20151127

The Nature of Sin

What is wrong with this world? SIN. That is the problem. Most readers of this magazine are well aware of that. But what does the Bible mean when it talks about sin? Not what some mean.
 
Wrong views of sin
Sin is only something very bad such as a crime. Think of how the Pharisees spoke of ‘sinners’. The answer is, therefore, respectability. Just do not do it in the street and frighten the horses.
Sin is a bodily problem. This ancient Greek idea is still around in different forms. The answer is, therefore, hard work, a certain diet, cold showers and may be some self-flagellation.
Sin is the triumph of the lower nature. Some believe sin is simply the result of the struggle between the lower and the higher or better nature. The answer is, therefore, education.
Sin is just an inevitable part of being human. As human beings we are limited. Sin is simply a part of that. The answer is, therefore, in politics. We cannot be rid of sin but at least we can curb its worst effects.
Sin is an illusion. In various ways it is suggested that sin does not exist. For certain reasons we feel guilty, we have a bad conscience, but there is no such thing as sin. The answer is, therefore, psychiatry or psycho-analysis. You just need to get rid of your hang ups.
Sin is selfishness. It is certainly the assertion of self over against God that is part of the problem, but is it the whole of it? The answer is, therefore, altruism. Do what you can to help others. But if a man steals to feed his family that is altruistic but is it not also sinful?
Sin is only deliberately wrong acts. Some simply say we all have free will and every time we choose to do what we know is wrong rather than what we know is right, that is sin. We start with a clean slate but we copy others and, like them, do wrong. Only conscious, deliberate acts can be sin. The answer is, therefore, rules. We must try and keep the law.
 
The right view of sin
Sin is a moral evil. Sin is evil. Sickness and death are evil too, but sin is a particular kind of evil - moral evil. The actual words the Bible uses for sin show this. It talks of missing the target or deviating from the right way; of moral perversion; of revolt or rebellion; of breaking the law. Sin is not simply weakness or a fault or something that just happens. It is active opposition to God for which each individual is responsible.
Sin is an absolute moral evil. Clearly some sins are worse than others. However, all sin is sin. Each sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is nevertheless an absolute moral evil. Sin is not a lesser degree of goodness but positive evil. Every action or thought is either good or bad. It is black or white. There are no shades of grey.
Sin is what God declares to be sinful. What makes a thing sinful? Is it just your conscience or the values of your culture? No, it is God who decides. What he loves and commands is good. What pleases him is right. All else is sin. Anything we think or say or do not in conformity to his will is sin.
Sin involves both guilt and pollution. To be guilty is to be deserving of condemnation or to be liable to punishment for breaking the law. It refers to our relationship to justice or to law’s penalty. It can refer both to an inherent quality and to the obligation we have to satisfy justice and pay the penalty. It is possible to remove this latter by a substitutionary atonement and that is just what happens when a person trusts in Christ and his death. Pollution refers to the way we are not only guilty but inherently corrupt. All sinners have a corrupt nature.
Sin has its seat in the heart. Right at man’s centre, in his soul, and extending to every part of him, there is sin. From the heart it affects mind, will, attitudes, even the body. Sin does not consist only in outward acts. It is our sinful state that leads us into sinful acts and sinful habits. It is not just acts that are sinful but words and thoughts and attitudes too. It is not just to do with what we commit but what we omit. In the words of the catechism "Sin is any failure to conform to God’s Law in act attitude or nature."
The remedy cannot, therefore, be any of those suggested above. Sin is deep seated and life controlling not just a physical or outward problem. Rules and laws can never save us. We are both guilty and polluted before God. We need to be cleansed inwardly and outwardly. We need not just education but total renewal. This can be ours through trusting only in the Lord Jesus Christ and his death in place of his people.
This was an Opening Bat for Grace Magazine

20151124

Special Articles - 3 Special People

Today’s aversion to anything special is found among a growing number of evangelicals. It manifests itself in various ways. Take the antipathy some Christians have toward revival. Often behind this gut reaction is resistance to the idea that God ever does anything special or out of the ordinary. Such Christians so emphasise that God works in ordinary ways among us that they leave no room for extraordinary visitations of the Spirit.
Or take the common argument that the Bible is to be read ‘just like any other book’. The very suggestion that the Bible is special and needs to be approached in a special way puts some interpreters in a fairy fit!
But consider too the antipathy found among some evangelicals to the idea of ‘special people’. Unlike the aversions we have considered in the last two months to ‘special days’ and ‘special times’, this phenomenon is not entirely new.
 
Confused
It manifests itself today chiefly as opposition to the whole idea of a ‘call’ to the Christian ministry. According to R. L. Dabney, ‘the church has always held that none should preach the gospel but those who are called of God’, but some are not so sure.
A recent survey of some 400 men thinking about ministry in the 21st century revealed that 40 per cent were confused as to what was a divine call. This is not surprising given the current climate.
Some are so impressed by the biblical doctrine of the sacredness or priesthood of every believer and are so taken up with the rediscovery of Reformation teaching on vocation that they run to the opposite extreme. They end up with something unbiblical and potentially damaging to churches and individuals.
One can understand people reacting against the wrong mysticism that is sometimes associated with ‘the call’. Agreed, that while there are analogies to the call to be a prophet or an apostle, the call to the ministry is not the same; Charles Bridges wrote long ago that ministers ‘having no extraordinary commission ... do not expect an immediate and extraordinary call’.
Agreed too, that a mystical experience of God’s call is not a firm enough foundation for it; desire, gifts and opportunity are all vital factors in a true call to the ministry.
But what we are protesting against is the idea that there is no such thing as a call, and that more or less any man will do for the ministry provided he is morally upright, reasonably educated and can speak in public.
‘Woe to me’
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why in Acts 20:28 does Paul say to the Ephesian elders, ‘Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, what does Paul mean when he says in 1 Corinthians 9:16, ‘Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that, ‘God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers...’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why does Paul say of Christ in Ephesians 4:11-12, ‘It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’?
Our concern is not to deny that each Christian must conscientiously use whatever gift he has to God’s glory. Rather, it is to say that to deny that there is a special call to the ministry is to make the mistake of supposing that just anyone can try for it. Such an attitude is bound to lead to disaster.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

