Dr David Petts is an international speaker and author who is best known for his 27 years as Principal at Mattersey Hall Bible College and his in-depth but easily understood teaching on the Holy Spirit. Now retired, he enjoys preaching locally and sometimes further afield. These podcasts are your opp…
David Petts - Pentecostal preacher, Assemblies of God minister, honours graduate of Brasenose College Oxford, PhD in theology, honorary academic fellow of the University of Wales.
My Story Talk 19 Ministry in Basingstoke 1968-78 Part 4 Welcome to Talk 19 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today I'll be talking about how, while I was at Basingstoke, the Lord started to open up a wider ministry overseas. It all began when early in 1971 Willy Droz, a pastor from Switzerland appeared on my doorstep and introduced himself. He had trained at the International Bible Training Institute in Sussex where he had met his wife Brenda. He knew about me through the SPF newsletter which reported details of my travels around the universities preaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. He was organising a youth weekend retreat at les Rasses in the Swiss Jura mountains and asked if I would be the main speaker. I had not been to Switzerland since my first visit in 1958 when I heard about the baptism in the Spirit from Laurie Dixon, and I eagerly accepted the invitation. But I first made sure that they would not expect me to preach in French. There are no less than four different languages spoken in Switzerland, German, French, Italian, and Romansh (spoken only by a small minority). Les Rasses is in the French-speaking area, known also as La Suisse Romande. It was fifteen years since I had taken my French A level and I had forgotten, or thought I had forgotten, all of it. So I was grateful for the assurance that my preaching would be interpreted, which was a particularly interesting experience as I was at least familiar with the language into which I was being interpreted. In some ways it's much easier when you don't know the language and just have to trust the interpreter, but, when you know the language, you're constantly checking to make sure the interpreter is getting it right! And on one occasion I surprised everyone by saying, Non, je n'ai pas dit cela – No, I didn't say that. So the French I had learnt at school had not entirely deserted me, but I have to confess that, when I was introduced to the wife of the pastor from Geneva, I could not even remember how to say, I'm pleased to meet you. It was only when in La Chaux-de-Fonds they lodged me for a few days with an elderly woman who spoke no English, that I was compelled to speak French and found the language coming back to me. But I was far from ready to start preaching in French. The opportunity to do so came three years later in March 1974 as the result of my meeting Jerry Sandidge at an SPF house party at Capel, then the home of the Elim Bible College. Jerry told me he was the director for University Action in Eurasia for the American Assemblies of God, had heard about my ministry in Britain and the USA – about which, more later – and invited me to preach in the University of Louvain (or Leuven) in Belgium on the subject, Charismatic Gifts – are they for today? He also said that he could arrange for me to speak at CBC, the Continental Bible College, later to become the Continental Theological Seminary, near Brussels, where they had two language streams, one in English and the other in French. It was there, I think, that I first met Warren Flattery, who asked if I would mind taking one of his French classes. In French? I asked. Oh no, he said, I always do it in English. To which I responded by politely asking how long he had been living in a French speaking country, and didn't he think he ought to be doing it in French? And so I asked him for a French Bible and, as I had a day or so to prepare for it, after apologising to the class up front for the mistakes I was sure to make, I somehow managed to preach my first sermon in French. At the end of which the class applauded and Warren said, Lui, s'il peut le faire, moi, je peux le faire! If he can do it, I can do it! And the class applauded again, and from then on Warren took all his classes in French. In my case, the applause was certainly not for the quality of my French, but, I suspect, was an expression of sympathy and appreciation that I had made the effort. The next opportunity came in 1977 as a result of my meeting Marie-France, a French student at Mattersey. The Bible College had moved in 1973 from Kenley to Mattersey and in 1976, in the final week of the summer term, I was giving a lecture when I happened to mention that on one occasion in Switzerland I had spoken to someone in French. Marie-France approached me afterwards, pleased to know that there was someone she could speak to in her own language. The outcome of that conversation was that over the next few years Marie-France came to stay with us in Basingstoke on several occasions. She became a good friend of our family and a great help to me in improving my spoken French. Several of my sermons had been recorded on cassettes and Eileen had patiently typed them up, word for word as I had preached them. Marie-France kindly offered to translate them for me, so that I could refer to them whenever I might need to preach in French. The following year, having heard about me from Marie-France, the pastor of her church in Paris invited me to preach whenever I would next be on the continent. So while I was in Brussels for a fortnight writing a course for ICI (International Correspondence Institute, later to become Global University) – more of which later – I travelled to Paris for the weekend and preached one of the sermons Marie-France had translated for me. The French, of course, was excellent, but I can't say the same about the delivery! I was so nervous that I read every word of it! And I did the same the following year when Willy Droz arranged for me to preach in several churches in Switzerland – Vevey, Ste. Croix, Payerne, Lausanne, Saxon, Colenberg, Neuveville, Couvet. I think it was in Vevey that some people came up to me after the service and, after chatting with me, in French of course, for about twenty minutes said, Thank you for your message. It was very good. But why did you read it all? To which I replied that someone had translated it for me and that I did not have enough confidence in my French to do it without reading it. But they replied, You've been speaking with us in perfectly good French for the last 20 minutes. You should trust in the Lord. And I can hardly believe that I made the following stupid reply, Yes, I know how to trust the Lord in English, but I don't know how to trust him in French! But the time did come when occasionally I would have to trust the Lord to help me preach in French without notes, but that's a story for a later talk. It's time now to mention the trips I made to the USA while we were still in Basingstoke. I have already mentioned John Miles who was my closest friend while we were at Oxford. He was part of that group of Pentecostal students who very much took the initiative in the formation of the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship. After graduating John spent a year or so school teaching in England before going to the Congo as a missionary. It was there he met and married Sara, an American missionary and where their first child Julia was born. By 1972 they were back in the USA where John did a PhD in French at the University of Illinois and eventually became Professor of French at Wheaton College. However, at one point they were thinking of returning to Congo and in 1972 John wrote to me saying that, if I was thinking of visiting them in the States, I should do so fairly soon. His letter coincided with one of my regular visits to Kenley Bible College where I met Don Mallough, a guest lecturer from America who, over lunch, asked me if I had ever visited the States and encouraged me to go if I had the opportunity. In those days travelling to the States was far less common than it is today, and to me the decision to go there was far from easy. However, I was talking to Eric Dando, a well-known preacher and member of the AoG Executive Council and asked him what he thought. His reply went something like this: Well, David, I go to America like I go anywhere else. If I feel that I can be a blessing to them and they can be a blessing to me, I go. That put things in perspective for me and on that basis I decided to go, even though at the time I had received no specific invitation to minister anywhere. So I arranged to go for the month of October, and shortly after received an unexpected letter. It was from Jim Hall who had heard about the work I was doing for the SPF in the universities in Britain and asked if I would do something similar in Illinois where he was the Assemblies of God Director for University Action. So that's what I did. Jim arranged preaching engagements for me in churches morning and evening every Sunday and on Wednesday evenings. An offering was taken in each meeting, half of which was designated for the University Action department, the other half for me, to cover the cost of my airfares and a gift for my ministry. This was a complete surprise for me as I had decided to go to the States before I knew of this. It was also a wonderful answer to prayer. We had been struggling financially as the church was not yet able to pay me an adequate salary and any funds we originally had as the result of the sale of our bungalow in Colchester had now run out. But now our needs were met, and I came home with a renewed faith and expectation that God would always find a way to meet our financial needs. But the most satisfying thing about the trip was not the financial reward but the response I received in the churches and universities. I was based at Urbana with John and Sara, and I preached there the first Sunday morning I was there. I preached on repentance and was amazed to see how many people came forward in response to the appeal. I received a similar response everywhere I went, and I quickly learnt how different Americans are from us Brits in responding to an appeal. But for most of the month I was travelling around the state of Illinois accompanied by Jim Hall who acted as my chauffeur and guide and was a great encouragement to me. We learned a lot from each other over the many miles we travelled together and became great friends. We visited eight universities altogether, spending two days in each. These were: Illinois State University, Normal; University of Illinois, Urbana; Northwestern University, Evanston; Northern Illinois University, DeKalb; Western Illinois University, Macomb; Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; Southern Illinois University, Carbondale; and Eastern Illinois University, Charleston. Over the course of the three weeks we were touring, dozens of students were baptised in the Spirit and began to speak in tongues, one professor telling me how grateful he was to God ‘for the wisdom he had given' me in the way I taught the Word and how I prayed for people to receive. And Jim Hall was so encouraged that he sent a report about my ministry to Aaron Linford, the editor of Redemption Tidings, which was published shortly after I returned to England. I made a similar trip to Illinois two years later in October 74, visiting the same universities, but this time speaking on two main themes, The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and The Christan's Armour (Ephesians 6:10-20). On each of these trips I had left Eileen and the children back in England and we all missed each other very much. For Eileen it was particularly difficult as in 1972 Jonathan was only two, and the girls were just seven and eight. One example of this was when I returned at the end of October 72 and Eileen had driven up to Heathrow with the kids to meet me. During my trip people had asked me about the weather in England and if it was very foggy – I think they must have been watching some of the Sherlock Holmes movies – and I had replied that we occasionally get a bit of fog, but not very much. But ironically, when our flight approached Heathrow, the captain announced that our landing would be delayed because of fog. The delay was so long that we had to go back to Shannon in Ireland to refuel and we eventually landed at Heathrow four and a half hours later than scheduled. And all this time Eileen was waiting with three young children in a very crowded Heathrow. But the third time I went to the States Eileen and the children came with me. This was for six weeks from mid-February to the end of March 1977, and the children had to have special permission to miss school. This was granted on the educational value of the trip and on the condition that whenever possible they went to school in Wheaton, where John and Sara Miles were now living. Most of my ministry during the trip was in churches rather than in universities, although I did speak to students at a breakaway retreat in Carlinville, the headquarters of the Illinois district of Assemblies of God. I also conducted a seminar in Wheaton College on the baptism in the Spirit, more of which in a moment. Once again, the churches we visited were in Illinois. These included Rockford, Urbana, Granite City, Springfield, Naperville, Schaumberg, East Saint Louis (where we took the opportunity to go to the top of the famous arch), and La Grange. The experience at East Saint Louis was interesting for two reasons, first because after the morning service the whole congregation stayed behind for what they called an agapē meal, or love-feast, where they presented a delicious array of both hot and cold dishes. That church was also significant because during the meal the pastor showed me the notes of a sermon he had preached which were almost identical to what I had preached that morning. It was on the subject of team leadership based on the church in Antioch (Acts 13), about which I will say more next time. The Lord was clearly saying the same thing to different people in different parts of the world. Our experience at La Grange was even more interesting. I preached there on the first Sunday of our trip and they invited me back for a series of meetings from Sunday to Wednesday towards the end of our stay when I gave a series of talks on Gideon. We were invited by a family whose children were about the same age as ours for a typical Thanksgiving meal specially prepared for us as it was not really the season for Thanksgiving. It was on the Wednesday before the final service and we really enjoyed it, so much so in fact that we arrived a little late for the service and I was so full I could hardly preach! Even more interesting was the fact that they enjoyed the ministry so much that they asked me if I would seriously consider accepting the pastorate of the church as the pastor had recently announced that he was moving on. The offer was extremely tempting, but, as I will explain later, by this time I was already convinced that the Lord was calling me to Mattersey. Other significant features of that trip included a visit to the Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, a journey to Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the invitation of Oral Roberts to attend as his guests a seminar at the Oral Roberts University, and finally, a seminar I was asked to conduct at Wheaton College on the baptism in the Holy Spirit on Saturday 19th March. On the Friday evening I had been asked to appear on television by a Christian TV station in Chicago and was on my way there accompanied by Pastor Tom Richardson when he received a phone call to say that they had made a last-minute decision to have instead a telethon evening to raise much needed funds. Although this was disappointing, we had no alternative than to return to Wheaton where the next morning I preached on the baptism in the Spirit and several came forward for prayer and were filled with the Spirit. When the meeting was over, one of them asked me if I had heard Professor James Dunn the previous evening. I said no, at which she expressed some surprise. Dunn, who is well-known for his rejection of the Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Spirit, had given his reasons for doing so, but I, without knowing what he said, had answered him on every point. This was clearly, without my knowing it, due to the leading of the Holy Spirit in all I had said, and was in itself an evidence of the truth of what I was preaching.
My Story Talk 18 Ministry in Basingstoke 1968-78 Part 3 Welcome to Talk 18 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Last time we saw how, during the years we were there, the church in Basingstoke grew as a result of the consistent and regular preaching of the gospel by means of Sunday night gospel services, evangelistic missions, personal evangelism and door-to-door work, and ministry among children and young people. And the fact that God graciously confirmed the message by miraculous signs according to his own will was undoubtedly a significant factor as the supernatural gifts of the Spirit were regularly in evidence in our meetings. But our years at Basingstoke also saw a significant widening of my ministry beyond the local church not only in preaching but also in writing, both in the UK and further afield. Ministry beyond the local church Speaking engagements within the UK With the exception of my ministry in universities and colleges as Travelling Secretary of the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship, the vast majority of my speaking engagements were at the AoG Bible College or in AoG churches or conferences. The invitation to lecture at the Bible College, which was then in Kenley, Surrey, came in 1970 from the newly appointed Principal, George Jeffreys Williamson. Kenley was a couple of hours' drive from Basingstoke, and I went on a fortnightly basis staying overnight and giving lectures on the Major Prophets, Comparative Religion, and New Testament Greek. Apart from the Greek, I had little or no prior knowledge about the subjects I was teaching and so the lecture preparation time was considerable. But I enjoyed the challenge and added to my personal education in the process. I could not have possibly known it then, but my time at Kenley turned out to be the start of over fifty years of teaching in Pentecostal Bible Colleges around the world. I was also receiving invitations to minister at large conventions and national conferences. Despite the charismatic renewal that was happening at the time in some of the other churches, Pentecostals, having been rejected and ostracized for decades, were still rather suspicious of what was happening, and tended to keep pretty much to themselves, gathering together in large celebrations, especially at significant times of the year, when there was a public holiday – Easter, Whitsun, August, Christmas and New Year. These were amazing times of blessing as people, hungry for the word of God, gathered for fellowship, worship, and to hear specially invited speakers. Some Easter Conventions, like the Cardiff City Temple (Elim), where I was privileged to minister on more than one occasion, would last from Thursday evening until the following Tuesday, very often with two speakers in each meeting. In the mid-seventies, when I would sometimes be booked for up to five years in advance for Easter, I preached at conventions in Preston (72 and 74), Tunbridge Wells (73), Bishop Aukland (75), Peckham (76), and Coventry (77). Apart from these popular events which were arranged by local churches, there were also national events like the AoG Annual General Conference, attended by thousands, and the Home Missions Conference organised by the AoG Home Missions Council. In 1969 I was asked to speak at the HMC Conference in Coventry on the subject, Preaching the Gospel in the 1970s. And in 1973 at a similar conference in Weymouth, I spoke on the importance of team leadership in the local church, about which I will say more next time. Even more significant, however, was General Conference which in the late sixties took place in Bognor Regis and from 1971 to 1989 was held at the Butlins Holiday Camp in Minehead reaching a record high attendance for the AoG Jubilee Conference in 1984. I was a speaker on one of the main celebrations (back then referred to as ‘rallies') on several occasions, the first of which was in Bognor in 1969. But perhaps the greatest privilege was for many years being made responsible for speaking at the receiving meeting which was held every year for people who were seeking the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Over the years we saw hundreds begin to speak in tongues, some of whom told me that they had been seeking for years but had never heard it explained so clearly. Other events at which I ministered regularly were youth rallies organised either by local churches or by AoG District Councils, and the National Youth Rally. I was a member of the AoG National Youth Council (1973-76), who were responsible for organising this annual event at which I would usually either lead or preach. I suspect that the reason I was elected to the NYC was partly because people had come to know of the work we were doing among young people at our youth camp. That may also have been the reason for the evangelistic missions I was invited to conduct. On two occasions Colin Whittaker, who was then the AoG pastor at Luton, asked me to conduct an eight-day youth mission. For one of these I was assisted by members of the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship who sang and testified in the evening meetings but also did a great job in distributing invitations to the young people as they came out of school. The other time, I was alone, but part of the week's programme was to preach in one of the schools where I was supported by a Christian band and where dozens responded to the appeal at the end of my message. Another time I was asked by the Christian Union at Chester College – now Chester University – to do a five-day evangelistic mission for the students in the college. When I arrived just after lunch on the Monday, a member of staff conducted me to the bedroom they had allocated for me. I hope you don't mind, he said, we're putting you in a room that was occupied until recently by a student we have had to expel from the college. He had been practising witchcraft . I was rather surprised by this, to say the least, but I put a brave face on it and said, as casually as I could, Oh, that's fine. No problem! But when I entered the room, I confess I began to wonder what evil presence might be lurking there. The half-burnt candle on the windowsill didn't help . Had that been part of his devilish paraphernalia? Or had they just had a power -cut recently?! Then I remembered what Jesus had promised to his disciples as he sent them out on the task of world evangelisation: Surely, I will be with you always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:20). I reminded myself of other Bible verses like Behold I give you power over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you (Luke 10:19) and I began to take courage. I settled into my room and started to prepare myself for the meeting at which I had to speak that evening. After a few minutes there was a knock at the door. Two men stood there. They had seen the light on in my room and wondered who it was that was in there. Are you a new student? they asked. No, I replied, I've come to conduct a mission for the Christian Union. That's interesting, said one of them. It's strange they should put you in my old room. It was the man they had expelled for practising witchcraft ! He had come back to visit his friend. Of course, I invited them to the meeting that evening and the ‘witch ' said he might come. And sure enough, when the time for the meeting came, there he was sitting in the audience. I preached the gospel and I would like to be able to say that the man gave his life to Christ, but he didn't. Instead, he came and argued with me! This went on for some time after the meeting had closed, and after about half an hour, feeling that we were getting nowhere by arguing, I decided to invite him to come to the meeting the next day. I think you'll be particularly interested tomorrow, I said. The subject is Jesus the way to power . How real is the supernatural ? Is it safe? I don't think you know the first thing about the supernatural , he replied. What a challenge to a Pentecostal preacher! Well, I don't know much about what you get up to when you practise your witchcraft , I said, but I will tell you one thing. When you come under the control of a familiar spirit , you can't say Jesus is Lord, can you? I don't know who was more surprised, him or me! I had said this on the basis of my understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:1-3, but I was not prepared for the effect it had on this young man. He went visibly pale and said, How did you know that? Taking courage by his reaction, I said, Because the Bible , which is God's word tells me so. And I'll tell you something else it says. You may not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord now, but the day is coming when you will have to, whether you like it or not. For the Bible says that one day at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father ! As I quoted these verses from Philippians 2:10-11 to him, he retreated out of the room! I went to bed at around 11pm and fell asleep straight away, sleeping soundly until about 7 the next morning. While the students were having their breakfast, I went down the corridor to the washroom to shave. While I was shaving, I saw in the mirror the face of the ‘witch '. He was standing right behind me. Good morning, he said. Did you sleep well? Yes, thank you, I replied. Are you sure? Yes, perfectly sure. I went to bed around eleven and slept soundly until about seven. Really? I can't understand that! Why? What so unusual about having a good night's sleep? Well, you see, he confessed, I was so annoyed with what you said last night that I stayed up all night practising my witchcraft . I was trying to get a poltergeist into your room to disturb you. I've done it many times before and it's never failed. That's why they expelled me from the college. I can't understand why it didn't work this time. Oh, I said, I wish you had told me. I could have told you not to waste your time. Don't you know that Christians are immune to such things? Later that day he was seen leaving the college with his bag packed. Leaving? said one of the Christians. Aren't you coming to the meeting today? No, he replied, that fellow knows too much about the supernatural. What a sad story, but despite the satanic opposition, during the course of those five days over 40 students made a decision for Christ. But finally, before we turn to the speaking invitations that began to open up for me overseas, which I'll tell you about next time, a word about those I was receiving from within the UK apart, of course, from the things I've already mentioned – teaching fortnightly at the Bible College, preaching in universities and colleges, serving on the National Youth Council, and ministering at conventions, conferences and missions. In addition to all that, looking back at my diaries I discovered recently that between 1972 and 1976 I was ministering on average over twelve times a year in churches other than Basingstoke. Why do I mention this? Because with that amount of ministry there is always the danger that the family may suffer as a result of it. I am so grateful to Billy Richards who spoke to the ministers in our district about pastors who discovered that their kids had grown up before they knew it and who regretted that they had spent so little time with them. On hearing that, I was determined that that would not happen in our family, and so, whenever I returned from a trip away, Eileen and I would make sure that we all spent extra time together, like going for a drive or walk or picnic in the beautiful Hampshire countryside and followed by a favourite meal for tea. And we made sure that we always had good summer holidays too. Apart from camp, which was a holiday for the kids, but hard, though enjoyable work for Eileen and me, we always tried to make sure that as a family we had two weeks away together. At first these were always in the UK in places like North Wales and Cornwall, but our most notable trip by far was in 1976 when we went to L'Auberson, a small village just a mile from the French border in the Jura region of Switzerland. Back then holidays abroad were far less common and far more expensive than they are today, and such a trip would have been financially impossible for us had it not been for the inheritance Eileen received from her father who had sadly died from a heart attack in 1975. We travelled by car stopping overnight just once en route at a hotel – the children's first experience in one – in La Veuve, a small village near to Chalons-sur-Marne and arrived at L'Auberson early in the evening. Actually it was earlier than we thought. We had put our watches on an hour when we entered France and assumed that the time in Switzerland was the same, but, as we found out later, in those days the time was the same as in England, so when we went to bed at what we thought was nine o'clock, people were rather surprised that we were going to bed at eight! And when we arrived at church the next morning in time for the ten o'clock service the door was still locked because it was really only nine! The pastor was Willy Droz – more about him next time – and I had not told him we were coming and had tried to time our entrance just in time for the service so that he would not ask me to preach. After all I was on holiday! So, of course, I ended up preaching after all – in French. But that brings me to the next subject – speaking engagements abroad, which we'll talk about next time.
My Story Talk 17 Ministry in Basingstoke 1968-78 Part 2 Welcome to Talk 17 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Last time I was talking about the evangelistic missions we organised in Basingstoke, but these tended largely to attract adults, and the children and young people needed to be reached too. So that's our subject for today. Children's Work At first, the only children we were reaching were those who came to our Sunday School, which was held at 10am before the 11am Communion Service. One of those children was Rosie Wilcox (née Wright), who later became Jonathan's Sunday School teacher. Fifty years later, I still exchange Christmas cards every year with Rosie and her husband Paul. However, we soon began to reach other children in what was then a more unusual way. To the best of my knowledge, we were the first AoG church in Britain to organise a pre-school playgroup. I had felt for some time that most church buildings were not being used to their full potential. I talked with Bill Mitchell, the church elder, who himself was a businessman, and he wholeheartedly agreed. The church building was standing empty in the daytime for six days a week. And we were on the edge of a new council estate where most of the houses were occupied by young families. So, we checked out the legal requirements, and discovered that our facilities would accommodate up to 40 children, provided that we had one adult for every eight children present. We obviously needed to invest in the right equipment, and Eileen knew exactly what to get. In fact, with her administrative skills, she was the ideal person to take charge of the whole thing, and before Debbie and Sarah were old enough to go to school, they could be with her while she was at playgroup. We started by opening for three mornings a week, but the demand for places was such that before long we were open for five. And we had adequate workers to take the full complement of forty, so for five mornings a week, as well as supervising and organising the children in their play, they were able to tell them about Jesus. That was, of course, the most important thing, but another welcome benefit was that, from the small charge we made for each child, we were receiving enough income to pay the mortgage on the building! And an unexpected result of running that playgroup was the request I received to exorcise a ‘ghost' from one of the nearby houses! It happened like this. It was 12 o'clock and the playgroup session was ending. I happened to be present having a chat with Bill Mitchell, when one of the mums came in and said, Is one of you the vicar? And although I don't usually go by that title, I said, Yes, I am. She then asked if I could help her because, she said, there was a ghost in her house. Could I get rid of it? To which, knowing that in Christ we have authority over the forces of darkness, I replied, Yes, of course. How much will it cost? she said. Nothing, I replied. Wow! That's good, she said, the spiritualist wanted a fiver. She gave me her address and, that evening, I went with another brother to visit her. We told her that her greatest security would be to let Jesus into her life and led her in a prayer for salvation. Of course, the so-called ‘ghost' was actually a demon, because there is no biblical evidence for the existence of what people call ghosts, but the woman did not know that. She said that it usually appeared at the top of the stairs. So I went up after it and, although I could see nothing unusual, I did feel a distinct drop in temperature. So I commanded the thing, whatever it was, to leave in the name of Jesus. At once the woman, who was standing in the hall with the other brother, suddenly shrieked. There, didn't you see it? It went right past you! So, although I couldn't see it, I chased it down the stairs, opened the front door, and told it to get out and never come back. The following Sunday she was in church to say thank you and told me that it had gone. So running a playgroup certainly put us in contact with the people in ways we did not expect, but in Britain's fastest growing town the playgroup and the Sunday School we ran in our church building were by no means sufficient to spread the good news among the children, and we soon decided to launch a second Sunday School in a school on the Oakridge estate. This was only possible thanks to the commitment of our teachers who, having taught in the morning in Cranbourne Lane, were willing to give up their Sunday afternoon to teach the same lessons to the children in Oakridge. Another children's work was started by Hilda Gibbons, an elderly widow who opened her home every week to some thirty children on the Winklebury estate. And we reached hundreds of children through the holiday clubs we organised. These lasted for a week or so towards the end of the long summer holidays. They were led mainly by Anthea and William Kay assisted by other church workers, SPF students and other Christian teachers all of whom we accommodated throughout their stay. Notable examples were David Littlewood, later to become an AoG pastor, and Phyllis Parrish (née Sowter) who was baptised in the Spirit while she was with us and later became a student at Mattersey and a missionary to Bangaladesh. Youth Work Some of the older children who came to the holiday clubs were also attracted to our Friday night Youth Meeting. This was our main means of reaching young people on a regular basis and, for most of the time we were at Basingstoke, was led by me. Our church was situated right next to Cranbourne Lane Comprehensive School, where Debbie and Sarah became pupils and I became a parent governor. We also attracted young people from other parts of the town where some of our members were teachers. The church minibus, faithfully driven by William Kay, was vitally important for this work, although it wasn't worth much financially. At the time we had no suitable garage for it, so it was parked each night in the road at the back of our house. One night, in the early hours of the morning, we were woken up by the sound of our dog barking and then I realised that someone was banging heavily on our back door. As I went to the window I became quickly aware of another noise – the constant sound of a car horn. It was our minibus, and the neighbour banging on the back door had come to ask us to silence it. I quickly threw on some clothes and hurried outside to see what I could do. To my surprise the driver's door of the minibus was wide open. I wondered why, as I was sure I had locked it the night before. But my first task was to silence the horn, so I quickly disconnected the battery. Now the horn was silent I could go back to bed, hoping that not too many neighbours had been disturbed. Next morning, as I was apologising for the noise in the night, another neighbour told us they had seen what had happened. Two men had broken into our minibus, but the moment they opened the door the horn had suddenly started sounding. This apparently had caused the men to panic, and our neighbour had seen them running away. Their attempt to steal our minibus had been thwarted! Of course, it may be possible to think of a rational explanation for all this, but it's important to mention that the horn on the minibus would not normally sound unless the ignition was switched on, and there was no form of burglar alarm fitted to the minibus. But whether there's a rational explanation or not, as far as I was concerned God had protected our vehicle. He works in natural as well as in supernatural ways, and we will probably never know why that horn sounded just at the right moment – except that God knew that we needed that minibus! In addition to the weekly youth meeting, we also organised at least two week-long missions, one where Warwick Shenton was the evangelist, and another led by Paul and Janice Finn who were the national youth evangelists for Assemblies of God. We were able to get them into several of the secondary schools in the town where they spoke in school assemblies. This way we knew that the vast majority of teenagers in Basingstoke had the opportunity to hear the gospel. But it was at the regular weekly youth meeting and its associated activities that close personal relationships could be formed with the young people. We organised walks in the countryside, barbecues, and games evenings where we had great opportunities to get to know them better – and for them to get to know us better too. And nowhere was this truer than at our annual youth camp. New Forest Pentecostal Youth Camp While we were at Colchester I had organised a youth camp on the island of Mersea and, thanks to Eileen's culinary skills and to the things I had learned as a teenager in the Boys' Brigade, this proved highly successful. So towards the beginning of our time in Basingstoke I made enquiries as to what sites might be available for us to do something similar near us, and I discovered that the Hampshire Education Committee had one near Brockenhurst in the New Forest. It was set in beautiful countryside, was within a short driving distance from the coast, and had the advantage of flush toilets and showers! All the equipment – tents, marquees, tables, benches, cooking utensils etc. – was provided on site, which was managed by a very helpful warden, a Welshman called Eddie Davies. So we decided to give it a go and, as an initial experiment, took a group of about 15 young people for a few days in the school summer holidays. It went so well that we decided to return the following year for a full week and to invite other AoG churches to participate. I put an advert in Redemption Tidings and over the years the numbers increased to some 150 young people each week. Eileen and I planned the weekly menu which, although it was somewhat restricted by the cooking equipment provided at the site, nevertheless comprised three hot meals a day, prepared by teams of dedicated workers. The only exception to this was that when we all went out for the day – to the Isle of Wight, for example – everyone prepared their own sandwich lunch straight after breakfast with the food we provided for them. Much of the food we bought came in large cans obtained from the cash and carry store in Basingstoke and transported down to Brockenhurst in the minibus in advance. The rest we bought on a daily basis from the International store in Brockenhurst who, incidentally, issued vast quantities of Green Shield stamps, which, when you had saved enough of them, you could trade in for a variety of items displayed in the Green Shield catalogue. I seem to remember that Eileen and I got our coffee percolator that way! The daily programme involved breakfast, during which each of the tents was inspected for tidiness and hygiene, followed by a short devotional involving a song, a prayer, and a Bible reading. The daytime was taken up with recreational activities including at least one day trip to either Hengistbury Head or the Isle of Wight, afternoon trips to Milford-on-Sea, or a treasure hunt in the New Forest. As a family we all enjoyed going down to Brockenhurst a week or so in advance to prepare for this, when we would compose a poem giving clues to the route. But the most important part of the camp programme was without question the meeting we held in the marquee each evening. These involved worship, prayer, testimonies, and preaching followed by an appeal. Every year we saw dozens of young people respond, either for salvation or for a renewed commitment to Christ. And many were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues. I still receive testimonies from people, now in their sixties, of how they met with God in those meetings. After each meeting there was a break when we opened our tuck shop for half an hour. This was followed by a time of singing in the marquee, or, once a week, around a camp fire. The only exception to this was the long hot summer of 1976 when we were at camp for three weeks and when everywhere was so dry that it was illegal to light fires anywhere in the New Forest. Those weeks spent at camp during the seventies were wonderful times of blessing for all involved and form some of the happiest memories of my life. But such blessings do not come by accident. They come as the result of prayer, commitment, and teamwork. None of it would have been possible without the dedicated help of Basingstoke church members like Hilda Gibbons, and visiting pastors and their wives who over several years brought their young people to camp and shared in the work and ministry. Of special note among these were Mike and Beryl Godward from Corringham, Brian and Audrey Quar from Crossacres, Manchester, and Colin Blackman from Tonbridge Wells, all of whom became good personal friends. But these were not the only relationships that were formed or developed at camp. We really got to know our own young people much better too. Some of them came down early to help unload cans of food from the minibus and to assist in the erection of the tents, and I learned that forming relationships with young people, letting them know that you love them rather than just preaching at them, was the way to gain their loyalty and respect. This is essential if we want them to follow our example in following Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). One example of this was Linda. She, along with her twin sister, Sue, had become regular attenders at our Friday night youth meeting. On one occasion we were having a sausage-sizzle in the church grounds. Linda was standing next to me looking into the fire when she told me she was thinking of leaving us. So, putting my arm round her shoulder, I said to her, Oh don't leave us Linda. We all love you. We'd really miss you. Linda didn't leave us, and her relationship with Eileen and me deepened when she came to babysit for us from time to time. I recently discovered a letter she had written to Eileen in 1974 in which she said, Entering your home is so different… there's such a lovely atmosphere within it... as soon as I entered the home I felt more confident in myself. Thanks for talking to me, so far since I've spoken to you I've felt up on top of the world… I want to say a big thank you, but I don't think I could ever write or say it the way I feel to a friend like you... Thank you for praying for me. Later, when her leaving college coincided with my becoming principal at Mattersey, Linda became my secretary, only leaving when she married a student from Switzerland, where she now lives. But in 2012 she made a surprise visit to England when she came to our Golden Wedding anniversary. Of course, Linda was an exceptional case, but her story does illustrate the value of making time to develop relationships with children and young people wherever possible.
My Story Talk 16 Ministry in Basingstoke (1968-78) Part 1 Welcome to Talk 16 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness throughout my life. Today I'm going to begin by telling you how in January 1968 we came to move from Colchester to Basingstoke. During 1967, as part of my SPF travels, I was preaching in Oxford when an old friend from the Elim church asked to see me. He was hoping that an Assemblies of God church might be planted there and wanted to find out if I would be interested in coming to take over its leadership. I told him that I would pray about it but that my initial reaction was that I did not feel any sense of leading in that direction. Some weeks later, I had an unexpected phone call from my friend Michael Collins who, as I have already mentioned, was a fellow student with me at Oxford and part of the original SPF group there. He told me that he had heard from Oxford that I might be thinking of leaving Colchester and that, if that were the case, he wanted to sound out whether I might be interested in coming to Basingstoke. He explained that they were looking for a pastor and would like to invite me to come and preach one Sunday. The church had not had a pastor for three years and numbers had dwindled to only 12 people. Although they were not able to pay me much, the potential was great, as they had a new building on a large piece of land and Basingstoke had a rapidly expanding population. This was an exciting challenge, but numbers at Colchester were now around 80 and I was relatively well paid. Did I really want to take on another small church and take a substantial drop in income? And did we really want to leave behind the many friends we had made at Colchester? So I told him that I did not think it likely that the Lord would move me from Colchester but that if they wanted me to preach for one Sunday I would be happy to do so. As far as moving there permanently was concerned, I determined in my heart that I would only consider it if I received a unanimous invitation from the members of the church. We would also need them to provide housing for us, as the salary they were likely to offer would be far too low for us to be able to get a mortgage. These matters were discussed when I went to preach there, and the financial position was clarified. The church's income was £14 a week. £8 of this was taken up with mortgage repayments on the new church building and, if they needed to provide us with accommodation, the remaining £6 would be taken up with that. So anything they could offer me would be an act of faith on their part – and required not a little faith on my part too! In the circumstances, I thought it highly unlikely that they would be able to meet the criteria I had set, but 100% of the members did vote to invite me, and after a couple of months I heard that they had been able to purchase a house for us. Taking this to be the will of the Lord, we informed the friends at Colchester of our decision, sold our bungalow, and moved to Basingstoke in January 1968. The move to Basingstoke went smoothly and the house the church provided, a typical three-bedroomed semi-detached, had the advantage of central heating, a luxury we had not been used to. With the profit we made on the sale of our bungalow in Colchester, we were able to have new fitted carpets throughout, and to buy furniture for the lounge as well. We also bought a small second-hand car, having left the minibus in Colchester. We were welcomed warmly by the church members, and the building was packed for my Induction Service with people from other churches who had come to show their support. The speaker was Billy Richards, the AoG pastor at Slough, in his capacity as Chairman of the West London District Council. His cousin, Bill Mitchell, who was an elder in the church, was at the piano, and we were inspired by his God-given talent and grateful for his commitment to play at every meeting. Other key people were the deacons, Janet Collins (Church Secretary), John Nicholson (Treasurer), David Moncaster (Sunday School Superintendent), and Michael Collins. Another person who was present at the Induction Service and to become an asset to the church was William Kay, who had written to me asking advice as to how he could serve the Lord after he had graduated from Oxford. As he had come to Christ while he was at university and had had no real experience of life in a local church, I told him that this should be his first priority and made a few suggestions as to where he might go, adding as a PS that I was moving to Basingstoke and that he might like to come and help with the work there. Which he did, and within a few months a young schoolteacher, Anthea Bell, was to join our church and eventually become William's wife and a great asset to the church. At the beginning of our time there, Eileen's primary role, of course, was looking after Debbie and Sarah, who were still under school age, and then Jonathan who was born in October 1970. However, she was soon to find an outlet for her ministry when we started our church pre-school playgroup, but more of that later. Niggling doubts So overall there was much to encourage us during our first few months at Basingstoke, but we were missing Colchester and both Eileen and I were having doubts as to whether we had done the right thing in moving. Part of the reason for this was that when I had given up my teaching job we'd had real confirmation about it through the gifts of the Spirit, but we'd had no such confirmation about moving to Basingstoke. Could we have really missed the will of God on such an important matter? The answer came in a posthumously published article in Redemption Tidings written by Donald Gee. He was talking about how a church should choose a pastor (and, by implication, how a pastor should choose a church). He said that such matters should be determined by sound judgment and sanctified common sense, and not by the operation of spiritual gifts. And this came from the pen of a world-renowned Pentecostal leader and author of Concerning Spiritual Gifts. This was just the reassurance I needed, and I later came to realise that God's will is not difficult. By definition, God wants his will, and if we really want it, he will ensure that we get it! We will prove his good and perfect and acceptable will if our lives are truly consecrated to his service (Romans 12:1-2). Church growth And, of course, one major aspect of God's will is that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). In the years we were there, Basingstoke was the fastest growing town in England and there was a vast harvest field on our doorstep waiting to be reaped. We sought to do this in three main ways – personal evangelism, evangelistic missions, and children's and youth work. Personal evangelism In those days the primary way of seeking to win others for Jesus was to invite people to church where they would hear the gospel. This was something we did every Sunday night in our Gospel Service, even if very often the only people there were already Christians. However, even if today it's easy to criticise this style of evangelism, it did have the advantage of regularly reminding Christians of what the gospel is and the urgency of proclaiming it. But clearly the Gospel Service approach to evangelism would not be enough. Neither would a leaflet inviting people to our meetings, unless of course it contained a clear gospel message. Jesus did not command his disciples to go into all the world and invite people to gospel meetings. He commanded them, and he commands us, to go into all the world and preach. God's people needed to be trained how to do so. While I was at Colchester I had completed a course on personal evangelism produced by Billy Richards and I had found this very helpful. So I decided that in our Wednesday night Bible Studies I would teach the people at Basingstoke the principles I had learned from this. We then embarked on a programme of door-to-door work, conducting a ‘religious opinion survey', and found that most people were willing to share their views with us and for us to share the gospel with them. Admittedly, not many came to church as a result, but at least they had heard the gospel. Evangelistic Missions But our biggest attempt at reaching people with the gospel was in 1970 when we organised a fortnight's evangelistic and healing mission conducted by evangelist Melvin Banks. I invited Melvin for two reasons. First, he was clearly gifted as an evangelist, and I had come to understand that my own gift was predominantly that of a teacher. And secondly, because remarkable results were being reported of hundreds being saved and healed through Melvin's ministry, and I strongly believe that healing is one of the signs that God gives us to confirm the message of the gospel. In preparation for his coming, we spent months training the people for this big event, which was to be held in the Basingstoke Town Hall, not in our church, and got them ready for an intensive follow-up programme of personal visitation to the homes of those who made a decision for Christ. We printed thousands of leaflets which were designed by Melvin and which majored strongly on some of the many miracles he had seen in his ministry. Not surprisingly, on the very first night the Town Hall was packed. Melvin did not preach about healing. He preached salvation. And to my amazement, when he made the gospel appeal, 57 people raised their hand. And then he prayed for the sick. And miracles happened. It was the same every night throughout the fortnight, and by the end over 600 people had signed decision cards. I thought we were experiencing a real revival! But sadly, when our team of trained follow-up workers visited their homes, it became apparent that the vast majority had not really understood what they were doing. They had come to the meetings because they wanted to be healed and that was why they had raised their hands, even though, to be fair to the evangelist, the message he preached was not about healing, but salvation. Out of the 600 who had raised their hands, only 12 people were added to our church. Of course, we thanked God for the 12, and we had the satisfaction of knowing that the others had at least heard the gospel, but the sense of disappointment among our people was palpable. And I came to the conclusion that at least part of the problem was the advertising. People with a longstanding physical ailment will understandably try anything to relieve their suffering, and that's what they have in mind throughout the meeting, even while the evangelist is preaching. They are prepared to do anything he tells them to, so when he tells them to raise their hand, they do, but it's a mistake to assume that that means they are saved. And as I thought more about it I realised that Jesus and the apostles did not advertise their healings. Their healings were the advertising. So, somewhat disillusioned by this style of evangelism, it was six years before I decided to invite another evangelist for a series of meetings. I eventually asked my old pastor, Alfred Webb – who was really an evangelist rather than a pastor – if he would come and do a week's teaching on personal evangelism followed by a week of meetings where he would preach the gospel. And this time I encouraged the people to pray for an outstanding miracle of healing that would take place before the evangelist came. And those prayers were answered in a rather dramatic way the Sunday after Easter. It was the evening service, and I was preaching about Thomas. He was the disciple who had been absent when Jesus, three days after he was crucified, appeared to his disciples on Easter Sunday. When the other disciples told Thomas that Jesus was alive, he simply refused to believe it. It was impossible! But a week later Jesus appeared to him too and showed him the wounds in his hands and feet. I remember saying something to the effect that the same Jesus whom Thomas had been able to see and touch was present with us right now even though we could not see him. After the sermon, as we sang a closing song, a middle-aged woman walked – I should say hobbled – to the front of the church. This was a complete surprise to me as she had never been to our church before and I had not invited people to come forward for prayer, as we sometimes do. Neither had I mentioned healing. So I went to her and asked: Can I help you? She responded by saying: If Jesus is present as you say he is can he heal me now? Immediately I knew that this was the miracle we had been praying for. He can and he does! I said. Be healed in the name of Jesus! And she RAN back down the aisle, instantaneously and completely healed. I found out later that her name was Ruby. She and her husband, John, both became Christians and members of our church. And when we produced the leaflets that would inform people about the visit of Alfred Webb, we told Ruby's story and used it to point out that we all have a greater need than the healing of our bodies. What really matters is the healing of our souls, the forgiveness of our sins, which is available to all who will come to Jesus. While Alfred Webb was with us about 20 people made decisions for Christ and about 12 of them were added to the church – a far higher percentage than the 12 out of 600 people who had signed decisions cards in the Melvin Banks meetings.
