Index of Names

Index of Names

86. The Blind Man (18:31–43) 87. Zacchaeus (19:1–10) 88. The Parable of the Minas (19:11–27) 89. The Triumphal Entry (19:28–40) 90. Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem (19:41–48) 91. Jesus' Authority and the Parable of the Tenants (20:1–18) 92. Render unto Caesar (20:19–26) 93. The Resurrection and David's Son (20:27–47) 94. The Destruction of Jerusalem (21:1–24) 95. This Generation Will Not Pass Away (21:25–38) 96. Betrayed (22:1–6) 97. The Lord's Supper (22:7–23) 98. Peter's Denial (22:24–34, 54–62) 99. Jesus at Gethsemane (22:35–46) 100. The Arrest of Jesus (22:47–53) 101. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (22:63–71) 102. Jesus on Trial (23:1–25) 103. The Crucifixion, Part 1 (23:26–31) 104. The Crucifixion, Part 2 (23:32–43) 105. Jesus Dies (23:44–49) 106. The Burial (23:50–56) 107. The Resurrection (24:1–12) 108. The Road to Emmaus (24:13–35) 109. Jesus Appears (24:36–53)

Index of Names About the Author

SERIES PREFACE

When God called me into full-time Christian ministry, He called me to

the academy. I was trained and ordained to a ministry of teaching, and the majority of my adult life has been devoted to preparing young men for the Christian ministry and to trying to bridge the gap between seminary and Sunday school through various means under the aegis of Ligonier Ministries.

Then, in 1997, God did something I never anticipated: He placed me in the position of preaching weekly as a leader of a congregation of His people —St. Andrew's in Sanford, Florida. Over the past twelve years, as I have opened the Word of God on a weekly basis for these dear saints, I have come to love the task of the local minister. Though my role as a teacher continues, I am eternally grateful to God that He saw fit to place me in this new ministry, the ministry of a preacher.

Very early in my tenure with St. Andrew's, I determined that I should adopt the ancient Christian practice of lectio continua, "continuous expositions," in my preaching. This method of preaching verse-by-verse through books of the Bible (rather than choosing a new topic each week) has been attested throughout church history as the one approach that ensures believers hear the full counsel of God. Therefore, I began preaching lengthy series of messages at St. Andrew's, eventually working my way

through several biblical books in a practice that continues to the present day.

Previously, I had taught through books of the Bible in various settings, including Sunday school classes, Bible studies, and audio and video teaching series for Ligonier Ministries. But now I found myself appealing not so much to the minds of my hearers but to both their minds and their hearts. I knew that I was responsible as a preacher to clearly explain God's Word and to show how we ought to live in light of it. I sought to fulfill both tasks as I ascended the St. Andrew's pulpit each week.

What you hold in your hand, then, is a written record of my preaching labors amidst my beloved Sanford congregation. The dear saints who sit under my preaching encouraged me to give my sermons a broader hearing. To that end, the chapters that follow were adapted from a sermon series I preached at St. Andrew's.

Please be aware that this book is part of a broader series of books containing adaptations of my St. Andrew's sermons. This book, like all the others in the series, will not give you the fullest possible insight into each and every verse in this biblical book. Though I sought to at least touch on each verse, I focused on the key themes and ideas that comprised the "big picture" of each passage I covered. Therefore, I urge you to use this book as an overview and introduction. I pray that you will be as blessed in reading this material as I was in preaching it.

—R.C. Sproul Lake Mary, Florida

April 2009

AN ORDERLY

ACCOUNT

Luke 1:1– 4

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke is mentioned in several places in the New Testament, not the least of

which is in his own book of Acts where he served as a companion to the Apostle Paul in his missionary journeys. Luke was not only a doctor but also a missionary, a medical missionary who was a close companion and friend of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Saul of Tarsus. Luke was born and raised in Antioch, was of Gentile descent, and died in his eighties in a

peaceful manner, unlike most of the other writers of the biblical narratives and epistles.

When I was last in Rome, we made a special visit to the Mamertine Prison where the Apostle Paul endured his second and final Roman imprisonment before his execution under that emperor, Nero, whose nickname was "the Beast." The holding cell was situated across the street from the Roman forum. It was not a large prison but simply a large cistern that had been cut out of the rock and originally had been used to keep a supply of water for the Romans. But, as history would have it, it was emptied of water and turned into a cell for those who were about to be executed. It was a moving experience to go down the stairs into that cistern, that dank, dark, cold, wet place where the great Apostle was held, and presumably there wrote his final letter to Timothy, whom he had left behind in Ephesus. In that epistle, Paul writes these final words:

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Do your best to come to me soon. For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (4:6–13)

He goes on to say in verses 17–18:

But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

The last admonition to Timothy, in the New King James Version, is "Do your utmost to come before winter" (2 Tim. 4:21). In 2 Timothy 4, Paul essentially tells Timothy, "Come before winter, bring the parchments, bring my coat, and bring Mark because I am alone except for the Lord and for the beloved physician Luke."

Luke the Historian The last statement of the Apostle Paul speaks volumes about his companion who went with him on his missionary journeys and stood next to Paul in all the trials and tribulations that are recorded in the book of Acts. Most significantly, Luke stood side by side with Paul in that dreadful, dank prison cell. All the rest had departed or fled. Luke, we know, was a physician and a missionary. But most importantly, Luke has emerged as one of the most important, if not the most important, historians of the ancient world.

As we look back at how he begins his Gospel, he acknowledges at the outset that others had taken time to give a narrative account of the things they knew of the person and work of Jesus. We have, survived to this day, the inspired writings of Matthew, Mark, and John. But, presumably besides those Gospel writers, there were others in the first century who tried their hand at writing a summary of the history of Jesus.

Luke acknowledges that at the beginning and makes it clear that he is aware that others have gone before him in this venture of providing a history. And so he says, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us (vv. 1–2). Of course, Matthew and John were disciples. Mark was not one of the Twelve, but he was considered to be the amanuensis, or the secretary, of the Apostle Peter. Also, Luke was not a disciple, but he had been converted by the Apostles and had come under the tutelage of the great Apostle Paul.

So much of what Luke knows he gains from his association with Paul as well as with the others who were among the first disciples. This is those who, from the beginning, were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. Luke is saying, "I am not an eyewitness, but I am a historian, and as a historian, I check the sources." Luke gives us more information about the birth of Jesus than anybody else, and it's with almost total certainty that we know Luke had the privilege of interviewing Mary, the mother of Christ. Luke said, "After we have received these from the eyewitnesses, it seemed good to me also, having had a complete understanding of all the things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus."

There is a lot of conjecture about the one who is addressed here and also in the book of Acts. The name Theophilus means "friend or lover of God." Some argue that the person who is mentioned here represents, in a certain way, "Christian everyman," that there was no actual Theophilus. It seems, however, that Luke is addressing and dedicating this volume, as was commonplace in the ancient world, to a person of noble position. He is devoting or dedicating this to a man by the name of Theophilus because he calls him most excellent Theophilus (v. 3), which was a title given not to symbolic characters but rather to real historical persons.

Luke goes on to say the reason he's writing is that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (v. 4). That was his burden, and that was his passion: "I am writing these things down that you can be sure that the things that you have heard, the things that have been preached, and the things that have been declared to you by eyewitnesses are available in an orderly, historical, and carefully documented account. I do this to strengthen your faith, to give you certitude, and so that you can have the full assurance of the truth of the gospel." That was Luke's task as a historian.

The ancient world had many notable historians, both Roman and Greek, and Jewish as well. You have the historians Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodotus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, and the Jewish historian Josephus, all of whose works are still read. I have a collection in my house of all the works of the great Greek historians, and there were many. And they were excellent in the work they did. But no historian of the ancient world has been subjected to as much academic and archaeological scrutiny as Luke, the writer of this Gospel.

Historians have sometimes been skeptical about the biblical writers, and in the early part of the twentieth century, a British atheist historian, William Mitchell Ramsay, set out to debunk the truth claims of the Gospels. He decided to follow the alleged footsteps of the Apostle Paul throughout his missionary journeys, going to all those places that the archaeologists have examined. Dr. Ramsay was converted to Christianity along the way, because he discovered that every time a spade of dirt was turned over in those days, some historical aspect of the Gospels was verified and authenticated. Ramsay and other secular historians have said that Luke, apart from inspiration, apart from the divine assistance that he enjoyed, was the most accurate historian of the entire ancient world.

THE ANGEL AND ZECHARIAH,

PART 1

Luke 1:5–12

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him.

Luke promised to give an orderly account of all the things that came to

pass with respect to the person and work of Christ. When giving an orderly account of things that have taken place, one has to decide where to begin. Luke begins not with the birth of Jesus, nor with the appearance of John the Baptist and his public ministry, but with the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. Of all the Gospel writers, Luke is the only one who starts at this point and gives us information regarding the pending birth of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist may be the most underrated person in the whole New Testament. That is, he is underrated by us, but certainly not by the biblical

writers, and above all, not by the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said of John that none greater has ever appeared than John the Baptist and that the Law and the Prophets ruled until John (Matt. 11:11–13).

But a new era, a new epoch, breaks through with the birth of John the Baptist. It had been four hundred years since the last prophecy had been uttered in Israel. After many prophets had spoken God's word to Israel in the Old Testament, suddenly, after Malachi, God became silent. Not for a year, not for ten years, but for four hundred years. Think of all the history that has transpired in the last four centuries before our time. That's a long time for God to be silent.

And now, Luke tells us, that silence is broken with the coming of a new prophet whose birth is announced here in this episode. Luke tells us it takes place in the days of Herod, king of Judea (v. 5). That's not an incidental historical point that we should overlook, because these were days of trial and days of darkness for the people of Israel. Herod was not a Jew; he was a puppet king of the oppressing Roman Empire, and he ruled for thirty-six years, from 40 BC to 4 BC. During that time, he had some magnificent accomplishments, such as the rebuilding of the temple in all its grandeur. Not only did he rebuild the Jewish temple, but he also built pagan temples and initiated pagan religious rites among the people.

For all that he accomplished, he never was secure in his standing. He was so paranoid about his power and authority that he killed everyone who seemed to him to be a threat, including many members of his own family. He was to the Jews what Nero was to the Romans, and so these were dark days indeed when this episode that Luke records takes place.

Zechariah In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth (v. 5). It is interesting to look at the meaning of some of the names of people in Scripture. The

name Zechariah means "God has remembered again." David, in the Psalms, says, "Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits" (Ps. 103:2). It is our habit to forget the things that God has done for us. We tend to live from one blessing to the next, and as soon as our memory of our last blessing from the hand of the Lord fades, we begin to be dull in our ardor and love for the Lord until He blesses us again. So, David reminds us that our soul should bless the Lord and not be given to forgetfulness, because God is a God who never forgets.

After four hundred years, the people were beginning to think that the Lord God, omnipotent in His omniscience, had laid that attribute aside and had suddenly become forgetful. Maybe He's forgotten the promises that He made to Abraham. Where is the Messiah He promised us centuries ago? Did He forget the promises that He made to the people of antiquity? Now Israel has a priest whose name means "God has remembered again." This is the pattern of God throughout redemptive history, that He remembers every promise He's ever made. We have to live by that. It's one thing to believe in God; it's another thing to believe Him, to believe what He says, to believe His promises, and to live not by the allure of this world but by the promises of God, knowing that the Lord does not forget.

Now, after four hundred years of silence, Zechariah appears on the scene. He is called a priest in the division of Abijah (v. 5) and his wife was also from a priestly line, and her name was Elizabeth. Zechariah and Elizabeth are described here as righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord (v. 6). This of course does not negate what the Scriptures tell us elsewhere that there are none righteous, no not one, that no one is perfect in their obedience before God (Rom. 3:10–11), but the Bible does speak about those who manifest exemplary godliness, such as Job, Noah, and other characters of the Old Testament who were singularly godly. We find in this couple two people who manifest unusual, extraordinary godliness, so that in

God's sight they are righteous, not simply through the righteousness of Christ but also in contrast to other people. They keep the law; they love the law; they are devoted to the things of God, and God is pleased with them.

But there is one great problem: they have no children. Elizabeth was barren, just as Sarah had been barren, Hannah had been barren, and the mother of Samson had been barren. In those days, people considered barren women with a sense of reproach. The assumption they made is that there had to be some dark sin that lurked in the souls of a childless couple. Many would have thought that God had shut up the womb of Elizabeth as an expression of His divine displeasure. But Scripture says otherwise. There was no hidden sin. They were godly, blameless. Nevertheless, they were old and they were childless.

Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense (vv. 8–9). Israel had eighteen thousand priests, divided among the different groups. Fourteen priests of those eighteen thousand were given the privilege of offering the incense on the altar during the course of a single year. Only once could a priest have the opportunity to offer the prayers of intercession for the people by means of the offering of the incense, which was to represent the prayers of God's people, a sweet aroma to God.

That means that the vast majority of priests never in their lifetime had the opportunity to offer this sacred task in the Holy Place of the temple. How did a priest get the opportunity for this sacred task? He wasn't elected by his fellow priests to do it, nor was there a contest to determine who was the most righteous of the priests. No, the only one who could choose a priest for this sacred service was God Himself, and He did it through the casting of lots. When Zechariah got the word, he must have been overwhelmed to receive such a spiritual blessing that would be the high point of his entire priesthood.

The Angel Appears And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense (v. 10). Prayers were offered for the nation on these occasions, both in the morning and the evening, but the vast multitude of people came in the late afternoon, at dusk, for the offering of these prayers. They gathered outside the temple to pray and watch the smoke that came out of the temple, because when the incense burned, the smoke spiraled up through the roof of the temple, and that was the signal for the people to fall on their faces in the courtyard, in thanksgiving that the prayers of intercession on their behalf had been offered.

They were accustomed, after they saw the smoke, to seeing the priest soon come out of the temple, and they would all rejoice together. But on this day, nothing happened. Something had gone wrong, it seemed to the watching multitude. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him (vv. 11–12). Zechariah, in his service, was dramatically interrupted by the appearance of an angel.

Luke tells us at the beginning of his Gospel that he is going to give us the facts, and in this case he speaks of an angel. In our modern era, this seems to smack of the mythological. It's one of the supernatural elements of Scripture that the skeptics and the cynics repudiate.

Scripture testifies unashamedly about the existence of angels. In the New Testament, the word for angel occurs more often than the word for love, more often than the word for sin. So, in a numeric sense at least, the New Testament speaks more about angels than it does about love, more about angels than it does about sin. Angels are an integral part of Scripture. But Zechariah was just like we are. When an angel appeared to him, he was on his face in terror. The angel came and gave an astonishing message, a

message that would change the course of Zechariah's life, of Elizabeth's life, of Israel's life, and of our lives.

THE ANGEL AND ZECHARIAH,

PART 2

Luke 1:13–25

But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time." And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple. And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home.

After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, "Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people."

In Luke's orderly account, he began with the visitation of the angel to the

priest Zechariah. I mentioned that the word angel (Greek angelos) occurs more often in the New Testament than the word for sin more often and than the word for love. This is not simply a peripheral matter in the biblical

accounts, for angels play a significant role throughout the New Testament, not only here with the annunciation to Zechariah but also shortly thereafter as the same angel appeared to Mary the mother of Jesus.

The heavenly host attended and announced the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ on that Christmas night outside Bethlehem. We see the angels appearing at the end of Jesus' time of temptation in the wilderness when they came to minister to Him. We see the angels appear again at the time of His resurrection, as they announced to the women that He was not there but that He had risen. We see angels escorting Jesus to heaven on the shekinah cloud of glory at the time of His ascension, and we are promised that we will see Him again descending from heaven on clouds of glory, escorted once more by these heavenly agents.

Angels appear in the New Testament, but their occurrences and manifestations were exceedingly rare. Before this moment, Zechariah— this godly, righteous, obedient priest—had never in his life had the privilege of seeing a real live angel. When the angel Gabriel came into the Holy Place by the altar of incense, Zechariah's response was the same as yours and mine would have been: he was overcome with terror. The first thing the angel had to say to him was "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John" (v. 13). This message suggests that when Zechariah was chosen out of eighteen thousand priests to have this privilege of going into the Holy Place to offer the incense on the altar of incense, which symbolized the prayers of the people, he took that opportunity in his old age to pray: "Oh dear Lord, please, please let me have a son. Let Elizabeth have offspring through Your power."

Clearly, for many years Zechariah and Elizabeth had prayed fervently for a child. God's answer was no. Most likely, as they grew older and realized Elizabeth was past the age of childbearing, their prayer changed to "Lord, give us the grace to accept our childlessness." When Zechariah

came into the temple and prayed, he wasn't praying for a child, but for Israel, for his people who were oppressed under the heavy hand of Rome and the heavy hand of Herod the Tetrarch. So the answer was stunning when the angel said, "Your prayer is heard. You've been praying for your people, for the nation; and the Lord has heard your prayer. He's going to give you a son who is sent by God for the well-being of the people of Israel."

The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold Gabriel goes on to say, "Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John" (v. 13). In biblical terms, it was always the privilege of the parents, particularly the father, to name their children. All the way back to creation, the giving of the name indicated an expression of authority. When God set Adam and Eve over the whole creation and gave them dominion, He tasked Adam with naming the animals. This was not just an exercise in zoology or taxonomy but an expression of mankind's authority over the animals.

So, throughout biblical history, it was the custom and the tradition for the parents to name the child because it indicated their authority over the child. But there were those rare occasions, when a special child was born, that God would take from the parents the authority to name the child. "His name shall be Isaac." "His name shall be Samuel." "His name shall be John." "His name shall be Jesus." When God named a child, the child was set apart for a specific purpose. "This child will be sanctified and consecrated for a special task that I have called him to perform." And so, the angel told Zechariah not only that he was going to have a son but also what his son's name was to be. This will become important when the child is born, as we will read later in Luke's narrative. The Lord was naming this child because he was on a mission and he belonged to God.

For he will be great before the Lord (v. 15). Gabriel said John would drink neither wine nor strong drink, not because he was going to be a

Nazirite but because he was to have a special role as a prophet, an ascetic prophet, one who would come out of the desert just like Elijah.

The angel goes on to say that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb (v. 15). Those who think the womb can be disturbed because that which is in it is only so much undifferentiated protoplasm and not a human being should take heed. Before John the Baptist was even born, while he was still in his mother's womb, he was filled by the Holy Ghost. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God (v. 16). The prophecy went on to say that John would be an evangelist, as it were, an instrument of God to confront many of the people whose hearts had been hardened—people of Israel who were the heirs of the covenant of grace but who had come to despise it.

John was going to be the instrument of God to change these things: "he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (vv. 16–17). He was not going to be Elijah; he was going to be Elijah reborn in the sense that he was going to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of the return of Elijah, not because God was going to bring Elijah back from heaven, but because He was going to anoint this child with the same power and the same spirit that he had given to the great prophet Elijah. Why? "To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared" (v. 17).

What does he mean, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children? Some commentators say that Israel was finally going to have a generation of godly people who would make the patriarchs in heaven happy to see them. I don't think it means that. Rather, it's probably simply that the hostility, the breakdown of family relationships that sin engenders in nations when they depart from the Lord God, was going to change. A new era was coming. A new epoch was about to break through in history, and there would be a dramatic change in families, in houses, and in

relationships between the parents and their children. And not only that, but the disobedient who scoffed at the truth of God would finally see the wisdom of the just.

Throughout world history and biblical history, those who embrace the truth of God appear to be fools in the eyes of the world. But the real fool is the one who says in his heart, "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1). "But your son," the angel tells Zechariah, "is going to turn many of the people around, and they will see the wisdom of righteousness, the wisdom of the just who embrace it. And then he is going to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. In fact, that will be his chief task. His number one responsibility will be to make straight the way of the Lord, to be the herald of the coming Messiah, to be the one who goes before Him whom the Lord is sending to redeem His people. Your son is going to do that."

The Sin of Unbelief This is overwhelming for this old priest. And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years" (v. 18). Filled with doubt, Zechariah says: "This can't be. It can't happen. We can't do it." Zechariah needed to read The Little Engine That Could. He needed to study his theology of the Lord God omnipotent. When Zechariah says, "I can't," he means, "God can't." The angel then reminds him of some important truths: "My normal habitation is in the immediate presence of God, and it's the Lord God Himself who sent me here with all the power of His might and all the might of His truth. Don't tell me you're too old. I was sent to speak to you, to bring you this gospel, these glad tidings. But you don't want to hear them, and you will pay a price for that, Zechariah."

Early on in the first chapter, beginning in verse 6, Zechariah and his wife, Elizabeth, are described as righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless. Until this surprise announcement from Gabriel, God had been pleased with the singular

posture of obedience and righteousness displayed by Zechariah. In fact, Scripture describes him as having been blameless. That's a little bit of hyperbole. If we look at it carefully, we'll certainly find something that was blameworthy. But in general, his character was one that was blameless. However we measure it, that streak of blamelessness comes to an abrupt halt here, in the Holy Place, when the angel announces that he and his wife are going to have this child who will be the forerunner of the Messiah. Zechariah says to the angel, "I am an old man" (v. 18).

Consider the response of God's ambassador, God's authorized messenger, to Zechariah's doubt: "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" (vv. 19–20). There are consequences to unbelief. "Though you were known as righteous and devout and blameless, now I'm going to take away your ability to speak because of your unbelief." Gabriel administers a judgment of God on this righteous man for his unbelief.

I don't think we take seriously enough the sinfulness of unbelief. We have a tendency in our culture, and even in the church, to think that belief in Christ or unbelief in Christ, believing and trusting in the things of God or not trusting in the things of God, are optional. They don't carry any dire consequences if we dismiss them. But we need to understand that unbelief in the Word of God is sin. And not only is it sin, but it's an egregious sin. And not only is it an egregious sin, but it's a sin that has eternal consequences.

Many dimensions of theology are related to the problem we face here with Zechariah. Why does God punish Zechariah for his struggle when he didn't punish Abraham, for example, in the Old Testament? He said, "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great" (Gen. 15:1).

And Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" (v. 2). And God said, "This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir" (v. 4). And what happened? In verse 6, we read, "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness." This is the first clear example of a man being justified by faith alone, the cardinal issue of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation.

Paul labors the point that before Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22 and that already in chapter 15, he was counted righteous before God. As soon as faith was born in his soul, he was justified. He didn't have to have faith plus works in order to be justified, but faith alone was all that was necessary for Abraham to have righteousness imputed to him. The only righteousness that could have been imputed to him was the righteousness of Christ, who was not even born yet.

Even after this marvelous profession of faith by which Abraham was justified, he staggered for a moment and asked, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" (Gen. 15:8). You see, even with the saving faith that Abraham had—he had enough faith to have the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, to have his salvation guaranteed—there was still that element of doubt in his heart. And God went to elaborate measures to convince Abraham that His word could be trusted, and there wasn't the slightest hint of judgment given to Abraham for wanting to have the word of God confirmed, as was the case with Hezekiah (Isa. 38) and as was the case with Gideon and his fleece (Judg. 6). Throughout Scripture, we see people hearing the word of God and staggering in unbelief and God being patient with them, forbearing, tender, and kind.

Now, all of a sudden, here's Zechariah, who had been told something equally astonishing and was struggling with believing it. Instead of having a covenant ratified with him as God did for Abraham, or an answer through a fleece as He did for Gideon, He said, "And behold, you will be silent and

unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" (v. 20).

Abraham got mercy. Zechariah got justice. Once again, we see that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and be gracious to whom He will be gracious (Rom. 9:15). Because He gives grace to one and then again to another and to another for the same thing does not mean that we can then assume He will be ever so gracious to everyone else who commits the same sin. Sometimes God says: "No! Stop right here. That's enough."

Limited Atonement In the Bible, people die in one of two ways. They either die in faith or they die in their sin. If you die in your sin, it is too late. The judgment of God will be upon you, not simply for a few months as it was for Zechariah, but forever.Remember the doctrines of grace, that famous acrostic TULIP, which stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Many of our evangelical brothers and sisters embrace TULIP. Many more, however, will affirm the T, the U, the I, and the P, but they knock the L out of TULIP.

How can we say that the atonement of Jesus Christ is limited? The Bible says that He died for the whole world. Are we saying that Jesus' atoning death was not sufficient to save everybody in the world? The same people who ask these questions, however, say that not everybody in the world is saved. Well, why isn't everybody in the world saved? Because a necessary condition to be saved by the atoning death of Jesus Christ is to have faith in Him. If someone has no faith in Jesus Christ, the atoning death of Christ only exacerbates his guilt before God and will do nothing to alleviate it because he has rejected the perfect sacrifice that was offered once for all.

If Jesus, on the cross, died for every sin of every person who ever lived, and made atonement for every sin of every person who ever lived, how can we therefore resist the conclusion of universalism? If Jesus died for every

sin of every person, nothing is left for God to punish. Everybody would be saved because every sin has already been atoned for. Obviously, the atonement of Christ is made only for those who believe, and so in that sense the efficacy of that atonement is limited—it is limited to believers. Jesus didn't die for everybody; He died for believers. You can take it to the next step. He died for the elect. And everyone for whom He died, everyone for whom He made an atonement, has their sins forgiven forever. This was not an afterthought in the economy of God's plan of salvation, but from all eternity God had planned to send His Son into the world to atone for the sins of His people.

I mention limited atonement to help us see how important unbelief is. It is a sin. We have the tendency to think that if someone doesn't believe, if he is not convinced, he may be wrong but at worst it's an error in judgment. No. What made it so serious that Zechariah didn't believe this message? When somebody speaks, the credibility of what is said is directly related to the character and integrity of the person who's making the statement. That's why we want, in a court of law, to have witnesses who are credible. It's one thing for me not to believe everything I'm told, because I have had numerous experiences in my lifetime when people have lied to me. But God has never lied to me or to you. When I don't believe what God says, I am assaulting the very integrity of the Almighty. My unbelief is an accusation against God Himself, saying, "God, I can't trust what You say." That's why the issue of the source of the announcement to Zechariah is so central to this passage. "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years" (v. 18), followed by, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God" (v. 19). "It was God who sent me to announce these things to you. I am not speaking on my own authority, Zechariah. I'm speaking the word of God." To not believe the word of God is to sin.

To not just believe in God but to believe God is the very essence of what it means to be a Christian. Back in the Old Testament, the prophet Habakkuk made the comment, "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Hab. 2:4). We can translate it, "The righteous shall live by trust." It's not by accident that this statement by Habakkuk is repeated three times in the New Testament, not the least of which is in Paul's thematic statement of the doctrine of justification in the first chapter of Romans. It's not a coincidence that, in the sixteenth century, this was the core issue between Rome, and Luther and the Reformers. To be justified is to live by faith. To be righteous is to be righteous by faith. It's why the Reformers called faith the sole instrument of our justification. It's not faith plus something else. By trusting the Word of God and trusting in God alone for salvation—that's the only way anybody can ever be saved.

Augustine belabored the difference between faith and credulity. Credulity involves an undue readiness to believe anything with uncertain evidence, for no reason at all. But authentic biblical faith is grounded in the trustworthiness of God. Nothing could be more unreasonable or more irrational than to doubt a word that comes from God.

Zechariah said he and his wife were too old. Gabriel responded that he stands in the presence of God who told him to tell Zechariah that he was going to have a son. Having heard God say that, was Gabriel supposed to discount the truthfulness of the word of the One who sent him? This wasn't an intellectual problem; it was a moral problem. The reason for Zechariah's doubt was his abiding sin. The reason we doubt the Word of God is not because His Word is unbelievable or not credible but because we project onto God the untrustworthiness that describes our own condition. Let every man be a liar, but God's Word is true.

The just shall live by faith. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4).

There is no justification for denying the Word of God. Not your age, not your culture, not your profession. Nothing. If God says it, it's settled.

In that instant, Zechariah's lips were closed. In the outer court, the people were waiting for Zechariah to appear, wondering what was taking him so long. He came out and they wanted an explanation. He tried to tell them but could not speak. Zechariah gestured, trying to communicate what he saw. The people thought he had seen a vision. So he went home—the story goes—and Elizabeth became pregnant and went into seclusion until her days were fulfilled in the birth of her son.

How do you respond to the Word of God? Justly or unjustly? Those are the only two options.

THE ANNUNCIATION

Luke 1:26–38

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

The archangel Gabriel was dispatched from the presence of God on a mis-

sion to give an announcement of extraordinary importance. He had been selected by God to give a similar announcement to Zechariah, one that caused Zechariah to stagger before its content. If Gabriel had his hands full with Zechariah, the announcement he was to give to Mary was even more extraordinary. In the pages of the Old Testament were historical precedents of women who were barren and past the age of childbearing whose wombs God had quickened, granting them sons. But never in the history of the world had any woman had a child while she remained a virgin. This would be the first and last time in history that such an event would take place.

Gabriel Appears to Mary We are told in the text that during the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth (v. 26), a tiny village that was situated almost halfway between the Mediterranean Sea, which was twenty-two miles to its west, and the Sea of Galilee, which was fifteen miles to its east and slightly north. This little village, of no grand significance historically, was visited by the heavenly messenger who came to a virgin who was betrothed to a man. When the angel came to Mary, he greeted her with these somewhat strange words: "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" (v. 28). Those who are of Roman Catholic background may notice immediately the familiarity of these words, as they are part of the Rosary. The words are uttered, "Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus." The translation here has the angel saying, "Greetings, O favored one." In the Latin Vulgate, translated by the church father Jerome, the words are gratia plena, which literally mean "full of grace."

The angel recognized that Mary had received such an abundance of grace that no woman before this moment in history had experienced. Her

favor with the Lord was without equal, and so, with this greeting, Mary was stunned and bewildered. She must have thought, What can this possibly mean? Who is this angel? What does he say? That I am filled with grace, that I am highly favored, and that I am supposedly supremely blessed and that the Lord is with me?

The angel says: "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (vv. 30–31). Just as the angel instructed Zechariah about the name of his son, so the angel instructed Mary what her Son would be named. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David" (v. 32). He would be known as the Son of the Most High God and as the Son of David, the One whom God promised would be David's Son and David's Lord. "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (v. 33).

This young girl was a godly woman. Surely, she knew the pages of the Old Testament Scriptures. Surely, she understood that David's Son, whose kingdom would last forever, would be the Messiah of Israel. One would think she would first say, "Why?" but instead she asked, "How?": "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (v. 34).

The Providence of God Mary responded as any child of nature would respond. Even in her day, people assumed there were such things as natural laws, laws of nature that act independently of the sovereign providence of God. This is the view we have of nature today. We somehow think that the laws—what we call the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity and the law of inertia—are laws that are inherent in the created universe and that operate independently from the power of God, from the providence of God, and from the sovereignty of God. That's the reason why, historically, theologians have defined miracles as actions of God that are contra naturam, or "against nature."

But we need to stop for a minute and realize what we call natural laws are simply the ordinary way God governs His creation. God does this according to a pattern that He establishes, and that pattern includes, for example, the regularity of things falling when you drop them because of gravity. But even gravity has no power whatsoever apart from the sustaining power of God. We believe in the Lord God Almighty who reigns over everything, who sets the planets in their courses, who sends the birds south in the winter. But from Mary's perspective, from the perspective of the natural, there was no way this announcement could come true. It was against the laws of nature.

But the angel has the answer to her question, and he takes the time to explain it to her. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (v. 35). The Holy Spirit, in biblical terms, is often referred to as the dynamis, the power of God. We get the English word dynamite from it. That is, the Spirit of God has supernatural sovereign power.

It is by the Holy Spirit's brooding over the waters that the original creation came into existence. If we go back to Genesis 1, we see "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (vv. 1–2). There in that uncreated state, the universe is described as formless, amorphous, empty, and enveloped in total darkness. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters and brooded, and hovered over the unformed creation as a hen broods over her eggs, and God spoke: "Let there be light" (v. 3). And the lights came on. Soon after, the earth was formed and shaped and structured by the omnipotent Creator.

When I taught classes in seminary, I would often be asked about a seeming conundrum regarding the power of God: "Professor, do you believe that God is omnipotent?" Yes. "That God can do all things?" Yes.

"Nothing is impossible for God?" Yes. "Well, can God build a rock so big that He can't move it?" If I say, "Yes, He can build a rock so big that He can't move it," then there's something that's not possible for Him to do. So He's not really omnipotent. And if I say, "No, He can't build a rock so big that He can't move it," then again I'm on the horns of this dilemma, and I'm again saying that God is not omnipotent, that there are certain things that He can't do.

There is a right answer to that question and it's very simple. Can God build a rock so big that He can't move it? Of course not. Because He's omnipotent. Why not? To be omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything. God can't die. God can't lie. God can't be God and not be God at the same time and in the same relationship. He can't stop being God, and as long as He is God, whatever He makes, whatever He creates, He controls and He has power over. He can do anything that He purposes to do, anything that accords with His character as God. That's the theological lesson that the angel is reiterating here to Mary: "With God, nothing is impossible; all things are possible. That is, He has power over everything in His creation, including your empty womb."

The Place of Mary And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her (v. 38). In the sixteenth century, the greatest schism in the history of Christendom took place with the Protestant Reformation. At the time of the Reformation, the dispute became so bitter and the hostilities so escalated that we saw the formation of the Spanish Inquisition, where people were tortured on the rack and burned at the stake. Christendom was at war with itself.

Today, we see the attitudes that prevailed in the sixteenth century greatly nullified, and we think of the rack and burning at the stake as aberrations of the past and not something commonplace in the theological disputes of our time. In fact, so much has the division between Rome and

Protestantism been ameliorated that there have been initiatives in recent decades to announce to the world a certain accord, an agreement, between Rome and Protestantism.

In 1870, at the Council of Trent, Protestants were described as schismatics and heretics. Fast-forward to the 1960s, to the Second Vatican Council, and there Protestants were referred to as separated brethren. Note the stark contrast in the language between the two councils, how the hostilities have settled down. I'll hear frequently that the things that divide Rome from Protestantism are not that great anymore. The truth is the differences between evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are as great today as they were in the sixteenth century. The issue of the gospel is still very much at stake.

The Roman Catholic Catechism of 1994 reaffirmed the Council of Trent and its teaching on the doctrine of justification, its understanding of salvation, and the treasury of merits, indulgences, and purgatory. These are major points of difference between Rome and evangelical Protestantism. There is also the doctrine of papal infallibility, which, though many in the Roman church believed it, was not formally defined by the church until 1870, at the First Vatican Council. But in addition to the issue of the authority of the church and the doctrine of justification, we have the whole phenomenon of Rome's Mariology, the uniquely Roman devotion to Jesus' mother. Since this devotion is so strongly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, we might expect that Rome's doctrines concerning Mary have been around for centuries. But the truth is that most of these decrees have come since the mid-1800s.

Three important papal decrees bear on Mary. The first is Ineffabilis Deus, issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854. It defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, meaning that Mary was born sinless; that is, she did not inherit the effects of original sin. The idea was that she had to be sinless in order not to pass on original sin to her Son. The second decree is

Munificentissimus Deus, issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950. It defined the bodily assumption of Mary, meaning that Mary did not die but went bodily into heaven. The third decree is Ad Caeli Reginam, issued by Pope Pius XII in 1954. It defined the coronation of Mary as the queen of heaven, meaning that God chose her to be the mother of Christ because He willed her to have a unique and exceptional role in salvation as the second Eve associated with the second Adam. These changes inform the actual daily practice of devout Roman Catholics, who frequently have shrines to Mary in their yards. As recently as the catechism of 1994, Mary is referred to as the mother of the Christian church, the queen of heaven, the exemplar of true Christianity, and as mediatrix between the church and God.

Theology can hardly sink lower than to obscure the uniqueness of our Lord's saving work as the Mediator between man and God, and as the Apostle Paul wrote in his Pastoral Epistles, "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

These changes didn't happen overnight. It was already an issue in the sixteenth century, and the Protestant leaders even then were concerned that the veneration of Mary transgressed the biblical laws against idolatry, the veneration of creatures. The church responded by making a distinction between two Latin terms: latria and dulia. Latria means "worship," while dulia means "service, honor, or veneration." Church officials said that Roman Catholics were not committing idolatry when it came to Mary and other idols because they were offering dulia rather than latria. Mary, however, as early as the sixteenth century, was said to be accorded hyperdulia, a kind of veneration that stops short of latria but goes beyond dulia.

Calvin responded that this distinction between dulia and latria was a distinction without a difference. When you kneel down before the likeness of a mortal person, pray to this likeness, and invoke the power of that person to improve your life and to mediate your prayers to God, how does

that differ in any way from worship? When you observe the contemporary pilgrimages and religious behavior of multitudes of people in the Roman Catholic Church in their special festivals devoted to Mary, it's hard to say that they are not worshiping Mary.

This issue came to the fore in the Second Vatican Council. Many people think that at Vatican II, all kinds of doctrinal changes took place in the Roman system. They are mistaken. Pope John XXIII, when he called this unexpected council, said, "Let fresh winds blow through the church." He was looking for church renewal; he was very much concerned about the church's pastoral role with the people. He ruled out major theological disputes from discussion. They didn't discuss providence or election or justification or Christology. The focus of Vatican II was on ecclesiology, on matters of the church.

The one great doctrinal issue that emerged at Vatican II had to do with the role of Mary in the church, but again it was subsumed under the study of the church and where Mary fits into the church. There was a significant debate between two factions at the council: the Latin wing of the church and the Western wing of the church. These two groups, with respect to Mary, were called minimalists and maximalists, respectively. The great issue that divided them was whether Mary should be regarded not only as mediatrix (which was already accepted doctrine) but as co-redemptrix, a redeemer alongside Jesus. Now, happily, the church did not embrace the maximalist position in its fullness, but there remains a strong current in favor of maximalism in the Roman Catholic communion to this day.

Mary's Fiat Where does this all come from? One of the pivotal passages was Luke 1:38, which records Mary's response to the announcement of the angel Gabriel that she was going to conceive and have a child by the power of the Holy Ghost. The virgin birth was announced to Mary by Gabriel, and her initial response was one of stunned amazement: "How will this be, since I am a

virgin?" (v. 34). We noted it was going to take place through the power of the Holy Ghost, the same power that brought the world into being and creation. He was going to overshadow her so that the child in her womb would be called the Son of God. He would be Most Holy, and He would be the Son of the Most High.