Special Articles - 2 Special Time

Last month, this column highlighted society’s nervousness about the idea of specialisation and noted how a growing number of evangelicals are nervous about special days, times and people.
How strange that those who believe God has singled out one special planet, one particular species on it and one special people from among them to receive his blessing should think like that!
We considered the fact that the New Testament marks out the first day of the week as special. It is the Lord’s Day, a day to be kept to him. This month we address the question, whether it is right to think in terms of special times of worship.
Is it right to put a notice outside a church building announcing ‘worship services’? Should we speak of ‘coming together to worship’? Or is that, as some suggest, a concept more Jewish than Christian, and one that has no New Testament basis?
Worship services?
For some years, various evangelicals have been advocating the idea that it is wrong to think of those times when God’s people gather together as times of worship. Their arguments are similar to those against a special day.
People who are not keen on keeping the Lord’s Day special often assert that every day belongs to the Lord. Similarly, those who say that our meetings are not primarily for worship often assert that all of life is worship, not just certain hours in the week.
They may then go on to give the impression that there is little difference between going fishing or having a family meal on one hand, and corporate prayer and praise on the other. More often the idea is developed, with reference to Hebrews 10:25 and 1 Corinthians 14, that the main purpose of our meetings is encouragement and edification.
The character of Christian meetings thus significantly shifts from a vertical to a horizontal focus — meetings are seen to be chiefly for teaching, rather than worship.
Certainly Romans 12:1 urges believers to offer their bodies ‘as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God’ and Paul calls it ‘your spiritual act of worship’. There is no suggestion, however, that those who live such lives will not take time apart, especially on the Lord’s Day, to worship.
John 4:24 says that worship in the new age is to be ‘in spirit and in truth’. Surely this does not mean forbidding the church to have any set times and places for public worship? Rather it points out that worship occurs, not automatically when one is in a certain place or following a certain ritual, but when one offers honour to God in accord with his standards.

Examples
Yet, just as some cannot see how one day needs to be special, so there are those who cannot see why Christians need special times to worship. Well consider these points:
If all of life is worship, and there are no special times of worship, why does Acts 13:2 say of the disciples that it was ‘while they were worshipping the Lord and fasting’ that the Holy Spirit told them to set apart Barnabas and Saul?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what do we make of Jesus’ statement that when two or three come together in his name, he is there with them (Matthew 18:19-20)?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what does Paul mean when he speaks, in 1 Corinthians 5, about God’s people being ‘assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus’ and ‘the power of our Lord Jesus’ being present?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what about prayer? We are told to pray continually, but New Testament believers, clearly, still set aside times for prayer (e.g. Matthew 18:19; Acts 12:5; 1 Corinthians 14:23-25).
At times they were praying together; at times they were not. Surely the same is true of sung praise and hearing God’s Word.
God’s glory
What we are saying is not new. It is what believers have practised in all ages. This is not because they have unwittingly imbibed the idea from Jerusalem or Rome, but because it is there in the New Testament.
Some today are nervous about calling their meetings ‘services’ or ‘acts of worship’. This undermines such meetings and detracts from God’s glory. Rather, we should be setting aside regular times for the precise purpose of worshipping Almighty God.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

Special Articles - 1 Special Day


Dash: You always say, "Do your best" but you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?
Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we just gotta be like everybody else.
Dash: Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers made us special.
Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [sullenly] Which is another way of saying no one is.

This mother and son dialogue is from Pixar's critically acclaimed animation The Incredibles, about a super-hero family living at a time when super-heroes are not fashionable. The dialogue perceptively highlights an issue in western society today.
Specialisation is receiving a negative press. People fear that in the academic and business worlds, for example, it is causing harm.
Another negative influence on perception is the way young people, influenced by phrases such as special education and Special Olympics use the word in a pejorative way.
Besides all this, some evangelicals have had bad experiences when special people, days and times have been held in high esteem and are rather wary of such talk.
Growing numbers of evangelicals are not at all keen on the idea of special people, special days or special times.
Yet surely fear of specialisation should hardly characterise people who serve a God who has singled out one special planet in this vast universe, earth, to be inhabited; one special creature, humankind, to be his focus; and one special people, believers in Jesus Christ, to redeem.
*
There was a time when most evangelicals accepted that not all days are the same. There are seven days in a week but the first is special, the “day of rest and gladness” when “Christ rose from depths of earth”, a special day to celebrate.
In more recent years, however, more and more are shying away from the idea. It is usually put in terms of every day being special rather than no day being special but, as Dash would say, saying every day is special is another way of saying no day is.
Such people often quote Romans 14:5, 6a and Colossians 2:16, 17. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. ... let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. It is clear, they say, keeping a day special is fine but it is not an obligation. Certainly no-one can say “keep the Sabbath” as it is only an Old Testament shadow anyway.
On the face of it, the verses seem to say that. Seasoned Bible students, however, know that first impressions can be wrong. Rather than simply assume Paul is talking about Sundays, wisdom suggests considering other possibilities. Albert Barnes' commentary points out that Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 is plural and highly unlikely to refer to the Lord's Day. “There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding.” In 1971 Paul Jewett similarly remarked that “it is unconvincing ... to press Paul’s statement in Romans 14:5 so absolutely as to have considered John a Judaiser for having called one day in the week the Lord’s Day, thus giving it the pre-eminence.” Such statements should give pause.
If no day is special, why did God allocate seven days to creation, deliberately making one different?
If no day is special, why does Moses make the point that one day in seven is specially blessed and set apart to God?
If no day is special, why, in John 20, having met with his disciples on the evening of his resurrection in Thomas' absence, is it only eight days later (John 20:26), the following Sunday, that Jesus meets with them again? Did he not know that all days are now equal?
If no day is special, why was the Spirit poured out on the Lord's Day? Is it simply coincidence?
If no day is special, given that Acts 20:6 says Paul spent seven days in Troas, why wait until Sunday to break bread and preach, especially given that Paul's sermon went on until midnight? If only he had realised there are no special days any more!
If no day is special, why did Paul tell the Corinthians to put gifts aside and store them up as God prospered on the first day of every week not just any day? Did he not know that all days are now equal?
If no day is special, why, in Revelation, does John speak about the Lord's Day? Did he not know that every day is the Lord's day?
One is not naïve enough to think that the Sabbath question is easy to settle but if we can at least agree that the first day of the week is special we will at least make some progress in the right direction.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

