Sue Bohlin (Probe Ministries, Bible.org Women's Leadership Team) also serves on the Board of Directors for Living Hope Ministries, a Christ-centered discipleship ministry that helps people deal with unwanted homosexuality. The LHM Board consists of ministry professionals who together have over 50 years of experience in helping strugglers find freedom through Christ. This is the text of a brochure they wrote to help pastors understand how best to love and shepherd sexually and emotionally broken souls from a redemptive perspective.

For more direction on how to help strugglers in your congregation, please see Keys to Recovery From Same-Sex Attractions and Answers to Questions Most Asked By Gay-Identifying Youth on Bible.org.

---

Things to Remember

1. No one is born gay, and no one chooses to be gay. Because of relational brokenness in families and among peers, some people experience emotional needs that they try to meet in ungodly ways. Many of them are uncomfortable with their own gender; later, they discover they are attracted to others of the same sex, but this is not their choice. Acting on it, however, is.

2. Change is possible. Even going back to the first-century church, the apostle Paul wrote to former homosexuals in the Corinthian church, “and such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11).

3. Because we live in a fallen world, we are all broken. Many people in our churches are sexually broken-victims of incest, pornography and masturbation addicts, and compulsive sex addiction. Homosexuality is only one form of brokenness.

4. Homosexuality grows out of broken relationships and is healed in healthy relationships, especially same-sex relationships. This is one of the reasons it is essential for recovering homosexuals and lesbians to be actively involved in the church, because this is where they can find healthy, God-honoring friendships. Their homosexuality is not contagious!

5. Treat them with respect like you would anyone else. They are people made in the image of God for whom Christ died-they are not their sexuality. Many people trying to come out of the gay lifestyle expect to find respect and acceptance only in the gay community. Finding it in church is immensely healing to their souls.

6. Accept them where they are, just as Jesus did. Choose to accept the person, but not sinful behavior. People don’t change unless they experience the grace of acceptance first. But once they know they are loved and accepted, many of them are willing to do what it takes to live a life of holiness.

7. Seek to see them with God’s eyes of love and acceptance, with His intention for their wholeness, healing and freedom. This means depending on the Holy Spirit for divine perspective and exercising humility to recognize that first impressions are often incomplete and inaccurate.

8. This is a great opportunity to lead people to an understanding of what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Some homosexual strugglers, especially men, feel that they have committed the unpardonable sin. They’ve heard they are going to hell no matter what they do, so they are permanently separated from God. They need to know this is a lie, because when we confess our sins, the blood of Jesus covers them ALL and cleanses us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

9. Because of abuse issues, most strugglers seem to have an especially hard time relating to Father God and to receiving His love. Yet it is the masculine voice (first in earthly fathers, and ultimately in our Heavenly Father) that calls gender out from both men and women, and it is the Father’s personal and powerful love that is the most important healing agent in human hearts.

10. Because most pastors are men in authority, most strugglers (men and women) are incredibly intimidated by them. Pastors need to know this and really understand in order to minister to strugglers. This means respecting the fragility of strugglers’ relationships with pastors and choosing to be deliberately tender and gentle. They really need “good shepherds.” Verbalize to them that God can not only change them, but He is very proud of them (as you are) for sharing this with you and desiring to change.

11. Most same-sex strugglers have very weak and broken boundaries. Their deep neediness causes them to lapse into emotionally dependent relationships with everyone who gets close. We encourage you to only counsel these folks at your office during regular business hours where others can be aware of your activities. This gives a sense of security to the struggler and a protection for you as the pastor.

12. The most success in overcoming same-gender attraction has occurred when strugglers experienced God as Healer through heterosexual people who were willing to come alongside them in their journeys-men helping men, and women helping women. It would be helpful for you to find someone willing to befriend and mentor the struggler. This takes a person willing to seriously invest in the life of a very needy person. They will need to be available and accessible. Their presence in the struggler’s life can be powerful and healing.

13. If someone comes in with an agenda of arrogance, demanding acceptance of their sexual sin, don’t let them bully you. There is a difference between welcoming the sinner and allowing him to continue in his rebellion. Homosexuality is sin. Lev. 18:22-23; Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Note that these verses condemn homosexual behavior, not feelings.

Five DON’TS:

1. Don’t panic. An excellent resource for understanding the issue of homosexuality is Someone I Love is Gay by Bob Davies and Anita Worthen (published by InterVarsity Press). Any book by Joe Dallas on homosexuality is exceptionally helpful. Living Hope Ministries (www.livehope.org) is a ministry in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area with excellent online forums for parents, spouses, men and women, and youth (ages 13+) who struggle with homosexuality

2. Don’t make false assumptions or accusations. For example, please do not assume he is HIV positive. Many aren’t. And if he is, AIDS is sexually transmitted; the people in your congregation are safer than many fear. Respect the seriousness of HIV with commonsense precautions (such as contact with bodily fluids), but don’t ostracize the person. Handshakes and hugs are perfectly safe.

3. Don’t shut down pastorally or emotionally. The person coming to you has known a lifetime of rejection and desperately needs to know that a representative of Jesus Christ will extend grace to him. Hug them when they leave. It may be the first positive touch they have had in years.

4. Don’t pass judgment. All of us have besetting sins! As Billy Graham said, “Don’t take credit for not falling into a temptation that never tempted you in the first place.”

5. Don’t disclose this person’s secret without permission, even among church staff. There is nothing safe about the gay lifestyle; people struggling with same-sex attraction need to find safety in the church.

© 2003 Living Hope Ministries. All rights reserved.

Introduction

On the ‘ribbon of highway’ that stretches ‘from California to the New York island’ the American Main Street—the mass of people seem completely self-absorbed. One hundred and fifty years ago Alexis de Tocqueville visited America from France and wrote: ‘Each citizen is habitually engaged in the contemplation of a very puny object, namely himself.’ In a century and a half things have not improved. For all the diverse and attractive, buzzing and mysterious reality that is everywhere evident, no one and no thing interrupt people more than momentarily from obsessive preoccupation with themselves. America is in conspicuous need of unselfing.¹⁷⁰

Theo Williams, one of the evangelical giants of India, and a missions leader, once met with the elders of our church. We were discussing the benefits of interchange of Christians between the Eastern and the Western world. He said that such interchange was beneficial, for the Western world had much to contribute to the Eastern in terms of its grasp of Scripture. He quickly added that the Eastern evangelical had a contribution to the Western world. Specifically, Theo Williams said that the Western world knew little of “taking up its cross,” something which believers in the East know much more about.

One would find it difficult to debate this fact. Indeed, I think that in America the church might find it necessary to change the expression, “Take up your cross and follow Christ” to “Take up you CAUSE and follow Christ,” if we were describing how things actually work. In America, self, self-interest, self-seeking, and self-love are not viewed as a great evil, opposed to the very essence of Christianity. They have now become the great mandate, to be placed higher in priority to the commands of the Bible to love God and to love our neighbor. We are often told from the pulpit that we must first be able to love ourselves, before we can love either God or our neighbor. Our Lord words, as found in our text in Luke chapter 9, tell us that we are wrong. Taking up our cross may not be a very pleasant thought, but it is a very necessary one. Let us remind ourselves that Jesus is speaking to each of us, and that He is telling us here what every true follower of Him must do. Let us listen well to Him.

The Structure of the Text

Our test falls into three divisions:

(1) Confessing the Christ—vv. 18-20.

(2) The Christ and His Cross—vv. 21-22.

(3) Christ’s Followers and Their Cross—vv. 23-26.

Background

The issue of the identity of Jesus is not new in the gospel of Luke. For the reader, the identity of Jesus has been given at the very outset of the book. We know these words, spoken by the angel to Mary:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:31-33).

We know, then, from the beginning of Luke’s account, that Jesus is the Son of God, the divine Messiah, whose destiny is to rule over the promised Kingdom of God.

John the Baptist also knew that Jesus was the Messiah, as we can see from His introduction of the Lord Jesus (cf. Luke 3:1-6).¹⁷¹ Satan likewise knew who Jesus was, as we know from Luke’s account of the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness. The entire temptation of our Lord was predicated on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah (“If you are the Son of God.…” e.g. Luke 4:3). The Demons knew, as well. They said,

“Ha! What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4:34).

and,

“You are the Son of God!” (Luke 4:41). They knew that He was the Christ (Luke 4:41).

The leaders of the nation Israel, the scribes and Pharisees and priests, quickly came to their own conclusions as to who Jesus was. To them, Jesus was an impostor, a false Messiah, who worked miracles through the power of Satan (Mark 3:22; cf. Luke 6:11; 7:34). They had already determined that they must destroy Him (Mark 3:6; cf. Luke 6:11).

With the general Israelite population, the issue of Jesus’ identity arose quickly. In Luke’s first recorded message of our Lord, delivered at Nazareth, the people immediately began to discuss Jesus’ identity:

And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22, NASV).

The people did not so quickly come to the decision of their leaders. Some were quick to wonder whether or not Jesus actually was the Messiah:

All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” (Matthew 12:23).

Many, however, thought Him to be a great prophet:

And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” (Luke 7:16; cf. Matthew 21:11, John 6:14).

There was never complete consensus on the identity of our Lord, as can be most clearly seen in the John’s gospel:

At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ? But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.” Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.” At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come. Still, many in the crowd put their faith in him. They said, “When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?” … On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” Thus the people were divided because of Jesus (John 7:25-31, 40-43).

Most of the masses believed Jesus to be a good man, although some, like their leaders, held Him to be a deceiver:

Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people” (John 7:12).

The disciples, too, were caused to wonder who Jesus was. When Jesus stilled the storm, they pondered Who it was who was in the boat with them:

“Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” (Luke 8:25).

It is now time for this question to be answered. Who is Jesus? The answer to this question is the difference between a disciple of Jesus Christ and an enemy, it is the difference between heaven and hell. The time has come for the disciples to declare their allegiance to the Master as their Messiah.

Confessing the Christ
(9:18-20)

From the gospels of Matthew and Mark, we know only that the scene of the great confession is somewhere along the way to Caesarea Philippi. Luke tells us that Jesus had been spending time in private prayer (9:18), and that it was in this privacy that the question of His identity was put to the disciples.

One can only conjecture as to what the subject matter of our Lord’s private prayer was. It would have been interesting to have been a “fly on the wall,” or perhaps better, a “lizard on the rock,” where Jesus was praying. I would venture a guess that one primary subject of our Lord’s prayer would have been His disciples’ grasp of His identity as Messiah. After all, it was the Father who revealed this to the disciples (Matthew 16:17). The time was right for the question to be asked.

The Confession of the Crowds

Jesus did not begin by immediately asking the disciples who they thought He was, but rather who the crowds thought He was:

“Who do the crowds say I am?” (Luke 9:18).

The answer was given by various disciples, not just Peter. Perhaps one said, “John the Baptist,” while another said, “Elijah,” and yet another “one of the prophets, raised from the dead.”

The answers of the disciples as to who the masses of Israelites thought Jesus to be were exactly the same as the “Gallup Poll” results reported to Herod (cf. Luke 9:8). These answers tell us several important things:

(1) The popular thinking concerning Jesus’ identity had no consensus. There were various views as to who He was. There was no general agreement, no one commonly held identification.

(2) There was agreement that Jesus was somehow a man “sent from God.” All of the three answers imply that Jesus was viewed as a good man, a man sent from God, and a man of great power. He seems to have been viewed as associated with the Kingdom of God, for which the Jews awaited with great anticipation.