My Story Talk 15 Ministry at Colchester 1962-68 Part 3 Welcome to Talk 15 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today is the final talk about our ministry in Colchester between 1962 and 1968. These were the first few years of our married life and so far I have shared with you about the birth of our first two children, our housing, employment, holidays and transport. We have talked about the growth of the church and the reasons for it, testified to an outstanding miracle, explained how I got to know more about Assemblies of God, and how God called me to give up my teaching job and go into full-time ministry. Today I'll be sharing first how this led me into a wider ministry, and concluding with two important lessons I felt God was beginning to teach me. A wider ministry – the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship If I had thought initially that God's purpose in leading me into full-time ministry was just so that I could give more time to the local church, I was soon to learn otherwise. It certainly did that, but I soon began to receive invitations to preach in churches at weekend conventions, and, more significantly, to speak in Coleford at a National Day School Teachers' Conference on the relevance of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in day school teaching today. It was there I met members of the AoG Home Missions Council and the National Youth Council who, if I remember correctly, had jointly organised the conference. The invitation came, no doubt, not only because I was a pastor who had until recently been a schoolteacher, but also because of my ministry in praying for people to receive the baptism and my role in the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship. I have already mentioned how, while I was at Oxford, I was asked to share my testimony at the AoG National Youth Rally held in the Birmingham Town Hall and to contribute an article in Redemption Tidings entitled Pentecost in Oxford University. So I was by no means unknown in the wider fellowship, and it was probably not surprising that, when Richard Bolt resigned as Travelling Secretary of the SPF, I should be asked to take over his role of visiting colleges and universities, preaching and praying for students to be filled with the Spirit, which of course would not have been possible if I had remained in school teaching. Universities where I conducted meetings on those early SPF travels included Oxford, Cambridge, Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham, Durham, and Newcastle. Later, after I had left Colchester, I also preached in the University of Louvain (Leuven) in Belgium, and in 1972 in the majority of universities in the state of Illinois. The purpose of all these meetings was to tell people about the baptism in the Spirit, explain why it was biblical, and to pray for them to receive as I laid hands on them at the close of the gathering. Among the many who received were the chaplain of Queen's College, Cambridge, and William Kay a student at Trinity College, Oxford, who had come to Christ at a Billy Graham meeting in London. Valentine Cunningham, a student at Keble College, and the son of an AoG pastor, invited William to a meeting he had organised where I was to preach on the baptism in the Spirit. After he graduated he became a member of my church in Basingstoke, a close friend, a lecturer at Mattersey Hall Bible College, and a university professor who has contributed much to Pentecostal education around the world. Val Cunningham went on to become Professor of English at Oxford and was a great help to me when I wrote Be Filled with the Spirit, a booklet published by the SPF, which proved to be the springboard for my ministry as an author. Other former SPF members who became professors were John Miles and Michael Collins. John, after spending some years as a missionary in Congo became Professor of French at Wheaton, and Michael, after serving as SPF General Secretary, became Professor of Engineering at City University, London. He was succeeded as SPF General Secretary by Andrew Parfitt, who after spending years in school teaching, became an AoG minister, as did Jeff Clarke who received the baptism under my ministry while he was a student at Oxford, and David Littlewood who received while was a student at Essex. It is clear from all this that during the course of my lifetime Pentecostals have moved on from being suspicious of higher education to embracing it and playing an active role within it. This will become even clearer when we consider in a later talk the educational developments in our Bible Colleges. Lessons I learnt at Colchester Of course, I myself had never been to Bible College. And although I had received excellent teaching from my father and from Leslie Moxham, my pastor at Elm Park Baptist, I had received no formal training for ministry, and back then there was no provision in Assemblies of God for supervision from a more experienced minister. So I was very much learning on the job and was conscious of my need for the guidance, help, and the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But my experience at Colchester taught me many lessons. The most significant of these was learning to trust God for our needs after I had relinquished my secular employment, which I have already mentioned. But there were two other areas the importance of which I began to understand more clearly. These were: o the nature of the ministry God had given me o the importance of a balanced theology of healing. The nature of the ministry God had given me In my teens I had been greatly impressed by the ministry of Billy Graham. I had seen thousands of people walk forward in response to his appeals for salvation. Surely this kind of evangelism must be the answer and, when I felt the call to the ministry at the age of 16, I soon began to have dreams of becoming an evangelist. Later, after I was baptised in the Spirit, I came to see the importance of healing in evangelism and, as I have mentioned previously, was greatly influenced by Richard Bolt who was seeing remarkable healings in his evangelistic crusades. And at that time the American Pentecostal evangelist T. L. Osborn had made his books on healing available to students free of charge and I had read them avidly. So I now wanted to be a healing evangelist, a desire which was evident in the two evangelistic and healing missions I conducted at Colchester. And that was why, although I shared with others the responsibility of preaching and teaching on Sunday mornings and midweek Bible Studies, I always did the preaching at the Sunday evening Gospel Service. But when Harold Womersley, veteran missionary of the Congo Evangelisitc Mission visited us on itinerary, he asked me – purely out of interest, I think – about what I was teaching at our Bible Study meetings. And when I told him that, when it was my turn, I just gave whatever word the Lord had put on my heart, he graciously suggested that as the pastor it was my responsibility the feed the flock by regular and systematic teaching of the truths of God's word. This, I think, would have been at about the time that I had given up my school teaching job, and so, taking his words to heart, I set about planning various series of weekly Bible studies, and I discovered that I really enjoyed it and, to my surprise, so did those who came to hear me. It was gradually dawning on me that my primary ministry was not to be evangelism – though I have not been totally unsuccessful in that area – but teaching. Of course, I had no idea then how that teaching gift would eventually be expressed not only in churches, but also as a Bible College principal and as a writer. But that brings me to another closely related lesson I began to learn at Colchester, the importance of a biblically balanced doctrine of healing. The importance of a balanced theology of healing As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, ever since my father told me of the healing of my aunt who had been deaf and dumb from birth, I have always believed that God still works miracles of healing today. I grew up with the belief that everyone could be healed if only they had enough faith and that the lack of miracles today was entirely due to lack of faith. This understanding was confirmed by the teaching of Richard Bolt and the books of T.L.Osborn and was directly related to the doctrine that Jesus died not only for our sins, but for our sicknesses too. We can claim our healing in just the same way as we can claim forgiveness of sins, and all because Jesus died for us. I embraced this teaching wholeheartedly, and that is what I preached. But my experience as a pastor in Colchester didn't always seem to confirm this doctrine. It was great when we saw people healed, but what could I say to those who were not? Did I really have to tell them that the reason they were not healed was lack of faith, or that there must be some unconfessed sin in their life? And whereas this might apply in some cases, it surely was not true of all? I simply could not believe, for example, that when Jack Joliffe was diagnosed with a cancer that first disfigured him and eventually destroyed him, it happened because of lack of faith or some secret sin. I knew him too well. He was a godly man, full of faith, and an elder of our church. It's all too easy for evangelists to preach these doctrines and then move on, while pastors are left with the care of Christians who have not been healed and have been wounded by the teaching that if they are sick it is somehow their fault. But it is not my intention in this talk to repeat what I have already said at length elsewhere. My rejection of this view is comprehensively explained in my Ph.D. thesis, Healing and the Atonement, where I argue that, although there is a sense in which healing may rightly be understood to be in the atonement, it is not true to say that Jesus died for our sicknesses in exactly they same way that he died for our sins. I have also explained this in my book Just a Taste of Heaven – a biblical and balanced approach to God's healing power, which is available from my website www.davidpetts.org. I simply mention it here because it was at Colchester that I began to question what I had previously believed about healing. Of course, we mustn't build our doctrine on our experience, but if our experience doesn't tally with our doctrine it's always good to consider whether we've understood the scriptures correctly. So I was learning important lessons at Colchester which were to stand me in good stead for the next ten years when we would be pastoring the assembly in Basingstoke. Life is a continuing process of learning and sometimes unlearning, and Basingstoke was no exception. Next time I'll begin by telling you how we came to move there.
My Story Talk 14 Ministry in Colchester 1962-68 Part 2 Welcome to Talk 14 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Last time we began to talk about the years we spent in Colchester and I shared with you how the church grew during our time there and some of the reasons why. I finished by saying that I felt the Lord was showing us that the key to growth was to follow the supernatural leading of the Holy Spirit. Miracles happen as he determines and I was certainly not expecting what happened one Saturday evening. I had gone down to the church at about nine in the evening to attend to a window that would not open. As it was still fairly light, I did not at first turn the lights on. After a few minutes, however, I realised that I needed more light, so I switched them on. I mention this apparently trivial fact because, as it happens, the timing was perfect. Within half a minute someone was knocking at the church door. He later told me that he would not have stopped if he had not seen the light come on just as he approached the church . The man was in his thirties, well over six feet tall. He stood in the doorway, with tears in his eyes. I recognised him because, although he did not come to church , his grandmother had attended regularly until she died about six months earlier. I had met Billy at the funeral and had remembered his name. Come in Billy, I said. What's the matter? Then he told me his story. He had gone to work as usual on Friday morning and had worked later than usual doing some overtime. When he arrived home late that evening, he called out to his wife, but Ingrid did not reply. As he could not imagine where she might be, he searched the house looking for her. He found her in the bedroom, on the bed, unconscious, an empty bottle of sleeping tablets beside her. Ingrid was rushed into hospital, but they were by no means confident that they would be able to resuscitate her. On Saturday there was no improvement. She was in a coma . By this time Billy was frantic. He was pacing up and down at home, when suddenly he noticed a photo of his grandmother on the piano. If only she had been still alive! She would have prayed ! So Billy tried to pray , but he just didn't know what to say. So he jumped on his motorbike and headed for our church . As he approached it, he thought that no one was there and was about to drive past when suddenly the lights came on! I said to him: Billy, I'll tell you why you can't pray . The Bible says that God's ear is not deaf so that he cannot hear, but it's the things we've done wrong that have created a barrier between us and God. I asked him if he had ever asked Jesus to be his Saviour and to forgive him for the wrong things he'd done, and he said, No. When I asked him if he would like to, he said, Yes, and together we prayed and asked Jesus to come into his life. Then I prayed for Ingrid and, as I did so, my prayer turned into a command: In the name of Jesus, I rebuke this coma and command her to come out of it! This seemed a strange thing to say, as Ingrid was two miles away in the Essex County Hospital, and even if she had not been in a coma, she would not have been able to hear me at that distance! By then it was half past nine. I told Billy that Ingrid would be all right, and that he could go home – but as soon as he had gone I found myself doubting. What will I say to him if his wife dies? When Billy got home, he thought he would not be able to sleep so he sat down in an armchair. He told us later that at that moment he saw a bright light and felt a sensation of warmth flow through his body from the top of his head to the soles of his feet. The next thing he knew, it was 9 o'clock on Sunday morning. He rushed into hospital to see how his wife was and was told that she had come out of her coma . Please, he said, can you tell me exactly when it was? The nurse consulted the notes and replied: Yes, it was at exactly half past nine last night. Billy was able to take her home that afternoon. She too became a Christian and they both became members of our church . This was by far the greatest miracle we saw while we were at Colchester, but the growth of our church during the time we were there was not primarily due to miracles or our evangelistic and healing missions. It was due, as I have said, to the Lord's strategy in placing me in a school where I could freely teach the children about Jesus, to his giving me at the same time key people to help start a youth meeting, and to the commitment of people who were prepared to exchange their car for a minibus. And as the congregation grew due to the influx of young people, adults were attracted to join us – some from other churches, others who had just moved into the area, and others who were baptised in the Spirit through my ministry in the early days of what came to be known as the Charismatic Renewal. Getting to know Assemblies of God For the first twenty years of my life I attended a Baptist church and had never even heard of Assemblies of God. Church attendance during the three years I was at Oxford involved going to the Elim church in term time and the AoG in Dagenham during vacations. So, when I accepted the pastorate of the AoG church in Colchester, I had had relatively little experience of AoG, and I am grateful that during our years at Colchester I was able to get to know more of its ministers and how the fellowship functioned at a national level. I have already mentioned some of the ministers who came to preach at our annual conventions, but we were also blessed by visits from those who came to us on itinerary to tell us of the work they were doing for the Lord, to inspire our faith, and to encourage our support for their particular area of ministry. These included missionaries like Roy Leeming pioneering a church in Belgium, Colin Blackman representing the Lilian Trasher orphanages in Egypt, Harold Womersley from the Congo Evangelistic Mission, and David Newington from Lifeline to Africa. We also had visits from Michael Jarvis and Keith Monument. Michael was the AoG National Youth Secretary and Keith the Home Missions Secretary. I was impressed by the passion of these men to win people for Jesus and both were eventually to become good friends for many years. I recently had the privilege of paying a tribute at Keith's funeral service. Keith was a few weeks short of his 99th birthday when he died and had travelled over a million miles in Britain during his ministry for Home Missions. But apart from the visits of such wonderful people, I also got to know AoG better by attending its Annual General Conference and the quarterly meetings of the Essex District Council. It was through the DC meetings that I learned that, if I wanted to become recognised as an AoG minister, I must first apply for Probationary Status. This would last for two years and then I could apply for Full Status. So in 1964, having already been the pastor at Colchester for two years, I applied for Probationary Status. I'm so glad that the system has since been radically improved and that those who apply for status must now undergo a period as Ministers-in-Training, but back then my eligibility was assessed simply by two ministers coming to hear me preach, after which the only supervision I received was one of them saying, Go on giving them the good Word of God, brother. After that, I was left to my own devices for two years until in 1966 I was granted Full Status on the basis that my ministry was bearing fruit and was ordained at General Conference held in Clacton in May of that year. And it was during that conference that God clearly spoke to me and told me to give up my teaching job and trust him to provide for our needs. The call to full-time ministry When I felt the Lord calling me to the ministry at the age of 16, I naturally assumed that it would be my full-time occupation. And that was certainly the desire of my heart. But when we had started at Colchester the church was so small that they could not possibly pay me an adequate salary and that was why I was school teaching. And even though, by 1966, the church had grown considerably, the weekly offerings amounted to only £11 a week and I needed at least £18 a week to cover all our expenses. So when, at a Home Missions rally on the opening night of the Assemblies of God conference, pastor Eddie Durham began his sermon by throwing down a motorcycle gauntlet and challenging young men to give their lives full-time to the work of the ministry, I initially reacted by saying to God, That's all very well, Lord. But you know that I would love to be full-time, but that simply is not possible at the moment. But I knew that with God all things are possible, and so I added, But I'm willing to step out in faith if you will only make it clear that now is the time for me to do so. And if I am to hand in my notice to the school, I will need to know by the end of this conference. I said this because my contract required that I hand in my notice by the end of May if I were not going to return to school in September. I went back to the conference meetings night after night – I could not be present during the daytime because I was teaching – and all I can say is that in one way or another the Lord spoke to me in every meeting confirming that I should give up my teaching job and trust him to meet our needs. Of course, I shared all this with Eileen who had not been able to attend the meetings because she was at home looking after the girls, and she readily agreed that I should do whatever I felt the Lord was telling me. We told no one else about this, and when what I felt the Lord was saying was confirmed through spiritual gifts in church the following Sunday morning, I made up my mind that I would ask to see the head master the very next day. But how do you tell a man who professes to be an atheist that God has spoken to you? Well, you just tell him! And actually he was quite understanding. He just asked if I could consider delaying it for another term so that he could find a replacement. I think I told him, out of courtesy, that I would think about it, but in my heart I felt sure that it would not be necessary. And, sure enough, a few days later he came to me and said that quite unexpectedly he had already found a replacement for September. When they heard the news that I was leaving, colleagues at work made comments like, David, you must have great faith. To which I replied, Well, it's not so much a matter of faith as of obedience. I just know it's what I have to do. And that's what I told the church the following Sunday morning. I made it clear that I was not looking to the church to meet our needs, but I was trusting the Lord. Some said that they thought I should have consulted them before making the decision, but I replied by explaining that I had not wanted to be influenced by man, but only by what God himself was saying. Shortly after that, the church held a meeting and discussed what they should do in the circumstances. The outcome was that they decided that they wanted to trust the Lord with me and that from then on they would pay me 75% of whatever came in the offering and they would meet the ongoing needs of the church from the remaining 25%. Of course, Eileen and I were very encouraged by this even though, judging by the level of offerings at the time, what they would give us would fall far short of what we needed. However, almost immediately, the regular offerings doubled as the people rose to the challenge, and by the time we left Colchester I was receiving a more than adequate salary. Admittedly, for the first year our faith was being tested, but God is faithful and throughout that time we never went without a meal, even though sometimes the best we could do was beans on toast! Of course, we were careful with our money. We made sure that all the bills were paid and then spent whatever was left on food! Hadn't Jesus said that we should not be anxious about what we were to eat or drink? Our Father in Heaven would supply our need. And he did, even if for a while we had to cut out luxuries like biscuits and if the girls had to drink water rather than orange squash! And thanks largely to Eileen's positive attitude, they never complained. They grew up to understand that, however hard up we may feel, in this country we enjoy a higher standard of living than 99% of the rest of the world's population. I am so grateful that financial prosperity has never been high on the agenda of any of our children, and God has blessed them for it. But learning from experience that God was able to meet our needs was by no means the only benefit of giving up my teaching job. It opened the door to a much wider ministry.
My Story Talk 13 Ministry at Colchester (1962-68) Part 1 Our time at Colchester saw the arrival of our first two children, Deborah in 1964 and Sarah, fifteen months later in 1965. Apart from the birth of the girls, the most significant aspects of our time in Colchester were the growth of the church, my ministry beyond the local church, and the lessons the experience taught me. In this talk I'll be dealing mainly with the growth of the church, but first a word about practical things like employment, housing, holidays, and transport. Employment, housing, holidays, and transport Before we were married, Eileen had been working in the Dagenham education office, and on moving to Colchester she found an excellent job in the education office there, which was within walking distance of our new home. She was soon promoted to a highly responsible administrative position which she held until shortly before Debbie was born. As for me, although the church was contributing £5 a week towards the rent of our bungalow, it was essential that, for the time being at least, I find full-time secular employment. For the first year, the nearest RE (Religious Education) teaching post available was in Braintree which necessitated a thirty-mile round trip every day. However, a year later a post became available in Colchester at the Alderman Blaxill Secondary School, a little over a mile from our church and a similar distance from our home. In those days the RE syllabus was based almost entirely on the Bible, so lesson preparation was not difficult, and I became very much aware that teaching 300 children every week was an important part of my ministry. I will say more later about how the Lord remarkably blessed that work, but how in 1966 the Lord called me to give up the teaching job and give myself full-time to the work of the church. The rent for the bungalow we were living in was about £28 a month, which sounds ridiculously low by today's prices, but it didn't seem so then bearing in mind that my monthly salary as a teacher was only £60! However, we soon discovered that some new houses were being built nearer to our church and that as a schoolteacher I could get a 100% mortgage to buy one. The monthly repayments would be just £18, £10 less than we were already paying in rent. The only problem was that the builders required a £20 deposit to secure the plot. Eileen had £20 saved up to buy a hoover, which we desperately needed, and we were wondering what to do, when my mother, not knowing anything about our plans to buy a new property, phoned to say that she was buying a new hoover and asked if we would we like her old one, which was in perfectly good condition. We saw this as a clear sign that the Lord was prompting us to make the move, and we paid the £20 deposit and moved into our new home in August, 1963. My parents also moved in 1963. They had been living in Hornchurch since before I was born, and now I was married they decided to move to a new bungalow in Eastwood, not far from Southend-on-Sea. So when the children came along we were grateful for our holidays to be visits to our parents who were equally pleased to have an opportunity to spend time with their grandchildren. Eileen's parents were still living in Hornchurch, and it was always good to see them, but my parents' home in Eastwood, with its proximity to the sea and the beautiful view of open countryside to the rear of the property was especially inviting. We usually travelled there on a Monday and returned on the Saturday so as not to leave the church unattended on Sundays. But that brings me to the subject of transport. During the course of my ministry, I have owned or had the use of some fifty different vehicles, ranging from my first car, a Ford Prefect, which I bought during my final term at Oxford, to my recently acquired nine-year-old Mercedes E-Class saloon. The Ford Prefect broke down in the cold winter of 1963 when the snow lay on the ground throughout January, February and most of March. I was on my way to school in Braintree when it happened, and I quickly decided that I needed something more reliable. That was when we bought our fourth Lambretta scooter, reliable because it was new, but extremely uncomfortable and at times difficult to control in that freezing weather. So it wasn't long before I was back in a car again. In the summer I borrowed an old Bradbury van from the father of some of the children coming to our meetings. He said we could have it for the day to take them to the seaside. Unfortunately, it broke down on the way home and I was left with about a dozen kids on the roadside. As I was wondering and praying what to do, a man came by in a Humber Hawk and asked if he could help. It was a large car and somehow he bundled all the kids on to the back seat and, with me beside him in the front, kindly drove us all back home. But that gave me an idea. Maybe I should get a Humber and use it for children's work! I looked in the local paper and saw an ad for a Humber Super Snipe, even larger than the Hawk. It was over ten years old, but I had read somewhere that if you're buying a second-hand car it might be wise to get a big one. It might cost a bit more in fuel, but the engine was more likely to be reliable! Which has been my excuse for buying big cars ever since! So I bought it for £80 and discovered that it did 11 to the gallon in town and, if you were lucky, 19 on a run! But it did the job, and I remember on one occasion squeezing eighteen kids into it to get them to Sunday School! It was only a short distance, and I realise now how potentially dangerous that was. But in those days ‘risk assessment' had not been invented and there was no requirement to wear a seatbelt. In fact, there were no seatbelts. Piling people into the back of a van or lorry was quite common, but of course there was far less traffic on the roads back then. And if it did enter our head that something might be risky, we just trusted the Lord to take care of us! But it soon became obvious that we needed something more suited to the task, and I traded in my Humber for a 12-seater minibus. And before long we were running four minibuses to bring people to the meetings as one person after another, following my example, exchanged their car for one. Everything we have belongs to the Lord, and if changing our car for a minibus will lead to more people coming to Christ, we should surely be prepared to do so. The commitment of such people was undoubtedly one of the reasons for the growth of the church while we were there, and that's where we turn to next. The growth of the church The Full Gospel Mission, Straight Road, Lexden, was nothing more than a tin hut with the potential to seat at most eighty people. When Eileen and I arrived, there were only twelve regular attenders, and that included a family of four who emigrated to Australia not long after our arrival, leaving us with a congregation of eight. By the time we left, the church was packed every Sunday with eighty regular attenders, which, in the 1960s was considered rapid growth, and my main purpose in this section is to explore the reasons why. But first, a word about the church programme. Church programme When we arrived in Colchester we inherited what was a typical programme for AoG churches in those days. On Sunday mornings there was the Breaking of Bread service, otherwise known as Communion. There was a Sunday School for the children in the afternoon, and on Sunday evenings there was the Gospel Service where all the hymns and the sermon were designed to bring people to Christ, and after which there would be laying on of hands and prayer for the sick. Midweek on Tuesday evenings there was a Children's Meeting from six to seven followed by a Prayer Meeting at nine, and on Thursday evenings there was Bible Study. There was no meeting for young people until we started one on a Friday, but more of that later. The attendance at these meetings was far from encouraging. In fact, during our first year at Colchester, the Sunday School and Children's Meeting were attended by only a handful of children, and the midweek meetings for adults were hardly better. On Sundays, if we had visitors, numbers might rise to fifteen. I faithfully preached the gospel every Sunday evening, but in that year we saw not one single decision for Christ, largely because most Sundays everyone present was already a Christian. Apart from the weekly programme, there was the church's Annual Convention when a guest speaker would be invited for the weekend and friends from surrounding Pentecostal churches would come for the two meetings held on the Saturday. It was good to see the building full and to hear some of the pioneers of the Pentecostal Movement like Howard and John Carter. But while these occasions were a real encouragement, they hardly made up for the weeks throughout the year when so few were attending. So what made the difference in the remaining years where we saw our numbers multiply significantly? Reasons for growth It is the Lord who builds his church, and in my view, the major reason for the growth of the church was, without a doubt, the fact that he strategically placed me as an RE teacher in a local school where I was free to teach the young people about Jesus. That, combined with the fact that he sent me key people to help me start a Youth Meeting on a Friday night, resulted in dozens of decisions for Christ, many of whom started to come on Sundays. It all started when I received an invitation to preach at the Youth Meeting in the Colchester Elim Church. After the meeting a couple of people in their early twenties asked me if we had a Youth Meeting at our church, and I said that I'd like to start one but that I had no musician. To which they responded by offering to help me. David Fletcher was an able guitarist and John Ward an excellent accordion player. Together with their fiancées, Jean and Sandra, who were good singers, they made a great group for leading worship and were, quite literally, a Godsend. All this, in the providence of God, coincided with my starting teaching in the local school and with a girl called Corinne, one of the children from a family in our church, starting there too. She provided the link between my RE lessons and the local church. I told the children about Jesus, and she told her friends where they could find out more. So we launched our new Youth Meeting by hiring a couple of coaches to provide transport to the church from just outside the school gates. My new friends from Elim provided the music and I preached. In school I had been able to tell them about Jesus, but I couldn't make a gospel appeal in RE lessons! Now, in church, I had complete freedom, and on the very first night, when I made the appeal forty-one children made a decision for Christ. And when a number of them started coming on Sundays, on one occasion eleven of them being baptised in the Holy Spirit, there was a new sense of expectancy among the older members. They were thrilled to see young people in their meetings, and that began to attract people from other churches too, including David and Jean, John and Sandra, who decided to join us because of their work with the youth. Of course, our attempts to reach people with the gospel were not limited to the young people. I produced a quarterly newsletter which we called The Full Gospel Mission VOICE. We distributed thousands of these to the homes in the area, using my minibus on a Saturday morning to transport ten or so young people to deliver them street by street throughout the area. I can think of only one person who came to Christ through that ministry, but at least we knew that people had had an opportunity to read the gospel even if they never came to church. After I had given up my teaching job, I also conducted two evangelistic missions in our church. Each mission lasted from a Saturday through to the following Sunday. We leafleted far and wide, each leaflet containing a message about healing as well as salvation, and, of course, details of the meetings. The meetings were well attended, but mainly by Christians who wanted prayer for healing, and although there were a few decisions for Christ and some healings, I have no memory of anyone being added to our church as a result. And an SPF mission we conducted in Wivenhoe, a village near Colchester next to which the new University of Essex was about to be built, fared little better. It was a great experience for the students who participated, but there were very few local people who attended. Apart, that is, from Ian and Janet Balfour, a couple from a Strict Baptist background, who came to support us, got to know us, were baptised in the Spirit as a result, and decided to move to a house less than five minutes' walk from our church. They had four children all under the age of five, one of whom was Glenn, later to come as a student to Mattersey Hall, and, for a time after my principalship, its principal. The Lord clearly had a purpose in our going to Wivenhoe, even if, at the time, we felt rather disappointed with the results. And Ian and Janet were not the only people added to our church as a result of receiving the baptism in the Spirit. Alan Coe, who was a work colleague of John Ward and had recently become a Christian, came along to our meetings, received the baptism, and joined our church. He proved a very faithful member, and when I was in contact with him recently was still attending regularly. David Littlewood, a former Methodist, later to become an AoG minister and a member of Mattersey's Board of Governors, was also baptised in the Spirit in our church while he was a student at the University of Essex. But the ministry the Lord had given me of praying for people to be filled with the Spirit was not limited to those who would become members of our church. I had the privilege of laying hands on Reginald East, the vicar of West Mersea, and on Mike Eavery, the minister of the local Congregational Church and seeing them both baptised in the Spirit in their homes. So the Lord was blessing us in ways that perhaps we had not expected, and if the results of the evangelistic missions we conducted were rather disappointing, he was showing us that the key to growth was to follow the supernatural leading of the Holy Spirit. Miracles happen as he determines, and I was certainly not expecting what happened one Saturday evening. But I'll tell you about that next time.
My Story Talk 12 Brasenose College Oxford 1959-62 (Part 3) Welcome to Talk 12 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. This is now the third talk about the years I spent at Oxford. So far we have talked about life at Oxford, its academic programme, and my spiritual experience while I was there. Today I'm going to share with you my developing relationship with Eileen, our decision to get married shortly after I graduated, and how the Lord led us straight into pastoral ministry rather than going to Bible college first. Keeping in touch Throughout the two years after Eileen and I met, we had seen each other almost every day. Clearly, this could not continue while I was at Oxford, but we kept in touch as much as was then humanly possible. Of course, in those days there were no mobile phones. In fact, access to landlines was not easy, and anyway, it was extremely expensive. So Eileen and I kept in touch with each other by writing letters four or five times a week. We also managed to see each other every two weeks. As I have mentioned already, the terms at Oxford were only 8 weeks long, so by going home for the weekend after four weeks, and by Eileen travelling up to see me for the weekend after weeks two and six, we were able to see each other on a fortnightly basis. This was very clear evidence of Eileen's commitment to me as the journey on our Lambretta scooter through the busy traffic of central London was by no means easy. Obviously, we made the most of those precious weekends. On Saturdays we would often explore the surrounding countryside on our scooter or even travel further afield visiting pretty Cotswold villages like Bibury and Bourton on the Water. Or in the summer we loved getting into one of the punts moored by Magaden Bridge and heading up the Cherwell where we picnicked on the home-made sausage rolls and egg and bacon pie that Eileen had brought with her from home. On Sundays, of course, we went to church together before Eileen made the 60-mile journey back home to be ready for work on Monday. Of course, during the college vacations (which totalled half the year), the situation was completely different. I was able to see Eileen every day again. During the week, this was in the evenings as Eileen was at work during the daytime. And I was too, at least during the weeks that the schools had their holidays. As the Oxford terms were far shorter than the school terms I was able to earn some extra money by teaching in a local secondary school, which was to prove valuable for my future ministry as I was gaining experience in teaching children of a different age group from those I had taught in the years before I went to Oxford. But apart from working hours, Eileen and I saw each other every evening and every weekend. Sundays were taken up with church twice in the day, and midweek we regularly attended the Tuesday night prayer meeting, the Thursday night Bible study, and the Friday night youth meeting. We were desperate to learn more about our Pentecostal experience and the way the Pentecostal churches did things. In fact, whatever we were doing, our relationship with each other was from the start intimately connected with our relationship with the Lord and his will for our lives, even when we went on holiday. As I have already mentioned, our first holiday together was at a Christian Endeavour Holiday Home in Devon in 1959 just before I went up to Oxford. The following year we decided to explore the Lake District together. We travelled the three-hundred-mile journey on our scooter, stopping overnight in Aintree with one of Eileen's aunts, before finally arriving at a CE Home in Kents Bank near Grange-over-Sands. We had each visited the area before, but never together, and that fortnight was a wonderful opportunity to enjoy fellowship with other Christians as well as marvelling at the beauty of God's creation as we made daily trips into different parts of the Lakes. In 1961 we decided to go further afield and to spend four weeks touring France and northern Spain. So we exchanged our 125cc Lambretta for a new 175 which we trusted would cope well with the distances we would be travelling laden with two tents and all the paraphernalia required for camping. However, the moment we set off we both had some misgivings as the weight of luggage at the rear of the scooter made it harder to handle the machine safely, but undaunted we proceeded with caution and arrived safely at Southend airport where we had booked a flight on a cargo plane to northern France. Our first night in France was spent in a cow field with the kind permission of the farmer. We were both experienced campers, Eileen with the Girl Guides and I with the Boys' Brigade, but we had never before been woken by the sound of cows champing round our tent pegs and we quickly agreed to depart as soon as possible, particularly as there were no ‘facilities' available! We determined that after that we would make sure to check into proper camping sites. We travelled down the western side of France, stopping first at Paris for the weekend, camping in the Bois de Boulogne and visiting the thousand-strong Assemblies of God Church in the Rue du Sentier led by pastor André Nicole. Little did I know it then, but that was to be the first of many visits to French assemblies later in my ministry and sparked my interest in what the Holy Spirit was doing in European countries. In Angouleme we discovered that our GB plate had fallen off and, knowing that we were legally required to display one, we visited a garage there and asked if they knew where we could get a replacement. It was then that I realised how inadequate my A Level French course had been. Although we had studied numerous French authors, it was of little practical use to us now as no one had told us how to say the alphabet in French! Finally, by writing the letters down I managed to let them know what I wanted and learnt that in French GB is pronounced Jay-Bay. They told us that they could make us one, but it would take a couple of days. As a result, we had to travel further each day than originally planned which meant that we were both rather saddle-sore at the end of each day. We crossed the Spanish border between Biarritz and San Sebastian and immediately discovered that what we were doing was culturally unacceptable. Eileen was getting hoots and wolf-whistles from passing motorists because she was wearing trousers and not riding side-saddle! Of course, this would have been extremely dangerous bearing in mind the distances we were travelling each day and, at the risk of causing offense, we decided that we had no option but to carry on as we were. Extremely tired when we reached Burgos we decided to spend the night in a hotel and enjoy the luxury of proper beds. We did the same in Madrid for two or three nights before heading for Barcelona by way of Zaragoza. But before we reached Barcelona our scooter broke down on a mountain road and reluctantly I had to leave Eileen by the roadside with the scooter while I hitched a lift in a Citroen deux-chevaux into a village called Jorba to get help. It took two days to get the scooter fixed and by the time we eventually reached our campsite at Rosas, on the Mediterranean just north of Barcelona, it was already dark. A day or so later we arrived in Perpignan in southern France, intending to travel on up the eastern side of France on our way back home. But the scooter broke down again, and after two days camping at the back of an Esso station, we were compelled to return to England by train, leaving our scooter to be brought home courtesy of the RAC. Fortunately, it was still under warranty and was repaired by Lambretta after it finally arrived back in England some six weeks later. That holiday was the last we were to have together before we were married the following year and, in some ways, was a preparation for it. Like the holiday, married life is wonderful, but not without its unexpected events, delays, and difficulties. We were learning to face problems together, to be patient with each other, and to trust in the Lord to bring us through. Perhaps that's why I tend to advise young couples, wherever possible, to go on holiday together before deciding to get married. But that brings me to how I decided to propose to Eileen. Engagement and Marriage It was during my first term at Oxford. We had been ‘going out' together for two years, seeing each other almost every day. But we had never talked about marriage. I think that must have been because I was very conscious of how serious marriage is. Divorce in those days was far less common than it is today and for me, as a Christian, it would not have entered my head. I knew that marriage would be for life. What's more, I knew God had called me to serve him, and choosing the right partner was vitally important. So I was reluctant to commit myself. But just before I went to Oxford my father had a word with me. You'd better make your mind up about that girl, David. It would not be fair to keep her waiting for three years while you're at Oxford, if your intentions are not serious. Of course, I knew he was right. I had to make up my mind. The problem was, I didn't want to give her up, but I didn't want to marry her if she wasn't the right one for me. Finally I did what I should have done much sooner. I decided to pray about it. I got down on my knees in my bedroom at Oxford and told the Lord my dilemma. I told him that I would gladly marry Eileen if she was God's choice for me, but if not, I would give her up. And as soon as I said that prayer I received an overwhelming peace and an assurance that Eileen was the girl I was to marry. So, the next time I was home from Oxford, after a long and passionate kiss, I said to her, You will marry me, won't you, darling? Yes, those were my exact words! To which she replied, Oh yes! Of course I will. So we decided to get engaged the following summer after my first year at Oxford, knowing that the earliest we could expect to marry would be after I had graduated. After gaining her father's consent, we organised a wonderful garden party to celebrate our engagement on 2nd July, 1960, and eventually were married by Pastor Alfred Webb at Bethel Full Gospel Church, Vicarage Road, Dagenham, on 28th July, 1962. And the specially invited organist for the occasion was none other than Laurie N. Dixon, LRAM, the friend through whom I had first heard about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Our move to Colchester After our honeymoon in Cornwall, we moved directly into our first home, a bungalow in Colchester, where I had accepted the invitation to take over the pastorate of the small AoG church there. Colchester will be the subject of our next talk, but first I need to explain why we did not consider ministry in a Baptist church and why I did not go to Bible College as originally planned. With regard to the Baptists, the explanation is simple. Once we had been baptised in the Spirit, neither of us had attended our Baptist churches apart from perhaps an occasional visit. This was largely because the minister of Hornchurch Baptist was not sympathetic to a Pentecostal understanding of scripture, and the new minister of Elm Park Baptist had stated that the Pentecostals' exegesis of Acts was entirely unwarranted. Against this, my parents had told me that Leslie Moxham, our former Baptist minister at Elm Park, had noticed such a difference in me since I was baptised in the Spirit that he had said, If the baptism in the Spirit can make that much difference to David, I want it too. Leslie was later baptised in the Spirit and eventually became an AoG minister working with my friend Colin Blackman in the Tunbridge Wells assembly. And although, as we were to discover later some Baptists were beginning to get involved in the Charismatic Renewal, it was evident to us that our future lay with the Pentecostals rather than with the Baptists. But why didn't I go the Bible College before taking on a church? The answer is that I tried to. Early in 1962 I applied to London Bible College. There was a section on the application form where you were required to give an account of your experience of Christ. So I mentioned not only how I had become a Christian, but also how Jesus had baptised me in the Holy Spirit. My interview lasted about an hour, most of which was taken up with what I believed about speaking in tongues. Was it for today? And if it was, was it for everyone? As a result, I received a letter a few days later saying that they felt I would do better to apply to a Pentecostal bible college! Interestingly, their rejection of my application is mentioned in Ian Randall's history of LBC, Educating Evangelicals. The AoG Bible College was then at Kenley in Surrey. Its principal was Donald Gee. I had had a brief conversation with him after a meeting at the East Ham Easter Convention, and he had promised to send me the application form. But this never arrived. I also heard it rumoured that the lady teaching English at Kenley, on hearing that an Oxford graduate might be coming, had, presumably jokingly, commented that he'll be probably teaching me! This, together with the fact that some of my Pentecostal friends were telling me that I didn't need to go to Bible college, because I had got it – whatever that meant! – caused me to wonder if that was the direction I should be heading. So I said to the Lord, If you really don't want me to go to Bible College, let someone offer me the pastorate of a Pentecostal church. And within a week, I had my answer. I received a letter from the Colchester assembly asking if I would be their pastor. There was a bungalow available for rent for six and a half guineas a week (£6.51) towards which they were prepared to contribute £5.00. Apart from that, they could offer nothing, and it was understood that I would need to seek full time secular employment. But that's something for next time.