20151117

Guide to the Gospel of Matthew

The focus of Matthew’s Gospel is Jesus, Divine Son of God and Messianic King. Today we more readily turn to John or Mark, perhaps, but for early Christians Matthew was a liturgical favourite – perhaps because, compared with Mark, its narrative style is generally more concise. It is also quite orderly in structure. Maybe we should give it more attention than we do.
Authorship
The Gospel itself gives no indication of authorship but has traditionally been ascribed to Matthew. Many early church fathers held that Matthew or Levi the tax collector, the disciple and apostle, was its author. Around AD 325 Eusebius quotes Papias to the effect that Matthew had composed the oracles of the Lord, probably a reference to the Gospel. About 150 years earlier Irenaeus (c 175) wrote that ‘Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church Against’ (Heresies 3.1.1). Several early manuscripts are headed According to Matthew.
Matthew was not prominent in the apostolate and so it is likely that this assertion is true. It would be a strange choice of pseudonym. Surely the name of a more prominent apostle would have been preferred.
There are some possible internal indicators to support this. Mark and Luke both refer to him as Levi and use his more familiar name (Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27) - perhaps it is omitted from the first Gospel because the original readers already knew it. Mark and Luke both refer to the banquet he held for the Lord being at his house whereas Matthew simply says it was in the house – again perhaps because he had already told those to whom he wrote where the meal was held.
Words for money appear not found elsewhere in the New Testament, possibly reflecting the author’s contact and financial involvement with Gentiles. Also, it is the only Gospel to record the Lord’s payment of the Temple Tax (17:24–27) and the parable of the unforgiving servant where the servant owes 10,000 talents (18:21–25). Also observe the distinctive way it deals with the parable of the master entrusting wealth to his servants before heading off on a journey (cf Luke 19:11–27, Matthew 25:14–30) and the specific no gold, or silver or copper of Matthew 10:9. He is the only evangelist to use the expression to settle accounts (18:23, 24; 25:19) or refer to debt (18:32), bankers (25:27). Such details help confirm traditional authorship.
The account of his call to follow Christ is in Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32. He was a tax collector, more like a modern day customs officer, collecting tolls on trade caravans passing through the district centred on Capernaum on Galilee’s northern shores. Publicans were a largely despised group, reviled for their close contact with Gentiles, service to an alien occupying force and their common dishonesty. Nevertheless, the Lord called Matthew to follow and he immediately obeyed, a decision that probably cost Matthew more than most. He was the least able to go back on his decision. The banquet for the Lord, his disciples and friends, that followed included, to the Pharisees’ disgust, notorious sinners (Luke 5:29–30).
As a tax collector he would have been used to taking notes in the course of his work, a habit he may have continued as a disciple. It would have helped in compiling his Gospel.
Beyond his name and occupation little is known. He is listed among the 12 in the Gospels, among the Apostles in Acts 1:13, after which Scripture records nothing more. Tradition says he preached in Judea for about 15 years, then in Ethiopia, Persia and Parthia. This may be mere legend.
Original language?
The idea that Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic was first put forward by Papias (see above). He is quoted in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (3.39.16). The view has been rejected because no trace of the original remains. Papias says many attempted to translate into Greek, ‘as they are able’, which does not suggest polished results, whereas the Greek of the Gospel is fine. The book contains no aramaisms but does explain customs, such as Pilate releasing a prisoner at the Feast of Passover (27:15). This would surely be unnecessary for Aramaic readers in Palestine.
It is possible that, having written in Aramaic, Matthew himself produced not a translation but a Greek version of his work. Demand for written information about the life of Christ from Gentile churches would have increased as the first century wore on. Gentile churches soon outstripped Aramaic speaking ones as the gospel spread across the known world.
It is important to remember that this is speculation. Most early Church Fathers seem to know only of a Greek Gospel. Only Papias suggests a Semitic original.
Date of writing
It is impossible to be certain on this but limits can be set and tentative conclusions reached. It was not written after 70 AD, the year the Temple was destroyed. Matthew relates at length the Lord’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction (24:1-28). It seems highly unlikely that he could have written this after the event without referring to it explicitly. (Liberal scholars reject predictive prophecy and so readily assign dates after 70 AD).
It is unlikely to have been written before the first dispersal of Christians from Jerusalem (Acts 8:4) when the church was all together with the Apostles in the city. Their presence meant there was no need for a written account of Christ’s life. To some extent, dating will depend on whether we believe Matthew wrote before Mark. Hendriksen narrows down to AD 63–67, which fits Irenaeus’s statement that it was written while Peter and Paul were in Rome. It is as good an estimate as any, though some go for AD 45–55.
It may be that it was written in Syrian Antioch, or at least for the Antioch church, which had a large Gentile element speaking both Aramaic and Greek. The Gospel itself shows signs of having been written for Jews, although it also relates to Gentiles. This would suit a church like Antioch.
Material unique to Matthew
Narratives
Vision of Joseph 1:20–24
Visit of the magi 2:1–12
Flight into Egypt 2:13–15
Massacre of the infants 2:16
Pilate’s wife’s dream 27:19
Judas’s death 27:3–10
Resurrection of saints 27:52
Bribery of guards 28:12–15
Great Commission in this form 28:19–20
Parables
Weeds 13:24–30
Hidden treasure 13:44
Pearl of great price 13:45–46
Dragnet 13:13:47
Unmerciful servant 18:23–35
Labourers in vineyard 20:1–16
Two sons 21:28–32
Marriage of King’s son 22:1–13
Ten virgins 25:1–13
Talents 25:14–30
Miracles
Two blind men 9:27–31
Mute demoniac 9:32–33
Coin in fish’s mouth 17:24–27
Matthew uses miracles more as proof of Jesus’s Messiahship than to advance the narrative, even when he duplicates what is in Mark and Luke.
Purpose and features
The opening phrase: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham’ is similar to the repeated phrase in Genesis ‘the generations of ...’ Christ’s genealogy follows. Matthew wants to show that all he relates about Jesus goes back to God’s covenants with Abraham and David of a great nation and an eternal house. These are fulfilled in him. Matthew portrays Christ as teacher but especially as king. The phrase kingdom of heaven occurs 33 times; kingdom of God five times; the royal, messianic title Son of David nine times.
Use of the Old Testament
Matthew often speaks of the fulfilment of prophecy, frequently quoting or alluding to the Old Testament. There are some 53 quotations, easily more than in any other Gospel. Matthew shows, for example, that Messiah would:
Be born of a virgin 1:23 Isaiah 7:14
Go down into Egypt 2:15 Isaiah 59:7
Reside in Nazareth 2:23 referring (probably) to prophecies
about Messiah being despised by men.
Be announced by a forerunner 3:3 Isaiah 40:3
Minister in Galilee 4:15,16 Isaiah 9:1
Do healing miracles 8:17 Isaiah 53:40
Be humble 12:18–21 Isaiah 42:1–3
Speak in parables 13:35 Psalm 78:2
Come as a lowly King 21:5 Zechariah 9:9
Be arrested 26:56 Several prophecies
Be crucified 27:35 Psalm 22
These are not random or incidental but are chosen because they suit Matthew’s purpose. They confirm that he is writing for a Jewish audience familiar with these texts and interested in their fulfilment.
Structure
In 4:17 and 16:21 we have the phrase ‘From that time …’ Seemingly insignificant, it marks major turning points. In 4:17, the opening of the Lord’s public teaching ministry. Having established the Lord’s identity from Scripture, Matthew relates that when the Lord heard that his forerunner John was in prison, ‘from that time’ he began to teach and preach, saying ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’. In 16:21, after Peter’s confession, we read ‘From that time Jesus Christ began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer’, etc.
Another distinctive is the way major blocks of teaching occur, including the largest such block in all the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount. As much as 60% of the work is teaching. To some extent the placing of these blocks gives the book its structure. Matthew obviously wanted to stress the content of the Lord’s teaching, especially in regard to his relationship with God’s Law, so that the full implications of the long awaited coming of Messiah might be clarified. These significant blocks of teaching are marked by a recurring concluding phrase When Jesus had finished these words …. It marks the close of the five sermons Matthew records. The five major blocks are located thus
Chapters 5–7 Sermon on the Mount
Chapter 10 Commissioning disciples
Chapter 13 Parables of the Kingdom
Chapter 18 Humility and forgiveness
Chapter 24, 25 The last things (Chapter 23 could be included here)
Characteristics
Some have seen in these five major sections a parallel to the Five Books of Moses, the Torah. A new Moses gives a new Law for his disciples, a law written on the heart. Certainly fulfilment is a theme and it could be said that the New Testament people of God, Christ’s followers, are to fulfil what the Old Testament people failed to do. The Lord fulfils all that Scripture foretells. He also makes clear (eg Chapters 5–7) their true meaning, which had been obscured by Pharisaic legalism. But Jesus does more than simply complete the old ways, he inaugurates a new way, with new and distinctive teaching.
Some see 13:52 as a key verse. First Century Teachers of the Law never said anything new. They always went back to the traditions. The Lord himself had authority to build on what was given, not rejecting it but bringing out what was old, developing it and taking it consistently further to the fulfilment of God’s purposes. This is one reason why his teaching came to the people with authority and freshness.
Another feature is an apparent love for the number three. Examples include the threefold division of the genealogy (Chapter 1), three temptations (Chapter 4), three illustrations of righteousness, three prohibitions and three commands (Chapters 6, 7), three groupings of three types of miracle (Chapters 8, 9). It is unlikely that Matthew attached symbolic significance to the number. It is more likely that he had in mind the Jewish requirement that truth be established by testimony from two or three witnesses. It is suggestive of how his mind worked.
Finally, it has been noted that, for some reason, the Sadducees are mentioned more times in this Gospel than in any other.
Matthew shows Jesus is the one the prophets foretold, the Messiah. He shows that he came to his own but they would not receive him. He also shows from the start, with the account of the Magi, that Gentiles would be drawn to him. He includes biting denunciations of the Jews for rejecting Messiah. For instance, the woes on the cities that rejected him (11:20-24). Such a statement must have staggered the Teachers of the Law and priests. Also note the lengthy discourse (Chapters 24, 25) on Jerusalem’s overthrow.
Study Plan
Session 1 Navigating the narratives Dealing with the stories unique to Matthew and how to preach them as described above.
Session 2 Teaching the teaching Dealing with the teaching sections in Chapters 5-7, 10 and 18 and how to preach them.
Session 3 Preaching the parables Dealing especially with Chapter 13 and the unique parables in Chapters 20-22 and how to preach them.
Session 4 Meditating on the miracles Dealing especially with Chapters 8, 9 and 17:24-27 and how to preach them.
Session 5 Learning from the law Dealing with the Old Testament as it is employed by Matthew and how to preach these sections – see the appropriate section above.
Session 6 Expounding eschatology Dealing with Chapters (23?) 24 and 25 and how to preach them.
This article first appeared as an Affinity ministers fraternal guide