(3) There was no significant portion of the Israelites who believed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. It is this third observation that supplies us, I believe, with the tension of this text. How can it be that after the testimony of John the Baptist, that of our Lord (through statements, e.g. Luke 4:13-21, and deeds), and even of the demons, that the nation would not grasp the Jesus was the Messiah, and not just a prophet or one sent from God? How could any thinking Jew of that day not conclude that Jesus was the Messiah?

The answer to this question is one of the keys to understanding our text. It is certainly not that there was apathy or disinterest concerning the coming kingdom. There was great interest and enthusiasm on this issue. The answer is to be found in John chapter 6, where John records the response of the people to the miraculous feeding of the five thousand. You will recall that the great confession follows both the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew and Mark). It is in John’s gospel that the popular response to Jesus’ miracle of the feeding of the five thousand is recorded, along with the corrective action taken by our Lord:

When therefore the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is of a truth the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus therefore perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone (John 6:14-15).

Jesus’ miracle feeding of the five thousand resulted in what almost seems to be mass hysteria. “Could they find a better candidate for Messiah than Jesus?” “Could they wish for any better things from Messiah?” The people had not concluded that God had appointed Jesus to be Messiah, but they did determine to appoint Him as Messiah themselves. They did not see that God had made Him King, but they were intent of drafting Him as their king.

Such hysteria caused Jesus to do several things. First, He sent His disciples away, so that they would not get caught up in this frenzied enthusiasm (Matthew 14:22; Mark 6:45). Second, He Himself withdrew from the crowds for a time of private prayer (John 6:15; cf. Matthew 14:23; Mark 8:46). Third, Jesus began to introduce the subject of His sacrificial and substitutionary death to the crowds. Jesus began by exposing the selfish motivation of the crowds in wanting to make Him their King (John 6:26). He then went on to speak of Himself as the “Bread of Life.” Once Jesus began to speak of His suffering, the crowd quickly lost its enthusiasm. John tells us the result of Jesus’ teaching:

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more (John 6:66).

Thus, the fact that the disciples’ answer to our Lord’s question does not include any option that He was the Messiah is not surprising. It is not that no one had thought of it, but that once Jesus informed them of the kind of Messiah He was, no one wanted Him as their Messiah. They could accept Him as a prophet sent from God, but not as their Messiah. The disciples’ answer reveals the fickleness of the crowds and of their acceptance of Jesus. If the disciples are to declare Jesus to be the Messiah, they will do so as a very small minority, at this point in time. It is interesting, is it not, that our Lord would choose such a time, such a low ebb in His popularity, to ask His disciples concerning His identity.

Peter’s Confession

Having laid the foundation by asking the disciples who the people thought He was, Jesus now pressed for a personal confession. So much for the crowds, who was Jesus to those who most intimately knew Him.

“But what about you … Who do you say I am?” (Luke 9:20).

Peter, not unpredictably, now speaks. Presumably he speaks for the rest, though we must wonder if he spoke for Judas:

“The Christ of God” (Luke 9:20).

These words of Peter, very concisely put, tell us that Peter recognized Jesus to be God’s Messiah. In contrast to the views held by the masses, Peter has come, by means of the revelation of the Father (Matthew 16:17), to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah whom God has sent.

Peter’s confession is monumental. It is the watershed of the gospels. Let us take a moment to make a few observations about this confession:

(1) Peter’s “great confession” was a landmark event. It is at this point that the fuller implications of Jesus’ ministry begin to be revealed clearly. Matthew’s account emphasizes this point:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life (Matthew 16:21, emphasis mine).

(2) Peter’s confession was not a recitation, but a personal confession of Peter’s convictions about the identity of Jesus. The confession of Peter was not a repetition of words which Jesus had just said, it was an answer to a question Jesus asked.

(3) The “great confession” was not as great as we might wish. It was a partial, imperfect, and even tentative confession of our Lord’s identity.

I want to linger on this third point, that Peter’s confession was, in one sense, a “great” confession, but in other ways it was only a faltering beginning. What was “great” about Peter’s confession was that it was a confession, a proclamation of Jesus’ identity as Messiah, in the face of His rejection by virtually all of his world. Peter’s confession may have expressed the conclusion of most of the apostles, but it was in stark contrast to the view of the masses which had just been summarized. Peter’s confession can also be seen as “great” in terms of its outcome, its implications.

But when carefully considered, it is certainly not all that it could (or should) have been. The text does not clearly state this, but all appearances are that Peter acknowledged Jesus to be Messiah, but not to be God. The expression, “the Christ of God” (v. 20), I understand to mean God’s Messiah, the Messiah whom God has sent, not the Messiah who is God. Peter later came to realize that Jesus was both Messiah and God, and this he boldly proclaimed (cf. Acts 2:36), but it was a human messiah that Peter seems to have confessed here. This was consistent with the expectations of the Jews of Peter’s day. It was one thing to claim to be Messiah, but a vastly different thing to claim to be God.

Second, not only was Peter’s “messiah” not divine, but he was surely not a suffering messiah. It is in the accounts of Matthew and Mark that Peter’s violent reaction to the Lord’s disclosure of His imminent rejection, suffering and death are recorded. The very same person who rejoiced in Christ’s identity as Messiah, rejected the possibility of Him being a suffering Savior. Peter’s “messiah” was therefore a distorted “messiah,” a messiah of his own hopes and aspirations.

Finally, Peter’s confession is one that is doubted and even denied. We must remember that Peter, the one who made this great confession, is the same person who made his “great denial” when identified with Christ after his arrest. His declaration turns to doubt. And we see that this is also true for others of Jesus’ followers. When Jesus, unrecognized, joined the two on the road to Emmaus, and questioned them about the things which made them so sad, we find this conversation reported by Luke:

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people (Luke 24:19).

After His arrest and crucifixion, these disciples’ estimation of Jesus was not different, no greater, than that view held by the masses. He was only a prophet.

The Cross of the Christ
(9:21-22)

Jesus’ response to the “great confession” of Peter must have caught the disciples off guard. Jesus said two things which would have been very perplexing to them. First, Jesus commanded His disciples not to tell anyone what they had concluded, and what He confirmed, that He was the Messiah. Jesus “strictly warned” them about this (v. 21). He knew that they would be very tempted to let everyone know the truth. In the sending out of the seventy, Jesus took further measures to assure this:

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go (Luke 10:1).

The term “others” indicates to us that the seventy-two did not include the twelve. And little wonder. If the twelve disciples had gone forth, proclaiming the message of the kingdom of God, do you think they could resist the temptation to tell the secret they had just learned? Jesus therefore kept the twelve with Him, and sent out those who did not know what they did.

The reason for this strange-sounding command is to be found in our Lord’s second statement. As God’s Messiah, He must be rejected by the leaders of the nation, be crucified, and then rise from the dead three days later (v. 22).¹⁷² If the disciples were to make known the identity of Jesus, it would only hinder His rejection and crucifixion, something which must take place. This was a prophetic necessity, for the Old Testament prophets foretold His suffering and sacrificial death (Isaiah 52-53). It was a theological necessity, for the sins of the world must be atoned for. Just as Peter sought to prevent our Lord’s arrest, by drawing his sword and using it (John 18:10-11), so the crowds would be tempted to revolt. The news of Jesus identity would only be broadly proclaimed after His death, burial, and resurrection.

Jesus had already alluded to the fact that some things revealed privately to His disciples would temporarily be concealed from the rest, but only for a time:

“No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open” (Luke 8:16-17).

Jesus identity as the rejected, crucified, and risen Messiah is boldly proclaimed by the apostles after His death and resurrection. One example is the proclamation of the apostle Peter:

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

The rejection, and crucifixion of Jesus by the leaders of Israel (Luke 9:22) is very much related to the rejection of Jesus as God’s Messiah by the crowds (Luke 9:18-19). The leader of Israel feared the crowds, and did not dare to carry out their long-held plans to kill Him until they sensed that Jesus’ popularity had waned significantly:

Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words (Luke 19:47-48).

And the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people (Luke 22:2).

Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ was the occasion for Jesus to begin to speak plainly about His coming rejection and death. It was surely not something which Peter and the others wanted to hear, but it was the plan and purpose of God. It was the means for God’s promises of salvation to be fulfilled.¹⁷³

Characteristics of Our Lord’s Cross

Before we move on to the “cross” which the disciple of Christ must take up, let us briefly summarize the characteristics of Christ’s cross, for the cross of the Master and the cross of the disciple are very much interrelated.

(1) The cross of the Christ was mandatory. Christ must suffer and die.

(2) The cross of the Christ involved more than the physical wooden cross, the instrument of His death, though it surely involved this as well. Our Lord spoke of the fact that He must suffer many things, which suggests that more than the literal, physical, cross were in mind. He was, for example, to suffer the rejection of His people and their leaders. This, of course, was preliminary and necessary for His crucifixion. In Hebrews (2:18, NIV; 5:7-10; 10:5-9), we are told of the broader “suffering” of our Lord. Later on in Luke chapter 9 we can see a kind of suffering in the “sigh” of our Lord over the spiritual dullness of that generation (Luke 9:41), which implies that the kenosis and incarnation of our Lord was certainly a sacrifice, and, to some degree a form of suffering. Wouldn’t it be suffering to leave the realms of glory and to dwell among sinful men, many of whom rejected you, and even the few who received you had a distorted view of you? Finally, the Lord had to suffer not only the rejection of men, and death on that cross, with all its physical pain, but He had to suffer the alienation from God which bearing the sins of the world entailed. The extent of His suffering is infinitely beyond man’s ability to grasp. While the disciple’s cross may not be pleasant, it’s suffering does not begin to compare with that of our Lord’s cross.

The Disciple’s Cross¹⁷⁴
(9:23-26)

The difference between the disciples’ estimate of Christ’s identity and that of the crowds and the leaders of the nation spells trouble. When the opinion of Jesus by the crowds reaches a low enough ebb, the plans of the leaders to kill the Christ will be possible. When the crowds and the leaders view of Jesus is diametrically different from that of the disciples, there will not only be a cross for the Christ, but also for those who identify with Him. That is what Jesus now tells them. Having told the disciples of His cross, He immediately goes on to tell them that they will have a cross as well, if they follow Him.

The cross of the disciple has a number of characteristics which should be of great interest to those who have purposed to follow Christ as His disciple. Let us consider some of the characteristics of the disciple’s cross.

(1) The disciple’s cross is directly related to the cross of Christ. The rejection and suffering of Christ’s followers is the consequence of their following Him. It is for choosing to follow Christ that His followers will have a cross to bear.

“Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household! “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward” (Matthew 10:17-43).

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death (Mark 13:12).

Because Christ was rejected and suffered the cross, so will most of the twelve disciples and many others of that generation who believed in Christ and followed Him:

“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me …” (Matthew 24:9).

He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword (Acts 12:2).

Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13).

And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them (Acts 26:10).

(2) The disciple’s cross entails more than just external persecution, and occasionally martyrdom—it entails death to self-will, self-interest, and self-seeking. In the words of Jesus, it requires denying self (Luke 9:23). The “way of the cross” is the way of death to our own interests. As our Lord set aside His glory and prerogatives as God in order to come to earth and “bear His cross,” so the disciple of Christ must do likewise (cf. Philippians 2:1-8). The cross means that we must also “put to death” the old nature and its practices:

By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him (Romans 6:2-8).

