels. First of all, Caiaphas meant to say that it was only common sense that one man should be expendable for the protection and preservation of a nation. Better to sacrifice an individual than a nation, we might say. What in times past had been the informal intention of the Jewish leadership was now the official policy and position. This was the beginning of the end.

But by virtue of his official position as high priest, his words were meant to convey a much deeper meaning. They were really a prophesy of the sacrificial death of Christ for the sins of the world (verses 51,52). Even as the Old Testament prophets had foretold, God was going to send His Messiah so that through His substitutionary death, men might be reconciled to Himself.

Conclusions and Application

Historical Interpretation

Historically, so far as John’s gospel is concerned, the raising of Lazarus is the high point of our Lord’s self-disclosure to men. This is without a doubt the greatest miracle of His ministry. Humanly speaking, there was no hope of recovery, and yet at the point of absolute helplessness and hopelessness, Jesus gave life to the dead. The spiritual parallel is obvious, for all men are ‘dead in their trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1-3). When we reach the point of utter despair and self-distrust we find that what we can never do to merit eternal life God has provided as a free gift (Romans 3:20-25; Ephesians 2:8-10). Jesus Christ has come, not to aid men in their struggle toward heaven, but to give life to those who are dead. As He gave life to Lazarus, so He offers spiritual life to all men, on the basis of faith.

As this miracle is the high point of Jesus self-revelation as the Messiah, the Son of God, so it is also the high water mark of human resistance and rejection of the person of Christ. In the face of the most irrefutable evidence the Jewish leaders chose to set aside the evidence for the sake of expedience and sentence the Savior to death. Once again, the rejection of men was not based upon a lack of evidence, but upon moral decay and willful rejection of the truth. Our Lord was not taken by surprise, for He said in the gospel of Luke, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

This miracle also anticipated the coming death of the Lord Jesus and guaranteed the fact that He would rise from the dead, as He informed His disciples (cf. Matthew 16:21; 20:18-19). If Jesus had power over death and the grave, then surely death could not hold Him in the grave.

Implications and Application

In addition to John’s primary reasons for this miracle there are numerous lessons for us by way of practical application. First of all it confronts men with the same decision which men had to make in Jesus’ day: What will you do with Jesus? You must either accept Him as the Savior and the Son of God, or you should reject Him as a phony and a fraud. He cannot be anything less than one or the other. If we take these gospel accounts seriously at all we must face the same destiny-determining decision as those who witnessed His works while on the earth.

In addition, we are presented with a Christian view of death. Death which is faced by faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is not to be feared, for He is the resurrection and the life. If we trust in Him as the Son of God and the coming Savior, as Martha did, then we need not dread the grave. The Christian can rest assured that death is in the will of God and that its purpose is to bring glory to God. Death, in Christian terminology, is only sleep, for it is a temporary state, which will terminate at the call of Christ for His own (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-13; 1 Corinthians 15). Though we will grieve as did Mary and Martha, our grief is of a much different kind than that of those who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

There is much to learn on the matter of Christian suffering. God’s purpose is not that none of His own should suffer, for even His Son suffered untold agony. God’s purpose in suffering is to strengthen our faith (cf. John 11:14-15). Oftentimes Christians who resist the possibility of suffering seem to suppose that God’s highest purpose is that we may be free from pain, when His purpose is to build up our faith through trials and tests (cf. James 1:2-4).

At the outset of this message, I mentioned a funeral sermon in which the minister made the statement that he was convinced the death of the young mother was not the will of God. His fundamental error in that statement was that God’s will can be separated from His power. He viewed his role as something like that of a presidential press agent who is called upon to explain (or cover up) a disastrous presidential error. He stood before that gathering of mourners to apologize for God’s mistake. “God didn’t mean it to come out this way, but it happened anyway, and He is awfully sorry.”

In a very beautiful way, this passage informs us that God’s purposes and His power are never divorced from His eternal love for His own. “Jesus wept.” That is the verse that I want you to remember about this passage, for it was His great love, combined with His infinite power which accomplished this miracle. It was His measureless love which motivated His fathomless purpose to employ suffering to bring glory to Himself and to strengthen the faith of His own. My friend, let us never attempt to make excuses for God’s actions, for whether it is pain or pleasure, it is for the glory of God.


166 Liberal scholars make much of this fact, citing the absence of this miracle in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as evidence that there really was no such miracle at all. Shepard summarizes the orthodox position when he writes, “There is no real ground for questioning the literal exactness of the evangelical record. The objection raised, that this miracle is not mentioned by the synoptic gospels, is offset by the fact that neither did John mention the raising of Jaiirus’ daughter (Matt. 9:22,26) nor that of the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17). The fact is, John gives special emphasis in his gospel to the ministry of Jerusalem and Judea, while the synoptics emphasize more the Galilean ministry. Furthermore, the dramatic vividness of details, the remarkable delineation of personalities, and the numerous minute touches in the historic record, leave no room for doubt, that an eye witness wrote it. He made use of it to show forth the divine personality of the Saviour. This sign is tied up indissolubly with the whole argument of the fourth gospel. He who questions it will also doubt the divinity of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), p. 432.

For a fuller discussion of these issues, cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 532-536. Other liberal interpretations are discussed and refuted by Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, New American Edition 1965), II, pp. 310-312.

167 When Jesus received word of the illness of Lazarus, he waited two days before leaving for the house of Mary and Martha at Bethany. The journey would take another day, a total of three days. But when Jesus arrived, Lazarus had been in the grave four days. Thus, we would conclude that Lazarus died shortly after the messenger left Martha and Mary and some hours before reaching Jesus with the message from the sisters.

168 “From the non-mention of Peter and the prominence of Thomas, it seems at least doubtful, whether all the Apostles were there.” Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 313, fn. 1.

169 “One small piece of evidence supporting the view that Peter was absent is the fact that Thomas is the spokesman for the Twelve in v. 16. Normally we should expect Peter to fill that role.” Morris, John, p. 535.

170 “The four days had been sad and trying ones for the bereaved sisters. They had fasted the day of burial and had eaten nothing since but an occasional egg or some lentils. The funeral procession had been very depressing with its dirge flutes and the wailing friend-mourners, who ‘wept as those who had no hope.’ These were followed in the procession by the two sisters, neighbors, and relatives. At the tomb the men had chanted the ninetieth Psalm and circled the bier seven times, while friends spoke words of comfort to them in formal mien. How they wished for their great Friend, Jesus, in those weary dragging hours, and cast many an anxious look down the Jericho road. In their desolate home they sat on the floor heavily veiled, with unsandalled feet, surrounded by the mourning friends, with their rent clothes and dust-covered heads.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, p. 436.

For a much wore detailed account of Jewish burial customs, cf. Edersheim, Life and Times, II, pp. 316ff.

171 The word used here (wept) is quite different from that in verse 33 (klaio„) which denotes loud wailing. Jesus’ weeping was restrained and dignified. Cf. David Brown, The Four Gospels (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint, 1976), p. 419.

172 Some commentators suggest that the expression ‘deeply moved in spirit’ denotes divine indignation, but such does not appear to be its meaning here. Cf. Edersheim, Life and Times, II, pp. 323-324.

173 “According to the Talmudists, says Lampe, quoting from Maimonides, it was forbidden to open a grave after the stone was placed upon it. Besides other dangers, they were apprehensive of legal impurity by contact with the dead. Hence they avoided coming nearer a grave than four cubits.” Brown, The Four Gospels, p. 419.

174 The loud voice of Jesus at the grave of Lazarus is in contrast to the whisperings and mutterings of the magical healers (cf. Isaiah 8:19). Also, we should take note that if Jesus had not specified Lazarus as the one who should come forth, every corpse within the sound of His voice should have come forth from their graves.

175 “It was the common Jewish idea that corruption commenced on the fourth day, that the drop of gall, which had fallen from the sword of the Angel and caused death, was then working its effect, and that, as the face changed, the soul took its final leave from the resting place of the body.” Edersheim, Life and Times, II, pp. 324-325.

Related Topics: Funerals, Resurrection

14. The Transfiguration (Luke 9:18-36)

Introduction

In one of the great Christian classics of the 19th century, The Training of the Twelve, Dr. A. B. Bruce says of the transfiguration of Christ that it is one portion of the Word of God which he would prefer to pass over in silence.176 As we know from the biblical text, Peter’s unconsidered commentary on this event was completely erroneous, for we are told that Peter did not realize what he was saying (Luke 9:33). Fortunately for Peter and for us, God gave him the privilege of sharing with us his more considered (and inspired) opinion in his second epistle (cf. 2 Peter 1:15-19). This mountaintop experience for the three disciples is also the high point of biblical revelation in the gospels. The transfiguration of our Lord is the culmination of the earthly life of Christ, but in addition, it is the prelude to the death of our Lord Jesus on the cross.177

In the 9th chapter of Luke’s gospel, we are informed of the estimation of the person of Jesus by every important party save one—that of the Pharisees and Jewish leaders. We have already been told of their estimation (John 11:47-53), and it is not worth repeating again. We shall learn of the estimation of the person of Jesus by the masses within Judaism (verses 18-19), by the disciples (verse 20), by our Lord (verses 21-27), and by the Father (verses 28-36). It is from this revelation that we shall learn how it is that we should esteem the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In recent times, there has been an interest in the crisis or turning points in one’s lifetime. In a way, that is what we are endeavoring to focus upon in this series in the Life and Ministry of Jesus Christ. We are currently directing our attention to the presentation of Jesus Christ to the nation Israel as her Messiah. His claims to be Messiah are based upon His miracles and His messages, His words and His works. We have now come to the miracle of the transfiguration, a great turning point for both our Lord and His disciples.

The Popular Estimation of Jesus
(9:18-19)

We can only properly understand the miracle of the transfiguration when we view it from a distance. It is obvious in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that the transfiguration is directly related to the so-called ‘great confession’ of Peter.

Our Lord had taken the disciples apart in order that He might pray (verse 18), and it was on this occasion that He asked them a leading question, “Who do the multitudes say that I am?” (Luke 9:18).

It is interesting that He did not ask what the Jewish leaders thought of Him. That was all too evident! It was the popular estimate of Jesus which the disciples were to verbalize. This was what we might call the majority report.

The multitudes’ appraisal of Jesus can be summarized by several statements:

(1) The view of the masses was varied and inconclusive. Some, like Herod (Luke 9:7), supposed Jesus to be John the Baptist raised from the dead. Others perceived Jesus as manifesting the characteristics of one or another of the prophets,178 perhaps risen again (cf. Luke 9:7b-8).

(2) The masses held Jesus in esteem, viewing Him as more than an ordinary man. Compared to the view of the Jewish leadership (who considered Jesus to be a servant of Satan),179 the masses held a high view of Jesus. He was to most a prophet (cf. John 9:17).

(3) To the masses, Jesus was not the Messiah. Although the majority of Judaism esteemed Jesus as a person Who spoke authoritatively for God, they did not go far enough, for they did not regard Him as Messiah.180 Their silence on this issue is not without great significance.

The Disciples’ Estimation of Jesus
(9:20)

Our Lord was not nearly so interested in hearing a commentary on His acceptance by the multitudes as He was of causing the disciples to face the issue of His identity and to disclose the implications of His identity for His ministry and theirs. And so He posed the question, “But you, who do you say that I am?” (Luke 9:20, my translation).181

Luke’s account of Peter’s reply combines that recorded by Mark and Matthew. Peter, as the typical spokesman for the others,182 answered with a two-fold acknowledgment. First of all, Jesus was the Messiah for whose coming pious Jews had anxiously waited. Jesus was the Christos, the anointed One. The New American Standard Version indicates in the margin of verse 20 that the term ‘Christ’ is synonymous with the title ‘Messiah.’ What the Jewish leaders refused to admit, and what the masses failed to recognize, was what Peter professed. “You are the Messiah.”

Second, Peter made an even more significant admission. Not only was Jesus the Messiah, but He was the Son of God, or in Peter’s words, “the Christ of God” (verse 20). Matthew’s account is even more pointed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). The traditional view of the Messiah Who was to come was that He was merely a man, albeit one with extraordinary gifts. This view, of necessity, did not do justice to certain Old Testament passages which identified the coming Messiah as divine (e.g. Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2). Peter had come to realize that One far greater than mortal man was with them (cf. Mark 4:41). Jesus was both Messiah and the Son of God. While the Pharisees and Sadducees rejected Jesus altogether, and the majority accepted Him as a great man, the disciples had come to see Him as both Messiah and God.

In this confession, we can detect both progress from previous levels of understanding and yet imperfection in coming to grips with all of the implications of the profession just made. While the disciples had previously acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah (cf. John 1:49), their grasp of what was meant by the title ‘Messiah’ had greatly expanded. Through His miracles and teaching, they had also concluded that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. All of this understanding converged in Peter’s confession. But in spite of the advance in the thinking of the disciples, it is all too apparent that their conception of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God was far from complete.183 A full grasp (so far as is humanly possible) came only after the resurrection and ascension of our Lord.

Our Lord’s Estimation of Himself
(9:21-27)

The full report of our Lord’s response to Peter’s confession is not recorded by Luke, but only by Matthew:

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-19).

This passage in Matthew is outside of the limitations of our time and our text, but it is obviously important because of the doctrines which have been built upon its interpretation. Several comments on the additional details of Matthew’s account must suffice for the present time.

(1) Jesus endorsed Peter’s conclusions when He greatly praised his confession. By this, our Lord indicated that His concept of Himself was in agreement with Peter’s.

(2) It was not Peter’s person so much that was praised by our Lord as his faith, and his conclusions.184

(3) The ‘rock’ to which our Lord referred exegetically can refer either to Peter himself (as an apostle, cf. Ephesians 2:20) or to the ‘rock’ of his confession, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.

(4) Peter was called the foundation stone first, since he was the first to proclaim Jesus as such, but in reality, he is a foundation stone only in the same sense as all apostles.185

(5) It is significant that Mark, whose account rests upon the testimony of Peter, records our Lord’s stinging rebuke to Peter (Mark 8:33) while omitting the words of praise recorded by Matthew.

Peter’s confession, though praiseworthy, must be kept private for the time being (verse 21). Many have been perplexed at our Lord’s insistence on the silence of His identity as Messiah. When the demons addressed Jesus as the Son of God they, too, were silenced (cf. Mark 1:24-25). The reason for silence at this point was several-fold. First, as Jesus commanded Peter’s confession, He made it clear that his conclusions were not prompted by men, but by God (Matthew 16:17). Just as the disciples were convinced from within by taking heed to the words and works of the Savior, so should others. Secondly, He wished to avoid arousing ill-conceived hopes for a political messiah who would throw off the yoke of Rome. To outwardly proclaim Jesus as Israel’s Messiah would be to identify Jesus with their erroneous views of messiahship. They must renounce their misconceptions and adapt to our Lord’s program and person. Thirdly, mere words could not and would not suffice to convey the truths about His person and work.186

One can hardly fathom how devastating the next words of Jesus were to the disciples’ high hopes. How exhilarating our Lord’s commendation of Peter must have been to them. But this confession of faith was seemingly nullified by our Lord’s talk about death. “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day” (Luke 9:22).

In a way totally beyond the grasp of the disciples, Jesus was the glorious King of Israel, and yet He kept speaking of His death. There was a mixture of triumph and tragedy, sovereignty and suffering, incomprehensible to them.

The matter of suffering and glory was not only a paradox to be reckoned with so far as the Lord’s death was concerned, it was also the fundamental principle for true discipleship. In verses 23-26, Jesus laid down the principle for true discipleship. In verses 23-26, Jesus laid down the principle of discipleship that those who would truly be His disciples must also be willing to give up their life for His sake. As Matthew informs us, Peter recoiled at the thought of Jesus giving up His life (Matthew 16:22). How could He be Messiah if He were put to death? But as our Lord made clear, the paradox of Christian discipleship is that we can only save our soul by giving up our life (verses 23-26).

These were matters too deep for the disciples. Little wonder that we have no recorded account of what took place during those eight days between the great confession and the transfiguration. Knowing that His words were difficult to accept, our Lord did give one promise which somehow left room for hope: “But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).

God’s Estimation of Jesus
(9:28-36)

Here, then, is the background of the transfiguration. The Jewish leadership had rejected Jesus and planned His death. The vast majority of Judaism regarded Him highly, but not highly enough. The disciples believed Him to be both Messiah and the Son of God, but only vaguely comprehending the implications of what they professed. The joy of Jesus’ praise of Peter’s confession was quickly nullified by His declaration that He was about to die, and that their responsibility, if they would be His disciples, was they must be willing to do likewise.

Now some six or eight days later,187 Jesus took Peter, James, and John apart to pray. The ‘high mountain’ (Matthew 17:1; cf. Luke 9:28), is thought by many scholars to be Mt. Hermon.188 Several factors seem to indicate the event took place at night.189 While our Lord prayed, the disciples slept. We should not be too hard on the three, first of all because we have often done likewise, and second, because the day had worn on and the climb had been physically taxing. I would imagine that the prayers of our Lord would have been largely for His disciples at this critical time. They were struggling with His identity as Messiah and His certainty of coming death. If I am correct in suggesting that our Lord’s prayers were largely for His disciples, then we must view the transfiguration as an answer to those prayers, and an event designed primarily for their benefit.

Several prominent features of this event are highlighted in Luke’s account:

(1) The outward glory of Jesus Christ was momentarily displayed. “And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming” (Luke 9:29).

When the second person of the Trinity took upon Himself human flesh, His glory was veiled, so that the prophet could rightly say, “He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him” (Isaiah 53:2b).

Throughout His earthly life, men challenged Jesus to manifest His splendor and majesty as Messiah, but it was the inward attributes of God, those of His character, that He wished most to reveal. On this one occasion, the veil of His humanity was momentarily lifted and His divine splendor and glory burst forth.

(2) Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. No doubt, we are to understand the presence of these two men as symbolic of the Old Testament law and the prophets. Moses, of whom the Jewish leaders claimed to be disciples, (John 9:28), was here, not as the Son of God, but only as a servant.190 In Jesus, both the Law and the prophets found their fulfillment.

The topic of conversation was that of our Lord’s exodus or departure (verse 31). The choice of the term ‘exodus’ is no accident, for just as Moses had led the people into the promised blessings of God by passing through the Red Sea, so Jesus would lead the people of God into the promised blessings of God through His passing through the waters of death. Although there are similarities between these two men and Jesus,191 the contrasts are probably greater, for here was one vastly superior to them. While these were great men, they were men with feet of clay. Their redemption rested in the future work of Christ on the cross for them. What a comfort this conversation must have been to our Lord, for although the disciples could not grasp the truth and significance of His imminent death, these two men from out of the past did.