20151113

A War Horse Illustration

The new Stephen Spielberg film War Horse based on the Michael Morpurgo book about a horse that serves in the Great War of 1914-18 is a very moving film and many of its scenes are full of human emotion. One of the most striking scenes occurs when the real owner of the horse, a young man called Albert Narracott, is reunited with the animal, who he calls Joey. This happens while they are just behind the front lines of the Battle of the Somme at a field hospital. The military doctor in charge has ordered a sergeant to shoot the injured horse.
Albert, or Alby as he is called, has been blinded by gas in the trenches and cannot see but just as Joey senses that his master is near so Alby, despite his impaired vision, knows it is Joey who is near. The doctor is sceptical. This blind man is suffering from some sort of shell shock. He has not found his long lost horse. “This is a random horse, Narracott, and too badly injured” he says. Alby argues his case, declaring that although he cannot see, he knows this is his horse and can describe it.
“He’s not random at all, sir!” he says “He’s my horse. I raised him, in Devon. Sir, look at his legs! He’s got four white socks, he’s brown all over - and he has a white mark here - like so ….” He makes the shape of a diamond with his hands and points to his own head. The Doctor looks at the horse. He is now convinced that this is a random horse and that Narracott is delusional.
Then the soldier who found Joey on the battle field and rescued him realises the problem and speaks up “Wait!” he says “You can’t see ’cause of the mud.” He spots a bucket water, grabs it and uses a rag to clean Joey’s legs, revealing the white socks. He looks at the doctor. “Four white socks!” he declares. The doctor now takes a rag himself and wipes Joey’s snout and reveals the tell tale white diamond marking. The Sergeant takes this in and puts his pistol back in his holster.
No illustration is perfect but isn't this a little like the experience of the Christian at times? Not that our Master is ever blind, of course. Satan does raise questions, however. “This is a random individual” he declares “and too badly injured to be allowed to live”.
“He’s not random at all!” says our Saviour “He’s mine. I raised him. Look at him – he's like any man in some ways but he has my Spirit within him, my marks on him and my name and seal on his forehead - like so ….”
Yet to look at us sometimes we are so much besmirched by the mud and gore on us through our many falls and failures that these things are hardly seen. But then the water of the Word is applied and what do we see? There may be doubts at first but then the distinctive marks are seen to be there after all. The Holy Spirit is still within. Christ is still at work in us and through us. And so Satan is denied. The pistol is back in the holster as it were. We are his; we are Christ's. And so we are spared to live a little longer and to serve again, by grace, in the Lord's own army.
First published on the Sola Scriptura blog