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers (1 John 3:16).

(3) The disciples is a cross that is taken up daily—it is a way of looking at life and of living it.

I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord (1 Corinthians 15:31).

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—which is your spiritual worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1-2).

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (Rom. 8:13).

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

(4) The taking up of the disciple’s cross, like Lord’s taking up of His cross, is based upon a principle stated by our Lord: to seek to save one’s life is to lose it; to give up one’s life for Christ’s sake, is to save your life.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it” (Luke 9:24).

This same principle underlies the living of the Christian life:

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds (John 12:24).

How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies (1Corinthians 15:36).

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you (2 Corinthians 13:4).

(5) The cross, because it is an instrument of suffering and death, is repulsive to everyone, and thus we will not accept it without a divine calling and enablement.

Jesus blessed Peter for his confession that Jesus was God’s Messiah, God’s Christ. He told Him that flesh and blood did not reveal this truth, but the Father. Once they understood the nature of Jesus’ messiahship, men rejected Him as Messiah. They may still regard Him as a prophet, but not as Messiah, for they do not wish to follow a suffering Messiah. Ultimately, they (we) do not wish to pursue of way of suffering, but rather a way of peace, prosperity, and glory. But our Lord has revealed that the way to a crown is through the cross, both for Him and for those who would follow Him.

The natural man simply rejects suffering and death as a way to find life, and thus the gospel will always be foolish to the unbeliever. The message of the gospel is the message about a cross, a cross that men do not wish to hear or to accept, and yet it is the only gospel, the gospel which Paul and all of the apostles preached:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength (1 Corinthians 1:17-25).

The cross is a message which cannot be “marketed” or “merchandised,” for it does not have human appeal. In order for the gospel to be “merchandised,” sold with Madison Avenue advertising techniques, we must first change the gospel itself. And many have done just this. Rather to proclaim in simplicity, man’s sin, Christ’s righteousness, and salvation through the cross of Christ, we offer peace and prosperity, happiness and fulfillment, and we do so by minimizing the foolishness of the cross. In so doing, we rob the gospel of its power.

The message of the cross cannot and will not be received by men apart from the drawing of the Father through the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what the Bible teaches, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit is what our Lord promised:

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

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:8-11).

False teacher reject the cross, because they know it is not appealing to men. They also do not wish to suffer the reproach of the cross themselves. Instead, they offer a different gospel, a crossless gospel:

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:12-14).

Conclusion

This text has many points of relevance and application to contemporary men and women. First, it reminds us of the fact that the question which our Lord asked His disciples is the most important question any man or woman will ever answer. The difference between salvation and condemnation, between heaven and hell is bound up in the answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” The correct answer is that He is the Son of God, God’s Messiah, and my Savior, the one who died on the cross of Calvary, in my place. At one point or another, every person will have to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Savior of the world. To answer in this way now is to have eternal life. To wait until later is a vastly different thing. Someday, everyone who has denied Jesus as the Christ will have to acknowledge their error, but when it is too late for salvation:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11).

This is what every living creature must do, who has rejected Jesus as the Christ of God before His coming to reign and to rule over the earth. But the good news of the gospel is that men can confess Him as the Christ of God today and be saved from their sins:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Everyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 10:9-11).

Just at this question was an individual matter, to be answered by every man, so it is today. Frankly, the view of the masses will never be the right view of Jesus. You must stand apart from the crowds who reject Jesus as the Christ, and in so doing you will find a cross of your own to bear, but this is God’s way of salvation. I ask you now, as Jesus asked His disciples, “But you, who do you say Jesus is?”

Those of us who are saved, who have professed Jesus to be God’s Salvation, must realize that there is a cross to bear if we would follow Him. As the crowds rejected Jesus and clamored for Him to have a cross, so they may reject us. This is a part of the cross which we must take up, daily. And when we share our faith with others, we must do so in simplicity, in clarity, in fear, and in faith, knowing that only the Father, through His Holy Spirit can cause men to recognize Jesus as God’s only Savior, cross and all. For it is the cross of Calvary that is God’s only means of saving men.

I am very troubled by those who pervert the gospel, the word of the cross, in order to make it more appealing, more marketable. They offer men prosperity, popularity, and what they desire. They offer men a crown in the place of a cross. They offer life, but they lead men along the road to death, just as Satan deceived Adam and Eve.

I am troubled by Christians who in their desire not to be rejected, attempt to avoid any cross in life. They want their faith and their gospel to be intellectually respectable, when the Bible says it is foolishness. They want obedience to God’s word to seem logical, sensible, and appealing, but the cross is an offense, whether it be the cross of Christ, for salvation, or the cross of the disciple.

Beware of any teaching that minimizes the cross, that merchandises the gospel, and that appeals to the fleshly nature of man. This is not the way of the cross, nor is it the way of our Lord.

I would also add that we have much to learn from our Lord in the area of evangelism. Jesus would not inform the disciples that He was the Messiah, and then merely ask them to mouth back to Him some kind of formula. He asked the disciples to express, in their own words, who He was. I have great difficulty with those who attempt to lead men to Christ by asking them to repeat a prayer after them. If men do not understand the gospel well enough to express their faith in their own words, they are not really convinced of the truth, and they are not ready to have a kind of “forceps delivery.” Let us learn from our Lord that it is ultimately God who converts and convinces men of His identity. Let us beware about putting words in the mouths of those we wish to be saved.

---

170 Eugene H. Peterson, Earth & Altar: The Community of Prayer in a Self-Bound Society (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), p. 13.

171 It should be remembered, however, that even John had his moments of doubt about the identity of the Lord Jesus, cf. Luke 7:19.

172 “Suffering and rejection sum up the whole cross of Jesus. To die on the cross means to die despised and rejected of men. Suffering and rejection are laid upon Jesus as a divine necessity, and every attempt to prevent it is the work of the devil, especially when it comes from his own disciples; for it is in fact an attempt to prevent Christ from being Christ. It is Peter, the Rock of the Church, who commits that sin, immediately after he has confessed Jesus as the Messiah and has been appointed to the primacy. That shows how the very notion of a suffering Messiah was a scandal to the Church, even in its earliest days. That is not the kind of Lord it wants, and as the Church of Christ it does not like to have the law of suffering imposed upon it by its Lord. Peter’s protest displays his own unwillingness to suffer, and that means that Satan has gained entry into the Church, and is trying to tear it away from the cross of its Lord.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company [reprint], 1963), p. 96.

173 Peter’s rebuke of Jesus, and our Lord’s rebuke of him are not recorded here. Instead, Luke goes quickly on to focus on the teaching of our Lord, which explains how the “cross of Christ” also becomes the “cross of the disciple.”

174 “It is not suffering per se but suffering-and-rejection, and not rejection for any cause or conviction of our own, but rejection for the sake of Christ… The cross is there, right from the beginning, he has only got to pick it up; there is not need for him to go out and look for a cross for himself, no need for him deliberately to run after suffering. Jesus says that every Christian has his own cross waiting for him, a cross destined and appointed by God. Each must endure his allotted share of suffering and rejection. But each has a different share: some God deems worthy of the highest form of suffering, and gives them the grace of martyrdom, while others he does not allow to be tempted above that they are able to bear.” Bonhoeffer, pp. 98-99.

Introduction

We all have said something stupid, which after the words have come out of our mouths, we wish we hadn’t said. I remember getting on the elevator with my friend, Don Grimm, after lunch. I started to tell him of the story which I had recently heard about the Hunt brothers, who had just recently lost hundreds of millions of dollars in silver investments. I was starting to say that the Hunts may not have “lost their shirts,” but it sure had “loosened their ties.” Don politely suggested that I hold up on the story for a moment, and after we got off the elevator I learned why. One of the Hunt brothers was standing right beside me.

Years ago, when I was in college, I had an assignment to go to the curriculum library of the Seattle Public School system. A very prim and proper lady in the autumn of life was seated at the desk and asked me if she could be of any help. I responded, “Oh, no thanks, I just came to carouse around.” I meant to say, “I just came in to browse around.” I don’t know how the wrong words came, but they did.

I remember years ago hearing of the man who was introducing a very well-known Bible expositor. He was attempting to impress the audience with the scholarship of the teacher, who was about to address them. He concluded, “And now, it is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Bruce Waltke, who will bring us his suppository message.”

Stupid things sometimes come out of our mouths before we even know it. Peter is one of the disciples who seemed more prone to say something—often something dumb—than the others. It has never puzzled me that Peter was not the author of one of the four gospels. It would have been too tempting for him, I suspect, to edit out of that gospel all of the things he wished he had never said. And so we may be grateful that others recorded Peter’s words, so that we can identify with him, and his tendency to say the wrong thing.

On the mountain of transfiguration, Peter repeats his error of talking too quickly and thinking too little. Luke tells us that Peter did not know what he was saying, something which is quite evident. Peter’s hasty and ill-conceived words provoke a divine response, from God the Father Himself. Those words, aimed at the disciples, but probably most directly at Peter, are just as relevant to men and women today as they were then. In our study we shall seek to learn what happened on the mount of transfiguration, what it was the Peter was suggesting, and what God’s response meant.

The Setting

The identity of Jesus is the central issue dealt with in Luke chapter 9. Herod, we are told by Luke, was very interested in the identity of Jesus, for while he was aware that some thought Jesus to be Elijah or some other prophet, raised from the dead, he feared that he might be John the Baptist, raised from the dead, since he had put him to death (9:7-9). When Jesus asked the disciples who the people thought Him to be, they gave the same answers that Herod had heard (9:19). When Jesus pointedly put the question to His disciples, Peter spoke up, with the most profound statement he has made, up to this point: “The Christ of God” (9:20).

Peter was right, of course. In Matthew’s account of the great confession, our Lord particularly praises him, and speaks of his prominence in the proclamation of the gospel (Matthew 16:17-19). But, when Jesus went on to speak of His suffering, rejection, and death, Peter’s words of reaction and rebuke were not those revealed to him by God, but the very thoughts of Satan (Matthew 16:21-23). Peter was not thinking of the kingdom of God from the divine point of view, but from his own preferences, prejudices, and preconceptions, which, our Lord said, were the viewpoint of man and (interestingly enough) Satan.

Jesus went on to tell His disciples that there would be a “cross” for them to bear as well, if they would follow Him. Man’s perspective is that one must save his life in order to live, but Jesus taught that His followers must give up their lives for Him, in order to live. Life, He said, comes out of death. On the other hand, those who would seek to save their own lives will ultimately lose them.

Jesus then promised His disciples that some of them would see the “kingdom of God” before they died:

“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27).

While there are numerous explanations as to what Jesus’ words here mean, the simplest explanation, especially in the context, is that Jesus was foretelling the transfiguration which was to come within a week’s time.

A week later,¹⁷⁵ Jesus took three of His disciples with Him up the mountain¹⁷⁶ to pray. There are various reasons given as to why only Peter, John, and James were taken along. We know that it was this same three who often were taken along, while the rest were left behind. They alone were taken into the house of Jairus, where Jesus raised his daughter from death (Luke 8:51). One commentator tells us that these three were taken along because they were the “most spiritual” of the three.¹⁷⁷

I am not so sure. It may not have been that big of a thing. When I go to the store, I like to have company, and so I’ll announce to my girls, “I’m going to the store. Anybody want to go along.” Usually they want to know which store. If it is the automotive parts house, where I buy my car parts, they likely won’t accompany me. If there is the chance we will stop at the ice cream store, I usually will have company.