What did Mary say after the angel explained all these things? "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (v. 38). In the Roman Catholic Church, this is referred to as the Fiat of Mary. The term fiat is the present imperative form of the verb "to be" in Latin, meaning "let it be."

At the time of creation, the first fiat in all of history occurred, the divine imperative by which the whole universe was created, when the fiat came from the mouth of God: "'Let there be light,' and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). Let the oceans teem with fish and the fields with verdant growth, and all the work of creation was accomplished through the command, the imperative, of God, what we call the Divine Fiat. At the grave of Lazarus, Jesus didn't invite the dead man to come back to life; He spoke to him with the imperative, "Lazarus, come out" (John 11:43). There was nothing that Lazarus could do but come out under the weight and the authority of the imperative command of Jesus.

So the idea of the fiat has a rich history throughout redemptive history, and when the Roman Catholic theologians come to this text, they say, "Here it is, out of the lips of Mary—let it be!" The maximalists use this text to say the incarnation took place because of the will of God and also because of the will of Mary. Mary exercised her authority, without which there would be no virgin birth, without which there would be no redeeming Jesus, without which there would be no salvation. So salvation depended, according to the maximalists, on Mary's imperative response to the angel's announcement.

If ever a statement had been rudely torn and ripped of context, it is Mary's Fiat. Yes, the imperative form, at least in the Latin Vulgate, is used here, but notice the context. The first thing Mary says is "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord." If there is any "Let it be," there is first "Who am I?" The attitude being expressed by this girl to the announcement of the angel is "Gabriel, I am a handmaiden. I am not the owner of the house. I don't have any authority in this matter, but I am your servant, and if the Lord wants me to have this baby, so be it." There is much difference between "Let it be" and "If the Lord wants me to have this baby, whatever the Lord wants I will do because I am His servant."

How do maximalists handle this? They make another parallel. They say there's a parallel between Adam and Jesus. In the New Testament, Jesus is called the new Adam or the second Adam. Through the first Adam's disobedience, death came into the world. Through the second Adam's obedience, life comes into the world (see Rom. 5:12–21). Destruction, disaster, and damnation came through the first Adam; salvation and deliverance come through the second Adam, Jesus. They say the same parallel exists between Eve and Mary, as through one woman's disobedience death came into the world, so through the other woman's obedience life came into the world.

That's why they are jealous to elevate Mary to the level of coredemptrix. In their view, she participates virtually as an equal with her Son in effecting our redemption. Her Son is the second Adam, she is the second Eve, and together, mother and Son, they bring about salvation. The truth is that Mary, who is in heaven right now, would be offended by anyone suggesting there is a real parallel between Eve and herself. Mary is not the queen of the universe. The church is the queen of the universe. The church is the bride of Christ, and Christ is the King, and His only queen is His bride, not His mother.

But again, we need to understand what a singularly blessed woman Mary was. The early creeds call Mary theotokos, "God-bearer" or "mother of God." This was not understood in the sense that Jesus derived His divine nature from Mary but in the sense that she was mother to the One who is God incarnate.

Mary is due honor for her example of obedience, but she is not a coredemptrix. She was merely human. She will participate in the bodily resurrection when Christ's kingdom comes in its fullness. But she died. She went to heaven. She doesn't have the eschatological glorification of her body as Rome claims. There was no bodily ascension to heaven. We don't pray to Mary. I've had my Catholic friends say: "Why not pray to Mary? If she asks her Son for something, He's not going to refuse her." Scripture doesn't instruct us to pray to Mary. We're told to pray to the One who is the Mediator. We have our Great High Priest. We don't have a great high priestess. We have our Great High Priest who intercedes for us. Is that not enough? Should we pray to His grandmother or grandfather? Who else? No. Mary is not divine; she is a sinner saved by grace, just as we are. But what a gracious sinner she was.

I read in this text a willingness to do the will of the Lord. That is what we can learn from Mary: how to be in subjection to God, as she was.

MARY'S VISIT TO ELIZABETH

Luke 1:39–45

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."

I once made a trip to the cradle of Christianity, where I visited the Holy

Land, Ephesus, Rome, and other important places of Christian history. Several people asked me what I thought was the highlight. Was it preaching on the site of the tomb of the Apostle John in Ephesus? Certainly, that was one of the highlights. Seeing the sights in Jerusalem, speaking on the Sea of Galilee, and going to Capernaum and the other places were all meaningful

to me, but the moment I enjoyed the most was riding in the bus, going up to Jerusalem.

When the Bible speaks of going up to Jerusalem, it speaks of going to a city of higher elevation, just as in America people would go up to Denver from the lower portions of the Midwest. So in Palestine, when one wanted to go to the capital city, he had to go up through the hill country. So much of the history in 1 and 2 Samuel took place in the hill country, and it was like I was seeing ghosts out the window everywhere I went. The hill country of Judea has a beautiful terrain. As I consider this text, I'm right back there in the hills of Judea where Mary is making haste, hurrying as fast as she can to go and see her cousin Elizabeth.

The Worth of the Unborn I can't just pass over the reality of what's taking place here. We have a response to Mary's presence not only from Elizabeth but also from Elizabeth's unborn child, whose first testimony to Jesus—his first heralding of the King—takes place before he's even born. At this time, six months into the pregnancy, the child that Elizabeth carried in her womb was alive, was human, and was a person. Now those three things are extremely important as we consider what I believe is the greatest ethical crisis that has ever visited the United States of America, far exceeding the moral travesty of slavery: the wanton destruction of more than half a million unborn babies every year in this nation, with hardly a peep out of the church.

We hear the rhetoric. I hear people say, "A woman has a right to her own body." There are two things I want to observe just quickly in passing. In the first instance, an unborn child in the womb of a mother is not part of the woman's body. It may be in the woman's body, but it is not the woman's body. The clearest evidence that we have to distinguish individual human beings in our society today is DNA. The DNA code of an unborn baby is different from every DNA cell in the woman's body. The fetus is in the woman's womb, in her body, but it is not part of her body.

Second, one person's rights end where another's begin. A mother may currently have the legal right in the United States of America to destroy her unborn child, but where did she get the moral right to do it? Where does the Lord God, who is the author, protector, and sustainer of life, grant to any woman or any man the right to destroy another person? How far we have come. If you look at the history of theology in the last two thousand years, you will see innumerable issues of debate between conservatives and liberals, theologians of every different stripe. Until the feminist movement of the twentieth century, however, if there was a consensus on any doctrine or on any moral issue in the history of Christianity, it was on abortion, which the Didache in the early church unabashedly called murder.

But if we can argue that what is growing in the womb is not a person, is not alive, is not an individual entity of its own, then we can use phrases such as this: "It's just a blob of undifferentiated protoplasm." Or this: "The unborn child is just so much domestic sewage." We can't become more pagan than that. The reason government exists at all, the raison d'être for government historically, under God, is primarily to protect, to sustain, and to maintain human life. And when a government willfully fails to do that, it has not only become pagan, it has become demonic.

Now, that's my opinion. Yes, I am a trained theologian. That's my vocation, that's my education. I've spent my entire adult life studying the things of God, and I am by no means infallible. But if I know anything at all about God, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He hates abortion. If you've had one, it's a grave and heinous sin but not unforgivable. If you've had one and you're a Christian, you know it's a grave sin and it haunts you every hour. If you've assisted in it or encouraged it as a man, you are in profound need of the forgiving grace of God, which is available. Don't try to excuse it. Don't try to rationalize it. Get it forgiven and stop this practice.

Elizabeth Blesses Mary

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 41). After she was filled with the Holy Spirit, what did she do? And she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" (v. 42).

Elizabeth was not praying a prayer but singing a song in praise of Mary's faith. This is the first of five songs in Luke's account of the infancy narrative of Jesus. It's the first, and it sets the stage for perhaps the greatest one, which will be the focal point of our further study. The five songs are these: this song of Elizabeth; the Magnificat, the song of Mary; the Benedictus, the song of Zechariah; the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the song of the angels on Christmas Eve; and the Nunc Dimittis, the song of Simeon when the baby Jesus is presented at the temple. We should take note of the content of these songs. These songs are glorious. They are majestic, and their content is so enriching that as we meditate on them, it can change our lives.

Throughout sacred Scripture, music is often referenced. Songs communicate much, in some cases bad and arrogant ideas, and yet some music can be used of God to elevate the soul to the highest levels humanly possible. Even Plato understood in ancient Greece that one had to pay attention to the music that the youth were listening to, because Plato observed the powerful effect music had on the young people. Listen to the music today, and you'll learn something about the behavior of our age. We need to have music that praises, that blesses, that thanks God, and that responds to God.

Exodus 15 contains one of the lengthier songs of the Old Testament. After the people of Israel were released from bondage and rescued from the chariots of Pharaoh, Moses and the children of Israel were caught between Migdol and the Red Sea. The sea was in front of them, and the pursuing chariots of Pharaoh behind them. They were completely helpless, like

lambs ready to be slaughtered. Moses raised his arms and called on God to deliver His people, and God caused a great wind to blow. The Red Sea parted, and the children of Israel walked across on dry ground while the sea was held back by the wind that God in His providence had ordained. As soon as the Israelites reached the other side, Pharaoh and his armies, spewing out death, went into the vacant portion of the sea with their chariots, and as they were in the middle of the Red Sea, the wall of water that the wind had been holding back suddenly collapsed and drowned them.

This was the biggest moment of salvation in the Old Testament, and it was celebrated in song. Moses sang:

"I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. The LORD is my strength and my song,

and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him,

my father's God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war;

the LORD is his name.

"Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea,

and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea. The floods covered them;

they went down into the depths like a stone." (Ex. 15:1–5)

This was a great hymn. Miriam echoes the same sentiment (v. 21). During the period of the judges, Deborah sang, "From heaven the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera" (Judg. 5:20). David lamented at the news of the death of Jonathan and Saul, "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon" (2 Sam. 1:20). The song of Hannah concerned the promised birth of Samuel (1 Sam. 2:1–10). The book of Revelation tells us that when the kingdom of Christ is consummated, He will give to His people a new song (Rev. 14:3).

We have five songs at the advent of Jesus, with His birth announced by a chorale from heaven and celebrated by the human agents under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, beginning with this simple couplet in metrical style: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" (v. 42) She goes on to say, "And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (v. 43) "Who am I?" Elizabeth says. "I can't believe it. I can't believe you're visiting me." She's the elder cousin and yet she's saying, "Who are you? What are you doing here? I can't believe you're gracing my house, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." As the Spirit moved Elizabeth to say those things, the same Spirit came upon Mary.

THE MAGNIFICAT

Luke 1:46–56

And Mary said,

"My soul magnifies the Lord,

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.

For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me,

and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him

from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel,

in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers,

to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home.

One of the things that's clear from this text is that Mary, as a young

Jewish girl, did something that most Jewish girls did in her day: she memorized Scripture. We see strains of similarity between this song and the song of praise and thanksgiving sung by Hannah in the Old Testament when she was told of the impending birth of her son Samuel (1 Sam. 2:1–10). This song also has several references to elements found in the Psalms. The more we ingest Scripture and hide it in our hearts, memorize it, and become familiar with it, the more we will find that in our prayers we will turn to the language of the Word of God itself. This is modeled for us in this marvelous hymn by Mary.

Mary sings this hymn under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and its content reveals much about Mary and also much about the character of God. She begins, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (vv. 46–47). One of the things Scripture warns us of more than once is the danger of rendering to God mere lip service, going through the motions, offering rote worship where we say the words and confess with our mouths while our hearts remain far from Him.

What is noteworthy about Mary's hymn is that she is not giving lip service to God. This song of praise and adoration is welling up out of the depths of her being. She says, "My soul magnifies the Lord." Mary is not saying that God could become any greater than He already is, but her meaning is this: "My soul has been saturated by a sense of the divine and by His presence and by His mercy. And so, from the deepest part of my being, I want to exalt Him." That's what it means to magnify, to lift God up in exaltation.

Mary is not making a distinction between her soul and her spirit like some people would like to believe, but what we have here is a common

Hebrew form of poetry, which is parallelism and in this case, synonymous parallelism, where the first line and the second line mean essentially the same thing. She says it once—"My soul magnifies the Lord"—and she says it again—"my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."

The Savior of Mary Theologians have paid particular attention to the last two words of the second line, the words my Savior. What does Mary mean by that? Thomas Aquinas believed that Mary could not have been sinless because here she confesses her need of a Savior. That insight of Thomas may be correct, but it's not a necessary inference from the text. The words translated "to save" and "salvation" in the Bible can mean something other than the ultimate salvation we have from the consequences of our sins, but anytime God rescues His people and spares them from any calamity, it is expressed as a kind of salvation. The salvation that Mary has in view here may be the rescue from the calamity of being humiliated—being a forgotten, insignificant person—as she specifies in the next line the sense in which God has been merciful to her.

"For he has looked on the humble estate of his servant" (v. 48). She speaks initially of her being overwhelmed by the tenderness of God. In former Christmas seasons, I've preached on the Magnificat and I've pointed out that in that line we have contained the original Cinderella story. This Cinderella story was not a fairy tale, not a myth, but was sober reality and truth because God Himself looked at this young woman in her low estate.

"For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed" (v. 48). Just as the child who was conceived in her womb would be called David's greater Son and not only David's Son but also David's Lord, so the babe would be not only Mary's Son but also her Savior. No woman in the history of the world could sing that song because only Mary was given the unspeakable privilege of being the mother of our Savior.

The Mighty, Holy, Merciful God In the Magnificat, Mary specifically mentions three attributes of God: "For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation" (vv. 49–50). We see here that God is mighty, He is holy, and He is merciful. The One who has recognized her is the Almighty One, the One who possesses all power on heaven and earth, the One who can create a universe by the sound of His voice, by the power of His command. It is this power that the angel Gabriel mentioned to Mary when she was confounded by his announcement. "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (v. 34). "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (v. 35).

Often, when people in our culture speak of God, they do so in meaningless terms. People will speak about a power, a higher power, a force greater than oneself. There's hardly any difference between that kind of language and the language of an animist who bows down and worships an idol made of wood. Why do they talk about God that way? Because as long as we can depersonalize God—make Him an impersonal force of vague, amorphous power—we have nothing to worry about. Because impersonal forces will never hold us accountable for our behavior. We will never have to face judgment. But the God who is, is the God who has a name. He is not simply a power, though He has all power. He is the mighty God who "has done great things for me" (v. 49).

"Holy is his name" (v. 49). How beautiful is this description of the character of God. God, Mary is saying, is so holy, so transcendentally majestic, that His very name is holy. That's who He is. That's His identity. He is the Holy One of Israel, not just mighty—not just raw force or brute power, but it's a holy power, a holy might, a holy strength—and "his mercy is for those who fear him" (v. 50). Don't miss the impact of those words.

The One from whom we receive mercy is the Almighty One, the Holy One. How else could we exist in the presence of the Holy One, except by mercy?

The Strength of God It is interesting that Mary mentions this in the middle of a hymn that is filled with reverence and adoration. "He has shown strength with his arm" (v. 51). Here we have an image of God in human form, in which His arm is a symbol of His strength. I think the funniest chapter in the Bible is Numbers 11. That's the occasion where Moses is distraught because the multitude of people that he has led in the exodus are now complaining day after day. They want to go back to Egypt because now they miss their leeks and garlic and onions, and all they have to eat every day is the manna that God supernaturally provides for them from heaven. They had manna for breakfast, manna for lunch, manna for dinner, and if they wanted to have a midnight snack, they had manna for that too. They had roast manna, fried manna, sautéed manna, boiled manna— everything they could possibly do to alter the taste of it.

They said: "Let's go back to Egypt. Give us Pharaoh. At least under Pharaoh, even while we were slaves, we had onions, garlic, and leeks." Moses wants to die and says: "Did I conceive all this people? Did I give them birth, that you should say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a nursing child,' to the land that you swore to give their fathers? Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they weep before me and say, 'Give us meat, that we may eat.' I am not able to carry all this people alone; the burden is too heavy for me. If you will treat me like this, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness" (Num. 11:12–15).

And God says: "The LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall not eat just one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes

loathsome to you, because you have rejected the LORD who is among you and have wept before him, saying, 'Why did we come out of Egypt?'" (vv. 18–20). Now Moses is deeply upset and says, "The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, 'I will give them meat, that they may eat a whole month!' Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?" (vv. 21–22).

God answers Moses' question with another question: "Is the LORD's hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not" (v. 23). What a great, great image. That's the image that finds its way now into this song: "He has shown strength with his arm."

In the Magnificat, Mary focuses attention on the power of God. Mary's song celebrates the providence of God, a concept that has all but disappeared from the thinking and speaking of Christian people today.

When we look to the providence of God, we look to that sense in which God sovereignly sustains and governs His entire creation. It's not as though God created the universe and then stepped out of the picture and put inherent laws into nature; that's deism. God didn't wind up the universe like a clock and let the clock run down on its own. What God creates, He sustains. Not just over the long haul, but moment by moment, second by second. Every moment of history unfolds under His omnipotent, divine government.

Mary's song is replete with allusions and references to the Old Testament. You can see the influence of the Psalms throughout this particular song. If there was any central theme that defined the entire faith of Old Testament Israel, it was this fundamental assertion: the Lord God omnipotent reigns. God is the Lord, and there is none other. In His omnipotence, He is the King of all things. The doctrine of the government of God in His providence means simply this: He raises kingdoms up; He brings kingdoms down. No one exercises power in this world apart from the

sovereign government of God. At Christmas, we celebrate the One who comes, whose government is on His shoulders, and to whom the Father gives the authority to reign with a government that will have no end. We fuss and fret and stew and worry every day about the problems we face from the earthly governments of this world, even in our own nation. Sometimes we forget who is actually running things. It is the Lord God omnipotent who reigns.

Mary goes on to say, "He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate" (v. 52). Thrones are the symbols of authority and power for earthly kings. The Lord God omnipotent topples the thrones of monarchs and drags the mighty down from their positions of exaltation. In contrast, He raises up and exalts those of low estate. Mary is thinking that she is a lowly handmaiden of the Lord. Her estate is low in her culture, and yet God raised her up.

The Care of God "He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty" (v. 53). This verse features antithetical parallelism, which marks a stark contrast. In the first case, God in His mercy and providence has provided for the poor. This presupposes the sermon that Mary's Son will preach one day in years to come: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied" (6:20–21).

There is not throughout Scripture an absolute negation or condemnation of the rich, but there is a universal condemnation of God against the rich who are the self-satisfied rich, for those who see no sense of dependence on their redeeming God. The people with a bootstrap mentality think that everything they have they have earned; they have acquired it without any assistance from the mercy and grace of God. People who think they are self-sufficient run a severe risk of opposition from God. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).

When the judgment of God comes upon the rich in Scripture, in most cases that judgment is not directed against the merchant class of Israel. The rich who are in view are the rulers who use their seats of authority, like King Ahab, to exploit the people and sell the poor for a pair of shoes. "He has filled the hungry with good things," Mary says. And in contrast to that, He looks to the self-sufficient, arrogant rich and sends them away empty. For self-sufficient, wealthy people, there is no worse consequence they can imagine than to go away empty. It's God who gives grace to the poor, and it's God who will take away from the self-sufficient rich, because it is the Lord who gives, and it's the Lord who takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord (see Job 1:21).

We read in Isaiah 45, "For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me" (v. 4). The refrain throughout this and following chapters is "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (vv. 5–7). This is the sovereignty of God. This is His providence.

We sometimes have a naive view of God, looking at the things of God through rose-colored glasses. We affirm that all good things come from the hands of God, but any problems, suffering, or afflictions are far removed from Him. No. He brings peace; He brings calamity. He fills; He empties. He heals; He hurts. People tell me that they experience unanswered prayers. There's no such thing as an unanswered prayer from God. God's no is as much an answer as His yes. The same God who says yes to our prayers also sometimes says no when we plead our case with Him. Whether His response is yes or no, He is the same God who is holy and merciful and who does all things well. Mary may not have understood all the depths of

theology or fathomed the consequences of what she was told by Gabriel, but when she asked, "How will this be?" (v. 34), the answer was "Nothing will be impossible with God" (v. 37).

The Faithfulness of God Mary finishes her song in a magnificent style: "He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever" (vv. 54–55). Remember David's cry, "Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits" (Ps. 103:2). Our tendency as Christians is to be as strong in our faith as the recollection of our latest blessing. But we forget all the benefits that God has poured out on us in our lives. That's our nature, to forget.

This is one of the ways we differ so profoundly from God. He does not know how to forget. Once God makes a promise, it is sure. His promise can never be broken or forgotten. The national faith of Israel and the spiritual vitality of the people were weak at the time of Jesus' coming. People such as Elizabeth, Zechariah, Joseph, and Mary, who kept the faith handed down through the ages, felt all alone. They wondered, Where's God? And then in the Magnificat, Mary said: "Oh, yes! He remembers. He remembers the covenant He made with Abraham and with our fathers forever." That's the God we come to worship every Sunday morning. The God of providence, the God of promises, the God who doesn't know how to forget His promises to Abraham and to his seed forever.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN

Luke 1:57–66

Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, "No; he shall be called John." And they said to her, "None of your relatives is called by this name." And they made signs to his father, inquiring what he wanted him to be called. And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, "His name is John." And they all wondered. And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, blessing God. And fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea, and all who heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, "What then will this child be?" For the hand of the Lord was with him.

Luke tells us that Elizabeth's days were fulfilled, that it was time for her to

deliver her child, and so she brought forth a son. Then we have this simple note from Luke: And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her (v. 58). We know that when Elizabeth first received the news that in her old-age

barrenness she would conceive and bear a child, she withdrew to her residence and kept herself hidden.

Luke tells us this: her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. This is the communion of saints. This is the community of people who believe and put their trust in God. The Word of God tells us in Romans 12 that we are to weep with those who weep and to rejoice with those who rejoice, so that we are united in our joys and sorrows, empathizing with each other. That's how it is to be with the people of God.

Luke goes on to say that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child (v. 59). This was in accordance with Jewish law. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, "No; he shall be called John" (vv. 59–60).

The people gathered weren't satisfied with the response from Elizabeth. And they said to her, "None of your relatives is called by this name." And they made signs to his father, inquiring what he wanted him to be called (vv. 61–62).

And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, "His name is John" (v. 63). The deed was done. The discussion was over. He already had his name. His name was John, and at that point Zechariah showed he was controlled not by custom but by the word of God, and they all wondered (v. 63).

And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, blessing God (v. 64). Zechariah's tongue that had been bound, shut up tight, was loosed, and he spoke, praising God. The first words from this man's mouth after he had suffered through nine months of silence were praise and adoration for his God.

When that happened, we are told, fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea (v. 65). Every village in the hill country of Judea was abuzz with the news of these extraordinary events, and all who heard them laid them up

in their hearts, saying, "What then will this child be?" (v. 66). They couldn't wait to see what this little baby would grow up to be like.

For the hand of the Lord was with him (v. 66). The hand of the Lord was with John the day he was born. It was with him before he was born, when he leaped in his mother's womb. It was with him when he came to the Jordan River to baptize and to call Israel to repentance. It was with him when he was in prison, and it was with him when he was martyred.

THE BENEDICTUS

Luke 1:67–80

And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,

for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us

in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies

and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers

and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us

that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear,

in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;

for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people

in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God,

whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the way of peace."

And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

We've already considered two of the other songs of the infancy of Jesus,

Elizabeth's song and the Magnificat of Mary. Later on, we will look at the Gloria in Excelsis Deo of the heavenly chorus outside Bethlehem and the Nunc Dimittis, the song of Simeon. But the other great hymn in Luke's Gospel is this one sung by Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. In this song is both celebration and prophecy of what is to come. But the central theme—I think the most important theme—is expressed at the very beginning of this song, and it has to do with God's visiting His people.

The song begins, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel" (v. 68). Why is Zechariah attributing a beatific view of God at the beginning of the hymn? He answers that for us clearly. The reason he is blessing God is because "he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David" (vv. 68–69).

God Visits His People What's somewhat unusual that we don't see when we read the English translation of the text is the language that is used for such divine visitation. The Greek verb that is translated "visited" here is the verb form of an extremely important noun in biblical categories. The noun is episkopos. That word sounds at least somewhat familiar to us, because we think of the Episcopalian Church, which is called episcopalian because of its form of government. It is a church that is ruled by bishops. When we talk of that which is episcopal, we're talking about that which has to do with bishops.

Indeed, one of the ways that episkopos is translated into English is "bishop." Episkopos is made up of two parts, a prefix and a root. The root is the word skopos. That comes right over into English. It's the word that we translate into "scope." Long-range rifles have scopes mounted on them. We have microscopes. We have telescopes. The scope is something that we look through.

But the idea here is "vision," or looking, and as we look at this word, think of the relationship between the word vision and the word visit. They are closely related. When people come to your house to visit you, it's because they want to see you, and therein is the connection going back to the Latin videre. Both vision and visit come from that Latin root. The root of the word translated "bishop" is skopos with a prefix epi attached to it. That prefix epi intensifies the root. In Latin, the corresponding term is supervidere, meaning "super-looking."

In our culture, on the job we have people who do their work and while they are doing their work, somebody is watching them; that person is called the supervisor. A supervisor is not just a visor. He's not just a looker; he's a super-looker. He's watching closely. The supervisor or the bishop is not a casual observer. The supervisor is one who looks at things deeply and carefully and fully so that he sees every single detail of what is going on.

I labor this point because this title of episkopos is in the New Testament given to Jesus. Jesus, we are told in the book of Hebrews, is the "Bishop of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25, KJV). That title is given to Jesus merely as a transfer of the understanding of the nature of God to His Son. Ultimately, the supreme bishop is God, who observes everything in the world totally and comprehensively. Jesus tells us there's not a single bird that lands on the ground that our heavenly Father doesn't see. He tells us that the very hairs on our head are numbered (Matt. 10:29–30). David exclaimed: "Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your

presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!" (Ps. 139:7–8).

God Provides for His People Related to this is another word we have in our theological vocabulary that's critically important for the Christian to understand, and that's the concept of divine providence. With providence we have a root and a prefix. The root is videre, which has to do with vision. Pro-videre means to see things beforehand. But it's more than that. It's not just that the providence of God refers to His knowledge of things before they happen, but more importantly, it has to do with His sovereign plan of things that will come to pass. It is His provision for His people.

The first time we find the concept of divine providence in the Bible is in Genesis 22. There, God said to Abram, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you" (v. 2). If God came to Abraham and said, "Take your son to that mountain and sacrifice him to Me," and that was all the information God gave to Abraham, Abraham might have taken Ishmael, his son by Hagar, his wife's servant, and sacrificed him. But God was very specific. He named Isaac.

Abraham got up early in the morning. He chopped wood for the sacrifice and loaded his beast of burden and took Isaac. As they saw Mount Moriah in the distance, Isaac asked, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" (v. 7). I think this is one of the most poignant moments in the history of redemption. What was going on in Abraham's heart? Abraham said to his son, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son" (v. 8). Jehovah-Jireh—the Lord will provide. Abraham said he was going to trust in the provision—the providence of God.

When they got to the top of the mountain, Abraham took his son and bound him with the ropes and placed him on the altar and raised the knife

above his head. At the last second, as Abraham was about to plunge the knife into the heart of his son, God spoke and said: "Abraham, Abraham! . . . Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (vv. 11–12). And behind Abraham was a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. That ram was used as a substitute for the sacrifice. God had provided. Jehovah-Jireh had provided the lamb to be slain as a substitute.

Two thousand years later, near that same mountain, God took His Son, His only Son, the Son whom He loved, Jesus, and put Him on the altar of sacrifice. Only this time no one shouted "Stop!" The ultimate provision was made. All that is incorporated in this concept of divine visitation.

Divine Visitation The idea of the bishop was similar to that of Greek generals, who from time to time came to inspect the troops to see if they were battle ready or if they were negligent and had grown rusty, lazy, and incompetent during his absence. If he found the troops battle ready, he pronounced his benediction on them, but if he found them ill-prepared, the general brought judgment on the troops. The troops never knew when the general would pay them a visit.

In the Old Testament, there is the idea of the supreme, providential Lord who will visit His people. These visits could be either wonderful and redemptive or tragic as they brought His judgment. The people of God in the Old Testament looked forward to the promised day of the Lord. In the beginning, the day of the Lord was this future day when God would come and redeem His people, bringing peace and justice to them and redeeming them from their enemies and fulfilling all His covenant promises. But as the people of Israel grew cold in their hearts and stiff-necked, they were warned that the day of the Lord might not be as they had anticipated.

The prophet Amos said to them, "Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?" (Amos 5:20). There is a

two-edged sword in the Old Testament. On the one hand, they looked forward to the bright dawn of the day of God's visitation, and on the other hand, they feared that this day might be one of judgment. The ultimate visit from on high was the entrance of Christ into the world. For those who receive Him, to them He gives authority to be called the children of God (John 1:12). It is the day of the Lord's redemption. But for those who reject Him, it is the day of darkness, with no light in it.

How many times have the great saints and we, the lesser saints, felt the absence of God? We wonder where He is. We don't sense His nearness. I think of Martin Luther at Worms, the night before his trial, praying and crying out: "God, where are You? Send help. I need You. This isn't my cause; this is Your cause. The cause is Yours, and I am Yours." Luther prayed that the next day God would visit him and give him strength. In the morning the Lord God omnipotent indeed visited His servant and upheld him.

God visited Zechariah and Elizabeth, and He was about to visit the whole nation with the birth of His Son. That made Zechariah sing, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people" (v. 68).

A Horn of Salvation When Zechariah praised God, he went on to say that God "has raised up a horn of salvation for us" (v. 69). It would be almost impossible to count all the titles used to describe the Messiah in sacred Scripture. But here is one we could easily miss if we pass over the text too quickly. This visitation and redemption involves the coming of the Messiah, who is here referenced as a horn of salvation in the house of His servant David.

The image of the horn refers to those beasts of the earth that use their horns in battle. It is a symbol of great strength. In Jewish imagery, one such animal that is referenced again and again is the ox. In our own language, we have the expression "as strong as an ox."

In the early church, the four Gospel writers were associated with various symbols. One of these symbols was the ox, and it was associated with Luke, the author of the Gospel we're considering. He records the description of the Messiah as having the horn of salvation, as One who comes in His messianic office with enormous strength, a strength that cannot be overcome. And He comes "in the house of his servant David" (v. 69).

In this part of the hymn, Zechariah is not celebrating the role that God is giving to his son, who has been named John. That prophetic utterance comes at the end of the hymn. In this section of the hymn, he is extolling the greatness of God's Messiah, whom God is raising up in the house of David. His own son John would be from the house of Levi and not from the tribe of Judah, which is the tribe from which the Messiah was to come.

He mentions that the realization of the visitation of the horn of salvation is not something that has come without any word of preparation, but rather it happens "as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old" (v. 70). The prophecy of the coming Messiah begins with Adam and Eve and the curse on the serpent, whose seed would be crushed by the Seed of the woman. Throughout the pages of the Old Testament, the prophets again and again reiterate the gospel promise of the coming Messiah who would bring redemption with Him.

God Keeps His Promises "That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us" (v. 71). This reference in biblical terminology is not simply a promise that God is going to rescue the Jews from the Romans, the Philistines, the Amorites, or any of those other nations that constantly besieged Israel. Rather, the ultimate enemy that will be crushed by the horn of salvation is the devil, the prince of darkness, and all his minions who are part of the curse—death, darkness, disease, and everything else that puts a shadow over the joy of human life. All these enemies will be conquered by

the Messiah, who will rise from the house of David "to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant" (v. 72). Notice that this is the same theme that Mary focused on in the Magnificat when she said that God has remembered the promise that He has made to our father Abraham.

In the mid-1960s in Boston, when I was a college professor, one of our administrative members became sick unto death. I visited him several times a week during his dying days. He was called Deacon, because he was a deacon in his church. He was such a wonderful man and a dear friend. When I visited him, the thing Deacon loved the most was when I read the Word of God to him. The last text that I read was from Hebrews 6:13–20, where we read these words: "For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, 'Surely I will bless you and multiply you.' And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath" (vv. 13–17).

God was determined to make it absolutely clear, so that there would be no doubt about not only the promise but the immutability, the impossibility of its being changed or weakened. Because He was so determined to do this, "he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us" (vv. 17– 18). What are those two immutable things that make it impossible for God to lie? The first thing is a promise that comes from God. When God makes a promise, it is there forever and cannot be broken. And the second thing is the oath by which He confirms that promise. By these two things we see that it is impossible for God to lie.

I told Deacon, "We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (vv. 19–20).

That's what drives the Christian life, that we are children of Abraham, that he is the father of the faithful, and that to Abraham God made a promise and confirmed it by an oath, a promise that was not only to him as an individual but was to Abraham and his seed. Paul emphasizes in his letter to the Romans that as many who put their faith in Christ are indeed the children of Abraham (Rom. 4:1–12).

Let's just take a moment to rehearse that promise and that oath, going back to Genesis 12, where we read these words: "Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you'" (v. 1). Abram's land and family were given to idolatry. God said: "And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (vv. 2–3). So Abram departed as the Lord had commanded him. That's where it starts.

A few chapters later, we find the confirmation of this promise. When people ask me what my life verse is, I tell them Genesis 15:17. They often come back and ask if I said the wrong verse. I reply, "No, this is the verse that if I'm ever in prison, in solitary confinement, and I could have only one verse of the Bible, this is the one I'd want." Genesis 15:17 reads, "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces."

The story starts in the beginning of chapter 15 where we read, "The word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: 'Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.' But Abram said, 'O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is

Eliezer of Damascus?'" (vv. 1–2). Abram must have thought, What do you mean You're going to be my exceedingly great reward? I'm one of the wealthiest men in the world. What can You give me that would be a great reward that would make up for the fact that I have no son? "And Abram said, 'Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.' And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: 'This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.' And he brought him outside and said, 'Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be'" (vv. 3–5).

We read these pregnant words in verse 6: "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness." The Apostle Paul uses this verse in Romans 4:3 to illustrate the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the imputation of a righteousness from God to those who have no righteousness. "But he said, 'O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?'" (Gen. 15:8). And now Abram stumbles. He's like all of us. We believe; help our unbelief. After Abram's remarkable profession of faith, he wavers. "I believe You, but how can I know for sure that this promise that You've made will come true?"

"He said to him, 'Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.' And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half " (vv. 9–10). God has Abraham form a gauntlet of sorts by putting one half of the animal and the other half of the animal on each side of the aisle. "And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away" (v. 11).

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great

possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. (vv. 12–17)

This is a theophany. The smoking fire pot and the flaming torch are visible manifestations of the invisible God. This is God Himself going between these pieces of these carcasses that have been set there in that aisle.

What God is acting out dramatically and demonstratively to Abram is this: "I'm cutting a covenant with you, Abram, and what I'm saying is if I don't keep My word, if I fail to keep My promise, may I be torn asunder just as you've cut in half this heifer, this ram, and this goat. May the immutable God suffer a permanent mutation. May the infinite surrender to finitude, the immortal to mortality. Abram, there's nothing higher upon which I can swear an oath than on My own self-existent, infinite, eternal being." When God made this covenant with Abram and his seed, He swore an oath by Himself, by His own divine being. God put His deity on the line to confirm the promise that God made to Abraham and to his seed.

Is it any wonder that when these promises are fulfilled, the servant of God, Zechariah, sings under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? For God has kept His promise to Abraham and to his seed. That's why many in the church baptize their babies. Because in that original covenant with Abram, he was to be circumcised as a sign of that covenant, and he was commanded by God to circumcise his son, who had not yet come to faith, as a sign of the promise of God (17:1–14). That covenantal sign was not a sign of Abraham's faith, and it was not a sign of Isaac's faith; it was the sign of God's promise to all who believe. Baptism fulfills circumcision just as the Lord's Supper fulfills Passover. That principle of family solidarity is never abolished, even in the New Testament.

In the book of Acts, when people come to faith as adults and receive the covenant sign, not only do they receive it, but their household does also.

The principle that had been the view for centuries is that the children of believers are not saved automatically because their parents are saved. They don't have faith automatically because their parents have faith. But they do have the promise of God given to Abraham and renewed again and again throughout the history of the old covenant and into the new covenant.

We are the people of the covenant. The covenant that is extolled by Zechariah, that God has remembered His holy covenant, "the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days" (vv. 73–75). Martin Luther coined the Latin phrase coram Deo. Central to the Reformation, it means "in the presence of God." Every Christian is to live their life always aware that we're living before the face of God, in His presence, under His authority, to His glory, "in holiness and righteousness before him all our days" (v. 75).

A New Prophet In the final section of the Benedictus, Zechariah prophesies about his son and his son's ministry for the Son of God. We read in verse 76, "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways." We noted already that the work of prophecy had ceased after the words of Malachi, the last of the minor prophets of the Old Testament.

In Malachi 4:4–6, the last prophecy in the Old Testament, we read these words: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." The last prophecy of the Old Testament was that the day of the Lord was

coming, but before it comes, God will send His prophet Elijah. Remember that Elijah did not die but was carried up bodily into heaven in the chariots of fire (2 Kings 2). Because of this prophecy in Malachi, the ancient Jews looked forward to the return of Elijah. Every time the Jews celebrate the Passover even to this day, there is a chair at the table that sits there empty. The empty chair is for Elijah because God promised that he would come back.

As we will see later in the unfolding of the New Testament record and from the teaching of our Lord, Jesus said of John the Baptist, "He is Elijah who is to come" (Matt. 11:14). John is the one who comes in the spirit and the power of Elijah, and in this prophetic hymn, Zechariah says, "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways" (v. 76). It is also part of Isaiah's prophecy that before the Messiah comes, the forerunner, anointed by God to restore the voice of prophecy, would appear and cry to the people, "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Isa. 40:3). Be ready when He comes. Under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Zechariah now prophesies that his son will fulfill that Old Testament prophecy, that John will be the forerunner of the Messiah. And together with the Messiah, he will "give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high" (vv. 77–78).

The Gospel of Salvation We sometimes think that Jesus' purpose in coming was to do miracles, and He certainly did that. Or that His purpose in coming was to give us salvation through His atonement, and that's certainly true. But His earthly ministry, just as John's began with preaching, was proclamation—the announcement of the gospel. Early on, it wasn't called the gospel of Jesus

Christ; it was called the gospel of the kingdom of God. He called His hearers to learn, to gain knowledge. John and Jesus both taught the knowledge of salvation.