Job and Japan

Calvin says somewhere that the Bible is subtle. It certainly is subtle and so it is easy to miss things. I've just finished reading Job again. Among the final verses are these (42:13-15) And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
The first subtlety here is that although Job is given double the number of animals he had before, he has exactly the same number of children. This is a doubling then, and a reminder of the Old Testament's belief in the life to come.
Otherwise, it looks rather innocent and unremarkable at first glance until you think of how normally in the Old Testament you get the names of sons but not usually those of daughters. Something like “And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first son he named Jeremiah, the second ..., etc” would be much less surprising. However, part of the whole purpose of the Book of Job is to say “be careful with those doctrines and traditions that you hold to – they don't always fit and cannot be applied in the wooden way that you want to employ”.
Yes, the Old Testament is patriarchal but again and again there is a sort of subtle subversion of the order (Deborah and Barak or Manoah and his wife are obvious examples from the days of the Judges). We have an example of it here and its purpose is not only to remind us that although society is to be patriarchal, women are not to be patronised or thought of as lesser creatures, but also that when disaster strikes a person, the knee jerk reaction that says that God must be punishing him for some sin is not necessarily the right one. There are other reasons why God brings suffering into people's lives and often we do not know what those reasons are.
A video is currently available on Youtube where a young girl, a professing Christian, rather disturbingly reveals her elation over the recent disasters in Japan (Spring 2011). It has understandably provoked a torrent of often foul mouthed and shocked opprobrium from many unbelievers.
Where has she gone wrong? Not in recognising that such things happen because God allows them to happen but in her cocksure confidence that she knows why this particular series of events has happened. According to her, it is a direct response to the prayers of certain people for God to open the eyes of atheists to the truth. She is young and excitable and we trust that her peremptory outburst will not do too much damage. Hopefully, someone will persuade her to remove it soon. It is a reminder, however, of the needless harm that Christians do when they get hold of a half truth and ride it like some manic rodeo rider in ways that are totally at odds with the Bible's own carefully nuanced and well thought out teaching.
This article first appeared on the Sola Scriptura Blog

A Shared Heritage

It is a reason for great joy that in our day the Reformed Baptist faith in its various forms, and particularly as articulated in the London Confession of 1689, is coming to more and more people around the world. It was my privilege recently to travel to Nairobi, Kenya, where a conference, attended by around 50 men, mostly ministers, was taking place. I was the main speaker and I endeavoured to bring before the men the wonderful but often misunderstood reformed doctrine of regeneration.
Also speaking was one of the pastors of the sponsoring church, Trinity Baptist Church, Nairobi. British born Keith Underhill was instrumental in planting the church and establishing the conference. He has now worked in Kenya for over 30 years. He also gave a number of messages at the conference, including one on the background to the history of the 1689 Confession.
As he did this, and in fine form I might add, I began to have a little twinge. Why do African pastors have to be exposed to all this? Why do they need to know, let's face it, often difficult to follow, English history? Americans, yes I suppose. Ours is, in many ways, a shared heritage. Some naively optimistic Brits even see our little disagreement of a few years back one day being resolved by an American climb down! (Some hope I guess.)
But Africans? Yes, their history has become somewhat intertwined with Britain's in the last 150 years or so but we are talking about 1689. Why would 21st Century Africans need to wade through this stuff? (And let me add that for all its gelatinous properties the paper made it all seem remarkably straightforward).
And then I started to think straight. These byways in history may have occurred on English soil but the history itself is the heritage not just of British Baptists but of every Reformed Baptist the world over, whether in England, America, Africa or the Far East for that matter.
When we learn about early church councils in Asia Minor or of Augustine preaching in North Africa; when we think of Luther in Germany or Zwingli and Calvin in Switzerland; when we think of Obadiah Holmes in America; of Carey in India or Judson in Burma – we don't say "ah, that's nothing to with us. Those places are far from where we live". We don't do ,any more than when we read in our Bibles of things that happened in Egypt or Palestine or Rome, do we say that's nothing to do with us. No, we embrace our heritage wherever it may accurately be traced.
What a joy it was then to be with these Kenyan pastors in the African heat considering things that happened long ago in Westminster and London and that are part of the wonderful heritage that all Reformed Baptists share the world over.
This article first appeared on the Sola Scriptura Blog