It is not inconceivable to me that Jesus would have said to the disciples, “I’m going to Mt. Hebron, would any of you like to go along?” Perhaps one of them asked, “To pray?” That may have prompted the nine to stay behind, while the three may have loyally (or lovingly) gone along.

For whatever reason, only three disciples accompanied Jesus to the mount, for a time of prayer. Little did any of them dream of what they would see and hear on this occasion.

Before we press on to that which occurred at this time of prayer, let us not too quickly pass by the fact that prayer, once again in Luke’s writings, is closely linked with great events. This is true in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Allow me to summarize some of those instances in which prayer is shortly precedes a great event:

In Luke’s Gospel:

Text	Prayer	Significant Event
1:5-20	Prayer of Zacharias	Announcement of John’s birth
3:21-22	Jesus prays at His baptism	Father appears, speaks (3:21-22)
4:42	Jesus’ private prayer	Galilean ministry (4:43ff.)
6:12	Jesus in prayer	Choosing the twelve disciples
9:18	Jesus in prayer	The great confession
9:28-29	Jesus in prayer	The transfiguration

In the Book of Acts:

Text	Prayer	Significant Event
1:14	Disciples in prayer	Pentecost
4:31	Prayer of church	Powerful witness in Jerusalem
7:59-60	Stephen’s prayer	Saul’s conversion
9:11	Saul in prayer	Saul’s sight regained and filled with Holy Spirit
10, 11	Prayer of Peter, Cornelius	Gospel spreads to Gentiles
12:5	Church in prayer for Peter	Peter’s release
13:1-3	Fasting & Prayer	First missionary journey
16:25	Prison prayers	Earthquake, release, conversion of jailer

It can be safely said that Luke places a heavy emphasis on prayer. He is careful to link prayer with great manifestations of God’s grace and power. We can hardly overstate the need for prayer today, nor can we overstate the lack of diligence of the church to pray as we ought. As the apostle James put it,

You do not have, because you do not ask God (James 4:2).

May we become people of prayer, as our Lord was marked by His prayers.

The Transfiguration of the Christ

While the identity of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah was not acknowledged by the masses, nor by Israel’s political leaders (e.g. Herod), nor by the religious leaders, Peter had just confessed that Jesus was God’s Messiah. Jesus Himself affirmed this profession, and then hastened to go on, spelling out the suffering and death that this necessitated. Now it is time for God the Father to give the final word, as is done in the transfiguration. Here, Jesus is given the Father’s stamp of approval as His appointed King of Israel.

We do not know exactly what time it was, nor how long our Lord had been in prayer. We do know that He was praying as He was transformed before His disciples. It would have been of great interest to have heard the words our Lord was speaking to the Father as His appearance began to be changed.

The three disciples, Luke alone tells us, were sleepy. How easy it is for us to quickly conclude that they were simply tired, and that they, unlike the Master, could not discipline themselves to stay awake. Let me begin by saying that we are not told why they were sleepy, only that they were. Fatigue is, of course, the most simple explanation. But lest we jump to this conclusion as though it were our only option, let me briefly mention two other possibilities.

First, let me remind you that the sleepiness of the disciples in the garden, just before His arrest, was, according to the diagnosis of Dr. Luke, the result of sorrow, not simple fatigue (Luke 22:45). They were exhausted from sorrow. Second, allow me to point out a rather unusual sleepiness which Daniel experienced as the result of a divine revelation, not unlike that which is described here:

I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning,¹⁷⁸ his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground (Daniel 10:5-9, emphasis mine).

There are, then, a variety of reasons for sleepiness. We do not know which of these was the cause of the sleepiness of the disciples, but only that they were sleepy at the time that our Lord was transfigured.

Can you imagine what it must have been like to have been in a deep sleep, and to awaken to the sights and sounds that were taking place on that mountain. If it were me, I would first wonder if I really was awake, or whether it was a dream. Then I would wonder where I was. Then I would have been awe-struck by the brightness of the three persons, all of whom (Luke tells us that Elijah and Moses were in glorious splendor—was the splendor of our Lord vastly greater here? We do not know for sure —) were radiant. For sleepy eyes, it must have taken some time to adjust to this kind of luminance, especially if it was during the darkness of night. For some unexplained reason the disciples knew who the two men were who were talking with our Lord. They were Moses and Elijah.¹⁷⁹

The “sound track” would also have been of great interest. Not only did the three disciples recognize the three gloriously radiant persons, but they also overheard their conversation. We do not know how long they spoke, nor all of the details which were covered. But we do know the subject of the discussion: the coming departure (literally, the “exodus”) of our Lord in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31).

Whatever length of time this revelation or transfiguration took, it eventually ended. This was signaled by the fact that the two men began to leave Jesus. This action prompted Peter to speak:

“Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Luke 9:33).

Luke adds, parenthetically, that Peter did not know what he was saying. That’s for sure!

True, Peter did not know what he was saying, but he was saying something. Mark informs us that it was out of fear that Peter blurted out these words, informing us that all three were frightened by the splendor of the sight of the transfiguration (9:6). Peter’s words were not carefully thought through, but they did propose something. What, then, was Peter suggesting? What was he trying to do?

First, it would seem that he was attempting to keep Elijah and Moses from leaving. His words were spoken just as they began to leave (Luke 9:33). They were departing, but Peter spoke of dwellings. Now there is no need for a motel if you’re not staying the night. By proposing to build three shelters, Peter is seeking to prolong their stay, even though (or, should we say, especially because) they were leaving. Peter may thus be trying to prolong the glory of this event. He may even be selfishly be trying to prolong for himself the excitement and enjoyment of these heavenly visitors. Don’t think that selfishness is out of the question. If you do, read on in this same chapter.

Peter’s proposal may also have been motivated by a desire to see the kingdom and its glory instituted NOW. Jesus had spoken of his suffering, rejection, and death. There were some intervening events, which meant that the kingdom would not come as quickly as the people (including the disciples) would like. The departure of Elijah and Moses was not a good sign, so far as Peter would have been concerned, for it spelled delay. To keep them around might have hastened the coming of the kingdom, something that was still in the minds of the disciples even after our Lord’s resurrection (cf. Acts 1:6).

A Divine Interruption and Statement

If the departure of Moses and Elijah prompted Peter to speak, the ill-thought-through words of Peter seem to have been the cause of this divine interruption, which seems to have stopped Peter in mid-sentence:

While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him” (Luke 9:34-35).

A luminous cloud settled down over all of them, which seems to have obscured their view of each other, or at least of Moses and Elijah, for when the cloud disappears, these two are gone. The appearance of the cloud caused the disciples to be even more frightened. It seems to have silenced Peter. It is then that God speaks to them from the cloud, adding His testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, the King of Israel.

The words of God were carefully chosen, the very precise formula used to designate the king of Israel. The expression, “this is my Son,” which was also spoken by God previously at our Lord’s baptism (cf. Luke 3:22), is to be understood in the light of its Old Testament origin and meaning. In 2 Samuel 7:14, the expression is used by God with reference to Solomon, and the Davidic dynasty which will follow, and of which our Lord is the final descendent and eternal King. Solomon was Israel’s king, and David’s son, and yet God said of him,

“I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men” (2 Samuel 7:14).

It is evident that while God promises an everlasting kingdom to David, the “son” of whom He speaks is Solomon, David’s son, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. “Thou art my son” is an enthronement formula, a kind of coronation statement, which indicates that God has appointed this person as king, the person who is called His “son.” To be a “son of God” in this sense is to be God’s king.¹⁸⁰

This is clearly the sense of the expression, “Thou art My Son,” as it is found in Psalm 2, only here it is specifically speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the eternal king of Israel:

“I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (Psalm 2:6-9).

And so, when we find the expression, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen,” it is God’s most emphatic identification of Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is Israel’s King. Peter has said so. Jesus has said so. The Father has now said so, in a most emphatic and dramatic way. But the identification of Jesus is just the beginning. The last statement of the Father, spoken from within the splendor of that luminous cloud, explains the significance of Jesus’ identity. Here is the bottom line, the application of the divine affirmation: “Listen to Him” (Luke 9:35).

Observations

Before we seek to explore the implications and applications of the transfiguration, let us pause for a moment to make an observation about the three who witnessed this event. There were three witnesses to the transfiguration: Peter, John, and James.¹⁸¹ There are also three accounts of the transfiguration in the gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Is it not noteworthy that while there are three witnesses to the transfiguration, not one of them is a gospel writer? Matthew, who wrote one of the accounts, was one of the nine left behind. John, on the other hand, who accompanied Jesus up to the mount of transfiguration, and who wrote a gospel account, does not include the transfiguration in his gospel. I find this most interesting. If such a spectacular event were to happen today, we would be certain to have the “press corps” invited. Jesus did not do so, and He knew what was going to happen (cf. Luke 9:27).

I am not sure that I can explain why this is true, why Jesus would invite three men along, and yet none of them would give a personal account of the event. I think it is safe to say that Jesus did not capitalize upon or emphasize the spectacular. If He handled things as some religious leaders do, He would not only have had the twelve disciples along, but he would have had the radio, television, press, and a huge crowd of witnesses along with him as well. Jesus downplayed the spectacular, while we play it up. Perhaps we need to learn a lesson from our Lord, here.

But why would he play this miracle down? Further still, why did Jesus consistently play down the spectacular? I can think of one reason. The spectacular never really convinces or converts anyone. Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus was challenged to do something spectacular, in order to prove who He was. Even on the cross He was challenged to get Himself down off that cross. But had He done so, it would not have made any difference. Jesus, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, said that even if one were to rise from the dead, he would not be believed if those same people had rejected the Old Testament scriptures (Luke 16:27-31). If, as Jesus had said to Peter, that flesh and blood do not convince men of His identity, but rather the Father, then no spectacular miracle (or any combination of them) can convert lost men. Thus, our Lord does not play up this miracle on the mount of transfiguration.

The Meaning of the Miracle

But what did the miracle mean? Let us first consider the meaning of the miracle in the light of the developing argument of Luke’s gospel. The transfiguration was designed, I believe, to do several things:

(1) The transfiguration confirms the identification of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. When God the Father spoke of Jesus as His Son, He settled the matter of His identity forever. Peter’s confession was confirmed by God, dramatically, emphatically, finally.

(2) The transfiguration also identified the “kingdom” of which our Lord and His apostles spoke with the “kingdom” of which the Old Testament spoke, and for which the Jews were eagerly waiting.¹⁸² Notice all of the similarities between the manifestation of the Mosaic Covenant and the “kingdom” which God established there after the exodus, with the phenomenon which took place on the mount of transfiguration. Moses was present here, as he was in Exodus (cf. chapters 19ff.). Moses went up to the top of the mountain (Exod. 19:3), just as Jesus took the three up the high mountain. In Exodus (24:16-18) there was a cloud from which God spoke, just as God spoke from the bright cloud on the mount of transfiguration (cf. also the Shekinah glory, Exodus 40:34f.). The glory of God was made visible on the mount (Exodus 19:11), just as the glory of our Lord was made visible on the mount of transfiguration. On the mount, Jesus’ face glowed (cf. Matthew 17:2), like the face of Moses shone when he descended from the mount (Exodus 34:29-35). All in all, the parallels are too many and too obvious not to conclude that the kingdom of which our Lord was King and that which was spoken of in the Old Testament were very much related.