(3) We are also given a clear picture of the ineptitude of the disciples. While Jesus prayed fervently, they slept. We do not know how long the conversation between these three went on before the disciples finally realized what was taking place. Perhaps it was the brightness of the radiance of our Lord that finally awakened them, but whatever the precise details the text informs us that they were dazed and groggy, far from a complimentary picture of the three, but very realistic and life-like. Peter’s remark is simply verbal confirmation of the same truth. He was a firm believer in that slogan “Don’t just stand there, say something.” (That is why we all identify so well with him.) Perhaps wishing to preserve or prolong the glory of that moment, Peter proposed that three booths be built, one for Jesus, one for Moses, one for Elijah (verse 33). As Peter would now admit, it was a stupid remark, and one which inadvertently placed Jesus and the two visitors on the same level. We can all be grateful for the divine interruption which prevented Peter from saying anything even more inane.

(4) The divine testimony. In verses 18 and 19 the estimation of Jesus by the multitudes is recorded, in verse 20 that of the disciples. It is in verses 34 and 35 that we are given God the Father’s estimation of Jesus: “And while he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My Son, My Chosen One; Listen to Him!’”

The great confession verbalized by Peter and praised by our Lord was divinely authenticated by the heavenly voice from the cloud. Truly, Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, for God had said so. While the heavenly voice at the baptism was intended for the benefit of John, to identify Jesus as the Savior, the voice here is for the primary benefit of the disciples.

In addition to the solemn identification of Jesus as the Son of God, there was the emphatic command to give heed to His teaching. While they may find His words difficult to fathom, they must give careful attention to what He said. Perhaps there was here a rebuke for Peter’s hasty and senseless words. The words of the Savior must not only be heard, but obeyed (as the word ‘hear’ often suggests in Scripture).

Interpretation and Application

The transfiguration of Jesus is a crucial point in the life and ministry of Christ for it both sums up His previous ministry and anticipates His death. As G. Campbell Morgan aptly put it:

“The transfiguration of Jesus was the consummation of His human Life, the natural issue of all that had preceded it. … here, at last, that humanity, perfect in creation, perfect through probation, was perfected in glory. The life of Jesus was bound to reach this point of transfiguration. It could do no other.”192

It was also the prelude to His death, for from this point on He spoke plainly of His coming death. His face was now set toward Jerusalem. His glory was to come through suffering.

Primarily, the transfiguration was for the benefit of the three disciples. For them, it was a divine confirmation of Peter’s great confession. God attested what Peter affirmed. In addition, it was a confirmation of our Lord’s conception of His mission as Messiah. The popular expectation was that Messiah would come clothed in splendor and break the bonds of Rome. It was an almost exclusively materialistic concept of the kingdom. Jesus came first and foremost to redeem men from sin by dying on a cross. The literal and material aspects of the kingdom would come, but only after the necessary and preliminary spiritual preparations were complete.

Then, too, the transfiguration of Jesus was a divine commentary on the teaching of Jesus concerning His coming death, The disciples could not put together the seemingly contradictory threads of suffering and glory. The transfiguration visualized for the three that the glory which was to be our Lord’s (and thus, theirs and ours) was to come through suffering (His exodus.). They did not fully comprehend this truth, but they did understand, I believe, that both elements, suffering and glory, were essential to God’s purpose for Messiah.

This event must also have been a great consolation to the disciples. Their hopes of entering into the kingdom seemed to be dashed by Jesus’ disclosure of His coming death in Jerusalem at the hand of the Jewish leaders.

Jesus did not, as some students of Scripture affirm, teach that there would be no physical, literal Kingdom. Rather, He taught that this Kingdom was not to be established now. Lest they lose sight of the certainty of that Kingdom, the transfiguration gave a sort of ‘sneak preview’ of it. They tasted a sample of the glory to come. It was this hope, this certainty of the coming of the Kingdom, which helped to keep them going when things got rough.

Finally, the revelation of the majesty of our Lord humbled these men, instructing them to keep quiet and listen to the Master. Perhaps as the saying goes, ‘familiarity breeds contempt.’ Such seemed to be true for Peter. His prolonged contact with Jesus eroded his sense of awe and wonder. When the glory of the Master flashed before His eyes, there could be no more rudeness such as he displayed when our Lord told of His death. His obligation was to fall in adoration and wonder before his Lord and Master, and listen to His every word.

The impact of the transfiguration on the apostle Peter is summarized by his inspired interpretation in his second epistle:

“And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you may be able to call these things to mind. For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’—and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:13-19).

This incident has much by way of implication and application for us today. The first and foremost question of course must be, “What is your estimation of Jesus?” This is the question which divided men in the days of our Lord, and it is the question which divides men for all eternity. He is the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God. He is the One Who died that you might live. Have you come to trust in Jesus, not just as a good man, not just as a prophet, but as the only begotten Son of God, the bearer of the sins of the world?

The story is told of Thomas Carlyle193 who, at the time of his imminent death, was read the words of Christian comfort from the first verses of the 14th chapter of John’s gospel: “Let not your heart be troubled. … in my Father’s house are many mansions.” “Aye,” broke out the bereaved man, “if you were God, you had a right to say that; but if you were only a man, what do you know anymore than the rest of us?” And so, you see, our estimate of Jesus makes all the difference in the world.

For those of us who have come to faith in Him, we must heed the words of the Father, “Listen to Him.” I am not so sure that we are giving much attention to the words of our Lord as we have them recorded in the Scriptures. Do we make the study of God’s word a primary part of our day? God said that we must.

There is also, by inference, a word for us about life and after life. We see in these two men, Moses and Elijah, that those who have trusted in the Savior are still alive, conscious, aware of what is now taking place. More than this, they were recognizable, though we know not how the disciples knew them to be Moses and Elijah. So, I would assume, we will be able to recognize our loved ones in glory.

I am reminded in the text of the importance of prayer. The great confession was preceded by prayer, as was the transfiguration. Prayer was a vital part of the life of our Lord, as it should be for us as well.

Finally, there is a great lesson for Christians in the matter of suffering. Suffering is an essential, inseparable part of the Christian faith. It is one of the basic prerequisites of discipleship. Suffering is the road to glory, not only for our Lord, but for us. It is suffering, then glory, so far as the Scriptures are concerned. The matter of suffering will never be explainable on a purely human level. It is only grasped from the divine perspective. So it was for the three on the mount of transfiguration. So it must be for us.


176 A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), p. 190.

177 G. Campbell Morgan, The Crises of the Christ (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1936), pp. 229-232.

178 “These opinions are explained in part by an expectation then commonly entertained, that the advent of the Messiah would be preceded by the return of one of the prophets by whom God had spoken to the fathers, partly by the perception of real or supposed resemblances between Jesus and this or that prophet; His tenderness reminding one hearer of the author of the Lamentations, His sternness in denouncing hypocrisy and tyranny reminding another of the prophet of fire, while perhaps His parabolic discourses led a third to think of Ezekiel or of Daniel.” Bruce, Training of the Twelve, pp. 164-165.

179 “At a time when those who deemed themselves in every respect immeasurably superior to the multitude could find no better names for the Son of man than Samaritan, devil, blasphemer, glutton and drunkard, companion of publicans and sinners, it was something considerable to believe that the calumniated One was a prophet as worthy of honor as any of those whose sepulchres the professors of piety carefully varnished, while depreciating, and even putting to death, their living successors.” Ibid., p. 165.

180 “But however men differed on these points, in this all agreed, that they regarded Him not as an ordinary man or teacher, but His mission as straight from heaven; and, alas, in this also, that they did not view Him as the Messiah.” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, New American Edition, 1965), II, p. 79.

181 This translation reflects the original text which places the pronoun (you) in the most emphatic position possible in the Greek language.

182 “St. Chrysastom has beautifully designated Peter as ‘the mouth of the Apostles.” Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 80.

183 Bruce, Training of the Twelve, p. 167.

184 “Of this only we are sure, that not Peter’s person, but Peter’s faith, is the fundamental matter in Christ’s mind. When He says to that disciple, “Thou art Petros,” He means, “Thou art a man of rock, worthy of the name I gave thee by anticipation the first time I met thee, because thou hast at length got thy foot planted on the rock of the eternal truth.” Bruce, Training of the Twelve, pp. 168-169.

185 “He doubtless here plays on the name of Peter which denoted a smaller detachment—a stone broken out of the quarry for building purposes. The rock on which Christ would build was the massive ledge of the eternal truth of His divinity, incarnated in the personality of all believers, transforming them, as it had transformed Peter, into the rock-nature, suitable for the purposes of kingdom-building. To Peter was given the honor of being primus enter pares the first to have expressed the great confession. Jesus did not assert the supremacy and primacy of Peter, as Romanists contend. He expressed first to Peter, His purpose to found His church, because Peter had been the first to confess Him confidently as the Messiah and Son of God. Peter is to be one of the foundation stones along with the other apostles, and he has the honor of being the first mentioned. He is worthy of this first mention because he was the first to make the bold confession, just following the great defection, and in the face of the united hostilities of a far-reaching conspiracy. Peter was the kind of man Jesus could use in building His great spiritual temple of the universal church—a living stone.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), p. 304.

186 “One day when Jesus was walking in Solomon’s porch in the Temple, a group of his fellow countrymen accosted him. ‘How long dost thou make us to doubt?’ they said. ‘If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly’ (John 10:24). But the greatest things in life cannot be ‘told’ in that way. Can you ‘tell plainly’ what honor is or beauty or love? Can you put a sunset into a sentence? Can you express the glory and mystery and magic of a great symphony in one terse phrase? None of life’s really great, moving experiences or discoveries can be told plainly in words. And how should we expect the greatest and most moving of all to be thus told—which is the glory of God on the face of Jesus Christ? Jesus knew that it would not be by any voice proclaiming, ‘I am the Son of God,’ that conviction would be born in human hearts. But the wind bloweth where it listeth, and the men who live with him and love him learn his nature and his name.” James S. Stewart, The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, Festival Edition, 1978), p. 134.

187 “Matthew and Mark make it a six-day interval (Mt. 17:1; Mk. 9:2). Luke has ‘about eight days’ (Lk. 9:28), which probably indicates that he is counting the days on which the two episodes occurred as well as the actual interval between them. This inclusive method of reckoning is not uncommon in the Scriptures.” Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 150.

188 “The traditional site of the transfiguration according to the Greek church was Tabor, where they celebrate annually, on the sixth of August, the Feast of the Transfiguration, The Thaborium. But this is an impossible fancy, since Tabor is almost fifty miles from Caesarea-Philippi and Jesus was at this time avoiding Galilee. The summit of this mount was also occupied by a fort and was no fit place for such a scene. Furthermore, Mark states that Jesus did not “pass through Galilee”—in which Mount Tabor is situated—until later. The most probable site of this wonderful event was one of the lower spurs of snow-clad Hermon, visible from all parts of the land as far south as the Dead Sea. There could be no more suitable place in all Palestine than the accessible slopes of this famous mountain, cool and fresh with the evening breezes from the snow-clad heights above, where solitude reigned, and one of the grandest scenes of all nature and history lay visibly before them.” Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels, p. 314.

189 “Our sources do not say whether the transfiguration took place during the day or at night, but several factors favor the idea that it was a nocturnal scene. The sleep of the disciples points in this direction, as does Luke’s note that Jesus went to pray. We know from other notices in the Gospels that he usually withdrew for prayer in the night seasons. Then there is the consideration that the descent from the mountain came on the following day (Lk. 9:37).” Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, p. 154.

190 “Moses’ presence signified that in Jesus the shadows of the law were all fulfilled and now withdrawn. In Jerusalem men were still fighting, not merely for the law of Moses, but for the traditions of the elders, and priests and leaders were still arguing about the tithe of mint and cumin, while here upon the mount was the great law-giver himself, by his presence acknowledging that this glorified One, Who should presently be crucified in the name of the law, did in Himself gather up all that was hinted at, suggested, included in the economy of the past.” Morgan, The Crises of the Christ, pp. 238-239.

191 “… these two had much in common with Jesus of Nazareth. Moses performed signs and wonders before Israel in the name of the Lord, but to little avail. The people were stubborn in their unbelief and failed to enter the promised land because of it. Jesus had a similar reception for his mighty works. And as Moses interceded for Israel in the midst of failure and threatened judgment, being willing to be cut off himself if they could be spared, so Jesus wept in compassion over Jerusalem. Elijah was a lonely prophet, even when surrounded by the throngs on Mount Carmel. Jesus, too, was in many ways a lonely figure, despite his popular following. He prayed alone, suffered alone, and died alone. The two had something in common respecting the close of their ministries. Elijah was supernaturally taken up for a glorious reception into heaven, as though anticipating the ascension of the Savior into glory. As Elijah was able to bestow the power of his spirit on Elisha, so did the ascended Lord pour out his Spirit on his disciples.” Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, p. 156.

192 G. Campbell Morgan, The Crises of the Christ, p. 229.

193 Quoted by James S. Stewart, The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, (Nashville: Abingdon, Festival Ed., 1978), p. 135.

Related Topics: Christology

15. Discipleship: Its Definitions and Dangers (Matthew 23:1-12)

Introduction

Apart from His sacrificial work on the cross, the most significant thing our Lord did upon the earth was to make disciples. Our Lord had written no books, He had built no organization; there were no physical structures or monuments left to commemorate Him. He had placed the future of His earthly work entirely in the hands of His disciples. Had they failed their task, humanly speaking, the church of Jesus Christ would not exist today.

In the last decade, discipleship has become a popular subject in Christian circles. The great difficulty is that when we use this term we frequently mean something entirely different from that denoted by the biblical term. For instance, we hear much talk about discipling others or being discipled. Being in close proximity to a great seminary, I have seen many young and enthusiastic theologs come and go. Very frequently, they will go to the pastor of their church and ask to be discipled, just like Paul ‘discipled’ Timothy. A friend of mine and fellow-laborer in the ministry used to respond to such a request, “And just how did Paul disciple Timothy?”

This is precisely the problem. We almost completely fail to grasp the biblical concept of discipleship. It is interesting that we never find the term ‘disciple’ used with reference to the relationship between Paul and Timothy.194 As a matter of fact, we find the two primary terms for discipleship195 employed very frequently in the Gospels, sporadically in the book of Acts, and almost never in the rest of the New Testament. Did Paul really disciple Timothy, and if so, how? Most of the young men who desire to be discipled, and I say this seriously, ask more of me than does my wife. It is because of this lack of clarity as to what discipleship really is, and how it is done that we shall devote several lessons to its study. What was so important in the life and ministry of our Lord should be very clear to us today who wish to be known as His disciples.

The Backdrop to New Testament Discipleship

The concept of discipleship was not foreign to men in the days of our Lord Jesus Christ. The terms used in the New Testament of disciples had through years of use developed nuances important for us to comprehend. It is the distinctions between our Lord’s concept of discipleship from those of His contemporaries which is most crucial for us to grasp, for it is here that the great differences arise between Jesus and His opponents. It is also here that many present day misconceptions find their origin.

In Ancient Greek, the verb manthano is used to denote the process by which one acquired theoretical knowledge.196 A disciple was a learner. A man was known as a mathetes or disciple when he bound himself to another in order to acquire his practical and theoretical knowledge.197 The word was sometimes nearly synonymous with the term apprentice.198 There was never a disciple without a master or teacher. In some Greek circles the teacher was paid by his disciples.

In the Old Testament, the concept of discipleship is strikingly absent.199 Men were, of course, to be learners of the will of God (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-12, etc.), but they were not disciples. In my estimation the reason is to be found chiefly in the fact that there was no master worthy for them to attach themselves to. We know of the relationship between Elijah and Elisha, Moses and Joshua, and so on; but these men were known as servants, not disciples. Moses was, in the final analysis, only a servant of God, one through whom God revealed Himself.200

Rabbinical Judaism, unlike the Old Testament, made much of the concept of discipleship. The advice of a pre-Christian writer was: “Take to yourself a teacher and acquire a companion.”201

As R. T. France has observed, “Every Jewish teacher worth his salt had his circle of ‘disciples’ who ‘followed’ him (literally walking behind him as he rode or walked ahead), looked after his daily needs, and soaked up his teaching. Their teacher was the most important person in their Lives.”202

In Judaism one must learn not only the Old Testament Scriptures, but also the oral traditions, the traditions of the fathers. One would attach himself to a Rabbi, who would serve as a kind of mediator between the student and the Scriptures. One dared not to interpret the Scriptures independently, and could only speak with authority after years of study under a master.203 Since there were several masters, there sprang up several schools of rabbinical thought, each in competition with the others.

The New Testament Definition of a Disciple

In the New Testament, the picture of a disciple is not as clear or simplistic as one might wish, for the terms, mathetes (disciple, learner) and akoloutheo (to follow) are used in a variety of ways.204

Not only did Jesus have His disciples, but so did John the Baptist (Matthew 9:14; 11:2; John 1:35,37, etc.), the Pharisees (Matthew 22:16; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33), and even Moses (John 9:28).

There is great diversity among those who are identified as the disciples of Jesus in the Scriptures. John (John 6:60,66) uses the term ‘disciple’ to refer to those who are uncommitted, unbelieving followers of Jesus, motivated mainly by curiosity or impure desires. The masses who have come to faith and trusted in Jesus as their Messiah were also called disciples (John 8:30,31). Then, of course, the term was used particularly and most frequently of the twelve disciples (Matthew 10:1, etc.) one of whom was His betrayer (John 6:70,71). Within the circle of the twelve was an inner circle of three: Peter, James and John (Luke 9:28). In the book of Acts, the word ‘disciple’ seems to be used synonymously with the term ‘believer’ (cf. Acts 6:1,2,7).

What is a disciple? I suspect that Mark summarizes it best in his gospel: “And He went up to the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. And He appointed the twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:13-15).

Who is a disciple of our Lord? Anyone who is deeply and personally committed to Jesus Christ by faith, who manifests the power and authority of our Lord, and who continues and extends His work.

Distinctives of Christ’s Discipleship

Although the concept of discipleship was common knowledge in the days of our Lord, His teaching on discipleship differed greatly from contemporary thought. Several of these distinctives will serve to illustrate what I mean.

(1) Jesus called His disciples. In Jesus’ day, it was the followers who chose their master.205 The students chose their teacher or rabbi. But in Jesus’ ministry, it was He Who chose them (cf. John 15:16). Some of those who ‘volunteered’ their services were put off by the Master (cf. Luke 9:57,58,61,62).