Some years ago, I spoke at the Christian bookseller's convention. There were six or seven thousand booksellers, and I had been asked to give the plenary address. I gave a message titled "Saved from What?" speaking of what salvation means, and I feared I was running the risk of insulting their intelligence, as they were all engaged in Christian publishing. If anybody should have a knowledge of salvation, it was these people.

Christians talk about being saved, but an important question to ask is, Saved from what? We might think we are saved from sin or the devil, and in some sense that is true, as in Christ we are freed from slavery to sin and bondage to the devil. But truly, what we are saved from is God Himself. This can be a shocking idea to grasp. Many Christians know they are saved, but they don't realize that it is God's wrath from which they are saved.

If God were a higher being or a cosmic force, people would have nothing to fear. A "higher being" has no authority over people and makes no demands of them. But when we talk about the personal God of the Bible who holds each of us accountable and who tells us that we will experience everlasting damnation if we don't repent, we become exposed to the reality of our fear. In our culture, we're expected to remain vague and speak about God "in general," but let a football player announce to the public that he's a disciple of Jesus Christ and watch the hostility explode. We can talk about God generally, but when we come to Jesus, we're down to the ultimate issue. If we are not in Christ, we are not reconciled; we are still at war.

The Benedictus goes on to give us more of the content of salvation, the knowledge of salvation to His people by the remission of their sins. For cancer patients, there's usually no better news than when the doctor tells them, "Your disease is in remission." That means it's gone away. It doesn't always stay away. We know the crushing disappointment some experience

when it comes back. But with the remission of sins, it never comes back. When God forgives a sinner, He forgives him forever.

I knew no theology the night I became a Christian. I listened to a friend talk about Jesus as if He were real, as if my friend had a personal relationship with Him. I'd never heard anything like that in my life, but as I listened, I knew. I got my first knowledge of salvation, and then I went to my college dormitory room, walked in, turned off the light, and got on my knees before the bed. The only thing I could say was, "God, forgive me of my sins." In that moment, I experienced the unspeakable joy of having my soul flooded with the absolute assurance that every sin I had ever committed and ever would commit was forgiven. In that moment, I experienced salvation, which was the most decisive and defining moment of my life. Nobody can have their sins remitted and remain the same.

God's Tender Mercy Zechariah's song says we have forgiveness of sins "because of the tender mercy of our God" (v. 78). The forgiveness of sins is not something we merit. It's not something we strive to achieve. It's not that we can make up for our sins by works of righteousness. That is the worst myth ever perpetrated in the church. If you want to go on a fool's errand, chase the hope of redeeming yourself by your own achievements. If any activity is doomed to failure, it would be this.

The only way a person can know salvation and have remission of his sins is through the mercy of God. It's not through the justice of God but through God's mercy. Notice here, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, how the mercy of God is described. It is "because of the tender mercy of our God."

Women want a husband who is strong but also tender—not overbearing but also not a weakling. We find that combination of strength and tenderness in the husband of the church, the strong and mighty Jesus, whose mercy is tender. When God forgives us of our sins, the mercy that He pours

out on our souls is sweet and gentle and tender. That's how the mercy of God functions.

After Zechariah's song comes what seems almost like a footnote: And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel (v. 80). The desert was the traditional meeting place between man and God. It was to the desert that Elijah fled for refuge, where he was fed by the ravens, and where he lived in a cave. John the Baptist lived in the desert, and there he ate wild locusts and honey (Matt. 3:4). John grows stronger and stronger until the summons comes, saying, "Prepare the way of the LORD" (Isa. 40:3).

THE BIRTH OF JESUS

Luke 2:1–20

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

"Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

The first thing we see about Luke's narrative of Christ's birth is found in

the opening words. He begins his account by saying, In those days (v. 1). Luke speaks of the activity of the emperor of the Roman Empire and of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (v. 2), real people in real places in real history. This story does not begin with the words "Once upon a time," because this is no fairy tale. This is sober history, announcing the entrance into this world of our Savior. Luke sets his narrative squarely in the context of real history. In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered (v. 1).

This story is about three kings. One of those kings sits on the throne as the ruler and emperor of the greatest power on the face of the earth at that time, Rome. The second King does not sit on a throne but lies in a manger wrapped in swaddling cloths. This little King is the King of kings. He rules over the king in Rome. And it's about the eternal King, the Lord God omnipotent, who reigns from the moment of His work of creation to the moment of His work of the fulfillment of His cosmos. He is the great King who reigns over all things.

The story proximately speaks of an earthly decree, issued and executed by the emperor in Rome, that all people return to their cities of birth to be registered for the census in order to be taxed by the empire. This decree is done in obedience to a decree that took place much earlier, even in eternity, when God decreed that His Son would come into this world to do His work

of redemption for His people and that He would be born at a specific time, in the fullness of time; at a specific place, in the village of Bethlehem; and for a specific mission, to save His people from their sins.

Caesar Augustus, born Gaius Octavius, was the first and probably the most celebrated of all the Roman emperors. He succeeded his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, as the leader of Rome after Julius was assassinated in 44 BC. Julius named Octavius his heir, and the senate of Rome named him emperor and gave him the title Caesar Augustus. Augustus means "the supreme, sublime, majestic one." The Jews shrank in horror from that title because they believed that only God was worthy of such a title. The true August One was in the manger because there was no room for Him in the inn. Caesar Augustus celebrated the memory of his great-uncle by building a temple in his honor, acknowledging the deity of Julius Caesar.

A Humble, Glorious Birth In obedience to the decree of Caesar Augustus, Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (v. 4). He did this because he was of the house and lineage of David (v. 4), and he brought Mary, his betrothed, with him (v. 5). Roman law did not require that a man bring his wife to register for the census, but we can speculate as to why Joseph subjected his betrothed to such an arduous journey. The proximate reason seems clear. She was with child (v. 5). He knew the time had come for her to deliver, and he did not want her to have to be without him, so he brought her with him. But the ultimate reason is that it had been decreed from all eternity that the babe would be born in Bethlehem. The prophet Micah had announced centuries before: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days" (Mic. 5:2).

And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn (vv. 6–7). The entrance of Jesus into this world is against the backdrop of humiliation. A cloak of shame and reproach is spread across the infant who is wrapped in rough, bandage-like strips of cloth and placed either in a niche of rock used as a feeding trough for animals or in a crude cradle. Humiliation began in His entrance into the world and ended in His exit from the world.

However, at the very moment the babe is wrapped in the cloth of humiliation, God is not satisfied that the circumstances of the Son's birth be only humiliation. God desired that shame be balanced with glory and exaltation. On the outskirts of the village, out in the fields, were the most lowly valued people of the land: shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night (v. 8). Shepherds watched these flocks through the night, taking turns sleeping and keeping vigil, lest the sheep be attacked by wild animals or taken by thieves. It truly was a silent night.

And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear (v. 9). Almost every time the Bible records a theophany, an outward visible manifestation of the invisible God, it is accompanied by the presence of the shekinah. The shekinah was the blazing, refulgent, blinding glory of God. We read that when that glory was visible, people hid their eyes from it; they were overwhelmed by it, driven to their knees, because there was nothing in nature that could compare to the shekinah glory of God.

Luke gives us the notation that when the shekinah glory appeared, the shepherds were filled with great fear. I like the old King James: "They were sore afraid." When you are sore afraid, you are afraid like you've never been afraid in your life. Who wouldn't be trembling in fear at the manifestation of the glory of God at that moment?

The angel speaks and gives the most frequently uttered negative prohibition in the New Testament: "Fear not" (v. 10). It seems that in the New Testament record of the life of Jesus, every time He came into the presence of His disciples, instead of saying, "Peace be with you," or "Hello," He would say, "Don't be afraid." Nothing is more common for fallen creatures than to be terrified in the presence of God.

Every time I hear the prohibition "Don't be afraid," I think of my days teaching nineteenth-century philosophy and teaching the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, the existential nihilist. Nietzsche said that there is no meaning to life, that everything is an exercise in futility. All there is at the end of the day is nothingness. At the same time, Nietzsche called for the superman, the Übermensch, to demonstrate what he called "dialectical courage." He said: "The superman is the man who builds his house on the slope of Vesuvius. He sends his ship into uncharted seas." He's afraid of nothing. He's defiant. He challenges this meaningless world in which he lives, and he lives his life with a spirit of courage.

What is dialectical courage? What Nietzsche meant is contradictory courage, irrational courage. He called on people to be courageous, even though their courage is equally meaningless. That is, he could give no sound reason for calling anyone to be courageous or to be fearless. In the New Testament, Jesus says to His followers, "Take heart," and He gives a reason for that command. "Take heart," Jesus says. "I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). Years before, the angel said, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (vv. 10–11).

The shepherds likely understood that the word Christ was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, or "anointed one," and this was an announcement that the long-awaited Savior had come into the world. "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in

swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God (vv. 12–13). No sooner had the angel announced this than suddenly he was surrounded by a multitude of the heavenly host, that army of angels that inhabits heaven and surrounds the presence of our eternal God. Now, it's not Zechariah or Mary who is singing. It's the angels who bring a chorus from heaven saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" (v. 14). This is the next song recorded in Luke's infancy narrative, Gloria in Excelsis Deo. Do you love the hymn "Angels We Have Heard on High," with its majestic refrain, "Gloria in excelsis Deo"? This is the first singing of that refrain.

The Shepherds Tell Everyone When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger (vv. 15–16). They weren't coming to see Mary or pay homage to Joseph. They were coming to see the babe who was lying in the manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child (v. 17). They told everyone they knew. They did evangelism by opening their mouths. They told everyone what they had heard and seen, and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them (v. 18).

I wonder how long they marveled and how long the excitement lasted. What was the duration of their zeal and happiness from this experience, which had to be a converting experience? Maybe every Christmas they made mention of it. Not Mary. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart (v. 19). Eight days later, when she took the child to the temple for circumcision, she pondered these things. When the boy was twelve and confounded the doctors in the temple, she pondered them. Every night as she tucked her son into bed, she pondered them, to the

day she stood at the foot of a cross and watched Him die. She pondered until that Sunday morning came and He arose, not in humility, not in shame, not in disgrace, but in glory, in triumph, in exaltation.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them (v. 20). That's the destiny of the Christian, to give glory and honor, dominion and power and praise. We join the angels, saying, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" (Rev. 5:12). That's Christmas.

THE SONG OF SIMEON

Luke 2:21–38

And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

"Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,

according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation

that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles,

and for glory to your people Israel."

And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

The Bible doesn't tell us much about Simeon, only that he was righteous

and devout (v. 25) and that God had given him a special revelation. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ (vv. 25–26). God the Holy Spirit was pleased to tell this presumably elderly man that he would not die until first he laid eyes on the promised Messiah.

If you'll give me license to use my imagination a little, I don't know how often Simeon came to the temple looking for the Messiah, but I assume that he came almost every day, looking for the consolation of Israel. Notice that this is another title that is given to Jesus in the early chapters of Luke. Jesus was called the Messiah who would bring God's consolation to a suffering people (see Isa. 40).

I don't know for sure, but I'm convinced that Simeon was an object of derision and scorn as he waited day by day in the temple. But finally, one day the Spirit of God came upon Simeon, and he arrived at the temple as Mary and Joseph brought their infant child for His presentation, at the end of the forty days of purification for Mary after childbirth.

Jesus Is Circumcised

But before we look at what happened that day, we need to know why Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple in the first place. We look here at the beginning of this section: And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (v. 21). That one sentence tells us, first of all, that eight days after the birth of Jesus, he was circumcised. People wonder why the Lord Jesus Christ would have to submit to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision, which was given to Abraham and his seed as a sign of God's covenant promise.

The Apostle Paul tells us in the fourth chapter of Romans that the sign of circumcision included, among other things, the sign of that righteousness that was by faith. It had a twofold significance. On the one hand, those who were circumcised symbolically were cut off from the rest of the world—the world of paganism, the world of idolatry—and set apart and consecrated to be a part of the covenant people of God. But also, the sign of circumcision was a sign of a person's having his sin removed from himself, just as the foreskin of his flesh had been removed ceremonially.

Why, then, should Jesus be circumcised? He wasn't born with original sin. Jesus was perfectly sinless from the moment of His conception to the moment of His death. The Scriptures tell us, however, that the Lord Jesus was born under the law, and everything that the law required of Israel was required of Israel's Redeemer and Israel's Champion. It was therefore necessary as devout parents that Joseph and Mary would see to it that their firstborn son would be circumcised.

Circumcision, in the old covenant, was, among other things, a sign of salvation that came only through faith; it did not automatically confer salvation. Paul labors that point in his letter to the Romans. Many Jews believed that because they were circumcised, they were automatically saved. The doctrine of justification by faith, Paul tells us, was not an innovation in the New Testament. It was the same way Abraham was

saved in the Old Testament. The covenant promise came to adults in the Old Testament only after they made a true profession of faith.

God mandated that the same sign be given to their children before the children were capable of professing faith, because the sign was not a sign of the children's faith. It was a sign of God's promise of salvation to all who believe. That's why for two thousand years the children of Old Testament believers were included in receiving the sign of the covenant, and that didn't change in the New Testament. God gave a new covenant and a new sign, the sign of baptism, and required that only those who made profession of faith as adults could receive that sign, but their children were to receive it, as we see in the book of Acts (see Acts 16:15, 33–34). With household baptism, the principle of family solidarity remained intact and was never abrogated or repealed. That's why we think it's important, not just optional, that the children of believers receive the sign of the new covenant, which is the sign of the promise of salvation to all who believe. Baptism does not convey salvation, just as in the Old Testament circumcision did not convey salvation. It's a sign of the promise of God, and our own Lord, as an infant, received the sign of the covenant, circumcision, in His time.

Circumcision of baby boys on the eighth day was established in Old Testament law. There was also a ritual that involved the presentation of the firstborn son in the temple, which was accompanied by the giving of sacrifices. This presentation was a sign of the redeeming of the people. Symbolically, before He redeemed His people from sins, the baby Jesus experienced the sign of that redemption Himself. The Redeemer, because He had to follow the law, had to be "redeemed" before He could ever save anyone. Those were the requirements of the law that brought Joseph and Mary with the baby Jesus to the temple. They arrived there at the same moment Simeon came.

The Nunc Dimittis

And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God (vv. 27–28). Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Simeon began to sing a new song, the Nunc Dimittis, one of the greatest of the New Testament hymns celebrating God's salvation. The name of the song is taken from the first words of the song in Latin. This old man Simeon, holding the baby, says, "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel" (vv. 29–32). Simeon is saying, in effect: "I've looked into the face of my Savior. I don't have to watch Him grow up or see Him in His public ministry or listen to His public teaching or watch the miracles He will perform. I don't need to see the transfiguration or be an eyewitness of the atoning death on the cross or of His resurrection from the dead. I see the light of salvation that God has promised His people, that consolation that we've been waiting for. I've seen the salvation that You've promised. Now let me go home."

My grandfather died in 1945, and my grandmother lived as a widow for more than twenty years after that, dying when she was eighty-nine years old. She was a devout Christian, and in the latter years of her life, she would say to me when I was a young boy: "I just don't understand why the Lord won't take me home. I want to go." Think of that motif in the Old Testament. Moses begged God: "God, if You have any love for me at all, slay me. The burden that You've put on my back of leading these people who complain and grumble all the time is too much. If you love me at all, take me away." Job cursed the day he was born.

It was a common thing for the saints of antiquity, after enduring so much suffering, to long and look for a better country. That was Simeon's hope. "Now,

Lord, let me go. Now allow Your servant to depart in peace that I can enter into the heavenly kingdom."

And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him (v. 33). Then Simeon turned his attention to them, and he uttered a blessing on the parents of Jesus. He said specifically to Mary, "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed" (v. 34). In other words, "Yes, He will raise many people up, but He will be a rock of offense, and people will stumble because of Him and they will fall into greater and greater wickedness. Every time they reject this One, the sin that they carry will be greatly magnified. There will be no neutrality toward Him."

All of this was not only foreseen but decreed from the foundation of the world in the covenant of redemption in the Godhead. Jesus' coming into the world was not an afterthought, not plan B in God's providence. But notice the words of the prophet: "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel." In essence, "He is only a baby now, but He has a destiny, a destiny that began in eternity and a destiny that will surely come to pass because that destiny has been set before Him by His heavenly Father." You may not like the doctrine of predestination, but if you're going to be biblical, you cannot avoid it, for here we see it with respect to the ministry of our Lord Himself.

Further, Simeon told Mary, a time is coming that "a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (v. 35). We saw earlier that Mary pondered these things in her heart (v. 19). I wonder how many times she remembered what Simeon had said. What did he mean? Did she think of that moment when her child grew up and before her eyes was hanging on the cross, and at His death the soldier took his spear and pierced Jesus' side? Do you think Mary felt that not just in her side but in her soul? She must have known then that that prophecy had come to pass.

Finally, there is this mention of the prophetess, Anna (v. 36), who was also there in the temple. She had been there every day for decades. Anna came each day with prayers, and she joined Simeon, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus in that very moment, giving thanks to God and speaking of Him to all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. That very day, Jerusalem's redemption was in the temple with her.

JESUS IN THE TEMPLE

Luke 2:39–52

And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress." And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.

Luke gives us more information about Jesus' birth and infancy than any

other Gospel writer. We looked at Jesus' presentation in the temple when He was about six weeks old. But then there's a gap that goes from six weeks old to twelve years old. After that, we have another gap that goes from age twelve to about age thirty, when Jesus appears to begin His public ministry. I've often wondered why it is that the Gospel writers don't fill us in with the details of Jesus' childhood. Attempts were made to do that by the fraudulent writings of the second-century Gnostics in the so-called apocryphal gospels, where fanciful stories are told of the child Jesus. They tell of His being lonely as He played in the dirt and His shaping birds from the mud, then turning these dirt birds into live birds so that He could have pets to play with. These fanciful stories really did not add truth or honor to our understanding of Jesus.

All we're told is that between the time Jesus was presented in the temple until the time He appeared again at age twelve that the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him (v. 40). At age thirteen, a Jewish young man becomes responsible for his own actions; he becomes a bar mitzvah, or son of the commandment, and he undergoes a ceremony to mark the occasion. According to the custom of the Jews at that time, when the boy was twelve, a year before bar mitzvah, the parents would take him to Jerusalem. He would be shown the temple and the different sites all around the Holy City so that he could be prepared for the following year's ceremony. In all probability, that's why, on this occasion when Jesus' parents came to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, they brought Him with them.

Luke tells us that when the time was finished for the celebration of the Passover, the people who had traveled many miles as pilgrims returned to their homes. The custom in the day was to travel by caravan. The caravan would include the family—aunts and uncles and cousins—and neighbors from the village and nearby villages. In this case, it would most likely have

included all the family and friends from Nazareth and probably also from Cana and perhaps also from Capernaum and the other cities nearby.

In these caravans, women and children walked at the front, and in the back would be the men and the older boys. Jesus was on the threshold between child and young man, so it's safe for us to assume that on this occasion, Mary, with the children at the front of the caravan, assumed that Jesus was at the back of the caravan with Joseph, because she realized He certainly wasn't with her. And in like manner, in all probability, Joseph, being at the rear of the caravan with other men and young men, noticed that Jesus wasn't with him, and so he assumed Jesus must be with His mother at the front of the caravan. Finally, they realized He wasn't with them. As they searched for Him among their family and friends, their anxiety must have grown intense. Alone, Mary and Joseph began their journey back to Jerusalem.

They got back to Jerusalem, and Jesus wasn't waiting for them at the gates of the city. They scoured the city looking for Him, looking at the bazaar, looking at all the shops that dotted the streets even in those days. They couldn't find Him.

The Two Natures of Christ After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions (v. 46). At that time, after the celebration of the Passover, the visiting rabbis, scholars, theologians of the day remained in the city to discuss matters of theology. They were all in a room talking back and forth, discussing their theological theories. To Mary and Joseph's astonishment, they find Jesus sitting in the midst of these doctors, participating in the theological dialogue. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers (v. 47). Though Mary and Joseph were astonished to find their Son involved in these discussions, the teachers were even more amazed by Jesus and His knowledge.

How did He know so much? How is it possible for this twelve-year-old boy Jesus to confound the experts in the law and the Scriptures? There is a quick and simple answer that people often give. They look at this event and say: "Well, why wouldn't He know all this? Jesus is God incarnate, and God is omniscient. He doesn't have to be taught by the scholars. He knows everything, and if Jesus is God incarnate, doesn't that mean that He knew everything?"

Well, yes and no. Now we bump right up against one of the greatest mysteries and one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, and that is the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, whom we confess to be the God-man, whom we profess to be the very incarnation of God. During the fifth century AD, the church faced one of the most critical crises it had endured up till that time. There was a rise of two distinct and separate heresies at the same time, both of which seriously threatened the well-being of the church.

The first heresy was called the Monophysite heresy, and it had been advanced by a man named Eutyches. The Monophysite heresy taught this: if Jesus was one person, clearly He must have had only one nature, like every other person we've ever met. If He only had one nature, however, was it divine or human? If you were to ask a Monophysite, "Was Jesus' single nature divine or was it human?" he would say that the one nature was a blend of deity and humanity. They called it a single theanthropic nature. Theos means God and anthrōpos means man, so they say one theanthropic nature means Jesus had one nature, a divinely human nature or a humanly divine nature.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 condemned this view. The council pointed out that in conceiving of Jesus as having one theanthropic nature, the Monophysites had said that He is neither human nor divine but something else. If His human nature has been deified, then it's no longer

human. And if His divine nature has been humanized, then it's no longer divine. So the Monophysite view was condemned.

The other heresy was Nestorianism, which is named after the theologian Nestorius. The view taught that if Christ has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, then He must also be two persons, human and divine. This view was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and again at the Council at Chalcedon. In condemning this view, Chalcedon first made a positive affirmation. It said that Jesus, in the mystery of the incarnation, is vera homo, vera Deus, "truly man and truly God." We must affirm both the true humanity of Jesus in the incarnation and affirm His true deity. Then, the council gave the famous four negatives of Chalcedon. The council wisely didn't try to totally explain the mystery of the incarnation. It didn't answer all the questions. Instead, it set the borders. It defined the incarnation in terms of what it was not with these four negatives. They said Jesus is truly human, truly divine, having two natures, perfectly united, but without mixture or confusion, separation or division.

A pox on both houses was pronounced at Chalcedon. The council said that however we understand the incarnation, we can't understand it in terms of a mixture or blend of deity and humanity, nor can we understand it in terms of a separation or division between the two natures. If we cross these boundaries, we must choose our heresy.

Then the council went on to say that each nature retains its own attributes. That simple theological affirmation has been trampled on and brutally violated throughout church history and even today. If we could remember those four negatives as well as that each nature retains its own attributes, we would spare ourselves much grief in trying to understand the God-man.

So, how did Jesus know all that He knew? Those who say He knew it because of His divine nature are saying that because the divine nature is omniscient, then the human nature must be omniscient too. But that is to

confuse the two natures and to fail to recognize that each nature retains its own attributes.

When looking at Jesus' two natures, we should see that we can't divide them, but we must distinguish them. For example, when Jesus walked down the street, He had physical legs, arms, fingers, and toes. Now we have to ask this: Were His legs and arms and fingers and toes a manifestation of His deity? Of course not. God is not physical. The divine nature doesn't have legs. It doesn't have arms, fingers, or toes. When Jesus was hungry or thirsty, did that show His deity or His humanity? It showed His humanity, of course. This is what it is to distinguish but not separate. We recognize that the one person of Christ acted according to one or the other nature at various times. When the one person of Christ was thirsty, it was according to His human nature, but that does not mean that He was thirsty according to His divine nature. God never gets thirsty, but humans get thirsty. That's easy enough to understand when we're talking about flesh and blood and getting thirsty and getting hungry.

But what about when it comes to knowledge? One of the things that drove the great theologian Thomas Aquinas to distraction was the problem in Mark's Gospel where near the end of His life, the disciples ask Jesus when He is coming back. Jesus gave them some general answers to the question and then said this: "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). Thomas said: "That can't be. Jesus had to know the day and the hour. He was God incarnate." What Thomas thought was that Jesus' divine nature knew, and if the two natures were perfectly united, then the human nature had to know too. Thomas wasn't thinking correctly here. Jesus' human knowledge was as limited as anybody else's human knowledge unless the divine nature communicated information to the human nature.

In the Old Testament, prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel had supernatural knowledge of the future. Did they gain that knowledge from their own insight? No, they gained that knowledge because God revealed it to them. Just as Jesus said, touching His humanity, "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works" (John 14:10). There surely were times when Jesus displayed supernatural knowledge, such as when He knew Nathaniel before He met him (1:43–51) and when He knew about the woman at the well (ch. 4). But that didn't rise up out of Jesus' reservoir of human knowledge; rather, the Father or the divine nature revealed it to Him on that occasion.

It's possible that in the temple, on the occasion of Jesus' discussion with the teachers, that the divine nature somehow transferred knowledge to His human nature and gave Him answers for all the questions by the rabbis. But I don't think so. I don't think it's necessary for us to speculate that the way Jesus showed such prodigious knowledge at age twelve was because the divine nature was giving Him this insight.

The Communication of Attributes There's another concept in the doctrine of Christ called the communicatio idiomatum, or communication of attributes, which is understood in different ways by different traditions. Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe that one nature of Christ can share attributes with the other. This is how, for instance, Christ can be physically present in the Lord's Supper in these traditions' conception: the divine nature communicates or shares the attribute of omnipresence with the human nature.

The Reformed tradition rejects this view, pointing out that it violates the Chalcedonian formula; it takes us right back to the Monophysites, who tried to blend and mix together the divine and human natures. We must say no to that. The Reformed tradition states that the communicatio idiomatum means that the two natures of Christ each communicate their attributes to the one

person; so, the person of Christ is omnipresent according to His divine nature, not according to His human nature.

It is not that the divine nature shared knowledge with the human nature. So, how was Jesus able to amaze the Ph.D.s in the temple with His knowledge? I've studied theology seriously for more than fifty years, but I would have been confounded by the twelve-year-old Jesus had I been there. In His human nature, by the time He was twelve, He knew more about theology than I know today. How?

The Great Commandment is that we're to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds. I have to confess I haven't loved God with all my mind for one minute in my life. The ravages of sin that fall on humanity from the fall affect not just the body and the will but also the mind. When we reject God, our foolish minds are darkened. We're still able to add two and two and come up with four. We're able to follow a logical argument sometimes, but we make errors in math and in logic even after much education, because our minds have been weakened, just as our bodies have been weakened by the influence of sin.

I will be embarrassed to stand before my Lord at the end of my days and have it revealed how much I don't know about the Bible and the things of God that I would have known if I had applied myself more seriously and ardently throughout my lifetime. Jesus didn't have the slightest influence of original sin in His life; His thinking was not for one second clouded by darkness, because for all of His twelve years Jesus had loved the Lord His God with His entire mind.

Jesus didn't need to rely on His divine nature to astound anyone. He was perfect in His humanity. Jesus knew His Father better than anyone ever has, even as a twelve-year-old. And He kept growing in wisdom, so that by the time He was thirty, the people "were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1:22).

Mary asked: "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress" (v. 48). Jesus answered her question with a question. He said to them: "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (v. 49).

Then Luke tells us: And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man (vv. 50–53). The next time we see Him is when He comes to be baptized by John.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

Luke 3:1–6

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord,

make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled,

and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight,

and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' "

Previously we looked at the experience of Jesus at age twelve when His

parents brought Him to the temple and He astounded the doctors of the law

with His knowledge. Then the Bible is silent for the next approximately eighteen years of Jesus' life. Luke now moves to the appearance of John the Baptist, and he is careful, indeed meticulous, in giving us the historical framework in which John the Baptist appeared. Notice what he says: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (v. 1). Augustus Caesar was no longer emperor of Rome as he was at the time of the birth of Jesus. Now the emperor is Tiberius.

Luke goes on to say that at that time, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. Pilate was the fifth governor named by the Roman emperors to rule over conquered Palestine. We are then told that Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee. This is not Herod the Great. When Herod the Great was in his later years, he put together a will and testament that divided his kingdom among his sons. The Herod mentioned here is Herod Antipas, who replaced his brother Archelaus. Archelaus was first appointed tetrarch over Judea and Samaria, but he was deposed by the Roman emperor for cruelty. The Roman Empire was known for governmental cruelty, so the brutality of Archelaus must have been cruel indeed for him to have been thrown out of office by the Romans at that time.

Luke goes on to mention others: Herod's brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene. Philip, who restored an ancient city and named it in honor of the Caesar and of himself, Caesarea Philippi, was one of the most noble of the rulers of the Jews at this time. Luke also mentions that it was during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (v. 2). Israel only had one high priest at any given time, and Annas had been the high priest, but he was removed from office by the Romans. The Jews, who had Caiaphas replace Annas, still gave tribute and honor to Annas and counted him as at the level of high priest. So, at this time there were effectively two high priests, Annas and Caiaphas. All this information is given by Luke to provide the time frame in which the ministry of John the Baptist began.

The Dangers of Syncretism What is significant about this is the text shows that the ministry of John and the ministry of Jesus were both solidly rooted and grounded in real history. From antiquity, the people of God have always had to battle the threat of syncretism, where pagan elements are blended into pure worship. Syncretism borrows a little bit from the temple of Baal and a little bit from the Ashtaroth, and then mixes them together with the Jewish religion. Anytime syncretism takes place, something corrupt is added to the religion of God, and at the same time, something vitally important is removed from the truth of God.

The church has had to deal with that from the first century until today. It seems every time a popular philosophical movement arises, some theologian tries to create a synthesis between that movement and historical Christianity. The twentieth century, for example, saw two important syntheses come into being, and both did immeasurable damage to Christianity and to the church.

One was liberation theology, which was a conscious attempt to blend or synthesize biblical Christianity with the philosophy of Karl Marx. Christianity was then seen as having its purpose as not the personal salvation of the soul for eternal life but the establishment of what is called social justice. Liberation theology sought to translate the meaning of the gospel to the here and now, to social and political issues. In this view, the whole meaning of the gospel is about political revolution and freedom. One New Testament scholar wrote a book in which he claimed that whether Jesus lived is unimportant, because the meaning of Jesus is freedom. Wherever there is a struggle for freedom, that's where God is, and that's what Jesus means.

Even more widespread than liberation theology was the theology of Rudolf Bultmann, who became one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the twentieth century. What Bultmann tried to do, as others had

attempted before him, was create a synthesis between New Testament Christianity and existential philosophy.

Bultmann said that a person can't live in this post-scientific era, in this time of enlightenment, using electricity, television, computers, and modern medicine, and still believe in a world inhabited by demons, a world where people die and are raised again from the dead. The New Testament content, in that regard, is to be understood as mythological. There is what Bultmann called "a kernel of truth" in the pages of the New Testament, buried underneath this mythology, and it's the task of the theologian to tear off the husk of all this mythology so that we can get to the kernel of truth that really matters. And that kernel of truth is this: that redemption is something that takes place vertically rather than horizontally.

For Bultmann, salvation takes place "immediately and directly from above," in an existential instant, in the here and now, with an existential experience of the sense of God. That's what Christianity is all about. Bultmann's theology rudely ripped Christianity out of any foundation in real history.

When I was in graduate school in the Netherlands, my professor, G.C. Berkouwer, observed about Bultmann that "theology can sink no lower." My professor was incorrect, however, because that was before the "death of God" theology that followed and radical feminist theology that started hosting conferences celebrating the goddess Sophia in reimagining God. That's lower than Bultmann's theology ever descended.

The Bible and History There is an issue in theology with the relationship of Christianity to history. Heilsgeschichte is a word used to refer to salvation history. The claim is that the Bible is not real history; it's "redemptive" history or it's "salvation" history. Whether the Bible is accurate in the things that it reports is irrelevant; it's the message of how to have authentic human existence that matters.

Critics of this thinking came to the defense of orthodoxy, saying that it's true that the Bible is not an ordinary history book. It is redemptive history, but while it's redemptive history, it's also redemptive history. It's real history. The Apostle Paul understood these tendencies even when he wrote to the Corinthians, to those who were denying the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus. He wrote, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor. 15:19).

Since the Christian faith is tied to history, shouldn't we want to know if it's true? When we ask whether the truth claims of Christianity are trustworthy, we are asking, Did Jesus really die on the cross as an atoning death? Did Jesus actually rise from the dead? Did He truly ascend into heaven? If you remove those elements from Christianity, Christianity has been taken away and replaced with something else.

Why don't people have the honesty to say, "We've turned our churches into monuments of unbelief and we don't believe the Bible anymore," rather than try to reconstruct it or recast it in a way that will appeal to people? This happens with attempts to synthesize biblical Christianity with the prevailing notions of relativism and pluralism. You'll hear selfproclaimed evangelical preachers say: "Jesus isn't the only way. He's one way among many." That is bowing before the idol of secular pluralism, and it's a complete betrayal of the teaching of Jesus.

The Word Comes to John Luke has been heralded as the greatest historian of antiquity, and he tells us things that happened, where they happened, when they happened, and why they happened as he now gives us the setting for the appearance of John the Baptist. The word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness (v. 2). This happened in that desolate wilderness between the hill country of Judea and the Dead Sea, that piece of real estate where nothing grows except a few scrub bushes here and there, where the land is

covered not with sand—not that kind of desert—but by pebbles and stones and rocks under which live scorpions and snakes.

John the Baptist lived in that austere environment, eating locusts and wild honey, because he was committed to the service of God. In the midst of that desolation, the word of the Lord came to John, telling him the time had come to leave the wilderness. John was to go to the River Jordan on a mission that had been prophesied of in the Old Testament. He was to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.

And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (v. 3). A new rite was required of the Jews—they were to be baptized for the remission of their sins. The rite of baptism was a radical concept to the Jews, because before this time the only baptism that was of significance among them was proselyte baptism, a cleansing ritual that the Jews imposed on Gentiles who wanted to convert to Judaism. The reason proselyte baptism was inaugurated was because, from the Jewish perspective, Gentiles were unclean, too dirty to be involved in the sacred rites of Judaism. If they wanted to convert to Judaism, they had to profess faith in the content of Judaism, they had to be circumcised, and they had to take a bath (baptism) as a symbol of their cleansing. But that requirement was only for Gentiles.

After four hundred years of silence of the voice of prophecy, out of the wilderness comes John, who acts like the prophet Elijah in the Old Testament. He tells the Jewish people to come to the river and be baptized for the remission of sins. This is not New Testament baptism. This is not the baptism that is the covenant sign that Jesus instituted. This is a preparatory baptism. We find many points of similarity between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus, but they're not identical. This baptism is given to the Jews because God is telling them through John that everything has changed. The kingdom of God is at hand. The Messiah is about to

appear. Salvation has come close, and the Jews are not ready. The Jews need to repent and be baptized, indicating the remission of their sins.

John Prepares the Way In explaining this, Luke writes, As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight' " (v. 4; see Isa. 40:3). This is the voice of John the Baptist. Initially, however, the reference was to the return of the Jews from captivity under Cyrus. In the ancient world, when a visiting king, monarch, or dignitary came to a country, it was the custom to "prepare the way," to adorn the streets, to roll out the red carpet, and to announce the imminent arrival of the distinguished monarch with the blowing of the trumpet. That was the primary fulfillment of the prophecy that took place at the return from exile, but the ultimate fulfillment takes place here, as John the Baptist is that voice in the wilderness saying, "Prepare the way of the Lord. It's interesting that in the New Testament, before followers of Christ were called Christians, which was kind of an insulting term, they were first called "the people of the Way" (see Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), the narrow way, Christ's way, the One who is the way and the truth and the life. John calls the Jews to prepare the way.

Make his paths straight does not describe actual topographical changes that were to take place on the roads of Palestine. This is the prophetic word delivered in poetic imagery speaking about what has to happen to people as God comes to them. The proud—the arrogant who have exalted themselves and appear as high mountains—have to be brought low. Those who have been abased, those who have been oppressed, have to be lifted up. And all the thorns and rocks and stones and obstacles that fill our sinful hearts—our hearts of stone—have to be changed. The crooked places must be made straight, the rough places made smooth, because He is here

and people are not ready. All flesh will see the manifestation of the salvation of God. This is the message: Prepare for the presence of Jesus.

JOHN PREACHES

Luke 3:7–20

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" And he answered them, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise." Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Collect no more than you are authorized to do." Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother's wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.

Try to imagine thousands of people gathered at the Jordan River seeking

to undergo baptism at the hands of this new prophet who has come to them out of the desert. Multitudes flocked to the Jordan, from every walk of life, the common people and tax collectors. Even Roman soldiers gathered.

In this milling throng, pushing up against John the Baptist, he doesn't choose friendly or encouraging words to begin his address. Instead, he says: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (v. 7). Vipers in Israel usually didn't grow to be more than two feet long, but they were deadly with their venom. They would often stretch themselves straight out on the ground and be mistaken for sticks, which people would pick up, as the book of Acts tells us (Acts 28:1–6).

John the Baptist violated every principle of political correctness and Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. He said, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" "Is that why you're here? Are you coming to be cleansed because you know that wrath is coming, and someone warned you and suggested that you flee from this wrath?" John, of course, was not denying that wrath was at the gates and that it would be a good thing to flee from it.

It's amazing to me that so many people at this time considered it a matter of urgency to flee from the wrath of God. We live in a time when it seems that no one has great fear of the wrath of God. Even in the church, there is a calloused sense that God gives love unconditionally and we have nothing to fear from His wrath.

The Fruit of Repentance How do you know if you're a candidate for that wrath? How do you know if you're converted and safe from that wrath? We can learn something from John the Baptist here: "Bear fruits in keeping with repentance" (v. 8). There were people who came to be baptized by John who understood what he was saying to them: "Repent and be baptized. You're not clean." The

symbolic significance of John's baptism was to point to a cleansing from sin and forgiveness to those who would repent.

It is appropriate to distinguish between different kinds of repentance. There is a repentance of contrition, which was manifested by David in his prayer of contrition in Psalm 51. There he poured out his heart before God, and his sorrow for his sin was genuine and deep. But there's also attrition, the kind of repentance that children show when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and say: "Please don't spank me. I'm sorry." They are repenting to get out of punishment. Their repentance is not genuine; it doesn't come from the heart.