20151112

Remembering Dr Lloyd-Jones

A significant anniversary has quietly slipped by recently. March 1st (2011) saw the passing of thirtieth anniversary of the death of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It is right to take a moment to remind ourselves, if we know, what an impact his ministry had, under God, and to alert a rising generation to his stature and importance.
I am of that generation that came immediately after the one that knew the full impact of his ministry. All my life I have heard him lionised (and sometimes criticised) but never met him personally.
I became aware of him shortly after being converted as a young teenager in Wales. It seemed that a sermon rarely got preached in those days without the minister mentioning him or Spurgeon or sometimes both. Spurgeon, I discovered, was one of those notorious dead guys but Lloyd-Jones was alive and kicking, living somewhere in London and still often about in our part of the world. I recall at least two occasions when trips were organised to hear the man himself. Not used to the idea of a preacher so popular that late arrival could mean no seat, both times I turned up late at my minister's house only to find he and the others long gone.
I got hold of some cassette tapes but only actually heard him in the flesh once. It was on Wednesday, May 14, 1980 - the last time he ever preached in Wales. I know the date because I still have the bilingual poster announcing that he would preach in the afternoon in Welsh and in the evening in English. Not having Welsh, I only went in the evening. He preached from Acts 2. It was a grand occasion and I well remember seeing the elderly and slightly feeble figure of Lloyd-Jones in his dark overcoat stepping up to the pulpit lectern to preach in his own unique way. My wife, six years my junior, was only 12 at the time. When her preacher father asked her what she thought of it, she said it was “just like Sunday mornings only simpler”!
Under a year later he was in the immediate presence of his Lord. Having come to appreciate the importance of this great man of God I made sure that I made the trip with my minister to Newcastle Emlyn for the funeral. I had never been present on such an occasion before and hardly ever since. There must have been as many as a hundred preachers there, many of them familiar to me, men who had made the journey to pay their last respects in that out of the way place to the man they always referred to as “the doctor”. I had never seen anyone at a funeral with a camera before but Iain Murray probably made the right decision to take one along. I well remember being at the graveside and singing God's praise under an open sky, aware that we were saying goodbye to a great man of God.
The writings of Lloyd-Jones had begun to appear and have continued to come out ever since. In due time Iain Murray's two volume biography appeared. The more I discovered about Lloyd-Jones the more amazed I was. Of course, one was aware of legitimate criticisms that were being made regarding the Doctor's stance on some doctrinal and practical issues. Sometimes his eagerness for experiential Calvinism perhaps betrayed him into unwise statements and actions. However, he was a man who walked with God and one who was greatly used in his service and we may not see his like for generations to come.
We could all benefit from a perusal of the biography and of at least some of his writings. Perhaps his Preaching and Preachers is a good place to start for preachers or Knowing the times, a collection of addresses. His Faith on trial on Psalm 73 is a wonderful little book as is his sermon series on The Sermon on the Mount. Check it out. It will do your soul good.

20151111

Is this the time ...?

My favourite chapter in the Old Testament is 2 Kings 5. It is a brilliant story for all sorts of reasons, both literary and theological.
The chapter ends, you will recall, not on a triumphant note but on a note of warning. We do not close with the healed and renewed Naaman heading off into the sunset in his chariot but with the grubby story of greedy Gehazi, Elisha's servant. He is told in the final verse that Naaman's leprosy would cling to him and his descendants forever. Then we read Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.
There are many interesting and sobering aspects to this sequel but to just focus on one for a moment, consider Elisha's two questions in verse 26.
First, he says Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? It is a reminder of the fact that God is the all seeing God. You cannot hide anything from him. That is perhaps a fairly obvious lesson here. But what about the second question? Is this the time to take money, or to accept clothes, olive groves, vineyards, flocks, herds, or menservants and maidservants? Elisha doesn't say “Is this the time to be greedy, to take advantage of others or to tell lies and deceive people?” What most concerns him about Gehazi, a man who up until this point has given no obvious hint that he is anything less than fully committed to the same high ideals as his master, is this matter of priorities.
These were dark days in Israel, days when idolatry was everywhere and only a small remnant remained faithful. If ever there was a time to be giving oneself unreservedly to the cause of Yahweh this was it. But what do we find in Gehazi? He is all set on money and smart clothes, on commercial ventures in olives or grapes or livestock, on having servants or whatever else it was that he planned to spend his ill gotten silver on. And Elisha is horrified. The issue is not so much how he procured the silver and clothes but the fact that this is what was filling his mind.
The verse raises questions for us too. Is this the time to be thinking chiefly about what money we can make or how good we can look? Are spacious homes, long vacations and expensive entertainments the things that should be filling our heads? Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness says Jesus. Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, he says where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. He warns us very clearly No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
This article first appeared on the currently stalled Sola Scriptura blog

20151110

The Gospel Boots

Standing firm and going out
 
Cast your mind back, if you can, to the Gulf War, when George Bush Senior was US President. You may recall seeing footage, just the word I want, of Saddam’s ramshackle army. The only footwear that these poor fellows had was what they had bought in the local high street. I guess someone had decided, in an attempt to save money, that although weapons and uniforms were essential, boots were not. Big mistake.
Even today an essential element in military strategy is speedy mobilisation of your troops. The Romans figured this out early on and their soldiers were equipped with stout, thick soled, hob-nailed, leather sandal-boots of a very sturdy type. These were important too for hand-to-hand fighting, where one slip could be fatal, to say nothing of snakes or strongholds fortified with short sharp spikes all around. David Beckham’s October (2003) penalty miss in Turkey was a reminder of the importance of staying on your feet.
 
Staying on your feet
In his fight against the devil, the Christian must stay on his feet. He must be sure-footed and able to move forward at a moment’s notice. Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 6, with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. Some say this means only that we need the gospel of peace as a basis to withstand Satan but it probably also means that we should be ready to move into enemy territory. Perhaps Paul has in mind Isaiah’s reference to the beautiful feet of those who bring good news (Isaiah 52:7). Ephesians and Colossians have many parallels and perhaps there is one in Colossians 4:5, 6 which speaks of being wise in the way you act towards outsiders; making the most of every opportunity and letting your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
 
Fighting for peace
Gospel, of course, means good news, and Paul here stresses the peace it brings to all who accept it and trust in Christ. He seems to be speaking paradoxically, then. We fight to bring peace. Indeed, it is widely accepted that sometimes the way to peace is through war. That is certainly the situation as far as Christ’s kingdom and the devil are concerned. War against the devil is the only way to lasting peace.
The peace Christ brings is both outward and objective and inward and subjective. By his death Christ has reconciled his people to God, even though we are all his enemies by nature. With that comes an inner peace that guards our hearts and minds in Christ. When we have such peace we can advance the kingdom. This includes taking the message of peace to others by telling them the gospel. God has reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation (1 Corinthians 5:18). The gospel brings its own offence but is essentially a message of peace. It calls on all to lay down their arms and stop fighting against the Lord and instead to be enlisted in Christ’s own army in the fight against sin and against the devil. To be successful in battle, then, we need to be at peace with those who are on our own side and to be at war with the devil. The gospel must be the basis and foundation of all that we do. Then we can give ourselves to the work of advancing the kingdom, which includes telling others the way to peace through trust in Christ. We must go as ambassadors and present the appeal of the gospel to all whom we meet. We must implore them to be reconciled to God.
Originally published in Grace Magazine