(2) The relationship between Jesus and His followers was more personal than pedagogical.206 In Judaism, the relationship between a rabbi and his disciple was largely a matter of academics. It was the impartation of knowledge. Granted, on the part of the disciple, there was a very pronounced dependency upon the Rabbi, but there was never the sense of intimacy which existed between Jesus and His disciples (cf. John 15:15). Although Jesus taught His disciples, they perceived their commitment as a very personal one. It was only after His death and resurrection that His teaching was fully understood and valued. For example, when Jesus was crucified, the disciples were so taken back by the loss of His person that His teaching about His death and resurrection never occurred to them.

(3) The path of a disciple of Christ was far different that than of contemporary Judaism. One who chose to be a disciple of a great rabbi looked forward to the time when he, too, would be a great leader in Israel. The path which a disciple of our Lord chose to walk was the path of service and self-sacrifice. His disciples must take up their cross (Luke 9:23-24). They must suffer rejection and persecution (John 15:20,21). They, as their Master, must give up their lives in service (Mark 10:45).

(4) Christ’s discipleship was not a burden, but a blessing. It is obvious that the demands of our Lord’s discipleship were great. These we shall study in a later message. But it is amazing that in the final analysis it is the disciple of the scribes and Pharisees who has the real burden: “And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matthew 23:4).

How different is this from that of our Lord: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

The Dangers of Discipleship

Failure to fully comprehend the distinctions between the discipleship of our Lord and that of the Jews of His day would have led to disaster for the followers of Christ. The horror at Jonestown is perhaps the most striking reminder in recent times of misdirected allegiance. The warning of our Lord recorded in Matthew chapter 23 addresses the dangers of discipleship as practiced by the Jews of His day.

“Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:1-12).

At first glance, the direct connection between this warning in Matthew chapter 23 and discipleship may not be convincing. However, we must bear in mind that the meaning of the term disciple implies that the disciple submit himself to a higher authority who will serve as his teacher, guide and leader. This is the way the Jewish leadership regarded themselves and their position of authority. In effect, the whole clash between Jesus and the Jewish leaders was one of authority (cf. Matthew 21:23). They were greatly distressed over the fact that the masses appeared to be slipping from their grip, and submitting to the leadership of Jesus (cf. Matthew 27:18; John 4:1,2; 11:47,48). The warning of Jesus in Matthew 23 is at the heart of the dispute between Judaism and Jesus. It also exposes the critical danger threatening evangelical churches today.

The error of the scribes and Pharisees was that they had exalted themselves to a position higher than that of Moses (verse 2). They had boasted to the man born blind that they were disciples of Moses (John 9:28). Such was not really the case, however. To have been a disciple of Moses would mean that they would have placed themselves under the authority of his teaching and doctrine. In effect, they had ousted Moses (that is the five books of Moses) by making the interpretation and application of these sacred writings subject to their own traditions and interpretations (Matthew 15:1-9).

In a more contemporary vein, I suspect that the authors of our constitution might roll over in their graves at the way the Supreme Court has changed the intent of the Constitution by their interpretations of it. This is precisely the error of the scribes and Pharisees. They had placed themselves in the chair of Moses. They were now over the Scriptures, judging them rather than being judged by them. Such is the case in much of religion today. Man is the highest authority. If Paul condemns homosexuality, that is just narrow-minded Paul, they would have us believe.

The scribes and Pharisees usurped the authority to subject men under them as disciples. In so doing they commanded men to follow the clever system they had created by codifying the Law of Moses into 365 prohibitions and 250 commandments.207 The effect was to place upon unsuspecting Israelites a burden which no one could bear, and which they did nothing to lighten (verse 4). While they ingeniously devised ways to circumvent their own regulations, the masses were buried under them. It is no wonder that our Lord said to His hearers: “My yoke is easy, and it load is light” (Matthew 11:30).

The motives of the scribes and Pharisees were at the heart of their sin. They were proud and puffed up, just as Satan was when he fell (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:2,17). These men desired disciples because they basked in the glory and adulation of men. They desired the seats of prominence and greetings which puffed up their pride (verses 5-7).

Verses 8-12 are some of the heaviest words of the Word of God for church leaders. Here is described in the plainest of words the great danger of Christian leadership: We wish men to become our disciples. We aspire to have authority over others who become our disciples.

“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:8-12).

Although this passage in Matthew has always been significant to me, I never really grasped its full impact until I came to it from the perspective of discipleship. Essential to discipleship is a master, or teacher to whom the disciple submits.208 The sinfulness of Jewish religious ‘establishment’ is beautifully contrasted against the humility of our Lord in this matter of disciples. They gloried in the limelight, while He came to be overlooked and rejected by the nation as a whole. He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45); they lived only for the praise and adulation their position gave them.

Our Lord cautioned His own disciples and the crowds that the favorite titles of the scribes and Pharisees were not to be part of their religious vocabulary. The three titles, Rabbi, Father, and Leader, were never to be taken by men, nor were men to bestow them on mere mortals. There is only one authoritative teacher or Rabbi, our Lord Himself. No one dare usurp His title (as did the Jewish Rabbis). Moreover, there is to be no hierarchy among men in Christ, for we are all brothers (verse 8). The title ‘Father,’209 respectfully applied to Jewish men of prominence, belongs only to God. He alone is our Father. To take His title is to usurp His authority (verse 9).

Neither should we assume the title of leader, or guide, for the Lord Jesus alone is our guide and leader (verse 10). Greatness in the kingdom of God is not measured, as the Rabbis supposed, by determining how many disciples they had under their authority. It was rather to be measured in terms of service. It is the number whom we serve that reflects our measure of greatness in God’s sight (verses 11-12).

Conclusions and Application

Frankly, I am frustrated by the lack of understanding in Christian circles of this concept of discipleship. We use the term glibly, without any real grasp of its implications. Worse yet, I am frightened as I look about the Christian community and observe that the very same evils practiced by the Jewish leaders in New Testament times are blatantly evident in the church of Jesus Christ.

Many who are either poorly informed or insufficiently motivated find it easier to be the disciples of men than to become the disciples of Jesus. They cannot go to the Scriptures independently to search out a matter. Instead, they would prefer to read a man’s book on the subject, especially if a truth is presented in a very cut and dried or simplistic way. I do not condemn the use of books, or tapes, or printed messages, or listening to sermons ‘live.’ I do insist that an attitude of dependence and unqualified submission to any one man or group of men is wrong. The reason why we have so many authoritarian, dogmatic, puffed up preachers today is because people want them that way. How much easier to believe something because an authoritative, pulpit-pounding preacher does, than by personal study and conviction.

I cannot stop yet, for the other reason why so many ‘little popes’ are prevalent in Christianity (as well as the cults) is because there are men whose pride has been fanned by unwitting followers who have become their disciples.

I know it is difficult to explain to other people why we, as a church, do not have a man that we call ‘our pastor.’ But, you see, to take on a title such as that in our day and time implies that there is some physical head of the church, who usurps the place of our Lord. I remember well hearing one preacher refer to himself as the chief shepherd from 1 Peter chapter 5 and verse 4, a passage in which Peter himself only dares to refer to himself as a fellow elder (verse 1). In this same passage, the elder is forbidden to oversee as a lord (verse 3, ‘lording it over’) but as an example.

We are a church that fallibly strives not to exalt men, but our Lord Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that we reject titles commonly used by other Christians. More than this, whatever the titles may be, we reject the concept of men setting themselves in the place of our Lord.

Perhaps the heart of what I am trying to get at so far as our church (or any other) is concerned is found in the use of either the definite article, ‘the,’ or the indefinite article, ‘a.’ If you say, Bob Deffinbaugh is a teacher, an elder, a leader, hopefully you are not terribly far from the truth. But when you say Bob is the minister, the pastor, the teacher, then we have a real problem. God has ordained leaders who guide and give counsel, but not in such a way as to elevate themselves above others.

Lest you think that this is only the problem of an individual (usually the full-time preacher, or senior pastor), it can also be a great problem collectively. I have read recently of churches in which the elders, as a group, have placed themselves in a position of total and unquestionable authority. In a rather dictatorial and arbitrary fashion, they direct the wife contrary to her husband. They tell a man what job to take or to turn down. In short, they assume the position of our Lord in the lives of their congregation. These things should not be! As I view the authority of an elder, it is not due to his title or office, but is a direct result of his work, his manner of life, and his skillfulness in the Scriptures (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:10,11, etc.).

Herein lies one of the great dangers in Christianity. Men and women seem to be more interested in being a discipler or a disciplee than a disciple. Worse yet, we are seemingly encouraging people to become our disciples rather than disciples of our Lord.

In Matthew chapter 23, our Lord was warning His disciples not to look at themselves as did the disciples of the Pharisees. They were not to view their discipleship as a kind of stepping stone to prominence and authority. They were not to seek to get men to be their followers and to submit to their authority. They were not to take upon themselves either titles or positions which would exalt themselves while usurping the position and prerogatives of God Himself.

Let us not seek to disciple others, so much as to be disciples ourselves. Let us not seek to become disciples of men but rather followers of God. I fear that we have become obsessed more with the process, the practice, and the prestige of the discipler than we have with the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. I fear that we all too often equate the study of the Bible and theology with spirituality. I fear that there is far too much emphasis upon becoming leaders, rather than becoming servants.


194 Passages such as 2 Timothy 2:2, and others in which Paul exhorts Christians to imitate his example, will be dealt with in a later message.

195 The two primary terms relative to discipleship are the verb ‘to follow,’ and the noun, ‘disciple.’ For an excellent study of these terms, cf. Collin Brown, General Editor, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), I, pp. 480-494.

196 D. Müller, “Mathetes,The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, I, p. 483.

197 Ibid., p. 484.

198 K. H. Rengstorf, “Mathetes,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), IV, p. 416.

199 Ibid., pp. 426, 427.

200 Ibid., pp. 430-431.

201 Joshua B. Perachiah, Aboth 1:1,16, as quoted by Rengstorf, TDNT, IV, p. 434.

202 R. T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1976), p. 50.

203 “The situation is different in Rab. Judaism. Here the talmid is someone whose concern is the whole of Jewish tradition. According to Shamai (Shabbath 31a), this was the written Torah (the biblical writings of the OT) and the oral Torah, the paradoseis ton presbyteron (the traditions of the fathers) which includes the Mishnah, Midrash, Halachah and Haggadah. The talmid now, as originally the Gk. mathetes, belongs to his teacher, to whom he subordinates himself in almost servile fashion. It was the distinct casuistic form of Rab. theology, built around emphasis on achievement in the religious thought of developed Judaism, which created the pre-requisites for attributing a value of its own to human authority which previously was entirely unknown in Israel and Judaism. Since the Rabbi’s knowledge gives him direct access to the Scriptures which facilitates right hearing and right understanding, he becomes a kind of mediator between the talmidim and the Torah. To listen to the Scriptures without the guidance of a teacher is something to be avoided at all costs (cf. B. Berakoth 47b). lamad and manthano still mean to learn, to occupy oneself with the Torah in order to discover God’s will in it. But now learning is determined by the authority of the teacher and his interpretation of the Torah—not by a personal and, as far as possible, unbiased study of the Torah. Therefore learning means primarily that the talmid appropriates the knowledge of his teacher and examines it critically by comparing it against the Torah. Only one who had studied and served under a hakam (a Jewish scholar) for an extensive period, and had thus concluded his essential study, could later become a hakam with authority to teach his own tradition in his own school. The pupil-teacher relationship of Rab. Jud., in contradistinction to the OT, thus became an important institution for detailed study of the Torah.” D. Müller, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, I, pp. 485-486.

204 Cf. Fn. 2.

205 D. Müller, p. 488. (3b).

206 “The Gr. pupil and the Rab. talmid bound themselves personally to their master and looked for objective teaching, with the aim of themselves becoming a master or a Rabbi. But Jesus’ call to discipleship does not mean that a disciple is put in a learning relationship from which he can depart as a master (cf. Matt. 23:8). Following Jesus as a disciple means the unconditional sacrifice of his whole life (Matt. 10:37; Lk. 14:26f.; cf. Mk. 3:31-35; Lk. 9:59-62) for the whole of his life (Matt. 10:24f.; Jn. 11:16). To be a disciple means (as Matt. in particular emphasizes) to be bound to Jesus and to do God’s will (Matt. 12:46-50; cf. Mk. 3:31-35).” D. Müller, p. 488.

207 “The Pharisees had devised a system in which they had codified the Mosaic Law into some 365 prohibitions and 250 commandments. They required those who followed them to submit to their interpretations of this Law. Because the Pharisees considered themselves the official interpreters of the Law, they promoted themselves to a position of authority in Israel. In Matthew 23:2, Christ referred to the Scribes and the Pharisees as men who “sit in Moses’ seat.” Claiming the authority of Moses as interpreters and teachers of the Law, they demanded that all in Israel who submitted to Moses also submit themselves to them. They demanded that men by submission become disciples of the Pharisees, and that individuals in Israel recognize themselves not only as disciples of Moses but also as disciples of the Pharisees. This is seen in a passage such as Mark 2:18 where Christ is asked the question, “The disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?” This shows us that those who submitted themselves to the Pharisees were disciples of the Pharisees. They became disciples by voluntarily submitting themselves to the rule of the Pharisees over them.” J. Dwight Pentecost, Design for Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), p. 24.

208 “One can only be a mathetes in the company of a didaskalos, a master or teacher, to whom the mathetes since the days of the Sophists generally had to pay a fee.” D. Müller, p. 484.

209 “Father is used as a title of honour for a priest (Jdg. 17:10; 18:19), and for a prophet (2 Ki. 6:21; 13:14). In 2 Ki. 2:12, on the lips of the prophet’s disciple, it also expresses spiritual relationship. In Rab. Judaism, where the title of father was frequently used of respected scribes (SB I 918 f.), the metaphor of father and child is occasionally applied to the relationship between a teacher of the Torah and his pupil (SB III 340 f.).” O. Hofius, “Father,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, I, p. 617.

Related Topics: Christology, Discipleship

16. Discipleship: Its People and Process

Introduction

I don’t know how many times I have heard a statement something to this effect: “If John were ever saved, just think how God could use him. Why with his enthusiasm, leadership ability, and bank account, there would be no stopping him.”

Such reasoning is far from the mentality of the New Testament. By these standards our Lord made a terrible mistake when he was approached by the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16ff; Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30). You will remember that in order to become a follower of Jesus he would first have to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and then come after Jesus (Matthew 19:21). In our modern and enlightened times, we probably would have handled it much differently. The rich young ruler would have been put high on the list of ‘contacts’ to pursue as a member of the board of directors. Why, think of what God could do with his money and influence. And perhaps if he sat through the business meetings and had close association with Jesus, he might even get converted and committed.

But the very thing which in our minds would have commended him before our Lord, Jesus told him to get rid of. Here was a self-righteous man who felt he could ‘use his influence’ to get to heaven. Jesus loved this man, we are told (Mark 10:21), and invited him to become a disciple, but not because of his potential to contribute. Rather, he loved him as a person.

One of the most rewarding studies in the Word of God is an investigation of the kind of people God has chosen to be His followers. I believe we shall learn from a study of the disciples of our Lord that God does not choose men because of their potential, but because of their person. He chooses few who are prosperous and prestigious, but many who are in poverty and spiritual hunger. In short, I believe our study will indicate that God chooses people like you and me to do great things, and that it is by His power and His process that these things come to pass.

The Kind of People God Chose as Disciples

What kind of men did our Lord choose to commence the greatest endeavor of all time? They were to establish the church of Jesus Christ. They were to do so with no financial ‘clout,’ with no formal theological training, opposed by the combined forces of Satan, the Judaism of their day, the paganism of other religions, and (later) the power of Rome. Whatever kind of man God could use to overcome these difficulties is surely needed today as well.

As we consider the twelve disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, there are a number of characteristics that strike us.

(1) They were young men. By and large, it would seem that the greatest impact of our Lord was upon the younger generation. The terms (tekna, teknia or paidia), often used by our Lord in reference to His disciples, imply youthfulness. Our Lord Himself was in the prime of His youth. So the early church applied Psalm 110:3 to Jesus:210 “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth” (King James Version).211

In the original version of Isaac Watt’s great hymn,212 the youth of our Lord was emphasized: “When I survey the wondrous cross where the young Prince of Glory died.”

It is also noteworthy that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians nearly a generation after the death of our Lord that he could say that of the 500 who saw our Lord raised from the grave, “the greater part remain unto this present” (1 Corinthians 15:6). If most of these witnesses were still alive, they surely were not old when they saw the resurrected Lord.

(2) They were from the middle class of their society. In our efforts to emphasize the humbleness of these men and their lack of position or formal training (cf. Acts 4:13), let us not suppose that they were the dregs of society. As a group, these men were relatively successful businessmen, who came from the middle class of their society. Peter and Andrew, James and John, were fishermen (Mark 1:16-20). Matthew was a government employee (Matthew 5:27). I probably should go on to say that these men were intelligent and capable, not blundering idiots.

(3) They were Galileans. With the possible exception of Judas,213 all of the disciples seem to be Galileans. The significance of this may be easily overlooked. To be a Jerusalem Jew was a matter of real status. To be a theologically trained Jerusalem Jew was like being a “Harvard man.” To be a Galilean was like coming from somewhere in the Ozarks, to be a real unsophisticated, uncultured “country bumpkin.”214

(4) They were a diverse group in personality and philosophy. Though all of the eleven had their status as native Galileans in common, they were a very diverse group. In personality, they ranged from the flamboyance of Peter to the hesitance of Thomas, from the political conservatism of Matthew (who was a government-employee and supporter) to the radicalism of Simon, the Zealot, a political revolutionary. Only the strength of their commitment to our Lord could have bound these dramatically diverse men together.

(5) They were men who had a heart which sought God. We do not know the backgrounds of all of the twelve disciples, but we do know that some were previously the followers of John the Baptist (John 1:35ff). These had come to the point of acknowledging the emptiness of contemporary Judaism and recognized the need for repentance and the coming Messiah. Nathaniel (John 1:45-51) was clearly described as a pious man, spiritually prepared for Messiah’s appearing.

(6) They were men without formal religious training. What most amazed the religious establishment was the fact that the apostles had such power and authority, and yet had never been formally trained in their schools of theology.

“Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

Now there is no great virtue in having no formal training, nor is there a curse to a theological education. But being trained in the Rabbinical schools of theology would have been of very restricted value, since their whole system of interpretation was defective. Being trained in the Jewish rabbinical schools would be somewhat parallel to your going to the most liberal seminary in this country. There would be some value, but you would have to unlearn most of what you were taught. As theologically uneducated Galileans, the disciples were to a great extent undefiled by the religious pollutions of their time. Just as John the Baptist spent much of his life in the wilderness, so the disciples were from an area remote to the evils of Judaism, and as such more open to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Implications for Discipleship Today

We would have to conclude from what we have seen of the disciples that they would not have been tagged as ‘most likely to succeed’ by many in Christian circles today. Our Lord did not choose them because of what they could do for Him, so much as that He (due to their inabilities and limitations) could do great things through them.