My Story Talk 11 Brasenose College, Oxford (1959-1962) Part 2 Welcome to Talk 11 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Last time I finished by sharing with you how God powerfully spoke to me after a Philosophy tutorial through a verse in Psalm 119. Today I'll be talking in more detail about my spiritual experience at Oxford, which, looking back on it, was to be far more significant for my future life and ministry than the academic programme I was following. The most important thing a young Christian can do when going up to university is to make sure right from the start that they find, and have regular fellowship with, other Christians. There are two main ways of doing this, either by joining the Christian Union or by attending a local church – or preferably both, which is what I did. Christian Union and Local Church The CU at Brasenose was part of the OICCU – Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. Each college CU would have its own weekly meeting for prayer and Bible study, but there was also a regular Saturday night Bible Study held at the Northgate Hall, situated close to the Oxford Union building. This was well attended by Christians from across the whole university, and I became a regular attender at both these gatherings. I appreciated the opportunity to meet Christians from different denominational backgrounds, and, bearing in mind my experience of the Anglican chaplain at Brentwood School, was particularly pleased to discover that some Anglicans actually did profess the believe the Bible! However, much as I enjoyed fellowship with these good people, having been only recently baptised in the Spirit, and having begun to appreciate Pentecostal worship, I was very aware that something very important was lacking in their meetings – the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. Of course, things are very different today, but in those days the Charismatic Renewal had not yet begun and most Anglicans, who in my experience tended to view other denominations as somewhat inferior, were highly suspicious of, if not totally unaware of, the rapidly growing worldwide Pentecostal Movement. And, of course, I was eager to enlighten them! But first a word about the local Pentecostal church. At the time, the only Pentecostal church in Oxford was the Elim Church situated on the Botley Road just beyond Oxford Railway Station. I was keen to attend there because, however valuable membership of a Christian union may be, there really is no substitute for the life and fellowship of a local church. So throughout my time at Oxford I regularly attended on Sundays both the morning and evening services, which meant incidentally that I missed both lunch and dinner in college because the mealtimes clashed with the times of the services. More importantly, on my very first Sunday in Oxford, it was there that I met three other students who were from Pentecostal churches, which led to our meeting regularly for prayer and to the formation of the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship. Students' Pentecostal Fellowship The students I met after church that first Sunday morning in Oxford were, Michael Collins who came from Dorchester AoG and was in his second year at St. Peter's Hall reading Engineering, and Gladys Bland and John Miles who, like me, were in their first year. Gladys was from East Ham AoG and was doing postgraduate work in English Literature at Somerville College, and John was from Gloucester AoG and was reading English at Regents Park College. We were all delighted to meet each other because up to then there had been relatively few Pentecostals attending university. We soon became firm friends and agreed to meet regularly together for fellowship and prayer, particularly for spiritual gifts and for Christian students from a different denominational background to be baptised in the Spirit. Michael had a friend called Philip who was already Spirit filled, and he joined our prayer group too. I will never forget the day, early in our first year, when there was a prophecy in one of those meetings that people of all denominations, including professors and university lecturers, would be baptised in the Spirit. As I've already mentioned, the Charismatic Renewal had not yet begun or, if it had, we had not heard of it, and to be honest, I really wondered if that could possibly happen. But it did, and in our own small way we were to be a part of it. What we didn't know then was that similar groups were forming in other universities. There were students from a Pentecostal background at Cambridge and London Universities too, and once we heard about this we naturally wanted to get in touch with them. And a key person to help us do that was Richard Bolt. Richard had been an Anglican ordinand but after he was baptised in the Spirit in an AoG church in Durham his course at Clifton Theological College was terminated because he was laying hands on other students and praying for them to speak in tongues. Shortly after this he was welcomed by AoG and became an Assemblies of God minister based in a small assembly in Colchester. However, as the Lord was using him in healing and in leading others into the baptism in the Spirit, Richard's ministry extended well beyond Colchester as he took time to travel to universities and colleges to encourage Pentecostal students and to pray for others who wanted to be filled with the Spirit. He was certainly a great encouragement to me and my family. My mother was baptised in the Spirit under his ministry. But before I knew anything about how the Lord was using Richard, the thought had already crossed my mind that we ought to form, at least in Oxford, a university society for Pentecostal students. The Baptists had what was known as The John Bunyan Society which met every Sunday afternoon in Regents Park College where John Miles was a student. He and I attended this quite often and I mentioned to him that I thought it might be good to have something similar for Pentecostals. As a result of this, John wrote to Aaron Linford, the editor of Redemption Tidings, the AoG weekly magazine, and asked for advice. And it was at this point that Richard Bolt told us about the Pentecostal students at Cambridge and London. All this led to a gathering in London early in 1961 when the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship (SPF) was formed. Richard Bolt was recognised as its Travelling Secretary and Donald Underwood, a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, as General Secretary. We organised annual weekend house-parties where students were exposed to the ministry of Pentecostal leaders, and evangelistic missions where students would sing, testify, and preach during the summer vacations. We also published a magazine known as The Pentecostal and developed a postal library service where students could borrow books by Pentecostal authors. At Oxford our group grew in numbers during our second year, partly due to an influx of students from Culham College led by Andrew Parfitt, the son of the AoG pastor at Maidstone, but also because our prayers were being answered and students from other denominations were getting baptised in the Spirit. But that leads me to how I personally started to be used in leading others into the baptism. Leading others into the baptism It all began a few weeks after I had started at Oxford when, after one of those Saturday night Bible Studies in the Northgate Hall, I was looking at a book on the bookstall which was about a revival that had broken out somewhere in Africa. Chris, one of my Anglican friends from Brasenose, saw what I was looking at and asked me if I had any personal experience of revival. So I began to tell him about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. As a result, Chris started to seek the baptism and came along to the Elim church where the pastor laid hands on him and prayed for him. But nothing happened and after a few weeks Chris came to me and said, I want you to pray for me. I'm coming to your room tomorrow and I want you to lay hands on me and pray for me. I was frankly unsure how to respond to this. I was very new to all this myself and I did not know if I had the authority to lay hands on him. I didn't know if such things were the responsibility of pastors, and I wasn't a pastor. But Chris was very insistent and so I agreed. The next day was Saturday and there were no lectures or tutorials for me to attend, so I decided to spend the night in prayer. This was something I had never done before, and have not done very often since, but I realised the seriousness of what Chris had asked me to do and I wanted to get it right. When Chris came the next day, we chatted for a bit, and then he said, Well, are you going to pray for me or not? I think he may have sensed that I was putting it off because, despite my night of prayer, I was nervous about it. He knelt down in front of me, and I plucked up courage and, quietly speaking in tongues, gently placed my hands on his shoulders. But nothing seemed to happen, and I didn't know what to do, when I remembered that in the Authorised Version (which most of us were still using in those days) Acts 19:6 says that it was when Paul had laid his hands upon the Ephesians that the Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In other words, the Spirit came on them after Paul laid his hands on them. And I found myself prophesying over Chris that he would receive, and that he would receive that very day. At which, Chris got up, said thank you, and left me. And I was left wondering if I had done the right thing. I had my answer at eight the following morning. I was still asleep, having had no sleep the previous night, when I was woken by something digging me in my ribs. It was Chris with his umbrella. What was he doing here? Oh, it's you Chris. What on earth are you doing here? And then it occurred to me that he might have come to tell me what had happened, so I added, You haven't received the baptism, have you? To which he responded as he continued to dig me in the ribs, O ye of little faith! He had, of course, received, and he told me how it had happened. After he had left me he had returned to his room and had been reading a book by, or about, the famous missionary to China, Hudson Taylor. The book emphasised that in addition to faith we need courage in our Christian lives, and Chris realised that that was just what he needed. He looked up from the book intending to say, Yes, Lord. Give me courage. But instead of doing so, he found himself speaking in tongues! Little did I know it then, but Chris was to be the first among hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have begun to speak in tongues through the ministry the Lord has given me. But that's closely related to the subject of spiritual gifts and how I began to exercise them. Beginning to exercise spiritual gifts Shortly after I was baptised in the Spirit I visited the bookshop at the AoG National Offices at 51 Newington Causeway, London. I bought every book they had on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. As a young Baptist I had received little teaching about the Spirit and none whatsoever on spiritual gifts. And I was eager to learn. I devoured books like Harold Horton's The Gifts of the Spirit and Donald Gee's Concerning Spiritual Gifts, and I learnt that the baptism in the Spirit is not an end in itself, but a gateway to supernatural gifts like tongues, interpretation, prophecy, and healing. And I was longing to receive and be used in whatever gifts the Lord might have for me. As it happened, I didn't have long to wait. I was still in my first year at Oxford when I was confronted with a situation at the church I was attending. The Elim church in Oxford was a well-attended lively church where the gifts of the Spirit were regularly in operation. On a Sunday morning there were often prophecies, tongues and interpretation. Some of my Christian friends from Brasenose came along to experience Pentecostal worship and so far I had not been embarrassed in any way by what went on in the meetings. However, one Sunday morning, when fortunately none of my friends was present, somebody spoke in tongues but there was no interpretation. No explanation was given for this and, although I was still new to these things, I knew that the Bible was very clear that speaking in tongues in church should be interpreted. I probably should have asked the pastor about this, but he was a busy man and I did not know him very well. Consequently I kept quiet about the matter, but was still concerned that everything was not quite as it should be. Shortly after that, when Richard Bolt was visiting, I told him about this and asked him what I should do. He said, The answer is very simple David. You interpret. To which I replied, But I don't have the gift. He then said, Then ask for it. But, bearing in mind that 1 Corinthians 12:11 tells us that these gifts are given as the Holy Spirit determines, I asked, But I know God wants me to have it? His answer to this was along the following lines. The very fact that I was concerned about it might well indicate that God wanted me to have it. And, anyway, we know from God's word that it is his will that tongues in church should be interpreted. So I would be in God's will if I went ahead and interpreted it. I should pray about it and next time it happened I should ask God for the interpretation and then speak out in faith. Our heavenly Father gives good gifts to his children when they ask him. Although I still had questions, I decided to do what he said and over the next few weeks kept asking the Lord about the matter. Then, one Sunday morning it happened. Someone spoke in tongues and I waited, hoping that someone else would interpret it. But when no one did, I asked the Lord to give me the right words to say and immediately a few words came into my mind which I began to speak out in faith. I say in faith, but I have to confess that my faith was mingled with doubt. I was half expecting the pastor to intervene and say that this was not the right interpretation! But to my intense relief he said nothing, and after the meeting people came and thanked me for my interpretation. So from time to time, I continued to interpret tongues, but still with the occasional doubt if what I said could really be the interpretation. And later in the series I will tell you how God wonderfully confirmed the genuineness of my gift when I interpreted a tongue that was identified as a language spoken in Africa. God certainly did some wonderful things while I was at Oxford, and I realise now that I was already exercising a ministry while I was there. I was leading our SPF prayer group, teaching others about spiritual gifts, as well as preaching in churches from time to time. It seems that others were recognising this before I did, and I was soon asked to share my testimony at the AoG National Youth Rally held in the Birmingham Town Hall and to contribute an article in Redemption Tidings entitled Pentecost in Oxford University. The Lord was clearly preparing the way for my future ministry. Next time, I'll tell you about my developing relationship with Eileen which led to our marriage immediately after I graduated and how I ultimately decided not to go to Bible College as originally planned, but to accept the pastorate of the Assemblies of God Church in Colchester.
My Story Talk 10 Brasenose College, Oxford, 1959-1962 Welcome to Talk 10 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today we begin on the years that I spent at Oxford between 1959 and 1962. For me, life at Brasenose College began on Thursday, 8th October 1959, exactly one month after I had been baptised in the Holy Spirit. I travelled there by car with Eileen and my parents, who, after helping me unpack and settle into my room at the top of staircase 11, prayed with me before returning home. This was the beginning of an entirely new phase in my life. It was the first time that I was living away from home. I would be making new friends and be challenged by new ideas. But there are some things which remain constant in our lives no matter what else may change. I knew that my parents loved me. I knew that Eileen loved me, and that I loved her. And I knew that God had a purpose for my life and that I was now at Brasenose as part of that overall plan. So I had confidence that all would be well. The fact that I would now be reading PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) did not faze me, even though I had never studied any of those subjects before. My original purpose in accepting the place I had been offered had been to widen my sphere of knowledge before eventually concentrating on theology in order to prepare for the ministry. And PPE would certainly do that. But there was far more to being at Oxford than the course I would be studying. There was the social and recreational life which I greatly enjoyed. And it was a great opportunity to interact with people of all faiths and none and to share my faith with them. Opportunity, too, to tell other Christians about the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and to meet other Pentecostal students and spend time in prayer with them for the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. And it was also a time when my relationship with Eileen would be strengthened even though we would be apart for weeks on end. As I can't cover that in just one talk, today will be aboutlife at Brasenose, its domestic arrangements, its social life and sporting activities, and the academic programme and its challenge to my faith. Next time I'll share in more detail about my spiritual experience including how the Lord led me into leading others into the Baptism in the Spirit, how I began to exercise spiritual gifts, and how we began the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship. And later I'll tell you about my developing relationship with Eileen which led to our marriage immediately after I had graduated and how I ultimately decided not to go to Bible College as originally planned, but to accept the pastorate of the Assemblies of God Church in Colchester. Life at Brasenose When I arrived at Brasenose in October 1959 it was almost three years since I had been there previously in November 1956 when I had taken the scholarship examination. Back then I had never seen any of the students' rooms, as we were staying in a boarding house in the Woodstock Road. So I wasn't quite sure what to expect. But as soon as I entered my new room, I was pleasantly surprised. It was larger than my bedroom at home, was well furnished and overlooked one of the quads with a view of the Radcliffe Camera and the University Church of Saint Mary the Virgin in the background. Students were usually allocated a room in college for the first year of their studies, and sometimes for the second year too, when you had opportunity to choose what room you would prefer. During my first year I discovered that the room beneath me was even larger than the room I was in and had the benefit of a bedroom separate from the main room which was used as a sitting room as well as a study. So when I was offered the chance to live in college for a second year I opted for this room which proved to be extremely useful when we were holding prayer meetings for those interested in seeking spiritual gifts. But more of that next time. For my third year I lived ‘in digs' in a boarding house on the Botley Road, just 50 yards away from the Elim Pentecostal Church which I attended throughout my time in Oxford. Meals at Brasenose were, in my opinion at least, of a high quality and I was introduced to dishes which I had never tasted at home. These included jugged hare and braised haunch of venison, the only meals I took a positive dislike to, probably because the meat was hung for several days before it was cooked which resulted in a rather unpleasant smell. Fortunately, we were allowed to sign out in advance for any evening meal, provided we dined in college at least five times a week. Dinner was a rather formal occasion at which we were required to wear our gowns, and which was preceded by a Latin grace which began with the words: Oculi omnium spectant in te Deus. Tu das illis escas tempore opportuno… which means The eyes of all wait upon you O God. You give them their food in due season, and is taken from Psalm 145:15. Sadly, however, I'm not sure that many people took it seriously, even if they should have known what it meant, bearing in mind that at the time Latin at O level was still an entrance requirement for Oxford University. Breakfast and lunch were far less formal occasions. Grace was not said and there were no requirements about a dress code or attendance. There were, in fact, very few requirements about life in college. Apart from academic regulations, what rules there were related to the time of day you had to be back in college and the time at which any female guests had to be out! The gate in the porters' lodge was the only means of access to the College. It was locked at midnight and anyone seeking access after that would be reported to the Dean and a fine would be automatically payable. However, this could be avoided if you were agile enough to scale an eight-foot wall without being caught, something of course I never had to try! As far as the ladies were concerned, they had to be out by 10pm. This, I imagine, is no longer relevant, as, like most Oxford colleges, Brasenose rightly accepts female students as well as men. But by the time I left Oxford the ‘swinging sixties' had hardly begun, and there was still at least a nominal acknowledgement of Christian moral values. For residential students there was also a rule about the minimum number of nights you had to be in college over the course of a term. Any absence without permission from your ‘moral tutor' would be reported by your ‘scout'. Scouts, who were usually much older than the students, originally were little more than their servants and before my time would clean your shoes if you left them outside the door of your room. Even in my time they were referred to by their surname only, whereas they had to refer to me as Mr Petts and address me as Sir. This was something I deplored, a tradition which harked back to the old upstairs/downstairs attitude of the aristocracy still very prevalent in the early decades of the last century. If you've ever watched Downton Abbey you'll know exactly what I mean. Social and sport Probably the most frequent social activity at Oxford was drinking coffee and staying up until the early hours of the morning discussing religion or politics or whatever else was currently in the news. Of course, whenever I could I took the opportunity to share my faith with anyone who would listen. Most of these discussions took place either in my room or that of fellow students whose accommodation was close to mine. And at least one of those students came to faith in Christ during his first term at Brasenose, largely through the ministry of Keith de Berry, the rector of St. Aldate's Church, but I like to think that my testimony also played a part in his decision to give his life to Christ. He went on to gain a first class degree in Chemistry and continued at Oxford to do a D.Phil., (the Oxford version of a PhD). Now, after more than sixty years he is still a committed Christian and once told me that his scientific research had only confirmed his faith in Christ. Of course, late night discussions were by no means the only occasions when there was opportunity to witness to the truth of the gospel. So whether it was punting on the Cherwell on a lazy summer afternoon, or in the changing room after a football match, or playing tennis or table tennis (for which, in my final year, I was captain of the College team), I was always eager to share my faith. But that doesn't mean that I was constantly ‘Bible bashing'. Far from it. I remember how on one occasion, when our team was playing tennis against another college, my doubles match had been delayed for some reason. Consequently, it looked as though I would be late for our Students' Pentecostal Fellowship prayer meeting. But it was a three-set match, and we had lost the first set six-love and were losing the second set four-love. We had only to lose two more games, and the match would be over, and I could get off to the prayer meeting which by then had already started. But throwing away the match would hardly be fair to my partner and would not have glorified God. Then I realised that my friends would wonder where I was and would be praying for me, wherever I was or whatever I was doing. Which inspired me to say to my partner, Come on, John. We're going to win this match. And we did. The level of our tennis suddenly improved, and, having lost ten games in a row, we went on to win all the next twelve, taking the match by two sets to one (4-6, 6-4, 6-0). I'm not sure that John believed my explanation that this was probably the result of answered prayer, but because of that experience I am personally convinced, not only that God is interested in every tiny detail of our lives, but that such experiences bear testimony to others of the reality of our faith. Academic programme The academic year at Oxford began in early October and finished towards the end of June. Each term lasted just 8 weeks which meant that the long summer vacation provided the opportunity for students to get a summer job or travel abroad or, where necessary, to catch up on their reading. Reading was, in fact, a major part of learning, and the world-renowned Bodleian Library situated virtually on the doorstep of Brasenose, provided access to millions of books and other printed items. Guidance as to which books to read was given in tutorials when your tutor would set you an essay to write in time for the following week, when you would read your essay to him and he would make appropriate comments. At the beginning of term, he would also recommend what lectures might be helpful. Attendance at lectures was entirely optional, whereas attendance at tutorials was a compulsory part of one's course. The standard of lecturing varied immensely, some academics having very poor communication skills. As a result, attendance would steadily diminish week by week and in one case I remember the series was terminated early ‘due to an indisposition' on the part of the lecturer! In my day, the system of assessment at Oxford, for PPE at least, was by written examination. After ‘prelims' (preliminary examinations) which were taken in March in your first year, there was no further examination until ‘finals' which were taken in the June of your third year. I was required to take at least two papers in each subject, Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, plus two further papers of my choice. I opted to take these in Philosophy as this was my favourite, despite the fact that it had been the most challenging to my Christian faith. For example, during my second year I had been asked by my tutor to write an essay on the ontological argument for the existence of God. This was one of the arguments used by the philosopher René Descartes in an attempt to prove God's existence. During the course of my essay I said something to the effect that although philosophy cannot prove the existence of God it cannot disprove it either. It was at this point, as I was reading my essay to my tutor, that he interrupted me by saying: Oh, I don't know. I think if you mean by ‘prove' what we normally mean by ‘prove', and if you mean by ‘God' what we normally mean by ‘God', then we can probably disprove God's existence. But perhaps we can talk about it another time. This was the first time in my life that I had been confronted with such an outright denial of God's existence, and my tutor's statement shocked me deeply. It challenged everything I had based my life upon. I felt numb. As soon as he had left the room I instinctively wanted to call out to God for help. But what if my tutor was right and there was no God to call out to? But I called out anyway: God, if there is a God, HELP! And He did! I walked into my bedroom and picked up my Bible and opened it. It fell open at Psalm 119, verse 99. My teacher had told me that he could prove that there is no God. Who was I to challenge the statement of an Oxford tutor? But in that verse the Psalmist said: I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes. I came later to realise that by reading the Bible the most simple believer can gain more understanding of the things that really matter than all the intellectual rationalising of the philosopher. That verse brought immediate reassurance to my heart. It was not just the content of the verse that reassured me – though it certainly did – but the fact that, of all the verses there are in the Bible, I should turn at random to that very one. This was surely no coincidence. God had spoken to me in a remarkable and powerful way. And as the years have gone by I have learned how to counteract the arguments of the atheists. I'm so glad now that I did not abandon my faith back then. People will always be bringing up challenges to our faith, but just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean that there is no answer! And until I know what it is, I just need to keep on trusting the One who said, I AM the truth.
My Story Talk 9 Between Brentwood and Brasenose (1956-1959) Part 2 In our last talk I mentioned that three significant things happened between my leaving school in 1956 and going up to Brasenose in 1959. I gained experience in teaching. I met Eileen, my future wife. And I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. And it's the baptism in the Spirit that's the subject for today. We'll be talking about the events that led up to it, how I heard about it and how both Eileen and I received it. In August 1957 at a Baptist Union Summer School in the Lake District I met a man called Michael, who mentioned that the following year he was planning to go touring Europe with some Christian friends who owned a car. He asked if I would be interested in going with them and I said yes. I paid to have driving lessons so that I could share in the driving. It was a wonderful holiday, not just because of the breathtaking scenery, but because it was there in Switzerland that I first heard about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In my book Signs from Heaven I have already recorded the miraculous escape I had from a falling boulder while climbing a mountain and how impressed I was with the simple faith of one of my new friends who prayed for me as he saw it coming straight for me. His name was Laurie and he was clearly moving in a dimension of Christianity that I knew little or nothing about. So I asked him what he had got that I hadn't got. So he started to talk about an experience he had received after his conversion – being baptised with the Holy Spirit he called it – when the Holy Spirit had come and filled him to overflowing. He said he had spoken in tongues and told me I could read about it in the book of Acts. But although I wanted to experience more of God in my life, I wasn't interested in speaking in tongues, and I dismissed the subject from my mind. And I might have ignored it forever had it not been for the remarkable series of events which took place the following summer when both Eileen and I were baptised in the Spirit. In the summer of 1959 we were both sitting in the youth meeting at Eileen's church singing from a well-known chorus book, when I happened to notice a list of books advertised on the back cover, one of which was entitled, The Full Blessing of Pentecost, by Dr. Andrew Murray. The title arrested my attention. Could this be what Laurie had been talking about the previous year in Switzerland? So I decided that it might be good to get it. I mentioned this to Eileen and, without my knowing about it, she wrote to the publishers hoping to buy a copy for me, but a few days later, she received a reply saying the book was no longer available. The following Saturday morning, I went round to see Eileen and she told me that she had tried to get the book for me but that unfortunately it was out of print. A bit disappointed, I thanked her for trying anyway and, after spending the morning with her, returned home from Eileen's to my parents' house for lunch. As the meal was not quite ready, I went into the sitting room to wait. On entering, I happened to notice a book lying on the piano and casually picked it up – The Full Blessing of Pentecost by Dr. Andrew Murray! But how did it get there? No one, except Eileen, knew anything of my interest in the subject. My parents did not know where the book had come from. It is true that my father had always had a large collection of books, but if it was his, he certainly had never read it, and didn't even know that he possessed it. Anyway, why wasn't it in the bookcase and how did it get on the piano? No one had any idea how that book came to be there on the very day that I had been told it was unobtainable. The answer must surely lie in the realm of the supernatural. This was no coincidence. God was confirming to me that I needed to be baptised in the Spirit, and that afternoon, after I had read the book, I got down on my knees and asked God to fill me with the Holy Spirit. But nothing happened! That evening, I went round to Eileen's and told her about the book. And after she had read the book she too started to seek for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. As Baptists, we knew next to nothing about it – only what we had read in Andrew Murray's book, and that, as I look back on it now, did not give an entirely complete picture. As I remember it, it made a strong case for believing that there was an experience of the Holy Spirit beyond what we receive at conversion, but there was no mention of speaking in tongues as the evidence. As a result we weren't exactly sure what we were asking for, but I had the distinct impression that if I was going to receive the Holy Spirit I needed to prepare myself by becoming more holy. I remember thinking that if I could only live a sinless life for a month, or maybe even a week, or even just today, perhaps God would fill me with the Holy Spirit. I remember driving my father's car taking care not to exceed the speed limit when, as I was going down a hill in a 30 zone, I noticed that the speedometer had gone up to 32 m.p.h. Oh no, I thought, I've missed receiving the baptism for another day! Of course, I now understand, and frequently teach, that the Holy Spirit is a gift and can't be earned! But back then I was getting frustrated by trying the achieve an experience of the Spirit by my own efforts and inevitably failing. So I thought I would write to Laurie who had told me about the baptism in the Spirit in the first place. What should I do? To which he replied, David, all I can say is that if you are really thirsty, you will drink. But this was even more frustrating. The problem was, I had no idea how to drink! Laurie lived quite a distance from me and I didn't feel like writing back and saying, Thanks Laurie. That's very helpful, but please, how do I drink? So Eileen and I decided on a different approach. Perhaps we should find a Pentecostal Church and see if they could help us. It turned out that the nearest one was Bethel Full Gospel Church which was about five miles away in Dagenham, and easily reached on our recently acquired Lambretta scooter. So we drove over to take a look at it and discovered from the noticeboard that there was a prayer meeting every Tuesday evening. I was quite nervous about it as I had never been in a Pentecostal meeting before, but we were pleasantly surprised and were impressed with the number of people praying, even though prayers were interspersed with lots of Amens. We, of course, as good Baptists were only used to saying Amen at the end of a prayer! But what really impacted us was the use of the gift of tongues and interpretation. In the middle of the prayer time there were three ‘messages' in tongues each of which was promptly interpreted. And we knew that God was speaking to US. These people did not know who we were. We had arrived just in time for the meeting and had had no time for conversation before the meeting began. So when we heard the opening words of the first interpretation we were completely amazed: You have come into this church seeking to be filled with the Spirit! All three interpretations were equally directly relevant to us, and as a result we spoke with the pastor after the meeting and explained who we were and why we had come. His name was Alfred Webb, and he encouraged us to come the following Tuesday and sit on the front row where anyone ‘seeking the baptism' would be prayed for with the laying on of hands. So that's what we did, but we were rather disappointed when nothing seemed to happen when he laid hands on us. This happened week after week until we finally received after we had come back from our summer holiday in Torquay, Devon. That holiday was significant for several reasons. It was the first time that Eileen and I had been on holiday together and we had borrowed my father's car so that we could take another young couple with us. My father had bought the car before he had passed the driving test so that I could give him lessons. (You may remember that I had learned to drive before we went on that holiday in Switzerland). Dad had not yet passed the test, so was happy to let me borrow it. But, as far as the baptism in the Spirit was concerned, two things were particularly relevant. First, on the two Sundays we were in Torquay we decided to attend Upton Vale Baptist Church which was not far from the Christian Endeavour Holiday Home where we were staying. I was very impressed with the minister's sermon on Hebrews 11:6 and his emphasis on the fact that God rewards those who earnestly seek him. So I had a word with him after the service and told him I was seeking the baptism in the Spirit. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly for a Baptist minister back in 1959, he tried to discourage me from doing so, something which, when I started my course at Oxford a month or so later, influenced my decision to attend a Pentecostal church while I was there rather than a Baptist church. However, that sermon on Hebrews 11:6 on God rewarding those who earnestly seek him did reemphasise a word of prophecy we had received at Bethel a few weeks earlier encouraging us to get up early to pray. Now I am not saying that getting up early to pray is a condition of receiving the baptism, but it could be an indication that we were earnestly seeking, that we were really thirsty (John 7:7-39). So for the rest of that holiday we got up early and prayed. And when we went to the Tuesday prayer meeting after we got back from our holiday, it happened! This time there was another man sitting alongside the pastor on the platform. I had no idea who he was but as soon as the prayer time began he came down to pray for those who were seeking the baptism. Eileen and I were kneeling in the front row and he came to me first. I was kneeling with my head in my hands on the seat of the chair I had been sitting on. The man, who I later learned was a pastor called Harold Young, said, Kneel up, brother. So I moved into an upright kneeling position and he then said, Breathe it in, brother. I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, and I thought it rather strange. But I was thirsty and unquestioningly did what he said. I took a breath. Then he said, Speak it out brother. Again, I did what he said and I found myself speaking fluently in tongues. And I did not stop until the pastor closed the meeting 45 minutes later! Then someone came up to me and said, You had a mighty baptism, didn't you, brother? To which I replied, Oh, did I? To be honest, it was not at all what I had been expecting. Although I'm not really sure what I was expecting! By this time I had heard or read of so many different testimonies of people receiving the baptism and had realised that in some ways everyone is different, so I was not really sure what I should expect. What I wanted was to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I was not particularly interested in speaking in tongues. What's more, I found myself questioning whether the words I was speaking really were a language. I had studied four different foreign languages at school and it certainly sounded like none of them. So was my experience real? These questions were going through my mind as we were travelling home on our scooter. But then I remembered something that Jesus had said in Luke 11. Our heavenly Father does not give stones or scorpions or snakes to his children when they ask for the Holy Spirit. And on that basis I chose to believe that what I had experienced was real. I'm so glad that I did. Its reality has been confirmed again and again in my life and ministry. But more of that in later talks. But what about Eileen? She had had similar doubts when she heard what Harold Young had said to me and when he laid hands on her she did not receive. However, straight after the meeting he spoke to her and said, You do want to receive don't you? and Eileen said yes. So he took us both into the church vestry and placed his right hand on my head and told me to start speaking in tongues again. Then he placed his other hand on Eileen's head and said, Now you begin to speak too. And she did! And later she told me that it had been in that very vestry that she had received Jesus as her saviour in Bethel Church Sunday school when she was only seven years old. So we were both baptised in the Spirit on the same day, September 8, 1959, just four weeks before I began my course at Brasenose College, Oxford, where I spent a lot of time telling other Christians about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But we'll be talking about that next time.