Many of the people who came to the Jordan came to get the latest theological and ecclesiastical provision to cover their sins, but they went into the water with no real sense of repentance, and they came out unconverted. So, John said: "If you're converted, show me. Bring forth the fruit worthy of repentance." He wasn't saying the fruit will convert you or the fruit will save you or the works will justify you; he's saying if your faith is real, if your conversion is genuine, then you can't help but have fruit.

Do you have the fruit of repentance in your life? Do you have evidence in your life of your conversion? That's a question that each one of us has to ask ourselves pointedly and honestly, because true conversion always, inevitably, necessarily brings forth the fruit of repentance.

John warns the crowd, "And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'" (v. 8), as if that would save them from the wrath to come. That's like our saying: "I'm a church member. My parents were Christians. I was raised Christian. I don't have to bring forth fruits of repentance." John warns them, "For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (v. 8). If God made Adam out of the dirt, He can make children of Abraham out of the stones.

John goes on to say: "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and

thrown into the fire" (v. 9). Again, it's not that the woodsman has gone to the barn and picked up his ax and started honing it to a sharp edge, or that he is chipping away at the outer bark of the tree. He's already penetrated to the very pith, to the very core of that tree. One more swing of the ax and the tree will come crashing down. "That's how near and urgent the crisis is," John is saying. "The ax is at the root of the tree. The crisis is right now. Don't wait till tomorrow. You may not have a tomorrow. The ax is at the root of the tree, and every tree that doesn't bring forth fruit is worthy only to be cut down and thrown in the fire."

What do you do with a dead fruit tree in your yard? Do you just let it stand there for decoration for twenty years? Of course not. If it's not bearing fruit, you cut it down. Break up the branches and throw it in the fire or let the garbage collector take it away. You need to get rid of it because it's worthless. So is everyone who brings forth no fruit from their conversion.

Practical Changes In response, the people ask him, "What then shall we do?" (v. 10). He answers, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise" (v. 11). John the Baptist did not ask Herod to institute a redistribution program or a welfare state, whereby the granting of relief from poverty would be forced on the people. The message of the gospel is voluntary compassion, voluntary giving to those in need, and if the church would do what the church is called to do, we wouldn't have the government's involvement in this matter as we have now. John says one of the fruits of conversion is compassion. If you're a converted person, you can't see somebody naked and not give them something to clothe them. If you see somebody hungry, you give them food.

The fruit of conversion is a heart that loves people—our neighbors— whether they're believers or unbelievers. If someone has AIDS, we don't ask him how he got it. If he's in the gutter, we don't ask how he got there.

We get him out of there. That's what converted people do. They show compassion.

Then the tax collectors ask their question: "Teacher, what shall we do?" And John says to them, "Collect no more than you are authorized to do" (vv. 12–13). The tax collectors were not popular. A tax collector could collect oppressive taxes and then add to the oppression by taking extra for himself and lining his own pockets. John tells them to stop stealing. Paul tells us in his epistles, "Let the thief no longer steal" (Eph. 4:28). So one of the fruits of conversion is you don't steal. When I was in ninth grade and played basketball at our junior high school, we had practice every afternoon. We had combination locks on our lockers, or at least most of the guys did. One poor soul didn't, and one day after practice, he discovered that his watch and wallet had been stolen. I remember thinking, not as a Christian but as a pagan, How can anybody be that selfish, that self-centered? How can they look in the mirror and know that they've actually reached into somebody else's locker and taken for themselves that which belongs to somebody else? How immoral that is.

Then the soldiers ask their question: "And we, what shall we do?" John said, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages" (v. 14). Another fruit of conversion is to be content with your wages. People aren't always content with their wages, and when we're not content, we have a tendency to shake our fists at God, saying: "God, You in Your providence have not been kind enough to us. If You were really a good God, You would make us more prosperous than we are."

Church and State As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ (v. 15). The people wonder whether John is the Messiah, but we're told almost as a footnote that Herod locked up John in prison (v. 20). Why? Why did

Herod shut him in prison and subsequently cut off his head (see Matt. 14:1– 12)? Because John, following a long line of prophets of God, was engaged with what we call in theology "prophetic criticism." He publicly criticized the tetrarch, the ruler of that territory, Herod, for his illicit marriage to his sister-in-law. John the Baptist called him out publicly (Luke 3:19–20).

A man once asked me, "R.C., are you going to tell the folks at St. Andrew's Chapel who to vote for in the next presidential election?" I said, "No, I don't do that." He said: "Why not? You're their shepherd. Don't you care about how your parishioners express their Christian faith in government elections?" Of course I do. And I try to teach principles that can help them in their decisions. But I know the government tells us that we're not supposed to endorse candidates, that there is to be this wall of separation between church and state. That wall, however, seems to have only one side. The government doesn't like it if we criticize it openly, but it doesn't hesitate to tell the church what it's not allowed to preach about. The state doesn't hesitate to enforce its views regarding abortion on Christian institutions.

Suppose one of the people running for the presidency in the next election adopted a platform to reinstitute slavery. Would you vote for him? I hope not. Do you realize that when unethical and immoral laws and customs become entrenched in a culture, it's almost impossible to excise them? William Wilberforce's efforts to abolish slavery in England were defeated time after time in Parliament until finally enough consciences were aroused that England did what was right and abolished slavery. Think what it cost the United States to get rid of slavery: eight hundred thousand American lives. Abortion on demand is far more wicked than slavery, and many in Washington, D.C., are totally committed to continuing the process of abortion on demand and even partial-birth abortion.

The government of the United States may claim a legal right to tell the church that it cannot discuss political issues from the pulpit, but it doesn't

have the moral right. The office of the preacher and the office of prophetic criticism go through the whole of sacred Scripture, beginning with Moses, who told Pharaoh, "God told me to tell you to let His people go, because He has seen the oppression of His people and it is wrong." Moses was God's prophetic voice to Pharaoh, and Elijah was to Ahab and Jezebel, who tried to impose paganism on Israel. Isaiah went before kings and called them to repentance. Nathan confronted David in his sin, which was a sin not just against Uriah but against the nation he ruled. Ezekiel challenged the kings of Babylon for their evil.

Throughout the history of the church, it has been the function of the church not to be the state but to be the conscience of the state. God establishes government for the purpose of sustaining, protecting, and maintaining the sanctity of human life. When a government fails to do that, it has been demonized, and it is the responsibility of the church to stand up to that government and say: "Stop. God won't tolerate you people who have no regard for human life or ethics."

It is not the duty of the church to be the state, but it is the duty of the state to be the state. When we speak to the state about abortion, we're not asking the state to be the church; we're asking the state to be the state, to do what it is tasked by God to do: protect human life. This isn't China or Russia. This isn't the Third Reich. This is the United States of America that kills and sanctions the killing of more than half a million babies every year. Where is the church? Intimidated, terrified, cringing.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Luke 3:21–22

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

In 1929, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, known

as the Northern Presbyterian church, reached a critical stage. Theological liberalism, which is foundationally a theology of unbelief, had spread through Europe in the nineteenth century, had infected the mainline denominations in our country, and sadly had even reached the seminary in Princeton, N.J., which historically had been the greatest seminary in America. Several of the faculty members of that school left to start a new seminary in Philadelphia that would be committed to orthodox Christianity. The brain trust that came to establish Westminster Theological Seminary included such stalwart theologians as Oswald T. Allis, Robert Dick Wilson,

Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Paul Woolley, and a host of others. They were led by J. Gresham Machen.

In December 1936, Machen fell ill while in North Dakota to give a series of lectures. He was hospitalized after Christmas with pleurisy, and as he lay dying, he sent a telegram to his friend and colleague John Murray. It was a brief telegram but pregnant in its meaning. He said: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it."

Many Christians have never heard of the active obedience of Christ, and yet it's an extremely important doctrine in Christian theology. The distinction is between the active obedience of Jesus and His passive obedience. Christ's passive obedience refers to His willingly coming to earth and paying the penalty for sin, both throughout His earthly life and especially in His sacrificial death. Jesus willingly endured the miseries of this life. He did not resist His executioners. He was passive in His reception of the penalty for sin as our sin bearer.

In contrast to Christ's passive obedience, we have His active obedience, which refers to His whole life of living under the law in total subjection to the Father, actively and willingly obeying everything that the Lord God commanded Him to do. It was said of Him that His meat and His drink was to do the will of the Father, and zeal for His Father's house consumed Him.

The Meaning of Jesus' Baptism This is directly related to the text we are considering about the baptism of Jesus. Many people are perplexed and question, Why was Jesus baptized at all? Wasn't the baptism of John the Baptist a baptism for repentance of sin? Wasn't the ritual a cleansing rite, in which John the Baptist commanded people to be cleansed and to repent of their sins? Jesus had no sins to repent of. He was the Lamb without blemish. He lived a life of perfect active obedience without sin. Though we're perplexed by why Jesus submitted to baptism, no one was more perplexed about it than John the Baptist. The people asked about John: "Is he the Christ? Is he the Messiah that is to

come?" John put those rumors to rest. He said: "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). John pointed people toward Jesus. We are told in the Gospel of Matthew that when Jesus went to John to be baptized, John tried to prevent it, but Jesus said, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15).

Let me speculate as to what Jesus could have said to John at that moment: "John, this is a covenant ritual that we're doing here. Baptize Me, and I'll explain it later." Or He could have said, "John, you need to do this because this is a matter of life and death."

We have no record that Jesus said either of these things to John. But the concept that I've given in my speculation is completely sound, because Jesus' baptism was a matter of life and death. Why? To understand that, we have to understand something about Jesus' role in His earthly ministry as the new Adam or, as Paul sometimes calls Him, the second Adam, the One who comes after the father of the human race. Adam, we are told, was a type of the One who was to come, the greater Adam who would come to bring salvation to the human race. Paul writes to the Romans:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners,

so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom. 5:12–21)

It was a matter of life and death. Through Adam's original transgression, the whole world was plunged into ruin, and death came upon the entire human race. In contrast, by one man's obedience comes life. Without the obedience of Jesus, without His perfect active obedience, He would not have done for us what Adam failed so miserably to accomplish.

The Covenant of Works To understand this, we have to go back to the Old Testament and look at it in the context of covenant. There are covenants all through the Bible. We have God's covenant with Noah, His covenant with Abraham, His covenant with Moses, and the new covenant in the New Testament. But the first covenant made with human beings was made with Adam in the garden of Eden, and we call it the covenant of works (see Gen. 2:15–17). The name Adam means "man." He represented the entire human race, so when God entered into a covenant with Adam, He was entering into a covenant with every human being who would ever live. He promised the benefit and the blessing of this covenant of creation, of eternal life, if Adam obeyed the provisions and the stipulations of that covenant. However, the negative sanction was this: "If you disobey the terms of this covenant, you will die. And not only will you die sometime in the future, but the day in which you disobey, you will surely die."

The serpent came to Eve with a subtle and crafty question: "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" (Gen. 3:1). Of course God didn't say that, and Satan knew that God didn't say that. Satan was implying, "He might as well have said that, because if He put any restriction on you, you aren't really free." Initially, Eve says, "We may eat

of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die'" (vv. 2–3). Now the direct assault comes from the serpent, who says: "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (vv. 4–5). And seeing that the fruit appeared beautiful, Eve ate the fruit from the tree and then encouraged her husband to join her in this rebellion (v. 6).

We would expect that at the moment they put that fruit in their mouth and tasted it, they would have died instantly. They did die spiritually, but not physically. Their physical death was postponed in an act of mercy as God tempered His judgment with grace. The first experience that Adam and Eve had when they ate of the forbidden fruit was that they suddenly became aware of their nakedness. They were ashamed and hid themselves from God (v. 7). When the Lord God came in the cool of the evening, He asked, "Adam, where are you? Why are you hiding?" "We're naked and ashamed," they responded. God said: "I made you naked; you weren't ashamed. You didn't have any guilt. Why, all of a sudden, do you feel exposed? Why do you want to hide from Me?" (see vv. 8–11).

In His first act of redemption, God condescended to fashion clothes for Adam and Eve, to cover their nakedness and their shame (v. 21). He made a promise to them, that the Seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent (v. 15). In that promise, God said there will come another Adam, a second Adam who will do what the first Adam failed to do, who will bring life rather than death.

In recent years, there's been a movement among professing evangelical Christians to reject the doctrine of the perfect, active obedience of Jesus. They want to do that because they reject the idea of this first covenant, the covenant of works. We distinguish between the covenant that God made with Adam (the covenant of works) and every covenant after that, which are sub-covenants of the one covenant of grace. Some object to the term

covenant of works because they believe that any covenant that God gives to human beings is an act of grace because mankind doesn't deserve to be in a covenant relationship with God. Nobody argues that point. When we distinguish between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, we know that God was not required to make a covenant with us at all. We won't argue that point, but those covenants that He did make differ as to how the benefits are received.

In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were on trial. They were in a period of probation. If they obeyed, they would get life. If they disobeyed, they would get death. In other words, if their works were righteous, they would live. If their works were evil, they would perish. I have long labored in behalf of the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. However, as much as I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I encourage people to remember that there's only one way to be justified in the sight of God, and that's by works.

You may ask, How can you say that justification is by faith alone and then say justification is by works? Because the covenant of works that God gave to Adam and Eve is still in effect. The only way to satisfy the demands of God is through good works. Nothing less will do. The reason the covenant of grace is called the covenant of grace is because now God is saying, "It's not by your good works that you'll be saved but by somebody else's good works." We perish because of the first Adam's bad works. We will be saved by the perfect righteousness of the new Adam, whose works are without blemish, and whose works are

given to us, if we put our trust in Him. There are people even in the church who believe their good deeds and their trying to live a good life will get them into heaven. But they have no chance. Only one person has ever satisfied the law of God, and that's Jesus. That's why His submission to the baptism of John the Baptist was a matter of life and death. God required it of everyone, and as the new Adam

entering into corporate solidarity with His people, Jesus submitted to that requirement of the law so that His acts of righteousness would be perfect. We are justified by works—not our own works, but the works of Jesus. He is our righteousness.

The Spirit Empowers Jesus Jesus went into the water and was baptized by John, and this marked the beginning of His earthly public ministry. At that time, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" (vv. 21–22). The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus to empower Him for His redemptive mission. And this One, who had known and would know only a perfect active obedience, heard the voice from heaven, saying, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." It is because of the Father's pleasure that we escape from the consequences of the sin of Adam, who plunged us into ruin. The new Adam, the second Adam, is the only One who can help us. There's no other name under heaven through which men may be saved but the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12).

Now I hope we understand what J. Gresham Machen was saying to his colleagues with his telegram: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ." Without it, we perish.

THE GENEALOGY

OF JESUS

Luke 3:23–38

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

What do you do with a genealogy? How do you preach from a geneal-

ogy, particularly this genealogy in Luke's Gospel, which presents some problems for us? When we compare Luke's genealogy with Matthew's genealogy (Matt. 1), we see that there are clear and glaring differences in their accounts. First, Luke begins with Jesus and works backward to Adam, while Matthew begins with Abraham and works forward to Jesus. While that's not too much of a difficulty to deal with, we see also that the total number of names differs. For example, between Abraham and Jesus, Luke provides fiftyseven names, while Matthew gives us only forty-one. Obviously, at least one of these genealogies is not comprehensive. In all probability, in keeping with the ancient custom of the Jewish genealogies, neither one was comprehensive, in that they would skip over individuals from time to time.

Some of the names that occur in Matthew's genealogy also occur in Luke's. But then, when you least expect it, the names differ. In Matthew's genealogy, Jesus is traced through Solomon, the son of David. In Luke's genealogy, Jesus is traced through Nathan, the son of David. Now, which was it, Nathan or Solomon? Those who are critical of the trustworthiness of sacred Scripture jump on these variations in the genealogies and argue that here is proof that the Bible is not inspired; it's not the Word of God because there are these discrepancies and disagreements between the two Gospel writers.

Others in the field of New Testament studies have labored to find a way to harmonize these two accounts. One of the most popular ways is to argue that Matthew gives us the legal genealogy of Jesus, one that follows the lineage of Joseph even though Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus because of the virgin birth. In Jewish legal terms, in the Jewish court system, Joseph would be considered the father; the lineage of Joseph would be of particular importance to the Jewish community. Some argue that

Matthew's genealogy follows the history of the family of Joseph and that, therefore, Luke's follows the family of Mary.

I wish I could say that the problem could be resolved that easily. However, the debate has been fierce between those who argue that both genealogies trace the lineage of Joseph and those who say that one is for Joseph and the other is for Mary. I don't know how to resolve the question, and I leave it in the hands of the experts who deal with such questions as they uncover the patterns and processes that were used by the priests in the ancient world in keeping track of genealogical tables.

What I am concerned about most significantly is where these genealogies go. I said from Matthew, we see that the genealogy of Jesus is traced to Abraham. It's clear that Matthew is trying to communicate to those who read his Gospel that Jesus is the Son of Abraham, which would be of extreme importance for any Jewish audience. Luke is not satisfied to trace the genealogy of Jesus simply to Abraham, but he goes before Abraham, back to Adam and beyond. Luke shows that Jesus is a descendent of Adam and that Adam was the son of God, having been created by God. Luke traces Jesus' lineage to Adam and to God. At this point, we have to ask, Why?

Understanding the Text Let me suggest that there are some important considerations in these genealogies. First, anytime we are trying to interpret a book of the Bible, we have to be careful of what we infer from the pages of Scripture. In the difficult task of getting an accurate understanding of Scripture, certain things help us. Obviously, the words that are written are important. If we're going to interpret the Bible accurately, we want to know what the words that were used in the original text actually meant. If you're a New Testament student and you're interested in the meaning of the Greek words of the text, you look at a simple Greek-English dictionary and you look up

the Greek word, and it might give you two or three English words by which that Greek word is properly rendered.

In the twentieth century, New Testament scholarship received one of the greatest tools that we've ever known. It's called Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, known simply as Kittel. It is amazing. Kittel might take a word, for example pisteuō, for which a normal Greek-English dictionary might give two or three definitions, such as "to believe," "to trust," or "to have faith." Kittel might instead give thirty-five pages defining the meaning of the Greek word pisteuō. How does it do that? The editors examine every time that a certain word occurs in the Gospels, every time it occurs in the Epistles, every time it occurs in the early church or in the church fathers, and every time it occurs in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Beyond that, they search for every time the word occurs in classical Greek literature such as in Greek poetry of Euripides. At the end of all that, there are thirty-five pages of explanation of the meaning of that Greek word, and there is a solid understanding of what it means.

One of the important things we study to get a more accurate understanding of the Bible is the original setting of the book in question. That includes questions like this: Who wrote it? To whom was it written? What prompted its writing? Those factors will go a long way in helping us glean the exact meaning of the text.

The Writing of the Gospels What does that have to do with the genealogy? One of the things New Testament scholars seek to do is reconstruct as reasonably as possible the order and the manner in which the Gospels were written. When we look into this question, we see that there is an easily drawn distinction between the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—and the Gospel of John. The Synoptic Gospels contain more accounts about the life and ministry of Jesus, often offering different perspectives on the same events, whereas

John's Gospel contains fewer accounts of events and more extended stretches of teaching. The focus of John's Gospel is more theological than it is biographical.

Trying to reconstruct the way in which the Gospels were written is an important matter, and there's debate as to which one was first. The vast majority say that Mark was written first and John's Gospel was written last. Almost everything that is found in Mark is also found in Matthew and Luke. Scholars say that in all probability, when Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, they used Mark's Gospel as a source in composing their own Gospels. We can also see that there is material common to Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. The speculation is that Matthew and Luke probably had another resource that Mark didn't use, maybe another set of sayings or a document or an oral tradition. This hypothetical source is called Q, from the German Quelle, which means "source" or "fountain."

If we set aside all the material in Matthew and Luke that is also in Mark and that may come from Q, what's left is the material in Matthew that's only in Matthew and the material in Luke that's only in Luke. When we look at those portions of Luke's Gospel and Matthew's Gospel, something jumps out. Almost all the material that is unique to Matthew deals with the application of Old Testament prophecy to Jesus' claims of being the Messiah. It becomes clear that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience. When you pick up his book, you have to realize that it was written for Jews.

Luke, on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles and for Gentiles, because his great stress here is on the universality of the lordship of Jesus Christ. He wanted his audience to know that Jesus is not simply the Savior of the Jews but that he is the Savior of the Gentiles and that the kingdom of God is not limited to the geographical borders of the Holy Land but is for every tongue and tribe and nation.

Christ the Second Adam

Why does Luke not stop his genealogy with Abraham? Why does he go to Adam, who is the representative of the whole human race? Luke, before he begins the account of Jesus' public ministry, introduces Jesus as Savior of the world and as Savior of Jew and Gentile alike.

Why does Luke take his genealogy back to Adam? In part, it is again to show that the message of salvation through Christ is not just for the Jews but is for Gentiles as well. But I suggest there is another reason, one that would get me in a lot of debate in the theological world, because nowhere in his Gospel does Luke ever mention the role of Jesus as the new Adam or second Adam, which is so important to the teaching of the Apostle Paul. But here, Luke mentions Jesus' descent from the first Adam. Luke accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys, and it's inconceivable to me that Paul wouldn't have discussed with Luke the significance of Jesus as the new Adam to redeem us from the failure of the first Adam.

In looking at his genealogy, we get a hint, a little glimpse, of Luke's concern. Though I like to think that Luke's version is from Mary's side of the family, I can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

One of the features that's unique to Luke's Gospel is that he has more references to Jesus dealing with women than any of the other Gospels, so that Jesus is the Savior not just of the Jews or of the Gentiles or of men but of women as well. All this may be implied, but not explained, in the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally, the one thing about which Luke is so concerned is the historical reality of the person and work of Christ. The presence of this extended genealogy underscores Luke's concern that the account that he provides is not of a mythological figure but of One who came in space and in time, indeed in the fullness of time, to be our Savior.

THE TEMPTATION

OF JESUS

Luke 4:1–13

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.' " And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." And Jesus answered him, "It is written,

" 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.' "

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written,

" 'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'

and

" 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"

And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.

Jesus' disciples came to our Lord, asking Him, "Lord, teach us how to

pray." In response, Jesus gave them a model prayer that has since been called the Lord's Prayer. He gave them those matters of priority for which they should entreat the Almighty in their prayers. Among those petitions is one that is sometimes confusing to us, for Jesus said to them, "When you pray say, 'Lord, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'" (see Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:1–4).

In the first place, nothing is more repugnant to the Christian mind than the idea that the holy and perfect and righteous God would ever lead anybody to be tempted to sin. God never entices us to disobey Him. As James tells us: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God.' . . . But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:13–14).

The second part of the petition "Lead us not into temptation" is translated "but deliver us from evil" (Matt. 6:13). Evil in an abstract or general sense would be signified by the Greek word ponēron, which is in the neuter gender. But in this case, it is the Greek word ponēros, which is the masculine gender, with the definite article the. This refers not to evil in general but to the evil one. The word ponēros is a title ascribed by sacred Scriptures to the prince of lies, Satan. Jesus is saying, "Pray that you not be put to the test, that you may be protected from the hands of Satan."

Testing by God Throughout biblical history, we see occasions where people are put to the test. We think of the time the patriarch Abraham was called of God to go to Mount Moriah and to offer his son, the son whom he loved, Isaac, as a sacrifice. That was a test of Abraham's faith, and he passed with flying colors (see Gen. 22). In the book of Job, Satan came to God and said: "You've put a hedge around Job. I can't touch him. But let me at him. Tear down that wall, and You'll see how quickly Job will curse You." And in the abject misery that followed, Job passed the test (see Job 1).

We see in various times and sundry places where God puts people to the test, but nowhere in Scripture do we see tests as significant as that which was given to our earthly parents, Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden, and the test here at the beginning of our Lord's ministry when He is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. We've already seen in Luke's Gospel the link between the first Adam and now this new Adam. We read in sacred Scripture that Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness (v. 1). This was the same Spirit that descended upon Him like a dove at the Jordan River. It was the Holy Spirit sent by the Father to lead the Son into this place of testing in the Judean wilderness.

During the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther was besieged by the assaults and the attacks of Satan. Luther felt the presence of Satan so keenly that on one occasion, he picked up an inkwell from his desk and threw it at Satan. He lamented that he suffered what he called the Anfechtung of the devil, the unbridled assault of Satan. But the Anfechtung that besieged Martin Luther was not worthy to be compared to the assault that was waged against Jesus. The devil tormented Martin Luther, assaulted him and attacked him, but now in the Judean wilderness it's all-out war. It is the blitzkrieg of hell coming against our Savior.

There are some strong contrasts between the temptation of Adam and Eve and the temptation of Jesus. Consider the setting. The setting for the test of Adam and Eve was a glorious garden of paradise. A gourmet feast was available for our first parents. Of all the trees of the garden, they could eat freely in this beautiful place that showed no evidence of the fall of nature. There were no briars, no thorns, no pain, no death. Adam was subjected to his temptation while he was in the presence of his helpmate, where he had companionship and was not exposed to the wiles of the serpent while he was alone. By contrast, Jesus was driven into the Judean wilderness, one of the most desolate pieces of real estate on the face of this earth, inhabited only by scorpions, snakes, and a few species of birds.

Adam was tempted on a full stomach. Jesus was subjected to a fast that lasted forty days. People tend to skate lightly over this and say: "Well, this is the Son of God. This is God incarnate. A forty-day fast isn't going to hurt Him." Jesus may not have gotten hungry according to His divine nature, because God doesn't need food, but according to His human nature, He could certainly be hungry. The text confirms that for us, as in a masterful example of understatement, it tells us he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry (v. 2).

The Trustworthiness of God's Word We see the radical differences between the circumstances of the tests that came to the first Adam and now the test that comes to the second Adam. But we must not miss the similarities of the test. The point of the attacks of Satan on Adam and Eve and on Jesus was at the same place. When Satan came into the garden with his craftiness and his guile, he approached the woman with a question: "Did God really say? Did God say that you can't eat of any of the trees of the garden?" Of course, God didn't say that and Satan knew it, but the suggestion was implicit that when God put one restriction on them, He may as well have put them all on them.

As Jean-Paul Sartre said, if you're not autonomous, you're not really free. Eve's first response was to fight for the integrity of her Creator and say: "He didn't say that. He said that of all the trees of the garden we may freely eat, but He did give one restriction. He said if we touch that tree over there, we will surely die."

Now the subtle implication becomes an explicit contradiction. Satan says: "No, no! You will not die." God speaks the truth; Satan utters the lie, the lie that contradicts boldly and clearly the veracity of what God said. You see what's at issue in the original temptation. "Eve, whom will you believe? Whom do you trust? Who speaks the word of truth? Is it God or is it Satan?" Eve weighed the options. She looked at the serpent. She heard what he said. She recalled what her Creator had said, and then she looked at the tree and thought: "The fruit looks so appetizing. Maybe the serpent is right. What harm will there be in one little taste of disobedience? After all, he said that if I taste it, I won't die. I'll be like God and have knowledge like God." She tasted it and gave it to her husband, who tasted it, and together they plunged the world into ruin, as God's word stood firm.

As the Son of God in the wilderness of Judea hears the words of the devil, it's the same point of attack Satan comes with when he says, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread" (v. 3). "If You are the Son of God, You shouldn't have to put up with this humiliation and self-denial. If You are the Son of God, You should be able to change these stones into bread and break Your fast. If, that is, You really are the Son of God."

What were the last words that Jesus heard at His baptism before the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness? The heavens opened and the voice of God was heard audibly: "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" (3:22). God's Word came to Jesus at His baptism, at His anointing to be the Messiah. And then, Satan came with the suggestion that God's word is not true, that God's word cannot be trusted.

The Power of God's Word Satan unleashed that temptation in a time of suffering, a time of want, when Jesus was hungry. Jesus' reply was "It is written" (v. 4). These words among the Jews were the same as "The Bible says." It wasn't written in the Midrash, in the Talmud. It was written in sacred Scripture. Satan's temptation was countered by Jesus' quoting the Bible. And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'" (v. 4). "Though bread would taste good, I live not only by bread but by every word that comes from the mouth of My Father, so I won't turn those stones to bread to satisfy My physical hunger."

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours" (vv. 5– 7). Satan, undaunted, said to Jesus: "All the authority that goes with the monarchies of every kingdom I will give to You because it's mine to give. I am the prince of this world, and I can give authority to kings, to politicians, to whomever I please. I'll give You all authority over every nation, Jesus, if You will worship me. Nobody is looking. If You worship me, You won't have to go to a cross. You won't have to suffer and die in order to be king."

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve'" (v. 8). Jesus couldn't do what Satan tempted Him to do because the only One we may serve and worship is God.

Satan, seeing Jesus' unwavering commitment to Scripture, decided to quote some verses of his own. Satan knows the Bible better than you and I. The first rule of hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture, which means we are not to set one portion of Scripture against another. Satan ignored that. And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw

yourself down from here, for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'" (vv. 9–11). It's as if he was saying: "Let's see if You can really trust the Word of God. You keep quoting to me, 'The Bible says it.' If it's really true that the angels have been given charge over You, jump off the temple pinnacle here. You have nothing to worry about."

And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'" (v. 12). Jesus may have commended Satan and said to him: "Your quotation of Scripture is accurate, but your interpretation of it conflicts with everything the Word of God says. If I jump from this pinnacle, I would be putting God to the test, and it is not allowable for Me to test God. He's testing Me. I don't have to jump off this temple to know that the angels will guard Me. My Father said it, and His word is truth" (see John 17:17).

And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time (v. 13). Satan, in his frustration, left the Savior, but his departure was not permanent but only temporary. Throughout Jesus' earthly ministry, Satan lurked in the shadows, speaking even through the lips of His own disciple. Jesus recognized Satan's influence in Peter's protest against our Lord's going to Jerusalem to be delivered: Peter said, "Never." Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan!" (Matt. 16:21–23). Amazingly, in Matthew and Mark, we are told that as soon as Satan departed, the heavenly host who had been there all along manifested themselves to Jesus and ministered to Him (Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13). He received the angelic support, the angelic chorale of triumph that would have been given to the first Adam had he not succumbed to the temptations of the devil.

Before He began His earthly ministry, as soon as He was anointed for it, the Messiah had to pass this test, and He passed it at every point. Not only in those forty days, but up until He drew His last breath in which He said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46). The whole world attacks the Word of God, but we, as Christian people, are to live by every word that comes from God's mouth.

JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE

Luke 4:14–30

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious

words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ' "Physician, heal yourself." What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.'" And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian." When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.

After Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Luke tells us He returned in

the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all (vv. 14–15). This brief statement is a transitional statement that goes between the conclusion of the temptation and the beginning of the event that took place in the synagogue at Nazareth. We don't know how much time took place between the temptation and His appearance at Nazareth. We don't know where His travels took Him, but looking at the rest of the Gospels, it is clear that a considerable period of time passed between His temptation and His appearance at Nazareth, perhaps as much as a full year.

In Luke's telling of the story, it is clear he wants to focus our attention on this event in Nazareth because in this incident, the mission of Jesus is clearly revealed. We see it in the light of the Old Testament teaching of the coming Messiah. Obviously, the mission of Jesus was the mission of the Messiah, and conversely the mission of the Messiah was the mission of Jesus because Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he

stood up to read (v. 16). He appeared here as a guest, as a visiting rabbi, and it was the custom in the synagogue to allow a visiting rabbi to give the meditation or the exposition of the Word of God by way of the sermon. First Jesus stood up in order to read the text of the day. Every week at the synagogue, the custom was to read a portion of the Torah or Law and then another reading from the Prophets. On this day, the prophet that was to be read was the prophet Isaiah.

Jesus stood up and read from Isaiah 61. Of the more than two thousand prophecies in the Old Testament that point to the coming Redeemer and the Messiah, there is perhaps none more important than this prophecy from Isaiah. It is included in Isaiah's book in which he describes the mission of the Servant of God that culminates, or at least had been explained earlier, in chapter 53 of the mission of the Servant of the Lord to be the sin bearer of the people, to be the Savior of the people. But this Servant is not only to be the Savior of the people by bearing their sins; He is supposed to be their Lord and their conqueror who will bring two things ultimately: salvation and judgment, the redemption of God and His wrath.

Jesus reads this critical passage from Isaiah to those who are assembled in the synagogue, and it begins with these words: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor" (v. 18). We find other men in the Bible who performed miracles besides Jesus, such as Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the Apostles of the New Testament. None of these men had a divine nature. So, by what power did these men perform their miracles? The Bible makes it clear that they did it by the power of the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity, who, though He is distinguished from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from Them, as They are all one in substance or essence. It's important that the ministry of Jesus on this earth takes place after He was anointed by the Holy Ghost. So, it's safe to assume that God incarnate was performing these works through the power of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost.

The Mission of the Messiah The name Christ is the Greek translation of the Old Testament word for "Messiah," and it literally means "the anointed one." Jesus was anointed by the power of the sovereign God. Jesus came into the synagogue and read the text that promised a future Messiah who would come and minister in the power of the sovereign God, being anointed by God Himself. It was Jesus who was the subject of Isaiah's prophecy. To be anointed meant two different things. On the one hand, it referred to anointing by the Holy Spirit in the sense of being set apart, consecrated for a sacred vocation. Kings were anointed. Prophets were anointed, set apart, just as we ordain ministers and elders in the church. It's an act of consecration. But when Isaiah speaks about the anointing of the Messiah, he's not simply speaking about the Messiah as being set apart or consecrated, but rather he's saying that the Messiah is endowed with power from God. The first manifestation of that power is here in the text: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." To do what? "To proclaim good news to the poor" (v. 18). The Messiah, Jesus, was anointed by the Holy Ghost to preach.

The most powerful preacher who walked the face of the earth was Jesus of Nazareth. He had the full anointing promised to the Messiah. He was anointed to proclaim good news to the poor, not just to the physically poor as we see in His teaching on the Beatitudes (see 6:20–22), but to those who are poor in spirit, who are numbered among the brokenhearted, who are poverty stricken spiritually. You can be a person of great wealth and still be spiritually impoverished, desperately needing to hear the preaching of the gospel. When the Lord Jesus preached that gospel and the Holy Spirit quickened those words, people who heard Him knew of their povertystricken spiritual condition. When they were awakened by the power of the preaching of Jesus and the accompanying ministry of the Holy Ghost, they were converted.

He was anointed to heal the brokenhearted. Do you know a doctor who can heal a broken heart? Is there any more painful condition to suffer and endure than a broken heart? Remember, as an infant Jesus was brought to the temple, and the venerable Simeon saw the promised Messiah. God had promised that he would not die until he saw the Lord's anointed, and he patiently waited for the consolation of Israel (2:25–35). That was at the center of the task of the Messiah that was promised by God, that He would come to console the brokenhearted.

Jesus read the prophecy of Isaiah: "He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed" (v. 18). The message of Jesus was really the greatest Emancipation Proclamation in the history of the world, because Jesus came to proclaim liberty to not only those who were enslaved and in chains but also those who were held captive by Satan, those who were in bondage to sin, slaves to the power of evil. Jesus came to set them free. He came to proclaim liberty to all of us who by nature are enslaved to the impulses of sin. He came to proclaim "recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (vv. 18–19). "The year of the Lord's favor" is the Year of Jubilee, the time when all debts were canceled. That cyclical experience in the history of Israel was a foreshadowing of the ultimate work of the Messiah, who would cancel the debts of all His people permanently. The Messiah says, "I am anointed to do all these things."

The Prophecy Fulfilled After Jesus read the summary Isaiah gives of the mission and agenda of the Lord's Messiah, he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down (v. 20). In the synagogue, after standing to read the Scripture, the rabbi sat down, and that was the signal for the beginning of the sermon. The rabbi sat on a chair or a bench, and the rest of the people sat on the

floor at his feet. That is where we get the saying "sitting at the feet of a great teacher." Jesus sat down, and that was the signal now for Him to give His exposition, His explanation of the meaning of this text that He had just read.

It's easy to imagine the scene. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him (v. 20). "What is He going to say? We know this man. We watched Him grow up here in Nazareth, and He has been gone for a while. He has been living in Capernaum, and we have heard all the stories of His incredible ministry, doing miracles and healings and speaking to multitudes all throughout the land and especially here in Galilee. But He hasn't come back home, but now here He is, and He is going to preach here for the first time." Every person in that crowd had their eyes fixed on Him, their ears listening intently. This is the shortest sermon recorded by anyone in all of sacred Scripture. Jesus sat down and looked out at this congregation who were peering at Him relentlessly, and He said to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (v. 21). Amen, end of the sermon.

Jesus read the mission of the Messiah set forth by the prophet Isaiah. The people of Israel had been reading that prophetic passage for centuries, as they waited generation after generation for the Lord's anointed, the Lord's deliverer, the Lord's conqueror to come. That day He was in their midst. They understood what Jesus was saying. After all these centuries, when the anointed one of God appeared on the scene, the people from His hometown were astounded.

There is no more important judgment you will ever make than answering the question, Who is Jesus? Sit there for a moment in your imagination on the floor in the synagogue. You've just heard the text, you've just heard the Word of God, and now you hear the Son of God saying, "I am He." What is your response? Do you leap for joy and say: "Thank You, God! We've waited so patiently"? Do you want to run up and

hug His neck and say, "We're so glad, Jesus, to know that You are the Messiah"? That was not the response in Nazareth. People heard these words, looked at Him, shocked, and said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (v. 22). Yes, it was Joseph's adopted son, but it was Yahweh's Son. It was the servant of the sovereign God, the anointed Son in whom the Father was well pleased, but they couldn't endure it. They choked on the words of Jesus.

Initially, Jesus was welcomed eagerly by the people of Nazareth as One who had already developed a reputation as a rabbi—that is, as a great teacher. Also, rumors had spread to Nazareth of the mighty works that He had done in the region of Galilee, particularly in and around Capernaum, which was the place where He was residing, presumably in the home of Peter (see v. 23). These rumors told of miraculous works that Jesus had accomplished. So, His reputation of greatness, which was unexpected by the people at Nazareth, certainly piqued the people's curiosity when Jesus spoke at their synagogue.

The people were astonished by what Jesus was saying. They understood that what He was saying was, "Right now, here in your presence, this text is fulfilled in Me. I am the promised Anointed One of Israel." Then we read, And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth (v. 22). They were stunned. They were amazed, and they marveled. Still, they were positive in their response, and they said, "Isn't this Joseph's son?"