(3) It clarifies that Jesus is neither Elijah nor Moses, but, indeed is One who is far Greater. We know that some thought Jesus was Elijah, while others thought he was a prophet raised from the dead (Luke 9:8, 19). Moses and Elijah were not only the two Old Testament personalities most closely associated with the coming kingdom, but also those whose identity was most confused with Jesus. When Jesus was set apart from all others as “the Son” by the Father, He was also distinguished from Moses and Elijah.

It almost seems that until the Father spoke from the cloud, Peter may have viewed Jesus, Moses, and Elijah as peers, as equals. If this was so, the statement by the Father made known the vast superiority of Jesus over all others, including Moses and Elijah, raised from the dead or not.

(4) The transfiguration demonstrates, once again, that the crown and the cross are a part of one plan. When Jesus was identified as the coming King by Peter, Peter was unwilling to accept the fact that Jesus would die on a cross. Peter was eager to have a King with a crown, but unwilling to have a King with a cross. The transfiguration welds together the glory of the coming kingdom with the “exodus” of Jesus at Jerusalem—the cross. What will eventually be made clear is that the cross was the path the Father had appointed to the crown.

(5) Finally, the transfiguration was a testimony to the fact that God is able to raise men from the dead, to possess the kingdom. The reason why Peter rejected the cross was that it seemed incompatible with the crown. How could one who dies live in the kingdom of God. Jesus taught that the one who gives up his life gains life. The presence of two Old Testament saints, both of whom were presumed dead,¹⁸³ alive and talking with Jesus, was testimony to the fact that death did not prevent a saint from participating in the kingdom of God to come.

The transfiguration of our Lord played a very significant role in the unfolding of God’s plan and purpose for Jesus, the Christ of God. It affirms in a dramatic way, that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hopes of the Old Testament saint, that He is the Messiah. But what other lessons did this event have for Peter, James, and John. I believe that the application is made perfectly clear by the Father’s words, “Listen to Him” (Luke 9:35).

The lesson may be stated as a principle with these words: IF JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, THE CHRIST OF GOD, THEN MEN HAD BETTER LISTEN CAREFULLY TO HIM

Peter had spoken well when he confessed Jesus to be God’s Messiah. He had never said anything more profound or more true. But the rest of what Peter said was neither true nor profitable. When Peter resisted the cross of Calvary, the thought as a man, and he spoke as though he were Satan. God’s words, spoken from the cloud were intended to silence Peter, to cause him to be more intent on listening than on speaking, to be more eager to learn from Christ than to correct Him. If Jesus was who Peter said He was, and who the Father indicated, then silence is more golden than speech. Peter had better speak less and listen more. God’s Messiah should be heard and His followers should be learners, listeners.

This principle is not a new one in Scripture. In Psalm 2, the bottom line of application is this: If Messiah is God’s Son, men had be in right relationship to Him. Look at the message of the psalm as a whole:

Psalm 2 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6 “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” 10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. 11 Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

The more men come to recognize the deity and the authority of Jesus, they more they become listeners and learners. The more they find silence appropriate in His presence. The lesson which God wanted Peter to learn is the same as that which the writer to the Hebrews is teaching:

Hebrews 1:1–2:5 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.” 8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” 10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” 13 To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? 1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. 5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

Peter, who did not write a gospel account, does refer to the transfiguration. Note that the message of the Father to the three (including him) is the same message which Peter passes on to his readers:

2 Peter 1:12-21 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. 16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And John, the author of the book of Revelation, gives this account of the vision of the glorified Lord, who seems to look much as he did when John saw Him on the mount of transfiguration.

Revelation 1:10-20 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The glorified Lord is the One who is speaking to the churches, through the words which are written in chapters 2 and 3. Take note of the one thing which is said to all of the churches:

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear … ” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

The final words of the book of Revelation once more remind us of this same principle:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).

Conclusion

If Jesus is God’s Messiah, the King who was appointed not only to die for man’s sins, but the King who will come (as Psalm 2 points out) to subdue His enemies, then we had better listen to Him now. This is the very message which Peter brought so forcefully to his countrymen in Acts chapter 2:

“For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “‘The Lord said to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:34-36).

My friend, if you have not come to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as God’s King, then you are His enemy, and, a Peter reminds us from the Scriptures, He is coming again to punish those enemies. The application for you is exactly the same as that which Peter made to his audience:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God may call” (Acts 2:38-39).

I urge you, my friend, if you have not acknowledged your sins, your rebellion against God, and trusted in Jesus as your sin-bearer, then do so today, for a day will come when you must acknowledge Him as God’s King.

For all those of us, like Peter, who have come to trust in Jesus as the Savior, the application is that we must listen to Him. Surely none of those who have trusted in Him would deny this, but the question is, are we really listening to Him?

How is it that men can listen to Jesus today? There is but one primary answer, and that is that we listen to Him by reading His word. This is implied or stated often in the Bible. It is the clear inference in Hebrews 1 and 2. God has spoken finally and fully in the person of His Son. If men were to hear what God said in the Old Testament age, how much more must we listen to Him through His Son, the Living Word, and the written word which speaks of Him and for Him.

There are many “Christian” works available to us today, and unfortunately they are often not written or used to enhance our study of the Bible, but to replace it. It is amazing to me how many Christian “fad” books are popular. These are the kind of books which find their source of content in human wisdom, rather than in divine revelation. They do not point us to the Bible, but from it. Oh, the titles may sound Christian, but the theology is not. These books are here for a while, never again to be read or practiced, because they are already out of date or of fashion.

There is a statement that is popular in Christian circles today, coined (as I recall) by a godly man, which goes like this: ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH

I could not agree more. If it is true, then it is God’s truth. The problem is that if it is not biblical truth—truth clearly revealed in Scripture—then we don’t know whether it is truth or not. This statement, “All truth is God’s truth,” has become the banner for those who want to make the study of secular subjects their prime task. I fear that we use it as an excuse.

If I understand passages like 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:3-4 correctly, there is no truth necessary for life or godliness which God has not revealed sufficiently in the Bible. For godly living there need not be any other source of revelation. If books and sermons enhance our study and our grasp of the Scriptures, then so much the better. If they hinder it, so much the worse. Let us listen to what our Lord says to us in His Word.

In principle we would surely all agree that we should listen to the Lord Jesus by reading His Word, but in practice we, like Peter do otherwise. Many Christians mistakenly suppose that listening to a preacher is listening to God’s Word. Not so! God has gifted men to teach His Word, but that is to enhance our understanding of the Word, not to replace our own study. It is obvious that men are fallible in their understanding of the Word, otherwise there would be no disagreement. God will hold us responsible for what we believe, not for what others have taught us. Let us do more listening.

We, like Peter, are often talking more about the Word than we are listening to it. I have attended many Bible studies where the mood, if not the stated emphasis went something like this: “Well, this is what this passage means to me … ” Frankly, most of us haven’t studied the text enough to have any opinion as to its meaning. We simply fill the air with our thoughts, rather than being preoccupied with God’s thoughts. Without knowing it, our words are like Peter’s—we don’t know what we are saying. The important thing is to learn what the text means, and then to ask ourselves what we are going to do about it. Let us listen more to God’s Word, and talk less about it.

There is a world of difference between what I would call “privatizing” Scripture and “personalizing” it. Privatizing Scripture is what Peter has warned us against doing in the first chapter of his second epistle. He has said, in effect, “God did not reveal prophecy through men who spoke their own minds, who wrote what they preferred. God directed men to write what He intended, He divinely inspired the Holy Scriptures to prevent them from being merely man’s ideas about God—ideas which are nearly always warped and distorted, just as Peter’s views of Messiah were in error. Peter’s words seem to say that just as God has guarded His Word through the process of inscripturization (the process through which the books of the Bible were written and preserved), so God has given His Spirit to men so that He can guide us to interpret the Scriptures correctly, for we are as able to distort Scripture in its interpretation as men were to distort it in its inscripturization (apart from God’s intervention and enablement). Let us, then, be on guard about making the Scriptures say what we would like them to, rather than allowing God to speak to us through them, often rebuking us, or enlarging our grasp of God’s goodness, His grace, His power, His holiness, and our fallenness, weakness, and need for forgiveness and enablement.

We often “listen” to God’s Word the same way that Peter did. We listen to the parts we like (i.e. the “crown”) and we reject the parts we dislike (i.e. the “cross”). We do not have this option. That is what the transfiguration was saying to Peter. The crown and the cross must be believed and practiced together. They cannot be neatly separated, so that we keep the parts of God’s plan which we find appealing and acceptable. How often when we do read the Word, we read it selectively, taking its promises, its hope, its comfort, but ignoring or setting aside its rebuke. The Words of the Father should be ringing in our ears: Since Jesus is the King, we had better to listen to what He says, all of what He says.

---

175 In Matthew and Mark, we are told that it was “six days” later. In Luke we read that it was “about eight days after” this (Luke 9:28) that they go up on the mount of transfiguration. In the first place it is clear that Luke has no great concern about the precise length of time which had passed, as indicated by the term “about.” Furthermore, let us recall that this is a “Gentile gospel” and thus the method of reckoning time would be different. The apparent discrepancy is thus easily explained.

176 Matthew and Mark tell us that it is a “high” mountain, while Luke omits this detail. Mt. Hermon is about 9200 feet in elevation, and it may be this mountain which they ascended, though we do not know for certain.

177 J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), p. 314.

178 In Matthew’s account of the transfiguration of Jesus, he says that the face of our Lord “shone like the sun” (Matthew 16:2).

179 The fact that the identity of Moses and Elijah were readily known by the three, none of whom had obviously seen either of them before, suggests that we will similarly recognize others and our loved ones in heaven.

180 To me, this sheds a great deal of light of texts such as Romans 8:21.

181 Peter will have something to say about the transfiguration in his second epistle, which I will shortly deal with. James and John were brothers. James died first of the disciples (Acts 12:2), and John died last. John was the human author of the book of Revelation. The vision which he had of the glorified Christ (cf. Revelation 1:12ff.) must have seemed familiar to him, after seeing Christ transfigured on the mount in his earlier years.

182 The Jews were wrong, of course, in much of their thinking about the kingdom, as can be seen from the erroneous thinking of the disciples. But they were right in looking for a King and a kingdom, and the kingdom of our Lord was that kingdom, as He was the King.

183 Interestingly, the “deaths” of both Moses and Elijah were not typical, which may also be relevant and instructive. Death appears to be final, but it is only temporary, which is why Jesus often spoke of it as sleep (cf. Luke 8:52).

Introduction

In our last lesson I told you that while “sacred cows make good hamburger” the one who grinds the hamburger is not very popular. And I then proceeded to call the “family” a sacred cow, one which, for many Christians, is an excuse for not following Christ, a hindrance to their discipleship, rather than an expression of it. Apparently some of you agree that such teaching is touchy business. One of the women who teaches in the Sunday School came up to me just before the lesson and said, “I’m not going to be able to listen to your sermon because I’ll be in the back teaching. I’m going to have to listen to you on tape. I’m really sorry about—I’d love to be there and watch the stoning.”

This week, I would like to play it safe. I would like to be less controversial and more positive. I said that I would like to be, but unfortunately I cannot. I cannot avoid pointing out yet another “sacred cow” in Christian thinking. This week we will seek to grind yet a little more hamburger from another sacred cow, and that cow is “personal evangelism.”