Talk 8 Between Brentwood and Brasenose (1956-59) Part 1 Welcome to Talk 8 in our series where I'm reflecting on the goodness of God throughout my life. I left school in December 1956 and started my course at Oxford in October 1959, a period of almost three years. In many ways it seemed a long time to wait, but in the plan and purpose of God they turned out to be highly significant years. I gained experience in teaching. I met Eileen, the girl who was to be lifelong partner. And I received the life-changing experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But first, I need to explain how I got my place at Oxford and why I had to wait three years before taking it up. Gaining my place at Oxford In 1956, at the age of seventeen, I had already passed my A Levels and had decided to stay on at school a further year to take S Levels the following summer. S Levels – the S stands for Scholarship – were the highest level of GCE exams that you could take and were designed to support your application to university, especially if you were hoping to go to Oxbridge. However, as things turned out, I did not need to complete my S Level course because in the first term of that school year I was awarded a scholarship to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Brasenose College, Oxford. Our form master, Mr. Rennie, had suggested that some of us might like to spend a few days in Oxford and take some examinations at Brasenose College with a view to obtaining a place there. As there was only one place available I was not expecting to get it. But I decided to go even though my friend, John Bramble, was going too and I thought he was far more likely to be successful. He had always come higher than me in class and had gained better A Level results than I had. There were about eight of us altogether, each of us taking different exam papers, generally depending on what subjects we had taken at A level. There was just one paper that was the same for all of us, an English essay, the title of which was unknown to us until we sat down in the examination room. And that title was WORDS. The length of that exam was three hours and, although some boys started writing almost immediately, I spent the first 45 minutes planning my essay. I can't remember in great detail the contents of that essay but I know that I concluded it by talking about Christ, the word made flesh, the divine logos, the ultimate revelation of God Himself. I have sometimes wondered if the reason I was awarded the scholarship rather than any of my colleagues was that the Lord was honouring me because I had honoured him. Of course, I can't be sure about that, but he had helped me through my A levels when I had honoured him before the whole class when my History master had told me that I was likely to fail, and I have always sought to give God the glory for any academic success I may have achieved. And I discovered later that, of all the papers I sat during that visit to Brasenose, that essay on WORDS was awarded the highest grade – an alpha. But when I received a letter from Brasenose offering me a scholarship a few weeks later, I was totally amazed and, after discussing it with my father, I came to the conclusion that this had to be God. But there was just one problem. The place they were offering me was for three years later in October 1959, after I had completed my two years National Service. However, the Government had already agreed to abolish National Service and were in the process of phasing it out gradually. They did this by delaying the ‘call-up' which meant, in my case, that by the time they would have called me up, there would be less than two years before my course at Oxford was starting. In short, I would not have time to do National Service and, by the time I had finished my course at Oxford, National Service had been abolished completely. So, having obtained my place at Oxford, I decided to leave school at the end of term in December and start to earn some money. And at the time there was a great shortage of schoolteachers, as a result of which young people who had passed their A levels could do ‘uncertificated teaching' before going to university, and so I ended up doing almost three years' teaching before I went to Oxford. Gaining experience in teaching And, surprisingly enough, it started at the very school I had just left. Or, to be more precise, it was at the Preparatory School attached to Brentwood and standing just on the other side of the main playing field. One of the teachers was on sickness leave for a few weeks and I was asked if I would take their place as they taught French and Latin which were of course my two main A Level subjects. As it was a boarding school, I was required to live in and be the housemaster for some of the boys, which mainly involved making sure that they were in bed on time and not talking after a certain time. I was only there for a few weeks (January 15 to February 16), but I enjoyed the experience very much and learnt a great deal, not least of which was that, if you prepared your lessons thoroughly, you had relatively few problems with discipline. After Brentwood Prep I was told by the Essex Education Committee that another job was available in Brentwood, at the Church of England Primary School in Coptfold Road, only a few hundred yards from my old school. A teacher was on maternity leave and a replacement was needed until July to look after her class of 8 to 9 year-olds. The pay wasn't great as I was not a qualified teacher. It worked out at about half what I would have been paid if I had been qualified. And, of course, this was not a residential post, so I needed to travel on two buses each day to get there from Hornchurch. But I accepted the job anyway. As in most primary schools, a teacher was responsible for teaching their class throughout the day all the subjects on the timetable. That was not a problem, but learning to keep discipline was another matter. My expectations were based on the level of discipline I had experienced as a pupil at Brentwood and the few weeks I had spent teaching at Brentwood Prep. Coptfold Road was quite another matter. Many of the children came from a less fortunate background and some of them were of rather limited intelligence. As a result, and due to my own lack of training and experience, and lack of any supervision, I found the two terms I was in charge of that class extremely difficult, and was quite relieved when I heard towards the end of the summer term that Mrs. Istead, the teacher who had been on maternity leave, was returning the following Monday. So on the Friday before she was due to return I was clearing my desk after school when the headmaster, Dr. Ward, asked me what I was doing, adding, You're not leaving, are you? And he offered to give me a different class to teach and keep me on indefinitely until I went up to Oxford. So I decided to stay and, as things turned out, I was there until the end of September 1959, my ability to keep discipline improving greatly with experience and the help of a Day School Teachers' Conference organised by the Baptist Union and held at St. Augustine's College, Canterbury in August 1957. As I look back on those years of teaching before I went to Oxford, I think I can see why God allowed it to happen that way. While I was waiting I was rather frustrated, thinking, Why am I teaching when God has called me to the ministry? But little did I know then that his plan for me was that most of my ministry would be teaching. And although the major part of my teaching ministry has been to a different age group, even when teaching at degree level in Bible Colleges around the world, I have found that God has given me the ability to teach at a level that everyone can understand, something I repeatedly hear from grateful listeners. And perhaps at least part of that ability is a result of those years I spent teaching less able children while waiting to go to university. God knows what he is doing, and he always has a purpose in what appear to us to be pointless pauses in our lives. But that brings me to an even more significant purpose in those years of waiting, for it was in those years that I met Eileen, the girl I was to marry and who was to be the ideal person to support me in my ministry. Meeting Eileen It was an incredibly hot day that Saturday afternoon. So hot in fact that the railway line buckled in the heat of the sun. It was Saturday 29th June, 1957 and we had arranged a youth rally where the young people from Elm Park Baptist would meet up with Hornchurch Baptist young people for fun and games in the park followed by an open air service. Although the churches were only two miles apart, before then we had had little contact with them, so I actually knew none of the young people there. People have often asked me how I met Eileen and I have usually replied, In the park! After a game of rounders, we sat down in groups and had a picnic tea. I noticed a group of four rather attractive girls sitting a few yards away and thought I would like to take a closer look! So I got up and walked towards them and happened to notice that one of them had taken her shoes off. On impulse, I picked up one of the shoes and ran off with it, with nothing in particular in mind other than just having a bit of fun. Needless to say, the owner of the shoe ran after me but was at something of a disadvantage as she had bare feet. I soon disappeared from view and hid the shoe under the bridge that spanned the park lake. Of course, when she caught up with me, I felt a bit of an idiot and showed her where the shoe was. We got into conversation and I asked her if she would like to come to our Saturday evening youth club which took place after the open air service. She agreed and, after sharing a song sheet at the open air, I found out that her name was Eileen and that she was just six days older than me. After youth club I walked her home and kissed her goodnight. And that was the beginning of a relationship that lasted, with a short break, for 67 years and which ended only when the Lord called her home at the age of 85. We agreed to meet again some time the following week, but the next day, after attending church in the morning, I decided to go to Hornchurch Baptist for their evening service in the hope of seeing Eileen again. She and her friend were sitting in the choir and her friend noticed me in the congregation and said to Eileen, He's here! After the service we went for a long walk in the park and from then on were to see each other just about every day. I discovered that Eileen had attended Romford County High School and had left after taking her O levels. At the time she was working at Barts (St. Bartholemew's Hospital) in London, but a year later she accepted a post in the Dagenham Education Office which was closer to home. But before that, I have to confess that there was a short break in our relationship during the last few months of 1957. I mentioned earlier that I attended a conference in Canterbury during the last week in August of that year. Everyone there was a qualified schoolteacher with the exception of me and one other person, a girl called Irene who was the same age as me and had been accepted to train as a teacher at the Chelsea College for Physical Education in Eastbourne. Irene was extremely attractive, highly intelligent, and very good at sport – she was nearly good enough to beat me at table tennis! But she was having doubts about her faith, and I spent some time with her trying to encourage her. As a result we were both very attracted to each other and, to cut the story short, because I have never been proud of myself about this, we started to see each other after the conference was over. When I next saw Eileen I told her, without mentioning Irene, that I felt we had been seeing too much of each other, that our relationship had been getting too intense – which it probably was – and that I thought we should cool it and not see each other for a while. She later told me that she had not been too concerned because she was convinced that if I was the right one for her, the Lord would bring me back to her. Which he did. The relationship with Irene lasted only a few weeks – until the middle of October, when I went to Eastbourne for a weekend to see her at her college. In short, she jilted me! But not long before Christmas the young people from Hornchurch Baptist came to Elm Park to take our Friday evening YPF meeting. And who should be singing in the choir but Eileen. I think we spoke briefly after the meeting, just polite conversation, but it was enough to arouse my interest in her again. So I sent her a Christmas card, and she replied by sending me one and enclosing this short poem: I do believe that God above created you for me to love. He picked you out from all the rest because he knew I'd love you best. I had a heart so warm and true, but now it's gone from me to you. Take care of it as I have done, for you have two and I have none. Not the best poetry in the world, but it touched my heart and I wrote to Eileen – I still have a copy of that letter – asking if she would like to resume our relationship. And from January 2nd 1958 hardly a day passed without our seeing each other.
Talk 7 Elm Park Baptist Church (1951-1958) Part 2 Welcome to Talk 7 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today I'm going to tell you about my decision to follow Christ, my baptism and church membership, and my call to the ministry. My decision to follow Christ As I mentioned in an earlier talk, I cannot remember a time when I did not believe in Jesus, and, when at the age of eight I was asked by my father if I believed that Jesus had died for me, my immediate answer was yes. That was, after all, what I had been brought up to believe. But there is more to salvation than believing. Jesus began his ministry by preaching, The time has come…Repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). The fact that Jesus loved us enough to die for our sins demands a response. If we truly believe it, we will repent, because we will hate the fact that our sins made it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die in our place. And true repentance will involve not just being sorry. It will entail a decision to turn from our sin, and to dedicate our whole life to him. I made that decision in April 1953 at the age of fourteen. Why it took so long I'm not quite sure. I remember that when I was about eleven my Sunday School Teacher asked us if we would like to ‘ask Jesus to come into our hearts' and for some reason I didn't respond. I think that part of the reason was embarrassment. I didn't want my parents and some of my aunts making a fuss and saying how wonderful it was that David had ‘made a decision'. So what eventually prompted me to surrender to the claims of Christ and give my life to him? Of course the correct theological answer to that question is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the Word of God. And that must have been what was happening, although I didn't realise it at the time. For several weeks in Bible Class my father had been preaching on John 3:16. Week by week I was constantly challenged by the thought that, if God loved me so much that he gave his only Son to die on the cross and save me from my sins, surely the very least I could do would be to give my life to him. So the major driving force behind my decision to do just that was undoubtedly the love of God. But that was not the only factor. There was also the fear of hell. And I think that may have been what finally clinched it. I was made very aware of the reality of hell through the preaching of Evangelist Tom Rees one Saturday night in the Central Hall, Westminster. Elm Park was only an hour's journey from central London and a group of us had travelled in to hear him [1]. Towards the close of his sermon, he stressed the dangers of rejecting Christ, and when he made the appeal I knew that I should stand up along with the many others who were responding to his message. But once again I resisted. My pride was holding me back. I didn't want to make a public declaration that I was a sinner who needed to be saved. My baptism But the next day everything changed. There was to be a baptismal service in the evening and during the day my mother asked me if I had ever thought of being baptised, and I found myself saying yes. I understood very well that her question was not merely about being baptised. It carried with it part of the significance of baptism, the confession of Jesus Christ as my Saviour, my Lord, and my God. And so that evening when the minister made the appeal at the end of his sermon, while the congregation was singing the closing hymn, I walked forward with several other young people to indicate publicly my decision to give my life to Jesus and my desire to obey him by being baptised. The next baptismal service was arranged for July 19th, so there were several weeks to wait. But that gave us the opportunity to attend weekly baptismal classes at the ‘manse', the name given to the house where the minister lived. Each week he taught us the basics about the Christian life, paying special attention to the subject of baptism, and explaining why infant baptism, which is practised in some churches, is not biblical [2]. However, there was no teaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which was something I did not hear about until I met some Pentecostal Christians a few years later. Nevertheless, I did find the minister's teaching very helpful, and I think that's why, when I became a pastor myself, I decided to provide similar classes for all those wanting to be baptised. In fact, the talks that I gave were later to form the basis of the contents of my little book, How to Live for Jesus. And of course they did include teaching on the baptism in the Spirit. When the day scheduled for the baptismal service finally arrived, the baptisms took place at the end of the Sunday evening service. The minister, who was dressed in black waterproof clothing, went down into the water first. Then, one at a time, the candidates went down to be baptised and each of us was asked by name, Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your Lord, and your God? To which we replied, I do. Then the minister would say, Then on the confession of your faith and repentance towards God, I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. He then immediately baptised us, leaning us backwards into the water, dipping us right under (because that's the meaning of the word baptise) and as we came up out of the water the whole church would sing, Follow, follow, I would follow Jesus, Anywhere, everywhere, I would follow on. Follow, follow, I would follow Jesus, Anywhere he leads me I will follow on. And that is something I can honestly say I have tried to do ever since. And now, 72 years later, I have no regrets. The pathway he has led, and is still leading me on, has been wonderful. It has not always been easy, but it's been far better than going my own way. God's way is always best. Church membership After baptism, the next step was to become a church member. Of course, from the perspective of the New Testament, we all become members of the church the moment we receive Christ as our Saviour. We become members of the universal church which is comprised of all Christians, those already in Heaven, the church triumphant, and those still on earth, the worldwide church, the church militant. Our membership of that church remains permanent as long as we remain Christians. But which local church we belong to may vary from time to time according to where we are living. And, of course, in any one area there may be several different local churches, which has sadly resulted in some Christians having no real commitment to any one local church and acknowledging no real accountability to any church leadership. This is why many local churches, while recognising that all Christians who worship with them are members of the body of Christ, the universal church, nevertheless insist that to be a member of their local church a person must identify with the doctrinal beliefs of that church, acknowledge their accountability to the leadership and their fellow church members, and show a genuine commitment to that church. And that was what was expected of me when, shortly after my baptism, I asked to become a member of Elm Park Baptist Church. The application process was simple. I had to ask someone who was already a member to be my sponsor. After a friendly interview he brought a report to the next Church Members' Meeting and my name, together with the names of other young people who had been baptised at the same time as me, was put to the vote. As a result we were all accepted into membership. Church membership carried with it the privilege of being able to join in the discussions at church meetings and included the right to vote, even for those of the minimum age for membership, which was just fourteen. I always enjoyed those meetings, which were held every two months. Being able to participate in decision making meant that I felt a sense of responsibility and I was constantly aware of developments in the church programme. Now I realise that different churches operate in many different ways and that some leaders are hesitant to involve the members in this kind of way for fear of the kind of unpleasantness that I have heard has gone on in some church meetings. All I can say to that is that, in my experience, the advantages of involving the people in decision making on important matters far outweigh any disadvantages. What's more, the dangers of abuse and corruption that so often have taken place when all the power is vested in a few, or even in just one person, must be avoided at all costs. I do believe that leadership should lead, and lead by example. But to be a leader is not the same as being a dictator. If you are really a leader, people will follow you. That's why, as a church leader, I have never been afraid to ask the people to endorse any major decisions made by the leadership team. But that brings me to my call to ministry. My call to ministry As a teenager, of course, my understanding of church and church leadership was very much determined by my limited experience of Elm Park Baptist Church. Like most people then, and many people still today, I assumed that a local church must be led by a man called the minister or vicar. It was his responsibility to lead and preach at all the services and that, to do this, he needed to have received a special call from God. So when I refer to my call to the ministry I am using the expression in the way that I understood things back then. I have since come to see things very differently, and that will become evident in later talks. For now, it will be enough to say that I now understand that the word minister simply means servant and that, since all God's people are called to serve him, all God's people are in a sense ministers. But that is not to say that some people do not receive a special call to some particular area of service. In my particular case, I now realise that other people may have seen in me the potential to become a preacher long before I realised it myself. I was only fourteen when I was asked to give a short talk in the Sunday evening service at my church. It was what was called a Youth Sunday when the young people from my father's Bible class were asked to take responsibility for the service. Three of us were asked to speak for five minutes each and my father gave us help as to what we might say. That was my first experience of public speaking and, to my surprise, the following year I was invited to take on the preaching single handed. Then, another year later, I was asked to preach at the Sunday morning service. I am so grateful to the church leaders for spotting the potential that was in me and giving me the opportunity to develop it. Even then, however, although I enjoyed preaching, I did not feel any sense of call. That came when I attended a Baptist Church summer school held at Mamhead, not many miles from where I now live in beautiful Devon. Mamhead House, built in the nineteenth century regardless of cost and set in 164 acres of glorious parkland overlooking Lyme Bay and Exmouth has been described as ‘Devon's grandest country mansion'. Summer School was a holiday for young Christians which included sessions of teaching until 11:00 AM and evening meetings for worship and further teaching after the evening meal. The rest of the day was taken up with leisure activities which included trips to the nearby seaside town of Dawlish, coach trips to Dartmoor, and rambles in the countryside surrounding Mamhead. I attended Summer School there for three years in succession from 1954 to 1956. But it was in 1955 that the Lord clearly spoke to me about my future. I had completed my O Levels in 1954 and was now halfway through my A Level course and beginning to think about my future. But I wasn't particularly looking for guidance at that point as I was expecting to go to university after my A Levels and felt I had plenty of time to make up my mind. Then, one evening, after the preacher had finished speaking and we had sung the final song, the Revd. Cyril Rushbridge, who had been leading the meeting, said something like this: This isn't part of what we had planned for this evening, but I just feel that the Lord wants me to tell you how I felt my call to the ministry. He went on to explain that he had had no dramatic experience like Saul on the road to Damascus but described in a simple way how he had ‘received his call'. Unfortunately, I can't remember the details of what he said. All I can tell you is that when he had finished speaking I just knew that God wanted me to be a minister. And to clinch it, Kathleen O'Connor, a girl from our church came up to me as soon as the meeting had finished and said, David, do you now know what God wants you to do with your life? To which I replied, Yes, Kate, I'm going to be a minister. I later went and spoke with the Revd. Rex Mason, a graduate of Regent's Park College, Oxford, who had been the preacher that evening and asked for his advice. He had read English (I think) at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, before going on the read Theology at Regent's Park. He recommended that I do something similar, widening my outlook on life by taking a degree in something different before concentrating on Theology. The next thing to do was to let my parents know what had happened and, as I was away at Mamhead for at least another week, I sent them a postcard saying something like, I hope you don't mind, but I've decided to be a minister! And when I got home they told me something they had never told me before. They had prayed for this from before I was born. I also told my minister, the Revd. Leslie H. Moxham, about my call to the ministry and asked if there was anything I could do immediately to start to prepare for what God was calling me to. And he suggested that I start attending the midweek Prayer and Bible Study meeting, something I had not done because of all my other commitments to church activities. So I did what he suggested and was not disappointed. He was a great Bible teacher and I learnt a lot in those meetings, even though, as I have already mentioned, the number of meetings got me into trouble with my History teacher at school. So looking back, I am very grateful to God for my years at Elm Park Baptist and, although I was to move on when I was baptised in the Spirit in 1959, my remaining years there were to prove some of the most exciting and significant years of my life. But that's the subject of the next talk. [1] Incidentally, in the years that followed we also went several times to hear Billy Graham during his visits to Haringey, Earls Court, and Wembley Stadium. [2] Please see Chapter Thirteen of You'd Better Believe It where I show the biblical reasons for saying this.
Talk 6. Elm Park Baptist Church (1951-1958) Part One Welcome to Talk 6 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. In the last two episodes I have been talking about my experiences at Brentwood School. Today we're turning to my time at Elm Park Baptist Church. One great advantage of being a day boy rather than a boarder at Brentwood School was that I was free on Sundays to attend church. It also meant that I came into regular contact with girls, something which was seriously lacking for boys who were boarders. This, I think, was quite important for me because, as an only child, I had no sisters, but at least through the activities of the local church I was able to form healthy relationships with the opposite sex. In fact I suspect that as a teenager the girls were one of the attractions of going to church! And at Elm Park Baptist there were plenty of activities to choose from. So let's begin by talking about the church programme. Church programme Unlike many churches today where there is only one meeting on a Sunday and another, perhaps, during the week, at our church something was happening every single day of the week. Of course, Sunday was the busiest day. From 10-11am the Boys' Brigade held their Bible Class. From 11-12 there was the Morning Service. In the afternoon there was Sunday School from 2.30-3.30 and again from 3.30-4.30, the numbers attending being so great that two separate sessions were necessary. For teenagers there was Bible Class (taught by my father) followed by a discussion group for young people held between 4 and 5pm. Very often we stayed at church for tea in order to be there for the 6.30 Evening Service which was then followed by a ‘sing-song' at about 8pm. In fact, apart from going home at lunch time for the traditional Sunday roast prepared by my mother, as a teenager I was at church from 10am to 9pm every Sunday. During the week, meetings for young people included the Boys' Brigade, the Girls' Life Brigade, the Young People's Fellowship (YPF), and the Youth Club. For adults there was a midweek meeting for Prayer and Bible Study conducted by the Minister, and there were separate men's meetings and women's meetings too. All these activities took place on church premises. There were never any home groups in those days. That was something that became popular in the 1970s. My personal involvement I was personally involved in most of the activities I've just mentioned. This was not the result of any parental coercion. I just wanted to be there and, as I have already mentioned, on Sundays I was at church for almost the whole day. This was from the age of 14 until I was about 17. It was largely through my father's teaching in Bible Class on Sunday afternoons that I decided to give my life to Jesus – but more of that later. Dad was a gifted preacher and teacher, and the majority of the thirty or more young people attending Bible Class made decisions for Christ as a result of his ministry. Whenever there was a baptismal service on a Sunday evening, Mum and Dad would invite three or four young people to come for tea after Bible Class and then go on to the service after tea. Over the years, many of those young people responded to the appeal at the end of the service and walked forward to indicate that they were giving their lives to Jesus and would like to be baptised. One of those young people was my friend, Don Campbell, who emigrated to Australia and, when I last heard from him two or three years ago, he was still attending a Baptist church over there. Apart from the Bible Class I attended on Sunday afternoons, I also went to the Boys' Brigade Bible Class every Sunday morning. The Boys' Brigade was found by Sir William Smith in 1886. If I remember it correctly, its purpose was: The advancement of Christ's kingdom among boys, and the promotion of habits of obedience, reverence, discipline, self-respect, and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness. As well as the Sunday morning Bible Class, our company, which was known as the Second Hornchurch Company of the Boys' Brigade, held two other meetings each week. Tuesday evenings were dedicated to drill practice, where, after we had been inspected to ensure that we were smartly dressed and our uniforms were being worn correctly, we learned how to stand to attention correctly, to salute the Lieutenants and Captain, and to do basic marching manoeuvres both individually and as company. When I was seventeen and had been promoted to the rank of sergeant I was awarded the N.C.O's Proficiency Star after demonstrating that I could give the correct commands for the Company to make these manoeuvres on drill parade. Of course all this was exactly the same kind of thing the other boys at my school were doing in the CCF and I realise that some might see my being in the Boys' Brigade as quite inconsistent with my refusal to join the CCF on the grounds that I was a conscientious objector. However, unlike the boys in the CCF, in the BB we were not taught to use military weapons. On Fridays, time was given for more recreational activities, and opportunity was given to learn to play the bugle or a drum. After a couple of attempts at making the right sound come out of a bugle – it's by no means as simple as just blowing – I decided it wasn't for me. This was partly because at the time I found it difficult to sing in tune and I reasoned that if I couldn't sing properly I probably wouldn't be able to keep in tune on the bugle either! And sadly all the drums were already allocated to other boys. But perhaps the best thing about the BB was its annual camp. This took place every year during the school summer holidays. Wherever it was held, it was always within walking distance of the sea. My first camp was a great adventure for me as, at the age of twelve, I had never been away from home without my parents. It was held in Mudeford on the south coast of England, and I loved it. I went to BB camp on six occasions, Mudeford (1951), Highcliffe in Dorset (1952), Walmer in Kent (1953, '54, and '55), and Corton in Suffolk (1956). It was fun sleeping in a field with six other boys in a tent, each with a straw-filled sack called a paillasse (pronounced pally ass!) as a mattress, your kit bag as a pillow, and only a couple of rough, rather itchy, blankets to keep you warm. If sleeping-bags were invented back then, we'd certainly never heard of them! I say it was fun, and it was, just rather uncomfortable fun. And, of course, the first night we hardly slept. And when we did finally get to sleep it wasn't long before we awakened by the musical notes of the bugle playing Reveille. Time to get up, get washed and dressed and go to the toilet. The toilets or ‘latrines' were just holes in the ground dug the day before by the ‘advance party' who had travelled down earlier to prepare the camp site, and the washing facilities were just metal bowls of cold water on trestle tables. Every day was punctuated with a variety of bugle calls summoning us to ‘fall in' (form a line outside our tents), or telling us that the next meal was ready, and so on, until the final call of the day, which was ‘lights out.' Apart from mealtimes, activities included getting your tent ready for ‘tent inspection' each morning, doing chores like peeling potatoes (otherwise known as ‘spud-bashing'), going down to the beach for a supervised swim, leisure activities such as football and cricket, and a certain amount of free time. There were also various devotional activities, like a service in the marquee on Sunday mornings and, if I remember correctly, a Bible reading and short word from the camp padre after breakfast on other days. But for most boys, the majority of whom did not come from Christian homes, the ‘religious' bits were something you endured rather than enjoyed in order to be allowed to join in the fun that the other aspects of BB had to offer. In fact, as far as I know, sadly, very few of the fifty boys in the company ever made a decision for Christ. The benefits for me, however, were inestimable. BB instilled in me the need for personal discipline and loyalty. It gave me the opportunity to mix with boys who were from a very different social background from most of my friends at Brentwood School. It gave me experience in leadership, and it taught me a great deal about how to organise a camp – something that was to prove very valuable when later, in pastoral ministry, I was able year after year to run a Youth Camp for up to 150 teenagers where we saw dozens of young people saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. But that's a story for a later talk. Apart from the uniformed organisations like the BB and the GLB (Girls' Life Brigade, a title later to be abbreviated to Girls' Brigade), there were three other weekly opportunities for young people to meet together. I have already mentioned the teenage Bible Class led by my father on Sunday afternoons, but I also attended the YPF (Young People's Fellowship) on Friday evenings and Youth Club on Saturday evenings. YPF was an opportunity for young Christians to meet together to worship the Lord, pray, share testimonies, and learn from the Word. There was also plenty of time for discussion, which was something I particularly enjoyed. It took place in what was called the parlour, which even then was a rather old-fashioned term for a lounge. This was at the back of the church building, right next to the kitchen, so conveniently situated for making hot drinks at the end of the meeting. The Youth Club was primarily intended to be an opportunity for evangelism. Held in the Youth Hall, part of the church's property but separate from the main building, it provided facilities for table-tennis, snooker, darts etc. and was followed by a fifteen-minute epilogue which included a hymn, a prayer and a short message. Looking back on it, I think that, although it was valuable as a means of keeping young people off the streets, Youth Club was not an effective tool of evangelism. Most of the forty or so young people who came to it never came to any of the other church activities and I cannot remember any who became Christians as a result of it. But that is not to say that such activities can never be effective. Perhaps if it had been led by someone with a clear evangelistic gift the results might have been very different. I was later to learn that for effective evangelism there is no substitute for the power of the Holy Spirit. That is what will attract people to Jesus, and that is what will keep them going on with God. But that's a subject for later. Next time I'll be sharing how at Elm Park Baptist I first dedicated my life to Christ, was baptised, became a church member, started to preach, and felt God calling me to become a minister of the Gospel.
My Story Talk 5 Brentwood School (1950-1956) Part Two Welcome to Talk 5 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today we're talking about the academic programme at Brentwood, the chaplain, the chapel and Divinity lessons, and the school CCF. Academic Programme A typical day at Brentwood began with chapel or assembly at 8.50am. This lasted about half an hour. Lessons, which were all 45 minutes long, began at 9.30. The first two periods were followed by a 15 minute break at 11am and the next two periods were followed by lunch at 1pm. With the exception of Wednesdays and Saturdays which were dedicated to sporting activities, there were three periods each afternoon, beginning at 1.45 and ending at 4pm. And then of course there was homework, which at Brentwood was called prep. In the first year this was expected to take us an hour and a half each evening, increasing to three hours when you were in the sixth form taking A levels. This often involved memorizing things on which you were going to be tested the next day. And there were huge incentives for doing your prep thoroughly. Apart from the fact that you might be put in detention on Wednesday afternoon if you failed the test, a form order was produced every two or three weeks and sent home to your parents to let them know your current position in class. This certainly kept us on our toes, and, although at Brentwood I never came top as I had regularly done at primary school, I made sure I was always in the top 10. Subjects in our first year, all of which were compulsory, included English, French, Latin, Maths, History, Geography, Physics, Art or Woodwork, Divinity (Religious Education), and Gym. But after the first year, which at Brentwood was referred to as the second form, the system changed and the subjects you took depended on which stream you had chosen to enter. The Third Form (i.e. the second year) was divided into four streams, Classical Three, Science Three, Modern Three, and General Three. The advantage of this system was that boys could concentrate early on the areas where they hoped to specialise later. The disadvantage was, of course, that not everyone was at all sure at such a young age of what those future areas might be. It also meant that relatively little teaching was given on some quite important subjects. For example, you did relatively little science if you went into the classical stream. However, in my case, I think the system proved beneficial. I opted for the classical stream because I was interested in languages and had shown that I had a measure of ability in that area. In doing so I was able to begin studying Greek at the age of 12 which was to prove important in what the Lord had for me in the future. At the age of 15, when we were in the fifth form, we all took O-level exams (General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level), after which another choice had to be made. Which sixth form stream to enter? Although successful in all my exams, my best results were in languages, and of all the streams available the choice for me was narrowed down to Lower Sixth Classics where I could take Latin, Greek, and Classical History, or Lower Six Arts where the options were Latin or English Literature, French, and German or Mediaeval History. Not knowing then the future God had planned for me, I opted for the Arts stream and chose Latin, French, and Mediaeval History for my A-level subjects and Spanish as a subsidiary subject for O-level. I thank God that, with his help, I passed all these exams. I was particularly grateful about History. A few months before we were due to sit the exams, my history teacher, Mr. Moulde, said to me, Quite honestly, Petts, I think you're going to fail History. The basic reason for this was that I wasn't doing enough prep because of all the church activities I was engaged in because, among other things, halfway through my A-level course I had felt God calling me to the ministry. But more about that in the next talk. So, in front of the whole class, I replied, The problem is, Sir, that I believe that God has called me to be a minister, and that to gain as much experience as I can, I need to be involved as much as possible in my local church. I believe that if I honour God, and if he wants me to pass History, then he will help me to do so. To which he replied, Well, Petts, I respect your faith, but I can't say that I agree with you. Unless you put in a lot more work, you will certainly fail. I did try to put in more work on History without giving up any of my church activities. When the results came through I was delighted to discover that I had scored 60% (the pass mark being 40). And at the beginning of the next term, as I happened to meet Mr. Moulde in the quad, he said to me with a broad smile, Well, Petts, what do you mean by getting 60? I would never have believed it. Congratulations. Later that term I won a scholarship at Brasenose College, Oxford to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics. But more of that in a later talk. I need now to say more about my Christian faith while I was at Brentwood. This, of course, needs to be understood alongside my experience at Elm Park Baptist Church which will be the subject of our next talk. At school I was to get a taste of a different kind of Christianity, some of which wasn't Christianity at all as I understood it. But this will become clear in a moment. The Chaplain, the Chapel, and Divinity lessons The religious climate in the UK in the 1950s was very different from today. Although church attendance had dropped, probably caused by disillusionment because of the war, there was still a general acceptance of the basic truths of Christianity. This, coupled with the fact that religious teaching at Brentwood was, in the words of the school prospectus, in accordance with that of the Church of England, meant that with the exception of Divinity (RE) lessons, apart from one experience I will mention later, there was rarely anything much that would challenge my Christian faith. Surprisingly the source of that challenge was the Chaplain, the Chapel, and what was taught in Divinity lessons. The Chaplain, the Reverend R. R. Lewis, M.A. was a graduate of Jesus College, Oxford, and an ordained Church of England priest. As such, he was responsible for most of what went on in chapel and taught all the weekly Divinity lessons. From this it was clear, because he openly acknowledged it, that he did not believe in the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, or the resurrection. In fact he denied the possibility of miracles on the grounds that, if God created the laws of the universe, he would not break his own rules! Of course, when I told my father about this, he reminded me of the outstanding miracle experienced by Auntie May which I mentioned at the beginning of this series. On another occasion we were told that God could not foretell the future because, if he could, that would mean that we could not be held responsible for our actions. I know some Christians do struggle with this, but, as I have pointed out elsewhere, if I know that something will happen it does not mean that I am causing it to happen. Having said all that, Mr. Lewis was a nice enough man. I just could not, and still cannot, understand how the Church of England can allow people with such views to hold office in the church. Anglicans often talk about what they consider to be the advantages of the C. of E. being what they call a broad church, but in my view what they claim to be its greatest strength is actually its greatest weakness. Of course, back then I knew nothing of the evangelical wing of the Church of England and tended to assume that Anglicans all held views like those of our school chaplain. It was later at Oxford that I first met godly people who were part of the C. of E. and whose views, apart from the fact that they believed in infant baptism, were much closer to mine. And I praise God for the great things that are happening today in those parts of the church where the Bible is honoured and charismatic gifts are encouraged. But from my, admittedly limited, experience of Anglican worship, it was very different from that in the 1950s. Worship in chapel was very different from what I experienced in our Baptist Church each Sunday. Some differences were relatively unimportant. For example, in chapel we sang Psalms instead of reading them, and we knelt for prayer rather than sitting. But others were more serious. Prayers were never spontaneous, but read from a book, and they were the same prayers week after week! And preachers would be dressed in robes and precede their sermons with, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, something which at times verged on the blasphemous bearing in mind the content of what sometimes followed in the sermon. But none of this seriously challenged my faith, unlike an experience I had in class, once again with our French teacher, M. Jacquotet. I don't remember what I had said, but I do remember his response: Monsieur Petts, you are a silly little fool if you think that, if there is a God, he can possibly be interested in you! At the time, I had no answer. There is an apparent logic to arguments like these, but I knew that there must be an answer. So that evening I told my father what my teacher had said, to which he replied, But that is exactly what we Christians dare to believe. God isn't limited like us. He's so big that he has the capacity to care about every single person and every single thing in the universe. Your teacher clearly doesn't understand this. And I remembered something that we had been told to memorise in our English Literature lessons. It was taken from Matthew 6:26. Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? So my father's advice and the shield of faith, which is the word of God, extinguished yet another of those flaming arrows sent by the evil one (Ephesians 6:16). But my father's Christian influence on my thinking was also very evident in a decision I made with regard to the school Combined Cadet Force. The CCF and pacifism As I mentioned in Talk One, my father was a conscientious objector during the war. As a Christian he took seriously all the teaching of Jesus, and that included the command to Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) and he could not see how he could obey this command by killing them. He had to go before a tribunal and answer searching questions to test if his objections were genuine and, as a result, was exempted from military service and allowed to continue his profession as a schoolteacher. Now at Brentwood it was compulsory for boys in the fourth form and above to be part of the school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF), generally referred to in school as ‘the corps'. This meant that every Thursday boys would dress in Army or Air Force uniform throughout the day and during the last period of the afternoon receive military training on the school playing fields. There was, however, a provision for a boy to register as a Conscientious Objector if he could satisfy the Headmaster that his objections were sincere. And so, following my father's example, at the age of 14, I was interviewed and asked to explain my objections, as a result of which I was allowed to do First Aid training with the Red Cross as part of the non-uniformed branch of the corps. Now I realise that most Christians do not take the same pacifist stance. This is one of those issues where Christians are disagreed, and each person must follow their own conscience in the matter. But for me at the time, arguing for pacificism was in many ways the most vital way I had of expressing my Christian faith. Memories of World War II were still very real and our armed forces were already engaged in conflict in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. Fear of a third world war was very real, and at the time all boys of eighteen were compelled to do National Service involving two years' military training in one of the armed forces. So the issue of whether it is right to take up arms against one's fellow human beings was particularly relevant throughout my school years, and there were frequent discussions about it both at school and at church. Whether I was right or wrong to adopt a pacifist position is for others to decide, but what it did for me and the development of my character was undeniable. I was forced to stand up for what I believed in, despite the teasing and accusations of cowardice that inevitably come to people who refuse to fight. The ability to think independently rather than following the majority view, and the resolve to take seriously the teaching of Jesus and to follow it, were to become the determining factors of my life. So I thank God for my years at Brentwood. They not only provided the foundation for future academic achievements but gave me opportunity to learn how to think for myself and to stand up for what I believe to be right. And, best of all, they were years when I determined to follow Jesus. My faith was both challenged and encouraged, but Brentwood was, of course, by no means the only factor, because throughout my years there I was also a regular attender at Elm Park Baptist Church, which is the subject of the next talk.
Talk 4 Brentwood School (1950-56) Part One As I mentioned in the last talk, life for children and young people from Christian families tends to be pretty much dominated by what goes on at school and at church. It was certainly true for me during my years at primary school and continued to be so when I moved on to Brentwood School. Even my recreational activities, in term time at least, took place either at school or in connection with church. So in this talk and the next I'll be concentrating on my experience at Brentwood School, and I think it will be helpful if I start by talking about: The educational system in England Just like today, children left primary school in the July of the school year in which they became eleven. But the school they moved up to depended on their academic ability, which was assessed by their performance in an examination known as ‘the scholarship' or ‘the eleven plus', a system which still exists in some areas today. Only those who were successful in these exams were accepted into what were usually referred to as ‘High Schools' or ‘Grammar Schools'. (There were no ‘Comprehensive' schools as we know them today). Children who did not pass the eleven plus would normally go to a ‘Secondary Modern' school where there would be little or no opportunity later to progress to academic qualifications like GCEs and A levels. Brentwood, however, came into a different category. It was founded in 1558 as what paradoxically came to be called a public school. Many of the older schools in England come into this category. Well known examples are Eton and Harrow. They were originally called public schools because pupils could attend them regardless of their location, denomination, or family background. However, the term is misleading because, being independent of the state system, they're not actually open to all the public because they charge fees which very few can afford. So how did I come to go to Brentwood? Gaining admission to Brentwood It all started with a recommendation from my headmaster at primary school. I remember feeling a bit nervous as I took the eleven plus exams at primary school. I was under pressure because I was aware that so much depended on it, and because everyone was expecting me to pass because each year I had come top of the class. What I didn't know was that the headmaster, Mr. Occomore, had had his eye on me for some time, and was about to make a recommendation that I think surprised even my parents. Once I had passed the eleven plus, he contacted my father and suggested that, instead of applying to any of the local high schools or grammar schools, I might try to see if I could get into Brentwood School which, he felt, would offer me an even better standard of education. To gain admission I would have to go to Brentwood and sit another exam with a view to winning a Foundation Scholarship. Unfortunately there were only six such scholarships available each year. But, after talking it through with me, my parents encouraged me to try. They were no doubt praying that if Brentwood was the best place for me, God would open the door. And he did. In the week following the exam, Mr Allison, the headmaster at Brentwood, phoned my father and told him that they were prepared to offer me a place, even though I had not come in the first six. I had come seventh! And because Brentwood had accepted me, the Essex Education Committee would cover the cost of the fees. This was because Brentwood was on the Direct Grant List of the Ministry of Education. Without that, my father would never have been able to afford to pay for me to go to Brentwood where I soon found myself mixing with boys some of whose parents were far wealthier than mine. I am so grateful to God that I grew up at a time when education was available to all, regardless of their family's income. First impressions Life at Brentwood was very different from life at primary school. For one thing, it took much longer to get there. My primary school was only a 10-minute walk away from my home, whereas to get to Brentwood I had to walk to Hornchurch station, catch the number 66 bus into the centre of Hornchurch and then wait for the school bus to arrive. There were only two or three boys who got on at Hornchurch, but the bus picked up about 40 more as it passed through Upminster on the way to Brentwood. The journey took another half an hour to get us to school. Unlike primary school, all the boys were in uniform. We wore a maroon-coloured cap and a grey suit accompanied by grey socks, black shoes, and a black tie. The rules on uniform were very strict and rather detailed. For example, in the first year it was compulsory to wear short trousers – something which was not uncommon in those days – whereas in the second year it was permissible to wear long trousers and a white shirt. I suppose, like most kids of today, we really couldn't see the point of these apparently trivial regulations. On arriving at school, we all went straight into Chapel or assembly in the Memorial Hall, depending on which day of the week it was, but more of that next time. Once in class, I was initially surprised by two things. First, the classes were considerably smaller than they had been at primary school where the average class at that time numbered between 40 and 50 pupils. At Brentwood there were only 30. Another surprise was that all the teachers wore gowns. This was a tradition that reflected the fact that they were all university graduates, the majority with MA degrees from Oxford or Cambridge. At 10.45 each morning there was a 15-minute break when we were able to go to the tuck shop, where we could buy a sticky bun for a penny and drink the third of a pint of milk provided free to all children by the government. This break was a welcome relief from the strict discipline in the classroom where the teacher could administer corporal punishment for something as trivial as not being in your seat before the teacher arrived. But that brings us on to the subject of discipline. Discipline I have already mentioned the strict rules about uniform, but there were other minor regulations such as not putting your hands in your pockets, not combing your hair or eating in public. I well remember the occasion during my first week at Brentwood when I was eating an apple on the pavement outside school while I was waiting for the bus. Suddenly, who should appear but the headmaster himself who approached me and said, Are you a new boy? And then he added, Perhaps you don't know that at Brentwood we don't eat in the street. Are you very hungry? To which I replied, Yes, Sir. Well perhaps you could put it away now and save it until you get home. Needless to say, I was very relieved that he had dealt with me so kindly, but I must confess that once I had got upstairs on the bus where the headmaster could not see me, I took the apple out of the bag and ate it. Of course, it was unusual for the head to be dealing with such a trivial thing. Such matters were usually dealt with by praepostors, a word which comes from the Latin meaning placed ahead and which is roughly equivalent to what in most schools was called a prefect. These were boys chosen from the sixth form and were easily distinguished by the fact that they wore a special tie instead of the regulation black one. They had authority to remind boys of the school rules and to impose discipline, like setting essays for offenders to write, or giving them 100 lines, which meant writing out the same sentence 100 times. In class, of course, discipline was maintained by the teachers. Most of them achieved this by keeping their lessons interesting, and, as someone pointed out to me when I started teaching, interest is the best form of discipline. Occasionally, however, this was backed up by putting offenders in detention, which meant doing classwork for two hours all Wednesday afternoon instead of playing cricket or football. This happened to me once, not for breaking any rules, but for not adequately memorising what the teacher had told us to learn for our homework, or ‘prep' as it was called at Brentwood. Another time I avoided detention by agreeing to be caned instead. It happened like this. It was during the French lesson, and I was sitting at the back of the class. I had in my head the tune of a chorus we had been singing at church and, rather stupidly, I started to whistle it very quietly. Of course, the teacher heard it and asked who was whistling. Monsieur Jacquotet was an elderly Frenchman who was bald on top but had white woolly hair at the back and sides. But what made his appearance rather unusual was the fact that he wore pince-nez glasses, something we boys found highly amusing. When he asked who was whistling I immediately put up my hand to confess, which, I think, anyone else in our school would have done. To which Jacko (as we somewhat disrespectfully called him) imposed my sentence: Eh bien, Monsieur Petts, you will go in detention. However, there was one problem. I was opening bat for the house cricket team and there was a match on the next day. So the team captain went to our housemaster, Lt. Col, D.J Jones, and asked him if he could get me off detention. As a result of which, M. Jacquotet agreed, provided that Col. Jones gave me the cane instead. So that afternoon, with a rather sore backside, feeling something of a hero, I went out to bat for the house team. Sadly, I was out first ball, and my heroic suffering proved in vain! Sport One of the things that first excited me about Brentwood was the wonderful facilities on campus – though ‘campus' was not a term that was used in England in those days. The school boasted the largest school playing fields in England, some 60 acres, enough space for the entire school to be out playing football or cricket at the same time. There were also tennis courts, squash courts, a fives court, two well equipped gyms and an open-air swimming pool where, in the Summer Term, we were all taught to swim. Initially there had been one thing that had disappointed me about Brentwood. We had to go to school on Saturdays! This may have been because about 180 of the boys were boarders and the headmaster once remarked that he viewed ‘dayboys' as ‘boarders who go home to sleep'! Something which is clearly a contradiction in terms, and I confess, we dayboys refused to take it seriously when we were told that we should wear school uniform on Sundays! However, I soon got over my disappointment about going to school on Saturdays, as the whole afternoon on Wednesdays and Saturdays was dedicated to sporting activities, which I loved, and anyway our school holidays were longer than those in other schools – eight weeks in the summer, for example, instead of the usual six. I enjoyed playing football and cricket and, later, rugby. I remember playing left wing for my house team and, on one occasion, scoring 7 goals while my friend John Bramble on the right wing scored another 7. This absurd result was probably because the opposing team was from one of the boarding houses which had fewer boys to choose from than the dayboy houses. This may also account for the fact that in one cricket match I took 4 wickets for the loss of only 1 run! I also played full back in our house rugby team which won the cup for three years in succession, probably because Col. Jones our housemaster was a former Welsh international and an excellent coach. And finally, in the sixth form, I played centre half at football in the school second eleven and was hoping to be promoted to the first eleven until I badly sprained my ankle running down the stairs of the school library two at a time and was out of action until I left school at the end of that term. Next time I'll tell you something about the academic programme at Brentwood before sharing how my Christian faith was both tested and encouraged during my time there.