A Prophet without Honor Jesus understood what they were thinking. He knew they wanted a sign. They had heard the rumors of His miraculous works there in Galilee. They wanted Him to do miracles and show His power there. "If You are the Messiah, then give us a sign, here and now."

That's what He was reading in their responses, so He said: "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, '"Physician, heal yourself." What we

have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well'" (v. 23). Jesus went on to say, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown" (v. 24). We've heard that proverbial statement that a prophet is not without honor except in his own country. That is, a person may achieve great fame, great respect, and be lauded throughout the land, except in his own hometown.

Jesus went on to give two historical examples to illustrate His point. Both were from the Old Testament, from the history of the office of the prophet. He first looked to Elijah and said, "But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow" (vv. 25–26). Jesus was telling the people that the miracle that Elijah performed was not for somebody from Elijah's home nation. There were many widows to whom he could have ministered in this miraculous fashion, but God in His providence sent him to Sidon, to the widow there who was to receive the blessing Elijah would bring to her.

In the second example, He said, "And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian" (v. 27). Jesus was telling them of the economy of God. "Why should I come to Nazareth and do miracles for you? You have not honored or received Me as the Messiah. The point is, in the Old Testament, Elijah didn't come to the widows in Israel. Elisha didn't come to the lepers in Israel. So, I'm not coming to the sinners in Nazareth."

When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath (v. 28). A paroxysm of anger and fury erupted in that very moment against Jesus. Instead of having their curiosity piqued regarding what this hometown man was going to do in Nazareth, they were now filled with wrath. They didn't just get angry and walk out. And they rose up and

drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away (vv. 29–30).

The Messiah Rejected At the early stage of Jesus' ministry, the response of the people of Nazareth to one of their own was unqualified rejection. Isaiah spoke of the future One who would come as the sin bearer and the suffering servant of Israel: "He was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isa. 53:3).

The Apostle John writes: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him" (John 1:10–11). Let me change the language here, by way of illustrative license, and have it read like this: "He was in Nazareth, and Nazareth was made through Him. But Nazareth did not know Him. He came to His own Nazarenes, and His own Nazarenes did not receive Him." That merely is an application of the universal to the particular, because this happened throughout Israel. He came to Israel; He made Israel. Israel was His own, but they received Him not. Or, let's go beyond the scope of Nazareth, beyond the scope of Israel, to the whole world. He came to the world, as John says, and the world was made by Him, but the world didn't know Him. That is as true today as it was true that day in Nazareth.

The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that with Jesus, there is no neutrality. Those who are not with Him are against Him. If you are not His disciple, you are His enemy. And your natural state, the state in which you were born, the Scriptures tell us, is a state of enmity. By nature, God is your enemy, and by nature, God's Son is your enemy. Only a supernatural work of grace can change the disposition of your heart from one of antagonism to one of devoted love and religious affection. Unless God the Holy Spirit regenerates your soul and changes the disposition of your heart, you will be recalcitrant in your disavowal of the Lord's Anointed.

People sometimes say, "I accepted Jesus." But in the final analysis, it is not whether we accept Jesus; it's whether He accepts us. Perhaps a better term is receive. To receive Jesus is not exactly the same as accepting Him. To accept somebody, in our modern language, is to tolerate them. To receive Him, in biblical categories, is to embrace Him.

The language of the New Testament is not one of acceptance; it's of embracing. In fact, when the Bible speaks of believing in Christ, it means welcoming Him, receiving Him, trusting Him, embracing Him with all of one's heart.

We read in the prologue of John: "He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:11–13). The word translated "right" is the Greek word exousia, which can also be translated as "power" or "authority." Sometimes it is used to describe the transcendent force and power of God, and other times it refers to the supernatural authority of God. When you receive Christ, you put your faith in Him. Because you have faith, you are justified before God, and as a consequence of that justification, you are also immediately adopted into the family of God. Now you have the privilege and the authority to say, "Abba, Father." God is no longer your enemy. He is your heavenly Father. Because you received the Lord Jesus Christ and embraced Him, the Lord Jesus Christ covers you with His heavenly mantle. Christ becomes your older brother. Christ is God's only begotten Son, and every other child of God is His adopted child. We are not by nature the children of God; we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The only thing that changes our status ultimately from hell to heaven is receiving the Lord Jesus Christ, which the people of Nazareth were not willing to do.

Take a moment to think about how the culture in which we live responds to the law of almighty God. Are the people in our country willing

to embrace sexual chastity and purity? Or do we revolt body and soul against God's prohibiting sexual sin? We live in a culture where many people constantly blaspheme the name of God or the name of Christ. Christ stands as the supreme obstacle to our sin. If you receive Him, you have to recognize your sin. You have to fall on your face in repentance. You have to beg for the forgiveness of God for the way that you have violated His law. But if you can reject Jesus and reject the One who sent Him, you are free from the law.

But the day comes for every man and woman where you will stand before the throne of almighty God. He has appointed the day on which He will judge the world through the One whom He has appointed judge, whom He has vindicated by the power of the resurrection. On that day, Jesus will either be your judge or He will be your defense attorney, because if you reject Him now, He will reject you then. Luke tells us this is how it started in Nazareth, and all of what happened in Nazareth was a foretaste of what was waiting for Jesus in Jerusalem. Are you with Him or are you against Him? Do you reject Him or do you receive Him?

JESUS MEETS A DEMON

Luke 4:31–37

And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath, and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority. And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, "Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God." But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. And they were all amazed and said to one another, "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!" And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region.

Jesus went into the synagogue, as was His custom. We read that on more

than one occasion, He served as the visiting rabbi interpreting the scroll of the week and giving His sermons. We are told that the people were utterly amazed and astonished at His teaching because He spoke with such authority. We've seen this before, and we will see it again. Jesus had a manner with which He spoke that the Scriptures describe as speaking with exousia,

"power" or "authority." And we can call it a mixture of the two, an authoritative power or a powerful authority, so that when Jesus spoke, the people marveled at His words, at His truth, at the solemnity, the sobriety, the depth and seriousness of His word. They didn't realize it at the time, but they were listening to sermons presented by the One who was the very incarnation of truth and who had in Himself the power of life that attended the proclamation of His word. When Jesus spoke, there was a moment of crisis for everyone in the room, as they felt the thunderous weight of His message.

The Reality of the Demonic Realm On this occasion, as Jesus was preaching, He was rudely interrupted by the cry of a demon, who cried out, "Ha!" (v. 34). It was a brief word of mockery and sneering at the teaching of Jesus.

This text presents matters that seem bizarre to our ears. I remember as a graduate student in the Netherlands that our professor, G.C. Berkouwer, once commented in a lecture that there cannot be any theology without demonology. The New Testament so clearly propounds the idea of the reality of the demonic world and of the angelic world, populated by supernatural beings who are usually invisible to us but nevertheless are real and powerful. The New Testament speaks more often about angels than it does about love or even sin. Like it or not, the Christian faith contains an affirmation of an angelic realm where not all the angels are good and righteous but some are fallen and are of the minions of Satan.

When Luke and the other Gospel writers talk about demonic occurrences, they make a distinction between demonic possession and lunacy. Contemporary people sometimes say that first-century observers confused demonic possession with insanity. That is incorrect. The Bible distinguishes between those two and also distinguishes between demonic possession and what we would call forms of convulsions or epilepsy. There

were separate categories distinguishing demonic possession from other maladies in the New Testament.

There has probably never been a period in human history when the demonic world was more actively at work and more furiously engaged against the kingdom of God than in the first century, because the Son of God was walking the earth and all the power of hell was unleashed against Him. Virtually every miracle that we see Jesus performing in the New Testament was also performed in the Old Testament by prophets such as Elijah, Elisha, or Moses. What was radically new about the supernatural ministry of Jesus was His ministry of exorcising demons. The New Testament writers were keen to let us know that Jesus' power over the demonic world is significant. It is a sign of His supernatural origin and supreme authority, that even the devils of this world tremble at His presence.

The accounts that we find in Scripture of encounters between Jesus and the demonic realm follow a similar pattern. There's always a protest where the demon complains: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?" (v. 34). Elsewhere, the question is, "Have you come here to torment us before the time?" (Matt. 8:29). The demons know that their days are numbered and that God in His providence has established a day when the demons will be wiped out and have their power completely removed. But that day had not yet come, and they were aware of it.

The demons have elements of a sound theology. They know who Jesus is. They know the truth. They know who God is, as James tells us: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19). Their understanding of the identity of Jesus is, strangely enough, impeccable. Their problem is not that they don't know the truth; their problem is that they hate it. No one hates Jesus more than these demonic beings. When He appeared, they trembled, they feared, they

protested, they resisted, and nothing could quench their fierce hatred of Him.

Christ Victorious But the demon said, "I know who you are—the Holy One of God" (v. 34). You see, nothing recognizes the holy more clearly than the unholy. No one recognizes the intrusion of heaven more than those who inhabit hell. Here we find the testimony of the devil as to the identity of Jesus. But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and come out of him!" And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. And they were all amazed and said to one another, "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!" And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region (vv. 35–37).

In Ephesians 6:10–13, Paul writes:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

The Apostle Paul concludes this epistle the same way he began it, with the cosmic struggle in the heavens between the victor, the Son of God, who leads a host of captives, and these invisible but powerful forces from hell. Paul said, "You need the whole armor of God because we're in a battle, and it's not with people." The battle that a Christian must endure is a spiritual battle, not just a struggle with their own sinful tendencies but also a war that is cosmic in scope. Paul said, "Do you realize as a Christian, you are engaged in a battle against powers, principalities, cosmic powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places?" The Bible tells us with respect to the world empires that God raises them up and God tears them down. There is

this idea that entire empires, nations, and states can be demonized so that their political structure and their political actions are really actions that they are carrying on under the influence of the devil. We're fighting against supernatural forces, and we're fighting that battle with supernatural power, with the Holy Spirit and the armor of God.

A question I am often asked is, Can a Christian be demon possessed? I don't think so. You can be harassed, oppressed, frustrated by the enemy, but where the Spirit of God lives, there is liberty. Satan cannot inhabit the same space as the Holy Spirit. If you are indwelled by God the Holy Spirit, Satan can't get in you. He can come up against you and harass you, but he cannot possess you. "He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). That's good news for Christians, but it's bad news for those who want to find excuses for their sinful behavior by saying, "The devil made me do it." The devil may have made you do it, but if he did, you're not a believer. If you are a believer, Satan is an adversary to be warned of, but God says, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (James 4:7).

The mission that we have as Christians is despised by Satan and by the forces of hell, and they will do everything they can to push us out of the battle and onto the sidelines, to paralyze us, to hold us captive, to put us into retreat. But we are called to pursue this battle until every tongue confesses Christ as Lord and Savior.

HEALING AND PREACHING

Luke 4:38–41

And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's motherinlaw was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf. And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and began to serve them.

Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

Luke has been giving us a chronicle of the activity of Jesus in the early

years of His Galilean ministry. We saw what happened when He preached at His home synagogue of Nazareth, when the response of the people was "We know who You are. You're Joseph's son." Then He went to Capernaum and was confronted by a demon who said something different from what the people said at Nazareth. He said: "We know who You are.

You're the Holy One, the Son of God." So, He is identified first simply as the son of Joseph and then not so simply as the Son of almighty God.

Luke continues his narrative by telling us what happened when Jesus returned to the house of Simon Peter, where presumably He was staying. When they arrived, Simon's mother-in-law was ill. Luke the physician tells us that she was ill because of a high fever. This was a serious matter for Peter and his wife. In those days, a high fever could indicate a fatal illness. They were profoundly concerned, and so they appealed to him on her behalf (v. 38). I'm interested in how Jesus responded to the beseeching of that family.

And he stood over her and rebuked the fever (v. 39). What? It's one thing for Jesus to rebuke a demon and have the demon leave the person that it had possessed, but we don't think of fevers as being capable of being admonished or rebuked. We might administer aspirin or put cold compresses on somebody's forehead or at least call the doctor, but usually if anybody in the family is running a fever, we don't stand there and admonish the fever. Whoever heard of such a thing?

Whatever was producing this fever in Peter's mother-in-law, the One who was there, who could calm the sea and still the storm by the word of rebuke, has the power and the authority to command rocks to speak or bacteria to leave a human body. The authority of Jesus over all power and every force of nature is manifest in this event when He healed Peter's mother-in-law by admonishing the fever. In an instant, not only did the fever break, but the fever left her so completely that with the departure of the fever also went all the consequences of that fever that had beset her. She was so completely, instantly healed that immediately she rose and began to serve them (v. 39).

The Purpose of Miracles Luke goes on to say after this that all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on

every one of them and healed them (v. 40). As I've said before, during the earthly ministry of Jesus, His ministry was accompanied by a blaze of miracles. I'd like to consider the questions: Why all these miracles? What was the point?

The answer is not so simple. Certainly, one of the strongest motivations for Jesus' miraculous ministry was His compassion for people who were suffering. He demonstrated His concern and His care in His healings. He had the power to relieve the suffering, and so He did it out of compassion.

But there is a larger question about the function of miracles altogether in sacred Scripture. Here we find a lot of confusion even in the church today. For example, I hear people say frequently that the miracles of the Bible are there to prove the existence of God. I don't know of a place in sacred Scripture that says the function of miracles is to prove the existence of God. God doesn't need miracles to have His existence proven. The creation proves the existence of God. Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God's general revelation—that is, the revelation that He gives of Himself, both externally in nature and internally in the conscience of every human being —reveals Him clearly, plainly, manifestly, and utterly convincingly to every human being who walks on earth and to such a degree, the Apostle tells us, that every person knows that God exists (Rom. 1:18–20).

There are, of course, people who deny this. They say they don't believe in the existence of God, but the truth is that they can't avoid believing in His existence. They can bury that knowledge, repress it, deny it, and despise it, but they can't destroy the knowledge of God that He has planted in them and that He reveals to them through creation.

The function of a miracle, then, is not to prove the existence of God or even to give corroborative evidence of the existence of God. There is no actual word for miracle in the New Testament. You may find it in some English translations, but there is no Greek word that means "miracle." We have instead three words that are sometimes translated miracle or that refer

to events that we might call miracles: sēmeion, meaning "sign"; teras, meaning "wonder"; and dynamis, meaning "power." We look at those three words—signs, wonders, and powers—and extrapolate from them the common essence of the three and then articulate our concept of the miraculous.

Take, for example, the word sign in John's Gospel. When Jesus changes the water into wine, John said, "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee" (John 2:11). It's called a sign because it's significant. The point of the work that we call a miracle, that John calls a sign, is to do what a signpost ordinarily does, which is to point beyond itself to something else. That is, the miracles of Jesus and of the Apostles are signs that point beyond the immediate action to something else. What is this something else? What is it that the miracles point to?

The miracles point to the attestation of God to the person who is performing the miracle. That is, the miracles are God's certification of His agents who speak and proclaim His Word. Let's look for a moment back in the book of Exodus, where the first outbreak of plenteous miracles occurred. These miracles accompanied the ministry of Moses in preparation for and in connection with the exodus out of Egypt. God appeared to Moses in the burning bush in the Midianite wilderness. He gave Moses the task to go to the most powerful monarch in all the world, Pharaoh, and to say to him: "God says, 'You are to let My people go. I've heard the cries and the groanings of these people that you have enslaved. And I want you, Pharaoh, to set them free that they can come out and worship Me at My mountain'" (see Ex. 3).

God instructed Moses to tell the Israelites that they were going to be involved in the greatest act of deliverance in the history of the world. The Hebrews were to revolt against Pharaoh and leave Egypt. Now, this would be no small task, and Moses was puzzled. He said, "You want me to go to Pharaoh and say, 'Let My people go'"? Moses believed neither Pharaoh nor

the Israelites would believe him. "How," Moses queried, "is anybody going to believe that You are sending me and I am speaking Your word?" Moses objected, "But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, 'The LORD did not appear to you'" (Ex. 4:1). The text tells us what happened next:

The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A staff." And he said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it. But the LORD said to Moses, "Put out your hand and catch it by the tail"—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand—"that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you." Again, the LORD said to him, "Put your hand inside your cloak." And he put his hand inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then God said, "Put your hand back inside your cloak." So he put his hand back inside his cloak, and when he took it out, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. "If they will not believe you," God said, "or listen to the first sign, they may believe the latter sign." (vv. 2–8)

So, Moses did as the Lord commanded. He went to Pharaoh and made the demands that God had instructed him to make. Pharaoh brought out all his magicians, but their magic proved to be inferior to the miracles of God (8:18–19).

Let me fast-forward to the book of Hebrews, which says: "Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" (Heb. 2:1–4).

The author of Hebrews says the word was declared first by the Lord, and God confirmed that it was His word through miracles. The higher point of the miracles that we find in the New Testament was to authenticate the spokesmen for God, that they were sent from God. Nicodemus understood

this when he came to Jesus by night, saying, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him" (John 3:2).

Miracles for Today I'm sometimes asked if I believe that miracles happen today. The simple answer is no. I've seen the sign that says "Expect a miracle." If you expect a miracle, if miracles are to be expected, there's nothing miraculous about them. If they're ordinary, they carry no certifiable weight. It's by their extraordinary character that they have sign power.

If I'm asked if I believe God is still working supernaturally in the world, the answer is, of course. Do I believe God answers prayers? Of course I do. Do I believe that God heals people in response to prayers? Of course I do. Theologians often make tight but real distinctions. When I say I don't believe in miracles today, I'm thinking of the narrow sense in which a miracle is defined as an extraordinary work that occurs in the external, perceivable world, against the laws of nature, by the immediate power of God. It is a work that only God can do, such as bringing life out of death, restoring a body part that has been cut off, walking on water, or turning water into wine.

Why do we labor so hard for this tight definition? For this reason: if a nonagent of revelation can perform a miracle, then a miracle cannot authenticate or certify a bona fide agent of revelation. That would mean that the New Testament's claim that miracles carry the authenticating authority of God Himself, as shown by Christ's and the Apostles' miracles, would be a false claim and a false argument.

What's at stake here is the authority, the authenticity, and the truthfulness of the Bible. That's why I have this tight definition and why I don't expect miracles, because I don't expect to find Apostles alive today. Miracles, in the narrow definition, stopped at the end of the Apostolic age. God is still alive, still working, and still answering prayers in an amazing

way. I've seen marvelous answers to prayers, and I've seen people healed of so-called terminal illnesses. But I have never seen anybody raised out of a cemetery or an arm grow back or a preacher walk on water.

The Lord Jesus did miracles not only in the broad sense but in the narrow sense. It's these narrow-sense miracles of the New Testament that are so important to us, because they are God's attestation of Jesus and of the Apostles, to whose authority we submit.

THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM

Luke 4:42–44

And when it was day, he departed and went into a desolate place. And the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them, but he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea.

If someone asked you, "What is the kingdom of God?" how would you

answer? If there is any theme that unites the Old Testament with the New Testament, any single thread that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, it is the concept of the kingdom of God.

What I find particularly significant about this text is this: there are a few occasions where Jesus tells people why He came to earth. He tells them what His mission is, the mission that has been given to Him by the Father, and He gives different concepts at different times, none of which are mutually exclusive. On one occasion He says, "I came that they may have

life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). He also said, "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). On another occasion He said, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). And when He was on trial before Pontius Pilate, He said: "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice" (John 18:37).

All these things have a connection with each other, but here Jesus explains His mission this way. When the crowds try to persuade Him to stay and not to depart from them, He said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose" (v. 43). Jesus said the purpose of His coming was to preach and to proclaim the kingdom of God. Since this is the reason why Jesus came, it is imperative that we have some understanding of what He's talking about when He speaks of the kingdom of God.

To understand this, it is helpful to look at the word gospel. This word translates the Greek euangelion, meaning "good news," and there are three distinct ways that the word gospel is used in New Testament studies. The first way is to describe a particular genre of literature—namely, the four books that give us biographical information about the person and work of Jesus. We speak of the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John.

The second, and most frequent, way that the term gospel is used is in connection with the work of Christ. It is described as "the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark 1:1), "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1), "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4), "the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7), "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13), "the gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15), and "the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess. 1:8). This sense of the word gospel has to do with a message, one that comes to us from God. It is God's possession, but the content of that

message has to do with the person and work of Jesus. A related sense is how the benefits of Christ's work are appropriated. So normally when we talk about the gospel, we're talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the message concerning Jesus and what His person and work mean for us.

The third meaning is actually the earliest. It has to do with the kingdom of God, as we see when Jesus began His ministry. He said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). Matthew also refers to "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 4:23; 9:35), as does Jesus in Matthew 24:14.

Initially, the gospel of Jesus Christ was known as the gospel of the kingdom of God. What is the "good news of the kingdom of God" (v. 43) that Jesus must preach to all these different cities? What does He mean when He says, "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (11:20)? What does He mean when He says, "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (17:21)?

What is puzzling is that the Old Testament speaks of the kingdom of God and makes it clear that the Lord God omnipotent reigns and has reigned over His creation from the very moment that He made it. His sovereignty is from everlasting to everlasting, and so God has been King from the beginning. What is new about this kingdom that Jesus must preach?

The Revelation of the Kingdom of God To understand this, let's look at that thread that goes from Genesis to Revelation. In Genesis 49, we have the record of the blessing of Jacob to his sons. We would expect the greatest blessing to go to his firstborn, Reuben, but it doesn't. Instead, we read these words:

"Judah, your brothers shall praise you;

your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you.

Judah is a lion's cub;

from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion

and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? The scepter shall not depart from Judah,

nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him;

and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. Binding his foal to the vine

and his donkey's colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine

and his vesture in the blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine,

and his teeth whiter than milk." (vv. 8–12)

What is the scepter Jacob mentions in verse 10? The scepter is the rod of the king. It signifies his royal authority. Jacob was prophetically announcing to Judah that God's earthly king would come through the tribe of Judah, not through Zebulun, Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, Issachar, or anyone else. It was through Judah's line that God promised a king would come who would be known as "the Lion of Judah." There are references throughout the Old Testament to the coming of the kingdom of God; for example, Psalm 132 speaks of One who will manifest the kingdom of God on earth.

A kingdom is the realm that is ruled by a king, and it is usually understood in terms of geography—geographical boundaries and borders. It is the realm over which the king presides. In biblical terms, God's kingdom is not merely an area, a land, with geographical borders over which He reigns and rules. He reigns already over the entire world, over all things. But in biblical categories, the kingdom of God doesn't just describe that place where God rules; it also describes preeminently the place where God saves. The kingdom of God is the realm of the redeemed, the society of those who have experienced the salvation of the King. The promised Messiah will not only be a ruler, but He will be the King who is also a

Priest. He is a King who will redeem His subjects through His priestly ministry.

Let's jump forward to the book of Revelation. When John received the visions that he recorded in this book, he was in exile on the island of Patmos. God drew back the curtain of heaven and let John peer into the heavenly court. John saw a spectacular scene, where the books of judgment had been prepared. "Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals" (Rev. 5:1). It was sealed so tightly that it seemed an impossible task for anybody to open the scroll and look into its contents.

John continues, "And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, 'Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?'" (v. 2). In John's vision of the heavenly court, the angels and the archangels were present, and one angel proclaimed with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll?" As the psalmist asked in the Old Testament, "Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD?" (Ps. 24:3). The answer was, "He who has clean hands and a pure heart" (v. 4).

The requirement to open this book is not strength but worth. Who is worthy to open this book? And then we read these sad words from John: "I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it" (Rev. 5:4). John had been so excited when he heard the angel ask the question, and he was waiting to see somebody come forward to open up the scroll, but no one was found worthy. So, the Apostle was crushed with disappointment, and he writes, "And one of the elders said to me, 'Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals'" (v. 5). The Lion of Judah was worthy and able to take these seals away and open this scroll to see every word that is contained in it. The Lion of Judah had prevailed. "And between the throne and the four living creatures and

among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne" (vv. 6–7). When John looked for the lion, no lion was there. Just a lamb as if He had been slain. The Lion of Judah was also the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. The King is also our High Priest who offers Himself for our salvation. That's the good news. That's what Jacob could only dream of, what David could only hope for. Now it had come to pass. This One from the tribe of Judah has prevailed.

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

"Worthy are you to take the scroll

and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

and they shall reign on the earth."

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,

"Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (vv. 8–13)

The King Has Come Jesus was compelled to leave Capernaum that He might "preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well" (v. 43). He taught His disciples in their prayers to say, "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). Sadly, many Christians today believe that the kingdom of God is something that's totally, completely, and utterly future. Others believe that it has been totally realized and consummated already. A pox on both of those houses. To think of the kingdom of God as totally and completely future is to miss one of the most important announcements of the New Testament, that our King has come, He has ascended into heaven, He has gone to His coronation, He has been crowned as the King of kings and the Lord of lords, and that our King reigns already, as invisible as it may seem. But He's not finished. The Lion of Judah will return, and when He returns, every knee will bow, either willingly or because He will break those knees until they bow in submission to Him (Ps. 2).

Every election year, we read daily the latest polls and discussion of the political candidates. We get worked up about it because it is important who is elected. In proximate terms, it's extremely important how the future of this country will work out. But ultimately, it's not who sits in the White House that matters; it's who sits over the White House.

We talk about the elements in the life of Jesus—His birth, His ministry, His life, His transfiguration, His atoning death, His resurrection from the dead. We talk about His ascension to heaven, and we also speak of His session. The session of Jesus is when He takes His seat at the right hand of God, and from that seat He rules over the kingdom that His Father has given to Him. All who put their faith in that King—all His loyal subjects— experience now and forever the fullness of the salvation that He has achieved for us, for behold, the Lion of Judah has prevailed, and the Lamb

of God is worthy to receive glory, honor, dominion, and power now and forevermore.

THE CATCH OF FISH

Luke 5:1–11

On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon's, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." And Simon answered, "Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets." And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men." And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.

Here the Bible records that the people continued to press around Jesus. On

this occasion, however, they weren't insisting on healings and miracles;

rather, the multitude was pressing about Jesus so that they might hear the Word of God.

Jesus was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets (vv. 1–2). I can see that in my mind's eye. We used to live on the North Shore of Boston, and frequently we would drive to Gloucester to eat at the wharf there. We would watch as the fishing fleet would come in, and we would see the old, grizzled sailors on the sidewalks working with their nets, just as they did two thousand years ago. Meticulously, these men with gnarled fingers would work on the nets to make sure any weak portion was strengthened and anything that had ripped was repaired, so they could continue on their vocation of bringing fish to the land. So here, just as in Gloucester, these fishermen were sitting by the way, washing their nets.

Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon's, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch" (vv. 3–4). We aren't told for sure why Jesus asked Peter to let down his nets, but we get a strong hint. Jesus, as prophets in the Old Testament were wont to do, would frequently accent His verbal proclamation with some kind of visible object lesson. After teaching the multitudes with His word, Jesus was going to teach Simon Peter something by way of an object lesson. He said: "Peter, I want you now to launch out into the deep. We're going to go fishing."

And Simon answered, "Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets" (v. 5). You can sense the tension in Peter here, the frustration. You can guess what he was thinking. He was a professional fisherman. He knew how and where to fish. He had come up empty all night, and there was no reason to think his fortunes would change now. But he remained relatively polite.

Some people wonder why, if God is sovereign, we evangelize. Aren't people going to be saved whether we preach the gospel or not? The answer is, in part, because Jesus commands us to evangelize. If the Lord God omnipotent commands you to do something, you do it—not reluctantly, not smugly, as if you're ready to say when you fail, "I told you so." Peter responds appropriately here, as if to say: "OK, Lord. You're the Master. If You command it."

What was the result? And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking (v. 6). We need to understand how that happened. Jesus is the Maker, the Lord of those fish. He made the lake. When Jesus told His men to put the net in the water, the fish came to do the bidding of the Master. There was hesitancy on the part of Peter, but no hesitancy on the part of the fish. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink (v. 7). This was the greatest catch of fish these fishermen had ever experienced in all their years of fishing in this lake.

In the Presence of the Holy I want us to note Peter's response. You would think that Peter would have said to Jesus: "Look, Jesus, 50 percent of the business is Yours. All You need to do is come down here once a week and tell us where to fish."

That wasn't Peter's response. His response is profound and profoundly important for us. Luke tells us Peter fell on his knees in front of Jesus, begging Him, not to go into business, but begging Him to leave, to go away. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (v. 8).

Do you know why our churches aren't filled right now? Because there are hundreds of thousands of people who want to stay as far away from Jesus as they possibly can. The reason they want to avoid the worship of Jesus and His presence is the same reason Peter gave to Jesus. Sinners

don't want to come to church because they're sinners, and nothing makes a sinner more uncomfortable than to be in the presence of a holy God. In my book The Holiness of God, I have an entire chapter on the holiness of Christ. We've already seen the response of the demons to Jesus: "Jesus, please leave. Why are You tormenting us here before the time?" The demons couldn't stand to be in the presence of the holy, and neither can sinners.

About forty years ago or so, I was speaking at a college in western Pennsylvania in a town that was situated along one of the rivers in the Steel Valley. It was a bleak day at the end of winter. Snow had not yet completely melted from the sidewalks, and the snow was black from soot and dirt. It was a dreary day, overcast. Already on the bus, I looked at the people who were getting on. These were people who were depressed, who were oppressed, who were just trying to eke out some kind of a subsistence living. I could see them with their stooped shoulders and lines etched into their faces, and with the looks of the despair they wore.

I wondered, "Do these people have any hope whatsoever?" When I looked out the grimy windows on the bus, the first thing I noticed was that we were passing by a storefront church with a rudimentary cross in the front window. Suddenly my spirits were buoyed and I thought: "There it is. There's the sign of hope for these people—the cross." We went a little farther, and I saw another church. I was amazed to realize that I couldn't go a city block in this town without seeing a cross, the universal symbol of the Christian faith, the symbol of humanity's hope.

Without the cross, people are without hope in this world. But the cross is not just a sign of hope; it's also a sign of guilt, because when we see that cross, we know that it represents the work of Christ who saves His people who were in sin. Just as a vampire in the movies shrinks in horror at the sign of the cross, so a fallen human creature shrinks in horror at the sign of

Christ, because Christ is holy and we are not. People who are unholy are always uncomfortable in the presence of the holy.

How many times have people accused you of being holier than thou? You often don't have to say a word. If people know you're a Christian, you'll make them feel uncomfortable, not because you're holy, but because you're associated with One who is. People are not comfortable in the presence of Jesus unless He's healing them or feeding them. Peter wanted Jesus to leave. This was not merely a wicked desire on Peter's part but a stupid one. It was foolish because of the reason he gave: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." If Peter had any sense at all, he would have said: "Lord, don't go! Come here, because I'm a sinful man." What Peter needed more than anything was a Savior.

Hundreds of times people have said to me, "Religion may be good for you, and going to church and all that is fine if you get something out of it, but I don't feel the need for Jesus." I want to respond: "You don't feel the need for Jesus? Is your heart that hard? Don't you realize that there is nothing on this earth that you need more desperately than you need Jesus? What else can satisfy your need except Jesus?" Instead, I say to people: "What do you do with your sin? What do you do with your guilt?" I've yet to have somebody say, "I don't have any guilt" or "I don't have any sin." All impenitent sinners, even sociopaths, know that they have guilt, that they have sin. If you know you have sin, how can you be so foolish as to think you don't need Jesus? No one else can fix your problem.

Leaving Everything And Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men" (v. 10). In other words, "I don't need you to catch them. I can catch them without you. My Father can print His Word up in the clouds if He wants to, but He has chosen the foolishness of preaching as the means to save the world, and I'm choosing the foolishness of you disciples to bring My people into the fold."

And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him (v. 11). Fame, glory, riches, power—all these things were forsaken because they realized that nothing could compare with this One who had just performed that miracle before their eyes. Nothing could compare with the One who was the Pearl of Great Price. They had nothing to trade for the greatness of the benefits from Jesus, and so they stopped running from Him. That's what happens at conversion. That's what happens when your life is turned around by God the Holy Spirit. You stop being a fugitive.

Once you hear the Holy One say to you, "Your sins are forgiven. Come, follow Me," then the Spirit of God changes that rock that's in your chest that you call a heart and causes it to beat anew under the Spirit's breath. Then all you want to do is get as close as you possibly can to Jesus and to follow Him the rest of your life. That's what it means to be a Christian.

HEALING OF THE LEPER

Luke 5:12–16

While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them." But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.

Luke has told us repeatedly that multitudes of people were brought to

Jesus and that He healed them of all kinds of calamitous diseases and afflictions. But on a few occasions, Luke isolates specific cases where Jesus manifested this ministry. In this case, He singled out the occurrence of the healing of a leper.

Leprosy in the New Testament was not as specifically defined as modernday leprosy, or Hansen's disease, is now. A multitude of serious

afflictions were subsumed under the general category of leprosy, so we don't know exactly the type of leprosy with which this man was afflicted.

In Leviticus, extensive instructions are given to people for diagnostic purposes to find out if the rash, scab, or lesion on a person's skin was a harmless problem or was one that was deemed to be leprosy. It was the priests' task in Israel to make the definitive diagnosis. Such texts seem foreign to us, and people grumble at sacred Scripture, losing their interest when reading the detailed matters involved. But if a Jew in that day awoke with a rash and he didn't know what it was, he knew from those instructions in Leviticus that his life was at stake. It was, in a sense, much worse for the Jew going through this process of diagnosis than it is for a modern person who is awaiting the results, from bloodwork or a biopsy, that might indicate a horrible disease.

For Jews, being diagnosed with leprosy was not only a sentence of a miserable illness, but it was also considered a kind of living death. One who was diagnosed with leprosy was not simply ill but was also considered unclean. Notice that in the other diseases that Jesus confronts, He heals them. But the leper who comes to Jesus doesn't ask to be healed; he asked to be made clean (v. 12). That is, he was asking to be healed, but more than to be healed, to be healed of a disease that made him an outcast from the covenant community of Israel, where the lepers had to live outside the camp, outside the community, and outside the town. Sometimes, they gathered together in colonies because the only people with whom they were allowed to have contact was other lepers. But in this story the man is by himself, and obviously somehow the word had gone around the countryside about the power of Jesus' ministry. This was the man's last hope to get rid of this walking death.

Luke tells us this man wasn't merely afflicted with the beginning touches of leprosy, but his case was severely advanced. As Luke the physician tells us, the man was full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he

fell on his face and begged him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean" (v. 12). The leper made a distinction between Jesus' power and His willingness to exercise that power on behalf of this poor wretch.

At this level, as badly mangled as this man's health was, his theology was sound. He was correct in his assessment that Jesus could make him clean, and in his whole life he had never met anyone who had the power to make him clean. In our lives, we will never meet anyone who can make us clean, save this One, Jesus, who met the poor leper on this day.

Faith Healing A number of healing ministries are sprinkled across the Christian landscape in our day, and various types of these movements have come and gone in the past. But one of the most dangerous concepts we hear in these circumstances is the idea that faith healing means that in order to be healed, a necessary condition is to have the faith that you are going to be healed. If you don't have that faith, then the lack of that faith will be the fatal impediment against your becoming healed. I've heard this time and again. Such thinking goes along with the idea that if you ask for healing or for mercy from God and you preface your request by saying, "If it be Your will," that somehow you're manifesting a lack of faith and that in the very request, you are committing a sin.

Years ago, I met a delightful young man on our campus in western Pennsylvania, where Ligonier Ministries began. Each January, we had a one-month course of collegiate studies called a January term. A number of students would come from different colleges, and among them was our dear friend Harvey. Harvey was an exceptionally bright young man, alert and contagious with his loving spirit and attitude and deeply devoted as a Christian. He suffered from a severe form of cerebral palsy. In fact, he used to laugh at himself when he would try to navigate the pathways during snowstorms, because it was always a matter literally of touch and go for Harvey. He had a great spirit.

One day, he came to me deeply distressed. He said, "R.C., do you think that I'm demon possessed?" I said, "Harvey, what in the world ever gave you the idea that you might be demon possessed?" He went on to relate the story to me that he had some friends, zealous charismatics in his dorm at college, and they had decided to pray and lay hands on Harvey that he might be healed of his cerebral palsy. They, in the name of Jesus, demanded that Harvey be cured of cerebral palsy, but Harvey wasn't cured. So the next thing these students did was tell Harvey that the reason he wasn't cured was because he didn't have the faith. They explained that you have to believe that you are healed before you can actually be healed. It is like talking to a blind man and saying, "If you want to have your sight back, you have to believe that you can see before God will open your eyes." To believe that you can see when you can't see is not faith; it's credulity, and it's destructive to the soul. These students became more and more harsh with Harvey, chastising him for his lack of faith, which had to be the reason he hadn't been healed. When he persisted in not being healed, they accused Harvey of being demon possessed.

These young students began from a virtuous posture of concern and compassion for one of their fellow students to serious intercessory prayer for that student, and they ended up accusing this poor soul of being demon possessed and leaving him in a state far worse than he was in before they began their intercession. After Harvey told me of his experience, he asked me again if I thought he was demon possessed. I assured him he wasn't and then I prayed for him. I'm happy to report that Harvey, who is still burdened with cerebral palsy, has not let his condition become a real impediment to him. He has a very productive Christian life, is in the business world, and continues his devout faith and brilliant testimony to the Lord, because when he prays he says, "If it be Your will," and he is satisfied with however God responds.

God is good even when He does not answer our prayers the way we would like. I hear people talk about the difficulty of dealing with unanswered prayer. I'm not sure what that is. I've never had an unanswered prayer. Sometimes the answer is no, but that's an answer. If the answer comes from the Lord God omnipotent, who is more compassionate than any of us, then it's a good answer because He is saying, "That's not My will right now for you, at least in the immediate circumstances." His promises remain for the glory that awaits us in heaven, and He tells us that the afflictions we have to deal with in this world aren't worthy to be compared to the glory that He has laid up for us in heaven (Rom. 8:18). But in the meantime, we may experience great pain, suffering, and affliction, and it's according to the sovereign will of God.

And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him (v. 13). When Jesus healed the leper, the response was immediate and complete.