Before I go much farther, it is necessary for me to define what I mean by the term “personal evangelism.” This is not a biblical term, and thus is one which can easily be confused. By the term “personal evangelism” I am referring to that sharing of our faith which we do on a one-to-one basis, that witnessing which we do on a more intimate level, with those whom we know or seek to know personally. In short, “personal evangelism” is “personalized evangelism” or “individualized evangelism.” Jesus practiced “personal evangelism” when He spoke to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, and again in His dealing with the Samaritan woman in John chapter 4. The gospel was applied to the personal situation, sins, and needs of the one with whom He was dealing.

Personal evangelism, like the family, is a very wonderful thing. Let me remind you that it is nearly always a “good thing” which becomes a kind of sacred cow. Personal evangelism is a marvelous thing. Many of you were brought to faith in Christ through the personal witness and evangelism of an acquaintance. But personal evangelism seems to have become the means to evangelize, rather than a means of reaching the lost for Christ. It is the method which most of us prefer. It is, at times, a method which can hinder other methods of evangelism. When we insist on using the method of “personal evangelism” when we should be employing another method, we have made it a sacred cow, and it is time for making hamburger.

In our text the Lord says something that is most surprising. In effect, he forbids the disciples who are sent out to evangelize to do so personally. They are forbidden to greet anyone along the road and they are commanded not to go “house to house.” When is personal evangelism the wrong method, and why is this so? That is the tension of our text. Our study should provide us with the answer to these questions.

Our Approach

Our approach in this lesson will first be to understand what our Lord is seeking to achieve in the sending out of the seventy—the goal of this missionary campaign. Then, we will consider the methods Jesus prescribed for the seventy and how they relate to the goal of the mission. Next, we will seek to see why Luke alone records this incident, and what he wanted us to learn from it, especially as it relates to the on-going proclamation of the gospel, as we see it described in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. Finally, we shall seek to identify those principles and their applications which relate as much to us and our time as they did to these disciples.

The Structure of the Text

Luke 10:1-16 falls into several divisions:

(1) Verses 1-3—Jesus’ mandate and the seventy

(2) Verses 4-9—Jesus’ methods and the seventy

(3) Verses 10-12—Jesus’ instruction on responding to rejection

(4) Verses 13-16—Jesus’ rebuke of rejecting cities

The Setting of the Text

Luke chapter 9 is the immediate backdrop for our text in chapter 10. It begins with the sending out of the twelve disciples. The report of Herod’s concern with the identity of Jesus is followed by the feeding of the five thousand. After this, Peter’s great confession is recorded, followed immediately by the transfiguration of Jesus. After our Lord’s return with the three from atop the mountain, the various hindrances to discipleship are described:

(1) Their lack of power—reflected in their inability to exorcise the boy

(2) Their lack of unity—reflected in their arguing over who was greatest

(3) Their lack of compassion—reflected in their desire to torch a Samaritan town

(4) Their lack of commitment—as seen in men’s reasons for not immediately following Christ

The first words of verse 1 in chapter 10 (“After this …” ) show the close link between the sending out of the seventy and the preceding context. The sending out of the seventy disciples is thus related both to the sending out of the twelve (Luke 9:1-6) and the Lord’s instruction on discipleship (Luke 9:37-62).

Problems in the Passage

When one consults the commentaries, two problems are usually mentioned. I will only briefly discuss them. The first problem has to do with the difference in the texts concerning the number of disciples who were sent out. Some texts read seventy, while others read seventy-two. In some ways, it is a simple textual problem, one whose existence can easily be explained, even if the problem is not so quickly or easily resolved.¹⁸⁷ In another way it is a problem which is simply not that serious. The meaning and the application of the text do not hinge on the text either way.

The second problem in our passage is a delight for the liberal student of Scripture. They enjoy pointing out the fact that the account of the sending of the seventy is found only in Luke’s gospel, and that it has many similarities with the account of the sending out of the twelve (which it does).¹⁸⁸ They err greatly, however, in thinking that this account is a pure fabrication on the part of Luke, to establish his own historical theories.

When the two sendings (in Luke’s account) are viewed side-by-side there are a number similarities which are evident, even intentional:

 

Luke 9:1-5 And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to heal diseases. 2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, and to perform healing. 3 And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece. 4 “And whatever house you enter, stay there, and take your leave from there. 5 “And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”

Luke 10:1-24 Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 “Go your ways; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 “Carry no purse, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 “And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ 6 “And if a man of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 “And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 “And whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 “But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 “I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

In spite of the similarities, which should come as no great surprise, there are many differences, significant differences. It is these differences which point to the unique contribution of this text, in addition to the contribution of the account of the sending out of the twelve:

(1) In Luke 9 only the twelve were sent out. Now, there are seventy others.

(2) The twelve are known individuals, the seventy are not.

(3) The twelve were sent out in Galilee, but this sending is along the route Jesus will be taking to Jerusalem.

(4) The twelve were specifically told not to preach to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but there is a clear hint that this sending may include the Gentiles. This seems to be territory more heavily populated with Gentiles since there would be no need to give instructions concerning what to eat if they were only going to stay in Jewish homes.

(5) The sending out of the twelve seems to conclude Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, but the sending out of the seventy is introductory.

(6) The twelve were sent out in place of Jesus, but the seventy were forerunners, sent ahead of Jesus, who would be passing by this way (v. 1).

(7) The twelve were sent out everywhere, and the impression is that they went to those remote, previously missed places. This seems to have been a rural, remote mission. The seventy were sent to cities.

What, then, is the central and unique thrust of this sending out of the seventy, which sets it apart from the other sending in chapter 9, and which signals us to its meaning and application? I think the key to the entire text is in making this one simple observation: THE THRUST OF THE SENDING OF THE SEVENTY IS REACHING THE CITIES

I do not usually quote myself, but I want to share a note that I wrote down as I was studying this text in preparation for this message. It reveals the beginning of my realization of what the key to the text was, and yet not knowing what to make of it. I wrote:

“There is a ‘city emphasis’ here. I can feel it but I can’t quite decide what to do with it. Do we have a sense of need for the city? This city? Dallas? Richardson? Does the city know the gospel? We are very intent (at times) in personal evangelism, but I think there is another facet of evangelism here. Moody, for example, and his impact on the city of Chicago.”

I begin, then, with the observation that THE CITY, for some reason is the central theme, the thread unifying the entire text. The emphasis on reaching cities seems to set the sending of the seventy apart from the sending of the twelve. In somewhat reverse order, I wish to go back through the text to show how the theme of reaching the city gives unity and clarity to our text.

The evidence is great in our text that it is THE CITY which is the central and crucial concept in our text. Notice first of all the number of times THE CITY is mentioned in our text:

• Verse 1: “to every city and place”
• Verse 8: “Whatever city you enter… ”
• Verse 10: “whatever city”
• Verse 11: “dust of your city”
• Verse 12: “that city”
• Verses 13-16: “all cities which are rebuked”

In chapter 9 the term “city” is mentioned one time (Luke 9:5), with “villages” being mentioned once as well (9:6). Here, “city” is much more frequently mentioned. Note also that while the term “city” appears five times in our text, six cities are specifically named: Sodom, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre (2x), Sidon (2x), and Capernaum. Some of these cities are hardly referred to elsewhere.

In speaking of the rejection of the disciples, our Lord speaks more in terms of cities than of individuals:

“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town” (Luke 10:8-12).

In these words we see that when disciples are viewed as being rejected by the cities, and thus the cities are symbolically warned of the coming judgment of God upon the city, just as the cities of earlier days (like Sodom) were judged of God.

If the goal of the sending of the seventy is so that the gospel may be preached in the cities, then many of the difficult problems raised by our text are resolved.

(1) The statement in verse 2, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few,” is explained. The problem with this statement is that our Lord has repeatedly taught elsewhere that few will choose the “narrow way” of salvation through Him:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

“For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14).

In addition to these verses we know full well that Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, to be rejected and crucified (cf. Luke 9:22, 44, 51-53). He was not going to be accepted as Messiah by the masses or by the leaders of Israel. The “great harvest” would not come from the Israelites, and certainly not at this time. How, then, can Jesus speak of a large harvest, with few workers? Why should He not be speaking of a small harvest, a harvest of the few?

This statement, “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few,” provides us with the explanation for our Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities. If the harvest is great, but few of those who hear the gospel receive it, then the gospel must be broadly proclaimed, to as many people as possible. If many people must hear the gospel for a great harvest to occur, then the logical place for proclaiming the gospel is in the cities, where the masses are congregated.

Speaking in farming terms, I believe that Jesus taught that the “yield per acre” for sowing the gospel would be low. If the harvest is to be great, the only way that this can happen is by sowing many acres. The only way that many can be harvested by the gospel is for many to be sent out, covering a great multitude of people. The city is the focus of the disciples’ efforts because reaching many is the goal of their mission.

(2) The emphasis on reaching the cities with the gospel also helps us understand our Lord’s instructions not to greet anyone on the road. Our Lord’s words here should perplex us if we take them seriously:

“Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road” (Luke 10:4, emphasis mine).

How could Jesus command the disciples to refrain from the normal social amenity of a friendly greeting on the road? If Jesus were intent on the proclamation of the gospel “en masse” rather than one-by-one, and if the time were extremely limited, such individual contact would have to be restricted.

Suppose that you worked in advertising for a soap company and your boss wanted to make the most people possible aware of the company’s product. After much thought, it was decided that a television commercial would best accomplish this goal. The filming studio was reserved for one hour on a certain afternoon, and you were to be there to make the commercial. On the way to the studio, you might have stopped to tell five people about your company’s soap, but if you had done so, millions would not have been able to see the commercial on TV. Thus, while it may seem rude not to chat with everyone you met on the way, your task required you to avoid such conversations, due to the higher priority of being at the television studio and making the commercial so that many more could be made aware of your product.

This is exactly what Jesus was instructing the seventy to do. While they could have spoken of Messiah to many individuals one-at-a-time, they could make much better use of their time by speaking to many at one time. And the place to find concentrations of people is not along the highway, but in the city, where many people live and gather. Thus, time should not be wasted on the way to the city. The disciples should hurry to the city and there make the gospel known to the greatest number of people.

(3) The emphasis of our Lord on the cities also explains why the disciples were not to “move around from house to house” (Luke 10:7). The homes where they stayed were the place of eating and sleeping. Perhaps the gospel was proclaimed from the home as well, but it was more likely done in the street or at the gate of the city. This is where important matters were discussed in Israel. In one sense, this was not as personal, not as intimate, a place from which to minister, but it was more public. The public factor was more important than the personal factor. This may not strike us as “warm and fuzzy” but it is nevertheless true.

(4) The command of the Lord which prohibited the disciples from taking any provisions with them also makes sense in the light of the goal of reaching the cities. The Lord told the disciples not to take any provisions along with them (Luke 10:4), immediately after telling them that He was sending them out as “lambs among wolves” (Luke 10:3). Why would Jesus send the disciples into hostile territory unarmed and without provisions? The key to the answer is again found in the Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities.

Jesus spoke of wolves and lambs. The disciples were sent out like lambs amidst wolves. What do wolves normally and naturally do to lambs? Answer: THEY EAT THEM. When Jesus sent the disciple “lambs” out in the midst of wolves, how would they know that the people were not wolves? Answer: THEY WOULD FEED THEM. This helps me to understand why the disciples were sent out without provisions. The response of the people of the cities to the gospel which the disciples proclaimed was evidenced by their hospitality, by their offering a “bed and breakfast” to those who came in the name of the Messiah. When people opened their hearts to the gospel, they also opened their homes to the disciples. This was a test of the people’s response to the message they heard.