My Story Talk 3 Home, Family, Christmas & Holidays (1947-1953) Welcome to Talk 3 in our series where I'm reflecting on the goodness of God throughout my life. From what I've said so far it's clear that after the war my life in the 1940s was largely comprised of school and church. I suppose that was true of most Christian children in those days and continues to be so today. And what was true of my years at primary school and Sunday school was also true of the years that followed. Most of my activity was to be centred on school and church. But before I move on to those things in the next talk, I need to say more about my family, because without a doubt our family is by far the strongest influence in the formation of our character, our behaviour, and our outlook on life. And life is not just about our education or work or church. It's about relationships, people, recreation, having fun, and healthy enjoyment of the things God has so graciously lavished upon us. So this talk is about my home, my family, Christmas and holidays. Home For the first 23 years of my life I lived with my parents in the home in Hornchurch where I was born. It was a fairly standard three bedroomed semidetached house, but it benefited from a rather large garden which backed onto the railway. We weren't disturbed by the noise of the trains because the garden was some 200 feet – about 60 metres – long, but by walking to the end of the garden and looking down the railway embankment we could watch electric trains on the District Line and the steam locomotives on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. My parents were both keen gardeners and had chosen the house because of the size of the garden. They planted several apple trees, two pear trees, two plum trees, a greengage tree, as well as strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blackcurrants and redcurrants. My grandfather had also planted for me an ash tree at the very end of the garden and, by looking at Google Earth, it looks as though it's still there today. Sadly, the large fishpond which I helped my father build when I was about ten seems to have gone. Family and Friends One of the advantages of having a large garden was that there was a big enough lawn for my father to teach me to play cricket and football. So, although I was an only child, I was never a lonely child. There were always plenty of friends who liked to come and play. I also enjoyed playing board games with my grandad, my mother's father, who lived with us for about five years, and later with my grandmother, my father's mother, who came later to live with us for six years and who died at the age of 86 when I was 16. Having elderly parents living with us for eleven years was not easy for my mother, but she seldom if ever complained, and her example taught me the real meaning of love, a commitment to serving others despite the cost to ourselves. I also got some idea of what it's like to be in your eighties! Family at Christmas I saw relatively little of other family members as my uncles, aunts and ten cousins all lived too far away for frequent visits. But we did see most of them at Christmas and sometimes during the other school holidays. Because, with one exception, all my cousins were older than I was, Christmas was usually spent with my Auntie Addie – Adelaide actually, but I never heard anyone actually call her that! She was a year or two younger than my mother and had two sons, Brian who was a year older than me, and Geoffrey who was born shortly after the war when Uncle Bert returned from years away fighting in Burma (now known as Myanmar). We usually alternated where we would spend Christmas, either at our house in Hornchurch or at their prefab in Woodford Green near Walthamstow. Prefabs were prefabricated bungalows introduced after the war to provide housing that could be erected more quickly than by using the usual methods of construction. Originally they were intended to last for, I think, only ten years, but in practice most of them lasted for decades. One of the exciting things about them was that they were all provided with a fridge with a small freezer compartment, so we could have ice-cream whenever we liked. Fridges were a luxury in those days and it was many years later that we ourselves had one. Eileen and I had our first fridge in 1968, six years after we were married. Brian and I had to share a bed every Christmas and I have vivid memories of waking up in the early hours of the morning to see what Santa had left in our ‘stockings' – which were actually pillowcases, as stockings weren't large enough to accommodate the vast number of presents we each received. I don't remember how old I was when I realised that Santa wasn't real, but it must have been well before I left primary school. I do know that some Christians, quite understandably, believe it's wrong to tell their children something which isn't true, fearing especially that, when they finally understand that the whole Santa thing is a myth, they will conclude the Christmas story found in the Bible is a legend too. That's a view that I understand and fully respect, but I can only say that it was never a problem for me, or, as far as I know, for my children and grandchildren for that matter. If we teach our children that what is in the Bible is true, they will soon discover that Father Christmas is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but is just a nice story that, although it isn't true, gave them a lot of fun when they were too young to understand otherwise. But each of us must follow our own conscience in this matter, as we always must when confronted with issues over which Christians disagree. Christmas dinner, as I remember it, was very similar to what most people have today, with one notable exception. I can't remember when we first had turkey, but for several years our celebratory meal was roast chicken. Unlike today, chicken was then very expensive, and Christmas was the only time we had it. At other times our regular Sunday roast was lamb, which, also unlike today, was the cheapest meat you could get. Our typical weekly menu was roast lamb on Sundays, cold lamb on Mondays, minced lamb in the form of shepherd's pie on Tuesdays, and lamb stew with dumplings on Wednesdays. So chicken at Christmas was a real treat! Apart from eating, we spent most of Christmas Day and Boxing Day playing with the games we had received as presents. These were always very competitive and included subuteo football, a form of cricket you could also play on the table, table tennis, darts, and a bagatelle pin board. We also enjoyed heading a balloon to one another and counting how many times we could keep it up. When we later tried it outside with a football we found it was much harder! Another good thing about staying at Auntie Addie's house was that we were able to visit other family members, as three of my aunts lived quite near to her. There was always quite a crowd in the evenings when we all joined together for a party, when we played traditional party games like musical chairs and pass the parcel. Years later I was to discover that some people's idea of a party was a time when you did little more than sit around and drink too much. This shocked me because our parties had never been like that. My parents were both teetotallers and, although most of the rest of the family were not, they respected their wishes and rarely drank in the presence of children and teenagers. Of course, the consumption of alcohol is another of those matters where Christians disagree, but hopefully all would at least agree that abstinence is the best policy in the presence of those who might become addicted. I personally think of myself as an abstainer, but not a total abstainer. And I'm grateful that, because of the example set by my family, I have always been cautious in these matters and am happy to say that I have never been drunk, something which even some Christians find hard to believe. Family and Holidays But Christmas was not the only time when I met other family members. There were the summer holidays too. Hotels were too expensive, and we usually spent a couple of weeks away from home staying with family. During my primary school years we went several times to Cowes on the Isle of Wight where my father's sister, Auntie Lil, had a flat overlooking the sea. Her husband, Uncle Ernie, was a lighthouse keeper on the Needles, an impressive rock formation just offshore at the western end of the island. His job required him to live on the lighthouse for several weeks at a time, so sometimes we never saw him at all during the weeks we were on holiday with Auntie Lil. But when he was able to be with us, I remember that he was very generous. We usually had to travel everywhere by bus, but on one occasion he paid for a taxi to take us on a tour of the whole island. Another time, when I was eight, he paid for my father and me to go on a ‘joy-ride', a five minute trip on an aeroplane, an Auster light aircraft with just enough room for Dad and me to sit behind the pilot. I realise that this might not sound very exciting to young people today. Plane travel is so common, and many families take flights abroad for their holidays. But in those days it really was something exceptional. No one in my class at school had ever been in a plane, and my teacher got me to tell them all what it was like. We had only gone up to 1000 feet, but the experience of flying was exhilarating as we looked down on houses that now looked no bigger than a matchbox and were able to see so far into the distance, across to the southern coast of England and beyond. I'm so grateful to Uncle Ernie for making that experience possible for me. (It cost him seven shillings and sixpence which was a lot of money in those days, but which in today's decimal currency equates to 37.5p). Due to his kindness and Auntie Lil's hospitality we always enjoyed our holidays on the Isle of Wight. Another favourite holiday destination, particularly during my early teens, was Canterbury where my mother's sister, another Auntie Lil, lived with her husband Will and her daughter Doreen who was an English teacher in a Grammar School. I remember listening to her discussions with my dad about the nature of language, something I was particularly interested in because by then I was already studying French, Latin, and Greek at school. But more of that later. While in Canterbury we enjoyed visiting its wonderful cathedral and other places of historical interest like the Westgate Tower and the ducking stool where in less enlightened centuries women who scolded their husbands were ducked in the river to teach them a lesson! We also took advantage of the beautiful countryside around Canterbury and particularly enjoyed walking across the golf course which immediately overlooked my aunt's back garden. Other days were spent taking bus trips to the coastal resorts that lay within easy reach of Canterbury – places like Herne Bay, Margate, and Ramsgate, all lovely places, but nothing of course to compare with the beauty of Devon where I now live! My first holiday in Devon was when I was fifteen – but that's something I'll come back to next time when I talk about my teenage years at church and my life at Brentwood School where I was privileged by God's grace to receive a first-class education. But finally, I'm conscious that in this talk I've made little mention of God, but I'm reminded that in the book of Esther God isn't mentioned either, yet it's very clear as we read it that he was at work in every detail of the story. So it is with us. His purpose for each of us is different, but he is at work in the ordinary everyday things in our lives, not just in any miracles he may perform for us. So I thank God for the home I grew up in, the family I was part of, and the fun we had together at Christmas and on holiday. These things, I believe, played an important part in my childhood and teenage years enabling me to grow into adulthood, confident to face the future, knowing that God loved me and had a purpose for my life.
Talk 2 School, Sunday School, & Salvation Welcome to Talk 2 in our new series where I'm reflecting on my how the Lord has blessed my life. Today I'll be talking about my time at Primary School, at Sunday School, and how I learnt at the age of eight how to be saved. Suttons Lane County Primary School My first school was situated on Suttons Lane, quite close to Hornchurch aerodrome. On the edge of town, to the south it had open views of the fairly flat countryside on the northern side of the River Thames. It was less than a ten-minute walk from my house. From an early age I was able to walk to school unattended as there were no roads to cross thanks to ‘the cinder track', a footpath that ran along the edge of what we called ‘the farmer's field' where we would see horses pulling a plough to prepare the soil for the potatoes that were grown there. Every day at school began with the teacher marking the register followed by assembly in the school hall where we sang a hymn, said the Lord's Prayer together, and listened to any announcements the headmaster had to give us. I don't know how many of our teachers were practising Christians, but the emphasis in assembly was distinctly Christian, as was the teaching in the weekly Scripture – later to be called Religious Education – lessons we had in class. In those days it was a legal requirement for all schools to include Scripture on the curriculum and for each day to begin with an act of Christian worship. So the Christian teaching I received at home and at Sunday School was reinforced by what went on at school. The truth of the Christian message was still widely assumed, even if church attendance had greatly diminished as a result of the war. How different things are today! I can see with hindsight that, although I didn't realise it at the time, one of the reasons I enjoyed school was that there was no conflict between what I was taught at home and what I was taught at school. And, of course, I enjoyed it too because, unlike some schools today that have misguidedly sold off their playing fields for commercial purposes, our school shared a playing field with the adjacent secondary school, where we played cricket and football, both of which were probably my favourite activities. I played for the school team at both cricket and football, the love of which I inherited from my father who on Saturdays was an active player in both. I loved going to watch him play for the Elm Park Football Club and the Cranham Cricket Club. He once told me he thought that the boys in the secondary school where he taught paid more attention to his Scripture lessons because he also taught them to play football. He was a qualified F.A. Coach, and, incidentally, also told me that one of the boys he had coached played in the England team that won the World Cup in 1966. I still have a box full of medals he won for cricket, football, snooker, and tennis. He was seven times the champion of the Elm Park Lawn Tennis Club. But I think I also enjoyed school because I was good at my lessons. As I've already mentioned, I started school at the age of 4 in September 1943. Educationally I had the distinct advantage that my father was a teacher and had taught me to read and write before I went to school, and so by the time I was 7 my parents were told that I had a reading age of 12. In saying this I hope I don't give the impression that I'm boasting. I learnt long ago that true humility is not a matter of pretending that you don't really have any talents or gifts, but acknowledging that what you do have comes from God, and that all the credit is his and not ours. If I have a good brain, it is God who gave me that brain, and I have no right to boast about my academic achievements. But that does not mean that I may not mention them! As God said to Jeremiah: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:5). Before we were born, God had a purpose for each one of us, and he created us with the abilities we would need to fulfil that purpose. It's our decision as to whether we fulfil that purpose or not. So I thank God for the good brain he gave me and for parents who encouraged me to use it. And if I tell you that every year I attended that school I came top of the class, you'll understand that my reason for doing so is to show how, without my realising it, he was guiding me onto a pathway where academic achievement would be an essential part of the work that he had planned for me to do. Sunday School and Church But school was not the only place I was learning. Probably the most influential source in my education was what my parents taught me at home. But more of that in a moment. I was also learning at Sunday School and at other church related activities like Lifeboys (the name then given to the junior section of the Boys' Brigade). My first reaction to Sunday School was that I didn't like it! I was only 4 and I'm grateful to my parents that when I told them so they did not force me to go. A little later they suggested very gently that I might like to try it again, and this time I enjoyed it. Because of the wisdom they showed in this matter, I always knew that attendance at Sunday School or Church was to be my decision. No one could ever say that I only went because my parents made me go. And so I went of my own free will, and year after year was given a book as a prize for good attendance. The annual Sunday School Prize Giving Sunday was a big event, and many of the parents who were not church-goers came to see their children receive their prizes. Sunday School, which in most churches took place in the afternoon, was a big thing in the 1940s and 1950s. Even parents who did not come to church wanted their children to be taught about the Bible – or they were just glad to get a break from the kids on a Sunday afternoon! We were told that our church had the largest Sunday School in Essex with up to 400 children attending each Sunday. My mother was a Sunday School teacher and my father taught the teenage Bible Class, but more of that in the next talk. Unlike most of the children who attended Sunday School, I also attended church. I think my first experience of church was travelling on a Sunday evening up to London to attend the church where my parents had attended before the war. We travelled on the London Underground railway on the District Line between Elm Park and Bromley stations, and I took an instant dislike to London because at that time much of that area was damaged, dirty, and quite smelly. The Tab which formerly, I was told, had up to a thousand in its congregation, had been bombed in the war and, as far as I know was never rebuilt. Many of the people's houses had been destroyed and, rather like my parents, they had moved away from the East End of London. Consequently the meetings I went to as a young child with my parents were attended by at most a few dozen people and took place in the upstairs room of a pub, which I seem to remember was called The Five Bells. The meetings weren't really suitable for children, and I didn't really enjoy the fuss that all the adults made of me. One thing I did like was the minister, Mr Tildsley, referring to me as King David and perhaps that sparked in my young heart a desire to copy my namesake and achieve great victories for God. Fortunately, as far as I was concerned, my parents soon decided that it was time to settle into a church that was nearer to where they were now living, so we started attending Elm Park Baptist which was a relatively new church as most of the houses in the area, like ours, had only been constructed in the mid to late 1930s. It was a warm friendly church with lots of activities for children and young people and, although I couldn't understand all that the minister said in his sermons on Sunday evenings, it's clear, looking back on it, that it was all influencing my mind in the right direction, leading me ultimately in my teens to give my life to Jesus. But that's a subject for our next talk. However, before we get there, it's important that I tell you how, at the age of 8, I came to understand how to be sure I would go the Heaven when I die. The way of salvation I remember how, at the age of 8, I was sitting on my father's knee when I asked him, Daddy, how good do you have to be to go to Heaven? I think the question was on my mind because of something that was called David's Good Boy Chart. This was a chart my father had made rather like a calendar with a space for each day for him to stick on it a coloured sun or moon or star, depending on how my behaviour had been that day. I think he had made it because my mother had been having some problems with me during the day while he was at work. When he got home, my mother would tell him how I had behaved that day and an appropriate sticker would be applied to the chart. If I'd been good, it would be a sun, not so good, a moon, and so on. I think I must have been wondering how many suns I would need if I wanted to go to Heaven! My father explained that it isn't a question of how good we are, because none of us is good enough to go to heaven. That's why Jesus came to die on the cross to take the punishment for our sins so that all who believe in him will have everlasting life. Then he asked, Do you believe that, David? I replied, Yes, of course I do. And why do you believe it? asked my father. Because you have told me, I said. That's a good reason, he said, but one day you will come to believe it for yourself. That's the first time I can remember that I was consciously aware of the truth of the gospel. I suppose that, like many who have been brought up in a Christian home, I can't put a date on when I first believed. It feels as though I have always believed. I cannot remember a time when I did not believe. I used to be concerned about this, especially when so many Christians can remember a specific date. But then I heard an illustration that was very helpful. I never forgot, and will never forget, the date when Eileen and I married. But even if one year I had forgotten it, I would never have forgotten that I was married and who I was married to! The point of the illustration is this. The date that my married relationship with Eileen started was relatively unimportant compared with our relationship throughout our married lives. The same applies to our relationship with Jesus. What matters is not when our relationship started, but whether I am in relationship with him now. Am I trusting him now for the forgiveness of my sins and my home in heaven? And if I am, then the exact date it all started is relatively unimportant. So I cannot remember an exact date when I first believed but I can remember the day when I decided to give my life to Christ. And again, it was through my father that I came to that decision. But we'll come to that in a later talk.
My Story Talk 1 Family Background and World War 2 Introduction Welcome back to Great Bible Truths with me, Dr David Petts. As this podcast will go out live in early January let me take this opportunity to wish you God's richest blessings for the coming year. Let me also apologise that my website was down for several weeks, but the good news is that it's now up and running again. Now, as I mentioned in my last talk at the end of our series on Mark's Gospel, this year, God willing, I'm planning both to write and record my memoirs in order to place on record God's goodness throughout my life, from the moment of conception in my mother's womb, right through to this present time. I also hope that the things I record may be of some historical and sociological interest, particular to younger people. What's more, I'm convinced that, if he can bless me, he can bless you too, and my purpose in doing this is to encourage your faith, if you are already a Christian, and, if you're not, to persuade you that, if you put your trust in Christ as your personal Saviour, you will discover how trustworthy and faithful he is. Some of God's miraculous interventions in my life have already been recorded in some of my books, notably in Signs from Heaven – why I Believe and The Voice of God – how he speaks to us today. But there's still so much more to tell, and friends and family have been encouraging me that now is the time to get on and do it. And, even more importantly, I feel that God himself is prompting me to do so. Now you may be wondering why I am including talks about my personal experience under the general heading of Great Bible Truths. That's an understandable question, but the answer is simply that as Christians our lives are meant to illustrate and demonstrate how the truth of God's Word works out in practice. In 2 Corinthians 3:2 Paul talks about the Corinthians themselves as a letter… known and read by everyone. And, although in the context Paul is talking about his readers as the living proof of his apostolic ministry, there seems to be here an underlying principle that our lives are, or at least should be, living testimonies to the truth we believe. And finally, by way of introduction, I need to say that I am very well aware that, again in the words of the apostle Paul, By the grace of God, I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:10). Whatever we are, whatever we have done, whatever gifts and talents we may have, it's all by the grace of God. And all the glory must always go to him. But now to my story. My parents My story, of course, begins with my parents. Stanley and Ivy Petts (née Claus) were both born in Poplar, East London, in September 1907. Their home backgrounds were very different. Mum's childhood was very difficult, her father often coming home drunk. Her mother died before I was born. She left six children, two boys, Harry and Bill, and four girls, Minnie, Lily, Ivy, and Addie. As far as I know, only Minnie and my mum, Ivy, ever became Christians. On the other hand, my dad's family were all Christians attending the Poplar and Bromley Baptist Tabernacle, affectionately known as The Tab, and it was there that my dad met my mum. Dad had three sisters, Lily, Violet, and May. May was born deaf and dumb – that's how it's recorded on the national register – but, as I've already recorded in my book Signs from Heaven, was miraculously healed in answer to prayer . When she was in her twenties, my grandmother took her to a divine healing meeting conducted by the evangelist, George Jeffreys , who placed his hands on her and prayed for her. That evening, as they were travelling home to Poplar in the East End of London, they went down to catch the underground train. Suddenly, with a shocked expression on her face, May put both hands over her ears. She could hear the roar of the train as it came through the tunnel approaching the platform! Until that moment, from the day she was born she had never been able to hear, but now she could hear, and within a few weeks was beginning to speak. I suppose that's why I've never doubted God's miracle working power and firmly believe that we should expect to see miracles today. Mum and Dad were married on August 4th 1934 and lived with his parents until they were able to afford a home of their own. During the time they were there, my mother sadly had a miscarriage and, as my father told me years later, the doctor had expressed the opinion that she might be unable to have children. But they prayed that, in my mother's words, the Lord would give her a son, and that he would go into all the world and preach the gospel. But I knew nothing of all this until I was sixteen when I told my parents that I believed that God was calling me to serve him as a minister. In 1937 Mum and Dad moved into their own home, a new-build semi-detached house in Hornchurch, which, with the help of a mortgage, they were able to purchase for the princely sum of – wait for it – £630 (six hundred and thirty pounds)! Prices for similar properties in the same area today are closer to £630,000! I was born in the front bedroom of that house on January 12th 1939, and my late wife Eileen was born 6 days earlier in Stockport, Cheshire. That was just eight months before Britain declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. Of course, I was too young to remember very much of the early years of the war, but I was already 6 years old when the war ended and have just a few memories of what life was like at the time. Earliest Memories During the first part of the war, between 1939 and 1941, because Hornchurch was an area that was likely to be bombed, my mother and I were evacuated to a village called Marcham (near to Abingdon). We stayed in a vicarage with the vicar and his wife (Rev and Mrs Palmer). I have no clear memories of that time, although I do remember the vicarage, from when we went back to visit them after the war. My father wasn't with us for much of the time because, although he was not in the armed forces as he was a conscientious objector, he was sent as a schoolteacher to what was called an Approved School (which was where they used to send juvenile delinquents). It was a residential establishment near Woking in Surrey and my dad had to live there much of the time, so we didn't see much of him as it was some distance from where we were in Marcham, and in those days very few people had cars. In 1941 my father was transferred to a different Approved School. This was nearer to Hornchurch and so my mother and I left Marcham and returned home to be nearer to my father. However, our house was less than half a mile from Hornchurch aerodrome, which played a very important part in the Battle of Britain. So there was still a very real danger of being bombed by enemy aircraft. My main memories of those early years were having to take refuge in an air-raid shelter whenever the siren sounded. (The siren gave a very loud signal when enemy aircraft were approaching and a different signal called the ‘all-clear' when the danger was over). There were two kinds of shelter, the Morrison shelter and the Anderson shelter. We had a Morrison shelter which was like a very strong table, made of steel, which you had indoors. I can remember having to go underneath it at night when the siren sounded – we slept on the floor underneath it. I can also remember banging my head on it as I was getting out from underneath it! All the houses had to have ‘blackouts' to cover the windows at night so that enemy aircraft would not see the light in the house. I remember my mum peeping out from behind the blackout during one of the raids and telling me that she could see a Spitfire chasing off a German plane. I can't remember ever feeling afraid. Perhaps it was because I was too young to understand the danger, but also because of my mum's confidence that God would keep us safe. Other people had Anderson shelters. These were in the garden, dug into the ground, and made of corrugated iron – rather like some of the things pig farmers use to shelter their pigs today. The infant school I went to from the age of four in September 1943 had a large version of one of these which was big enough for all the children to get into if there was a raid during school-time. I can only remember going into it once but can't remember much more about it. Quite recently, however, I discovered that an enemy aircraft had crashed into the secondary school which was only about 100 yards from my infant school, and I have wondered if this had coincided with the time we were all in the air raid shelter. Of course, I have no way of knowing this, but I am so grateful that our lives were spared throughout that awful time when so many others lost theirs. When the war ended, all over the country people held parties in the street to celebrate. (There were not many cars around in those days!) I remember we had a big bonfire in the middle of the road – something which I imagine would not be allowed today – and the concrete was broken up where the bonfire had been. My final memory of the war and the years that followed it is what was called ‘rationing'. Because there was a great shortage of food and clothing during that time people were given ration books with coupons in. To buy something (including sweets!) you needed not only money, but coupons. I remember my mum being pleased with me because I had bigger feet than most of the children. It meant she was allowed extra clothing coupons! The rationing went on for some time after the war and I well remember the first time we were allowed to buy as many sweets as we liked because there was no more rationing! But now it's time to finish for today, so let's summarise by asking what Bible truths have been illustrated by the experiences I have been talking about. The first of these truths is that God answers believing prayer. Despite what she had been told, my mother prayed for a son, and God answered her prayer. Secondly, nothing is impossible with God. There was no medical cure for my aunt's condition, but God worked a miracle in response to the evangelist's prayer. This shows us, thirdly, that God still grants supernatural gifts like healing as signs confirming the truth of the gospel. We also see that God has a purpose for our lives and that he is able to protect us from danger in order to fulfil it. Next time I'll be talking about the years after the war, my time at primary school, and my first experience of Sunday school and going to church.
Talk 48 Mark 16:1-20 The Resurrection and Great Commission Welcome to Talk 48 in our series on Mark's Gospel. This will be the final talk in the series, and we'll be looking at Chapter 16 which is Mark's account of Jesus' resurrection and his final instructions to his disciples which are often referred to as The Great Commission. We'll work through the chapter a verse or two at a time, and will begin by reading verses 1-4. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. Verses 1-2 In our last talk we commented on the devotion of these and many other women who had faithfully followed Jesus right from the beginning of his ministry in Galilee. Now we see them buying spices to anoint Jesus' body. What they did not know was that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already done so when they buried him in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:40), and that by the time they were to reach the tomb Jesus would have already risen. But of course, like the rest of the disciples, they were not expecting him to rise despite all that Jesus had told them. If they had been, they would have known that to anoint his body would be completely unnecessary! Verse 3 The stone which Joseph put in place would have been in a sloping groove down which he had rolled the stone to cover the entrance to the tomb. The two Marys had seen him do this (15:47) and now, on the way to the tomb, realised that unaided they would be unable to move it back. Why hadn't they thought of this before? When we are grieving we don't always think as clearly as usual and now the women are anticipating a problem which, as they were soon to discover, would not be a problem at all! The Lord had already dealt with it! Verse 4 Have you ever set out to do something for the Lord which you felt sure he wanted you to do, and then discovered that you'd got it wrong? Or perhaps, as you've set out to do it, doubts have come into your mind, unforeseen potential problems have occurred to you, and you've wondered how you could possibly achieve your goal. That's certainly been my experience, and that exactly what was happening with these women. Their motivation was pure. What they were doing they were doing out of love for the Lord. But their mistake – if it was a mistake – was that, like the rest of the disciples, they didn't remember or didn't believe what Jesus had said. Was the Lord displeased with their actions? Surely not. As we see in the next few verses, they were given the great privilege of announcing the news of the resurrection to the other disciples. Even when we get things wrong, the Lord still has work for us to do. Now let's read verses 5-8: 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'" 8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. I want you to notice the extreme emotions experienced by the women in these verses. This is completely understandable. They were grieving – over the terrible suffering they had so recently seen inflicted on someone they so dearly loved – over the fact, or what they thought was a fact, that all their hopes for the future had been dashed – over the loss of a loved one. As we have seen, they are not thinking clearly. They are wondering who can have moved the stone. They enter the tomb and are confronted by an angel! No wonder they're alarmed, trembling and bewildered. But grieving can bring with it other emotions too, as I have recently discovered in my own experience. I've found that we can weep tears of sorrow and, paradoxically, tears of joy too. And I've experienced both at the same time! And there's a hint in verse 8 that that is what these women were experiencing too. The word translated bewildered in the Greek is ekstasis. It can also mean astonishment or amazement. But interestingly, in Matthew's account he uses a different word, chara, which means joy! And where does this joy come from? It comes from the news the angel brings them – Jesus is not here. He has risen! What a consolation that was to become! And it's our consolation too. Because he lives, we shall live also. And our loved ones who die in the Lord are not here. They are with Christ, which is far better. And the day will come when we will see them again, as these devoted women soon were to see Jesus. Perhaps it's this strange mixture of emotions that can account for the fact that, despite the good news, the women fled from the tomb and said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. This was presumably just their initial reaction, because verse 9 tells us Mary Magdalene, at least, went and told the good news to the other disciples. And according to the angel's instructions, that was to include Peter. If, as is widely believed, Mark derived his information from Peter, it's perhaps significant that Peter gets a special mention here. It was Peter who had denied the Lord and who in John 21 is graciously given the opportunity to reaffirm his love for Jesus. Even when we fail him, the Lord is constantly seeking to draw us back to himself. But that, according to the earliest manuscripts is where Mark's Gospel abruptly ends. Verses 9-20 are viewed by some scholars as a later addition. But these verses have for a long time formed part of Scripture as we know it and, as we shall see, the basic truth contained in them is confirmed elsewhere in the New Testament. So now, verses 9-11. 9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. The fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene is confirmed in all four Gospels, although as usual the other Gospels give more details than we find in Mark. Although initially afraid to say anything (v8), possibly due to emotional trauma, she has now gained the courage to do so. And if we read John's account the reason is clear. She has seen the Lord. He has spoken to her. He has called her by name. The encounter with Jesus makes all the difference. She goes and tells the other disciples that she has seen him. Bearing in mind the repeated lack of faith exhibited by the disciples throughout Jesus' ministry, we're not surprised that at first they did not believe her. This unbelief is stressed again in verses 12-14: 12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. 14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. Of course, verses 12-13 are a very brief summary of Luke 24:13-35 where Jesus appears to the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus, and where Jesus appearing to the Eleven follows immediately afterwards. We sometimes blame Thomas because he refused to believe until he saw for himself (John 20:24-28), but it seems that the other disciples were no less guilty, and Jesus' words to Thomas were applicable to them all – Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. And the importance of believing is stressed in the following verses where faith is the essential prerequisite for salvation and for seeing miracles performed in Jesus' name. Verses 15-18 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Now that Jesus has died and risen again, the work he had come to do has been accomplished. The Lamb of God has been slain to take away the sins of the world. He has borne the punishment that our sins deserved, and forgiveness and salvation are available to all who will believe. That's good news indeed and all the world needs to hear it. The disciples, and all disciples after them, are to go and spread the message to all creation. But why creation? Because, as Paul teaches us in Romans 8:21-22, all creation was affected by Adam's sin and all creation has been groaning right up to this present time and is waiting to be liberated from its bondage to decay. For that we must wait until Jesus returns, when the entire creation will see the manifestation of the victory he accomplished at Calvary. Forgiveness of sin and eternal life are available right now to all who will believe, but the final outworking of Christ's victory at Calvary, the abolition of sickness and death, the redemption of our bodies, the new heavens and the new earth, are all future blessings for which we must patiently wait. But even now God grants us foretastes of those blessings through the miracle-working power of the Spirit. Most of the miracles Jesus promises in these verses are seen again and again in the Book of Acts. The Spirit-filled disciples drive out demons, speak languages they have never learnt, and heal the sick in Jesus' name. Paul was even delivered from snakebite. The only miracle listed here that is not mentioned in Acts is drinking deadly poison. And these miracle signs were not just for the early church. William Burton records in his book Signs Following examples of all these miracles taking place in the early days of the Congo Evangelistic Mission. But that does not mean that the Lord Jesus intended us to claim these signs as promises. What he is saying is that these are the kind of miracles we can expect when we go out to proclaim the good news. Spiritual gifts are distributed as the Holy Spirit determines (1 Corinthians 12:11). Our responsibility is to tell others about Jesus and to trust the Holy Spirit to confirm what we say with whatever kind of sign he chooses. Verses 19-20 19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. In Mark's Gospel verses 15-20 are the last recorded words of Jesus before he returned to Heaven. Luke's Gospel and the first chapter of Acts (which gives a little more detail about Jesus' ascension into Heaven) records his last words as telling his disciples to wait until they are baptised in the Spirit and that they would receive power when the Spirit came upon them and be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. There is, of course no contradiction here. The power of the Spirit was, and still is, essential if miracles are to happen in Jesus' name. The message that Jesus is alive is confirmed by the fact that he is still working miracles today. He is still seated at God's right hand. All authority is his on earth as it is in Heaven. It's with that authority that, in the words of Matthew's Gospel, we go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He will work with us, if we will only go and tell. As I have already said, this is the final talk in our series on Mark. In January, God willing, I will begin a new series which will take the form of personal testimonies to God's goodness to me throughout my life. Meanwhile, some 300 podcasts of my teaching remain available.
Talk 47 Mark 15:40-47 The Burial of Jesus Welcome to Talk 47 in our series on Mark's Gospel. We have now reached Mark 15:40. Today we'll be concentrating on Jesus' burial and, as we do so, we'll take time to note the importance of the certification of his death and of the key roles played by Joseph of Arimathea and women like Mary Magdalene. Next time, which will be our final talk in this series, we'll be looking at Mark's account of the resurrection and the Great Commission. As we proceed we will take time to stress the importance of each of these historical facts without getting involved with relatively minor issues like the apparent differences in the Gospel accounts, or whether, as some have argued, Jesus was actually crucified on the Thursday, rather than, as is traditionally taught, on what we know as Good Friday. Such discussion is generally unproductive. As far as any differences in the accounts are concerned, I have already pointed out in my book, You'd Better Believe It, that the Schofield Bible offers an explanation of how the different accounts of Christ's resurrection appearances can be reconciled. What's more, any such differences actually strengthen the case for the resurrection as they suggest that there was no collaboration between the four writers. And does it really matter what day he was crucified? Surely what matters is that Christ died for our sins… was buried… and rose again. This, says Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, is the essence of the gospel. So, over these two final talks, we'll take the text of Mark's Gospel as we have it and consider Jesus' burial, the confirmation of his death, his resurrection, and his last instructions to his disciples. We'll begin today by reading verses 42-47: 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. We'll start with the confirmation of Jesus' death. Joseph goes to Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus, but Pilate needs to be sure that Jesus is already dead. Some victims of crucifixion had been known to survive for days. He summons the centurion who crucified Jesus, who assures him that Jesus really is dead. So Pilate gives the body to Joseph. Why is this important? Why has Mark chosen to include this detail about the certification of Jesus' death? Because the entire truth of the resurrection rests upon it. There have always been those who, refusing to believe the clear evidence of the Gospel writers, have argued that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross but recovered in the tomb and walked out! And if Jesus did not die, the resurrection is a myth! There is no truth in the gospel that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried and that he rose again (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The certainty of the resurrection rests securely on the certainty of his death. And his burial is important too. This not only gives added confirmation to the fact that Jesus was truly dead, but it also helps us in our understanding of the significance of baptism. In Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 Paul teaches us that in baptism we are buried with Christ and raised with him to live a new life through our faith in the power of God. Of course, the word for baptise in Greek is baptizo which always means immerse, and all baptisms in the New Testament were by immersion. But how does this relate to Jesus' burial? Let me put it like this: When we first put our faith in Jesus we acknowledged that on the cross he died in our place, to take the punishment for our sins. In so doing we identified ourselves with his death. That's why Paul could say in Galatians 2:20, I was crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. When you gave your life to Christ, you became a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). The old you died and a new you came alive. Baptism is a wonderful picture of that truth. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. In baptism you act out your identification with him as you are buried in the water and come up out of it to live out the new life he has already given you. (See my book, You'd Better Believe It, for more on this). But let's look now at the man who buried the Lord Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea. Let's read again verses 42-43. 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. And verses 46-47 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. First, please note the urgency of the situation. As I'm sure you know, the Jewish Sabbath lasted from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. That's why it was important for Jesus to be buried very soon after he died. Apart from the fact that it was against the Law for a dead body to remain exposed overnight, for the Jews all forms of work were prohibited on the Sabbath. So if Jesus' followers didn't bury him before sunset the Romans would have disposed of his body as they were not subject to the laws of the Sabbath. And, as verse 42 tells us, evening was already approaching when Joseph went to Pilate to ask for Jesus' body. Joseph was a well-respected member of the Sanhedrin, most of whom, as we know, were bitterly opposed to Jesus, but Joseph was an exception. When Mark says that he was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, he is implying that Joseph was a follower of Jesus, albeit until now, secretly. He had been present at Jesus' trial before the high priest, but we're told in Luke 23:51 that he had not consented to their decision and action. Clearly Joseph had now decided to let his respect for Jesus be known publicly. What he was about to do could hardly be kept a secret. By coming in contact with a dead body he would make himself ritually unclean and would not be able to attend the synagogue the following day. His absence would be noticed. What's more, it was a risky thing to show sympathy with anyone who had been crucified, especially on a charge of sedition. He was in danger not only of incurring the wrath of the Jewish authorities, but of the Romans too. No doubt that's why Mark says that Joseph went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Verse 46 tells us that, after Pilate had authorised Joseph to have the body Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Matthew 27:60 explains that this tomb was one which Joseph had had carved for himself, and, to complete the picture, John 19:39 tells us that he was accompanied by Nicodemus, the member of the Sanhedrin who had come to Jesus by night in John 3. Perhaps he too had decided that it was high time to make his secret discipleship public. The message of Christ crucified demands a decision of us all. In the light of his death, are we prepared to stand up for him? But Joseph and Nicodemus were not the only ones to play a significant part in the burial of Jesus. Verse 47 tells us that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. It's time for us now to consider the important role of such women in the life of Jesus, and now at his death. We'll start by going back to verses 40 and 41. 40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. In many ways these verses should have been included at the end of our last talk, as they are part of the story of the crucifixion, but I have left them until now to link them with the references to these women a little later in the story. We have been told so much about Jesus' male disciples that it's easy to forget that he had female disciples too. Three women are named in these verses, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome. But Mark tells us that many other women were also there watching the crucifixion from a distance. They had followed him since the early days of his ministry in Galilee and had cared for his needs. And, as we see in the last verse of the chapter and the first of the next, these devoted disciples were determined to care for his needs even after his death. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 15:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. The three women named in these verses were among many who were not only devoted followers of Jesus, but who also supported Jesus and the apostles out of their own means. Luke 8:1-3 tells us that as Jesus travelled about proclaiming the good news of the kingdom… …The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. These verses indicate the highly valued role of women among the early disciples, their devotion to Jesus often exceeding that of the men, as it does so often today. Apart from the apostle John, it was women, not men, who stood near the cross as Jesus was crucified (John 19:25-27), and, apart from secret disciples like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, it was women who participated in his burial and brought precious spices to anoint his body. And, as we see in the next chapter, it was to women that was given the first good news that Christ was risen. We'll move into Chapter 16 next time for the final talk in our series, but let's conclude today's talk by considering the role of Mary Magdalene. Perhaps the first thing to notice is that it is Mary Magdalene who is mentioned first each time these women are mentioned: 40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 15:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Secondly, Mary was the first person to witness the resurrection of Jesus: 15:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. Thirdly, she was the first person to proclaim the news that Jesus was risen: 15:10 She went and told those who had been with him. The question naturally arises as to why Mary was so honoured. That verse in 1 Samuel 2:30 comes to mind – Those who honour me, I will honour. Mary had honoured the Lord by supporting him throughout his ministry, by remaining to the end at the scene of the crucifixion, by following Joseph to see where Jesus was buried, and by buying spices to anoint his body. She was clearly devoted to him. And that devotion sprang from what Jesus had done for her. He had driven seven demons out of her. Her deliverance led to a lifetime of devotion. And isn't that what motivates us? We love him because he first loved us. And if we honour him, the day will come when he will honour us.