Cleansing Rites And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them" (v. 14). What was Jesus referring to here? The leper had been made clean by Jesus, but the priests, who were called to be health inspectors of sorts, needed to certify that he was clean. It was necessary so the man could be welcomed back into the fellowship of the village, the synagogue, and the temple. Before those things could happen, before the leper's exile from his family and community could be lifted, he had to follow the prescriptions of the law that God gave through Moses in the Old Testament. Only the priests could verify that he had been cleansed and was legally permitted to rejoin his family and community. He had to go through all of the ritual that's involved, including the offering of the sacrifice.

In Leviticus 14:1–7, we read:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field."

There are some secondary ramifications of this seemingly obscure ritual in the Old Testament, and they have to do with baptism. Some people say that the only valid mode of baptism is immersion, and that, in fact, if someone is not baptized by immersion, he is not truly baptized. One line of argument for this view holds that the biblical word baptizō always means "to immerse." However, this is not the case. Baptizō does not always mean immerse. It may mean that, but it is used at other times to refer to an activity that is less than immersion.

One of the most important ancient documents we have is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is so named because it was composed by seventy scholars, and it was aimed at Hellenistic Jews, for the Jews of the Diaspora who had lost their command of the Hebrew language and were now speaking Greek. The scholars translated with great care and meticulous concern the Old Testament Hebrew into the Greek. This translation was done about a century before Christ's birth.

Ironically, when they translated this portion of Leviticus 14, they used a form of baptizō to describe this process by which two small birds are taken. One is sacrificed and the blood is drained from that bird's death into a basin. When that is done, the second bird is then "baptized" in the blood of the first bird. The problem is that it's impossible to immerse the second bird in the blood of the first bird. There's not enough blood. That's why the English translation "to dip" (v. 6) is used for the second bird that is dipped into the blood of the first bird.

A very old piece of Christian art found in the catacombs depicts the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. In it, Jesus is standing alongside John as John takes water and pours it over His head. Of course, that's not sacred Scripture, but it is a very early witness to the practice of baptism by pouring or sprinkling rather than by immersion.

Should we be baptizing infants? It's one small but significant point, that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he addressed a practical matter that the Corinthian believers encountered. It had to do with mixed marriages between Christians and non-Christians. Now, the Apostolic command is that a Christian is not allowed to marry a non-Christian. We still hold to that. But what happens when two pagans marry and one of them is converted and the other one isn't? There is now a mixed marriage, not by design but by consequence. What is the status, Paul is asked, of that person who is the unbeliever in this relationship? That's where Paul gives this seemingly strange advice: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband" (1 Cor. 7:14, NKJV). What does that mean? Does it mean that there is more than one way to be justified? Since sanctification follows justification, can we be justified by marriage as well as by faith? If we don't have faith, can we marry somebody who has that faith and be sanctified because of our spouse's status?

Here the term sanctified does not mean what we normally mean by that term, which is the process by which we are being conformed to the image of Christ after our conversion. Rather, Paul is speaking in Jewish covenantal language. When he says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife," he means the unbelieving husband is set apart, consecrated—not sent outside the camp, not considered unclean—but is now ritually clean and is allowed to be involved within the congregation of the faithful. Why would Paul allow an unbeliever to be consecrated or sanctified and to be within the broader confines of the covenant

community? We don't have to guess. He gives the reason: "Otherwise your children [the word there is infants] would be unclean" (1 Cor. 7:14, NKJV). Your infants, your little children, would be unclean outside the covenant. But Paul says, "Now they are holy," not because they are righteous but because they are considered consecrated, sanctified inside the covenant community.

That's one reason why the vast majority of Christians for two thousand years have included their children in receiving the sign of the covenant, just as God commanded Israel for two thousand years in the Old Testament to receive the sign of the covenant. We recognize our children as members of the covenant community, and we give them the sign of the new covenant, which is baptism. It's not the only reason, but it's one reason. We need to understand the biblical language of being clean and of being unclean. As we've seen most dramatically, the most unclean, the leper, is now made clean through the power of Christ.

But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray (vv. 15–16). When my car is running out of gas, I go to the gas station because I know it won't work once it's completely out of gas. Every time Jesus healed somebody, it drained Him. On some occasions, we read explicitly that the power went out of Him. The more the people came and the more they demanded from Him, the more important it became for Him to withdraw, to get alone with the Father, to have His strength recharged.

If it was necessary for the Lord Jesus to find that strengthening and intimate power from being alone with the Father, how much more important is it for us to be before the Father, gaining strength from His Spirit?

THE AUTHORITY

TO FORGIVE

Luke 5:17–26

On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." And immediately he rose up before them and picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God. And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, "We have seen extraordinary things today."

It was some thirty years ago that a small movie studio in Hollywood con-

tacted me and asked me if I would write a screenplay from a book I had written. They wanted to produce a full-length Hollywood motion picture. I kind of chuckled at the invitation because, as I told them, I didn't know the first thing about writing a screenplay. They said: "That's all right. We'll help you and show you the basics that you have to do." So I agreed under duress to make the attempt. The screenplay was finished, but the movie was never produced for lack of interest in the story.

But in writing that screenplay, I learned I had to try to imagine the story through the lens of the camera. Every shot of the camera had a particular perspective, or what the Hollywood people call a POV, a point of view.

As I read the text of this incident involving the healing of the paralytic, I thought of all these different people involved in this incident in the life of Jesus. I want to look at this narrative from the various points of view of those who participated in it. Let me begin with the point of view of those who brought this paralyzed man to where Jesus was teaching the crowds. Obviously, they were men who not only had compassion for their paralyzed friend but also went out of their way to do something about it.

I had a little existential response to this because in my high school years, my father, who had been a very popular man in the community, was stricken with a terminal illness, and all he could do was sit in a chair for three years without being involved in any external activities. During that whole time, not a single one of his friends came to the house to visit him. I was disillusioned by that. I couldn't understand it, and I would say to my mother: "Where are Dad's friends? Why haven't they come?" She tried to comfort me and said, "You have to understand that it's difficult for them to see your father in this condition." I replied, "It may be difficult for Dad's friends, but it's far more difficult for him to be in this condition and to have no one come to see him."

The Love of the Paralytic's Friends That stands in stark contrast to what we read here. And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus (v. 18). This man who was paralyzed had friends who not only said their prayers and would send over meals or other such things, but they also went out of their way to do something to help him ultimately. They heard about Jesus. Perhaps some of them had even been eyewitnesses of the miraculous healings that He had performed in their region. These fellows decided to take their friend to Jesus.

They got a stretcher and placed the man on it. If you look at it from their perspective, you can imagine how their hearts sank when they saw that not only was the house in which Jesus was teaching filled to capacity, but there were large crowds outside so that there seemed no possible way to even get near Jesus. But they were not to be denied. The homes at that time for the most part were small. They had flat, tiled roofs, and much of the family activity took place on the roof, because the rooms were so small.

But finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus (v. 19). Access to the roof would have been from an outside staircase attached to the wall. These men had the difficult task of carrying this man on the stretcher up the stairs to the roof. When they got there, they set the stretcher down and began to take the roof apart. They had to remove many tiles and make a hole big enough to slide the man down on the stretcher.

We can also look at this story from the perspective of the man who was paralyzed. His friends came to him one day and said: "There's a man in the land who is healing all kinds of diseases. The blind are seeing, the deaf are hearing, and we want to take you to Him because we believe that He can and He will heal you." I'm sure the man was afraid to believe, afraid to try

one more possible remedy that might free him from his paralysis and give him the opportunity to walk and to be productive again. However weak or strong his faith was at the moment, his friends said: "Come on! We're going to take you on a stretcher, and whatever it takes, we're going to bring you to this man Jesus." Obviously, hope stirred in the breast of this paralytic, and he allowed himself to be lifted up and placed on the litter.

What was going through his mind as he was bumped along on the stretcher? When they came to the house where Jesus was, he could see that the place was a teeming multitude of people. It was so crowded that he must have thought: "This was a wasted trip. There is no way I'm going to be able to see this man called Jesus." What was going through his mind when his friends carried him up the stairs? They obviously would have a difficult time keeping the stretcher balanced so he wouldn't slide off the back or the front of it. Then, when they set him down on the roof in the midday sun, he was probably thinking: "What good is this? I still can't even see Jesus. He can't see me."

Then he saw his friends removing tiles from the roof. He saw them take ropes and attach them to the four corners of the litter. He had to take a deep breath and trust the strength of his friends as they began to lower him down through the roof in front of all the people. I doubt he had ever been more self-conscious than at that moment.

But what about the people who were there? They were trying to listen to Jesus teach. They were hanging on every word, and all of a sudden they saw some dust falling down from the ceiling, and they looked up. Soon there was a little hole in the ceiling. They wondered what it was and tried to return their attention to Jesus. Then more debris started to fall down from the ceiling. They looked up, and the hole grew bigger and bigger. Everybody was looking up at the ceiling. Then they saw a stretcher being lowered right in their midst as they scrambled to get out of the way of this man who was being dropped down in front of Jesus.

Jesus Forgives the Paralytic Of course, there's Jesus' perspective. We can't know exactly what He was thinking, but He may have thought: "I've seen people go to desperate measures to come into My presence. The kingdom is being taken by force by these people who are pressing into My kingdom, but I've never seen faith like this in all of Israel." His eyes were on this poor man as he was lowered down in front of Him.

Often, we're told in the New Testament writings that when Jesus looked upon people who were suffering, He had compassion for them. So it was when He saw this man. He knew that every eye in the room and those that peered through the windows were watching to see what He would do. He knew the scribes and the Pharisees gathered there were also watching carefully, not only to see what He would do but to hear what He would say.

And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you" (v. 20). Can you hear the ripple through the crowd? "What did He say?" "What did He say?" He said the man's sins were forgiven. What did that have to do with this whole event? This paralytic man didn't come to have his sins forgiven. He was coming to be healed. And Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven you."

What about the point of view of the scribes and the Pharisees (v. 21)? They had come from Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem to examine the work of Jesus, to catch Him in some unlawful act. They were skeptics and they were hostile toward Jesus. They saw the spectacle of the man being dropped down from the roof and probably thought it was an insult to proper decorum. Then they heard the words of Jesus. They said: "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 21). "What? What did He say? Did He tell that man that his sins were forgiven? Who does this Jesus think He is? We know that only God has the authority to forgive sins."

On this one point, their theology was sound. Only God has the authority to forgive sins. He may delegate that authority to His representatives to speak in His name, but the ultimate authority rests with God Himself. During the Reformation, Rome and the Protestant Reformers disputed over the sacrament of reconciliation. But the dispute was over the legitimacy of works of satisfaction, not the point when the priest gives absolution and says "Te absolvo" ("I absolve you") after somebody makes a confession of their sins.

The Reformers recognized that the Roman church had taught that the priest does not have the authority in himself to forgive sins, for only God can ultimately forgive sins, and the Reformers also recognized that Christ had said to His disciples, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them" (John 20:23). Jesus delegated that authority to the church, and when the church gives the assurance of pardon or the assurance of forgiveness, it's not doing it on its own authority but only on the authority of Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth was given by the Father (Matt. 28:18). But the scribes and Pharisees said: "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 21). Jesus (back to His point of view) knew what they were thinking. When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?" (vv. 22–23).

Jesus was responding to what they were saying and thinking. He didn't tell us what the answer is. If you read all the commentaries, they are divided about which is easier to say. In one sense, both are easy to say. Anybody can say, "Your sins are forgiven," and anybody can say, "Rise up and walk." But that doesn't make it happen. But on the one hand, it's easier to say, "Your sins are forgiven," than to say, "Rise up and walk." Why? It's easier to say it because there's no way that anyone can prove that what you've just

said is true or that they can refute it. Forgiveness is something that takes place in the invisible realm. It's hidden from our view.

On the other hand, if a preacher says, "Rise up and walk," you're going to know very quickly whether what he says is true because the proof is readily observable. If Jesus would have said, "Rise up and walk," and the man was unable to rise up and walk, Jesus would be shown to be a fraud. So in one sense, it would be much easier to simply say, "Your sins are forgiven." However, for Jesus to say "Rise up and walk" was not a difficult thing. He had done much more difficult things in the past, but to say "Your sins are forgiven" in front of the Pharisees and scribes was to risk His life. Blasphemy was a capital offense.

The Power to Forgive I think, given the circumstances, that Jesus took the more difficult tack here when He publicly announced that this man's sins were forgiven. Further, He said: "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home" (v. 24). With that, Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that the Son of Man is also the Son of God, the One who descends from heaven, from the throne of judgment, who will judge the earth. He is the One who has the authority and the power to pardon the sinner.

And immediately he rose up before them and picked up what he had been lying on and went home, glorifying God. And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, "We have seen extraordinary things today" (vv. 25–26). The second Jesus spoke the words, the paralyzed man's legs were filled with strength. He got up from that stretcher, and he didn't need his friends to carry him. He took the stretcher, walked on his own, free from the paralysis, free from sin.

I don't want to spiritualize this text. This man wasn't spiritually paralyzed; he was physically paralyzed. But each one of us who deals with unforgiven guilt suffers from an amazingly paralyzing force. If you suffer from that kind of paralysis, if there's a sin that has haunted you for years and years, that has spoiled your liberty as a Christian, this text tells you what to do about it, because there's only one cure for guilt, and that's forgiveness. And here is the One who has the power and the authority ultimately to say, "Te absolvo—I forgive you."

THE CALL OF LEVI

Luke 5:27–32

After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, "Follow me." And leaving everything, he rose and followed him.

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

It was 1964, and I was walking by myself down a street that was called the

van der Helstlaan in the ancient, walled city of Naarden in the Netherlands. I was returning to the house where we had rented rooms during my graduate studies there. As I approached our house, I saw an elderly lady coming from the other direction. She was carrying a bag of groceries, and I smiled and greeted her. She stopped suddenly, and her face lit up and she spoke to me. It was like she wanted to hold me there, to not let me pass on.

I spoke to her for five minutes and bade her goodbye, and she went on her way and I went into the house.

As I walked in the door, I was met by our landlady, who was livid. She screamed at me, asking me how I could speak to that terrible woman I had met on the street. I didn't understand what was behind all this intense anger. The landlady finally explained that during World War II, which had ended only nineteen years before, this woman had been a Nazi collaborator. She was a traitor to her own people. She gave comfort and help to the occupying Nazis in the town.

Then our landlady went on to tell how the Germans were taking the sons, the young men, from the village and shipping them to Germany and putting them to work in slave labor camps to help in the military production effort. The woman in whose house we lived, together with her next-door neighbor, had conspired to dig a safe place under the landlady's living room floor, where they put a bed, water, food, and some flashlights, so if the Germans came near, they could hide her son and the next-door neighbor's son. She told how one day the Gestapo came into her house carrying machine guns and asked the woman, "Do you have any sons?" She said, "No." They ran to the bedroom and felt the bed and looked in the closet to see if there was any evidence of young men, and then to finish their examination, they came back to the living room. The leader pointed his gun at the floor, then started to shoot into the floor where the two young men were in hiding.

While they were shooting into the floor, they were watching the boy's mother to see what her reaction would be. When they finished and were satisfied that there were no young men there, the Germans left. This woman rushed over to the concealed trapdoor and went down into this cubbyhole and discovered to her relief that neither of the young men had been hit by the bullets. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine hiding your own son in your house and having somebody come in with a gun and start shooting at

the floorboards? That's the kind of thing you see in movies, and it's hard to imagine that it actually happened. When I heard that story, I understood the intensity of her hatred toward her collaborator neighbor that had lasted for nineteen years.

I tell this story for a reason. The kind of hatred the woman had for the traitor, the collaborator, was how the Jewish people felt about tax collectors. In Israel, the terms sinners and tax collectors (v. 30) were virtually synonymous, because the people believed the worst sin was the sin of collaboration with the Romans who so severely oppressed the Jewish people. Perhaps the most miserable way in which the Romans oppressed the Jews was through taxation. The burden of the taxes that the Roman government imposed on captive Israel was incredible.

A Tax Collector Named Levi After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth (v. 27). Here was a Jewish man who worked for the Romans, sitting outside at his tax booth, along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, on the trade route from Syria to Egypt, and he collected a toll tax or a tariff of some sort, keeping a percentage of what he collected for himself. The pious Jews, who prayed for their deliverance from the Romans every day, couldn't stand to look at this man named Levi. He was lining his own pockets by means of the oppressive, confiscatory taxes levied by the Roman government.

In God's structure of a nation, there was a distinction between priests and kings, between what we call the civil government and the religious establishment. God imposed a tax, as it were, upon His church in Israel. It was called a tithe, and every Jew was required to bring of his firstfruits, 10 percent of his yield. In addition to the tithes and the offerings, the people also supported the priests and the Levites, the religious life and the educational life of the people. God also imposed a head tax that was given to support the civil government.

The same principle is given implicitly to governments around the world, and we are told as Christians that we are to pay taxes to whom taxes are due (20:25). Yet at the same time, God holds governments responsible for requiring only the payment of taxes that are legitimate in His sight and chiefly through the imposition of a head tax where everybody pays the same amount of money. There is no progressive tax, no class warfare, no politicization of the economy in God's order of things. Government is established by God and is responsible to God to seek safety, peace, and justice.

Levi was a wealthy man, and most likely he wasn't tithing. Jesus came to him, a man who routinely stole from God and stole from his own people, and called him to be His disciple. Jesus called him to write the gospel, because Levi's other name was Matthew. He wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. Jesus said, "Follow me." And leaving everything, he rose and followed him (vv. 27–28). Levi packed up his ledger, threw away his account books, folded up his table, and said, "Yes, Lord, I'm going with You."

Calling Sinners to Repentance And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them (v. 29). Not only did he follow Jesus, but he also threw a feast for Jesus. He opened his house. He invited all his tax-collector friends over for this party, and they reclined and enjoyed the feast. And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" (v. 30). Of course, it was known by the Pharisees. How could Jesus go to a party with tax collectors? They grumbled to Jesus' disciples over the company Jesus was keeping.

The Pharisees believed in salvation by segregation, by separating themselves from the am haaretz, the people of the land, by which they meant the people of the dirt, the dirty people, the outcasts, the sinners. To

the Pharisees, salvation meant staying a safe distance from such people, because if you came close to them, you could become contaminated. When they saw Jesus going to this party with tax collectors, it was more than they could stand. They thought He was going too far with forgiving sins and eating and drinking with tax collectors. Jesus responded to them with very simple wisdom, saying: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (vv. 31–32).

Jesus was making a simple point to the Pharisees: "You don't know who I am or why I'm here. I'm the Son of Man, and I've come to seek and to save the lost. I found one of those people who was lost at that table, sitting along the toll road, and I asked him to join My group, and he left everything to follow Me. I came for Matthew. I came for tax collectors, for prostitutes, for the people of the land, the dirty people. They are My people. I'm going to shed My blood for these people, for your enemies. I didn't come to save the righteous or to call the righteous to repentance, but to call sinners to repentance."

There was, the night of that banquet, no one who needed repentance more than the scribes and the Pharisees. Nobody needs a physician more than somebody who is fatally ill but doesn't know it. So it was with the Pharisees, and so it was with the scribes, and so it is with all of us who think that we don't need the ministrations of the Son of God to cover our sins, to forgive us, and to redeem us. This is our Savior who calls tax collectors to join Him; who calls tithe evaders to be His; and who wants His people to be made whole, to delight in the things that He delights in and to delight in the law of God.

NEW WINESKINS

Luke 5:33–39

And they said to him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink." And Jesus said to them, "Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days." He also told them a parable: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, 'The old is good.'"

Earlier we looked at Luke's description of the call of Matthew the tax

collector and how he had a feast at his home for Jesus and invited all of his friends, the other tax collectors of the day. The Pharisees were put out by that because Jesus was now associating with known sinners. But that was not the end of their distress; they continued in their critical attitude toward Jesus. They raised a new issue in this passage. We're told that they came to

Jesus and said, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink" (v. 33). They were upset about Jesus' apparent neglect of their tradition of fasting.

In the Old Testament, God commanded that the people of Israel fast on one occasion, on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29), but for the rest of the year fasting was a matter of voluntary activity and practice. We see two particular times when fasting occurred in the Old Testament. The first was when people sought for a deeper and sharper focus on the things of God. They would withdraw from normal activities and devote themselves exclusively to contemplation and meditation on the things of God. The other prevalent reason for additional fasting was as an expression of mourning. When death came to a loved one, or great defeat came to the nation, or a time of repentance was at hand, the people expressed their grief and their mourning by rending their garments and entering into a fast.

But the Pharisees, who were the archconservatives of Israel, created new laws that God hadn't imposed upon the people. They created their own traditions, and their tradition sought to require the Jews to fast twice a week for at least a portion of the day. Not only that, but in their zeal for righteousness, they began to teach the idea that fasting was such a righteous enterprise that it would bring merit to the person who fasted. So this was just one more element of the Pharisees' attempt of self-justification.

On another occasion, Jesus rebuked them for substituting their traditions, the traditions of men, for the law of God (Matt. 23:1–36). This is the first rule of the legalist. The legalist legislates where God leaves people free. He takes "you may" and turns it into "you must," and that is absolutely fatal to a healthy Christian life. The Pharisees, who considered themselves the ultimate standard of righteousness, were the fathers of this kind of legalism. The second point of legalism is the idea that you can earn your way into heaven by doing good works or by obeying the law. Again, the Pharisees were at the forefront of those who taught this fatal error. They

were, as I say, archconservatives. But what they were zealous to conserve was not the law of God. They were zealous to conserve their own traditions.

We must be careful here, because the New Testament speaks of another kind of tradition. Jesus was sharply critical of the traditionalism of the Pharisees, but during the Apostolic age, the Apostle Paul spoke warmly and approvingly about what he called in Greek the paradosis, which he received and which he instructed his readers to pass on. Paradosis is the Greek word for "tradition." So there is a godly tradition, the Apostolic tradition, which is to be maintained and guarded in every age of the church.

Some people believe something can't be good unless it's new. They, like the people and the philosophers who gathered together at the Areopagus in Athens (see Acts 17:16–34), think the old is always outmoded. As Luke tells us, they were always discussing "something new" (v. 21). We see this same tendency in the church, where we always are receiving new insights, new theologies that come down the pike to challenge classic Christian orthodoxy. It takes great discernment, great wisdom and knowledge of the things of God, to know when to be conservative and when to be open.

We always have to ask ourselves, "What is it that we're trying to conserve and why?" I don't care about preserving human traditions just because they're traditions, but I do care about preserving the biblical and Apostolic tradition.

A New Day And Jesus said to them, "Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days" (vv. 34– 35). We have a conflict now between Jesus and the Pharisees. How did Jesus respond to the question, "What about You and Your disciples?" What Jesus says in so many words is this: "What time is it?" Jesus wasn't asking them what time it was in the day. He was asking them what time it was in terms of redemptive history.

The Bible was written over literally thousands of years, and God's revelation of Himself and of His plan of redemption and of salvation was revealed gradually and progressively, beginning in Genesis and then expanding through the Prophets and the whole Old Testament where God was adding new information about the kingdom that was to come. He established feasts that were to be celebrated: the feast of the Passover, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Weeks. All of these things were not to be fulfilled in and of themselves. The New Testament tells us, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb. 10:4), and yet there was this elaborate procedure in the Old Testament of the slaying of the animals on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). These things were the shadows of what was to come. They were symbols that pointed beyond themselves to that which would come in the fullness of time when the final sacrifice would be made and the ultimate atonement offered. Then, these shadows would be discarded.

There are people today who want to take all of the Old Testament and bring it over into the new covenant, and there are those people who say the Old Testament is totally obsolete. They don't care a bit about it, and all they care about is the New Testament. No. There is an intimate relationship between Old Testament revelation and New Testament revelation. But at the same time, there are things that pass away, that are abrogated. The ceremonial law and the dietary laws of the Old Testament, for instance, have been set aside. The moral law of God has not been set aside.

Jesus understood that, but the Pharisees didn't get it. In talking about the coming of "the bridegroom" (v. 34), Jesus was speaking of Himself and His incarnation. Just as Israel was the bride of God in the Old Testament, so the New Testament church is the bride of Christ, and He's the Bridegroom who had been promised for centuries before, and now He was here. When the Bridegroom is here, you don't fast, you don't mourn, you

don't rend your garments. You rejoice, you throw a party, but the Pharisees didn't know what time it was.

"The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days" (v. 35). Jesus was referring to His execution and His removal at the end of His incarnation. That's why in the early church, after the departure of Jesus, there was a great revival of voluntary fasting among Christian people. During times of persecution, when Christians were being thrown to the lions and suffering, their fellow believers would pray and fast for them.

New Wineskins I don't know how closely the Pharisees listened to this illustration, but I'm sure they paid attention to the next one, because it touched upon something important to them, and that was their wine. Jesus gave this illustration: "No one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, 'The old is good'" (vv. 37– 39). The old wineskins made out of goatskin or sheepskin had been stretched because the wine that was in them was continuing to ferment and stretching the leather to its limit. Jesus said: "If you put new wine in the old wineskins and that new wine starts to ferment, in the fermentation process the gases expand and stretch the old wineskins. The old wineskins have already been stretched, so if you put new wine in there and leave it in, you're going to lose the wineskin because it's going to break. What else are you going to lose? You'll lose the wine. You put the wine in the wineskin to preserve the wine so you can carry it about and enjoy the wine. In this case, you put new wine in the old wineskins, and you're going to lose both the wineskin and the wine."

What Jesus was saying is simple. You can't just take the kingdom of God and the arrival of Jesus and just put it on top of the Pharisees' traditions. It won't fit. Something new was happening. There was a new covenant. Yes, it built on the old, but it couldn't be absorbed totally by the old. You need to have a new aspect if you're going to fit into the new covenant, and by extension you can't have Christ and squeeze Him into your old life and expect that to work. A dreadful teaching has spread throughout evangelical Christianity, the teaching that someone can be a carnal Christian, that someone can become converted to Christ and never change. This is blasphemy. It is completely against the teaching of Christ and against the New Testament.

When you are born again by the Holy Ghost, you're a changed person. If you never experience change, your conversion experience is false. You can't be born of the Holy Spirit and not experience change. It is impossible. The sanctification that follows takes your whole lifetime and then into glory, but at conversion change begins immediately. One way you can check yourself, if you question whether you are converted, is by asking, "Has there been any change in my life, or am I still living the old way in the old wineskins?" If you are in Christ, you are a new creature. You need a new skin to carry the wine of the Holy Ghost.

JESUS AS LORD OF THE SABBATH

Luke 6:1–5

On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, "Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?" And Jesus answered them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?" And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

Once again, Luke tells us of a conflict that arises between Jesus and the

Pharisees, and again it occurs on a Sabbath day. We read the somewhat innocuous report that Jesus was going through the grainfields and his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands (v. 1). While this was happening, the Pharisees took notice and objected, as was their custom. They said, "Why are you doing what is not

lawful to do on the Sabbath?" (v. 2). They began to nitpick this action of Jesus' disciples.

Keep this in mind that according to the Deuteronomic law of the Old Testament, it was permissible for passersby to go into a grainfield and help themselves to the basic necessities that were available there (Lev. 23:22). Of course, sojourners were not allowed to harvest all the crop and steal it from the farmer, but the disciples' action was part of the broader principles of gleaning that were set forth in the Old Testament. So by no means were Jesus and His disciples breaking the law of God.

The Pharisees were not content for the law of God to stand by itself. They added numerous regulations—more than a thousand—regarding what they thought was permitted and forbidden in terms of Sabbath keeping. According to their traditions, Jesus and His disciples had violated the Sabbath by engaging in unnecessary labor on the Sabbath day. For by picking an ear of grain, Jesus and His disciples were guilty of harvesting, and by rubbing the grain together, they were guilty of threshing. And so, the Pharisees were shaking their finger once again in the face of Jesus.

It's a wonder that Jesus, God incarnate, didn't at this point decide He had had enough and unleash the full power of His deity on the Pharisees. In any case, He patiently answered their objection and reminded them of Old Testament history by calling attention to the account of an event in the life of David and his comrades: "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?" (vv. 3–4). When they were very hungry and had no food available to them, they went into the tabernacle and into the Holy Place (not into the Holy of Holies), where the showbread was on the altar as part of the ceremonies of Old Testament worship. David, realizing this was the only available food

nearby for him and his comrades, took the bread from the altar and fed his soldiers and himself with it (1 Sam. 21:1–6).

Jesus showed His approval for David's actions regarding the bread; He enunciated the principle that no ceremony outweighs the fundamental needs of human life. David and his men were not involved in an act of vandalism, nor were they in a frivolous way helping themselves to food from the altar. They were eating because they had genuine hunger and needed the bread's sustenance. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their failure to understand what David had done in the Old Testament and for their failure to be concerned about the needs of Jesus and His disciples.

The Son of Man However, this passage is about much more than what Jesus and His disciples did and how He answered the criticism of the Pharisees. In this narrative, Jesus makes a pronouncement that is overwhelming in its importance for us and for our understanding of Him: And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath" (v. 5).

We can divide this statement into two parts. The first is where Jesus calls Himself, once again, the "Son of Man." We've heard Him do this before. When He announced the forgiveness of sins for the paralytic, the Pharisees were angry, and Jesus said on that occasion, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (5:24).

If we count the times Jesus is described in the New Testament by various titles and we look at their frequency, we see that far and away the number one title ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament is the title Christ, or Christos. It's used so often that we sometimes think that Christ is Jesus' last name. Jesus is His name; Christ is His title, which is the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament word for Messiah. So when the New Testament talks about Jesus Christ, it means Jesus Messiah, Jesus the Anointed One.

The second most frequently given title to Jesus in the New Testament is Lord, which is significant because it is the Greek word kyrios. Lord corresponds to the Old Testament title Adonai, "Lord," which is used to denote God's supreme authority. When the Bible says, "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" (Ps. 8:9), what the Hebrew is saying is, "O Yahweh" (that's His name) "our Adonai" (that's His supreme title), "how majestic is your name."

Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name" (2:5–9). Then Paul says, "So 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" (vv. 10–11). The name that is above every name is not the name Jesus. It's that title Lord—Adonai, kyrios.

In third place in terms of frequency is the title Son of Man. What is interesting about this is that this title occurs in the New Testament eightythree times, but seventy-eight of them are from Jesus Himself. That means that Son of Man is the title that Jesus used most frequently for Himself.

We might think that Son of Man is a reference to Jesus' humanity. But, though the title includes a reference to His humanity, the dominant reference is to His deity. We can see this in a passage where this title appears in the Old Testament. In Daniel 7, the prophet writes regarding a vision of heaven:

"As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten

thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened . . .. I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (vv. 9–10, 13–14)

The "one like a son of man" in this passage is an exalted figure, one who is given power to rule and reign in the name of God, the "Ancient of Days." He is no mere human but one with divine authority. In using this title for Himself, Jesus is claiming deity. So, when Jesus uses the title "Son of Man" in Luke 6:5, He is claiming to be the One who comes from heaven, who carries the full measure of His deity with Him, and with that deity the full authority that is associated with Him.

Lord of the Sabbath The second part of the statement, "lord of the Sabbath" (v. 5), would have been startling to the Pharisees. When was the Sabbath day established? Of course, it was one of the Ten Commandments that Moses brought down from Sinai. We may think that the sanctity of the Sabbath was established with the covenant God made with His people through Moses. No. Though the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, it was instituted in creation.

The Sabbath is a creation ordinance established by God in His original work, where He worked for six days creating all that there was. On the seventh day He rested, and He hallowed it, He sanctified it. The Sabbath was sanctified in creation, and the only one who had authority to hallow the Sabbath day was God Himself—not the birds of the air or the fish of the sea or even the creatures that God made in His own image. Only the Creator can be Lord of the Sabbath day. And here, the Lord of the Sabbath day, the One who made all things, is now in His incarnation being challenged by the Pharisees for His behavior on the Sabbath day. He responds by asserting absolute authority over the Sabbath, asking in effect, "Who do you think

made the Sabbath day?" We can understand why they couldn't wait to kill Him as a blasphemer. Jesus was claiming nothing less than absolute divine authority.

A controversy that has raged throughout Christian history is the question of which is the proper day for Christians to come together for worship. The original Sabbath in Israel was established on the seventh day of the week, and now Christians almost universally worship God on the first day of the week. The Sabbath cycle is still maintained, one in seven, because that's what the word Sabbath means. But now it's the first day rather than the seventh day. Why? Because the Lord of the Sabbath was resurrected on the first day of the week, and in His resurrection He proved the ultimate intent and purpose of the original Sabbath day by which God provides for His people a time of rest. It points forward to the future time when His people will enter into their rest by resurrection. The Lord of the Sabbath was raised on the first day of the week, and so the early church came together to worship, to celebrate the sacraments, and to hear the Word of God preached on the Lord's Day, on the Lord of the Sabbath's day, which is now the first day of the week.

These things and so much more are contained in the title Son of Man and the claim by our Lord that He as the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath. This is a clear declaration of the deity of Christ that the One who went into the grainfield to feed Himself and His friends is the One who came down from heaven and would return there to take His seat at the right hand of the Father. It is this Son of Man whom we serve and worship on His day.

THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND

Luke 6: 6–11

On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come and stand here." And he rose and stood there. And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?" And after looking around at them all he said to him, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

Christians often formulate all kinds of laws that have nothing whatsoever

to do with the law of God. No drinking, no dancing, no going to movies or the theater—how do these rules and regulations come up to be tests of Christianity when they're nowhere in the Word of God? We, like the Pharisees, create rules that we can keep instead of obeying the ones that

God gives us, which are much harder to keep. Anybody can refrain from seeing movies—but to not slander? That is difficult to obey.

On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him (vv. 6–7). Jesus knew what to expect when He entered the synagogue that Sabbath day. He knew the Pharisees would be watching Him to see if they could find a reason to accuse Him of breaking the law.

But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come and stand here." And he rose and stood there (v. 8). Jesus enlisted a man with a withered hand for His own purposes, and He told the man to step forward. In a sense, it seems that Jesus was putting this man at risk. The man didn't want to be used as exhibit A in a trial against Jesus. He didn't want to be the center of this controversy, and so, like most people, he probably wanted to shrink back into the shadows. But even more, the man wanted to get back the use of his hand. He stepped forward, and when Jesus said, "Stretch out your hand," he did, and his hand was restored (v. 10).

Jesus had put the question to His enemies here, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?" (v. 9). Jesus was not asking whether it was lawful to do on the Sabbath what the rabbis permitted. He was asking whether it was proper or just to do good. Healing a man's hand is a good thing, and good things like this may be done not just six days a week but seven days a week. Is it lawful for a nurse or a doctor to help people who are sick on the Sabbath day? Of course it is. Is it lawful to save life rather than take it? The irony is that the Pharisees were ready to bring charges against Jesus for violating the Sabbath, for doing good on the Sabbath, for healing on the Sabbath, and they were plotting to kill Him. That was a gross violation of the Sabbath, of

the sanctity of the day that God has set apart for our well-being. And finally, we read that the Pharisees were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus (v. 11).

The Bible warns us about grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). In the days before the flood, God looked at the evil in this world and said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever" (Gen. 6:3). There's a point when His compassion ends, His mercy stops, and His anger erupts. Therefore, don't harden your hearts when you hear the Word of God. The Holy Ghost uses the Word of God to quicken our consciences, to make us aware of our rebellion against God. Nothing has the power to bring us to health like the Word of God, and so let us not hear a story like this and then be like the Pharisees and say, "Oh, those bad Pharisees." When we do that, we're just like them. But my prayer as a Christian is "O God, don't be angry with me. Don't let me give You cause to be furious with me. Don't let me grieve You because my heart is hardened." When we hear a story like this, we want to say: "Lord, You are the Lord of the Sabbath. What do You want from me? Give me ears to hear and a heart that is open to embrace everything that You say."

THE TWELVE APOSTLES,

PART 1

Luke 6:12–16

In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

This short passage has great historical significance, because on this occa-

sion Jesus appointed twelve of His disciples and gave them the office of Apostle. History notes that this small handful of men later turned the world upside down. It is amazing what God did, and is continuing to do, with this group of people as a result of their ongoing influence.

In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God (v. 12). That Jesus separated Himself from His disciples and from the multitudes for seasons of prayer is not unusual. But Luke adds the detail that all night He continued in prayer to God. That's a long time to spend in prayer, and I think even Jesus reserved that kind of marathon of prayer for extraordinary occasions. We know of the intensity of His prayer in the garden of Gethsemane before He was betrayed and tried and killed. But here, we see Jesus wrestling all night in prayer before the

Father, as He was about to select His Apostles who would carry on His ministry after Jesus left this planet.

From the beginning we are told that one of the twelve who were selected became a traitor (v. 16). Jesus knew from the beginning about Judas' plans and desires. Yet, in the course of this time of prayer, Jesus certainly wrestled with, among other things, the decision to select the one whom He knew would betray Him.

The Office of Apostle When day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles (v. 13). People sometimes talk about the twelve disciples and the twelve Apostles as if a disciple was the same thing as an Apostle. That's not the case. Jesus had many more disciples than twelve. On one occasion, He sent seventy-two of them out on a preaching mission (10:1–12), and from this larger band of seventy-two disciples, He selected twelve to be Apostles. The term disciple means a learner or a student. In this period in Jewish history, disciples were not merely students; they were also followers of certain leaders, such as a rabbi or John the Baptist.

An apostle was different, and the role of an apostle was one of great significance. The role of a student was considered a somewhat lowly position, one similar to that of a servant. But an apostle was one who was bathed in authority. In the ancient world, an apostolos was "one who was sent." Someone who filled that role functioned as an emissary or ambassador or a representative of someone in a high position. For example, kings might send out apostles to represent them, and they carried with them the authority of the one who sent them. So, when Jesus separated twelve men and gave them Apostolic authority, He was assigning to them His own authority so that what they said and what they taught carried with it the full weight of Jesus' authority.