There is much biblical precedent for what I am suggesting here. Abraham welcomed the angels (unaware) with hospitality, with a special meal, as did Lot, but the people of Sodom wanted only to rape the men (Genesis 18:1-8 with 19:1-11). In Judges chapter 19 the Levite from the hill country of Ephraim received great hospitality from his heathen father-in-law, but not from his fellow-countrymen, who, like the Sodomites, wanted only to rape him. In the gospels we see the people who loved Jesus asking Him to their homes (like Mary and Martha). In the book of Acts, chapter 16 (vv. 15, 34), we see the Lydia and the Philippian jailer demonstrating their acceptance of the gospel by taking Paul and Silas into their homes. In Hebrews chapter 13 the true believers are to continue to “entertain angels unawares” (v. 2) by showing hospitality to strangers.

In one of those towns it would not have been unnoticed that two strangers had arrived. It was their obligation under the law to show them hospitality. If they received these men and their message, they would take them into their homes. If they did not, their rejection was all the more evident. Incidentally, this act of taking a preacher into one’s home also helps us to understand the warnings of the Scriptures against inviting false teachers into our homes, for in putting them up we also become partners in that message which they proclaim (cf. 2 John 10).

Why Public Proclamation
and Not Personal Evangelism?

The Lord’s emphasis on reaching the cities should now be clear from the text, as well as providing us with a plausible explanation for the instructions which our Lord gave the seventy. The reason has been given by our Lord in this text: “The harvest is great and the workers are few” (Luke 10:2). By inference, I think that there is another reason: the time was short. Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem, to die. He would then be raised from the dead and ascend to His Father. The emphasis of Luke 9:51 is our Lord’s ascension. When our Lord came to these towns on His way to Jerusalem, they must either receive Him as their King, or they must reject Him. Time was short, the decision was crucial. This was not time for casual conversational witness, it was a time for bold, broad proclamation of the gospel, a proclamation which reached as many people and as wide an area possible, in a short period of time. Given this goal, it is easy to see why “public evangelism” must have precedence over “personal evangelism.” Personal evangelism was a luxury which Jesus said the cause of the gospel could not afford.

We should thus be able to see why these seventy were commanded to reach the cities and to practice “public evangelism” as opposed to “personal evangelism.” But what did Luke intend to teach the church and us by this account? The Lord’s commands here were intended to shape the disciples’ methods, but what were they intended to teach us? Let us first consider this incident in the light of Luke’s second volume—the book of Acts—and then move one to consider its principles and applications for us.

The Sending of the
Seventy and the Book of Acts

We know that Luke is not only the author of this gospel, but also of yet another volume, which we know as the book of Acts. It is incredible how the account of the sending of the seventy anticipates and foreshadows the proclamation of the gospel in Acts.

The “great harvest” of Luke 10 can be seen as the harvest of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. When Jesus told His (seventy) disciples that the harvest was great, there was only one way that this could be true, and that was through the expansion of the preaching of the gospel from the Jews only (as was the case in the sending of the twelve—Matthew 10:5-6) to the Gentiles as well. This is hinted at in Jesus’ instructions to the seventy concerning eating whatever was put before them (Luke 10:7-8). It is boldly played out in Acts.

Acts 10 is the vision which God gave to Peter, preparing the way for him to stay in the home of Cornelius, where he would preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Chapter 11 then expands on this by telling of the reaction of Peter’s colleagues, and of the way that God spoke to them through Peter’s experience. The book of Acts begins with a Jewish church in Jerusalem, but in chapter 11 there is a thriving Gentile church (Antioch) which becomes the launching point for missionary activity aimed at the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:1ff.).

The turning point of the gospel of Luke seems to be our Lord’s setting His face toward Jerusalem (cf. Luke 9:51-53). In Acts, it seems to be Paul’s face turned toward Rome. The gospel is being more and more widely proclaimed in Acts, which was foreshadowed in Luke 10.

Note also that in Acts the thrust of evangelistic efforts is not just toward individuals, but also to cities. The great commission was our Lord’s command to take the gospel to all nations. The book of Acts shows the beginning of this world-wide thrust. The guiding hand of the Holy Spirit can be seen not only in His leading apostles and missionaries to individuals, but almost more strongly, to cities. True, there is individual leading. The Spirit directed Philip to the eunuch in the desert (Acts 8:26ff.), but this only serves to demonstrate the point, for in this conversion I believe we find the key to the evangelization of Ethiopia. Thus, we find Paul hindered from going to certain places (Acts 16:6-7), but being directed by a vision to go (come) to Macedonia (Acts 16:9).

In Acts we find that evangelism was as much or more of the “public” variety than is was “personal.” Evangelism took place more out of the public preaching of the gospel (e.g. Acts 2, 4) than it is described as coming from person-to-person encounters. It might be objected that the witness of those who fled Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff.) was personal, but I would remind you that those who fled bore witness on their way. These people seemed to be traveling about, and were not settled people, witnessing casually to their next-door neighbors. To put it in different terms, they were not “sharing their faith” (personal evangelism), but “preaching” (public evangelism):

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19-21).

There is another interesting parallel between the sending of the seventy in Luke 10 and the spread of the gospel in Acts. Can you name the twelve who were sent out? Yes, you can because Matthew (10:2-4) gives us their names, and even their team (he lists them by 2s). How about the seventy? Can you name any of them? Not a one, for certain. In the book of Acts, the apostles, the twelve, were key leaders in the church, and in the evangelism of many of the Jews (e.g. Acts 2). But when the church is forced to flee Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff.) the apostles stay in Jerusalem (8:1), while the others flee, proclaiming the gospel as they go. But for a few exceptions (like Paul), these Gentile evangelizers are not named, just as the seventy are not.

All of this serves to underscore the fact that what Luke has recorded in the chapter 10 of his gospel is preparatory and foundational to what is recorded in the book of Acts. This should come as no surprise to us. The hand of the Holy Spirit is once again evident in the Scriptures.

BUT WHAT DOES THIS TEXT HAVE TO TEACH US?

The sending out of the seventy was not written only for the early church, it was written for our instruction as well. What is it that we are to learn from this account? What lessons are there to be learned by us? The first question which we must answer is this:

HOW DIRECT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDING OF THE seventy AND THE CHRISTIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVANGELISM TODAY?

This is a very critical question. It would be easy to see this one incident informing us of a particular goal, at a particular point in Jesus’ earthly ministry, which required the methods which He prescribed. But is it only that? Is this a unique event, one which has no close parallel for our own day? I think the relationship is quite direct. Let me give several reasons for concluding that there is a close parallel between the mission of the seventy and the mission of the church today.

(1) Luke recorded the event for us. Its a simple observation, but an important one. The Holy Spirit inspired this account because it has something important to say to us. The presence of this passage tells us that the mission of the seventy is important for us.

(2) Our Lord’s instructions to the seventy seem to cover a greater period of outreach than just the mission of the seventy for this short period of time. Why would Luke go into such detail on the instructions which our Lord gave the seventy if these instructions were not important to us? You will note that in Luke 22:35-38, Jesus modifies the instruction given earlier,¹⁸⁹ but the very fact that there is a modification suggests that our Lord expected His earlier instructions to still have relevance. Why modify non-applicable instructions? In the sending out of the twelve, similar instructions are given, in much greater detail in Matthew. The detail of these instructions implies a broader period of application. I therefore understand them to apply to evangelism through the history of the church, including today.

(3) The Great Commission of Matthew 28 conveys a sense of urgency, portrays a world to win, a world to which we must go. In short the Great Commission seems to be little more than an extension of the commands given to the seventy.

(4) The work of the Holy Spirit through the church in the book of Acts bears testimony to the fact that the commands given to the seventy were carried out on a much greater scale in the early history of the church. We have already seen how Acts plays out and expands upon what commences in Luke. I believe that we see this happening with regard to world evangelization as well.

(5) The needs and conditions of our time very closely resemble those of the seventy at that point of time. Are the words of our Lord, “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few” not as applicable to our day as they were then? Think about these facts, facts which were true then, and are just as true (even more so) today:

• The world is perishing without Christ
• Jesus is soon to come
• There is a great territory to be covered, a great harvest to reap
• The need for reaching many quickly with the gospel is urgent

All of these factors lead me to conclude that the need for reaching the world for Christ is greater today than at any other time in history. And the urgency of the need requires us to use the right methods to reach this goal.

What lessons, then, can we learn from the sending of the seventy? Let me suggest a few possibilities, although there are undoubtedly many more:

(1) We need to have a greater sense of urgency for reaching lost men and women with the message of the gospel. There is in the sending of the seventy a note of urgency, a great sense of the need to go forth from city to city. Jesus was coming and each city needed to be told.

Jesus is coming again, this time not to die for the sins of the world, but to judge those who have rejected Him. Men and women who do not know Him as the Savior will perish, suffering God’s eternal wrath. In a word, they have nothing to expect but Hell. In my opinion the evangelization of the lost is not suffering so much from bad methods as it is from bad motivation. If we were to gain a biblical sense of urgency, such as that seen in the sending of the seventy, the Great Commission or in the book of Acts, we would find a way. The old adage: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way” is true. We need the will to reach the lost.

(2) We need to broaden our vision from reaching those around us to reaching those around the world. We need a “world vision.” Our Lord loved the world. He died for the sins of the world. He commanded the church to go into all the world with the gospel. If J. P. Phillips was correct in saying that our God is too small, it is also true that our vision is too limited. We need a vision for reaching the world with the gospel.

We should learn from our text that Jesus loves and cares about cities. This sounds a little strange, but His concern for the city is wrapped up with His concern for people. And it is not a new concern. Abraham appealed to God to spare Sodom, which He would have done if there were but ten righteous souls there (Genesis 18:32-33). While Jonah hated Nineveh, the Lord showed compassion on this city (Jonah 4:10-11). Jesus also loved the city of Jerusalem and wept over its unbelief (Luke 13:34-35). God cares about cities because He cares about people.

I am not so sure that we have the same kind of concern for cities that our Lord does, or that men like Abraham had. We seem to have lost the sense of the lostness of the cities, even though the evidence of man’s sin and the warnings of impending judgment are everywhere. May God give us a heart for cities, and for our own city in particular. How desperate is the need here in Richardson, and in Dallas, for the gospel of Jesus Christ. How great the need for finding ways to reach entire cities with the message of God’s salvation.

(3) We need to utilize the most efficient and effective methods for reaching the world with the gospel. Much of our Lord’s instruction to the seventy pertains to their methodology. In order to reach our goal, we must utilize the right methods. Jesus was teaching the seventy that in order to reach the masses they must use methods which was oriented to the masses. They could not stop to greet men along the way because this was too individual, too personal. There is nothing wrong with the personal approach, so long as reaching masses is not our goal.

I have heard it said and implied that “personal evangelism” methods are the way to reach the world with the gospel. I think not. The argument goes something like this: “If each Christian were to lead just one other person to Christ, and that new Christian were to win one … ” The fact is that this has not happened. I believe that the world is to be reached by the preaching of the gospel, and this involves more than just a personal witness, as important as this may be.

Jesus’ teaching strongly implies that “personal evangelism” methods were not going to be effective in making a great harvest and in covering a vast area with the good news of the gospel. My fear is that we have come to equate evangelism with “personal evangelism” and that we automatically think of reaching people by personal methods when we should be utilizing those methods more geared to multitudes. Further, I suspect that some of us have come to the conclusion that “public evangelism” is pass while “personal evangelism” is the only way.