Talk 46 Mark 15:16-39 The Crucifixion Welcome to Talk 46 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Before we begin, I want to apologise to those of you who have been trying to visit my website. We've been facing some technical difficulties which have yet to be resolved and this has resulted in some delay in the production of these podcasts. However, as you must have discovered if you are now listening to this podcast, all my podcasts are accessible from the usual podcast providers. If in doubt, please google Great Bible Truths with Dr David Petts. But sincere apologies for any inconvenience you may have experienced so far. But now, for today's talk. Last time we considered Mark 15:1-15 where Jesus is tried before Pontius Pilate. We noted: 1. The continued determination of the Jewish leaders to have Jesus crucified 2. The total commitment of Jesus to the way of the cross 3. The complete moral failure of Pilate to do what was right. And we saw that at the end of that passage Pilate has Jesus flogged and hands him over to be crucified. Today we pick up, the story in verses 16-20: 16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spat on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. Jesus had said yes when Pilate asked him, Are you the king of the Jews? (v2). Of course, the soldiers would have thought that this was an absurd claim, and so they decided that, before they led him away to be crucified, they'd have some fun at his expense. So they put a purple robe on him. They put a crown of thorns on his head and called out, Hail, king of the Jews!" They fell on their knees and paid mock homage to him. Then, when their fun was over, they led him away to be crucified. But, as we shall see later, the soldiers weren't the only ones to mock him. But first, verses 21-26: 21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. 25 It was the third hour when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. Simon, the man who was forced to carry Jesus' cross, was from Cyrene in Libya, north Africa. It's possible he had come on pilgrimage for the Passover festival and was staying in the countryside just outside Jerusalem. It's equally likely that, although he had originally come from Cyrene, he was now permanently living near Jerusalem, as Acts 6:9 seems to indicate that there was in Jerusalem a so-called Synagogue of Freedmen some of whom were men from Cyrene. The fact is, we simply do not know. Neither do we know who his sons, Alexander and Rufus were, although it's possible that Rufus is referred to in Romans 16. The fact that Mark refers to them both by name does seem to suggest that they were known to the early Christian community for whom Mark was writing. We can't help wondering whether they had become Christians as a result of their father's unexpected encounter with Jesus. What we do know is that Simon was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. It was one of those occasions when something totally unexpected occurs in our lives. At first sight it might seem like sheer coincidence. He just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or was it the right place at the right time? The Saviour of the world is on his way to be crucified. It's the most important event in history. Is God in Heaven going to allow anything to happen by accident? Surely not. And if not, there was a divine purpose in Simon's encounter with Jesus. He follows Jesus, carrying his cross all the way to Calvary. It's hard to imagine that he did not remain to witness the events of the crucifixion and, having done so, to continue to follow him for the rest of his life. We're reminded that we're all called to take up our cross and follow Jesus. But let's pause for a moment and think about unexpected things that may happen in our lives or the lives of people we know who are not yet Christians. Of course, we all love to see miracles of healing that come unexpectedly and are positively life transforming. But what about events that seem negative, rather than positive, like being forced to carry someone else's cross? Has it ever occurred to you that God might have a purpose in allowing these things to happen? One Sunday morning in June 2016 I was preaching in Ireland on that passage in Matthew 8 where Jesus calms the storm. I remember saying that storms may arise in our lives, even during the coming week, but that Jesus would bring us safely through them. Little did I know that two days later my wife would suffer a massive stroke that was to leave her confined to a wheelchair for the next eight years. And little did I know on 28th February this year that within less than 24 hours she would be in Heaven. Both were totally unexpected and life-changing events for both of us, but God brought us through, and Eileen has now safely arrived on the other side. Even when unexpected events seem totally negative, God can bring a positive outcome, even if we can't see it at the time. And he can bring about unexpected events in the lives of those who don't yet know him that will draw them to himself. But back to our passage. They bring Jesus to the place of execution, and they offer him wine mixed with myrrh. This was an act of mercy to condemned criminals usually provided by the women of Jerusalem, but here passed on to Jesus by the soldiers. But Jesus does not accept it. He wants to remain in full possession of his faculties. No anaesthetic can ease the pain of the suffering he is about to endure. He is to bear the full agony of crucifixion, the full penalty for all our sins. And so they crucify him. The Gospel writers spare us the physical details, perhaps because they were all too familiar to their readers, but also because Jesus' suffering was far more than physical, and far more than the psychological torture he endured at the hands of those who humiliated him. His greatest agony was separation from his Father as the spotless Lamb of God bore the sins of the whole world. Most of the accusations brought against him were false, but he was finally condemned to death for telling the truth, for admitting who he really was, the Christ, the Son of God, the king of the Jews. But it mattered little to the Roman soldiers. They were too busy gambling for his clothes. But now verses 27-32. 27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!" 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! 32 Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him. Mark doesn't say much about the two robbers crucified each side of Jesus. It's Luke who tells us how one of them joined in with the mocking of the crowd and the soldiers, but is rebuked by the other one who says, Don't you fear God, since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong. And then says, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. This man could certainly not have understood the fully developed doctrine of salvation initiated by Jesus and later taught by the first apostles, but somehow he grasped enough to acknowledge that he was guilty, that he deserved his punishment, that Jesus was innocent and was indeed a king for whom death would not be the end but would lead to a kingdom in which somehow he, a robber, hoped to be remembered. He could hardly ask for more, but Jesus grants him far more than he asks for: I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43). That was what Jesus was dying for – the salvation of sinners, sinners like this robber, even sinners like Barabbas whose place on that cross Jesus had taken, and sinners like you and me. But back to our passage in Mark. We saw in verses 16-20 how the soldiers humiliated, mocked and abused Jesus. Now in verses 29-32 we see the mockery continuing, this time not just by those who passed by but by the chief priests and teachers of the law as well. Looking at the passage as a whole, we see that Jesus was mocked by the soldiers who crucified him, the unrepentant thief on the cross beside him, those who were passing by without even stopping to think, the chief priests and teachers of the law, and, as we see in the next section, the man who offered Jesus wine vinegar to drink. Verses 33-34. 33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. This darkness lasted from 12 noon until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It can't have been a normal eclipse of the sun, as Passover was celebrated at the time of the full moon when the moon would have been in the wrong part of the sky. This darkness was a supernatural event initiated by God himself. All attempts at astronomical explanation of such events, including incidentally the star followed by the Magi in Matthew 2, are totally futile. When God works a miracle there is no natural explanation. If there were, it would not be a miracle! But what was the purpose of this darkness? It's mentioned in Matthew and Luke as well as Mark, but none of them tell us its purpose, so we need to tread carefully here. We're on holy ground. But perhaps we can find an answer in the events that are closely connected with it in the Gospel records – Jesus' cry, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?, the tearing of the temple curtain from the top to the bottom, the earthquake that accompanied it, the constant demands of the Jews for a sign from Heaven, the final cry of Jesus, It is finished, and the cry of the centurion, Surely this man was the Son of God. Combined with these events we can surely interpret the darkness as a sign of God's anger at human sin, and at the rejection of his Son by the Jewish leaders. It was a sign that this crucifixion was no ordinary crucifixion. It was a sign that temple worship was now terminated. It was the sign that the Jewish leaders had constantly demanded but still would not accept. It was a sign of God's vindication of all that Jesus had claimed to be. It was a sign, for all who, like the centurion, would receive it, that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" – which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" From before time began, back in eternity, Jesus, the Son of God, had enjoyed intimate fellowship with his Father. But now, as Jesus carries our sin, God who is holy and cannot look on sin (Habakkuk 1:13), turns his face away. This for Jesus was the greatest agony of the cross. But his cry must not be seen as a cry of despair. Jesus was well aware that he was quoting Psalm 22 which in so many ways was prophetic of the crucifixion, but which concludes in glorious triumph, for all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord and all the families of the nations will bow down before him. It was for the joy that was set before him that he endured the cross (Hebrews 12:2). Verses 35-39 complete the story. 35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." 36 One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said. 37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Jesus' cry had been in Aramaic, but some mistakenly thought he was calling for Elijah. The mocking continues right to the end - Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down. John 19:28-30 supplies some information not given in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus says, I am thirsty and in response he is offered wine vinegar to drink, which he accepts and then cries, It is finished. This is undoubtedly the loud cry referred to in Mark 15:37. Jesus had refused the wine offered to him earlier, but now the work of atonement was complete. He accepts the drink to clear his voice for one last final cry. It is finished. There was so much that was finished at that moment, not just his earthly life and suffering, but the reason for that suffering was now accomplished, the work of atonement, the bearing of our sin, the means of entry into the presence of a holy God as the veil of the temple is split in two from the top to the bottom. No longer the need for the animal sacrifices demanded by the Law, no longer a temple made with human hands… Jesus has done it all – and he did it for me! The Roman centurion could not possibly have understood all that, but he understood enough to know that Jesus really was the Son of God. Perhaps he came to understand later, not only that Jesus was the Soon of God, but that he was, in the words of Paul, The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. Charles Wesley certainly understood it when he wrote: It's finished, the Messiah dies, cut off for sins, but not his own. Accomplished is the sacrifice, the great redeeming work is done. It's finished, all the debt is paid, justice divine is satisfied, The grand and full atonement made; God for guilty world has died. The veil is rent in Christ alone, the living way to heaven is seen, The middle wall is broken down and all mankind my enter in. The types and figures are fulfilled; exacted is the legal pain. The precious promises are sealed, the spotless Lamb of God is slain. The reign of sin and death is o'er, and all may live from since set free. Satan has lost his mortal power. It's swallowed up in victory! Saved from the legal curse I am. My saviour hangs on yonder tree. See there the meek expiring Lamb. It's finished, he expires for me. Accepted in the well beloved and clothed in righteousness divine I see the bar to heaven removed, and all thy merits, Lord, are mine. Death, hell, and sin are now subdued. All grace is now to sinners given. And lo, I plead the atoning blood, and in thy right I claim thy heaven. God bless you.
Talk 45 Mark 15:1-15 The Trial before Pilate Welcome to Talk 45 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 15:1-15 where Jesus is on trial before Pilate. We'll begin by reading the whole passage. 1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. 2 "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. 3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of." 5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed. 6 Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. 9 "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 12 "What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. 13 "Crucify him!" they shouted. 14 "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Mark's account of this trial is much shorter than the accounts in the other Gospels, but this passage reveals very clearly three things: 1. The continued determination of the Jewish leaders to have Jesus crucified 2. The total commitment of Jesus to the way of the cross 3. The complete moral failure of Pilate to do what was right. The continued determination of the Jewish leaders to have Jesus crucified This goes back as far as Mark 3:6 where they began to plot how they might kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath day. Eventually, as we saw last time, after a mock trial before Caiaphas, they condemned him as worthy of death (14:64). So now they reach a decision. They have no power themselves to put him to death. So they hand him over to Pilate the Roman governor. They demand that Jesus be crucified. But why crucifixion? The usual method of execution among the Jews was stoning (e.g. Achan in Joshua 7:25 and Stephen in Acts 7:58). Crucifixion was the Roman death penalty for rebellion. It was reserved for foreigners and slaves. Roman citizens were executed by the more merciful means of decapitation. So why did the Jews ask for Jesus to be crucified? Probably because, although crucifixion was not a Jewish practice, the bodies of those who were stoned to death were sometimes hung on a tree until the evening as a public sign that they were under God's curse (Deuteronomy 21:23). Paul refers to this in Galatians 3:13 when he says that Jesus was made a curse for us when he died on the cross. It seems likely, then, that the Jewish leaders wanted the people to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah some of them thought he was, but that he was really under God's curse. Another possibility, of course, is that they did it out of sheer spite because they envied him (v10) and hated him so much. But, whatever their motivation, to achieve their end Mark simply tells us that they accused him of many things (v3). Luke 23, however, gives us a bit more detail: …they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man." 5 But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here." So the charges were: · Opposing payment of taxes to Caesar · Claiming to be Christ, a king · Stirring up the people or inciting people to rebellion – v14. Only one of these accusations had any basis in fact. Jesus did claim to be – indeed he was – the Christ, the Messiah, and he certainly was a king. But, as he told Pilate in John 18:36 his kingdom was not of this world… my kingdom is from another place. Jesus had never incited people to rebellion, quite the opposite. And he had never opposed payment of taxes to Caesar. In fact, he had encouraged it. And the only way he had stirred up the people was to love their enemies. And far from inciting people to rebellion, he taught them to do good to those who persecuted them. In fact, if anyone was guilty of stirring up the people, it was the chief priests. When Pilate wanted to release Jesus, they stirred up the crowd (v11) to demand that Jesus be crucified, and Pilate, fearing a riot, hands Jesus over to be crucified. The total commitment of Jesus to the way of the cross We saw last time when we considered Jesus' trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that Jesus didn't defend himself, that he refused to answer the charges brought against him, and that only when put under oath did he confess the truth as to who he really was. He knew it would lead to his death, even death on a cross, but he knew that the shedding of his blood was the only way to atone for our sins. And that, of course, was his motivation when he conducted himself in much the same way when on trial before Pilate. There's a distinct feeling of déjà vu here. Once again Jesus refuses to answer the accusations the Jews are bringing against him and Pilate asks him: Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of (v4). But Jesus still makes no reply (v5). Again, he refuses to respond to their false accusations, but he will speak about who he is. When Pilate asks, Are you the king of the Jews? Jesus answers, Yes, it is as you say (v2). But John gives us a fuller picture. When Pilate asks the same question (18:34), Jesus replies: 36 My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. 37… You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me. To which Pilate replies, What is truth? but doesn't wait for an answer. Little did he know that the personification of truth was standing right in front of him! And in John 19:9, when Pilate asks Jesus, Where do you come from?, Jesus remains silent, so Pilate retorts: Do you refuse to speak to me? Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you? (v10), to which Jesus replies: You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above... (v11). No human authority could destroy the Prince of Life. They were able to crucify him only because God himself allowed them to. And knowing that this was his Father's will, and the only means of our salvation, Jesus deliberately invites the death sentence by refusing to defend himself and by acknowledging who he is – the king, who had come into the world to bear witness to the truth, to whom everyone who is on the side of truth will listen. But, sadly, that was not something that Pilate was willing to do. The complete moral failure of Pilate to do what was right Mark's account is, as usual, briefer than those in the other Gospels. Mark's summary of Pilate's failure is twofold: 1. he knows that the chief priests have handed Jesus over to him out of envy (v10) 2. it's because he wants to satisfy the crowd that he has Jesus flogged and hands him over to be crucified (v15). In other words, he knows that the accusations brought against Jesus are wrongly motivated, and, despite that, because he himself is wrongly motivated, he condemns Jesus to death. But in Luke and John, Pilate's guilt is compounded by the fact that Pilate knows that Jesus is innocent. In both these Gospels Pilate proclaims Jesus' innocence three times. Look at Luke 23. In verse 4 we read: Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man." In verse 15 we read: he has done nothing to deserve death. And in verse 22: For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Now look at John 18 and 19 In 18:38 I find no basis for a charge against him. In 19:4 he says again: I find no basis for a charge against him. And in 19:6 he says it again: As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him. So there can be no doubt about it. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent. His wife had even sent him a message: Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him (Matthew 27:19). And yet, despite the fact that he knows Jesus is innocent, he has him flogged and hands him over to be crucified. But that is not all. Another aspect of Pilate's failure is his refusal to accept responsibility. As the Roman governor he enjoyed a privileged position. But privilege carries with it responsibility. It was Pilate's responsibility to judge fairly in these matters, but throughout the whole story we see him trying to pass the buck. First, we see him trying to pass the matter back to Sanhedrin. In John 18:31 he says: Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law. But they object saying: But we have no right to execute anyone. Next, he attempts to get King Herod, who was in Jerusalem at the time, to deal with the case (Luke 18:6-12). Herod agrees that Jesus has done nothing to deserve death, but the Jews are insistent that Jesus be crucified. Then Pilate tries to pass the responsibility over to the crowd, by offering according to the custom at the Passover to release to them a prisoner of their choosing, but they choose Barabbas rather than Jesus – as might have been obvious to Pilate bearing in mind the hostility of the crowd to Jesus (Matthew 27:15-21). And finally, having exhausted all options, he takes water and washes his hands in front of the crowd, saying, I am innocent of this man's blood. It is your responsibility (Matthew 27:24). So who was responsible for the death of Jesus? Was it Judas who betrayed him, or Peter who denied him, or all the disciples who deserted him, or Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, or Herod or Pilate, or the Roman soldiers who crucified him? Surely the answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE. They must all bear some measure of guilt. But ultimately the judgment lies with God alone. But are they the only guilty ones? Or are we ourselves also to blame? Jesus' death was necessary to atone for our sins as well as theirs. Let's not, like Pilate, refuse to take responsibility for our actions. Let's not pretend we are innocent, when we know we are not. Let us rather acknowledge our weaknesses, our failings, our faithlessness, our shortcomings, our sin. Forgiveness was available to all those responsible for the death of Jesus if only they would admit their guilt and believe in him. Some, like Peter and the disciples who forsook Jesus, did just that. The others, as far as we know, did not. Let's not make the same mistake. God's promise in 1 John 1:9 still holds good: If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Prayer.
Talk 44 Mark 14:53-72 Jesus' trial and Peter's denial Welcome to Talk 44 in our series of Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at chapter 14, verses 53-72. This passage recounts the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Peter's denial of Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest's house where the trial was taking place. The key figures in the passage are: · The members of the Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus dead · Jesus himself who knew that his death was necessary for our salvation · Peter who denied Jesus even though he had protested that he would never do so. We'll begin by reading verses 53-65 where we see the outrageous injustice of the trial and Jesus' refusal to defend himself. 53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'" 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him. 53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. The word for high priest in Greek is archiereus. It's unclear why NIV sometimes translates this as chief priest. Perhaps it's because, although Caiaphas was the high priest, Annas his father-in-law, who had been high priest until he was deposed by the Romans, was also present. So by all the chief priests Mark means all two of them! 54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. We'll deal with this verse when we come to Peter's denial at the end of the chapter. 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. The Sanhedrin was a council comprised of 71 men, including both Pharisees and Sadducees, who were supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the nation. The vast majority of them had opposed Jesus throughout his ministry because of: his forthright condemnation of their hypocrisy his interpretation of the Old Testament which was radically different from theirs his recent actions in ‘cleansing' the temple – see Talk 34 his claims to be the Messiah. If Jesus proved to be the kind of Messiah the people were expecting, they feared that this could lead to a revolt against Roman authority. This seems to have been the justification they were looking for in seeking to kill Jesus. In John 11:50 Caiaphas had stated that it was better for one man to die than that the whole nation perish. It's more likely, however, that their true motivation was the fear of losing their privileged position in society. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'" 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree. These verses underline the total injustice of the whole trial. Mark emphasises that their testimony was false. This is emphasised by the fact that even then their testimony did not agree. Part of the role of the Sanhedrin was to uphold the Law of Moses. As we've seen in previous talks, they were insistent on obedience to petty regulations but ignored the more important matters of the Law – justice, mercy and faithfulness. Jesus had accused them of straining out gnats but swallowing camels (Matthew 23:23-24)! Now these religious leaders reveal the full extent of their hypocrisy. To achieve their ends, they wilfully ignore justice and break God's clear commandment, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour (Exodus 20:16). Of course there was an element of truth in the testimony of those who reported what Jesus had said about destroying the temple. Who will believe what a liar says if all that he says in untrue? A successful liar is one who includes in his testimony things which are true, but nevertheless distorts the truth in some way. No doubt that's why in our lawcourts today a witness must promise to say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Notice the difference between what Jesus actually said in John 2:19 and what these false witnesses reported him as saying: · Jesus had not said I will destroy… He said Destroy… · He had had not said I will destroy this man-made temple. He said Destroy this temple. · He had not said I will build another, not made by man. He said I will raise it again. John goes on to explain that Jesus was talking about the temple of his body. To say the least, the accusation levelled against Jesus was inaccurate, whether deliberately so or not. The witnesses against him were unreliable, their testimony a distortion of what he actually said. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" At first Jesus will not dignify their false accusations and questions with an answer. He did the same when later interrogated by Pilate (John19:8-11). Perhaps he had in mind the prophecy of Isaiah: He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (Isaiah 53:7). But perhaps he remained silent because he knew that there was no point in defending himself. He had already committed himself to the way of the cross and his death was now inevitable. He replies only when charged under oath in the name of the living God to reveal his identity (Matthew 26:63). And his reply is just what the high priest is hoping for. 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." In the Greek text, the words for I am are ego eimi. In John's Gospel Jesus' frequent use of these two words are undoubtedly a declaration of his deity. See, for example, John 8:58 where Jesus declares, I tell you the truth… before Abraham was, I AM. It's possibly Mark's intention in including it here, but if not, what Jesus says next is enough to incur the charge of blasphemy. Jesus came to bear witness to the truth, and that included the truth about himself. He was none other than the great I AM. And that truth would ultimately be vindicated. Those who accused him of blasphemy now would one day see him seated at God's right hand. 63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Caiaphas is delighted. He now has all the proof he needs. Jesus has condemned himself out of his own mouth. There's no more need for witnesses. Jesus deserves to die. But under the Roman occupation, the Jews couldn't put anyone to death. For that they would need Pilate's authority. But not before they have taken the opportunity to ridicule and mistreat the prisoner. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him. Matthew 26:68 gives us a slightly fuller version of this – Prophesy, Christ, who hit you. In other words, Surely if you are the Christ, the Messiah, you can tell us by prophetic revelation who hit you. But Jesus remains silent. The spitting, the punching and the beating are only the beginning of the unjust treatment that Jesus is to receive over the next 24 hours. From what we have seen so far, it's clear that the whole trial was rigged from the start. Jesus' accusers were not interested in finding out the truth. They were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. They couldn't find any real evidence that would condemn him, so they invented it! The witnesses were all biased. They were clearly prepared to say anything they thought would achieve their purpose. They distorted what Jesus had said and made it mean something quite different. Finally, they mistreated Jesus before taking him to Pilate to demand the death sentence. And we need to remember that Jesus warned his disciples that they would be treated unfairly too. There's plenty of evidence of this in the Book of Acts. An example that comes to mind is Stephen, the first Christian to die for his faith. When his hearers couldn't stand up against his wisdom and the Spirit by whom he spoke… they secretly persuaded some men to say that they had heard him speak words of blasphemy (Acts 6:10-11). And most of the early disciples were martyred for their faith. And, as I'm sure most of my listeners will know, there are many parts of the world where even today Christians are being unjustly treated, persecuted, and tortured for their faith. But even in countries where this is not happening, many of the opponents of Christianity are guilty of the same hypocrisy as Jesus' accusers were at his trial. They're not really interested in finding out the truth. They're looking for excuses to disbelieve his message because they are not prepared to accept its implication for their lifestyle. If they really wanted to know the truth, they would find it. But, of course, we Christians are not always innocent when it comes to hypocrisy. Fear of the opposition can cause us to deny what we truly believe, as we see as we now read the rest of today's passage: 54 Peter followed Jesus at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire. 66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. "You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said. 68 But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entrance, and the cock crowed. 69 When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." 70 Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean." 71 He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about." 72 Immediately the cock crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the cock crows twice you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept. This passage speaks for itself. But let's just remind ourselves of what happened earlier in the chapter. In verse 27 Jesus had told his disciples, You will all fall away. But in verse 29 Peter declared. Even if all fall away, I will not. But Jesus answered, I tell you the truth… Today – yes, tonight – before the cock crows twice you yourself will disown me three times. But Peter insisted emphatically, Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you. He declared his loyalty. He insisted on it emphatically. But now, in the courtyard of the high priest, he declares his disloyalty to Jesus even more emphatically. He calls down curses on himself and swears, I don't know this man you're talking about. And in doing so he fulfils the prophecy of Jesus and disowns him three times. The cock crows, and Peter remembers and breaks down in tears. But, of course, we know that that's not the end of the story. At the very end of John's Gospel, we read how, after his death and resurrection, Jesus gives Peter the chance three times to reaffirm his love and loyalty and reassures him that he will yet have the opportunity to lay down his life for him. And that turns our attention away from Peter and onto Jesus himself, for in Peter's disloyal actions we see the reason for Jesus' actions during the trial. It was for Peter, and for people like him, for you and for me, that Jesus doesn't defend himself, that he refuses to answer the charges brought against him, that when put under oath he confesses the truth as to who he really is. He knows it will lead to his death, but he knows that the shedding of his blood is the only way to atone for all the sins, all the failings, all the disloyalty of all the ‘Peters', throughout all the world, for all time. So he remains loyal to his Father's will, and his loyalty unto death atones for our disloyalty. His obedience atones for our disobedience. And that's why, in Peter's own words, even though we have not seen him, we love him (1 Peter 1:8). It's because he suffered for us that we are willing to follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:21), remembering that, after we have suffered a little while, God has called us to his eternal glory in Christ (1 Peter 5:10). Lord Jesus, we do love you, even though we haven't seen you. Because you suffered for us, we are willing to follow in your steps and, if need be, to suffer for you. And we thank you that you have called us to your eternal glory. Amen.
Talk 43 Mark 14:27-52 The Garden of Gethsemane Welcome to Talk 43 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 14:27-52. This is a long passage and so to save time we will not read through it in advance. In verses 27-31 Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him. In verses 32-42 we read of Jesus' agonised prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and of his disciples' failure to support him in his time of need. And in verses 43-52 we read how Judas betrays him and how Jesus is arrested. The overall theme of the passage is the contrast between the commitment of Jesus to do his Father's will whatever the consequences and his disciples' weakness and failures. Jesus predicts Peter's denial 27-31 27. "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' 28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." 29 Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not." 30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today – yes, tonight – before the cock crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." 31 But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same. Jesus has just eaten the Passover meal with his disciples, at the end of which verse 26 tells us that, When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. On their way there, Jesus predicts, not only that Peter will deny him, but that all his disciples will fall away. How does Jesus know this? We saw last time that Jesus knew in advance much of what was about to happen. And this knowledge sprang from his intimate communion with his heavenly Father. Much of that knowledge came from the understanding that certain verses of the Old Testament applied to him directly. God often speaks to us through scripture, but sometimes he speaks directly to us without reference to scripture. Perhaps, as Jesus studied the Old Testament, God quickened certain scriptures to him and Jesus knew that those words applied to him. The quote in verse 27 is from Zechariah 13:7. Jesus saw his disciples as a little flock of which he was the shepherd. He knows that his arrest and imminent crucifixion would shake their faith, and so he warns them in advance, but offers them hope by reminding them that he will rise from the dead and will see them again in Galilee. But Peter, always the one to speak up too hastily, protests: Even if all fall away, I will not. No doubt his protest was sincere, but it was seriously mistaken. Firstly, it was a contradiction in terms. The word all implies there are no exceptions. If all will fall away, then Peter will fall away. But more seriously, it was a contradiction of the prophetic scripture and a contradiction of the Lord Jesus himself. But, as we have seen on other occasions, Peter was not afraid to contradict Jesus, if he didn't like what Jesus was saying. We need to beware of not taking seriously what God has said to us and of making rash promises to God. Our commitment to him should be thought through and weighed carefully. Jesus' reply is not based on a word of scripture, but on direct revelation from God himself. It's a very specific prophecy which is fulfilled to the letter later in the chapter, even though at this stage Peter refuses to believe it. But before we criticise Peter too severely, we need to remember that all the others said the same (v31). They may not have denied Jesus as Peter did, but they all failed to support Jesus in the hour of his greatest need, falling asleep instead of praying as Jesus had asked them to (vv.37, 44; Luke 22:46). The Garden of Gethsemane 32-42 32. They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch." 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." 37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." 39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" In this passage we see a contrast between the failure of all the disciples and the commitment of Jesus to do his Father's will whatever the cost. The failure of all the disciples If we compare it with the parallel passages in Matthew 26 and Luke 22, the sequence of events seems to have been as follows: Jesus leads his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. He tells them all that he is going to spend some time in prayer and that they must pray that they will not fall into temptation. He then takes Peter, James and John with him and, becoming deeply distressed and troubled, he shares his grief with them, saying, My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death and tells them to pray and keep watch, but they all completely fail to do so. Jesus returns to them no less than three times, and on each occasion finds them all sleeping. They have failed to give him support in his most urgent time of need. And it's going to get worse before it gets better! Judas is coming to betray him. And Jesus' prophecy that they will all fall away (v27) is about to be fulfilled. They will all desert him and flee (v50). But before we attempt to account for such a failure, and then finish by considering Jesus' commitment to his Father's will, let's just read the rest of today's passage to remind ourselves of what happens when Jesus is arrested. 43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 "Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled. 51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. I think this passage pretty much speaks for itself, but let's just add in a few extra details that we find in the other Gospels. John 18:10 tells us that it was Peter who cut off the servant's ear, and Luke 22:57 tells how Jesus healed it. And Matthew 52-54 records that Jesus said: Put your sword back in its place, …for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" In fairness to Peter, perhaps he was trying to make up for his failure to stay awake and keep watch. Or was he acting out of fear? We're not told, but at all events it was a foolish thing to do in the light of the fact that Judas was accompanied by a whole crowd of people armed with swords and clubs. Jesus responds to Peter's aggressive action by replacing the man's ear, thus reminding Peter both of his supernatural power and of the heart of his message – Jesus had not come to destroy life, but to save it. He points out to Peter three things: 1. The danger of relying on human resources 2. The power and resources of God at Jesus' disposal 3. The fact that the Scriptures must be fulfilled. Jesus' words and actions were determined by his knowledge of God's redemptive plan for the salvation of mankind. He had pleaded with God that, if it were possible, he might be released from the way of the cross. But he knew that the Scriptures must be fulfilled. His kingdom was not to be achieved by military violence and force, but by love and sacrifice and suffering. He was not leading a rebellion (v48). He had come to save – even those who had come to arrest him. So the disciples, exemplified by Peter, got it wrong again and again. But how do we account for their failure? Jesus gives us the answer in verse 38 – the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. The Greek word for flesh here is sarx. This is sometimes used in the New Testament simply to refer to our body, but it can also refer to our fallen nature and moral weakness. In Galatians 5, for example, the deeds of the flesh are contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit. Here, in Mark 14, it probably refers to both. The disciples' sleepiness was due to the weakness of their bodies, but there is also an indication of a failure in character. There is a gentle reproach in verse 37 when Jesus says, Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Of course, we've all been there! Despite our best intentions we have failed to do what we know we ought to do. Paul deals with this at the end of Romans 7 and concludes that the key to victory is through Jesus Christ our Lord (v25). In our own strength we will fail, but through Christ, the Holy Spirit has set us free from the tendency to sin (Romans 8:2). If we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfil the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). But the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane had not yet received the Holy Spirit. That was to happen after Jesus had died, risen again, and sent the Spirit. After they had experienced the resurrection and been filled with the Spirit at Pentecost, they were changed men. They were not perfect, but they had received a power by which they could live in victory as long as they followed the leading of the Spirit. And rather than deserting Jesus, they now counted suffering for the sake of Jesus a privilege and rejoiced that they had been allowed to do so (Acts 5:41). And all this became possible for them, and also for us, because of Jesus' commitment to do his Father's will in the Garden of Gethsemane. The commitment of Jesus to do his Father's will Mark tells us that Jesus was deeply distressed and troubled. He was overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. And so he asks his disciples to pray and then moves away from them to be in solitude with God. He prays that, if it's possible, the hour might pass from him. Of course he doesn't want to die. No one would choose to be crucified. He knew that, if he asked him to, God would give him more than twelve legions of angels to deliver him (Matthew 26:53). Make no mistake about it. Jesus had a choice. He did not have to drink the cup of God's wrath. Even at that late hour, everything was possible with God. There was a way to escape the cross. But at what cost? The salvation of his disciples was in his hands. Your salvation and mine. Jesus sees in the weakness and failings of his own disciples my weakness and failings too. He finds them sleeping instead of praying. He knows that Peter will deny him. He knows that they will all desert him. And he knows that his destiny is to be the Lamb that must be sacrificed to atone for the sins of the whole world. This he had agreed with his Father from before time began. And so, out of commitment to his Father's will, out of commitment to God's fore-ordained plan, and out of commitment to his disciples, he prays, Nevertheless, Father, your will be done. Thank God that he did!