There is a principle underlying the Lord’s choice of His disciples which is as applicable to us today as it was in New Testament times. Paul verbalized it in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31:

“For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

We are not told here that God never chooses the wise, the noble, or the prosperous, but that He seldom does so. Why has God chosen to work through the weak and the foolish things? First, so that He receives all the glory whenever great things are accomplished. And, second, those who are weak must trust in God to work in them, and in spite of them. As Paul recorded elsewhere, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9b).

If we really believe this principle to be true, then we must recognize at least two specific applications. First of all, we must recognize that much of evangelicalism is flatly in error when they place the emphasis on reaching what they call ‘key people’ with the gospel so that by means of their prestige, influence, and money, the work of God can be furthered. God’s work is furthered in God’s way and through God’s resources.

Several times I have told the story of my uncle who tells of an interview between the owner of a gas station and a prospective employee. When asked for his qualifications, the young man quickly responded that he was a college graduate. “Well, my boy,” responded the owner, “I think that can be overcome.” It is my conviction that what many feel are assets to the cause of Christ are really liabilities. We make far too much of the superstars in Christian circles, and conduct ourselves in a way far from in keeping with the New Testament.

In my short lifetime, it has been interesting to observe how easily money comes in to support the ‘ministries’ of very popular or prestigious individuals while those who are not as spectacular learn to do without. It is because we all love to associate ourselves with a winner. Let me remind you, my Christian friend, that neither in days gone by, nor in the present, is our Lord Jesus considered a winner by the world’s standards. As I view the gift of giving, it is the ability to recognize real ministry and real needs in the plethora of solicitations in the name of Christian ministry.

But since neither you nor I are superstars anyway, there is a very personal application for us. We are the kind of people that God chooses through whom to do His work. Now isn’t that an amazing and wonderful truth? God has chosen to use men and women like you and me, insignificant and having little ‘clout’ in the world, to carry on the greatest cause in the world, the building up of His church. Martin Luther is reported to have said, “Let no man lose the faith that God willeth to do a great work through him.”215

Nothing is more exciting and motivating in my own Christian life than to realize that this is true.

The Process of Discipleship

Some biblical scholars have puzzled over the fact that the Gospels record several ‘calls’ of the twelve disciples. The skeptic is predictably quick to draw the conclusion that the Gospel accounts are in conflict with one another, thereby giving credence to his presupposition that the Bible is not the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

There is a much more plausible, biblical, and simple explanation; one that has too often been overlooked. Put in its simplest form, we must conclude that there was no one call to discipleship. Now it sounds very impressive when we read in the Gospels that Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee, called Peter and Andrew, James and John, and they immediately left everything and followed Jesus. We almost get the impression that this was their first encounter with Jesus, and yet, they made a life-long commitment on the basis of His invitation.

But such does not appear to be the case when we look at the Gospels as a whole. Although the chronology of the life of Christ is subject to much discussion and debate, the following sequence of events seems to occur:

(1) Jesus was proclaimed as the Messiah by John the Baptist and several followed Him and spent the day with Him (John 1:35ff).

(2) Jesus, at some later time, invited these men (and others) to be His followers. They left their nets and followed him (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). It is in no way evident to me that they left their jobs and spent all their time with Jesus at this time. They may have temporarily taken leave of their work to follow Jesus on a particular campaign.

(3) It was sometime later that Jesus appointed the twelve to be apostles, that is, to be commissioned to go out as His emissaries and preach the gospel and display His power (Matthew 10:lff; Mark 3:13ff; Luke 6:12ff). This assignment was limited, and their power apparently temporary.

(4) Not until after our Lord’s resurrection and ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit did the disciples rise to the task of establishing the church of Jesus Christ.

What we should learn from these various calls to follow Jesus in the Gospels is that there is no one decisive call to discipleship, but rather a life-long process with many decision points along the way.

G. Campbell Morgan has written a classic work entitled The Crises of the Christ. In this book, he deals with the critical, destiny-determining situations and decisions in the life of our Lord. What he has done with reference to our Lord’s life and ministry could likewise be done for His disciples. The initial call(s) to follow Jesus were an invitation to an intimate personal relationship. All the time they spent together was seasoned with practical and biblical instruction. As their relationship grew and their faith deepened, they left home and occupation to be with Him continually. When the masses left Jesus after the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:60ff), the disciples, also, were faced with a decision to stay with Him or leave. The more our Lord taught about His suffering and death (and theirs), the more the implications of discipleship came home to them.

And so we see an extended process of disciple-making in our Lord’s ministry to the twelve. It was not a one-time decision, but a sequence of decisions each based upon further realization of the implications of true discipleship.

Implications of
New Testament Discipleship for Today

Discipleship, then, was not something instantaneously and casually presented, nor immediately and totally accepted by the twelve. Rather, it was a gradual process of revelation and response. Discipleship, like sanctification, is progressive, not instantaneous.

What does this truth imply for the Christian today, who truly desires to be a follower of Jesus Christ? Let me suggest several possibilities.

(1) Discipleship is a life-long process. In a day of instant mashed potatoes, instant coffee, and microwave ovens, most of us want to accelerate processes that take time to accomplish. God has no instant formulas for discipleship. God invites you to follow Him at whatever point in life you may be.

I must emphasize that there are no shortcuts at the outset. All enter into discipleship by personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Savior. Every disciple of our Lord must come to the point of recognizing that he or she has nothing to offer God. Rather, we are in rebellion against Him because of our sin. God has removed that barrier by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to bear the penalty for our sin and to provide a righteousness which is acceptable to Him. Those who become His disciples stop trusting in themselves, in anything they can do for God, and trust only in what God has done through Jesus Christ.

Once saved, the disciple of our Lord need not re-experience his initial conversion, nor continually rededicate himself to our Lord. Instead of this, he or she should continue to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and as further revelation is grasped, their commitment should become fuller and deeper.

(2) There is a distinct sequence in discipleship. In the lives of the twelve, there was a clear sequence. The first phase of their discipleship centered on knowing Jesus Christ intimately. It was considerably later that Jesus sent them out to preach and heal. I fear that in too many churches we have equated discipleship with service. We immediately urge new Christians to begin to go to work for our Lord. It was a number of years until those who were physically present with our Lord were qualified to carry on His work. Paul spent years in preparation also (Galatians 1:15-18).

What I am suggesting is that those who are newly saved need to spend their initial efforts in getting to know their Lord in a much more intimate way. Once this is done (though it never is fully arrived at, cf. Philippians 3:10ff), the quality of our service will be vastly superior.

(3) Discipleship is a life-long process by which we become servants (and friends, John 15:14,15) of our Lord Jesus Christ. On one occasion, I was invited to preach at a church in the Northwest, and I (unwisely) chose to speak on a somewhat emotional and controversial issue. I tried to forewarn the pastor, and I shall never forget his response. He said, “Go right ahead, brother, you’re the Lord’s servant, not mine.”

I am not at all certain that most Christians really believe this. It seems that all too often we measure service to our Lord by service to us. “If you are really a disciple, then you will do thus and so …” That is not the way I understand the New Testament.

How graciously our Lord dealt with the failures and weaknesses and ineptitude of His disciples. How harsh and demanding we are. So often we establish a rigid program and imply that all who are truly committed will follow it (and us!).

The discipleship process of our Lord was personal and individualized. It took people at whatever level of commitment and maturity they were and encouraged them to press on. When they failed, our Lord stood by them, suggesting that even their failure would enhance their value as His disciple (cf. Luke 22:31-32).

There are some who teach the doctrine of so-called “Lordship Salvation” and by this they imply that the salvation is a final and once for all commitment to salvation by faith and service. I do not see this in the training of the twelve.

Are you a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ? Have you trusted in Him as your Savior? If you have, you have begun a life-long process. It is an exciting process by which you will grow in an intimate relationship with the Savior, and in time, you will be given work to do in His name.

Since much of the present discipleship emphasis falls upon human responsibility and commitment, let me conclude with a reminder that it is our Lord Who is in complete control, not only in the calling of disciples, but in the process of making them. Our Lord assured His disciples,

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that Your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you” (John 15:16).

May God grant that you may wonder at the fact that God has chosen to reveal Himself to you and to use you in His service. May you find comfort that, while the requirements of discipleship are rigorous, the Savior is gentle and gracious, and the process, though life-long, is sure.


210 James S. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978), p. 66.

211 Although this verse is variously translated, it would seem to emphasize either the youth of our Lord (as the King James Version implies) or the youth of His disciples (which the NASV and the Berkeley Version suggest).

212 The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, p. 66.

213 Cf. R. T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 53.

214 “A certain Galilean once went about enquiring, ‘Who has ‘amar’? ‘Foolish Galilean,’ they said to him, ‘do you mean an “ass” for riding, “wine” to drink, “wool” for clothing, or a “lamb” for killing?’” This Jewish joke, which pokes fun at the slovenly speech of Galilee with its indistinct vowels and dropped aitches, indicates the Jerusalem Jew’s attitude to his northern neighbours. Galilee had once been predominately Gentile territory, and even now its population was far from completely Jewish. Cut off from Judaea by the hostile territory of Scamaria, and under a different system of government, it tended to develop along its own independent lines of speech and character, and of religious tradition. Hence the great disdain in which a Judaean Jew held his Galilean brother.” Ibid., p. 30.

215 James S. Stewart, p. 69.

Related Topics: Christology, Discipleship

17. Discipleship: Its Requirements and Its Rewards

(Luke 14:25-33; Mark 10:29-30; Matthew 11:28-30)

Introduction

I find that I am always prone to overestimate the benefits of things I desire and to underestimate the price involved. My wife and I recently committed ourselves to a ‘small’ remodeling project. Any of you who have done the same know that it has become a far bigger commitment than we anticipated.

This is also a danger in the matter of discipleship. Repeatedly, our Lord cooled the enthusiasm of eager candidates for discipleship by urging them to consider its cost.216 In evangelical circles today, there seems to be a trend in the opposite direction. We urge people to be saved and to become disciples of our Lord, highlighting its benefits and blessings. We conceal the true cost of discipleship and any liabilities in the fine print, if we mention them at all.217

If we truly desire to be followers of our Lord along the path of discipleship, it is imperative that we first heed the words of our Lord and count the cost of discipleship. Lest we become falsely discouraged or disillusioned, we should also weigh these costs against the benefits of being a follower of Jesus. In this way only can we make an intelligent decision in this decisive matter of discipleship.

The Requirements of Discipleship

In the gospel of Luke, we find the requirements of discipleship outlined by our Lord.

“Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms for peace. So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:25-33).

From one perspective, discipleship centers upon the issue of dependence and submission. Taken from another direction, we might say that discipleship entails a complete rearrangement of our priorities. To be a disciple of our Lord demands that He become the most important thing in our life. This is what Luke sought to remind us of when he recorded the words of our Lord in the fourteenth chapter of his gospel. Consider with me the rearrangement of our priorities demanded by discipleship.

(1) The disciple of Jesus Christ must put his Master above those nearest and dearest to him. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, … he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

We should all understand that Jesus did not mean by this that we cannot love God and family at the same time—that we can only love God while hating those nearest and dearest to us.218 The Scriptures speak too plainly elsewhere of our obligations to our families, husbands, wives and children.

What our Lord means is that our love for Him must have precedence over any other. Our attachment to Him must be greater than any other. While husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25), they are to love the Savior more. No human relationship should be more intimate, no human bond more inseparable than that between the disciple and his Master.

We in America can hardly grasp the potential threat that family ties pose to true discipleship. In the days of the New Testament as well as down through church history, individuals have been confronted with the ultimatum to choose either Jesus or family, but not both. Many Christians have been totally disowned and disinherited because of their faith in Christ, the Savior.

Several years ago when I was teaching school, I had a little Jewish girl as a student. More than anything else in the world she dreaded telling her parents of her new faith. She was a handicapped child and to be put out by her family would seemingly be disastrous.

Not only is our relationship to Christ to have priority over family ties, our union with Him is to have precedence over all human relationship. Friendship (or identification) with Christ will inevitably result in enmity with the world.

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore, the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

The disciple of Christ may not desire persecution, but he can depend on it.

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become as his teacher, and the slave as his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!” (Matthew 10:24-25).

(2) The disciple of the Lord Jesus must value following Jesus Christ above life itself. The basic instinct to preserve life is inherent in all of creation. Discipleship demands a devotion to the Lord Jesus that surpasses the instinct to preserve our own life. The history of the church sufficiently proves that this requirement has resulted in the death of countless Christians through the centuries. Once again, we Americans can scarcely comprehend the demands of discipleship as faced by many of our persecuted and oppressed brethren. Perhaps even in our own lifetime conditions in our nation may become such that we will come to appreciate the significance of this requirement of devotion to Christ above life itself.

(3) The disciple of Jesus Christ must place his commitment to Christ above material possessions. I have the distinct impression that we are now beginning to arrive at the real crunch for those of us who are complacent, affluent, American Christians. “So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions” (Luke 14:33).

Simply put, we must love God more than we love money and what it can buy. The story of the rich young ruler illustrates this requirement of discipleship. He wanted to be a disciple of our Lord (and therefore obtain the fringe benefit of eternal life), but not at the cost of his material possessions.

I do not think that the Bible teaches that one can become a Christian only after disposing of his material assets. It is the attitude behind our affluence that is the crucial factor. Oftentimes the poor are more materialistic than the rich, for they assign too much importance to material things. The desire to have money and material goods is what is sinful. In biblical terms, “The love of money (not the possession of it) is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang” (1 Timothy 6:10).

Paul instructed those who were rich in material things to be rich in good works, and not to trust in the uncertainty of riches (1 Timothy 6:17-19). That is the point. Nothing must compete with our devotion to and our dependence upon the Lord Jesus.

(4) The disciple of Jesus Christ must daily die to self-interest. Even as our Lord spoke of His destiny leading Him to a cross, so also every true disciple must also bear a cross. “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). Our cross must not be confused with the cross of our Lord. His was a cross borne once for all, while ours must be taken up daily. “And He was saying to them all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23).

His cross was the instrument which put to death the sinless Son of God. Taking up our cross involves the daily putting to death of the selfish desires and ambitions of the old self, our lower nature (cf. Romans 6:1-14; 1 Corinthians 15:31; 2 Corinthians 4:7-12; Colossians 2:20; 3:11). There is a “Christian” song which is nicely done, but its theology makes me cringe. The words go something like this (be grateful I don’t attempt to sing it):

Must Jesus bear the cross alone
And all the world go free?
No, there’s a cross for everyone
And there’s a cross for me.

Now I would agree that all of us must suffer in this life and bear the reproach of Christ. Paul calls this: “… Filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Colossians 1:24). As Christians, we will suffer and be persecuted for the sake of Christ, even as our Lord told us. But our sufferings are not atoning; they contribute nothing to our salvation, nor to anyone else’s.

Taking up our cross daily is speaking of our willingness to lay aside all self-seeking and selfish ambition. It means that our desire and ambition is not to satisfy ourselves, but to please the Savior. He, rather than self, is the object of our supreme affection. Pleasing Him is the highest, most compelling motive of our lives.

We, like the disciples, do not come out looking very good on this point. Over and over the disciples evidenced a jockeying for position, and a desire to get ahead of the other eleven. And repeatedly our Lord rebuked and instructed them on this very point (cf. Matthew 18:1ff.; 23:11-12; Mark 9:34ff.; Luke 9:46-43; 22:24,26). The supreme example is that of our Lord who looked not after His own pleasure and comfort, but Who was obedient to the point of infinite suffering and death for our salvation (Philippians 2:4-8).

Putting all these elements together we can conclude that true discipleship puts Jesus Christ above everything and everyone else. We esteem His fellowship above that of any other. We consider it a far greater thing to be related to Him than any human kinship. We see His purposes, His desires, as vastly more important than our own.

On a human plane, discipleship is something like joining the armed forces. No one can sign up and yet retain his autonomy. (At least, this is the way it used to be!) When you are enlisted, your own interests are subservient to your superiors. You eat when you are told, you get leave when it is granted. You contribute to a greater cause by making yourself expendable to that cause. And so, to some degree, it is with discipleship (cf. Luke 9:57-62).

The Rewards of Discipleship

With the requirements of discipleship so demanding, we are not greatly shocked that so few chose the path of discipleship to our Lord. In fact, we may wonder why anyone would choose to do so. Let me suggest several principles of discipleship which prove to be compelling reasons for being a follower of Jesus Christ. As we shall see, the rewards of discipleship make its requirements look pale. The first principles of discipleship are found in Matthew’s Gospel: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-30).

Principle 1: We must all have a master, and none is more gentle than the Savior. The Scriptures make it clear that we are the slaves of whatever it is that controls us (Romans 6:16). Some are the slaves of the body and its appetites. Others submit to a religious system. Our Lord described those enslaved in the Judaism of their time as ‘weary and heavy-laden’ (Matthew 11:28). It is hard to think of a more fitting description. Ultimately, if we are not the servants of Jesus Christ we are slaves to sin and to Satan (Romans 6:16). What a cruel taskmaster he is!

In contrast, our Lord is ‘gentle and humble in heart’ (Matthew 11:29). To be His disciple is not a dreary task, not a drudgery, but a delight; not a burden, but a blessing. While the scribes and Pharisees lorded it over the people and ruled in pride and arrogance, Jesus gave His life for His sheep. He humble and gently leads His own. Though the path is rough, the way is sure, for we have a gentle and skillful guide.

Principle 2: Although the demands of discipleship are great, He never requires of us anything which He does not enable us to do. We have seen that the requirements for discipleship are rigorous. How, then, can Jesus speak of His burden as ‘light’ and His yoke as ‘easy’? Why is the way of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees hard and their burden heavy? It is because they demand much and do not give so much as one bit of help (Matthew 23:4). But what our Lord expects, He enables us to do. This is the crucial difference. Let us not think about the demands of discipleship without also contemplating the dynamic enablement which He provides to meet them.

Principle 3: It is only to His disciples that our Lord reveals His innermost thoughts and most intimate secrets. While our Lord spoke plainly to His disciples of His purposes, these were carefully concealed from the masses. “And He was not speaking to them without parables; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples” (Mark 4:34). The reason for this was sought by His disciples, and the Lord explained it when He said, “To you has been given the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables” (Mark 4:11, cf. also verse 12). Discipleship brings one into a level of intimacy with the Lord that others cannot experience. It is to His intimate friends (cf. John 15:15) that His intimate secrets are revealed.