The film, “The Gospel Blimp,” illustrates how we have become muddled in our thinking in the area of evangelism. As best as I can remember the movie, the Christians in a certain city wanted to reach their city for Christ, and they commenced doing so in inappropriate, foolish, and even offensive ways. The movie begins with ludicrous and laughable efforts of mass evangelism of their city and then concludes by focusing on several people who begin to effectively share their faith in terms of “personal evangelism.”

Insofar as the film encourages sensitive, well-motivated, well-executed “personal evangelism,” it is great. But the movie does a serious disservice to the viewer. It sets “personal evangelism” at odds with “public evangelism,” and leaves us with the impression that we would be well advised to forget any efforts of reaching a city as a whole and to concentrate entirely on “personal evangelism.” Perhaps I do the film a disservice, but that is the impression I was given.

In the film it was not Christians’ desire to see “public evangelism” take place in their city which was wrong. What was wrong with their effort to reach their city was that they were using poor methods, methods which unnecessarily irritated and offended people with the message of the gospel. What we should learn from this film is that our methods must match our goal. If we are striving to reach the masses, we must use appropriate methods. If we are trying to reach our neighbor, we use a different method. What we should not learn from this film is that “public evangelism” should be replaced by “personal evangelism.”

(4) This text does not tell us that “personal evangelism” is wrong, or that we should slack up in our efforts at it. As we have seen, Jesus practiced “personal evangelism.” Please do not misinterpret what I am saying here. When we have a sense of urgency for reaching the lost, we will strive to reach all that we can, and we should use various methods to do so. Some of us are not doing nearly enough in the area of personal evangelism. Jesus would not need to have told us to slack up in this effort. More than anything I am saying that we need to expand our vision from “reaching our neighbor” to “reaching the world” and to expand our methods from “personal evangelism” only to “personal evangelism” plus public proclamation.

(5) Our text causes me to reevaluate both my methods and my motives in personal evangelism. Once I recognized “personal evangelism” to be a kind of sacred cow, I also realized that it was not subject to very close scrutiny. After all, what Christian wants to be caught criticizing personal evangelism? But I have discovered that personal evangelism has a number of inherent dangers and is subject to certain abuses. Let me mention a few that have come to my mind.

Personal evangelism can quickly be caught up and manipulated by what I call the CULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL. One of the great problems in our thinking as it relates to “personal evangelism” is what I have called the “cult of the individual.” We have, in recent years, become obsessed with discovering “individual needs” and dealing with everyone in the light of these needs. As a former school teacher I find this dramatically demonstrated in the public school classroom. In days gone by, there was a teacher in the front of the class, with 30 or more students facing the teacher. The students listened, the teacher taught. Now I know that this wasn’t the perfect system, but I believe that it was not wrong to think that there were enough common factors that all students could be dealt with in a similar way, at the same time.

Now, the classroom is the scene of absolute chaos and anarchy. Every child is “doing his own thing.” Some are roaming around the halls. Others are doing who knows what outside. Others are “independently working” inside the class. Any form of uniformity seems to be unacceptable. Progressive education is guided by the concept of individuality. The fact is that all kids are basically alike. Oh, they develop at different rates, they have different aptitudes and interests, but they can be dealt with as a group—perhaps not all the time, but at least some of the time.

The “cult of the individual” has invaded the church, and now we find the watchword of biblical proclamation being that we must “relate truth to the individual needs” of people. Some of this individualization is at the center of “personal evangelism.” Jesus individualized the gospel for both Nicodemus (John 3) and for the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). But the tendency to individualize has gotten out of reason. We now condemn all communication which is not addressed to the specific needs of the individual. We used to talk about “the needs of women” and now it is the “needs of the young mother,” the needs of “the working woman,” and on and on it goes.

Quite honestly this “individualistic” approach does not neatly square with the Scriptures, which inform us that all temptations are “common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). But we would rather view our problems as unique, for then there is no ordinary solution for them. The fact is that the problem of men (old or young), women (single or married), and children (male or female) is sin.

I know a man in Dallas who is a converted homosexual, and a very fine fellow. He is having a great ministry in the homosexual community. When he came to speak to a group of ministers, who were as “straight” a group as you could find, he said this: “Don’t try to identify with me in my specific form of sin. Identify with me in the struggle which we all have with the flesh.” This man has his head on straight. He sees that the root problem of the homosexual is the same problem as the alcoholic, the wife-beater, the child molester, or the upright citizen who is dominated by his pride.

We have become so individualized in our approach to people that we are failing to address people at the lowest and most common level of their sin. Abraham lied about the identity of his wife, and we would thus have dealt with him about lying—his individual problem. But God dealt with him concerning his (lack of) faith, the root problem. To be quite frank about it, all of our individual problems can be boiled down to a handful of root problems common to all men.

What this means is that “public evangelism” should not be pass. We can address large groups of people with the message of the gospel, because every sinner has the same problems, and Christ has provided but one solution for the problem—the cross of Calvary. In this way, the gospel is too simple for some, who would like to think that men’s problems are much more complex, much more individualized.

There is one other variety of individualism, often a rugged individualism, which is related to the cult of the individual. Personal evangelism can be appealing to an individualist because he or she can do it on their own, without having to work with others, without having to make concessions to the opinions and convictions of others. One of the reasons why we do not do more mass evangelism, I fear, is that Christians and churches are so autonomous, so individualistic, that they can’t work together. Personal evangelism is especially appealing to the autonomous type. This does not make personal evangelism wrong, but it does tell us that any good thing can be abused by sinful people.

Another danger of personal evangelism is that it is just that—personal. We can become so caught up in our relationship with the one we are trying to personally evangelize that we “lighten up” or “soften up” on the message. It is very difficult to maintain a biblical sense of urgency and to take a “laid back” approach to presenting the message. Because I know the person and assume a long term relationship, I do not feel the urgency to tell it all and to tell it directly. I pull my punches. If you were honest, don’t you feel the same tension I feel here, the temptation to say things a little too obliquely, a little too indirectly, a little too casually? Friendship evangelism has the danger of practically putting the friendship above evangelism. These dangers do not mean that we scrap personal evangelism, but that we recognize its dangers and inherent weaknesses and seek to avoid them.

Personal evangelism also has a subtle way of affirming and sanctifying my lifestyle, rather than challenging and changing it. The term and the concept of “lifestyle evangelism” has become very popular, but I’m not sure that we’ve thought enough about its inherent problems. The inference is that “I can be a Christian Yuppie, self-seeking, self-satisfied, indulgent, and thus I am able to relate to others like me.” “Lifestyle evangelism” assumes that my lifestyle is pleasing and acceptable to God, and thus I may evangelize from its context. The Bible challenges my lifestyle, it tells me that my lifestyle should be vastly different than those around me without Christ. My lifestyle may need to change first, and then, from a Christian lifestyle I should seek to win those who live a worldly lifestyle.

Lifestyle evangelism tells me I’m okay as I am, and, worse yet, that I can have a positive impact, just as I am.

Personal evangelism thinking can justify many sins and whitewash them to look pious. I can tell myself that since I am an upper-middle class white, I have no point in common with someone of another race or socio-economic strata. The Bible flies in the face of this, indeed it calls this contrary to the gospel itself (cf. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians chapter 2). One of my good friends, Dr. Ruben Conner, a godly Black Christian leader, was won to Christ through the (personal) witness of a white man on the job.

What Should
We Do With This Message?

What am I suggesting that we do specifically? Let me summarizes and conclude with a few parting remarks. First, we need to have a greater sense of urgency, which only comes from a grasp of what the Bible tells us the fate of the lost is, and from a realization the our Lord is coming soon. Second, we need to have a wider vision, a world vision. Personal evangelism is a good start. Concern for our neighbor is a good beginning, but it is not enough. Christ’s command was that the gospel should be proclaimed in all the world.

Am I saying that everyone should become a missionary, or that everyone should stand on a street corner? No. But I am saying that we should all be bolder in our witness, that we should all seek to proclaim the gospel to the greatest possible number of lost individuals. And, I am saying that we should recognize that there are other methods than just the one-on-one kind, which should be employed when the evangelism of the many is to be attempted.

How does what I am suggesting relate to the person who does not have a gift of public proclamation. Obviously we are not all Billy Graham’s or Luis Palau’s. That is true. For some of us, doing a better job of personally sharing our faith is a lofty goal itself. But all of us need to recognize that reaching the world with the gospel is a task in which all of us should play some part. It may be in contributing to evangelistic efforts. It may be in planning and executing them (we could use a good evangelistic campaign here in Dallas). But we all ought to sense the burden, the responsibility, and seek to discover opportunities in which we can play a part. Certainly we can do exactly what Jesus told His disciples to do: pray that the Lord of the harvest would send forth workers.

As individuals and as a church, I believe that we need to pray that God will give us a burden for the lost souls of our city, Richardson, Texas, and for the city of Dallas. It means that we should be praying and pondering ways that we may tell the people of our city that they are sinners, destined for an eternity without Christ, and that Jesus Christ has died for sinners so that they might have eternal life. It means that we may consider ways in which the media can be utilized to proclaim the gospel effectively and efficiently. Let us pray for the gospel to be sent forth, and let us do what our Lord leads us to do in the evangelization of the world.

---

187 “The textual evidence is very evenly divided between seventy and seventy-two. This vacillation of the manuscripts is best explained by Genesis 10 in the Massoretic Text in which the number of the nations is seventy, whereas in the LXX the number is seventy-two. Whatever the original reading, then, the point is the same. The number seventy or seventy-two symbolizes all the nations of the world: the mission is a universal one.” Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1984), p. 115.

Shepard goes on to suggest likely explanations of the significance of the seventy in our text: “As there was special significance in the previous choice of twelve representing the twelve tribes of Israel to whom they were sent primarily, so now the number seventy was not merely a larger and convenient number for the work in hand, but pointed to certain important things in the Jewish history and tradition, linking this number—as the Tubingen School would indicate—in the interest of his universal gospel; but Christ consciously chose seventy to do what the seventy Sanhedrists had failed to do in preparation of the people for the coming Messiah (Hahn). This number harked back also to the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses. The symbolic meaning of the number seventy continued in the seventy translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. A more significant symbolism even is found in Jewish reckoning of the number of the nations of the world to be seventy. Here was an implication of the universalism of the Kingdom work, a representative missionary for each nation. Certainly this idea would be in accord with the universalism of Luke’s gospel and the mission of Christianity as revealed more clearly later, whether it was the conscious teaching of Christ at this time or not.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), p. 367.

188 Geldenhuys summarizes how they handle this text: “Easton, Klostermann, Creed, Luce, with many other modern critics, reject in part or totally the historicity of the mission of the seventy disciples. So they regard it as a duplication of the mission of the twelve, or as a deliberate invention on Luke’s part to try and justify his Pauline ideas.” Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament Series (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975 [reprint]), p. 302, fn. 1. Geldenhuys goes on in this extended footnote to show why such a view is untenable.

189 Jesus modified the instructions in the light of His own rejection and crucifixion. If they hated Him, He said, men would hate His disciples. Thus, the disciples are now to go forth prepared to provide for their own needs, for men can be expected to reject both them and their message. But in all of this, the essence of the instructions given the twelve and the seventy applies to Christians today.