Talk 42 Mark 14:12-26 The Last Supper Welcome to Talk 42 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 14:12-26. The subject is the Last Supper. It was to be the last meal that Jesus ate with his disciples before he was crucified. It was the feast of the Passover when the Jews annually remembered the way in which God had led their ancestors out of Egypt. You will of course remember that the Israelites had been in captivity in Egypt and how Moses had constantly demanded of Pharaoh to let God's people go. In the end, God said that he would smite all the firstborn of Egypt because of Pharaoh's constant refusal to do as he demanded. The Israelites were told to daub the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and lintels of their houses so that the angel of death would pass over them and their firstborn would not die. Now Jesus, the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world by the shedding of his blood on the cross, gives the Passover meal a whole new meaning. In fact, his followers who are to become the new Israel, will have a far greater deliverance to celebrate, their deliverance from the bondage of sin, and will regularly share bread and wine together to remind themselves of all that Jesus has done for them. The Christian communion service replaces for us the Passover meal. The Gospel accounts vary a little in places, but we'll concentrate on Mark while noting a few extra details that we find in Matthew and Luke. As we now read through the passage, I'd like you to notice the many things that Jesus already knew about all that was going to happen. 12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" 13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 15 He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." 16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. 17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me – one who is eating with me." 19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?" 20 "It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." 22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." 23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God." 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. In this passage I see five things that Jesus clearly knew: · He knew the details of where they would eat the Passover · He knew what Judas would do and what would happen to him · He knew that scripture must be fulfilled · He knew that he was going to die and why it was necessary · He knew that God would vindicate him. So now let's look at the passage in a little more detail and see what we can learn from each of these aspects of Jesus' knowledge. He knew the details of where they would eat the Passover The disciples ask Jesus where he wants them to make the preparations for the Passover meal. So Jesus sends two of his disciples (who, incidentally, we know from Luke 22:8, were Peter and John), and tells them to go into Jerusalem where they will meet a man carrying a jar of water. They are to follow him and go into the house he enters. They are to say to the owner of the house, The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? He will show them a large upper room, furnished and ready. It's there they are to make the final preparations for the meal. And Mark tells us that the disciples found things just as Jesus had told them. Of course, some of these things Jesus could have known at a natural level. He could have made previous arrangements with the owner of the house, and he could have known that the owner had a man servant who sometimes carried water for him – something unusual in those days as normally it was the women who carried water. But it seems far less likely that Jesus, without supernatural knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit, would have known that the man would be carrying water at exactly the time the disciples went into the city or even that the disciples would have crossed paths with him. But the disciples found everything just as Jesus had told them, just as they had when he had sent them to find the donkey on which he was to ride into Jerusalem in Mark 11. Jesus was a man, and as man there were things he knew in the same way that all human beings know them. But he was a man who lived in close fellowship with his Father, God – indeed, he was God – and there were things he knew by divine revelation. And such revelation is available to us too, as we are filled with the Spirit and in live in close relationship with our heavenly Father. And when we receive such supernatural revelation, it's possible to know that we know, just as certainly as we know that we know some things at a natural level. He knew what Judas would do and what would happen to him Verses 10 and 11 tell us that Judas had already gone to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them and that they were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So Judas was looking for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them. There are many theories as to why Judas did this, but in my view it's pointless to speculate. But two things are clear. First, whatever his motivations, Judas was responsible and accountable for his own actions. In verse 21 Jesus says: …woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. But secondly, it's clear that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was already predicted in Scripture. Jesus says: The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man!... And in Acts 1:16, no doubt remembering what Jesus had said, Peter says: Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as a guide for those who arrested Jesus… But, people ask, was this fair? How could God hold Judas responsible for his actions if, long before he was born, the Scripture predicted that he would do so? For me, the key to the answer to such questions lies in the understanding that, although God knows in advance the things we will do, it does not mean that he makes us do those things. If I watch a video of my children that I've already seen, I know what they're going to do next, but that does not mean that I made them do it. The choice was theirs and they, not I, are responsible for their actions, whether good or bad. The only difference with God is that he doesn't need a video because he's omniscient. But returning directly to our passage, one of the saddest things we learn about Judas is his hypocrisy. When Jesus tells his disciples that one of them will betray him, all the disciples, including Judas, say, Surely not I? or Surely you don't mean me? And Matthew adds a detail not shared with us by Mark. In Matthew, Judas is the last to say it. He says it after all the others, as if reluctant or ashamed to do so. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway. And in Matthew all the other disciples call Jesus Lord, but Judas calls him Rabbi or Teacher. He had already made the decision that Jesus was no longer Lord in his life. But Jesus knew all this. He knew that he would be betrayed. He knew who would betray him and he knew what would happen to him. But why didn't he try to stop Judas? Because he knew that scripture must be fulfilled, he knew why it was necessary for him to die, and he knew that ultimately God would vindicate him. He knew that scripture must be fulfilled In verses 20-21, after each of the disciples have said, Surely not I? Jesus says: It is one of the Twelve, …one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." This is probably a reference to Psalm 41:9 where David says: Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. Of course, this is not the only detail that the Scriptures predicted about what would happen to Jesus. Again and again the Gospel writers make reference to Old Testament verses that they saw fulfilled in the life of Jesus, especially regarding events surrounding the time of his death. But the important thing to notice here is that Jesus knew that Scripture must be fulfilled. He had confidence in its authority. Through his close relationship with his heavenly Father, he knew which verses applied prophetically to him. And he conducted his life accordingly. And if we really want to be his disciples, we should surely follow his example. He knew that he was going to die and why it was necessary We've seen in previous talks that there were several occasions when Jesus already told his disciples that he was going to die. In fact, in Luke 24:7, after his death and resurrection, while talking to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he reminds them how he had told them while he was still with them in Galilee, that: The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified, and on the third day rise again. And then they remembered his words. We know from all we have seen so far, how bad the disciples were at remembering. And so, to help them, and us, to remember his death, he instituted the meal that came to be known as The Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, or the Eucharist. That its primary purpose was to help us to remember is made clear in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 where we're told to eat and drink in remembrance of Jesus. So the bread and wine are simply memorials, aids to memory. When Jesus said , This is my body (v22) and This is my blood (v24) he never intended it to be taken literally. The bread doesn't turn into his body as we eat it, nor does the wine turn into his blood as we drink it. Why am I so sure about this? Because the bread he gave his disciples at the last supper clearly did not turn into his body then, neither did the wine turn into his blood. His blood was still throbbing in his veins! And Jesus said, This IS my blood. He did not say, This WILL BECOME my blood (after I have died and risen again). Just as the Passover meal was a memorial of how the Lord had delivered his people from Egypt, so the bread and wine are memorials of what Jesus has done for us. They remind us of the new covenant that God has made with us through the shedding of Jesus' blood. (For more on this, see You'd Better Believe It, Ch. 14). Yes, Jesus knew he was going to die, and why it was necessary. That's why he was determined to see it through, and he gives thanks (vv22-23) for it. How could he do so? Because he loved God and wanted to do his will. Because he loved his disciples and wanted them to be saved. And because he knew that God would vindicate him. He knew that God would vindicate him Notice what he says in verse 25: I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God. He knew that he would die, but he knew that his death would not be the end. He knew that God would vindicate him. He would enter the kingdom of God. He knew of the joy that lay ahead. Hebrews 12:1-2 tells us that: For the joy that was set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. And he knew that he would share that joy with us! Matthew 26:29 includes two words that Mark has left out. Here Jesus says that he will drink it new with you. But let's finish by considering the meaning of that little word anew. In Greek it's kainon. Its basic meaning is new, but in the context here it means of a new character or species. Mark uses it this way in: · 1:27 when the people apply it to Jesus' teaching because he taught with authority · 2:21-22 when Jesus says that no one puts new wine into old wineskins to illustrate that he had come to introduce something entirely new that would not only break free from the old (Judaism) and, if it didn't, would ultimately destroy it (See Talk 8). · 14:24 where Jesus says that the wine is the blood of the new covenant · 16:17 where Jesus says that those who believe will speak with new tongues. All these verses suggest that Jesus is using the word new to mean something of a different and better quality than we have known before. He came to introduce a new and better covenant and in the kingdom of God things, even the wine, will be new and better. And it's available to us just because Jesus was willing to be betrayed, denied, forsaken by all his disciples, and to go to Calvary to die for us. So in this talk we have seen five things that Jesus clearly knew: · He knew the details of where they would eat the Passover · He knew what Judas would do and what would happen to him · He knew that scripture must be fulfilled · He knew that he was going to die and why it was necessary · He knew that God would vindicate him. And if we have acknowledged Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, we can be certain of our own future too.
Talk 41 Mark 14:1-11 Mary's Extravagant Worship Welcome to Talk 41 in our series on Mark's Gospel. We've now reached Chapter 14 which records the events immediately before the crucifixion of Jesus which Mark describes in Chapter 15. Today we'll be looking at Mark 14:1-11 where we read how: 1. the Jewish leaders are still looking for a way to arrest Jesus and kill him (vv1-2), 2. a woman anoints Jesus with a very expensive perfume which Jesus says she has done to prepare for his burial (vv3-9), 3. and Judas goes to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them (vv10-11). We'll be concentrating on verses 3-9 and considering what we can learn from this woman's extravagant devotion and how we can apply it to our worship today. But first, to put this passage in its context, it will be helpful to outline the contents of the rest of the chapter: 12-26 The Last Supper 27-31 Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him 32-42 Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane 43-52 Jesus is arrested 53-65 Jesus is tried before the Sanhedrin 66-72 Peter denies Jesus. So today's passage is firmly set in the context of Jesus' imminent death on the cross: 1. Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot." 3. While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5. It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. 6. "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." 10. Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over. Bearing in mind the frequent references to the Jewish leaders' constant hostile attitude to Jesus (e.g. Mark 3:6, 8:11, 10:2, 12:13), we're not surprised that they are looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him (v1), and that they are delighted to hear of Judas' willingness to betray him (vv10-11). Whatever their different motives, Judas and the Jewish leaders were all looking for their opportunity (cf. vv1 and 11). How different was the motivation of the woman, who wanted to express her devotion to Jesus while she still had the opportunity. In John 12 she is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and as I read this passage I am challenged by the extravagance of her worship. I trust you will be too. 3. While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Bethany lies on the opposite slope of the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. You may remember that in Chapter 11 Jesus and his disciples were staying in Bethany and travelling into Jerusalem each day. The day of Passover, the day when Jesus was crucified, was only two days away, and Mary expresses her love for Jesus by breaking open a jar of perfume worth more than a year's wages (v5) and anointing Jesus with it. In doing so, she was showing how much Jesus meant to her, and that is surely what should lie at the heart of our worship. We are telling Jesus how much we love him. From this one verse there is so much we can learn about worship. Our worship should be motivated by love In John's account the story of Mary's worship comes at the beginning of Chapter 12 immediately after the raising of Lazarus in Chapter 11. We need look no further for a reason why Mary acted in the way she did. Jesus had shown his love for her by raising her brother from the dead. Of course she was grateful. Of course she loved him. 1 John 4:19 tells us that we love (him) because he first loved us. Our worship should be uninhibited Mary was not concerned about what others might think about her. There is almost an abandoned recklessness about her actions. Who cares about what it cost? Who cares what others might think? Who cares what they might say? She loved Jesus, and nothing and nobody would stop her expressing her love and her gratitude to him. Hopefully you worship in a church where not everything is dictated from the front and where there is ample opportunity for spontaneous expressions of praise from members in the congregation. For more on this, see my book, When you come together – God's plans for when his people meet. But even in churches where opportunity is given for individual expressions of praise and thanksgiving, in my experience relatively few participate in this way. Perhaps we need to be more like Mary, cast aside any inhibitions we might have, and publicly tell Jesus how much we love him. Of course, we all have different personalities. We're not all like Mary. Some of us are more like Martha, who expressed her love for Jesus by serving him and offering hospitality to others. So be yourself in the way you worship. There's no need to copy others! Our worship can be expressed by actions without words There is no mention in this story of Mary saying anything. But her action is worth a thousand words. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul challenges us, in the light of God's great love for us, to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. This he says is a spiritual act of worship, or as the old AV says, our reasonable service. We show our love for God not only by our words, but by our deeds. How can we not love him when we remember all he has done for us? And because we love him, we are able to love others too. Acts of loving service to others are an expression of our love for him. Our worship should be our lifestyle, not just limited to what we do in church on Sundays Mary was worshipping Jesus in someone's home, not in the synagogue and not on the Sabbath. Whenever and wherever we are, our lifestyle should be an expression of our devotion to the Lord Jesus. Notice what Paul says in Colossians 3:16-17: 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Verse 16 seems to refer to when we are gathered as a church. We are to remember what Christ has taught us. We are to teach and admonish one another. We are to sing with gratitude in our hearts. But verse 17 takes us beyond what happens in church to our everyday living. Whatever we do, we are to do it with gratitude to God for all that Jesus has done for us. That certainly applies to what we do in church, but our whole life should be an expression of what we profess in church. Worship should be our lifestyle. Our worship may cost us something There was, of course, an immediate financial cost to Mary's worship – more than a year's wages. But it also cost her the criticism and condemnation of some of those who watched her. 4. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5. It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. John's account identifies one of those present as Judas. One lesson we can learn from these verses is that concerns about cash can lead to distraction from Christ. If our hearts are not right it's all too easy to criticise the way that others worship Jesus. Notice how one thought can lead to an outright attack on someone else's integrity. Judas's heart wasn't right. This led to a critical thought in his mind. Then it was vocalised, and he discovered he wasn't the only one thinking that way, and so they ganged up on Mary and rebuked her harshly. It's not only wrong to criticise others in this way, it can have serious consequences. Remember Michal? But even if we recognise that it's wrong to criticise others for the way they worship God, that doesn't mean that others will not sometimes criticise us. And that's something we should be prepared for. If we really love Jesus and want to tell him so publicly, we shouldn't hold back for fear that people will find fault with what we say or the way we say it. Hebrews 13:15 tells us that we should continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise – the fruit of lips that confess his name. Mary was criticised for her worship, but the compensation she received for it was the approval of Jesus. Our worship brings delight to the heart of Jesus 6. "Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Notice how Jesus defends Mary from their criticism. What Mary had done she had done for him. And Jesus knows it. He says, She has done a beautiful thing to me. Jesus should always be the reason for our worship. Mary had not broken that jar of perfume over him to show others how much she loved him. She did it for him. And he commends her for it. A single word of commendation from Jesus more than compensates for a thousand words of criticism from others. Notice too that Jesus says, She has done what she could. Mary had taken the opportunity while she could, while Jesus was still physically with her, to express her devotion to him. And all he asks of us is that we do what we can, whether it's in worship or in witnessing to others. He doesn't ask more, but he does expect us to do what we can. And sometimes, whether we realise it or not, there may a prophetic dimension to what we say or do. As one of Jesus' close disciples, Mary would surely have heard his frequent predictions of his death, but it's not clear that she knew quite how soon Jesus was to be crucified. What is clear is that her actions had a prophetic significance. She was anointing Jesus' body beforehand to prepare for his burial. If we act or speak out of love for Jesus, although we may not realise it at the time, God can speak powerfully and prophetically through us. I can't remember how many times people have told me, after the event, how what I have said has impacted them greatly, and yet I may have completely forgotten what I had said or had no idea at the time how relevant it would be for them. And finally, we need to remind ourselves that Mary's act of devotion was done in the context of Jesus' death. That's what her actions prophetically proclaimed. The cross was the reason for her worship, and it is surely ours too. We worship God for many things, but in the final analysis, all our love for him and all our devotion to him are because of the cross. I love Jesus because he loved me enough to die on the cross to save me from my sins. That's why I'm living for him. Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.
Talk 40 Mark 13:24-37 Signs of His Coming? Welcome to Talk 40 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Last time we were looking at Mark 13:1-23 and considering some of the problems in interpreting this difficult chapter. I suggested that most of what Jesus says in that passage relates primarily to the events that would occur around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, which Jesus so accurately predicted in verses 1-4. Today we're considering the rest of chapter 13, verses 24-37, where, as we shall see, some verses are by no means easy to understand. But let's begin by reading verses 24-31. 24"But in those days, following that distress, "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' 26 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. 28 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Before we get into the passage let me remind you of what I said last time about difficulties interpreting the whole chapter. This will be a very brief summary, so, if you haven't yet listened to, or read the notes on, last week's talk, I recommend that you do so before going any further. The first problem arises from the fact that Jesus is answering two questions asked by the disciples at the beginning of the chapter and it's not always easy to decide which part of Jesus' answer refers to which question. Is this verse talking about the destruction of the temple or does it refer to the second coming? The second difficulty is deciding which parts of Jesus' answer are to be taken literally and which are to be taken symbolically. In my view, much of the chapter is to be understood literally, but some verses must be intended to be understood symbolically or metaphorically. In attempting to resolve these difficulties, I said that the first thing we must do is to find out more about the context, and I gave a brief description of what we know from history about the horrendous events that occurred surrounding the time of the destruction of the temple in AD70. So now, in today's talk, I want to do three things: · Examine two very different interpretations of verses 24-31. · Emphasise why it's a mistake to be constantly looking for signs of the Lord's return (vv.32-37). · Summarise what lessons we have learnt from the chapter as a whole. Verses 24-31 Two different interpretations Interpretations of these verses fall into two main categories: a) Those who see most or all of this passage as referring to the second coming b) Those who understand most or all of the passage to refer to the events around AD70. Clearly these are two very different points of view, and we won't have time to deal with them in great detail. So what I'm going to do is summarise four main arguments that seem to support the view that this passage relates to the second coming, and alongside them to state a counter argument that is sometimes made by those who take the alternative view. It is not my intention to be dogmatic, and, in fact, part of my purpose is to encourage you to form your own conclusions, but not to be too dogmatic, whatever your view may be. 1) In Matthew's account one of the questions the disciples asked Jesus was about the second coming (Matthew 24:3). We would, therefore, expect that at least part of Jesus' answer would relate to the second coming. HOWEVER, one problem with this argument is that in verse 30 Jesus says, I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. So these verses, it is argued, cannot refer to the second coming unless Jesus himself mistakenly believed that the second coming would take place within a generation of his making the statement, which it clearly did not, but the fall of Jerusalem certainly did! 2) The events described in vv.24-25 would appear to be unique in world history. They are the kind of things one might expect at the end of the age and verse 27 talks of the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. HOWEVER, in Daniel 7:13-14 we read: In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. So, it is argued, in its original context, the Son of Man is coming to God and could well refer to Jesus' ascension into Heaven rather than his coming from Heaven. Moreover, it's difficult to see how Jesus could have intended us to understand phrases like the stars will fall from the sky (v25) literally. The terminology used in these verses is reminiscent of the poetic language used by the Old Testament prophets and should be interpreted symbolically. And in light of the fact that they were to be fulfilled within a generation, this, it is argued, is the best way to interpret them. 3) If the fig tree mentioned in verse 28 refers to Israel as it appears to in Mark 11:20-25, then the passage must relate to the end times when, according to this view, the full number of Gentiles has come in and all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:25-26, cf. Luke 21:24). HOWEVER, there is no need to assume that the mention of the fig tree refers to Israel on this occasion. Jesus could equally well have meant that, just as you know that when the leaves of a fig tree start to come out, the summer is near, so be absolutely sure that, when you see the things I have been talking about begin to happen, the dreadful events that will take place at the destruction of Jerusalem will soon come to pass. 4) In verse 31 Jesus says that Heaven and earth will pass away, which suggests that the passage relates to the time of the end. HOWEVER, the point that Jesus is making in this verse is that whatever happens, his words will never fail. There is a clear claim to deity here. Who else but God could make such a claim? Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). You can rely on everything he says, whether it be about the second coming or the destruction of Jerusalem, or anything else, for that matter. So that concludes my summary of two very different interpretations of verses 24-31, and in my view it would be unwise to take a dogmatic position on either side. There are some passages of Scripture that are open to more than one possible interpretation. However, when we come to verses 32-37 it seems obvious, to me at least, that these verses must relate to the second coming, as a comparison with the parallel passage in Matthew 24:36-44 clearly indicates. Verses 32-37 Only the Father knows the timing, so don't look for signs, but be ready 32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. 35 "Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back – whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'" As I have already said, the parallel passage in Matthew 24 makes it clear that it relates to the second coming. Jesus says: As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man (vv37-39). This cannot possibly refer to the coming of the Son of Man described in Daniel 7, which as we have seen may well be better understood to be a reference to Jesus' ascension into Heaven rather than his return from it. But in these verses Jesus is clearly referring to his second coming which will be as unexpected as the flood was in the time of Noah. However, unlike Noah, who was told on what day God would send the rain, no-one will know the timing of the Lord's return. Jesus said that even he did not know. And if Jesus didn't know, I wonder why some Christians seem to think that they can work it out! But it's sometimes said in response to this criticism that it was only the day and the hour that we cannot know. But in the next verse Jesus says, You do not know when that time will come. The Greek word for time here is kairos, which does not refer to the time of day, but means season. This is backed up by what Jesus reiterated in in Acts 1:7 when he told his disciples: It's not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put under his own authority. So why does Jesus tell us to Be alert! Be on guard! Watch!? The answer is simple. He doesn't mean watch for signs. He means Stay awake! Be alert (v33) literally means, Don't go to sleep. It's used of the disciples in Gethsemane whom Jesus found sleeping, and here in verse 36 Jesus says, If he (the Son of Man) comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. And the word for watch in verses 34, 35, and 37 means Keep awake, be vigilant. It's used elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with: · Not letting the enemy break through (Luke 12:39) · Standing firm in the faith and being strong (1 Corinthians 16:13) · Keeping awake in prayer (Colossians 4:2) · Being sober and vigilant because the enemy goes about like a roaring lion… (1 Peter 5:8) · Staying awake and not being found naked and shamefully exposed when the Lord returns (Revelation 16:15). So, when the Lord tells us to watch, he is not telling us to watch for signs. He's saying that because we do not know when he will return, we need to be in a permanent state of readiness. And we can do that without constantly looking for signs. We can do it by living lives that please him and by using the gifts and talents he has given us (Matthew 25:14-30). We should concentrate on telling others about him, not trying to know what Jesus has told us is not for us to know (Acts 1:6-8). Lessons we can learn from the whole chapter So now, as we draw to a close our discussion on this difficult chapter, let's remind ourselves of some of the lessons we have learnt. I have pointed out that the problems of interpretation arise from two factors, 1) deciding which of the disciples' two questions in verse 4 Jesus is answering at any point in the chapter, and 2) determining when the language he is using is meant to be understood literally or symbolically. Because of these difficulties, I have suggested that it would be unwise to be dogmatic, but that perhaps verses 5-23 should be seen as largely relating to Jesus' prophecy of destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, that verses 24-31 are open to either interpretation depending mainly on whether one sees 24-27 as literal or symbolic, and that verses 32-37 relate very definitely to the second coming. However, despite the difficulties, I do believe that the principles that Jesus teaches in all three sections are relevant to all Christians throughout the history of the church, and so I want to conclude by reminding you of seven things that I have mentioned already, either in the last talk or in this. I hope that, whatever your view on the second coming, you will find yourself in agreement, at least with most of them. · We must watch out for deceivers · We must not be surprised by international turmoil and natural disasters · We must expect to be persecuted · We must continue to tell others about Jesus, relying on the help of the Holy Spirit · We must not try to work out the timing of Christ's coming, because it's not for us to know · We must stay awake, in a permanent state of readiness for the Lord's return, because · THE LORD IS CERTAINLY COMING and, if we're ready, we simply do not need to know when. Finally, as I mentioned last time, we'll be taking a break for the rest of August, and our series on Mark will continue, God willing, in September.
Talk 39 Mark 13:1-23 Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple Welcome to Talk 39 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we're looking at chapter 13:1-23 where Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple. We'll deal with verses 24-37 next time. This is a difficult chapter, not least because of the strong convictions some Christians hold about it, but my intention is not to make dogmatic assertions about how it should be interpreted, but to point out some of the problems of interpreting it and to see what key lessons we can learn from it for ourselves today. As we shall see, despite the NIV heading, Signs of the End of the Age, much of this chapter is not about the second coming of Christ, but about what Christians should do leading up to the destruction of the temple in AD70. That is not to say that none of the chapter relates to the second coming, but I want to confess at the outset my own personal scepticism about using passages like this to try to predict when the Lord may return. This is based on three things: Firstly, the Lord himself said in verse 32: No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Secondly, he also said in Acts 1:7, just before he ascended into Heaven: It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. Jesus told his disciples not to be concerned with such things but to get on with the task of world evangelisation. And thirdly, my scepticism is based on the fact that so many attempts to calculate the timing of his coming have proved wrong. It's not only the Jehovah's Witnesses who have made predictions which they have been compelled to recalculate, but sincere Christians like William Miller, a Baptist farmer, who, based on his understanding of Daniel's prophecy, was convinced that Jesus would return on a particular day in 1842 and then readjusted his calculations to the same day in 1843. He later admitted that he was wrong but said that, if he had his time all over again, he would still have arrived at the same conclusion! And even in my own lifetime I have seen Christians making radical changes to their lifestyle, based on events taking place in and around Israel, as those of you who may remember the Six Day War may remember. But, having expressed my scepticism, let me now make it clear that I certainly do believe in the return of the Lord Jesus! In Acts 1, immediately after Jesus had told the disciples that it was not for them to know the timing of his coming, we read in verses 9-11: After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." His return will be personal, physical, and visible. Of this we can be certain. But it's not for us to know when. So, with all this in mind let's now make a start on our passage in Mark 13. We'll begin by considering two difficulties that make this chapter particularly hard to interpret, before looking at the historical context in which it is set. Interpreting the passage The first problem arises from the two questions the disciples ask Jesus in the opening verses. 1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" 2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?" So, in verse 1, one of them draws Jesus' attention to the size and beauty of the temple, to which Jesus replies in verse 2: Do you see all these great buildings? Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Then Peter, James, John and Andrew ask him privately, When will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled? (v4). So, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple and the disciples ask him when it's going to happen and what sign there will be. Notice that here there is no reference to the second coming of Jesus. However, it's clear from Matthew's account that his disciples clearly connected very closely the destruction of the temple with the return of the Lord, because they ask him they ask him: When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? (Matthew 24:3). So, in his reply, Jesus is answering two questions, which in the disciples' minds are closely related, one about the destruction of the temple and the other about the second coming. But when we try to interpret the passage, it's not always clear which parts of Jesus' answer relate to which of these two questions. What does seem clear is that much of Jesus' answer related to the destruction of the temple and not to the second coming. How much, if any, refers to the second coming is a matter of debate. But more of that later. The second difficulty that arises when we seek to interpret the chapter is deciding which parts are to be taken literally and which are to be taken symbolically. Although much of the passage is, in my view, clearly to be understood literally – for example it's hard to see how let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (v14) can be interpreted symbolically – some verses must surely be intended to be understood symbolically or metaphorically. For example, as we shall see next time, the stars will fall from the sky (v25) can hardly be taken literally any more than the moon will be turned into blood in Acts 2:20. Such expressions need to be understood as symbolizing cataclysmic events the like of which have never been seen before. But how can we decide which way to understand any given verse? Literally or symbolically? Part of the answer at least lies in the historical context in which the passage is set. We began by saying that what Jesus says in this chapter is in answer to questions about the destruction of the temple, which the disciples associated with the return of the Lord. To me much, if not all, of Jesus' answer relates to the destruction of the temple, indeed, of Jerusalem itself. So what do we know from history about this? The historical context It all began in a single year when in AD 69 four Roman emperors succeeded one another, each time with violence, murder and civil war. In AD 70 Titus, the adopted son of Vespasian, the last of these emperors, entered Jerusalem, burnt the temple, destroyed the city and crucified thousands of Jews. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us how, during the siege of Jerusalem, people were starving and ate their own babies to stay alive, how they fought each other for scraps of dirty food, and how more Jews were killed by other Jews than by the invading Romans. If you want to learn more about this, just google AD70 Siege of Jerusalem. Examining verses 5-23 Bearing in mind, then, the horrific events that would take place in AD 70, let's now attempt to solve the riddle of which verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and which, if any, refer to the second coming. We'll begin with verses 5-23 which, it seems to me, refer mainly to the years leading up to and shortly after the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, although some may possibly have a wider significance. I say this because of the immediate context. Jesus has predicted the destruction of the temple and is now replying to the disciples' question in verse 4: When will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled? (i.e. the destruction of the temple). Jesus' answer in verses 5-23 contains warnings about what was shortly to happen and instructions on what they should do which can be summarised as follows: · Watch out for deceivers (vv. 5-6, 21-22) · Don't be surprised by international turmoil and natural disasters (vv. 7-8) · Expect to be persecuted (vv. 9-14) · Take appropriate action when the time comes near (vv. 16-23). Watch out for deceivers (vv. 5-6, 21-22) 5 Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect – if that were possible. Of course, the verses could refer to any time in church history including the period leading up to the Lord's return, but, bearing in mind the context in which they are set, it seems that Jesus' primary intention was to warn his disciples about what would happen in their own lifetime. Don't be surprised by international turmoil and natural disasters (vv. 7-8) 7 When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. It's easy to assume, as many have, that these things are to be taken as signs of Jesus' near return, but again the context suggests otherwise. In fact all these things have been happening throughout church history, and are certainly very evident right now, but Jesus does not say the end is near. He says the end is still to come. And as we shall see next time, at the end of the chapter Jesus says you do not know. We won't know when he is coming, and that's precisely why we need to be ready! Expect to be persecuted (vv. 9-14) 9 "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 12 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong – let the reader understand – then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Again, all these things could be said of almost any period in church history. They were certainly relevant during the lifetime of the disciples and no doubt will be right up until the time of the Lord's return, so there is no need to see them as exclusively relevant to the second coming. But there are two things in this passage I feel I need to make special comment on, as in people's thinking they are usually associated with and seen as signs of the second coming. The first is in verse 10, where Jesus says, The gospel must first be preached to all nations. The Greek word for first is proton. This can mean either first in time or first in importance, or both. The immediate context in Mark, where Jesus is talking about his disciples being persecuted as they witness for him, suggests to me that he is stressing the importance of preaching the gospel whatever happens. And, of course, this is applicable throughout the church age and is something Jesus emphasises in Acts 1:6-8. This is so important that the end will not come until the gospel is preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:14). So this verse does have a very real application to the second coming, but Jesus is stressing the importance of worldwide evangelisation rather than seeing it as a sign of his coming! The second is in verse 14 where Jesus says: When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong – let the reader understand – then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. So what is this abomination that causes desolation? It was first prophesied in Daniel 9:27 and is believed by some to have been fulfilled in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificed a pig to Zeus on the temple altar. However, since this took place before the coming of Jesus, it cannot be what he was referring to which was yet future. Bearing in mind the context it's far more likely that Jesus was referring to what happened in AD70 when the Roman general Titus placed an idol on the site of the burnt-out temple just a few years after the destruction of Jerusalem. That, of course, does not rule out the possibility of another fulfilment in the future, but in my view the Bible is by no means clear about this, and it would be unwise to be dogmatic. Take appropriate action when the time comes near (vv. 15-23). 15 Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now – and never to be equaled again. 20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect – if that were possible. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time. At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the danger was imminent. Jesus' instructions are specifically related to that situation. The basic message is, Get out quick! Don't let anything delay you! You will never have seen anything like it! Things are going to be terrible! Don't let anyone deceive you or distract you! But now it's time for me to summarise my understanding of how these verses apply to us today: 1) Because these verses apply initially to the period before AD70, they contain some specific instructions (e.g. vv. 15-18) that relate only to that period. 2) However, since what the disciples were about to experience then were only the beginning of birth pains (v. 8), it follows that similar things would continue to happen throughout the whole church age and that, with the exception of the specific instructions I have just referred to, the broad principles of what Jesus was teaching continue to be relevant to us today. 3) Because what Jesus is teaching here has been relevant throughout church history, there is no need to see the whole passage as relating directly to the second coming. 4) The parts that do appear to have a bearing on it must not be interpreted as signs, something which Jesus makes clear in the closing verses of the chapter, as we shall see next time.
Talk 38 Mark 12:35-44 Jesus warns against the Teachers of the Law Welcome to Talk 38 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 12:35-44. So far in this chapter, Jesus has faced questions from Herodians, Pharisees, and Sadducees, all of whom have been trying to trick him into giving an answer that might give them grounds for taking action against him. But on every occasion Jesus' answers have silenced his opponents. Now, in today's passage, Jesus: · asks them all a question which they are unable to answer (35-37) · warns the people to beware of these hypocritical teachers of the law (38-40) · and draws a contrast between their self-seeking behaviour and the generosity of a poor widow (41-44). 35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' 37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. Jesus' purpose in asking this question is not to catch his opponents out as they had tried to catch him out. His purpose was not retaliation, but to make them and the others listening think. As we shall see, the implications of his question are enormous. They reveal, without a shadow of a doubt, who Jesus really is. The teachers of the law had rightly understood that the Scriptures predicted that the Christ, God's Anointed One, the Messiah, would be a son (i.e. a descendant) of King David. This view was widely held by the Jews at the time of Jesus, and Jesus is not disputing it. But what he is saying is this: If the Christ really is to be a son of David (which he certainly is), how is it that David refers to him as his Lord? Jesus is referring to Psalm 110:1 which says: The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'. This psalm was widely held to be messianic (i.e. prophesying about the Messiah). But, asks Jesus, if David is speaking of the coming Messiah, how can he call him my Lord if he is one of his descendants? It would be unthinkable to a Jew that a child could be superior to its father, or a descendant superior to an ancestor. Matthew 22:46 makes it clear that the teachers of the law could not find an answer to this riddle, but the early Christians certainly knew it, as this very verse is quoted in Hebrews 1:13 where the writer is demonstrating the deity of Jesus. And this is what Jesus is trying to show them by his question. If the Messiah was to be David's Lord, he must be more than a physical descendant. He must be none other than God himself. But that was a mystery that the Jewish leaders were completely unable to fathom. Now, in the next section, verses 38-40, Jesus warns the people against the teachers of the law. 38 As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets. 40 They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." The meaning of these verses is clear. The Jewish religious leaders – the majority, at least – were insincere and wrongly motivated. Note the words like to in verse 38. They enjoyed dressing differently, to show, as they thought, their superiority to others. They felt entitled to have the most important seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets. The motivation in all that they did was to be admired by others, and even their prayers were designed to impress others rather than to seek the blessing of God. But Matthew's account of what Jesus said is more detailed. In Matthew 23:3-7 Jesus makes the following accusations against the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. 1. They do not practise what they preach (v3) 2. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders (v4) 3. Everything they do is done for men to see (v5) 4. They love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues (v6) 5. They love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi' (v7). And in verses 13-36 we read how Jesus again and again calls them hypocrites, blind guides, blind fools, blind men, and even describes them as you snakes, you brood of vipers! and warns them of the judgment to come as a result. Of course, it's easy enough for us to identify with Jesus' condemnation of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day, but I wonder how seriously church leaders today take Jesus' words of instruction to us as his disciples. Notice what he says in verses 8-12: But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. If you're wondering why Matthew includes these verses and Mark does not, it's important to remember that Mark was writing for a mainly Gentile audience whereas Matthew's audience was largely Jewish. It was important that Christians with a Jewish background should understand that there was no room for such practices in the Church of Jesus Christ. And the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles bear witness to the fact that Jesus' forthright teaching in these verses was largely followed. For example, unlike the practice in many churches today, the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 were never used as titles. Words like apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher described a gift God had given a person to fulfil a certain role in the church. They were not used as titles. Paul did not refer to himself as Apostle Paul but as Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ. Agabus was a prophet named Agabus, not Prophet Agabus. Philip is described as Philip, the evangelist, not Evangelist Philip, and so on. Interestingly, no one is named as a pastor in the New Testament. Pastor means shepherd and it was the elders who shepherded the churches in the New Testament. Yet today the term Pastor is frequently used as a title, a practice completely foreign to the spirit of the New Testament. But does it matter? Isn't the culture different today? Yes, it is. But we should align our practices with the teaching of the New Testament, not with the culture of the day, or even the culture prevalent in the church. The New Testament does teach us to respect and pray for our leaders, but the culture of honouring pastors in some churches is in danger of encouraging the very things that Jesus was so strongly condemning in these verses. But it's time to return to our passage in Mark 12. So far we've seen how Jesus asks the religious leaders a question which they are unable to answer, but which clearly implies his deity (35-37), and then warns the people to beware of these hypocritical teachers (38-40) and in Matthew's account telling his disciples that it must not be so among them. Now, in the final section of the chapter Jesus draws a contrast between the self-seeking behaviour of the religious leaders and the generosity of a poor widow. 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on." Perhaps you'll remember that in verse 40 Jesus accused the teachers of the law of devouring widows' houses. To understand this fully we need to realise that in those days widows had little or no power in the courts. A husband would appoint a scribe or Pharisee to be the executor of his widow's estate. This gave them authority to deal with the widow's estate and a corrupt lawyer could easily trick a widow out of her house. In doing this they were directly disobeying their beloved Law of Moses which clearly stated in Exodus 22:22, Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. It's not surprising that the word Pharisaical has become a synonym for hypocritical! No wonder Jesus said, Such men will be punished most severely. So when he sees many rich people throwing large amounts of money into the temple treasury, Jesus takes the opportunity to compare their ostentatious behaviour with that of the Pharisees who prayed long prayers for a show, and to contrast it with the abandoned generosity of one poor widow. Note the contrasts between rich and poor, between one and many, between large amounts and only a fraction of a penny. Yet her offering was greater than all the wealth of all the others put together. If, as we have seen, Jesus told his disciples not to behave like the Pharisees, here he is surely teaching them that they should follow the example of this poor widow. Her commitment was total. NIV translates the last few words of this chapter as everything – all she had to live on, but literally translated the Greek says her whole life! And that's exactly what Jesus demands of his followers. Unless we deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow him we cannot be his disciples. And unlike the Pharisees he does not demand of us more than he himself was prepared to give. He threw in his whole life. It cost him everything he had. So for us the challenge is not merely to avoid the hypocrisy of the Pharisees – and, if we're honest, that's not always as easy as it may sound – but to follow the example of the poor widow, whose prodigal giving is but a picture of the abandoned generosity of Jesus in giving his whole life for us. As we have seen in previous talks, he was the fulfilment of what Israel was meant to be, he was the fulfilment of all that the temple stood for, and he was the fulfilment of the Law for he loved the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his mind, and with all his strength, and he loved us, his neighbours, enough to die for us. Surely the least we can do, is live for him.