Principle 4: Our rewards as disciples are based not on the magnitude of our actions, but on their motive. Many, in my opinion, shy away from discipleship because they sense that they have little or nothing to contribute, and hence, that their rewards will be few. We have already established the principle that God does not choose us on the basis of our potential contribution. He chooses the foolish things of this world (1 Corinthians 1:26-31). The basis for our rewards as disciples is defined in the Gospel of Matthew:

“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly, I say to you he shall not lose his reward” (Matthew 10:40-42).

I understand from this text that rewards are based not so much on the magnitude of our service, but on the sincerity of our motives; not so much on the response to our service as on the reason for it. If we are obedient to our Lord and live so as to please Him, we shall have a reward.

Principle 5: Our great reward is Jesus Himself. Whenever we begin to think about this matter of rewards and blessing, let us never forget that He is our great reward. In the book of Hebrews we are told that God is “a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). God also told Abram, “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (Genesis 15:1 KJV).

If we seek to be followers of our Lord only for the fringe benefits we have succeeded only in kicking materialism and self-interest out the front door while inviting them in through the back door. He is our reward. The cost of discipleship is nothing compared to the riches of fellowship with Him.

Principle 6: There is nothing which the Lord denies His disciple which is for his ultimate good, and nothing which He takes away which He does not replace with something better. In the Garden of Eden, Satan succeeded in deceiving Eve into thinking that what God forbade was really good and that in so doing, God was not really good. Satan is always changing the price tags and the labels. When we come to the matter of discipleship, Satan wants us to dwell on the negative side of the ledger. He wants us to ponder what we are missing. But God withholds no good thing from those who follow Him: “For the Lord God is a sun and shield; The Lord gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11; cf. Psalm 34:10).

But even more than this, what God takes away He replaces with something even better. Look at these words from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10:

“Jesus said, ‘Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers (notice the omission of father) and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life’” (Mark 10:29-30).

Do you see the principle behind this promise? God only withholds what is not for our good. What He does withhold, He replaces with something far better. Now Christianity is often accused of promising ‘pie in the sky, bye and bye.’ And, with certain qualifications, we must say this is surely true. God does promise many great blessings in the future. But, to quote an insightful writer,219 most disciples would insist that they have received a good sized slice of the pie already.

Implications and Application

The relevance of these things is almost too obvious to mention, but let me reiterate some areas of application. First, we should neither underemphasize nor overemphasize the demands of discipleship. Many who discover what is involved in true discipleship will avoid it, as did the rich young ruler. But if we thoughtfully consider the rewards of following Jesus, along with the alternatives to it, we should quickly conclude that there is no other way, there is no better way, there is no easier way, than His way.

Second, we should see the folly of those who suppose that they are getting the ‘best of both worlds’ when they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and then walk far behind in daily life. The theory is that by straddling the spiritual fence we can enjoy the blessings of heaven while also soaking up the pleasures of sin for the present. Discipleship is not to be understood only as the sacrifice of pleasant joys for future rewards.220 Discipleship is God’s provision for a purposeful and pleasurable life in the present, as well as a blissful eternity in the presence of God, His angels, and the saints. No one but the disciple of our Lord is living life to the maximum.

Are you a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is He the most important person in your life? If not, you are being cheated out of life at its fullest. Have you considered the cost of discipleship, as well as its rewards? If you do, you will conclude that the way of discipleship is not a way; it is the way. May God grant that we may become His disciples by His grace.


216 Cf. Matthew 19:16-22; Luke 9:57-62; 14:25-33.

217 “The type of ministry that is here in mind starts by stressing, in an evangelistic context, the difference that becoming a Christian will make. Not only will it bring a man forgiveness of sins, peace of conscience, and fellowship with God as his Father; it will also mean that through the power of the indwelling Spirit, he will be able to overcome the sins that previously mastered him, and the light and leading that God will give him will enable him to find a way through problems of guidance, self-fulfillment, personal relations, heart’s desire, and such like, which had hitherto defeated him completely. Now, put like that, in general terms, these great assurances are scriptural and true—praise God, they are! But it is possible so to stress them, and so to play down the rougher side of the Christian life—the daily chastening, the endless way with sin and Satan, the periodic walk in darkness—as to give the impression that normal Christian living is a perfect bed of roses, a state of affairs in which everything in the garden is lovely all the time, and problems no longer exist—or, if they come, they have only to be taken to the throne of grace, and they will melt away at once. This is to suggest that the world, the flesh, and the devil, will give a man no serious trouble once he is a Christian; nor will his circumstances and personal relationships ever be a problem to him; nor will he ever be a problem to himself. Such suggestions are mischievous, however, because they are false.” J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 222.

218 I must comment here that some, in the name of Christian commitment to Christ, have neglected or forsaken their family responsibilities, and with considerable harm, while sincerely supposing that they were obeying our Lord’s instructions in this passage. This text, as all others, must be interpreted and applied in the light of all other Scriptures on this point. When the Lord has highest priority in our lives, we find that our family obligations are taken more seriously, too. We obey Him by loving our wives as He loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). We submit to our husbands as unto the Lord (Ephesians 5:22). We obey parents and honor them (Ephesians 6:1,2). We deal lovingly with our children (Ephesians 6:4).

219 R. T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 64.

220 This is, however, one aspect of the Christian life (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, Hebrews 11:24-26). The point I wish to make is that the sacrifices we make in this present life are to our benefit now, as well as in eternity.

Related Topics: Christology, Discipleship

18. What Happened to Discipleship in the Epistles?

(Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 16:1-3; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Timothy 2:2)

Introduction

As I began to approach my study of discipleship several weeks ago, I wrote down the questions for which I would like to find the answers on this subject. Let me share some of the most troublesome.

(1) In the matter of discipleship, are we not guilty of constructing a theology and methodology solely on the Gospels, while ignoring the epistles? Is this not what we accuse others of doing with regard to other doctrines?

  • Why do the terms for discipleship occur so frequently in the Gospels and yet virtually disappear in the Epistles?
  • Why is this so in the light of the Great Commission to ‘make disciples of all the nations’?
  • Why are the twelve disciples not called disciples, but apostles in the book of Acts and the epistles? Is there a difference between apostles and disciples?

(2) Have we been correct in using the relationship between Christ and the twelve and between Paul and Timothy as a model for discipleship?

  • Are the twelve to be used as a measure of our spirituality?
  • Were the twelve any more spiritual than any of the other ‘disciples’?

These are questions which have haunted me in the matter of discipleship. It is my conviction that to answer these will contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature and practice of making disciples in the New Testament.

The principle question which we shall seek to answer (and also the title of this message) is, ‘What happened to discipleship in the Epistles?’ To answer this question, we will begin by looking more closely at the Great Commission. Then we will turn our attention to the teaching and practice of the apostle Paul. From this we will draw our conclusions and application.

Discipleship and the Great Commission
(Matthew 28:18-20)

Few commands of our Lord weigh more heavily on our Christian consciences. It is little wonder that we feel compelled to engage in some kind of discipleship program based upon the last words of our Lord to the eleven:

“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20).

The current emphasis on discipleship from this passage is a swing of the pendulum in reaction to a poor translation in the King James Version of the Bible. Unfortunately, the translators failed to reflect some grammatical distinctions evident in the original text in their English translation. The first failure was in rendering the participle (‘going’ or ‘as you go’) as an imperative, with the same verbal force as the primary command (make disciples).221 The second error was in not indicating the difference between the term matheteuo (‘make disciples’ rendered in the KJB ‘teach’) and didasko (‘to teach’ correctly rendered ‘teaching’).

The outcome has been unfortunate, for we have placed more emphasis upon going than was grammatically intended. Then, too, we have not given the full force to the command to ‘make disciples.’ Teaching has seemingly come to have a disproportionate emphasis. Current exposition has endeavored to put proper emphasis upon ‘making disciples,’ but in the process has invested more in the term than it originally implied. So we have swung from one extreme to the other. In banking terms, we were originally ignorant of the fact that we had money in the bank, but now we have overdrawn on our account.

What does our Lord mean by this command to ‘make disciples of every nation’? Looking back in the Gospels we are reminded that the term ‘disciples’ was used of those who were the followers of Jesus.222 In the book of Acts, the term seems to be used as a synonym for ‘Christian’ or ‘believer’ (Acts 6:1,2; 9:1,26; 11:26, etc.). From this we should conclude that the command of the risen Lord was to carry out the task of leading men to be His followers, just as men had done during His earthly sojourn.

Why use the term ‘make disciples’ then? Why not simply command that we evangelize the world? The reason is that Christianity is more than a decision to trust in Christ as Savior. It is not enough to invite men to believe in Christ as Savior. In the Gospels, our Lord invited men to follow Him, not just to believe on Him. Christianity is more than a moment-in-time conversion; it is the radical transformation or conversion which leads to a whole new way of life. It implies the forsaking of our former way of life, and our commitment to live as God requires, by His grace. In other words, discipleship is used because it compresses conversion and Christian living, salvation and sanctification, into one term. Conversion to Christ, in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, was inconceivable without a commitment to follow Him in life. That is why our Lord persistently challenged would-be followers to count the cost, as well as the rewards.

The main verb, ‘make disciples,’ does not really explain the means of discipleship, but its goal. It is the three participles that help us to grasp what is involved in the making of disciples of all nations. Behind the Great Commission was a radical new concept which our Lord gave to the eleven, who were dyed-in-the-wool Jews.

First of all, making disciples necessitated ‘going.’ This commission nullified the previous instruction of our Lord to go only to the Jews (cf. Matthew 10:5-6). Now they were to proclaim the grace of God in the gospel to all nations. Judaism had previously (and reluctantly) granted Gentiles to come the way of the proselyte. Now Jewish believers were to go to the Gentiles with the good news. Going did not come easily to these racially biased men. The racial separatism which once was thought to be a measure of spirituality was now shown to be a hindrance to it (cf. Ephesians 2:20).

If the first participle, ‘going’ emphasized the need for an invitation to discipleship, the second participle, ‘baptizing,’ draws our attention to the initiation of men into the life of discipleship. “… baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19b).

Those who believe in ‘baptismal regeneration’ (the doctrine which says that we must be baptized in order to be saved) would be quick to leap on this verse to prove their point. Unfortunately, those of us who reject this erroneous doctrine neglect this verse in order to avoid any semblance of their error.

Baptism in the New Testament is a rite of initiation. It does not save anyone, for it is a work of man. It is not the cause, but the result of salvation. It does not contribute in any way to one’s salvation; it is a public confession of it. Furthermore, this command is not addressed to the would-be convert; it is given to those who already are disciples, and indeed, men who are apostles. It speaks of the responsibility of the church toward new converts. It implies the proclamation of the gospel of salvation through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for sinners. It implies a genuine faith and conversion to Christ. But it also includes a public profession of faith and a public renouncement of the old way of life and an entrance into a new lifestyle. Baptism summarizes all that is involved in the initiation of a person into the Christian faith.

The third participle, ‘teaching,’ capsulizes the continual obligation of the church to instruct the new convert in the way of the Lord. Conversion is the introduction of a person to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Teaching cultivates this relationship by assisting and encouraging the convert to know Him in a deeper and more intimate way. This process of getting to know Him is life-long (cf. Philippians 3:10), and instruction in the Scriptures is an essential element in this process.

‘Making disciples,’ then, does not refer to some formal structured program intended only for the super-spiritual or an elite company of the committed. It is God’s imperative for every Christian. It involves the initiation and the instruction of every believer into an ever deepening relationship with Jesus Christ. It seeks to make every person a follower of Christ.

Whose Responsibility
Is This Commission to “Make Disciples”?

The assumption of contemporary Christianity is that discipleship (making disciples) is the individual responsibility of every Christian. To follow this assumption through to its logical conclusion we must end up by saying that every Christian is to go, to evangelize, and to instruct. To some extent, of course, this is true. But when seen in its full-blown implications, it means that I personally am responsible for the total life and spiritual growth of certain persons. I should be evangelizing and edifying a certain number of individuals if I am really spiritual and if I am really obedient to the Great Commission. It is my contention that what we expect of ourselves, the eleven disciples themselves failed to do. It is now my task to defend this contention.

(1) Please note with me that the eleven did not go. Look at the words of the noted church historian, Luke: “… and on that day (the day of Stephen’s stoning in which Saul played a part) a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria; except the apostles” (Acts 8:1).

Now this is an amazing thing. The very ones who received the command to go forth with the gospel stayed home in Jerusalem. This certainly was not because it was the path of least resistance. They, as leaders in the Christian community, were the most likely targets for treatment similar to that of Stephen. Those who went forth to the Gentiles were not the eleven.

(2) So far as we are told in Scripture, the eleven did not ‘make disciples’ in the same fashion as the Lord worked with them. We know of no examples of the apostles attaching to themselves a select group of followers, to carry on their work. Their work seemed to concentrate on a ministry to the masses, as the account in Acts 6:1-6 implies. The apostles did devote themselves to the proclamation of the gospel (cf. Peter and John, Acts 3-4) and to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2,4).

(3) Discipleship is the corporate responsibility of the church. The bottom line is simply this: the Great Commission was not given to the eleven as individuals, but to them as the church in embryo. We rightly recognize that the Great Commission was not merely a command to the eleven apostles. It was a mandate to the church, of which they were the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). More than this, it is not a command to every Christian to apply independently so much as it is for the church corporately. Discipleship is the corporate responsibility of the church. Although every Christian should give testimony of his faith, some are given the gift, the special, spirit-given ability, to evangelize (Ephesians 4:11, etc.) to teach (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), to help, to lead (1 Corinthians 12:28), and so on.

The church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27). What He began to do and to teach, the church is to continue (Acts 1:lff). No Christian individually and independently can fully represent or reflect the person of Christ. Only the church can do this corporately. Each and every Christian is a valuable member of His body, and each has its unique function (1 Corinthians 12:20-30).

Then what should we do as individuals to carry out our part of this Great Commission? At last, we have come to the heart of the matter. It all boils down to a matter of gifts and calling. The eleven ‘disciples’ were gifted and called of God to serve as apostles. It was their task to lay down the terms of salvation. It was their calling to lay down the foundation for the church (Matthew 16:18-20; Ephesians 2:19-22). They had a particular function and role to play in the carrying out of the Great Commission, but it was not their task alone. They did not feel compelled to go, but to stay, for they were not called, as was Paul, to preach to the Gentiles.

If you and I are to be responsible Christians and obedient to the Great Commission, we should look to our individual gifts and calling to determine what part we are to play in its outworking.

It is here that I find one of my haunting questions answered. Were the twelve (or the eleven if you would) disciples really more spiritual than the rest? I think not. There were no women among the eleven, and yet who were those last at His grave and first at the empty tomb? Why did Mary seem to sense our Lord’s imminent death, when the twelve were aloof to it (John 12:1-7)?

You see, we have made the eleven our pattern for discipleship. If we were really spiritual, we suppose, we, too, would leave our secular jobs and spend all our time preaching the gospel. We think that these ‘apostles’ were more spiritual because they didn’t have to live in the working world any more. When a young man becomes converted and shows real spiritual zeal and a hunger for the Word, we ask him if he has thought of going to seminary and going into ‘full-time’ service. Were the other disciples less spiritual for not following the lifestyle and ministries of the eleven? Are you less spiritual today because you have to work at a secular job? I find it very instructive to learn that those who constituted the first evangelistic thrust of the church were not full-time, ordained, theologically trained (formally), missionaries. (If you are reluctant to take my word for it, read Acts 8:1ff.)

To be spiritual, to be obedient to the Great Commission, is not necessarily to quit your job, leave your loved ones, and become a full-time foreign missionary. Even the eleven do not meet this requirement fully. To carry out your part in the Great Commission is to employ your spiritual gift and follow your calling in conjunction with the other members of the body of Christ, His church.

But What of Paul and Timothy?
(Acts 16:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:2; 1 Corinthians 11:1)

I suspect that what I have said sounds too ‘unspiritual,’ too unconventional to accept without considerable thought. And if what I have suggested does no more than stimulate your thinking and Bible study, I have accomplished my task.

No conclusions on the matter of discipleship will hold water which do not take into account the relationship of Paul and Timothy. Over and over I have heard, ‘I want to be discipled like Paul discipled Timothy.’

What then, was the relationship between Paul and Timothy, if not one of discipleship? Let me begin by mentioning the only New Testament passage I am aware of which uses the term disciple with respect to Paul and other men:

“And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Saul, And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket” (Acts 9:23-25).

I would draw your attention to the expression ‘his disciples.’ Does this not prove that Paul had disciples, just as our Lord did? Not really. First of all, you should recognize that the King James Version, reflecting a different Greek textual family,223 renders this, “Then the disciples took him by night …” (Acts 9:25a, KJV).

Regardless of how one handles the textual matter, and granting the possibility that the reading ‘his disciples’ is correct, it makes little difference. The context of this verse is the first days after Paul’s conversion. It would be a number of years until Paul would be in a position to have ‘disciples’ like Timothy, even if he did have them. The only disciples which Paul could have had would have been his disciples as an unbelieving Rabbi. Those would have been men faithful to Paul, who traveled with him on the road to Damascus (cf. Acts 9:7-8).

Now to Paul and Timothy, some fifteen years or so after his conversion. We read in Acts of Paul’s first recorded contact with Timothy:

“And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:1-3).

Paul had disagreed with Barnabas so strongly over taking Mark on a second missionary journey that the two had separated (Acts 15:36-41). Paul took Silas and began traveling through Syria and Cilicia. When they (at least Paul, Silas, and shortly, Luke—note ‘we’ in verses 11ff.) arrived in Lystra a young convert named Timothy was highly recommended to him by those who knew him well (Acts 16:2). Paul invited him to join the group. Nothing here implies a relationship patterned precisely after that of Christ and His disciples. Timothy was invited to become a member of the team because he was proven faithful, not primarily to be taken along to be made useful.

Then what of Paul’s instruction to Timothy some time later? “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).

Here, again, we have come to the central issue. That Paul is not speaking of discipleship is obvious. Our Lord spoke universally of discipleship—that is, it was for men of every nation (Matthew 28:19), and not just for those who are spiritual, but every Christian. But Paul spoke in a restricted sense. Paul limits his command to Timothy to the matter of a particular gift and calling.

Timothy is to see to it that his ministry is multiplied in other men, whose faithfulness and gift have been evidenced (‘faithful men, teach’). That Timothy should have a more intimate relationship with a selective group of men I do not challenge. But the goal of this relationship is not discipleship but ministry. The issue is not spirituality, but sphere of service. It does not define godliness, but gift. Those who use this passage for discipleship programs, I believe, have missed the point.