20151109

An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the science or art of interpretation. The word is from the Greek for to interpret, explain or translate. The Greeks spoke of Hermes, the god of writing, art and science and messenger of the gods. Hermeneutics is
 
The science of interpreting an author’s language (Milton Terry)
Principles, laws and methods of interpretation (Louis Berkhof)
 
It assumes that people communicate to be understood and that there is  a need to remove confusion between writer and reader so that the writer is understood. It also assumes that you find meaning by understanding a writer’s intention, something that not all would accept.
Hermeneutics can be applied to any literature. We distinguish between general and special hermeneutics, the latter dealing with law or poetry, for example. We further distinguish between secular special hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics, a very special sort dealing with God’s Word and having its own special field. The Bible was written by men but above all else it is God’s Word to his people. Critical methods alone will never do it justice. Historical and rational methods of interpretation have their place but can only take us so far in our understanding.
 
Neighbouring disciplines
It is useful to distinguish between biblical hermeneutics and related fields of study.
 
Biblical Introduction (Isagogics) deals with questions of authorship, date, canonicity.
Textual Criticism seeks to discover the exact words of the original biblical manuscripts. At the point where textual criticism ends hermeneutics begins.
Exegesis This is sometimes thought of as part of hermeneutics, but we can distinguish. Exegesis is the application of the principles and laws of hermeneutics, the practical outcome of hermeneutics. Exegesis relates to hermeneutics as language to grammar, reasoning to logic. Speech and reason existed before written grammars or rules of logic; but to speak correctly and reason rightly usually involves knowing grammar and logic. Hermeneutics (science) seeks to lay down principles of interpretation. Exegesis (art) applies those rules. Both affect each other in some ways, as rules of grammar and spoken language can interact.
 
Importance
Hermeneutics is not all important. Right interpretation does not guarantee right practice. However, it is fundamental. The Bible is God’s Word but if not correctly understood it is useless. Misunderstanding God’s Word can do great harm. This is how heresies begin. Because it is God’s Word, it is vital for us not only to understand its general sense but every word. Without hermeneutics you can establish no other branch of theology. It leads to sound interpretation, the root of all sound theology. Without correct interpretation how can anyone preach faithfully?
 
Necessity
‘But you don’t have to interpret the Bible. Just read it and obey it. If you have the Spirit that’s enough.’ One writer describes a student weeping for her hermeneutics lecturer because he could not see that you do not need to interpret, you just believe. Such attitudes often spring from an objection to the need for preachers and scholars but what about Ephesians 4:11, 12? It was he who gave some to be ... pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ....
Walter Kaiser has boiled the objections down to three and gives answers:
1. God’s Word has its own compelling power. However, it is as you understand and apply it that its power is unleashed.
2. If you have the Spirit that is enough. So why did Peter find some of Paul’s writings hard to understand? (2 Peter 3:16). The Spirit’s main work is overcoming pride and prejudice. Without his work, we fail to see a truth’s value or how to apply it. The Spirit is vital but uses means.
3. If you have faith you will understand. We dare not deny Scripture’s clarity. The Bible can be understood by all who seek God’s help and are willing to obey it. However, some parts are more difficult to understand than others and we must give attention to these too. It is when we have understood that faith becomes important.
Besides, anyone who wants to understand the Bible must take into account these important factors:
1. Even the most straightforward statements often need interpretation.
2. Sin has darkened man’s mind and continues to impair his ability to think and understand, including ability to interpret accurately.
3. People tend to disagree, to drift apart mentally (Berkhof’s phrase)
4. Also remember Isaiah 55:8, 9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, … As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are … my thoughts than your thoughts.
5. Even the most experienced and judicious readers are not yet fully mature. Inevitably, differences of interpretation arise even among those who love Scripture and accept it as God’s Word.
6. Besides all this, various cults and false religions have promoted many false interpretations. We must expose and correct their errors.
7. We must remember how cultural presuppositions affect us (words such as church, cross, etc). In using a translation, we are already involved in hermeneutics as every translation involves a degree of interpretation.
8. We must also remember the Bible’s nature. God’s Word came through human beings in particular historical settings not as a series of propositions and commands. As Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart put it, God ‘chose to speak his eternal truths within the particular circumstances and events of human history’. This is not a disadvantage but leads us to hope that by these same words God will again speak to his people in the context of human history, this time our own.
Thus, one has to
  • Hear the word they heard then and try to understand what they said to those people then and there
  • Then learn to hear that same word in the present
Bible interpretation is not always a simple matter. There are many traps to avoid. Not only is it difficult to transpose ourselves into the time and spirit of the biblical writers but we are aiming to know not only their mind but that of God himself.
 
Goals
In hermeneutics, the material object is the writing to be explained. The formal object concerns the sense expressed by the book’s author. Our material object is the Bible. We seek a complete set of rules for finding and expressing the true sense of its inspired writers. The formal object is to discover and present the Bible’s genuine sense.
A modern group of writers (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard) say we need to practice proper hermeneutics to:
  • Discern God’s message. Good hermeneutics lead to good exegesis and so Scripture’s true meaning is established. It avoids the oft abused ‘proof-texting method’.
  • Avoid or dispel misconceptions, wrong perspectives and false conclusions about the Bible.
  • Be able to apply the Bible’s message to our lives. In different ways, the ancient biblical text teaches us how to live today to God’s glory. The task of hermeneutics is to discover what the text reveals about this.
This article first appeared in Grace Magazine