The first Apostle in the New Testament, and the greatest Apostle in the New Testament, indeed the supreme Apostle in the New Testament, was

Jesus Himself. Jesus said, "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak" (John 12:49). The Father had given Him all authority on heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). So when Jesus spoke, He spoke with the authority of the One who sent Him, and the One who sent Him was God. In a similar manner, Jesus then selected His Apostles and said to them, "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). This is important to remember at a time when people try to draw lines of distinction between Jesus and the authors of the Scriptures. The truth is, if we want to have Christ, we must receive the teachings of His prophets and Apostles, because they carry the authority of the One who commissioned them. Scripture tells us that the foundation of the church is not Jesus; it's the prophets and the Apostles (Eph. 2:20). In the building metaphor, it is the prophets and the Apostles who are described as the foundation, and Jesus is the chief cornerstone. The Bible says there's no other foundation that can be laid, but that which is laid in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11), but the whole foundation is built upon the prophets and the Apostles. When we reject the prophets and Apostles, we reject the very foundation of the church. As the psalmist says, "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). The foundations of the church are built in large measure on these people who are mentioned here in this text.

Simon Peter Simon, whom he named Peter (v. 14). In every list of the Apostles given in the New Testament, Simon Peter is the first one mentioned (Matt. 10:1– 4; Mark 3:13–19). That's a fascinating point because he was not the first disciple. His younger brother Andrew preceded him in discipleship, and it was his younger brother who introduced Peter to Jesus (John 1:35–42).

Peter is first on every list, and it's probably not because he was the first bishop of Rome (as the Roman Catholic Church claims) but because he clearly had a position of leadership among the Apostles. He became the spokesman for them. He's known as a man who was impetuous and in some ways unreliable. His performance throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus would have earned him the nickname "the sand" rather than "the rock" (see Matt. 16:18). However, after the death and resurrection of our Lord, Peter was indeed the rock of the early church.

During the ministry of Jesus, we see this wavering spirit of Peter. He's bold enough to walk out onto the water following Jesus, but also he is the one, when he doubts, who starts to sink (Matt. 14:22–33). He distinguishes himself at Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matt. 16:13). Some of the answers were John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, and one of the prophets. Jesus says, "But who do you say that I am?" (v. 15). It was Simon who gave the great confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). And with that confession of faith, Jesus turned to Simon and said: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (vv. 17–18). Soon after Jesus called Simon "the rock," He gave him another name because Jesus announced to His disciples that they were going to go back to Jerusalem, and there Jesus would be handed over to the Gentiles and be judged and be killed. Peter said: "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you" (v. 22). Imagine that: "Far be it from You, Lord. No, Lord. You cannot do that, Lord." Jesus listened to His close friend and disciple, and when He looked at Peter, He saw something else, and He said, "Get behind me, Satan!" (v. 23).

The same Simon Peter who gave the magnificent confession of faith also denied Jesus. During Jesus' trial, Peter was confronted not by the authorities, not by the soldiers, but by a maid who asked if Peter was one of the followers of Jesus. Peter cursed with a loud voice, denying three times that he even knew Jesus. The same Simon Peter later met with the risen Christ on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and was asked three times by Jesus, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" As he had denied Jesus three times earlier, now Peter affirmed his love for Christ three times, "You know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17).

Peter's ministry later was a great blessing to the church as persecution broke out in Jerusalem against the Christians. Peter was imprisoned (Acts 12). The rest of the Apostles met in secret and prayed diligently for the release of Peter. Their prayer time was interrupted by a knock at the door. A servant girl recognized Peter's voice and came and told the others. They dismissed her, saying, "It is his angel!" (v. 15). As they were praying that God would rescue Peter from his imprisonment, Peter arrived, but they didn't believe it. They thought it was his ghost at the door.

Peter's ministry continued into the AD 60s. He was arrested by the Romans under the tyranny of Nero, who also saw to it that the Apostle Paul would be executed that same year. Simon Peter was thrown into the Mamertine Prison in Rome, where he was tortured before he was taken out of that prison to the Circus Maximus and executed by crucifixion. Because he said he was not worthy to be executed in the same manner as Jesus was, he was crucified upside down.

Andrew, James, and John Andrew his brother (v. 14) was the first disciple who was called. He had originally been a follower of John the Baptist, and he heard John the Baptist point to Jesus as the One whom he was announcing as the coming Messiah (John 1:35–42). Andrew transferred his allegiance from John the Baptist to Jesus, obviously with John's blessing. Andrew brought his older brother

Simon to Jesus, and so the two brothers became disciples and both were elevated to the level of Apostles.

In AD 70, Andrew also suffered martyrdom. His crucifixion was on a cross that was in the shape of an X. Tradition tells us that when he saw the cross that had been prepared for his execution, he broke out in joy. He said, "For my whole life has been for the cross." He was delighted that he could join his Savior in death through crucifixion. He was tied to that cross, and he lived on that cross for three days before he died.

The other two disciples mentioned here are James and John (v. 14). They, along with Peter, are normally considered to be the inner circle of the Twelve. These three were present at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1–7). Just as Andrew and Peter were brothers, so James and John were brothers. They were known as the sons of Zebedee and were also known by the nickname Boanerges, "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17), because they wanted Jesus to bring down fire from heaven. These were firebrand disciples. They were not meek and mild. They were ready to turn the world upside down. They were the ones who had their mother intercede with Jesus, asking that when He came into His kingdom her two sons could be placed at His right and left hands (Matt. 20:20–28).

James the son of Zebedee is sometimes called James the Greater to distinguish him from James the son of Alphaeus (v. 15), who was called James the Less. James the Greater had the distinction of being the first Apostolic martyr in Christian history. He was not the first Christian martyr. The first martyr, of course, was Stephen, but the first of the Twelve, the first of the Apostles, to be martyred was James in the year AD 44 during a time of persecution by Herod Antipas (Acts 12:1–2).

His brother John had the distinction of being the only one of the Twelve not to suffer a violent death. Ten out of the twelve were martyred for the faith. One out of the twelve took his own life in remorse, and that of course was Judas. Tradition tells us that all the rest of the Apostles suffered and

died for their faith. It was said of John that he suffered and lived for the faith.

That John escaped martyrdom does not mean that he escaped suffering. He was subjected to suffering throughout his whole life, which was a long life. He was the last of the Apostles to die.

John wrote five books of the New Testament: the Gospel of John; 1, 2, and 3 John, and the book of Revelation. He was the only Apostle to author a Gospel. Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and it is thought that John Mark, author of the Gospel of Mark, was Peter's disciple and set down Peter's teaching in his Gospel, but Peter was not the author. John was known as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and he was also known for being the disciple or the Apostle of love. His admonishment to the Christian community was always "Beloved, let us love one another" (1 John 4:7).

Under the emperor Domitian, John was exiled to the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea, where he received the heavenly vision that he recorded, as Jesus instructed him to, in the book of Revelation. In that book, we have a marvelous vision of the triumph of Christ over all His enemies and the triumph of His people, who will participate in that victory.

John suffered many times. The church father Tertullian records that Domitian ordered John to be plunged into a pot of boiling oil but that John miraculously survived unscathed. Tradition tells us that on another occasion, he was supposed to be executed by poison. He drank the poison and it didn't affect him. He didn't die until the Lord was ready to take him.

Philip and Bartholomew The New Testament doesn't give us a lot of information about Philip (v. 14), but he is introduced very early in the Gospel of John when we're told that he came to Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (1:45). Philip, in bearing witness to Jesus, made his confession of

faith that Jesus was the One who had been prophesied through the Old Testament Law and the Prophets, indeed, the One who was the Messiah.

Later on, we see Philip on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand, and he is the one who calculated the expense that would be involved in buying provisions to feed that vast multitude (John 6:7). Because of that incident, some people have unfairly dismissed Philip as just another calculating person, because he should have realized that Jesus had the power and the ability to feed all of those five thousand people without having to buy food. But this was a passing comment, and we cannot infer that it was characteristic of Philip and his whole life.

Philip the Apostle is not to be confused with Philip the deacon and evangelist, who is found throughout the book of Acts and who meets the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and explains Isaiah 53 to him.

Philip is also noteworthy for having said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us" (John 14:8). Philip was saying: "We've seen all these wonderful things that You've done. We've witnessed the turning of the water into wine, the walking on the water, the calming of the sea, the raising of Lazarus, and all the rest of these wonderful miracles, but there's one thing that we want. Give us the big one, Jesus. Show us the Father, and then we'll be completely satisfied."

If there was ever a time when Jesus seems to be exasperated with one of His Apostles or disciples, it was on this occasion, because He said to Philip, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9). What a powerful statement that Jesus makes regarding the significance of His incarnation, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

Many of the Apostles became missionaries to other lands after Pentecost. Tradition tells us that the missionary outreach of Philip went all the way to ancient Gaul, modern-day France. He is recorded as the first to

bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to France, and then he spent much time in Turkey. He engaged in confrontation with pagan priests there, and as a result he was martyred in AD 80. He was doubly martyred, if that's possible. First he was stoned almost to the point of death, and then they finished by crucifying him.

Bartholomew (v. 14) is mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts but not in the Gospel of John. So it is generally believed that he was the Apostle known as Nathanael, whom Philip brought to meet Jesus. Philip said, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," and Nathanael famously responded, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:45–46).

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" (v. 47). The Gospels do not tell us a lot about Nathanael, but Jesus' description of his character is profound. He was a guileless person, one without deception, without dishonesty, without manipulation. Nathanael heard this pronouncement and asked, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you" (v. 48). It wasn't just Peter who made a great confession of faith among the Apostles. We read here of Nathanael's confession of who Jesus is: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (v. 49).

The Scriptures don't speak much more of this guileless Israelite, but tradition tells us that he also became a missionary and went to Armenia, where he and Jude/Thaddaeus started the first Christian church there. His ministry there got him into conflict with the local priests of pagan religion, and he was martyred by being flayed alive and then beheaded. Interestingly, Armenia in the fourth century became the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion.

THE TWELVE APOSTLES,

PART 2

Luke 6:12–16

In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

We met Matthew (v. 15) already in the Gospel of Luke. He was also

known as Levi, the tax collector whom Jesus called from his tax-collecting business, and who then threw a party for Jesus and his tax-collector friends that created such hostility from the Pharisees that they sought ways to do away with Jesus (5:27–32).

Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name. Of the four Gospels, his is the one with the most references to the Old Testament. It was clearly written for a Jewish audience. He too became a missionary and, according to tradition, took the gospel to Ethiopia and established a church there. But in AD 60, he also got into problems with the local pagan priests, and as a result he was beheaded as a martyr to the faith.

Thomas

Thomas (v. 15) is held in infamy as the skeptic of the resurrection. He's called Doubting Thomas and he's also called Didymus, "the Twin." But if we look at the other references to Thomas in the New Testament, we see that it's unfair to simply dismiss him as a skeptic. When things escalated during the last days of Jesus' life and Jesus told His disciples that He was going to be arrested and suffer and die, most of the disciples wanted no part of that. But it was Thomas who said, "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (John 11:16). He was willing to accompany Jesus to the point of death.

When, in his zeal, he saw his Savior executed, taken down from the cross and buried, and the other Apostles told him that Jesus had been raised from the dead, Thomas did not believe it. Perhaps it was to protect his own faith, as he was so hurt by the loss of Jesus, so devastated by His execution, that he wouldn't allow himself to believe anymore. His faith had crumbled, and there was no more room for hope in this man. Thomas told the other disciples, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe" (20:25).

Eight days later, Jesus' disciples were inside again and Thomas was with them and Jesus appeared in their midst. He said to Thomas: "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe" (v. 27). That was the offer Jesus made to Thomas. The Scriptures don't tell us if Thomas actually touched the risen Christ. The presence of Jesus with His outspread hands may have been enough to convince him. Thomas then gave one of the highest professions of faith of any of Jesus' disciples of Jesus when he said, "My Lord and my God!" (v. 28). It is notable also that Jesus did not reject this worship from Thomas, as do others in Scripture who are not worthy of worship, such as angels and Apostles.

Thomas then later became a missionary to India, and in the year AD 72 he suffered martyrdom by being killed with a spear. But his confession rings down through the ages to this day.

James Son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Son of James The last four Apostles whom we've not mentioned include James the son of Alphaeus (v. 15), also known as James the Less; Simon who was called the Zealot; Judas the son of James (v. 16); and finally Judas Iscariot. Regarding the first three men, there is little information given to us in the New Testament. Regarding the last one mentioned, much has been written and much has been spoken of since his betrayal of our Lord.

Before we turn our attention to him, let's look briefly at these first three. We've mentioned James the son of Alphaeus, who is also known as James the Less. Some people think "the Less" means that he was younger than the other James, the brother of John. Others think it means that he was shorter than the other James. We hear almost nothing about him in the New Testament. What is perhaps most significant in the New Testament record of James has to do with his mother. His mother was one of the Marys who was at the foot of the cross on the day of crucifixion and also one of the Marys who got up before dawn and went to the tomb of Jesus to anoint His body with spices. And, of course, it was James' mother along with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to whom the angels announced the resurrection.

Tradition tells us that James was also a missionary. He went to Syria, but in AD 62 he was recalled to Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish leaders as a heretic. He was taken to the pinnacle of the temple and told to publicly renounce Jesus. Instead, he reaffirmed his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, whereupon he was thrown to the ground. But that did not kill him; it merely broke his leg. To finish the job, the executioners hit him in the head with a large stone and killed him.

Simon the Zealot is interesting because he is noted as a member of a group of first-century Jews known as Zealots. The Zealots were not so named because they were zealous about spiritual matters; the object of their zeal was political. They were passionately committed to overthrowing the Roman government and driving the Romans from the land. The Zealots were involved with an incident in AD 73–74 where Roman forces besieged the fortress of Masada. As the Romans breached the fortress, they found that the Zealots had committed mass suicide rather than being captured. Some have described the Zealots as ancient terrorists, so it's one of the strange acts of providence that Jesus selected for His inner core of Apostles a man who was a tax collector raising tribute to support the Roman cause and at the same time a Zealot to work side by side with the former tax collector.

Tradition tells us that Simon also was a missionary. He is often considered part of a missionary team with Jude/Thaddaeus. They traveled across the ancient Near East before they were both martyred in Syria in AD 65. Judas the son of James is also known as Jude and also as Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3). Once again, next to nothing is known about him. He is almost certainly not the author of the epistle of Jude, who is traditionally held to be the Lord's brother. The Armenian church credits him, along with Bartholomew, with founding the church there.

Judas Iscariot That brings us to a name that is identified with treachery and betrayal: Judas Iscariot, of whom much is written in the New Testament. I want to consider his role in the plan of God for redemption. Here, we see that he was selected by Jesus to be an Apostle.

First, we want to look at his name. There's a difference of opinion among biblical scholars as to its meaning. Some argue that it simply refers to a section of Judea named Kerioth, so Judas Iscariot was from that place.

If that is the case, then Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilean. Others argue that the etymology of Iscariot goes back to the Semitic word for "dagger," sicari, which was the symbol of certain assassins. Judas has been called at times Judas the Assassin or Judas the Dagger-Man. Though he didn't use a dagger on Jesus, Judas did nevertheless stab him in the back, as it were. He betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and led the soldiers to Jesus in the garden, where He was arrested. Judas indicated in the darkness to the soldiers which one was Jesus by kissing Him (Luke 22:47–53; see Matt. 26:15).

In his speech at Pentecost, Peter said:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." (Acts 2:22–24)

Here the Scriptures tell us that Jesus was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, that Jesus' betrayal was not an accident of history. It was not a mistake or an accident. No, this act of treachery was ordained by almighty God from the foundation of the world, and that causes us no small amount of consternation. How could God ordain that someone would betray the innocent Jesus and then be held accountable for such treachery? Could not Judas on the day of judgment say: "What else could I do? I was merely fulfilling Your purpose. I was simply doing Your will. It was You who ordained that Satan would enter into me, and then Satan made me do this diabolical act." How do we deal with that?

Remember that this is certainly not the first time in biblical history where we see wickedness perpetrated by people where they are working out the counsel of almighty God. Consider, for example, the greatest Old Testament act of redemption, the exodus. God heard the cries of His people

and determined to redeem them from their bondage, and the instrument that He used was the most powerful man on the face of the earth: Pharaoh, king of the Egyptians.

When God sent Moses to Pharaoh to demand that he let the Israelites go, He told Moses, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 7:3) Sure enough, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them" (v. 13), and he obstinately refused to let the people of God go. The series of plagues came and were visited upon the people of Egypt and on Pharaoh, and after each plague, Pharaoh began to relent. "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go" (10:20), and so Pharaoh remained obstinate in his resistance to the mandate of God. Finally, God said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD" (Ex. 14:4). God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that the people might know and clearly understand that it was God in His grace who delivered them and not Moses or the will of the people or the benevolence of Pharaoh, but that salvation was of the Lord.

The question is twofold: Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? And how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Scripture is quite clear as to why He hardened Pharaoh's heart: that it would be manifest that it was the Lord God Almighty in His mercy and grace who was redeeming His people. That was one of the purposes. The other purpose is that God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was an act of divine judgment. It wasn't as though Pharaoh was an innocent, righteous bystander who had only good intentions toward the poor oppressed Hebrew people. No, Pharaoh was altogether wicked.

One of the things that God does again and again in church history is exercise judgment in a poetic manner. He gives people over to their own wicked desires. One of the things by which God exercises mercy and ministry to us is by restraint. He keeps us from living out the fullness of our sinful inclinations. The thing that the most wicked people in history—

people such as Hitler, Stalin, and Nero—all had in common was the virtual absence of earthly restraint on their lives. They had that absolute power that corrupts absolutely. There was nothing to hold them in check, except the sovereign restraint of God.

All God had to do for such men to be even worse was to remove His restraints. He could let Hitler do what he wanted to do, remove His hands from Stalin and give Stalin true reign in his wickedness to do what he wanted to do, and take away the restraint from Nero so Nero could live out the kind of life he was inclined to live. That's what it means to be abandoned by God, to be given over to Satan by God.

Martin Luther said that when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, He didn't create fresh evil in his heart. There was plenty of evil already there. The way God hardens the heart is by removing the restraints and giving a person over to his own wickedness. Pharaoh's heart was already recalcitrant. It was already a heart of stone before God had any of the plagues afflict him.

Judas was a devil from the beginning. Judas was an unregenerate, corrupt, treacherous, lying, thieving crook before he met Jesus. God worked through his corruption to bring about the greatest work of salvation in all of human history. What Judas meant for evil, God used for good (Gen. 50:20).

THE BEATITUDES

Luke 6:17–23

And he came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. And those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured. And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all.

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets."

In the Old Testament, God would give His word to His prophets, and they

would preface their announcements by saying, "Thus says the Lord." These pronouncements came in two distinct forms. There were "oracles of weal," which were good pronouncements, and "oracles of woe," which were

prophetic pronouncements from God that expressed His wrath and judgment. For example, in the book of Amos, the prophet pronounced judgment by saying, "Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria" (Amos 6:1). In the New Testament, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, saying: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (Matt. 23:15). It was a dreadful thing to hear a pronouncement from God that included oracles of doom, but it was a wonderful thing for God to pronounce you blessed.

Blessings and Woes This passage begins the Sermon on the Plain, Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt. 5–7). In Luke 6:20–26, Jesus proclaims four beatitudes, or blessings, and four woes.

Oracles of weal were usually prefaced by the word blessed. Psalm 1 begins: "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers" (vv. 1–3).

Being "blessed" in this sense does not simply mean "happy"; that's a horrible distortion of the biblical concept of blessedness. In our culture, the word happy has been just about as trivialized as any word can be. When we're talking about beatitudes pronounced by almighty God, we're not talking about mere sentimentality. The idea of blessedness contains the idea of happiness, but it is so much deeper.

Numbers 6 contains a passage called the Aaronic blessing. It contains three lines: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance

upon you and give you peace" (vv. 24–26). These three lines exhibit a literary form called parallelism. The second and third lines are ways of restating the first line, so that blessing and keeping are the same as being gracious and likewise the same as giving peace. And ultimately, these lines tell us that blessedness is to be brought into an intimate relationship with almighty God, so that He would literally make His face radiate and make the refulgence of His glory shine on you. When the Bible pronounces blessing, it doesn't mean, "Be happy"; it means, "May you understand in the depths of your soul, in the deepest chamber of your heart, the sweetness of the presence of God as you live before His face every moment."

Blessed are the Poor "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (v. 20). Verses 20–23 are Luke's version of the Beatitudes, which are also found in Matthew 5:2–12. This particular beatitude differs slightly from what we find in Matthew. Some scholars say that Luke has abridged Jesus' sermon, while others say that He preached this sermon on more than one occasion and did so with slight differences. We should not be troubled by any variations between Luke's telling and Matthew's. In Matthew's version, Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3). Luke's version lacks the qualification "in spirit." Being poor in spirit means being humble, and it is not exactly the same as simply being poor. In saying, "Blessed are you who are poor," Jesus may be referring again to the poverty in their spirit or the humiliation that they suffer, but I believe He pronounces His blessing on these disciples because of their economic status, because they are poor with respect to the riches of this world.

The Bible has a lot to say about the poor, and what it says does not always agree with what people say about the poor. Often, we hear very simplistic descriptions of poor people, that they are lazy or not willing to work. But the Old Testament distinguishes among four distinct groups of

people who are poor, and it evaluates these groups differently. For three out of four of the groups, the announcement of God is mercy and love and kindness. For the fourth group, the announcement is condemnation.

The first group includes those who are poor as the result of catastrophe —the farmer whose crops have been wiped out by famine, a person whose possessions have been destroyed by a tornado or an earthquake, or a laborer with a dreadful disease that has left him incapacitated and incapable of engaging in productive labor. God is greatly concerned that these people be cared for, and significant and distinct provisions were given to the people of Israel in the law to make sure that these people were taken care of.

The second group includes those who are poor as a result of oppression — those who have been enslaved or have had their property taken from them by the powerful. We have a tendency to think that the powerful that are in view here are for the most part the businessmen, the wealthy, who are squeezing the life out of the poor laborers, but that was not the chief consideration. The principal people in view as oppressors were governments. Kings like Ahab, who confiscated Naboth's vineyard (1 Kings 21), and other kings who enslaved their people like Pharaoh, who get fabulously wealthy by squeezing all the wealth they can squeeze out of their subjects.

So, the principal violators of the poor in the Old Testament were those invested with governmental power, and that's as true today as it was then. We fail to recognize so often the ways in which government destines people for poverty. For instance, state governments collect billions of dollars every year in lottery tickets. And the vast majority of people who buy lottery tickets are the people who can least afford it, but the government knows that poor people will buy these tickets, knowing that they're hoping for the big payoff. It's sad to see people who have such little disposable income throw it away on a virtually hopeless dream of getting rich. That's how we keep people poor. God is concerned for people who are oppressed by the state,

and His judgment falls on kings and governments that enslave their own people and keep them tied to welfare. The third group includes those who are poor for righteousness' sake. Notice that Jesus says, "Blessed are you poor," speaking to His disciples. He is talking directly to people who have voluntarily given up their quest for wealth in order to serve Christ. I've never met a missionary in my life who was motivated to go into mission work in order to become rich. There are people who willingly set aside the hopes of financial gain in order to be servants. Peter and John left their nets. Matthew left his tax-collecting table. They gave up everything to follow Jesus, and He called them blessed.

The fourth group is mentioned several times in the Bible. They are those who are poor as a result of slothfulness. They simply will not work. They despise the creation mandate to be fruitful and to labor. Paul speaks candidly on this point: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). That sounds harsh, but Paul was also aware of the other three categories. He says there is no dole for someone who is trying to live at the expense of his neighbor's labor. Today in the United States of America, we have people voting to have the government take from one group and give it to them without their working. That is sinful. You as a Christian must never ask the government to take from somebody else and give his possessions to you. That's evil. That's legal theft.

But woe unto us when we assume that anybody who's poor is poor because he's lazy, because that's just not true. There are people who are poor who are not lazy, and there are people who are poor because they're lazy, and we have to be able to distinguish between them if we're to be concerned with biblical ethics and biblical righteousness.

BLESSINGS AND CURSES

Luke 6:21–26

"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

"Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. "Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. "Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets."

"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied" (v.

21). In Matthew's version, it's "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (Matt. 5:6). Sometimes the New Testament writers use a technique called ellipsis, which means something is

stated in brief but it leaves the implications unstated. That may be simply what Luke is doing here when he fails to spell out the kind of hunger and thirst that Jesus is speaking about.

We are people who have great ambitions and drive and goals, and we train diligently so we can be successful or so we can achieve a higher station in life. But who among us has the consummate goal of our lives to be righteous?

Jesus' priorities were different. He said, "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you" (Matt. 6:33). The word translated "first" is the word prōtos, not first chronologically but first in importance. This is a challenge for us. We often seek with great passion everything but the kingdom of God, everything but righteousness. We need to have a passion for godliness.

Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me" (John 4:34). He, of all men who ever lived, hungered and thirsted for righteousness, and He achieved it. We in the Western world have a hard time relating to the concepts of real hunger and thirst because few among us have ever experienced the depths of physical hunger. Few among us have ever been at the edge of starvation where a piece of bread would be the greatest joy that we can experience. But that's what Jesus was talking about. In the ancient Near East, they had real hunger, the kind of hunger that is experienced in Third World nations even today, and Jesus blesses such people.

The Values of the Kingdom Jesus drew stark contrasts in this sermon—between hunger and satisfaction, grief and joy, poverty and wealth, being despised by human beings and being honored by them. There is another contrast that lies behind these, and it is the contrast between the present world and when the kingdom is fulfilled. We live in a topsy-turvy world, a world where the values of the kingdom of God have been turned upside down. We want everything that we can possibly have now. But Jesus is saying that this present world, this

vale of tears, this place of want and poverty, is not the final chapter of world history. Jesus came to proclaim His kingdom that He was going to establish, and when that kingdom is consummated, there will be no more poverty. There will be no more hunger. There will be no more sin, no more grief, no more tears. But in the meantime: "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh" (v. 21). The mourning and pain of this world are not the final chapter of the human experience.

"Blessed are you when people hate you" (v. 22). How's that for a life goal? Notice, He didn't stop there and say that anybody who is reviled and anybody who is cast out and anybody who is hated is going to be great in the kingdom of God. Many people are reviled because their behavior is repulsive or their character is despicable. No, He said, "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!" If you're excluded, if you're hated or reviled because you are a Christian, then you come under the benediction of Christ and are called blessed.

"Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets" (v. 23). He didn't just say, "Smile and be content." He said: "Rejoice! How great is it for you to be in that situation, for your reward is great in heaven." Some people say that heaven is going to be exactly the same for everybody who's there and that everybody's reward will be the same. But the New Testament tells us that there will be a graduation of rewards in heaven. Jesus said to work for those rewards. He promised great reward for those who are abased for His sake, "for so theirfathers did to the prophets."

Oracles of Woe Finally, in stark contrast to these benedictions, Jesus now moves to the flip side, to the oracles of woe, the pronouncement of divine judgment and the curse of almighty God. Some people have a hard time with this because

they have a view of God as a cosmic bellhop who's there to do our bidding, who's incapable of wrath, incapable of judgment. Don't believe it. Our God is a consuming fire, and it's a fearful thing to fall into His hands. To experience the curse of God is the worst calamity that could ever befall a human being, and the only person who ever experienced it in its absolute fullness was Jesus on the cross.

But now comes the warning. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation" (v. 24). Just as there are different kinds of poor people in the Bible, so it is with the rich. The Bible says scary things about the rich, but there is no absolute condemnation of being rich. The Bible does not say there is something inherently evil about being wealthy. Abraham was one of the wealthiest men in the world; Job was one of the wealthiest men in the world; Joseph of Arimathea was blessed of God with wealth. Yet, wealth carries a peculiar danger, and it is this: when somebody is really wealthy, it is easy for him to focus on the power of his wealth and on his independence, relatively speaking, and to think he can live without God. But there comes a day when we come into situations where all the money in the world is not enough to get us out, and that day that the Lord promises is coming is the day of judgment.

There's a myth, another myth associated with wealth, one that you hear all the time and in every political campaign. The idea is the only way a person can become wealthy is at the expense of somebody else. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and if a person is wealthy, that's proof— that's all the evidence you need to know—that they are corrupt, that they're selfish, that they're greedy. This is not the case. Henry Ford became one of the wealthiest men of his era not by tromping on the backs of people but by making automobile transportation affordable to almost every family in the United States through mass production. His wealth brought a boon not simply to himself but to the whole nation.

Jesus was not saying that if you're wealthy, you're doomed. But He was saying how hard it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (18:25), because the rich man tends to put his trust in his riches rather than in the riches of Christ.

"Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry" (v. 25). Again, He was not condemning having a good meal. What is in view is a philosophy called hedonism, which defines good in terms of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The problem is that hedonism is subject to a paradox. If your foremost goal is to seek pleasure and you fail to achieve it, you will be frustrated. And if you achieve your goal, you will be bored. So if your life is defined strictly in terms of the pursuit of pleasure, you're doomed either to frustration or to boredom.

"Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep" (v. 25). Jesus was saying: "If you're full now, because that's all you're concerned about is your belly, the day is coming when you will starve. You can laugh now, but the hour is coming where you will mourn and you will weep." Woe to those who see life as a game, who are cynics, who make fun of the things of God. When you do that, you open yourself to the curse of God, and you have a date with the house of mourning.

"Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets" (v. 26). Woe to you when everybody speaks well of you. Watch out for that person of whom everyone speaks well. The only way to have a reputation where everybody speaks well of you is to wear two faces and to be a man pleaser, to make sure that you please everybody around you. If you are a man pleaser, you cannot please God (Gal. 1:10). So if you're going to be a disciple of Christ, all men will not speak well of you, and in order to be a Christian, you must do as your Lord did: make yourself of no reputation. False prophets were the most popular men in Israel. Jeremiah came and said that the judgment of God was coming. The false

prophets said, "No, it isn't. Peace, peace!" and there was no peace. Likewise, the church that proclaims "God loves you unconditionally" will be full. It is easy to live in a place where God does not require anything— no repentance, no faith. But that is not biblical. The truth is that He loves His people in the Beloved. He loves His Son unconditionally, but everybody else has to put their trust in that Son to receive

the ultimate blessing of God.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES

Luke 6:27–36

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."

"Love your enemies" (v. 27). This is one of the most radical teachings

that ever came to us from the lips of Jesus. Certainly, those who heard this mandate on this occasion were shocked by it, and certainly the scribes and the Pharisees were utterly hostile to it, but if we look at it from a different

perspective, we will see that even in this teaching there was nothing new. When He gave His explanation—for example, of the Ten Commandments —His ideas seemed then to be shocking, but He told the people that the law that says "You shall not murder" (Deut. 5:17) carries with it the implication that you should not even be angry at a person without just cause. He taught not only that we should not commit the actual act of adultery but that the law against such things is violated when we even have lustful thoughts in our minds (Matt. 5:21–30). Jesus didn't add new content to the Ten Commandments; rather, He explained the full intent of the law of God as it was originally given. He was doing the same thing here. For the great commandment given by God to His people in the Old Testament was this: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). The Pharisees had a narrow interpretation of what was included in that great commandment, and they restricted their understanding of one's neighbor to fellow Jews. The mandate to love one's neighbor did not apply to Gentiles or foreigners who were outside the camp. Jesus is simply spelling out the full import of the Great Commandment.

I'll go even a step further and say that Jesus' exposition of the Great Commandment indicates that the Great Commandment was only an exposition of the original commandment that God gave to every creature when He stamped His image on every human being. That image carried with it the mandate to live in such a way as to mirror the character of God, so these mandates from Jesus are informed by how God relates to us. We, who are by nature the enemies of God, constantly receive from Him His beneficence and His benevolent love. Even though we are His enemies, He has loved us, and He has loved us when we were altogether unlovely; and when we were not thankful to Him, He was merciful to us; and when we sinned against Him, He never returned evil for evil. God's pattern of

relating to His people is the same pattern that Jesus taught us to display as imitators of Him who is God incarnate.

Love Your Enemies "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies" (v. 27). What did He mean? He didn't mean that you have to have feelings of affection toward those who are your enemies. Here, as almost everywhere in the Scriptures, love is more a verb than a noun. We could translate it this way: "Be loving toward your enemies."

Jesus went on to spell out what that means. It has to do with how we behave toward those who are our enemies. Not everybody out there is our friend, so we as Christian people need to learn how to deal with those we can identify as our enemies. "Do good to those who hate you" (v. 27). That's what it means to love your enemy; you do good to those who hate you, you bless those who curse you. Now, what's our flesh going to do when somebody curses us? We want to curse them right back. If somebody wants to harm us, we don't want to do good to them.

"Bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (v. 28). If you want to put this into action, try this experiment for thirty days. If there's somebody you don't like, or someone you don't get along with, be it a coworker, your boss, or whoever, even if it's your biggest enemy, try praying for them. Try praying for them every single day for thirty days. Some amazing things may happen in your relationship with them or in their life, but you can be sure that things will happen in your own heart because you will be heeding Jesus' call to pray for those who curse you.

"To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either" (v. 29). The action in view here was getting struck on the right cheek, and the only way to strike someone on the right cheek is to use the back of the hand. This was the classical way that Jewish people would insult somebody. So what Jesus was saying here is if somebody insults you by giving you the

back of the hand, turn the other cheek. Let him insult you over and over, but do not return insult for insult. And if he wants your coat, give him your shirt as well. If somebody comes and asks you for help, help him.

"Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back" (v. 30). The Bible does not deny the legitimacy of loaning money for interest. What the Bible denies is usury, the kind of interest that is so heavy and burdensome that it exploits the person in need. If you want to see what usury is, look at the interest rates on your credit cards. They are so ungodly, these rates of interest, that they are usurious and in direct violation of the law of God. But Jesus went beyond that: "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (v. 31). If somebody needs it, give it to him, even if it means you're not getting anything back. In other words, don't use the help of your brother for your own profit.

"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (vv. 32–36). If there is a core meaning to these exhortations, it's this: mercy, not vengeance. God is an avenging God. God promises to make unjust things just. God says, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" (Rom. 12:19). But He reserves vengeance for Himself; we are not to show vengeance but are to imitate Him in His mercy.

Now again, when it comes to public matters, there's still a legitimate place for the role of the state and for the role of church courts and so on.

But Jesus had Christian personal ethics in mind here. We as Christians should be known as people of mercy because we've been recipient of mercy, and as God has been kind to us, so we ought to be kind to our neighbors.

JUDGE NOT . . .

Luke 6:37–42

"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you."

He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye."

"Judge not, and you will not be judged" (v. 37). This verse is probably

the only verse that every pagan in America knows is in the Bible. They may not know what John 3:16 says, even if they see the reference in bold letters at sporting events. But they know this one, because anytime the church makes a comment about any practice that the church deems to be a sinful

practice, the pagan is quick to quote the Scriptures by saying: "Oh, don't you judge! You're not supposed to judge us."

While this statement is so well known, it is the subject of great misunderstanding. So what was Jesus saying when He uttered these words? First, let's look at what He was not saying. Our Lord was not saying that we are to do away with any discernment of the difference between good and evil. It requires a discerning mind to know the right thing to do.

God's Word calls us, from beginning to end, to be mature and knowledgeable in our discernment, that we might recognize evil when it appears, that we might flee from it, and that we might know what is the good and righteous thing to do. The judgment of discernment, the ethical evaluation, is not what was being prohibited here by our Lord Jesus. Rather, He was speaking of a different kind of judgment: the judgment of condemnation.

Jesus' prohibition takes the form of casuistic law rather than apodictic law. Apodictic law takes the form of an unconditional statement that applies universally, while casuistic law is a moral axiom that in general is a good thing to observe, but it is not a moral absolute. We find many examples of casuistic law in Proverbs; the aphorisms in that book tell us how things generally are or provide general principles that are good to observe. When it comes to judging others, Jesus could not possibly have meant to issue a universal prohibition. Why? Because there are times when we are to sit in judgment of our brothers and sisters. For example, in church discipline, a person is brought before the authorities in the church and tried and a judgment is issued, just as a person is brought to trial in a criminal case and judged by the jury or the judge and has a sentence passed on him if he is guilty.

The Judgment of Charity Jesus was not doing away with civil courts or church courts when He said, "Judge not, and you will not be judged." Instead, our Lord was

addressing a personality trait we find sometimes that involves being judgmental in one's spirit and hypercritical of other people. This has to do with how we pass judgment on other people. We make a distinction between different kinds of judgment: either harsh and severe judgment or what is often called the judgment of charity.

The judgment of charity is what we call the "best case" analysis. It involves giving the benefit of the doubt. We're not always sure whether a person is as guilty of a particular sin as it appears. Even in our law courts, we are very careful to weigh evidence and to make sure that, before anybody is convicted of a crime and is subjected to penalties, a particular standard of proof has been met. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "the preponderance of evidence," meaning that there is a better than 50 percent chance that the plaintiff's claim is true. But in the criminal courts, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Now, reasonable doubt is not the same thing as being beyond a shadow of a doubt. If that were the standard, nobody would ever be convicted of a crime. Beyond a reasonable doubt means there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. In both civil and criminal courts, the burden of proving the case is on the one who is making the charge, not on the defendant. That is true for a reason, lest in our hostility and our desire for vengeance we be guilty of judging beyond a sober and serious measure.

So our Lord told us here to be very, very careful that we are ready at any moment to give our neighbor the benefit of the doubt if there is doubt, to give the charitable judgment whenever possible. Sadly, the person to whom we most frequently give the charitable judgment is ourselves. We usually reserve best-case analysis for our own activity. We can spin our indiscretions and our sins in such a way as to make them appear virtuous, which is exactly one of the problems we face as fallen human beings.

What Jesus was saying here is not isolated from what He said just a few sentences earlier when He set forth the Golden Rule and told us to love our

enemies. When He asked us to be quick with the judgment of charity and to flee a censorious spirit, He was filling out the principle of doing for others what we would have others do for us. If we want other people to give us the benefit of the doubt, then we must stand ready to give them the benefit of the doubt.

At the same time, the judgment of charity cannot be the judgment of naivete. Some people have such an exalted view of the basic goodness of human beings that they can't believe for a moment that anybody ever intends to do evil. This is clearly unbiblical, for the Bible tells us that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer. 17:9) and that we do evil, that the machinations of our sins can be so wicked and destructive that they bring harm to multitudes of people. We don't look at the world through rose-colored glasses and assume the good intent of everybody's behavior.

"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven" (v. 37). What if you offend somebody and they apologize and ask you for forgiveness, and you say: "Oh no! Not now, not ever"? When we refuse to forgive those who repent of their sins, we expose ourselves to God's eternal justice rather than His mercy. I would hate to stand before God and ask Him to forgive me of my lifetime of sin and have Him look at me and say, "Don't you remember that day when somebody sinned against you and they repented and apologized and asked for your forgiveness, and you refused to give it, and now you want Me to forgive you?"