We are not saying that one-to-one ministry is prohibited. We are saying that we must be selective concerning those in whom we invest significant portions of our life. We are saying that working intimately with men who have developing gifts similar to our own is biblical. But we are not saying that this is discipleship. We are not saying that anyone who was spiritual would have been clamoring to attach himself (or herself) to Paul, or Timothy, or any other Christian leader. Discipleship is a life-long process, beginning at the point of salvation, and participated in by a variety of individuals within the church, each in his or her unique way.

There is still one last gasp of contemporary thinking on discipleship. It is: But what of Paul’s frequent command to follow his example. Colin Brown, under the title of ‘discipleship,’ includes Bauder’s article on the Greek term, mimeomai, to imitate.224

While we are to unreservedly and wholeheartedly devote ourselves to the imitation of Christ, such is not the case with any one individual. We are not to imitate Paul alone, nor are just a select few to do so. We are to imitate others who manifest Christian virtues (cf. Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9). Elders are to lead, not by force, but by example (1 Peter 5:3).

To speak directly to those passages where Paul instructs Christians to follow his example or imitate him, he never commands unrestricted imitation. It is always imitation in a restricted sphere, in a particular aspect of Paul’s life and ministry. It is not a blanket command to duplicate Paul in our own lives.225

Some discipleship efforts appear to me to be an attempt at spiritual cloning. Young men desire to duplicate the lives of those whom they respect and revere. We should always seek to imitate the godly qualities of those whose lives reflect our Lord. But invariably what happens is that we also tend to imitate the personality and their particular ministry. Here is where we get ourselves into great difficulties. This kind of discipleship is not biblical.

Conclusions

What does all of this boil down to? We can summarize this matter by listing several observations and conclusions:

(1) Discipleship is not for the elite in Christianity, but for all Christians.

(2) Salvation is the first step, commencing a life of discipleship. Salvation should not be seen apart from discipleship.

(3) Some have neglected discipleship in evangelism, tending toward an easy believism. They seem to be inviting men and women to have a kind of spiritual ‘affair’ with our Lord. They do not stress that the relationship is one of eternal commitment and far-reaching consequences. Others have over-stressed or over-programmed it, failing to realize that it is ultimately the work of God and a life-long process.

(4) We have erroneously applied our Lord’s relationship with the twelve and Paul’s relationship with Timothy to discipleship. We have confused discipleship with apostleship. We have overlooked the matter of gift and calling. We have confused spirituality with certain kinds of service.

(5) We have made the matter of discipleship primarily an individual enterprise rather than a collective command to the corporate church.

(6) We have placed the emphasis upon finding a person to be our leader and guide, rather than developing a dependence on Christ Himself.

Applications

The applications of the principles of discipleship are far too numerous to list. Essentially, we must restructure our thinking in terms of discipleship. We should challenge every formula, every practice, every program, no matter how spiritual or biblical it appears on the surface, to see if it can be substantiated by a careful handling of the Scriptures.

May God give us the desire to continue along the path of discipleship. May God deliver us from devotion to anything above the Savior, and from dependence on anyone save Him alone. May God use us, our gifts and calling, to encourage others on the same path.


221 It must be pointed out that ‘make disciples’ is an active imperative verb, while ‘go’ (literally going, as you go, in going), ‘baptizing,’ and ‘teaching’ are all participles. Participles can have imperatival force (cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammer of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena, pp.180-183; or Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammer of Greek New Testament, p. 229) but only relatively infrequently. Following the grammatical inferences from this text, we would conclude that the primary command is to ‘make disciples.’ This command is implemented by ‘going,’ ‘baptizing’, and ‘teaching.’ ‘Making disciples,’ then, is the goal; ‘going,’ ‘baptizing,’ and ‘teaching’ are the means of attaining the goal.

222 Some of these, as previously explained, followed in unbelief, cf. John 6:60ff. Others were true believers, John 8:30,31. Some were in the inner circles of the seventy, the twelve, or the three (Matthew 10:1; 17:1,6).

223 The difference in the Greek text involves the order of words, but fundamentally the difference is that of one Greek letter. It is the difference between the word autou (his = his disciples) and auton (him = the disciples took him). If we follow the Greek text underlying the NASV, we must supply the pronoun ‘him,’ which would be wanting. Though this is possible, the text underlying the KJV is, in my mind, the more defendable.

224 Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), I, pp. 490-492.

225 “In the NT mimeomai is found only 4 times (2 Thess. 3:7,9; Hebrews 13:7; 3 Jn. 11); mimetes six times (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14; Hebrews 6:12); and symminetes only once in Phil. 3:17. All are used with an ethical-imperative aim and are linked with a specific kind of conduct.” Ibid. p. 491.

Related Topics: Discipleship

19. The Method of the Master (Matthew 7:28-29; John 7:44-46)

Introduction

‘Who needs instruction in how to teach?’ That was the question I always asked when anyone mentioned ‘methods of teaching.’ When I went to college, I decided to become a school teacher. One of the requirements of my course of study was that I learn some methods of teaching. Nothing seemed more detestable to me. ‘Either you’ve got it or you don’t,’ I would protest. ‘If you’ve got what it takes, you don’t need any teaching in methods.’ ‘And if you don’t have it, no amount of instruction will help.’

Barely surviving the educational system, I did finally become a school teacher, but after two years of this, the Lord led us to Dallas Theological Seminary. There, again, I was confronted with methods. It didn’t take me long to find an ally in my cause. He and I both were convinced that all we needed was our Bibles and the Holy Spirit. This methods stuff, we agreed, was just the ‘arm of the flesh.’ Minutes later my faithful supporter and I went in to our preaching class, and he was to bring the message. I have heard some pathetic attempts at preaching, but my friend took the grand prize. It was miserable.

Some time (and many hard lessons) later, I discovered several passages of Scripture. Again and again, I found in the book of Proverbs that the one who is wise gives attention both to what he says and to how he says it:

“The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly” (Proverbs 15:2).

“The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things” (Proverbs 15:28).

“The wise in heart will be called discerning, And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness” (Proverbs 16:21).

“The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, And adds persuasiveness to his lips” (Proverbs 16:23).

If this is not sufficient proof that we should devote ourselves to the improvement of our teaching methods, let us look at the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, the budding young teacher of the Scriptures: “And for this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you …” (2 Timothy 1:6).

Some would undoubtedly draw our attention to the fact that Timothy was to work at his teaching and preaching because that was his spiritual gift. I do not challenge this, but it in no way lets the rest of us off the hook. Gifted to teach or not, every Christian should seek to do his very best at teaching. If you will stay with me through my first point, I think we can dispense with any notions that excuse the non-gifted from their responsibility to teach.

Characteristics of Christ’s Teaching

As we reflect on the teaching methods of our Lord, there are several prominent characteristics which appear repeatedly. Our approach will be to observe the practice of our Lord, then to define the principle upon which this practice is based, and, finally, to explore the application of the principle to our lives.

(1) Spontaneity. When we think of teaching today, we think in terms of curriculum, class schedules, and designated meeting times. This is not necessarily bad, but it is a far cry from the life and ministry of our Lord. The only predictable teaching time of the Lord Jesus would be on the Sabbath at the Jewish synagogue. Beyond this, the teaching of Jesus was almost entirely spontaneous.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) was a spontaneous sermon given on the occasion of a large crowd who wanted to be taught (Matthew 5:1). When Jesus was invited to the home of Simon the Pharisee, and His feet were washed by a woman known to be sinful, Jesus used this as an opportunity to teach on the subject of forgiveness (Luke 7:36ff.). When the disciples argued over who was the greatest, Jesus gave them a lesson in true greatness (Luke 9:46f). Over and over in the Gospels, our Lord taught in response to situations which arose spontaneously.

There is a principle behind the practice of our Lord in the Gospels: Biblical teaching responds and relates to the day to day problems and circumstances of life. It is not to be restricted only to certain formal occasions, but it is to occur continually.

In the Old Testament God told the Israelites,

“And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart, and you shall teach them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up, And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

The New Testament also teaches us:

“Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person” (Colossians 4:5-6).

“… always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

Teaching is not just formal, but informal, not just an occasion in the classroom, but an opportunity to be capitalized upon by the person who has the Word of God deeply etched on their heart and mind.

The applications of this principle are numerous. For the one who teaches formally, they must recognize this ministry as only a small part of the total teaching process. It is perhaps the most difficult kind of teaching because it does not arise out of the urgency of a life-centered problem. When we teach formally, we must be continually conscious of the need to relate to life situations. Contacts outside the classroom and association with the student in his living environment are essential to good teaching.

As a teacher I am aware of the temptation to be content-oriented and not student-centered. I have a lesson I have worked hard to prepare. Since I have only 40 or 45 minutes I will preempt non-essentials such as time for discussion or questions and answers. All spontaneity is gone. If a student interrupts my teaching to ask a question or to make a comment, I view him as a threat to my planned presentation, so I politely silence him. I cannot recall one instance in the Gospels in which the Lord considered any circumstance an interruption to be ignored or to be brushed aside.

The implications of the principle of spontaneity are not restricted to those who consider their spiritual gift to be that of teaching. In Deuteronomy chapter six, Colossians chapter 4 and 1 Peter chapter 3, the principle of informal or spontaneous instruction is directed to every believer, not just to those gifted to teach. Teaching is to be spontaneous as well as structured. Those with the gift of teaching more formally will be responsible for the formal instruction, but all of us are to be ready for that which is spontaneous.

Our obligation is to be prepared to meet a variety of spontaneous and informal teaching situations. This preparation, I believe, is two-fold. First of all, there is the preparation of heart and mind which occurs as we become saturated with the Word of God. This is not simply a matter of attending classes and having our notebooks full of Biblical information. It is a personal encounter with the Word of God until we have a grasp of it, and, more importantly, it has a hold on us. As God said through Moses, “… these words … shall be in your heart …” (Deuteronomy 6:6).

Beyond this matter of being a student of Scripture, we must also be a student of those about us. All too often we have been accused of having all the answers, but not knowing what the questions are. Nothing is more lethal than making the Word of God appear irrelevant by our indifference to the issues which trouble men and women about us.

When you and I go to the doctor’s office, he asks us a number of questions. He does so, not to make polite conversation, but to isolate and identify symptoms of physical problems which he can remedy by treatment. Every question he asks is searching for symptoms of deeper need. How often our conversations are consumed by trivia, rather than seasoned with salt, probing for areas of need to which we can apply a Word from God. No wonder our Lord warned us that we will be judged for ‘every idle word’ (Matthew 12:36).

(2) Adaptability. Along with spontaneity comes adaptability and flexibility. When our Lord spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, He presented the Gospel in terms that were meaningful to her background and understanding, as well as pertinent to her present conduct. She sought water and Jesus spoke of ‘living water’ (John 4:10f). When Jesus was sought out by Nicodemus, a Jew, a religious leader and teacher, He spoke to Him in entirely different terms (John 3:lff.).

The principle I am stating might be phrased in this way: Although the truths of God are eternal and unchanging, those we are called to speak to with a Word from God are uniquely different, so we must adapt our methodology while holding fast to God’s unchanging message.

Surely this is one principle underlying the imperatives of Colossians 4:5-6 and 1 Peter 3:15. We are to communicate the Word of God as it is (without adding to it or taking away from it) to men where they are.

What troubles me here is that Christians do not really have the unchanging message so firmly imbedded in their hearts and minds that they can handle the threat of individualizing it. We want to reduce God’s truth into simple capsular forms and formulas which we indiscriminately apply to everyone, regardless of their background or needs and interests. How desperately we need to adapt the method without changing the message.

(3) Selectivity. I have said that our Lord’s teaching reflected a tremendous sensitivity toward the individual interests and needs of those about Him. Balanced with this sensitivity was also a selectivity. Our Lord was discriminating and discerning as to the proper time, and the proper subject matter for teaching. Let me suggest three specific areas of selectivity in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Selectivity in terms of time. Our Lord had many things to teach His followers. But He did not feel compelled to give them everything at once. We read in Mark’s Gospel: “And with many such parables He was speaking the word to them as they were able to hear it” (Mark 4:33).

Near the end of His earthly ministry, our Lord said to His disciples: “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12)

If we were only sensitive to this principle of selectivity. How frequently I see myself and others attempting to unload everything we have learned over the years on a Christian who is still ‘wet behind the ears.’ Our Lord was in no hurry to teach everything to His followers. He taught when the need was there and when the maturity to grasp it was evident.

There was also selectivity with regard to the people our Lord taught. He chose to take the disciples aside and explain certain truths to them alone, while these truths were not generally proclaimed (cf. Mark 4:34; John 14-16). With regard to some, our Lord chose to conceal the truth altogether, for they had already been given sufficient truth to trust in Him. Instead of repenting, they rejected Him and determined to put Him to death (cf. Mark 3:1-6, 20-30; 4:10-12).

As our Lord had told the disciples: ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine …” (Matthew 7:6; cf. also John 2:23-25; 2 Timothy 2:2).

It is necessary for every teacher to determine how much time to devote to various opportunities and individuals. I believe that our Lord’s commitment to instruct individuals was proportionate to that individual’s response to what he had already been taught (cf. Mark 4:23-25).

I have found it necessary to be selective in counseling. From time to time I will encounter a couple who come for marriage counseling who do not want to work at solving their problems. Week after week we go over the same old problems, but they return without any preparation or study in the Scriptures. In such cases, I must politely suggest that they not bother to call for an appointment until they have completed their assignment for that session. We must be selective in the use of our time with people.

In addition, the Lord was selective in the doctrines which He taught. While the disciples had an intense interest in the timing of the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus persistently refused to disclose such truth because it was not to their best interest (cf. Acts 1:6-8).

The Lord Jesus never allowed Himself to be side-tracked on some peripheral matter, some intricate detail of doctrine, which had no great applicational value. Here is precisely where the scribes and Pharisees spent the bulk of their time. As our Lord said, they “… strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24).

Paul warned Timothy about disproportionate emphasis upon matters of trivia or speculation (1 Timothy 1:3-7; 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:14-18, 23-26; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14; 2:1, etc.). Sad to say, many Christians seem to have become ‘trivia experts.’ How often today we are tempted to major on the minors, to emphasize our own hobby horses, to the detriment of sound doctrinal instruction.

(4) Simplicity. Although I have never been in the armed forces, I have a friend who was an Army instructor. The Army, in its own unsophisticated way, told instructors to always remember the word KISS. KISS is an acrostic for: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID.

Beauty and simplicity have, in my mind, a great deal in common. And so, also, do simplicity and truth. When our Lord intended men to grasp what He was saying, no one ever went away wondering what He meant. The simplicity of our Lord in His teaching had several dimensions.

First of all, there was a simplicity of motive. In Romans chapter 12, the apostle writes, “… he who gives, with simplicity” (margin, NASV) (Romans 12:8). The simplicity can be understood as liberality, as the textual reading of the NASV indicates. But it also can speak of simplicity or singleness of motive. By this Paul meant that one was not to give in order to receive the praise of God and the praise of men (as Ananias and Sapphira did, Acts 5:1-10). Our Lord’s motive in His teaching was not to please men and to receive their acclaim, but to please the Father (cf. Matthew 26:39; John 8:26; 12:49-50; 17:4).

The principle for the Christian is stated in the book of Colossians:

“Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord whom you serve” (Colossians 3:23-24, cf. 2 Timothy 4:24).

Second, there was evidenced in the teaching of our Lord a simplicity of method in His presentation. The scribes and Pharisees prided themselves in their ostentatious presentations, for it showed them to be erudite scholars. If many were left in the fog of $5 words and theological jargon, so much the better. More important than the communication of the message was the exaltation of the speaker.

Our Lord, on the contrary, spoke in the simplest language—so simple that even a child could not miss its meaning. But simplicity should not be thought of as dull and uninteresting. Jesus was a great story-teller. He had an insight and humor that gripped the attention of His audience. His down-to-earth illustrations brought abstract truths into very concrete terms.

There have always been those who have sought to replace the simplicity of speech with subtle persuasive techniques. The apostle Paul believed men were saved, not by the persuasive tactics of oratory genius, but by the simple (and foolish) method of preaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21).

I am not at all criticizing the study of homiletics (the art and science of preaching). Homiletics does not seek to give men devices and gimmicks by which to persuade. Rather, it seeks to aid men in getting rid of those things which detract from the message. It seeks not to highlight the messenger, but to get him out of the way of his message.

Third, there was in the teaching of Jesus the simplicity of straightforwardness in preaching. Jesus illustrated simplicity of motive, simplicity of method, and simplicity in the message.

No one ever had to urge the Master Teacher to get to the point—it was always crystal clear. I am (at times) troubled by some who confuse obscurity with depth. Some time ago I attended the lectures of a man who was thought to be a great intellectual. I am probably revealing more about myself than about this speaker, but I didn’t understand much of anything he said. After each lecture, people would rave about his intellectual depth of insight. Perhaps so. But, then again, perhaps his obscurity was misinterpreted for depth.

The simplicity and straightforwardness of our Lord was deeply rooted in His personal integrity. He would not obscure those portions of His teaching which would arouse anger and opposition. He let the chips fall where they must. Our Lord was even honest about that which He could not teach. When the disciples pressed Him for the time of the coming of the Kingdom, our Lord said that was not His to know (Matthew 24:36).

It is amazing to me how often teachers are dishonest in not revealing what is not theirs to know. People love an authoritative ring, a dogmatic word on every subject. But I must say to you (as you well know), I don’t have the answers to many questions. Worse yet, to many of these questions, neither does anyone else! You will recall the words of James when he says, “… Let your yes be yes, and your no, no” (James 5:12).

I have added one other factor, which, I believe, is implied in this instruction: ‘Let your maybe be maybe.’ How afraid we are of not knowing everything, and of letting people know that.

(5) Originality. One thing seems evident about the teaching method of the scribes and Pharisees, it must have been as dull and dry as dust. There was probably little originality and creativity. When they spoke, they merely quoted their ancient and shop-worn traditions.

The Lord was not confined to the traditions of the Pharisees, either in methodology or in content. The Lord taught much by His deeds; He underscored every major claim by miraculous signs. He not only claimed to be the ‘resurrection and the life,’ He raised the dead (John 11). When Jesus taught, things happened. His points were punctuated by a well-told story, a life-like illustration, or a sign. In His method of teaching, Jesus was original.

In the content of His messages, Jesus was original, too. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus frequently used the contrast: “You have heard it said … but I say” (cf. Matthew 5:21-48). The scribes and Pharisees merely touted the same old traditions. Our Lord did not reject the teachings of the Old Testament; He merely differentiated them from that of the scribes and Pharisees. His teaching was not original in the sense of overturning all previous revelation. Our Lord’s teaching was original in the sense that it went back to the original words of Scripture, rather than relying on the traditional interpretations of the fathers.