The Honey Makes the Gold Stick

Tucked away behind Oxford Street, the main shopping thoroughfare in London's west end, is Hertford House, a stately home packed with beautiful items from pre-revolutionary France. The collection was gathered by Richard Wallace and his ancestors and gifted to the nation early in the twentieth century, hence its name The Wallace Collection.
Among the many attractive objects found there are cabinets of early Sèvres porcelain, from the 1750s and 1760s. Widely regarded as among the finest ever produced anywhere, the factory that produced it, which still exists, flourished chiefly due to the efforts of the French Sun King, Louis XV, and especially his mistress, Madame de Pompadour, whose own residence, the Château de Bellevue, was near the factory.
It is not to everyone's taste but one cannot but admire the craftsmanship involved. Hand painted by artists, each piece is unique and would have taken several weeks to produce. After firing and glazing, the pieces were painted their various colours one by one and fired in the kiln each time a new colour was added. The very last addition was the gold leaf edging on the cups, saucers and other pieces. This gold was applied by a method known as “honey gilding”. The gold leaf was mixed with honey and laid thickly over the glaze before firing. It was the honey that made the gold stick.
Now many of us cannot hear of gold and honey without thinking of Psalm 19:10, where David says of God's laws, as found in the Scriptures, not only that They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; but also that they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb. Verses 72 and 103 of Psalm 119 have the same thoughts. Scripture is profitable and pleasant. David speaks out of his own experience and many another reader has found that what he reads in the Bible is not only solid, precious and valuable, like gold, but also sweet to his soul, very sweet indeed.
The concoction used at Sèvres was both precious and sweet and it brings these verses to mind. Of course, at Sèvres the honey was not used because it is sweet but because it is sticky. It was the means of sticking the gold to the porcelain.
Perhaps there is a lesson here. We know that we ought to read the Word because it is precious. Sometimes, however, that is not enough for us. Often it is the sweetness of Scripture that draws us, rather than its preciousness. If somehow, like the artists of Sèvres, we could connect the preciousness of gold and the sweet and sticky honey-like character of Scripture, it would stand us in good stead.
Certainly preachers should be seeking somehow not only to impress on congregations how pure and precious and reliable Scripture is but also how sweet it is. Congregations need to hear not only about Law and justice and judgement and hell but also about God's grace and mercy and loving kindness, about the delight of his presence and the glories of heaven. To gild it all with Bible-sucked honey would be a good method for making the gold stick.

20151107

Not just for wives

All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training us. It is important then that when we read the Bible we apply it. Obviously, we will sometimes see applications for others but we must first see what a passage has to say to us. As Jesus warns, there is no point trying to take a speck of sawdust out of your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own!
In many places general applications are obvious. But what about those places where the verses clearly do not apply to your own situation? For example, if you are a young man or an elderly spinster reading 1 Peter 3:1-6 you may be tempted to say ‘I’m not a wife and never will be, so there’s nothing here for me’. In fact there is a great deal to learn from the very way that Peter approaches the subject and if we are observant all of us can not only learn from a passage like this how we to pray for wives or prospective wives but also a great deal that applies more directly to our own situations. There are at least ten lessons here.
 
The family is a basic unit of government in God’s ordering of the world
The very fact that Peter chooses to speak not only about civil government and the work place (see Chapter 2) but also about the family suggests that the family has an important place in God’s government of the world. Along with church and sate the home is one of God's three great institutions for governing people on earth. At the beginning all three were together. Adam was head of his family, leader of the church and head of state for that matter. For most of the Old Testament period in Israel church and state were combined. In this New Covenant era church, family and state are separate and need to respect each other and avoid confusion. There is state or civil government, family government and church government and these three ought to be clearly demarcated. The home is a basic unit in God's government and we all need to pay careful attention to family life. If family life goes awry in a community that community will be in great trouble. It is one of the great problems of our time.
We should be more concerned about fulfilling our duties than claiming our rights
It is also worth noting here that Peter spends no time on the wife's rights and all his time on her duties. This is the very opposite of much of what goes on today. Where rights are put above duties a sad and unbiblical imbalance can soon come in.
Often our situations at home will be far from ideal
It should come as no surprise that New Testament Christians faced the problem of harsh masters and unbelieving husbands. Such difficulties are found in all ages. We live in a fallen world and seldom will situations be ideal. We will face difficulties and struggles. The Bible assumes this.
Behaviour is often more effective than words
The temptation for the Christian wife is to spend all her time telling her unbelieving husband to believe. That is not the right approach. Very soon such a woman would turn into a nagger and drive her husband away from Christ not towards him. Peter argues for winning witness that comes without words and relies on immaculate behaviour not mere words. Again and again it is seen that actions speak louder than words. This fact can be used as an excuse for not witnessing when we can but that is to twist the Scriptures. We must be ready to give an answer whenever we are asked about the hope within, as Peter goes on to say, but first we must be godly.
Unbelievers are to be won for Christ
The phrase ‘soul winning’ is not fashionable among Christians today. It is a biblical idea, however. Peter speaks here of husbands being won over. Unbelievers are negative. They are against Christ and his people. They need to be won over. We must be doing all we can to win people over to Christ. Are you a soul winner?
Cultivation of the inner self is more important than outward adornment
True beauty is something inward not outward. It is like the washing of cups – the important thing is getting the inside clean. Too often people are like those gravestones Jesus mentions – whitewashed on the outside but full of corruption on the inside. Unlike outward beauty, inward beauty is unfading. It gets better as time goes on. Some women are able to hold back the ravages of time quite well for a while but eventually, like us all, they lose their outward beauty. Instead the thing to concentrate on is the real beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. Gentleness and quietness are required of all believers. It should especially be seen in our dealings with our families. We do not accept the Greek idea that the physical is evil or unimportant but we must have the right perspective.
The Old Testament saints stand as examples to us of how to live
It is worth noting how readily Peter turns to the Old Testament saints to back up what he is saying here. The Old Testament not only points forward to Messiah by means of types and shadows but also gives us moral examples to follow.
Even apparently incidental details in Scripture have something to teach us
Peter seems to build his argument on the relatively minor fact that Sarah spoke of her husband Abraham as her master. He clearly read his Bible very carefully. That piece of information could easily be missed. We must similarly be alert to hints that the Scripture gives for us. It is all God's Word and every bit has something to teach us.
The objective test of a person’s Christianity is how they live
You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Just as the true sons of Abraham are those who like Abraham not only have the same faith but do good deeds so true daughters of Sarah are those who not only have faith like her but do what is right as she did also.
The way we live ought to be dictated by the desire to do right and not by fear
This must be the motivating factor. As believers we have not been a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.
I believe this article appeared in Grace Magazine some time