A Generous People "Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you" (v. 38). Isn't that wonderful? It's a description that comes from the ancient marketplace. In the Old Testament laws for the operation of Israel, God prohibited false weights and measures,

because false weights and measures are an injustice. God holds people, nations, and businesses accountable for just weights and measures. In the ancient world, you would go to the marketplace and buy a bushel of grain or a bushel of corn, and there were ways to stack those ears of corn in the bushel. Now you can fill a bushel up with a lot of empty air in there, or you can shake that bushel and pack that corn or shake that grain and pack the grain until the bushel was filled to its utter capacity. "Pressed down, shaken together, running over." If you give like that, that's what you'll get back.

Jesus was talking about the practical applications of the Christian faith. He was saying, "My people are to be generous people." The Bible says, "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). He doesn't love a stingy giver. In fact, stinginess is something that should never be part of our lives. Now, let me ask you this: How many times have people in your life called you generous? How many times have they called you stingy? Jesus said: "I want you to be generous. I want you to give in great measure, and the more you give, the more you'll get, because our God is a generous God and not a stingy God."

A Call to Walk Carefully He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?" (v. 39). Jesus was not talking simply about physical blindness here. He was talking about spiritual blindness. We need to be led by those with keen sight into the truth of God if we want to stay out of the ditch. "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher" (v. 40). Who is our teacher? Jesus is the Master. Jesus is our Rabbi. We're His disciples. We're His students. We're not above our Master. But He wants us to be like our Master. He wants us to learn from our Master. He wants us to pursue and to seek the very mind of Jesus.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (v. 41). A speck of dust in contrast to a wooden plank. We could draw a cartoon about this. We would see two people walking down the street, one man with a totally indiscernible speck of dust in his eye that would take a microscope to detect it, and he's nearing a man with a wooden plank sticking out of his eye. And the man with the wooden plank comes up to the brother with the speck and says: "Brother, you have a speck in your eye. You need to take it out." The other guy says, "How can you even see in my eye with that plank sticking out of your own eye?" Jesus said this is how foolish we are. We're so quick to see the imperfections in everybody else, but we're blind to our own myopia. We're blind to the log or the beam or the plank that's in our own eye.

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye" (v. 42). Jesus was not teaching us anything here more than to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. He was not teaching us any more than the Apostles taught us when they said that there is a love that covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Keep your handkerchief in your own pocket, and let your brother take the speck out of his own eye. This is the teaching of Jesus for His people.

GOOD AND BAD FRUIT

Luke 6:43–45

"For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

In the canons of the discipline of logic are many types of fallacies, both

formal and informal, and one of the most common informal fallacies is called the either-or fallacy, or the fallacy of the false dilemma. That fallacy is committed when we try to reduce the possible options to only two, when in fact there could be a third option. However, there are situations where there really are only two alternatives. For instance, you're either alive or you're dead; there are no other options.

Jesus in this passage reduces the options to two when He talks about good trees and bad trees. Throughout the Scriptures, and particularly in the

New Testament, we hear such distinctions between two things. For example, in the church, we find sheep and goats, which is to say we find people who are truly saved and people who are not (Matt. 25:31–46). There are only two options—you're either born of the Holy Spirit or you're still in the flesh. There is no middle ground. Of course, it's of eternal importance for everyone in the church to come to a clear understanding as to what their status is.

Good Fruit Jesus set before us the following options about these matters: "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit" (v. 43). That is to say, if the tree is rotten to the core, that which will come from that tree will be rotten as well. So also, a bad tree does not produce good fruit. Jesus was saying that every good tree produces good fruit, and every bad tree produces only bad fruit. "For each tree is known by its own fruit" (v. 44). The issue of fruit was one of the points of debate during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, and it was related to the issue of justification. Martin Luther made the declaration that the just shall live by faith and that to be justified in the presence of God occurs by faith and by faith alone, not by faith mixed with good works. In the Roman Catholic system, justification begins at baptism as a sacerdotal act administered by the priest whereby the grace of justification is infused into the soul, and when that soul assents to and cooperates with it, the person is then in a state of justification before God. That state of justification lasts until a person commits a mortal sin, which kills that justifying grace, so that the person loses his justification, though he still may retain his faith.

What is the remedy? According to Rome, the remedy was through another sacrament, the sacrament of penance, which Rome calls the "second plank" of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. If someone commits a mortal sin, he goes to confession and

receives absolution from the priest, but it doesn't stop there. In order for that person's justification to be restored, he must do works of satisfaction. Those works may be seemingly small and insignificant, such as saying so many "Our Fathers" or so many "Hail Marys," but they produce what Rome calls congruous merit, merit that is sufficiently meritorious that makes it fitting or congruous for God to restore that person to a state of justification.

That state remains until and unless that person commits another mortal sin, whereupon he has to go through the process again. If a person dies without mortal sin on his soul but still has venial sins remaining, he still does not enter the gates of heaven but must first go to purgatory, where those impurities are cleansed away. When he is fully and finally cleansed, which may be after one day or after a million years, then his soul is finally able to enter heaven.

Luther reacted strenuously against this system. He said the gospel promises that at the very moment you put your trust in Jesus Christ, all that He is and that He has becomes yours. Paul wrote, "Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1), just as Abraham was counted righteous the moment he believed God (Rom. 4). The good news for us is that even though we are sinners, we can still be justified in the sight of God by putting our faith in Him. At the moment we put our faith in Him, we receive a covering, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Just as the atoning blood covered the mercy seat in the Old Testament, so the righteousness of Jesus is transferred to our account the moment we put our faith in Him.

Any works we bring to the table count for nothing. The only righteousness that will count for us in the sight of God, Luther said, is a righteousness that is extra nos—outside of us. It is an alien righteousness. It is somebody else's righteousness; it is the righteousness of our Savior. The minute we put our trust in Him, He covers our filthy rags with His righteousness, and God pronounces us just in His sight. We come with

nothing in our hands. No good deeds, no list of achievements. The only thing that will get us into the presence of God is the righteousness of Christ.

So, then, the questions in the sixteenth century, and the questions that persist today are, What about works? Doesn't Jesus call us to do good works? Isn't our Lord profoundly concerned about the fruit that we produce? If we're regenerate people, if we're justified people, will we not manifest that by the fruit that we bear?

In the 1980s, a major controversy broke out in the evangelical world called the Lordship Salvation controversy. There were those in one camp who said that you can be saved if you put your trust in Jesus as Savior. If you embrace Jesus as Savior and don't receive Him as your Lord, you can still be saved. That is, since justification is by faith and by faith alone, you can have a faith that is alone. You can have a faith that never brings forth fruit, a faith that never produces good works, and still be justified. Part of that was a result of the very wide dissemination of a distorted view of salvation that was associated with the concept of the carnal Christian. The idea is that we can receive Jesus as Savior and be saved and yet remain altogether carnal, showing no fruit whatsoever.

That's not the biblical doctrine. Luther said justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. That is, the only kind of faith that saves you is a legitimate faith, a living faith, not a mere dead profession of faith. If you have faith, even though the works that you produce out of that faith don't count toward your justification, nevertheless they are necessary manifestations of that true faith. That is, if you don't have works, it means you don't have faith, and if you don't have faith, you don't have justification. All you have is a profession of faith, and all that qualifies you to be is a goat in the church, a bad tree that brings forth only bad fruit.

Out of the Heart the Mouth Speaks "For figs are not gathered from thornbushes" (v. 44). If you want to go gather figs, you go to a fig tree. You don't go to a thornbush. And you

know, not all fig trees are good fig trees. There is the account where Jesus cursed a fig tree, and the Bible tells us that when He did it, it wasn't even the season for figs (Mark 11:12–14). So if there's ever an event in the Bible where it seems that we see an arbitrary judgment of God in Christ, it was when Jesus cursed the fig tree.

The Holy Land has many, many varieties of figs. The vast majority of those fig trees bear fruit in a particular season. There is such a thing as fig season, but not all fig trees bear figs then. A few varieties of fig trees bear their figs outside of fig season. And when they do, they're regarded as a delicacy. On this occasion, Jesus saw a fig tree from a distance and it was in leaf. And the sure sign in Palestine of the presence of figs is the presence of leaves. So our Lord said, "Here's one of these fig trees with this unusual variety of figs." He walked over, and there were leaves and no figs. The tree was a hypocrite. The tree gave the outward signs of fruit, but it had no fruit. Jesus used that as a prophetic object lesson to describe not fig trees but people who give the appearance of fruit but have no fruit.

"Nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush" (v. 44). Again, if you want to plan a vineyard and raise a choice crop of grapes, you don't start with bramble bushes. You need vines that will produce grapes.

"The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (v. 45). It's interesting that the Greek word here for "treasure" is the word thēsauros, from which we get the English word thesaurus. A thesaurus is a collection of the treasury that is ours in human language, and Jesus uses this same term for the storehouse of the heart. And that thesaurus is either a storehouse of goodness or a storehouse of corruption. And the Old Testament tells us, "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7, KJV). Jesus is telling us what a man treasures in his heart determines what he is.

BUILD ON THE ROCK

Luke 6:46–49

"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great."

In the conclusion to Luke's Sermon on the Plain, Jesus asked, "Why do

you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" (v. 46). We are still focusing on this problem of making a profession of faith in Christ that is not a true one. To appreciate the full impact of these words, let's look at the fuller version of this passage in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and

cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness'" (Matt. 7:21–23).

The repetition of a name in the Bible usually signifies intimacy, as with "Abraham, Abraham" (Gen. 22:11); "Moses, Moses" (Ex. 3:4); "Martha, Martha" (Luke 10:41); and "Saul, Saul" (Acts 9:4). So these people who Jesus said would call Him "Lord, Lord" were not going to be simply claiming a passing acquaintance with Jesus; they were going to be saying: "I have a deep, personal affection for You. I know You, Jesus, intimately. I've taken You as my Savior." Jesus will say to those on that occasion: "Excuse me, I don't believe I know you. You say you went to church, you were a pastor, you were a missionary, you were a member of the session or the deacons, you were a tither. But I don't know you. Please leave. Depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness."

This is one of the scariest passages in the New Testament. Jesus was talking about church members here. He was talking about people who've made a public profession of faith in Him. Jesus said it's going to happen that these people will honor Him with their lips, while their hearts are far from Him (Matt. 15:8). Jesus later said to His disciples, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The test for the fruit is obedience. Anyone can say that they love Jesus, but the proof is in obedience.

So Luke put it in question form: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" (v. 46). When you say "Lord," you're saying: "You're my authority. I submit to Your kingship. I acknowledge that You are sovereign over me and that whatever You command me, I am under obligation to do." So Jesus says, "Well, why do you say that I'm your Lord when you don't do what I tell you to do?"

The Difference between Hearing and Obeying

He followed up that question with this brief parable about the builders. He says, "Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like" (v. 47). In the Greek language, there is a distinction between the verb "to hear," akouō, and the verb "to obey," hypakouō, which we might say is "hyper-hearing." The difference between hearing and obeying is the difference between hearing and really hearing. The one who really hears Jesus will obey Him. And that person "is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built" (v. 48).

The land of Israel is substantially desert, and throughout the region are innumerable wadis. A wadi is a dry gulch, an empty creek bed that is only filled with water under extraordinary circumstances of rainfall. Israel has two rainy seasons, the former rains and the latter rains. For most of the year, there is little to no rainfall. But when the rains come, and when it rains hard, all the rain drains into the wadis and gathers there. The streams become like mini tsunamis, where the water comes rushing down the wadi. The power of that water coming down the wadi is something you don't want to get caught in.

The one who hears the words of Jesus and obeys is like a man who builds a house and takes care, as he builds this elegant structure, to dig deeply. He goes down to the level of rock, and then when he hits the rock, he builds his foundation. And then on top of that solid foundation, the house is built. If you build a house like that, it can withstand all the torrential rushing water when it comes and vehemently beats against the house.

"But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great" (v. 49). You see the contrast. The second house may be palatial, but it's built on sand. It has no firm foundation, and it looks beautiful for a

season until the floodwaters come. When the stream beats vehemently against that house, it does not merely creak and groan; it collapses. It has no strength to withstand negative forces against it, and it crumbles. And Jesus said, "The ruin of that house was great."

The Church's Foundation We frequently hear the idea that Jesus is the foundation of the church. "The church's one foundation," we sing, "is Jesus Christ our Lord." That's not exactly the way that the Scriptures describe the church building. Rather, we're told that "no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). The general image of Jesus is not that He's the foundation but that the foundation is laid in Him and that He is the chief cornerstone: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" (Luke 20:17).

What, then, is the foundation of the church? According to the Scriptures, the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). In the book of Acts, we get a glimpse of life in the primitive Christian church after Pentecost in Jerusalem: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). The people of God gathered together on Sunday, and they steadfastly continued in the Apostles' doctrine. That means that at the heart of the gathering of the early church on the Lord's Day was a devout attending to the preaching of the Word of God. The study of Apostolic doctrine is the study of the Word of God, because where you find the Apostolic doctrine is in sacred Scripture.

Now, if the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation of the church, we find that foundation in sacred Scripture. At the end of the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, we read of the new Jerusalem that comes down fromheaven (Rev. 21). She had a great and high wall with twelve gates and twelve angels at the gates and names written on them. And

then in verse 14, we are told that the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In the city of God, the foundation is built on the Apostles.

That's why the early church came together to devote themselves to the study of the doctrines of the Apostles. If we're going to live as faithful Christians, we have to be rooted and grounded in the Apostolic Word. To be grounded in the Word of God is to dig the foundation of your life down to bedrock, where you take that Word, you embrace that Word, and you are able to stand against anything the world, the flesh, and the devil throw at you. But if you don't have that foundation, that foundation in the Apostolic Word, then you're building your house on sand. And when the storm comes, what you'll experience is ruin.

We all must ask ourselves what we're building our lives on. We might say that we are of course building our lives on Christ. And we might have the fruit of our obedience to demonstrate the truth of our profession. You see how this follows after what Jesus was saying in the previous passage. We are known by our fruits, not by our verbal professions. Again, what we do will not get us into the kingdom of God—only trust in Christ can get us there. But the test of whether our trust is real, the test of whether our faith is sincere, the test of whether our justification is authentic, is our fruit, our obedience.

We live in a country where still more than four out of five people say they believe in God. Yet, practically speaking, we live as if there is no God. If you found out today that there is no God, how would your life change? Are you one of those people who hypothetically affirms the existence of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ, but for all practical purposes you live as if there were no God? That's how a lawless person lives. There's no fear of God in such a person. He doesn't care what comes out of his mouth. He doesn't care if he keeps his promises, because his house is built on sand.

But if you build your house on the Word of God and you build your house on Jesus Christ, the everlasting Rock, even a tsunami cannot ruin your life.

THE CENTURION'S

SERVANT

Luke 7:1–10

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.

Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of

death, who was highly valued by him (v. 2). I like this fellow, this centurion who sent elders of the Jews to Christ, pleading that Jesus would come and heal his servant who was sick to the point of death. He was a man of some status in the nation of Rome, being a commander of a hundred or more troops. And he was loved by the Jews, as we read here, because he had been very generous. He was obviously a man of wealth and had spent his money to build a synagogue for the Jewish people there in Capernaum. The Jews came to Jesus and asked Him to help this man because "he is worthy" (v. 4).

When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant (v. 3). Please note the remarkable concern and care that this powerful and wealthy man had for a slave, for a servant who had no social standing in the community. Yet this man was so exercised about the well-being of his slave that he sent the message to Jesus pleading for Jesus to come and heal his servant.

Back in the days when I ministered in western Pennsylvania, I was involved in an organization called "The Value of the Person" that ministered in the arena of labor and management relationships. One of the things we were concerned about was how employees were treated by management. A problem that the management of any organization faces, inevitably, is the necessity from time to time to terminate employees, and that's never a happy occasion. Sometimes, employees must be terminated because of immorality or illegal activities. Sometimes, they need to be terminated simply because they are not able to meet the responsibilities they have in a competent manner. Many times, terminations come because of economic downturns that require that the organization trim its staff, and so people are laid off not for any fault of their own.

But there is one type of termination that is often missed and yet is very important, one that I learned about by working closely with people in the

arena of labor and management. In every organization, inevitably there will be managers who are kind, considerate, and upright to their bosses but are cruel and uncaring to their subordinates. I urged people in management in various organizations to make sure that if they have managers in those positions who are tyrannizing their subordinates, they must be removed. When the wolf comes into the sheepfold, it is the duty of the shepherd to protect the sheep.

This centurion was not such an employer. This man cared deeply about those who were under his command, all the way down to the slave who was working for him in his house. And to demonstrate and manifest that concern, he sent a message to Jesus asking for Jesus' help. And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof" (v. 6). This is the second thing I love about this centurion. Everybody else was telling Jesus, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue" (vv. 4–5). "You've got to go and help this man," they were saying. "You've got to heal his servant because here's a man who deserves Your help. He is eminently worthy. He's been kind to us as Jews. In fact, he's even built for us a synagogue, and we don't expect that from Roman centurions. So, Jesus, however busy or tired You may be, please make an exception and come and help this man."

But the centurion sends a completely different message. As much as he wants Jesus' help, he says to Him through the messengers: "You don't have to come to my house. I'm not worthy that You would come under my roof. Maybe these excited Jewish friends of mine have exaggerated my worth, but I'm not asking You to come because I deserve it or because I'm worthy." This man understood grace. He understood it in a way that very few people in Israel understood it—and in a manner that very few people understand it even in the church today.

The One with Authority "Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed" (v. 7). We read at the end of the story that the servant was healed, and obviously all Jesus had to do to heal him was to say the word. There are two things I want to consider about that. How is it possible for Jesus to heal somebody simply by word? We're talking about the One who is God incarnate, the One who had the authority over heaven and earth, and the centurion recognized that. He said, "For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it" (v. 8). In other words, "I understand, Christ, that You have authority. You have authority over life. You have authority over death. You don't have to be here. Just say the word."

There is a stark difference between this attitude and the attitude of Mary and Martha when their brother Lazarus died (John 11). Jesus came four days too late to keep Lazarus from dying, and they were distressed. They said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (v. 21). They didn't understand. Jesus didn't have to be there to save Lazarus. He could have done it from a distance. And when He did come, how did He raise Lazarus from the dead? He stood before the tomb, and He opened His mouth and uttered a command, saying, "Lazarus, come out" (v. 43). And the one who had been dead for four days began to breathe, his heart began to beat, brain waves were rushing through his head, and he emerged from his tomb alive and well by the power of the word of Christ.

When I was in college, I started out as a history major and then changed to a Bible major. In my sophomore year, I was required to take a social science, and I elected to take a course in philosophy, which I soon regretted immensely. The professor was dry as dust. He lectured the first day on David Hume. I didn't know what he was talking about, and from there he went on to Immanuel Kant and all these philosophers. I was bored, so I sat

in the back row of the classroom. And then shortly into the term, the professor gave a lecture on Augustine and on Augustine's concept of the creation of the universe, and I started to listen. I put down my notebook. I heard him tell how Augustine said that the Lord God Almighty created the whole universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. He didn't just shape and form some preexistent matter. Out of nothing, He created the entire universe. "How did He do it?" the professor asked. Through what he called the "divine fiat." Fiat is the imperative form of the verb "to be." He said God called the universe into being by the power of His voice, giving a divine imperative, saying, "Let there be light," and the lights came on.

I couldn't believe it. It was like I had a second conversion, a conversion to God the Father, to His transcendent majesty and power. I left the classroom that day, went downstairs to the registrar's office, and changed my major to philosophy, because my eyes were opened to the power of God, who could create the whole world by the sound of His voice. That's all it took for Jesus, who was God incarnate, to heal this centurion's servant. He didn't have to be there. He just had to say the word, and by His word, the man was healed.

The Mystery of the Incarnation When we look at Christ and the mystery of the incarnation, we see the perfect union of the divine and the human. In the mystery of the incarnation, we understand that when God took upon Himself a human nature, the divine nature didn't stop being divine, and the human nature was truly human. There was not a composite being that was a deified humanity or a humanized deity. Two distinct natures, divine and human. Notice that when Jewish elders went to Jesus, they said, "Please, come here." Throughout the New Testament, we see Jesus moving from place to place. We read at the beginning of the text that after he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum (v. 1).

The Bible here is discussing what Jesus did according to His human nature, because according to His divine nature, He was already in Capernaum. When Jesus went to Capernaum, He made the journey according to His human nature. He had to travel the distance between those two points. But when Jesus, according to His humanity, was on His way to Capernaum, He was already there according to His divine nature. In the incarnation, the divine nature retained its attributes, one of which was omnipresence or ubiquity. When we understand the incarnation, when the divine nature united with the human nature, the divine nature was not contained within the human nature. This is expressed in a grand theological principle: Finitum non capax infinitum—"the finite cannot contain the infinite."

Even in the incarnation, Jesus' divine nature still retained its attribute of omnipresence, while His human nature remained confined to one location. This is why we can say that according to His human nature, Jesus is no longer present with us. As He told His disciples, He was going away, and He would come again. According to His human nature, He's in heaven at the right hand of God. Yet according to His divine nature, Christ is never absent from us. And wherever the divine nature is, Jesus the person is. However, because of the close and inseparable union between the natures of Christ, when we commune with the divine nature, we commune with the whole Christ. Jesus' human nature is in heaven, the human nature is still united to the divine nature, and when Christ is present here with us, He is really and truly present in His personhood. His person is really and truly everywhere, and this One who healed the centurion's servant by His word heals us through the power of His word.

THE WIDOW'S SON

Luke 7:11–17

Soon afterward he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, "Do not weep." Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, "Young man, I say to you, arise." And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and "God has visited his people!" And this report about him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country.

Each of the writers of Gospels in the New Testament had to be selective.

They had to choose from a large list of episodes from the life of Jesus. John told us that if all the things that Jesus did had been reported in the Apostolic works, there would not be a book big enough to contain them all (John 21:25). Sometimes we wonder, "Why did Luke (or Mark or Matthew or John) select this episode or that episode?" When we come to this text, we

don't have to think very long about why this episode is included in Sacred Writ. If this were the only passage that survived from the life of Jesus, there is enough in it to reveal to us His sweetness, His excellency, His person, His power, and His saviorhood. We can live the rest of our lives trusting just this much information about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke begins by telling us when it happens. He said that it happened soon afterward (v. 11). Soon after what? Soon after he healed the centurion's servant (Luke 7:1–10). But here, what we have is not somebody who is sick unto death but rather somebody who had already died and the burial process was under way.

There was always a burial procession because, by law, Jewish people had to be buried outside the city. They didn't have hearses or police escorts. There was a procession, where the person who had died was carried not in a coffin as we have today but in an open bier. That was a couch-like structure that was heavier and bigger and more substantial than a stretcher or a litter. The corpse was placed on this bier, and people carried it to the burial plot. This was usually done within twenty-four hours after death occurred.

The Lord Jesus came upon this funeral procession, and presumably without any invitation, He interjected Himself into this solemn ceremony. We're told that Jesus had just left Capernaum, and He was followed by his disciples and a great crowd (v. 11).

As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her (v. 12). What do we know about the people involved? We know that the woman whose son had died was a widow. She had already buried her husband. That was significant to a woman in ancient Israel. The Bible places great priority on the need for the Christian community to give care to widows and orphans because, in many cases, the only support that a widow could expect to gain in the ancient world was from her children, her sons. This woman

had only one son, and now he had died. She was in an extremely precarious position.

Jesus Has Compassion And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, "Do not weep" (v. 13). This is the first time in Luke's Gospel that he calls Jesus kyrios, "Lord." This title translates the Old Testament title Adonai, meaning "my sovereign One," "the One who rules over all things with all authority and all power." The title that was reserved for God is now given to the Son of God, who is God incarnate.

The first thing Luke tells us is that the Lord saw her. He saw her in her grief, in the depths of her sorrow, in the midst of her mourning. This woman did not escape the notice of the Son of God. I find that extremely comforting for anyone who goes to the house of mourning, that the Lord Jesus Christ sees us when we weep, when we suffer, and when we die just as He saw this pitiable woman from the city of Nain. Luke tells us that when He saw her, he had compassion on her. Is there anyone whose compassion we need more than the compassion of the Son of God, who was like us in every respect except sin, who understands our feelings? As He saw that woman, He saw her heartbreak. Surely, she was on the brink of despair. He could see her tears flowing down her cheeks, and He was not unfeeling. He felt it in His own soul.

You can't read the next portion without understanding that when He saw her, immediately he had compassion on her, and then He spoke. Remember the first words He said to this lady: "Do not weep." She perhaps thought: "Who is this man who tells me not to weep? Of course I'm weeping. My heart is broken." Don't you wish you could've been there and heard the tone of voice that Jesus used when He said to her, "Do not weep"? I think there was a hint in the very sound of His voice that He was not rebuking her for a public spectacle of grief, nor was He asking her to be stoic in her grief. There must have been something tender, comforting,

something that gave a hint of power over grief and over mourning when Jesus said to her, "Do not weep."

Jesus Raises the Boy to Life Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, "Young man, I say to you, arise" (v. 14). Touching the open bier meant risking becoming impure, because it was forbidden for Jews in the ancient world to touch the dead. But Jesus had authority over death, and He touched this open coffin. The bearers stood still. They stood there as amazed and stunned as the woman was. When Jesus spoke again, it wasn't to the pallbearers and it wasn't to the mother. This time, the Lord spoke to the young man who was dead. And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise."

Three times in the New Testament, we see our Lord raising people from the dead: Jairus' daughter (Luke 8), Lazarus (John 11), and here the widow of Nain's son. When Jesus raised people from the dead, all that He needed was the same power He displayed the day before in healing the centurion's servant. It took from Him only a word from His mouth: "Young man, I'm talking to you. I know you're dead. Get up! Arise!" And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother (v. 15).

This is the One who said, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die" (John 11:25–26). On the last day, in the twinkle of an eye, He is going to say to all who were dead in Christ, "Arise!" and we will join Him in the power and the glory of His resurrection, and children will be presented to parents, husbands to wives, parents to children in the great resurrection.

Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and "God has visited his people!" (v. 16). This was the normal response of the crowds when Jesus performed a miracle. They were terrified and yet they glorified God. Why? Because they

knew they had just witnessed something that only God could do. So they glorified God and they said, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" Oh, indeed, it was a great prophet and more than a great prophet.

They go on to say, "God has visited his people!" In Luke 1, we saw the concept of the visitation of God. The idea behind the divine visitation is wrapped up in the Greek verb episkopeō and its noun form, episkopos, from which we get the words episcopal and episcopalian. The episcopalian form of church government is based on rule by bishops, and it is so named because a bishop is an episkopos, or "overseer."

The incarnation was like the Old Testament act of redemption where God heard the cries of His people when they were in bondage in Egypt, and He issued the command, "Let my people go" (Ex. 5:1). Now the Lord God omnipotent visits His people in the person of His Son. The Apostle Peter calls Jesus "the Shepherd and Overseer [i.e., Bishop] of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25). It's one thing to have a pastor, but when the Bishop comes—and it's not just the bishop of the local diocese; it's the Bishop from heaven—that is a momentous event. This is the great Shepherd of the sheep, the Good Shepherd who calls us His sheep and who cares for us as a good shepherd cares for his lambs and who watches over us as the Bishop of heaven. The people understood that the spectacle that had unfolded during this funeral procession was a divine visitation, an intrusion from the transcendental realm, a visit of God Himself into the midst of His people. Do you see why I say if these were the only verses we had in the whole New Testament, they would be enough to cause us to dance all the rest of our days, even into our graves? Because the Bishop who saw the widow of Nain also sees us and is moved by compassion. But He doesn't just feel sorry for us; He acts for us, bringing life out of death, joy out of sorrow.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

Luke 7:18–35

The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' " In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."

When John's messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are dressed in splendid clothing and live in luxury are in kings' courts. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,

" 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.'

I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (When all the people heard this, and the

tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

"To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another,

" 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;

we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.'

For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."

As a result of His astonishing act of raising someone from the dead, the

reputation of Jesus swelled throughout the land. One of the places where that report had been carried was a dungeon five miles from the Dead Sea, where John the Baptist had been incarcerated for daring to publicly critique the morality of the king. John was languishing in prison at the same time the popularity of Jesus was on the rise among the populace. Obviously, John was confused. He was hearing all the great things that Jesus had done, and while Jesus was doing these great things, John was in prison, and he was wondering about this.

There are commentators who assume that the reason John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus with the question "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" (v. 19) was not that John's confidence regarding Jesus was shaken. They believe John was a prophet, and he was having his disciples ask Jesus this question for their sakes, to confirm their faith, for John was going to transfer the allegiance of his disciples to Jesus. I think that's a stretch. We have to go with what the text itself says. It's John who asked the question, and the reply that Jesus gives is not simply for the benefit of John's disciples, for Jesus said, "Go and tell

John . . ." (v. 22). So Jesus was obviously receiving this question as though it came from John, and He gave the response to John.

Why should it be a strange thing for John to have doubts? He had gone on public record proclaiming Jesus as the One who was to come, the Lamb of God who would take away their sins, the One who would be greater than John the Baptist (Luke 3; see John 1:19–34; 3:22–30). He was the one who baptized Jesus in the River Jordan. John had made his public proclamation of the person of Jesus, and whatever his personal expectations were of Jesus, they were as yet not fulfilled.

Is it impossible for a prophet of God to go through a dark night of the soul, a time of doubt? Consider the prophets of the Old Testament such as Jeremiah, who was ready to give up his office when he had had enough of the derision heaped upon him by the people: "The word of the LORD has become for me a reproach and derision all day long. If I say, 'I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot" (Jer. 20:8–9). Or Elijah, who cried out, "I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away" (1 Kings 19:10). Or consider Jonah, who boarded a ship to escape the responsibilities of the word of prophecy that God had given him. We could go on citing examples of the real humanity of the prophets of God in the Old Testament who, just like everybody else, had moments of doubt and confusion in times of distress and in times of trouble.

John had to be wondering as he languished in this horrible dungeon: "Where is Jesus? Did I make a mistake? Did I proclaim the wrong one to be the Lamb of God?" Finally, he sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask Him, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?"

The One Way to God Before we look at Jesus' response to this, a word of application. Do you know how many millions of people today are not convinced that Jesus was

the One? The whole Jewish nation is still waiting for the Messiah, having rejected Jesus and being convinced that He was not the One who was to come. Every Muslim on this planet believes that Jesus was not the One who was to come, and there are others who are looking for a hero who can fulfill the role of the rescuer, the deliverer, the savior. They are not satisfied with Jesus.

Then there are millions of people who believe that Jesus was one of the ones who was to come but is by no means the only one. They will acknowledge that Jesus is one way to God but will shrink in horror at the suggestion that He's the only way to God. I can't think of any profession more repugnant to a secular culture than the profession that there's only one way to God and that one way is Jesus.

The Word of God says, "There is one mediator between God and men" (1 Tim. 2:5). There's only One who has given an atonement. If we think that God is stingy and lacking in grace by restricting it to one way, we need to ask ourselves: "Why is there any way? What have we done that would merit God's being moved to provide any way of salvation?" But in His glorious grace, He has given to us the monogenēs, the only begotten of the Father.

If you're not willing to stand for that, it may very well be that you're an unregenerate person. It is here where your loyalty to Christ comes to the test. Are you going to please men and bow to political correctness in a pluralistic and relativistic culture? Or are you convinced that Jesus Christ is God's only Son, the only One to provide an atonement for our sins, the One whom God raised for our justification, the One whom God has appointed as Judge of the whole world? Jesus will judge—not Muhammad, not Confucius, not the Buddha. Muhammad is dead. Confucius is dead. The Buddha is dead. Only Jesus has been raised and elevated to the right hand of God the Father, where He sits right now as the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

Jesus Answers John And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me" (vv. 22–23). Jesus is not angry at John the Baptist's question. He's patient, and he points out some of the miracles He had performed. The thing that would have created such a marvel in the land was to see people who've been blind from their birth having their eyes opened so they could see, the lame leaping for joy, the deaf hearing, the dead raised.

Why does Jesus include that "the poor have good news preached to them"? This was part of the agenda set in the book of Isaiah for the Lord's Anointed, the Messiah: "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor" (Isa. 61:1). Jesus points to Isaiah 61 as providing the answer to John's question. Nobody else was fulfilling the prophetic description of the Messiah.

Jesus added, "And blessed is the one who is not offended by me" (v. 23). That's a very important beatitude. Why is it that professing Christians are so reluctant to say Jesus is the only way? We know how the world thinks about that. We know they can't stand to hear that, that it is utterly offensive to them. So what do we do? We want to flee from the offense, and we want to say to them: "Well, Christianity is right for me, but whatever you believe is fine for you. You pray to your god and I'll pray to mine." Jesus pronounces a benediction on the believer who is not offended by Him.

The Greatest Old Testament Prophet When the messengers leave, Jesus gives a commentary about John. It is basically a hymn of praise for John the Baptist. Jesus said to the multitudes concerning John, to those people who went to the Jordan River and thronged along the riverbanks that they might be baptized by John: "What

did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?" (vv. 24–25). The chief caricature of the pastor today is that of a wimp, where there is no manliness, no strength, only weakness and hypocrisy. This is not the image of John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and survived on locusts and wild honey. He was the toughest man in Israel at the time.

"What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet" (v. 26). Of course they went out to see a prophet. That was the attraction after four hundred years of silence from God. Since Malachi, no prophet had arisen in Israel, and then from the traditional meeting place between God and His people, a new prophet came proclaiming the kingdom of God and calling people to repent and be baptized.

"This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you'" (v. 27). The Old Testament prophets not only prophesied about the coming Messiah, but they also prophesied about the prophet who would be the herald of the Messiah. So John himself is not just a prophet; he's the subject of prophecy and the object of prophecy. He was himself prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. Jesus, citing Malachi 3:1, said he's a prophet; but he's more than a prophet. He's the prophet, the herald of the Messiah, the one who would usher in the messianic era.

Then Jesus gives this astonishing comment: "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John" (v. 28). Who was the greatest prophet in the Old Testament? Was it Jeremiah or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Daniel or Amos or Moses? No, the greatest prophet of the Old Testament was John the Baptist. You may think, "John the Baptist was in the New Testament, not the Old Testament," but though we read about him in the New Testament, it was still the period of the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn't yet started. In terms of redemptive history, John the

Baptist belonged to the old covenant. And Jesus said there was none greater than he.

After giving such wonderful praise to John the Baptist, Jesus goes on to say, "Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he" (v. 28). To put this in perspective, let's assume for the sake of illustration that we are least in the kingdom of God. Yet we can take some comfort in knowing that despite our "leastness" in the kingdom of God, we're still greater than John the Baptist. This seems strange at first glance, because we know that John the Baptist in some respects is far greater than we are in terms of his importance to the scope of redemptive history. If we are thinking of greatness in terms of status, do we think in heaven, when God gives out the rewards for faithfulness and obedience, that our reward will be greater than that of John the Baptist? Of course not. I'm sure that my reward in heaven won't look anything like the reward that will be given to John the Baptist for his martyrdom and his fidelity and his convictions and confession of Christ Jesus.

What then does it mean to say that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist? We have to consider the meaning of greatness in this context. There's a clue to this in the book of Genesis when Noah gave his patriarchal blessing to his three sons. He said, "Blessed be Shem, enlarged be Japheth, and cursed be Canaan the son of Ham" (see Gen. 9:24–27). So one was blessed, one was cursed, and the middle son, Japheth, was enlarged, in the sense made greater. The context of that language from the Old Testament had to do not only with the size of the tribes that would come out of Japheth but also with the degree of blessedness that Japheth and his sons and daughters would experience. The greatest level of blessedness was given to Shem and to his sons and daughters. But then the second-greatest level of blessedness would go to the descendants of Japheth. The quantitative terms of large and small, of great and small, are defined in terms of blessedness.

What I believe Jesus is saying in this problematic statement about John the Baptist is that even though there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, nevertheless he who is least in the kingdom of God is in a greater state of blessedness than even John the Baptist enjoyed. John the Baptist was the last of the Old Testament prophets, and he was the prophet selected to be the herald of the coming Messiah, to introduce Jesus as the One who would be crowned the King, as the One who would bring in the new covenant. But John was still on the outside looking in. Anyone who is born after the cross, after the resurrection, and particularly after the ascension of Christ, is living in a better situation in terms of redemptivehistorical salvation than all the saints in the Old Testament.

The Apostle Peter refers to "the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look" (1 Peter 1:12). The covenant that we are in, we are told, is a better covenant. The situation that we are in is a better situation, and it all has to do with the kingdom of God.

There are those in the Christian church who have been profoundly influenced by theology that teaches that the kingdom of God is something that is totally in the future. But the New Testament makes it clear that while the kingdom of God will be consummated in the future, it has truly been inaugurated already in the past. Jesus' coming was to begin the kingdom of God. John the Baptist preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2), and Jesus said, "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). In a very real sense, the kingdom is here. So our situation historically, in terms of redemptive history, is far greater than anything John experienced even though he was an eyewitness of Jesus and actually baptized Him.

(When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for

themselves, not having been baptized by him) (vv. 29–30). John the Baptist came as a prophet, and he called the people to repent because the kingdom of God was at hand. But it was the religious establishment that refused.

Wisdom Justified by Her Children "To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep'" (vv. 31–32). What does this mean? This was what children did when the marketplace was empty and they had some space to play. They would create games. Kids are great at inventing games. But sometimes they don't agree, and they fuss among themselves as to what they should play. Jesus said, in effect, this is how the people were. They were like kids who play the flute, saying, "We're going to have a happy time of dancing." And some of the others say: "We're not dancing. We don't want to play the flute game." "OK, let's play funeral." So they played the funeral dirge, but others refused to join in, saying: "No! No! We're not going to play funeral. We're not going to mourn." This is the way children behave. That's what this generation of adults was like. They were childish.

"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (vv. 33–34). John the Baptist came in his asceticism, and they rejected him. Jesus came at a time of feasting, not a time of mourning, and He ate with the people. He was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. They rejected John the Baptist because he was too austere. They rejected Jesus because He was too happy and pleasant.

↑ Back to top