There is a great deal of difference between the originality and creativity of our Lord and the novelty of some today. Originality does not give a man license to engage in all kinds of bizarre and unorthodox gimmickry in order to get people’s attention. I hear of circuses, pony rides, parachutists and so on, drawing crowds by their unusual behavior.226 The presentation of the message must always be appropriate to the dignity of that message.

(6) Authority. If we were restricted to only one word by which we could describe the teaching of our Lord, it would be the word ‘authority.’ “The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at his teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29).

The ‘authority’ of the scribes was substantially different from that of Jesus. Theirs was the authority of prestigious training and position. Jesus was the mere ‘son of a carpenter,’ in their eyes (cf. Matthew 13:54ff.). The scribes derived their authority from Jewish tradition and from the fact that they reiterated the teachings of the fathers.

Jesus’ authority came from the Scriptures. Someone has wisely said that the Scriptures can speak for themselves and do not need our defense. In this, they are like a lion—all we need to do is to turn it loose. Jesus expounded the Scriptures in the light of their original meaning and intent, and when properly expounded they virtually rang out with authority.

Authority today is often equated with pulpit-pounding and arrogant dogmatism. Such should not be the case. There is a quiet confidence which the Lord manifested, and it was based upon His view of the Scriptures.

“… the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

In Mark 12:36 when our Lord quoted from Psalm 110, He did not mention David as the human instrument, but attributed the Scripture to the Holy Spirit.

It is no small wonder that much of the dynamic is missing in pulpits and classrooms across our nation. Many are no longer convinced that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God. There is an uncertainty and a lack of authority in the teaching of many because they do not view the Scriptures as Christ did.

This past week I have had the occasion to preach two funeral messages. As I sat looking out into those grief-stricken faces, I found myself thinking: If I do not have a word from God to speak to these people, who has anything of comfort to say? What consolation do the philosophers have, or the poets? Apart from divine revelation, no one has anything worth saying. There is a kind of compulsion to preaching a funeral when you know that the book you hold in your hands is God’s word to men, fully inspired, completely reliable and infallible. Here is where we get our authority.

I must also say that there is a way in which this authority can be abused. Sometimes we attempt to force the Scriptures into supporting our position or in sanctifying our pet peeves. Sometimes we go to the Bible in order to find a passage to justify our preconceived ideas. Sometimes we interweave our own ideas into a lesson when the text does not demand, or even support them (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6). Sometimes we rest on our reputations as Bible teachers when we express our own ideas. This is an abuse of biblical authority. Even Satan knows how to quote Scripture (cf. Matthew 4:6).

(7) Practicality. We have an expression that goes something like this: ‘Now you’ve left preaching and gone to meddling.’ What we mean by this is that mere preaching is abstract truth and meddling is instruction that demands personal application and changes in our life. If this is so, Jesus did not preach. He meddled. Whenever He taught a truth or a principle, He always brought it down to the bottom shelf of personal application. The truth which our Lord taught must be applied. In fact, not to use what we learn is to lose it:

“And He was saying to them, ‘Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it shall be measured to you; and more shall be given besides. For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him” (Mark 4:24-25).

In the teaching of our Lord, believing was never separated from doing:

“Therefore every one who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And every one who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27; cf. also Luke 3:7-14).

The principle here is this: ‘Truth is not possessed until it is practiced.’

If you and I are ever to be communicators of divine truth, we must be very conscious of application. And by application I mean very specific action. We often preach on the role of the husband and the wife. The husbands go away with the vague resolution, ‘I’m going to try to be a better husband this week.’ The wife says to herself ‘I will be more submissive.’ This is not enough. We must bring people to a commitment that is specific. I will love my wife by:

  • Taking over the supervision of the children when I get home.
  • Taking her out to dinner every week.
  • Getting around to the repair jobs she has been asking about for months.

One reason why application is so vital is that many of the errors in Christianity are in the application of truth. Whenever Paul used the expression ‘God forbid’ in the book of Romans, it was an appalled response to the wrong application of a biblical truth. Grace always surpasses sin. This is a biblical principle. But an unbiblical application is that we should glorify God by living in sin so that grace may abound (cf. Romans 6:lff.).

I believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Many, however, have misapplied the so-called ‘once saved, always saved’ doctrine to mean that we can live in sin with no reservations. This, of course, is wrong.

Some have misapplied a truth in a certain area to some other area of life. For example, a good Calvinist would say (and rightly so) that we do not have a free will so far as salvation is concerned (cf. John 1:13; Ephesians 2:1-9; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Acts 16:14, etc.). If we were left to ourselves, we would never turn to Christ in salvation, for, by nature, we are children of wrath, enemies of God. As I have sometimes said, we have the same free will to accept Christ that a lion does to become a vegetarian. Our nature determines our decisions.

Now this is a doctrine which relates to one’s salvation. Some have wrongly applied it to the spiritual life. I have no freedom of choice, so God is responsible for whatever I do, and not me. Such application renders Paul’s words in Romans 7 useless and meaningless. This is an application of a truth, but in the wrong sphere. Many of our heresies are applicational. We have taught accurately only when the truth is applied specifically and soundly.

(8) Purpose. When I was a student in seminary, I remember our homiletics (preaching) class being visited one day by a well-known Bible teacher. In the question and answer period someone asked him if he had a particular goal in mind when he taught. He said that when he preached it was like the bowman in 1 Kings 22 (verse 34) whose arrow was sent indiscriminately into the opposing army, but which struck King Ahab a fatal blow.

Now this sounds very spiritual, and very pleasing to a sluggard such as myself, who dislikes the discipline of thinking through a message for a central purpose and theme. But the teaching ministry of our Lord clearly reveals that His teaching always had a clear-cut goal. Sometimes he taught to clarify the distinctions between His Kingdom and that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5-7). At other times he taught so as to arouse curiosity and interest in the minds of some, while clouding the truth from others (Mark 4). At other times, it was to comfort and encourage (John 14). Sometimes He deliberately aroused opposition, instigating His own execution (cf. Matthew 22,23).

God’s Word was not given merely to inform, but to transform. It speaks to men where they are, and demands of men that they act decisively on what they hear. No teacher of the Scriptures dares wander aimlessly about the truths of God’s Word. As we are told in 2 Timothy, the Bible is given in order to teach, to reprove, correct, and to train. If we are to teach the Scriptures, we should teach with these purposes in mind. Our best guideline here is to determine the mood and the purpose of the passage which we are teaching, and to endeavor to accurately communicate this in our teaching.

Principles: There was a significant difference in the way the scribes and Pharisees handled the Scriptures compared with that of the Master. They focused upon the precepts of the Old Testament; He upon the principles. They thought of the Bible as a book of rules; He, as a book of reasons.

This is especially transparent in the Sermon on the Mount (especially Matthew 5:21-48). Repeatedly, Jesus contrasted Jewish traditions with biblical principles. They said it was wrong to murder. Jesus said the principle behind the precept (or rule) was that we should not have conflicts with one another—not even malicious thoughts. While the prohibition to murder applies to a small minority, the forbidding of angry and hostile thoughts and actions applies to all of us. This one principle applies to us in countless ways.

So also, the prohibition of adultery (Matthew 5:27ff.). Jewish legalism forbade the outward act, but backhandedly incited sinful thoughts. Jesus went to the heart of the matter—the thought life of the individual. Sinful actions result from immoral thoughts. While legalism draws the lines and lingers as close to them as possible, Christian liberty gives the principle and flees from sin as far as possible (cf. Matthew 5:29-30).

You and I know that the favorite question of a child is ‘Why?’ God does not ignore this question. In fact, our Lord concentrated upon it. The reason why so many young people in legalistic churches turn their backs on their ‘religion’ is because they were given rules without reasons. When the principles are taught, the practice is the result of conviction and not compulsion or religious conformity.

Our tendency toward legalism is quickly caught by our young people. Over and over I am asked questions like these: ‘Can I dance?’ ‘Can I smoke?’ ‘Can I date a non-Christian?’ What distresses me is the motivation for such questions. They want to know the lines of what is forbidden so that they can get as close to the fence as possible.

For the one whose heart is close to God, the question should not be, ‘How far can I go,’ but rather, ‘What really pleases God, and how far from sin can I stay?’ Legalism never sanctifies. Principles give the broad guidelines, leaving the sincere Christian the decision-making process, led by the Spirit in accordance with the principles, and motivated by a desire to please Him.

Summary

We have merely scanned the forest in this message. There are many other characteristics of the teaching of our Lord. Each one is oozing with implications. Lest we miss the trees for the forest, let me summarize the teaching method of our Lord by using three words: Exposition, Example, and Experience.

Our Lord’s teaching was fundamentally an exposition of the Old Testament revelation. It was not its forsaking, but its fulfillment (cf. Matthew 5:17-20). His teaching did not conflict with the Law and the Prophets, but only with the traditional explanations of the scribes, and Pharisees. His exposition was in plain and simple terms, illustrated by real life-like stores and examples.

Second, our Lord’s teaching was underscored throughout by His own life and example. What He taught, He modeled.

Finally, our Lord’s teaching was always brought down to the level of experience. It was often motivated by situations which arose naturally and spontaneously. It was illustrated by life-like stories and real-life events. But, in the last analysis, it was concluded in the experience of those who learned at His feet. The principles He taught were brought home in the experience of His followers by practice.

In all of what has been said, I do not wish to be misinterpreted as though these are simple techniques which can be mechanically applied, and which guarantee success. We must teach in full dependence upon the Holy Spirit of God, and leave the results with Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6). May God help us to manifest the ‘Method of the Master’ as we teach.

What really makes a good teacher is good material. No better material, no greater message is there in the world than that of the Gospel. Every man is a sinner, a rebel (actively or passively) against God. Our waywardness has brought upon us the righteous wrath and condemnation of God. We stand condemned to an eternity from God’s power and presence. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ has died in the place of the sinner. All who trust in Him have forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life with God. That is the message we must communicate. That is the message men must believe to be saved.


226 Of this kind of novelty I can do no more than to quote C. S. Lewis: ‘To judge from their practice, very few Anglican clergymen take this view. It looks as if they believed people can be lured to go to church by incessant brightenings, lightenings, lengthenings, abridgements, simplifications, and complications of the service. And it is probably true that a new, keen vicar will usually be able to form within his parish a minority who are in favour of his innovations. The majority, I believe, never are. Those who remain—many give up churchgoing altogether—merely endure.

Is this simply because the majority are hide-bound? I think not. They have a good reason for their conservatism. Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value. And they don’t go to church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, to enact it. Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best—if you like, it ‘works’ best,—when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.

But every novelty presents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping. The important question about the Grail was ‘for what does it serve?’ “Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god.”

A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question ‘What on earth is he up to now?’ will intrude. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was feed my sheep; not try experiments on my rats, or even, teach my performing dogs new tricks.’” C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964), pp. 4-5.

Related Topics: Christology, Teaching the Bible

20. The Fatal Failures of Religion: #1 Secularism (Matthew 5:1-16)

Introduction

Several years ago Joseph Lupo, a Roman Catholic priest, did a market study which resulted in his placing a full-page ad for priests in the East Coast edition of Playboy Magazine. More than 600 young men responded, and at least 28 of these tested out as likely candidates for the priesthood. In previous years, the best he could hope for was as many as 10. The public response to his approach was also enlightening. Compliments outran complaints 7 to 1. But he was not troubled by the critics anyway. The main thing is, he got results.

Lest we be too quick to criticize, let me suggest that we who would be called fundamental, evangelical Protestants are guilty of the same kind of approach to Christian ministry. We package and promote Christianity no differently than Madison Avenue sells toothpaste or deodorant. We run our churches in such a way that if God had died 20 years ago, no one would have yet discovered it.

The evil of which I am speaking is called secularism. Christians are guilty of secularism when they think and act like the world about them. We fall into the evil of secularism when we attempt to go about doing the work of God in the world’s way. We have succumbed to secularism when we adopt the same attitudes, values, and goals as those who do not know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. It is to this matter of secularism that our Lord first directs His attention in the Sermon on the Mount.

A Broader Look at the Sermon on the Mount

Before we plunge into our Lord’s teaching on secularism, we need to deal with the interpretation and application of the Sermon on the Mount to us in the 20th century. Before we begin to interpret it or to make application, we must answer two questions: (1) What is the Sermon on the Mount? (2) How should it be interpreted?

What Is the Sermon on the Mount?

The occasion of the sermon is described by Matthew.227 John the Baptist had recently been arrested (4:12). Jesus had withdrawn from Galilee and established His headquarters in Capernaum (4:12,13). From this time on, Jesus preached openly concerning the Kingdom of God228 (4:17,23-25). After spending the night in prayer, our Lord called the twelve to be His apostles (Luke 6:12,13; cp. Matthew 4:18-22).

The circumstances of this sermon would imply that our Lord’s teaching was directed to those who would truly be His disciples. Our Lord sat down to teach, assuming the authoritative posture characteristic of the Rabbis of His day. When our Lord taught, He taught as one qualified to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. Several features of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount emerge from these three chapters:

(1) The Sermon on the Mount was a concentration of the teaching of Jesus during His life and ministry. While Matthew and Luke both clearly state that this was a sermon preached on a certain occasion, it is possible that it could have extended over a period of several days, the topic of a kind of retreat.229 Having concluded that this was really a sermon (albeit a lengthy one), we must go on to say that this sermon presents us with a kind of distillation of our Lord’s teaching. Barclay has shown how the themes of this sermon (from Matthew’s account) are taken up through the entire account of Luke.230 Many of the major themes of our Lord’s teaching are found in this one sermon.

(2) The sermon is a clarification of the teaching of our Lord on the Kingdom which He would establish. Jesus had come forth taking up the theme of John the Baptist and proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:17-23). There were many exaggerated and erroneous conceptions of what this kingdom would be. Our Lord, in this sermon, clarified His teaching on this subject to those who would be His disciples.

(3) The Sermon on the Mount contrasts the true religion of Jesus with the false religions of paganism, and especially of contemporary Judaism. Perhaps the key verse of the entire sermon is Matthew 5:20, where Jesus said, “For I say unto you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

The beatitudes describe the character of one who is truly righteous and who will experience the Millennial reign of Christ. It is a stark contrast with the character of the scribes and Pharisees. The teaching of our Lord and His interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures was radically different from Jewish traditions and the teachings of the Rabbis.231

(4) The Sermon on the Mount was a word of comfort and consolation to the faithful remnant within Israel. Those who were listening to this sermon were representatives of those within Israel who were true God-seekers and worshippers. While there is severe condemnation for the Jewish leaders, there is commendation and consolation to those who awaited ‘the consolation of Israel’ (cf. Luke 2:25). The first words of our Lord in this sermon are “Blessed are …”

How Should It Be Interpreted?

I find it most interesting to consider the variety of ways that people have of interpreting and applying this best known sermon of our Lord. Strangely enough, it is the unbeliever who seems to apply it personally, while many Christians try to avoid its teaching.232

The unbeliever is often heard to say, “I try to live by the Sermon on the Mount.”

This seems to mean something like, “I try to live by the golden rule.” I doubt that most of those who say such things have even read the Sermon on the Mount through. Surely they would not set such high standards for themselves.

Liberal Christianity also makes much of the Sermon on the Mount. They look upon Christ’s words as the model for the ideal society. They long for and strive to establish the perfect society which can bring such conditions to pass.

Others view the sermon as a description of the kind of works one must strive to produce in order to attain to eternal life. The error here is that those who are called blessed by our Lord are assumed to be true believers. Their works are the result of God’s grace, and not the means of their earning God’s eternal salvation. As Dr. S. Lewis Johnson has said, when Paul was asked by the Philippian jailer, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Paul did not respond, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”233

In my opinion, the gospel is not given in this sermon for two primary reasons. First, our Lord was speaking to those who were a part of the righteous remnant. These were those who looked for God’s salvation through His Messiah. Second, Christ’s atoning work on the cross of Calvary was still future. Until this was accomplished, what more could our Lord say than that which was already spoken by the Old Testament writers (and believed by His audience)?

Some Christians have interpreted this sermon as applying directly to the church, ignoring the completely Jewish context in which it was delivered. Others have virtually set the entire sermon aside by dispensationalizing it. They believe that it was given as a kind of constitution for the Kingdom. Since it gives to Israel the Law of the Kingdom, we in the church age (they tell us) are not under its requirements. This view fails to come to grips with the fact that our Lord spoke of the Kingdom as yet future (“they shall inherit the earth,” Matthew 5:5), and that the present experience of those addressed would include persecution and rejection.

The bottom line, I believe, is that we do not wish to subject ourselves to Christ’s teaching. ‘Turning the other cheek’ is not what the old nature desires to do. I can remember one of my professors saying of Matthew 5:42 (“Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”): “If a businessman were to follow this instruction today, he would go broke.”234

I would say several things in response to the dispensational type of evasion. First, God has called us to live a daring and impossible kind of life which necessitates faith in the kind of God Who does the impossible. The life of faith is unreasonable to the man of the world. Second, while this sermon was preached to the Jews, it has application for every Christian. If I am correct in assuming that the church is to reflect the kingdom of God in miniature, then we must take this sermon seriously. Finally, we should never interpret and apply any one verse apart from the teaching of other Scripture. We cannot take the promise that if any two agree on a certain thing in prayer, we will have it (Matthew 18:19) in isolation, without considering all that the Scripture teaches about prayer. So also, we cannot take one verse in the Sermon on the Mount, interpret and apply it in isolation. Scripture always interprets Scripture.

While the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Jews, it also speaks to Christians today. It tells us what our attitudes and actions should be. It challenges us to live an excitingly distinctive life, adding a savor to our society. It warns us of the evils of false religion which creep into Christian theology and practice. It instructs us as to how we should interpret and apply the Old Testament Scriptures. It places before us the measure of a man or woman of God.

The Relationship of the Believer to God and Man
(5:1-9)

The Ten Commandments prescribed Israel’s relationship to their God and also their relationship to their fellow man. Our Lord could thus summarize the commandments: “Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind … and … you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37,39).

Likewise, in the beatitudes, our Lord gives us a description or characterization of the true believer in terms of his relationship to both God and man. Each beatitude is to characterize every true believer. Every beatitude is in striking contrast to the character and conduct of the scribes and Pharisees.

You will notice that each ascription is accompanied by the expression ‘blessed.’ Although this term can legitimately be translated (and J. B. Phillips does so) this is surely the wrong sense here. Happiness implies a rather fleeting feeling that usually is dependent upon favorable circumstances. The Greek word (markarios) was used to describe the celestial bliss of the gods, a life free from the work and worries of the world. Used of men, initially, it suggested the same kind of bliss, of being removed from the cares of life. Thus it was used of the dead who were thought to have passed to a better existence. More to the point, here ‘blessed’ refers to the blessing and joy of a man who is self-contained, independent of external circumstances. As Barclay reminds us, ‘happiness’ comes from the root ‘hap’ which means chance.235 Human happiness is by chance, when ‘everything’s going our way.’ Divine blessedness is the inner joy, serenity, and composure which comes from knowing that we are right with God, that our contentment and well being are not the product of chance but of infinite grace.

The Poor in Spirit (verse 3)

Of the two Greek words which are used to describe poverty, the one used here by our Lord (ptochos) is the most dire and destitute.236 Literally, the root means to crouch or cower. This man’s poverty has beaten him to his knees. In the Old Testament, the word poor evolved through a progression of usage.237 First, it simply meant poor. Then, it implied having no influence, prestige, or, as we would say, clout. Since the poor man had no clout, he was abused and oppressed by men. Finally, as he could rely on no one else, he came to trust in God. Over and over the expression ‘poor’ spoke of the man who recognized his own inadequacy and who trusted only in God: “This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles” (Psalm 34:6; cf. 9:18; 35:10; 68:10; 72:4; 107:41; 132:15).

Isaiah spoke often of this kind of poverty, and promised to these ‘poor’ the salvation of the Lord (Isaiah 41:17,18; 57:15; 61:1; 66:1,2).

Our Lord is not commending poverty, but that spirit of humility which it often engenders. Those who will inherit the Kingdom of heaven are those who are fully aware that they have nothing to commend them before God. They recognize that they are spiritually destitute and they wait upon God for His deliverance and salvation. How different are the rich in this world’s goods who ‘trust in the deceitfulness of riches’ (1 Timothy 6:17).

How proud and pompous were the scribes and Pharisees who could pray, “God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week, I pay tithes of all that I get” (Luke 18:11-12).

Those Who Mourn (verse 4)

This strong word for mourning often expressed the grief of one over the loss of a loved one (cf. Genesis 37:34 LXX). In addition, it was used of those who grieved over sin, both theirs and others. This surely is the primary sense of this term as it is used here. Not only must there be an admission of sin, but a genuine sense of remorse over it. There is little talk today, even in Christian churches, about remorse and sorrow for sins. To some we are simply to ‘fess up’ with God. We speak glibly of 1 John 1:9 as ‘God’s bar of soap.’ God spare us from this casual attitude toward sin (cf. Ezra 10:1; Psalm 119:135; Ezekiel 9:4; Philippians 3:18).

There is comfort for those who mourn. For those who mourn over physical death and the separation it brings, we can be comforted that Jesus Christ has won the victory over sin, death and the grave. Those whom we have left behind (or rather have left us behind) in the Lord, we shall see again (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

There is likewise comfort for those who mourn due to sin. The atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross has won for every Christian freedom from the penalty of sin (Romans 6:23; 8:1), from the power of sin (Romans 6:14), and ultimately from the presence of sin (Romans 8:18ff.).

Those Who Are Gentle (verse 5)

Meekness has never been a coveted quality. We usually think of meekness in terms of weakness. It is hardly the quality which a Burt Reynolds movie portrays (so they tell me). It is a Casper Milquetoast quality, or so we suppose.

We must remember that Moses was called ‘the meekest man on the face of the earth’ (Numbers 12:3). Our Lord Jesus also referred to Himself as meek (Matthew 11:29). Meekness often implied self-control; it was the gentleness of strength.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones stresses that the meekness of which our Lord spoke is prompted by an awareness of our own sinfulness.238 It is difficult to be harsh with others in an area where we ourselves fail. Once we have come to acknowledge our own sinfulness and waywardness, we will be less quick to criticize others. There is a proverb which says, “The poor man utters supplications, but the rich man answers roughly” (Proverbs 18:23).

Our own view of ourselves is reflected in our treatment of others. The rich can be rude, impolite, and insensitive. They can ride roughshod over others, because they can afford to. The poor man must deal gently with everyone. He is in no position to do otherwise.

I once worked for a man with an explosive and uncontrolled temper. His temper could erupt like a flaming volcano and all the hired help would brace up for his verbal attacks. But in front of a customer, he was soft and sweet.

I find Paul’s words in Galatians 6:1 very much to the point:

“Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourselves, lest you too be tempted” (Galatians 6:1).

Do you see the point? One’s view of himself determines or modifies his relationship with others. A meek person is one who controls himself, fully aware that he is a sinner as well.

The other evening, I attended the Dallas Seminary Founders Banquet. It was a lovely event and Dr. Charles Swindoll gave an excellent message on servanthood. On the way home, I thought of an additional characteristic of a servant: the servant does not see it as his calling to criticize other servants. In Paul’s words, “Who are you to judge the servant of another?” (Romans 14:4).

Servants don’t pass judgments; lords do. If we see ourselves as servants, we concern ourselves with our service, not that of others. Meekness (shall I say servanthood?) stems from my attitude toward myself and my position before God and men.

Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness (verse 6)

Centuries before the coming of Christ to the earth in bodily form Isaiah the prophet had written, “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost” (Isaiah 55:1).

The righteous remnant within Israel had always longed for the establishment of righteousness and justice upon the earth. They cried out to God in their distress; they agonized over the prosperity of the wicked (cf. Psalm 37). The promise was always the same: “Commit your way to the Lord, trust also in Him, and He will do it. And He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your judgment as the noonday” (Psalm 37:5,6).

Those who have come to acknowledge their unworthiness and spiritual poverty (verse 3), and who are genuinely contrite over their sins and others (verse 4) look for the time when righteousness will be established upon the earth. This righteousness is part and parcel with the coming Messiah and His millennial Kingdom.

Few Americans have any concept of the intensity of the hunger and thirst referred to by the Lord Jesus in the beatitudes. We are conditioned to thirst, something like Pavlov’s dogs, by television and the advertising media, who produce thirst sensations to sell their products. The thirst and hunger mentioned here is an unquenchable one, the result of prolonged deprivation.

Those who truly desire righteousness will be satisfied. First of all, Christians are clothed in the personal righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ (Zechariah 3; Romans 3:21,22; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Our filthy rags of self-righteous works are cast aside (Isaiah 64:6), and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us when we trust in Him. Also, when our Lord returns, righteousness will prevail. “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13).

Implied in this beatitude is the assumption that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness recognize it is something which they do not possess in themselves. It is rather something which they lack, but desperately desire. The scribes and Pharisees were convinced that they possessed all the righteousness necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. Our Lord’s response to the self-righteous religious segment of Israel made this fact clear: “ … it is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17).

Those Who Are Merciful (verse 7)

Another character trait of the true believer is that of mercy. Mercy as an attitude is closely related to pity. It is the painful response of a warm heart to tragedy and misery, pain and suffering. This attitude manifests itself in acts of kindness which are intended to relieve the suffering. Mercy sees the ugly and grotesque and reaches out to help rather than to look the other way and withdraw.

Mercy is one of the awe-inspiring attributes of God, whereby He looks upon man in his pitiful state of sin and rebellion and comes to his aid. The supreme act of mercy was the death of Christ upon Calvary’s cross. This mercy is therefore a characteristic of every true believer.

The scribes and Pharisees know nothing of genuine mercy. Any act of charity was simply an attempt to get public acclaim (cf. Matthew 6:2-4). In reality, the scribes and Pharisees looked upon the helpless and forsaken as potential prey: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers …” (Matthew 23:14).

Not only can the believer look back to God’s acts of mercy in the past, but he also can expect God to continue to deal with him in mercy. Thus every Christian can look forward to receiving mercy in the future. (We must not forget that God’s supreme act of mercy, the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, was yet future to those to whom Jesus spoke this sermon.)

Those Who Are Pure in Heart (verse 8)

Inward purity is another facet of the character of a true believer. The scribes and Pharisees had occupied themselves with external, outward cleanliness. They were meticulous, for example, about the ceremonial washing of their hands, but at the same time they were corrupt within: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25).

Purity must begin inwardly, and then manifest itself by our overt acts (cf. Matthew 23:26). The people of God have always been marked by inner purity (Psalm 24:4; 51:10; 73:1).

It is they who have hoped to stand in the presence of the living God. And this is what our Lord has promised: “For they shall see God” (verse 8b).

This purity of heart, this absolute sincerity and openness before God and men is not the work of man. As David wrote, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10). Purity of heart is the work of God Himself.

Those Who Are Peacemakers (verse 9)

There are many kinds of peace these days. There is the ‘cold war’ kind of peace which means the absence of blatant aggression of warfare. This exists within nations and is characteristic of many marriages. Someone has described these marriages as ‘unholy deadlock.’ There is the peace of apathy and acquiescence. This is what might be called ‘peace at any cost.’ This is the peace of those who say, “Better Red than dead.”

But this is not the kind of peace of which our Lord speaks. Those who have come to faith in Jesus Christ as their sin-bearer and Savior have experienced peace with God. This peace spoke of our reconciliation with God, but it also involves the reconciliation of man with man (cf. Ephesians 2). Those who have experienced this peace will prove to be reconcilers of men (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

Although we are to be peacemakers, we are not appeasers of men. We do not seek peace at any price, but we seek to share the peace achieved through the precious blood of Jesus Christ. In spite of our efforts to pursue the path of peace (cf. Romans 12:18) our faith will inevitably bring reaction, persecution, and conflict. The disciples were foretold by our Lord that such was to be the result of His ministry also:

“Do not think that I come to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34,35).

The proclamation of the gospel, combined with a life lived in accordance with the Word of God confronts men with a choice. They will either joyfully accept it, or vehemently reject it. Such are the natural (though not intentioned) consequences of Christian discipleship.

The Response of the World to Christian Living
(5:10-12)

We have already seen that although a true believer may live a model life (as our Lord Jesus did without sin), there will be rejection and even persecution. Jesus did not present persecution on the liabilities side of the ledger, but rather on that of the blessings of discipleship. Thus, He began, “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness …” (Matthew 5:10).

Persecution is a natural reaction to righteousness. Peter explained it this way,

“For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Peter 4:3,4).

The world is threatened by a Christian lifestyle. It convicts them of sin, and it condemns their way of life. The natural response to a threat is retaliation. Here is the source of our persecution.

There are three reasons which our Lord gives which explain why this persecution can be perceived as a blessing. First of all, it is suffering for His sake. It is a distinct privilege to suffer for the sake of Christ. “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts 5:41, cf. Philippians 1:29; 3:10; Colossians 1:24-29).

Second, suffering in the present gives promise of future rewards: “Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great …” (Matthew 5:12).

The writer to the Hebrews said of Moses, “By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:24-25). The divine order has always been suffering, then glory.

Third, we can rejoice because persecution for Christ’s sake places us in the company of the prophets of old, who, for their testimony, were persecuted as well (Matthew 5:12b).

The Reason for Righteous Living
(5:13-16)

Realizing that a life lived according to the beatitudes will surely lead to rejection and persecution, some Christians may be tempted to conceal themselves within their society. To counter this temptation our Lord explained the purpose for righteous attitudes and actions in verses 13-16. Essentially, the reason is that it is only by being distinctive as a Christian that a true believer can glorify God and contribute positively to his society. To illustrate His point, the Lord Jesus used two illustrations or figures: salt and light.

Salt was as common a commodity in biblical times as it is today. In the Old Testament, salt was used as a seasoning (Job 6:6), and it was to accompany many of the sacrifices which were offered (Leviticus 2:13). It was also used by the Orientals to seal an agreement (as, I am told, is still practiced by the Arabs today239) and was used on covenants between God and Israel (Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5). Salt, then, was a seasoning ingredient, a symbol of purity and perpetuation.

There were great quantities of salt on the shores of the Dead Sea, which was of the rock or fossil variety.240 Because of impurities and contamination, much of the outer layer of this salt was useless as a seasoning ingredient. Our Lord’s reference to ‘salt’ in Matthew 5:13 may well refer to this contaminated ‘salt’ which was virtually useless. In this case, He is saying that the Christian who compromises with the world about him loses his purity and, at the same time, his usefulness to God and society.

Light is also one of the fundamental needs of man. The world at large is in spiritual darkness (Psalm 82:5; Proverbs 4:19; Ephesians 6:12, etc.). Our Lord Jesus came as the ‘light’ of this world (John 1:5ff, 8:12) and to call men out of the darkness and into the light (Ephesians 5:8; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-5). We now reflect the light of His glory to the world about by our good works (which He performs in us). As lights we expose the evil deeds of darkness and we illuminate the divine path which God has prescribed for men to walk in righteousness. The purpose of light is to illuminate, to shine forth plainly in the darkness (Matthew 5:15); therefore, the Christian can only fulfill his purpose by being conspicuous in his distinct lifestyle.

The Christian lifestyle is by its very nature a distinctive one. Anyone who attempts to live according to the Sermon on the Mount will be able to do so only by the power of the Spirit of God. It is the life of the Christian for only the Christian desires to live thus, and only the Christian can live in this way. A conspicuous lifestyle will inevitably bring adverse reaction, and so we must prepare ourselves for persecution. Even in this we may rejoice, knowing it is for the sake of our Lord, that our reward awaits us in heaven, and that we are in the company of the prophets of old. Apart from a Christian lifestyle the Christian cannot glorify God or contribute to his society.

Conclusion

Several conclusions are hard to avoid as a result of our study in the beatitudes. First of all, I must underscore the fact that while these beatitudes constitute God’s measure of a man or woman of the world, they surely do not conform to the world’s standards. The model which our media portrays for men and women is not God’s. Humility, repentance, meekness, inner purity and so on are not what the world considers the marks of maturity, or of manhood. God help us to see this clearly and to respond to the situation as we should.

Second, I am impressed by the fact that the circumstances which bring some men to God’s blessing are identical with those which cause others to curse God. How can a good God allow hunger and poverty? Someone has said that we are either like a potato or an egg. Boiling water hardens eggs and softens potatoes. The very same circumstances result in opposite effects. If you are experiencing very humbling circumstances, it may well be that God is bringing you to the point of being ‘poor in spirit,’ and of being a true mourner who seeks the righteousness of God. Adversity brings some men to distrust self and to turn to God for eternal salvation. Have you yet realized your spiritual bankruptcy? Do you hate your sin and long for a righteousness which you cannot produce? Then you must turn to Jesus Christ in faith. He died for sinners. He offers you the righteousness which God requires to enter into His Kingdom.

Third, I fear that many Christians are desperately trying to camouflage their convictions and calling as disciples to avoid rejection and persecution. Secularism has crept into the church in an appalling way. Christians have come to think and act like the world about them. We even seek to evangelize with the world’s methodology and appeal to a secular mentality.

Often our conformity is backhanded. When the world decides it is time to wear dresses with the hemline at the hips, the church raises their hems to above the knee. When the world decides to go ‘topless,’ Christians decide to go to a two-piece swim suit. On and on it goes. The church is not setting the pace or the standards; they wait for the world to act and fall in two paces behind. How pitiful!

Our children desperately desire the acceptance of their peers. They wish to be ‘Joe Cool.’ They will do nearly anything to avoid being different. And we adults are no different. We cut corners on our income taxes and exceed the speed limit because ‘everyone else is doing it.’ Even divorce is becoming rampant among Christians and Christian leaders. We are much too similar to the church at Laodicea, which was ‘neither hot nor cold’ (Revelation 3:14ff.). How God hates such mediocrity! May God enable us to live distinctively to His glory, and to the benefit of our society.


227 A less detailed parallel account is given by Luke (6:20-49). Although there are differences in the two accounts, I believe these underscore the authenticity and integrity of both. Any alleged discrepancies can be harmonized. For a fuller discussion of this matter, cf. John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), pp. 21-23.

228 “In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression ‘Kingdom’ occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; which was manifested in and through Christ; is apparent in the Church; gradually develops amidst hindrances; is triumphant at the second coming of Christ (‘the end’); and, finally perfected in the world to come.” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), I, p. 270. The ‘Kingdom’ in the mind of the Jews of Jesus’ day was the Millennial Kingdom which God would establish at the coming of Messiah. (This Kingdom was offered to Israel by Jesus, her Messiah, but rejected.) The fulfillment of this 1000 year reign is still future, and God’s promise of this Kingdom is sure. While the Millennial reign is yet future, there is a sense in which the Kingdom of God is now present in the church. It is my conviction that the church is to reflect to the world the righteous rule of God in miniature (since only the Christians submit to it, and then imperfectly) and is a shadow of that which is yet to come universally and in perfection.

229 This is the position taken by Stott (p. 23) and William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958), I, p. 80. Liberal scholars go so far as to say that it was never really one sermon, but merely a collection of some of Jesus’ sermons.

230 “In Matthew’s version there are 107 verses. Of these 107 verses 29 are found altogether in Luke 6:20-49; 47 have no parallel in Luke’s version and 34 are scattered all over Luke’s gospel in different contexts … That is to say, passages which are consecutive in Matthew’s gospel appear in widely separated chapters in Luke’s gospel … If we tabulate these things, the matter will become clear:

Matthew 5:13 = Luke 14:34,35
Matthew 5:15 = Luke 8:16
Matthew 5:18 = Luke 16:17
Matthew 7:1-5 = Luke 6:37-42
Matthew 7:7-12 = Luke 11:9-13”

William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, I, p. 80.

231 Edersheim goes into considerable detail on this point. He entitles this section which deals with this subject as ‘The Kingdom of Christ and Rabbinic Teaching’ (I, p. 524, cf. pp. 524-541).

232 “And there have been many other attempts to accommodate the Sermon on the Mount to the low levels of our moral attainment. In the fourth and fifth chapters of his book Understanding the Sermon on the Mount, Harvey McArthur first surveys and then evaluates no fewer than twelve different ways of interpreting the Sermon. He says he might well have subtitled this section ‘Versions and Evasions of the Sermon on the Mount,’ for all but one of the twelve interpretations offer prudential qualifications of its apparently absolute demands.” Stott, p. 27.

233 Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, “The Beatitudes (1): From Poverty to Royalty,” Believers Bible Bulletin, Lesson 9, p. 2.

234 Likewise I have often heard it said by some who oppose running the church according to New Testament principles of ecclesiology (in favor of tradition), “You can’t run a church like that.” True enough, unless God is the head of His church, divinely providing for it and protecting it.

235 Ibid., p. 84.

236 “As it has been said, ‘penes’ describes the man who has nothing superfluous; ‘ptochos’ describes the man who has nothing at all.” Barclay, p. 85.

237 Ibid., p. 86.

238 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 64f.

239 “SALT,” J. H. Bratt, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), V, p. 220.

240 “SALT,” R. K. Harrison, The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas organizing editor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 1125.

Related Topics: Christology, Apologetics

Pages