Talk 37 Mark 12:28-34 The Greatest Commandment Welcome to Talk 37 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we are considering Mark 12:28-34 where Jesus answers the question, Of all the commandments which is the most important? But before we read the passage it will be helpful to remind ourselves what has been taking place in recent chapters. We have seen in Chapter 11 how Jesus cursed a fig tree which was not bearing fruit and I suggested that this was an enacted parable telling of God's rejection of Israel. This is confirmed by the parable of the tenants in the opening verses of chapter 12. We saw also how Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, and I suggested that this was a prophetic action declaring that the end of temple worship was near. We have also seen how these actions annoyed the Jewish religious leaders and how they asked him various questions in an attempt to trap him. The Herodians tried to trap him by asking him a question about paying taxes to Caesar. The Sadducees tried to catch him out with a trick question about a woman who had had 7 husbands, and they asked whose wife she would be in the resurrection. Now, in today's passage, one of the Pharisees asks him a question about the law. Now there is an interesting verse in Acts 21:28 which is relevant to all this. There we read that Paul's opponents shouted: "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." This verse reveals three things which the Jewish leaders were most concerned about – Israel, the Law, and the Temple. But these three things were totally superseded by what Jesus came to do. The nation of Israel and the Jewish temple were superseded by the church as the true people of God, a living temple, comprised of all the Jews and Gentiles who came to believe in Jesus. But what about the Law? Well, that's the subject of today's passage: 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." 32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. We'll take this a verse at a time. 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" We know from Matthew 22:34-40 that this teacher of the law was in fact a Pharisee. He heard Jesus' answer to the Sadducees' question about the resurrection and was clearly impressed by it. Remember, the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection but the Pharisees did. So, seeing that the Sadducees had failed to catch Jesus out with their question, the Pharisees got together and decided to test Jesus with a question about the Law. 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Jesus answers by quoting two passages from the Pentateuch. He begins with what was known as the Shema which is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5. This begins with a declaration about God: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. He is the one and only true and living God, and that's why we should hear (i.e. obey) him. Perhaps the greatest reason that people do not obey God's commandments is that either they do not believe he exists, or that they do not really understand who he is. Knowing who God is gives us the greatest incentive to love and obey him. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' This means that we are to love God with every faculty, every fibre, of our being. In Matthew's account, Jesus describes this as the first and greatest commandment. In Mark it's the most important one. At first sight this might sound a bit strange. Does God really ask us to love him more than our fellow human beings? Isn't that selfish of God? Well, before we jump to that mistaken conclusion, let's remind ourselves of two things. First, we need to remember how much God loves us. He loved us so much that he gave his one and only Son to die on the cross to save us from our sins (John 3:16). God wants us to love him because he loves us so much. And, if you've ever been in love, you'll know that, essential to the very nature of loving someone, you desperately want them to love you too. If you didn't want them to love you, could you really say that you loved them? And secondly, God knows that, if we truly love him, we will want to keep his commandment to love other people. It's because Jesus loved God so much that he went to the cross. He knew it was God's will, and he knew it was God's will because he knew how much God loved us and wanted to save us. And, of course, Jesus went to the cross because he loved us too. There's no conflict between loving God and loving others, because that's exactly what God wants us to do. That's why Jesus says the second is like it (Matthew 22:39). These two commandments are inextricably linked. You can't love God without loving your neighbour – Whoever claims to love God, but hates a brother or sister is a liar (1 John 4:20). 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." This is taken from Leviticus 19:18. First let's consider what Jesus meant by 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Let's start with what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean, as some have wrongly assumed, that Jesus is teaching us that we should love ourselves. I am aware that it's often used this way to encourage people who, for one reason or another, have a low self-esteem, but neither in the original context of Leviticus 19:18, nor in the context of what Jesus was saying can this interpretation be justified. It's a typical example of eisegesis, of reading into a text what you want it to mean. Christian counsellors must beware of using the methods of modern secular psychology. Using Scripture in this way can be dangerous, however much we may wish to encourage others. There are other ways to encourage such people without misusing Scripture – reminding them how much God loves them, for example. But why am I so sure about this? Because, as we shall see in a moment, in Matthew's account, immediately after saying, Love your neighbour as yourself, Jesus says that All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Matthew 22:39-40). But in Matthew 7:12 he says So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Putting these two passages together, we see that loving your neighbour as yourself means doing to others what you would have them do to you – and that presupposes that you love yourself. So why does Jesus say as yourself? It seems to me that the obvious meaning is that we should love others as much as we love ourselves. Jesus knows that it's human nature to love ourselves. The difficult thing can be loving others. Because of the tendency to sin we have inherited from our first parents, we are all basically selfish. This is very evident even in the behaviour of little children. They have to be taught to put others first, and that's what Jesus is doing here. But why does Jesus say, All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments? Because, if you really love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and if you love your neighbour as yourself, you will keep all the commandments. Notice what James says: If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself', you are doing right (James 2:8). Let me illustrate the point I'm making by referring to the Ten Commandments. The first four relate to God, the final six relate to our neighbours. If we really love God with every fibre of our being, we won't need a written law to tell us not to worship other gods, not to make idols, and not to misuse God's name. And we will remember to set aside time to rest and to worship him. And if we really love others as much as we love ourselves, we will honour our parents, and we won't murder, commit adultery, steal, tell lies about them or covet their possessions. Perhaps you remember what St. Augustine of Hippo said: Love God, and do as you please. Because if you truly love God you will only do what pleases him. Notice what Paul says in Galatians 5. After reminding them that the entire law regarding our relationships with others is summed up in the single command, Love your neighbour as yourself (v.14), he goes on to tell them to live by the Spirit (v16) and they will not gratify the desires of the flesh. And in verse 18 he says, If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law. Why? Because the fruit of the Spirit starts with love (v.22). But that brings us back to our passage and the reply the Pharisee gave to what Jesus had said. 32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." According to Matthew's account, the man's purpose in asking Jesus the question was to test him, presumably hoping to catch him out by getting Jesus to say something against the law of Moses. Remember, Jesus had more than once overridden the authority of the law – or at least the Pharisees' interpretation of it. But now the Pharisee, having weighed up Jesus' answer, is compelled to acknowledge that Jesus is right. When people ask us questions about what we believe as Christians, their motive may not always be genuine. But if we give them an honest answer there is always the possibility that they may come to admit that we're right. They may be nearer the kingdom of God than we think. 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. In the previous verses we saw the man's evaluation of what Jesus had said. In this verse we see Jesus' evaluation of him. People have all kinds of different opinions about Jesus, but in the final analysis Jesus will have the last word. It's his evaluation of us that determines our final destiny. Jesus said that the man was not far from the kingdom of God. But he did not say he was in it. We don't know if this man ever entered it, was ever born again (John 3:3). It's one thing to admit that something Jesus has said is right. It's quite another to acknowledge who he is! However, perhaps this man did finally come to a full realisation of the truth about Jesus. It's clear from Acts 15:5 that some of the Pharisees had become believers in Jesus and were part of the church in Jerusalem, even if they were still struggling with the idea that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised! It may still take some time after we become Christians to break away from the unbiblical traditions we have grown up with. But let's finish by asking why Jesus said that the man was not far from the kingdom of God. It was undoubtedly because the man had understood that the attitude of our heart is far more important than religious observance. There is no religious ceremony or ritual that can save us, whether it be the Old Testament sacrificial system, or Christian baptism or confirmation, or church attendance, or pilgrimage. When we understand that, we are not far from the kingdom of God, but we can only enter it by personal faith in Christ as our Saviour. And if we really believe that he loved us enough to die for us, we will love him with all our being, we will only do what we know is pleasing to him, and we will love others because we know he loves them too.
Talk 36 Mark 12:1-27 Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders Welcome to Talk 36 in our series on Mark's gospel. In our last two talks we were considering the meaning of Jesus cleansing the temple and of his cursing the fig tree in Chapter 11. I suggested that, rather than cleansing the temple, Jesus was by his actions declaring the beginning of the end of worship in the temple, because that was soon to be replaced by the living temple, the church. I also suggested that's the cursing of the fig tree was, in a similar way, an enacted parable declaring God's rejection of Israel as his people. Today's passage, Mark 12:1-17, continues Jesus' confrontation with the Jewish religious leaders, firstly in the form of a parable, and then in the account of two specific encounters, (1) with the Pharisees and Herodians, and (2) with the Sadducees, all of whom were bitterly opposed to Jesus. First then, the parable of the tenants. As I mentioned this briefly last time, and because its meaning is so obvious, I shall devote little time to it today, especially as it is dealing with much the same subject as we were dealing with in the last two talks. But let's begin by reading it. The Parable of the Tenants (vv.1-12) He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7 "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven't you read this scripture: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" 12 Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. As I say, the meaning of this parable is extremely clear: · The man who planted the vineyard, the owner, symbolises God · The vineyard is Israel · The tenants are the Jewish leaders – and they knew it (v12) · The servants sent to them are the OT prophets and John the Baptist · The son of the owner is Jesus · The ‘others' to whom the owner gives the vineyard are the Gentiles. This last point is not made clear in the passage but is in harmony with Paul's teaching in Romans 11 which we looked at last time. So the parable confirms the line we have been taking in our last two talks. Jesus concludes with a quote from Psalm 118:22-23. He himself is the stone the builders rejected and has become the most important stone in the building of the new temple which was to be his church. The builders who rejected him were the Jewish leaders – see Acts 4:11 where Peter applies this same scripture directly to them (see also 1 Peter 2:4-8). No wonder the Jewish leaders were looking for a way to arrest Jesus. Which introduces us to the next section. An Encounter with the Pharisees and Herodians - Paying Taxes to Caesar (vv13-17) 13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. 17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him. We're very familiar with the Pharisees constantly opposing Jesus. They were sometimes joined by the Herodians who were a political group. What they had in common was their fear that Jesus might cause political unrest and that the Romans would impose even more sanctions on their nation and so affect their position in society and frustrate their own personal ambitions. So both groups wanted to get rid of Jesus and the question about paying taxes to Caesar, the Roman Emperor, was designed to trap him. If he said yes, it would turn the people against him because they hated their Roman oppressors. And if he said no, Jesus would be in trouble with the Romans who might very well accuse him of treason. Either way, they thought they had got him! But Jesus always had an answer for them. He answers, as he so often did, by asking them a question. He asks for a coin and then asks them whose portrait is on it and whose inscription. They then reply, Caesar's. So Jesus says, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. In other words, The coin belongs to Caesar, then. So you'd better give it back to him! And don't forget to give to God what belongs to God. Brilliant! But how does this apply to us as Christians? Let's look at what Paul has to say in Romans 13: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes… This applies whether we like the government that has been elected or not. The exception to this is when the authorities want you to disobey God, who is of course a higher authority. As Peter and John said to the Jewish Sanhedrin who ordered them no longer to teach or preach in Jesus' name: Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard (Acts 4:19-20). But now let's turn to the next trap that was set for Jesus. This time it was by the Sadducees. Along with the Pharisees they formed the Jewish Sanhedrin (a council of national religious leaders). The Pharisees believed in life after death, spirits and angels (Acts 23:6-8). The Sadducees did not. So now let's read Mark 12:18-27. An Encounter with the Sadducees – Marriage after the Resurrection 18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising – have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" From this passage I have selected three main areas from which we can learn: 1. Jesus' opponents and our opponents 2. The basis of Christian certainty 3. Life after death. 1 Jesus' opponents and our opponents The first thing I'd like you to notice is that the questions Jesus' opponents asked were not genuine. They didn't believe in the resurrection (v18), but they ask him a question about it. There was no genuine desire to find out the truth. They just wanted to catch him out. Jesus knew this, but he gave them an answer anyway. Sometimes we need to bear witness to the truth even when the questions people ask are not genuine. Secondly, their questions were based on ignorance. The only authority they accepted was the Pentateuch and they couldn't find resurrection in the Pentateuch, so they didn't believe in it. But in v32 Jesus shows them it's there in Exodus 3! The point Jesus is making is that at the time God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all long since dead. But God doesn't say to Moses, I WAS the God of Abraham etc. He says I AM. Because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive, even after they had died. The Sadducees hadn't read the Pentateuch carefully enough. Very often, the questions people ask us are based on ignorance too. When they criticise the Bible, it's not a bad idea to ask them, Have you read it? It's important that we should know our Bible well, and know how to interpret it correctly. And one important principle of interpretation is that it's Jesus' interpretation of the Old Testament that matters. Thirdly, we see that religious leaders can be in error. Notice what Jesus says in verses 24 and 27: 24 … "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 27 …You are badly mistaken!" Their error sprang from the fact that they did not know the Scriptures well enough and had no real experience of the power of God. Sadly, this is true of many religious leaders today. We must not be led astray by them. Finally, the opponents of Christ usually differ among themselves. The Pharisees now had an answer to the Sadducees but were more interested in defeating Jesus than in learning the truth. And it's much the same with many people today. Nevertheless, we still have a responsibility to tell them the truth. But that brings us to the basis of our certainty as Christians. 2 The basis of Christian certainty The Sadducees were in error because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. It follows, therefore, that if we want to know the truth we must understand both the Scriptures and the power of God. Both are important. As a Pentecostal minister, I am both an evangelical and a charismatic. I believe in the authority of the Bible and I believe that God's miracle-working power is still available to us today. Some Christians believe in one without the other. But to neglect either is to miss God's best for our lives. God is all-powerful. So don't limit your faith to what you can see. It's the Scriptures that tell us what to believe. We can believe in life after death, resurrection, because God is all-powerful. We can say like Paul when on trial before King Agrippa: Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? It's a matter of simple logic. Our faith is not contrary to logic, but logic is not the main basis for our belief. We believe in resurrection because of what the Scriptures say. Look at how Peter quotes Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25ff. The resurrection was inevitable because of what God had said in the Old Testament. And in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul insists that Christ was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures. In short, we believe in the power of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Like the noble Bereans in Acts 17:11, who examined the Scriptures every day to verify what they were hearing, we need to do the same. It is not enough to believe in the power of God. We must believe the Bible! Failure to do so will only lead to error. Supernatural manifestations must be tested to see if they are in line with Scripture. And the great certainty of our Christian faith is the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures. 3 Life after death So what does Jesus teach us in this passage about life after death? Four things: i. He assures us that there is life after death (vv. 26-27). He is not the God of the dead but of the living. ii. We will be like the angels in heaven (v25) This doesn't mean that we will become angels when we get to Heaven. In Hebrews 12:22-24 angels are distinguished from the spirits of righteous people made perfect. However, Jesus' main purpose is to point out the fallacy in the Sadducees' reasoning when they ask, Whose wife will she be? He is not saying that we will not recognise our loved ones when we get to Heaven. He is saying that relationships will be different. iii. There is life after death now. We don't have to wait until the resurrection. Abraham is alive now (26). He lived some 2000 years before Jesus, but he was still alive when Jesus spoke about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:22 ff. And, as we saw at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah were still alive at the time of Jesus. When we die as Christians we go to be with Christ which is far better (Philippians 1:23). To be absent from our body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). iv. Ultimately there is to be a resurrection Jesus had already predicted his own death and resurrection on three different occasions. He got that right, so we can trust him about our resurrection! Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
Talk 35 Mark 11:11-33 (continued) The Cursing of the Fig Tree Welcome to Talk 35 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're continuing to look at Mark 11:11-33. As we said last time, there are two interrelated stories interwoven in this passage – the cursing of the fig tree and the so-called ‘cleansing' of the temple. I suggested that Jesus' actions were not really a cleansing (i.e. to make it fit for purpose), but rather an enacted parable declaring the beginning of the end of worship in the temple which was soon to be destroyed. It was to be replaced by a new temple, not one made with human hands, but a living temple made up of God's people the church. If you have not already heard that talk, I encourage you to do so, as it is closely connected with this one. Today we'll be considering the significance of Jesus' cursing of the fig tree and I'm going to suggest that this too was an enacted parable. So let's begin by reading Mark 11, starting at verse 11. Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. 12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it. Then we have the story of Jesus clearing out the temple, so now, jumping to verse 20: 20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" 22 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." So what can we learn from this story? I'm going to deal with this under three headings: · Lessons about Israel · Lessons about Jesus · Lessons about us. The subject of Israel and its future is one over which Christians are often disagreed. I hesitate to deal with it because of the strong opinions held on the subject. But I'm going to address it, (1) because I want to be faithful to the text of Scripture, (2) because of what's going on in Israel at the moment, (3) because so many Christians are preoccupied with that. Lessons about Israel If I am right in saying that Jesus' actions in clearing the temple were a kind of enacted parable declaring the end of temple worship, the question naturally arises, is the cursing of the fig tree also an enacted parable signifying God's rejection of Israel? I'm going to give you three reasons why I think it is: 1 God himself likens Israel to a fig tree (Hosea 9:10) When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree (something exceptional and wonderful). But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol... In Mark 11 Jesus is looking for early fruit on a fig tree but finding none. So he curses it. In Hosea, God is saying that at the beginning Israel had been a delight to him, something rare and precious, like grapes in the desert or like early fruit on a fig tree, but now they had forsaken him and had followed idols. (Compare v1 where he calls them Unfaithful). 2 Jesus' parables clearly indicate God's rejection of Israel In Mark 12:1-12, (the very next chapter) Jesus tells the parable of the tenants. A man plants a vineyard and rents it to some farmers and then goes on a journey. At harvest time he sends a servant to get some fruit from the vineyard. The tenants seize him and send him away empty-handed. He sends other servants, but they are all badly treated. Eventually he sends his son, and they kill his son. As a result, Jesus says, the owner of the vineyard will kill the tenants and give the vineyard to others. This reminds us of Isaiah 5:1-7, where God describes Israel as a vineyard he has planted which only produces bad fruit and so will be destroyed. All this strongly suggests that the cursing of the fig tree is a picture of Israel's failure to please God by producing the fruit he is seeking. (Cf. also the parable of the fig tree in Luke 13:6-9). 3 The overall teaching of the New Testament. Paul teaches that the true Jew is not a person physically descended from Abraham, but anyone, whether Jew or Gentile, who has believed as Abraham believed. Consequently, it is not the Jewish nation, the state of Israel, that are the people of God, but the company of those who believe, the church, the body of Christ, whose members are, as we saw last time: …a spiritual house …a holy priesthood …a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God …who are now the people of God (1 Peter 2:5, 9-10). But where does that leave the nation of Israel today? Doesn't God still have a plan for Israel as a nation? Well, it all depends on how you interpret Romans, chapters 9-11. These chapters teach five things: 1. Not all Jews are God's children (9:6-8, 10:16) It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" (10:16) 2. It's only the believing remnant who are (9:27) Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. Paul will say more about the remnant in chapter 11. But why aren't all Jews God's children? Because, whether we be Jew or Gentile, salvation is by faith. 3. Salvation is by faith (10:30-32) 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. That's why he says in 10:1 that 4. The Israelites need to be saved (10:1) Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. It's not that they haven't heard the message. In verse 19 Paul says: Did they not hear? Of course they did But sadly, Israel are a disobedient and obstinate people (21). However, despite all this, Paul says that 5. God did not reject his people (11:1-2) I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew… But what does Paul mean by God's people? (11:2-7) But what does Paul mean by God's people? (11:2-7) From what follows in verses 2-7 it seems that's he's talking about what he calls a remnant. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah – how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened… (You may remember what Paul said in 9:27 – only the remnant will be saved.) So, Paul begins by saying that God has not rejected his people (vv1-2). But who are his people? He refers to the story of Elijah where, despite the apostate condition of Israel as a whole, God had reserved for himself a remnant who had not bowed the knee to Baal. It's the believing remnant that are the true Israel. But what about the rest? Paul says that those who have fallen are not beyond recovery (v11). He hopes that by his ministry he may save some of them (14). He compares Israel to an olive tree and some of the branches (the unbelieving Jews) have been broken off, so that the Gentiles, a wild olive, might be grafted in. But God is able to graft the Jews in again if they do not persist in unbelief (v23). So, in the context, it is the Jews who believe who are God's people. The true Israel was never, not even in the Old Testament, the entire state of Israel, but the remnant chosen by grace who have not bowed the knee to Baal (11:1-10). So how does keep his promises to the Jewish nation? By grafting them back into the olive tree (which now contains Gentile branches) if they come to faith in Christ. In doing so, they become part of the true and much larger Israel, the people of God from every tribe and tongue and nation, who have trusted Christ in whom alone is salvation. So what does Paul mean when he says that All Israel shall be saved? (11:25-26) 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. In the light of all that Paul has said again and again about the true Israel not being the physical descendants of Abraham but those who believe as Abraham believed, he cannot possibly mean that all Jews will be saved simply because they are Jewish. In my view, to be consistent with the clear teaching in the rest of the New Testament, God will fulfil his promises to Israel through the salvation of the believing remnant of the Jews along with the believing Gentiles who together comprise the true Israel. However, I acknowledge that many Christians believe that at some point in the (maybe not too distant) future, when the full number of the Gentiles has come in, many of the Jews will come to faith in Christ, through whom alone is salvation. But even if that is correct, it does not mean that at present Jewish people, or the nation of Israel are God's people. The true Israel is the company of all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. So ultimately, All Israel will be saved finds its fulfilment in the fact that all those who believe in Jesus, and only those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles, will find salvation in him. These chapters do not teach that the citizens of the modern state of Israel are God's chosen people, and it's wrong to talk of them as though they were. But does this amount to antisemitism? Certainly not. Holding this view is no excuse for hatred of the Jews or for the terrible events of the holocaust. As Christians we are called to love the Jews, not because of the mistaken view that they are still God's chosen people, but because they, like us, are sinners for whom Christ died. But we should not love them any more than we love the Africans, the Americans, the Australians, or the Arabs for that matter. God loves the world… and so should we. So I encourage you to think on these things in the light of Scripture and not on the basis of preconceived ideas taught so dogmatically on some of the God channels. Lessons about Jesus His humanity The first thing we notice in our passage is that Jesus was hungry (v12). This speaks to us of his humanity. As a man Jesus was subject to all the problems that we as humans face. He was God. He had created the universe. But he was hungry! In becoming one of us Jesus put himself in the position that he, the Creator, became dependent on his creation! What humility! What condescension! And we find another aspect of his humanity in verse 13 where he went to find out if the fig tree had any fruit. Now it was early spring, at the time of the Passover. Mark tells us that he didn't find any because it was not yet the season for figs. However, it was in leaf and the figs would soon be appearing. In fact, as we've already seen from Hosea 9:10, sometimes there would be early fruit on a fig tree. And no doubt that's what Jesus was looking for. But he did not know if there would be any or not. He went to find out. Again, this speaks of the humanity of Jesus. Although he was God – and God knows everything – when he came to earth he laid aside the use of his divine attributes. By limiting himself to a human body he could not possibly be omnipresent. Neither was he omniscient. He became as one of us. And yet he was still God! And our passage indicates that too. His deity Yes, we see his deity as well as his humanity in this passage. This is revealed, not as you might expect, in the fact that he was able to wither the fig tree, but in his reason for doing so. Like Israel, it was failing to produce the fruit God was looking for. The miracle itself did not indicate his deity, because he tells his disciples in verse 23 that anyone who has faith can do the same. But Paul says in Colossians 1 that Christ is the ruler over all creation. All things were created by him and for him. The fig tree was created by Jesus and for Jesus, and if it wasn't bearing fruit for its Creator, there was no point to its existence! Lessons about us A lesson on fruitbearing Now, putting together what we've been saying so far, it follows that as the true Israel is the church, made up of all believing Jews and Gentiles, then God expects to find fruit in our lives too. This is a clear biblical principle. God expects the things he has created to fulfil the purpose for which he has created them. This is what Jesus is teaching in the Parable of the Fig Tree, to which I referred earlier: A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' (Luke 13:6-9). And the same truth is illustrated in John 15 in the Parable of the Vine. The branches that don't bear fruit he cuts off (v2). And the fruit he is looking for is the fruit of the Spirit, especially love. If we're not bearing fruit for Jesus, there really is no point to our existence! A lesson on faith It's interesting that the disciples didn't notice that the fig tree had withered until the day after Jesus had cursed it. And we don't know exactly when it withered. Obviously it was some time during that 24 hour period. Surely if it had happened immediately they would have noticed it. In a way, it doesn't matter, because once Jesus had spoken the word, the tree was dead. The leaves, the symptoms of life, may have taken 24 hours to wither. This may be true of the problems we face too – the symptoms don't always vanish immediately. The proof of the power of Jesus' words may not have been evident at first, but Jesus himself doesn't even look to see if has withered. He has faith to believe that what he has said will come to pass, because he was always hearing what his Father had to say (John 5:19). And he even says that we can do the same: Have faith in God, he says, I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Wow! What a promise! Is Jesus really saying that whatever you say will happen as long as you have faith and do not doubt? At first sight it certainly looks like it. But before we jump to that conclusion, we need to consider verse 25: 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. This seems to suggest that the promise about putting mountains in the sea is conditional on our right standing with God. If you're not prepared to forgive people, you're not in right standing with God. And if you're not, you won't have the faith that brings the answer to your prayers. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me (Psalm 66:18). Consider what Jesus says in the parable of the vine in John 15. The condition of answered prayer is our abiding in him. And in 1 John 3:21-22 we're told: If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God and receive anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. But, returning to the promise in our passage, we need also to ask if it has ever been literally fulfilled in 2000 years of church history. And if not, why not? Has no one had enough faith? Or could it just be that God who put the mountains where they are doesn't want them put into the sea? But if the promise has never been literally fulfilled, there are many testimonies of metaphorical mountains that he been put into the sea. And every time someone puts their trust in Christ as their saviour, the mountain of sin that separated them from God has been removed and buried in the deepest sea. So, a promise that has possibly never been fulfilled literally has been fulfilled millions of times spiritually. But that brings us to our final lesson: A Lesson on God's Love We need to remember that all this took place a few days before Jesus died. He was about to face an enormous mountain – the mountain of our sins, of the sins of the whole world. He didn't have to face it. One word from him and Mount Calvary would be destroyed. And he was about to face another tree – the cross on which he died. He could have destroyed that too. He could have withered it like the fig tree. But instead of cursing it he chose to embrace it, and in the words of Galatians 3:13, to redeem us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. And why did he do it? Because he loved us. And that's why he has the right to expect to find fruit in our lives. Are we really living for the purpose he created us? I know I want to be. Do you?
Talk 34 Mark 11:11-33 The ‘cleansing' of the Temple Welcome to Talk 34 in our series on Mark's Gospel. In this talk and the next we'll be looking at Mark 11:11-33. This passage contains two stories – the cursing of the fig tree and what is often referred to as the ‘cleansing' of the Temple (although I shall suggest that this is not the best description of what Jesus was doing). The fact that these stories are interwoven in the text and that they both happened within the same 24-hour period strongly suggests that they have a common theme. As we shall see, it's possible to see both these events as two enacted parables announcing the termination of the temple as a place of worship and God's rejection of Israel because of his anger that they have rejected his Son, something which is backed up by the parable of the tenants which immediately follows in 12:1-12. Today we'll concentrate on the temple. Next time we'll consider why Jesus cursed the fig tree. But first, let's outline the story. Verses 11-14. Jesus curses a fig tree because of its lack of fruit. Jesus and the apostles are staying in Bethany, possibly with Martha and Mary. On the way into Jerusalem Jesus is hungry and seeing a fig tree in leaf he goes to find out if there is any fruit on it. Finding nothing but leaves he says, May no one ever eat fruit from you again. And, jumping to verse 20, we see that the fig tree has withered from the roots. But first, we have verses 15-19. Verses 15-19. Jesus cleanses the Temple. When he reaches Jerusalem, Jesus goes into the temple and drives out the people who are buying and selling there. He overturns the tables of the money changers and won't allow anyone to carry merchandise though the temple courts. He reminds them of what God has said in Isaiah 56:7 – My house will be a house of prayer for all nations – and, quoting Jeremiah 7:11, adds, But you have made it a den of robbers. This angers the Jewish religious leaders and they start to look for a way to kill him. In the evening Jesus returns to Bethany. Verses 20-25. Jesus teaches a lesson on faith from the fig tree which has withered. The next day, as they're going back into Jerusalem Peter points out that the fig tree Jesus cursed is withered. Jesus replies: Have faith in God, I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore, I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. We'll be looking at this in more detail next time, so now verses 27-33. Verses 27-33. Jesus is challenged by the Jewish leaders. They arrive back in Jerusalem and Jesus is confronted by the Jewish religious leaders who challenge him over what he has just done in the temple. By what authority had he done it? Jesus avoids answering their question but counters with another one. Was John's baptism of divine or of human origin? Realising that whatever answer they gave could lead them into criticism, they say, We don't know. So Jesus replies, Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. So, having now outlined the passage, let's begin by considering the significance of Jesus' actions in the temple. The significance of Jesus' actions in the temple To understand this fully we need to look back into the Old Testament. If you know your Bible well, you will know that there were in fact three temples built in Jerusalem: · Solomon's Temple, which was Israel's first temple · Zerubbabel's Temple, built to replace Solomon's Temple after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar · Herod's Temple, the temple at the time of Jesus. However, the purpose for which the original temple was built remained the same, and we can learn much about this from Solomon's prayer of dedication in 1 Kings 8:12-61. A place for God to dwell for ever (v13) Although Solomon's purpose was for the temple to be a place for God to dwell in, he knew that God couldn't be contained in a building, however magnificent it might be. Note what he says in verse 27: The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! And in verse 30 he recognises that heaven is God's dwelling place: Hear the supplication of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive (cf. vv. 39,43, 45). But what perhaps Solomon didn't understand was that God's ultimate plans were not for a physical temple made by men (Acts 7:48), but for a spiritual temple comprised of God's people themselves (1 Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21-22, 1 Peter 2:4-10). More on this later. A place for the Name of the Lord (vv. 17,18, 19, 20, 29,43,48) What does Solomon mean when he talks about building a temple for the Name of the Lord? In Bible times a name was not just a label, but something intended to represent the true nature of the person holding that name. The Name of the Lord has been defined as God himself, actively present, in the fulness of his revealed character. And in the Psalms his name is linked with his righteousness, faithfulness, salvation, holiness, goodness, mercy, love, truth, and glory. If the temple was to be a place for God to dwell in, a place for the Name of the Lord, it must be a place that stood for and demonstrated all these divine qualities. A place of prayer for all the peoples of the earth (vv. 28, 29, 30, 33, 38, 41-44, 48, 49) From the number of references to prayer in 1 Kings 8 it's clear that prayer was to be its primary purpose. Indeed, God himself was to say later through the prophet Isaiah: My house will be a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56:7). Note that it was not only to be a house of prayer, but a house of prayer for all nations. This aspect of Solomon's purpose in building the original temple is expressed in his prayer that God would even answer the prayers of foreigners and do whatever they ask of him so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel… (vv41-43) and may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other (v. 60). So Solomon's purposes in building the temple were that it should be: A place for God to dwell in for ever A place for the Name of the Lord A place of prayer for all nations – a place where people might come to know the Lord. But it's clear from Jesus' actions that these purposes were being frustrated by the Jewish people. Foreigners were treated with contempt and fleeced by the money changers. The qualities associated with the Name of the Lord were entirely absent. It was certainly not a fit dwelling place for God. And Jesus was right to be angry. Anger is not sin. It's right to be angry about sin. But were these the only reasons for his actions? Was he really cleansing the temple? Or was he perhaps declaring by his actions that the time for the temple was about to come to an end? In Mark 13:2 he certainly predicted its destruction, something which was literally fulfilled in AD 70. Could this have been the significance of his cursing the fig tree? We'll come to that next time, but today let's consider how God's plans for the temple relate to Jesus himself, and then to his church. Jesus as God's temple As we bear in mind God's original purposes for his temple, we see that these are wonderfully fulfilled in Jesus himself. If the characteristics of the divine nature were not being displayed in the temple as they should, they most certainly were in Jesus, in whom dwelt all the fulness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2:10). Jesus embodied all that the Name of Yahweh stood for. He was God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV). Jesus himself was the true temple. If that sounds strange, bear in mind that in Matthew 12:6, referring to himself, Jesus said, In this place is one greater than the temple. He also referred to his own body as the temple (John 2:19-21). All the purposes of the temple were fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. With his death, about to take place in less than a week, the temple was to become redundant, its veil torn in two from the top to the bottom. The middle wall, the barrier that separated the Gentiles from the Jews was destroyed (Ephesians 2:14). We need no longer look to the temple for the answer to our prayers. It's not in the temple, but in Jesus that we have the answer. Because of his sacrificial death on the cross, all who believe, both Jew and Gentile, have access to God through Jesus. The church as God's temple Despite Solomon's prayer that the temple he had built would be God's dwelling place for ever, God himself never intended the temple in the Old Testament to be permanent. It was a prophetic symbol of Christ himself and of his church. Listen to what Paul says to the Corinthians. Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16). And he tells the Ephesians that all who believe in him, whether Jew or Gentile, are: Members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22). And 1 Peter 2:4-10 describes Jesus as the living stone, rejected by men, but precious to him, and tells us that we too, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood. We are his chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation… we are now the people of God. And 2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." What a privilege. We are the temple. But privilege always carries with it responsibility. We need to learn lessons from the mistakes God's people made of old. But let me first remind you of what we have said so far. I have suggested that, rather than cleansing the temple (i.e. making it fit for purpose), Jesus was actually expressing his anger at the way the temple had been defiled by the people of his day and that by his action in driving them out he was declaring an end to the temple which was shortly to be destroyed. It was no longer fit for purpose. It was no longer the dwelling place of God, no longer a place that represented all that his Father stood for, no longer a house of prayer for all nations where all the people of the world might come to know the Lord. I have suggested that during his time here on earth the Lord Jesus himself was the true temple, the dwelling place of God, one who did represent and manifest all that the Father stood for, and that since his departure to heaven it is his purpose that the church, which is his body should fulfil the same role. The question is, are we? Or is it possible that we too are defiling God's temple? Are we defiling God's temple, the church? Let's be clear. We're not talking about a church building. We're talking about the company of God's people, the church. Each of us needs to examine our heart on this matter, but it might help to call to mind some of the areas where some of the early Christians sometimes failed: · Thinking of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), are there times when we are not always strictly honest with each other? · Thinking of the Corinthians, are we defiling the temple by our divisions, especially over church leaders? · Are we sometimes guilty of failing to put the needs of others before our own as the Corinthians were at the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11)? · Is there sexual immorality among us as there was with them (1 Corinthians 6)? · Are there idols in our lives (2 Corinthians 6:16)? If we really want our gatherings to be times where · we experience God's holy presence · where the Name of the Lord and all that he stands for is honoured and exemplified · where we can expect our prayers to be answered · and where people of all nations may come to know the Lord let's examine our hearts and put right anything that might hinder the church from being the temple God intends it to be. In both Old and New Testaments there were serious consequences for defiling the Lord's temple. But, thank God, if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we really want it, our church can be just what God wants it to be. May it be so, for the sake of his Name.
Talk 33 Mark 11:1-10 The Triumphal Entry Welcome to Talk 33 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at what is often referred to as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This is found not only in Mark 11:1-10, but also in Matthew 21:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, and John 12:12-19. We will be concentrating on Mark's account, but we'll also refer to the other accounts where they enrich our understanding of this wonderful event in the life of Jesus. But first, let's read Mark 11:1-10. 1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'" 4 They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5 some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" 6 They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" 10 "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!" Today we're going to look at six things this passage teaches us about Jesus, but first let's set the scene in the overall context of Jesus' life and ministry. Jesus had spent three and a half years teaching his disciples, meeting the needs of the people, forgiving sinners, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, driving out demons, giving sight to the blind, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead. He is now on his way to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover with his disciples and where within less than a week he will be crucified. The Passover was the annual festival celebrated by the Jews in memory of their ancestors' deliverance from slavery in Egypt. It was called the Passover because the angel of death sent by God as the final judgment on the Egyptians passed over the Israelites when he saw the blood of a lamb sprinkled on the doorposts of their houses. What Jesus was to do later that week was to become the final Passover Lamb whose blood was to be shed on the cross to save not only the Israelites but those of all nations who would trust in him as the atoning sacrifice for their sins. Few, if any, in the crowd who were praising Jesus as the coming king would have understood this. It's more likely that they were expecting him to use his miracle working power to overthrow the Romans, but God's plan and purpose was far bigger than that. Jesus had not come to save Israel from the power of Rome, but the entire world from the power and consequences of sin. So Jesus comes, not as a military conqueror riding on a horse or in a chariot, but as the humble king of peace, riding on a young donkey as prophesied in Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. So, having set the scene, let's now see what the passage teaches us about Jesus. As we saw right at the beginning of Mark's Gospel, Mark's intention is to proclaim Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of God. This has been clear throughout all he has taught us about Jesus so far, but nowhere is it clearer than in today's passage. First, we see that Jesus was a man with authority He tells his disciples what to do, and they do it. Note the words of instruction in verses 1-3. Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you… you will find a colt tied there … Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'" Jesus expects unquestioning obedience from his disciples, and this includes the owner of the donkey – Tell him, The Lord needs it. In fact, with the exception of the Pharisees (Luke 19:39-40), everyone in the story accepts the authority of Jesus. Even the crowd of pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover festival acknowledge that Jesus is the one who comes in the name of (with the authority of) the Lord (v9). They even proclaim him as the King of Israel (John 12:13). And finally, it seems that even the young donkey seems to have accepted his authority. No one had ever ridden him (v2). He was an unbroken animal. But the lowly beast submits to the authority of his Maker and carries Jesus on his final journey into Jerusalem. Jesus was a prophet He was a man who received supernatural revelation and this gave him detailed foreknowledge of future events. Notice what he says in verse 2 : Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. Now Jesus was on his way up from Jericho where he had healed blind Bartimaeus and the village where the donkey was was ahead of him. He had certainly not been there recently. He had travelled over 100 miles from Capernaum at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee. There is no suggestion that he had made a private arrangement with the owners. Yet he knew exactly where the donkey was – just at the entrance of the village. He knew it was tied there. He knew that no one had ever ridden it. He knew it would be available. Of course, if you have a mind to, you can possibly think of a natural explanation of how Jesus knew all these things, but please bear in mind that Jesus frequently knew things by supernatural revelation. He knew that Peter would catch a fish and find a coin in its mouth, enough to pay the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27). He knew that the woman of Samaria had had five husbands and that the man she was living with was not her husband (John 4:17-18). And in Mark 14:12-16 he knew that when he sent two of his disciples to go and prepare for the Passover meal, when they went into the city they would find a man carrying a waterpot. And in Luke 19:41-44 when he finally reaches Jerusalem he weeps over it and predicts in detail the tragic events which were to take place there some forty years later in AD 70. So the Gospels are very clear that Jesus often knew things supernaturally. But was this because he was God, or was it because as a man he received supernatural revelation through the Holy Spirit? In answering this question it's important to stress that Jesus is and always was God, and God is omniscient. He knows everything. And Jesus did not cease to be God while he was here on earth. However, although he was God, it seems that as man he did not know everything. Returning to our passage, we see in verse 3 that, although he knows about the donkey, he says, If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' rather than Someone will ask you. And, as we'll see in our next talk, there's another illustration of this in verse 13 where we're told that: Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he (Jesus) went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs (v13). So in my view, the flashes of supernatural revelation Jesus received while he was here on earth are best understood to result not from his deity, but from the revelation of the Spirit. If they do not in themselves prove his deity, they certainly show how close was his relationship with his Father in Heaven. They were supernatural gifts from the Holy Spirit, and if we keep filled with the Spirit, similar gifts may be ours too as, of course, the Holy Spirit determines (1 Corinthians 12:11). Remember how Peter knew that Ananias and Sapphira were lying (Acts 5)? Peter was not God, but he received revelation from God, the Holy Spirit. Jesus, even though he was God, was also man, and he received revelation in the same way. But that brings us to the next lesson about Jesus. Jesus was the Messiah Now if, as we have just been saying, Jesus received prophetic revelation through the leading and power of the Holy Spirit, the same is true of the miracles he performed. The miracles were the reason for the people's joy on Palm Sunday: When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen (Luke 19:37). They were longing for the coming of their long-awaited Messiah, which in Hebrew means anointed one. You will remember, of course, that when he was preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus had read these words from Isaiah 61:1-2: The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18-19), and had gone on to say, Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing (v21). In saying this he was claiming to be none other than the anointed one (the Messiah), and he had gone on to prove it by preaching good news to the poor, proclaiming freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, and releasing the oppressed. So the people on Palm Sunday were praising God not only for all the miracles they had seen, but because those miracles might well indicate that at last the Messiah had come. So they acknowledge Jesus as the Son of David, (Matthew 21:9), the king who comes in the name of the Lord (Luke 19:38). So Jesus was a man of authority. But he was more than that. He was a prophet. But he was more than that. He was the Messiah. So what does our passage teach about what should be our attitude towards him? Jesus is worthy of our worship Among the crowd around Jesus on that first Palm Sunday, there must have been surely a variety of opinions and attitudes. There were the twelve disciples who had already come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. There were undoubtedly other followers who had either already formed the same opinion or who were at least on the point of doing so. There may also have been those who, caught up in the excitement and emotion of the moment joined in the celebration without really understanding what was happening. And there were of course those like the Pharisees who understood what Jesus was claiming to be and who wanted to kill him because of it. So can we really say that they were all worshipping Jesus? Three things suggest to me that many certainly were. First, their actions indicate it. Some threw their cloaks and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road in front of Jesus (v8). Secondly, their words, taken from all four Gospels, imply it: Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in Heaven and glory in the highest! Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Blessed is the King of Israel! And thirdly, the Pharisees seem to have interpreted it as worship. They said to Jesus: Teacher, rebuke your disciples! But Jesus replied, I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out (Luke 19:39-40). So if this wasn't worship, it certainly looked like it! And their worship was centred around three main things: o What Jesus had done for them (working miracles) o Who he was (the Son of David, the King who comes with the authority of the Lord) o The coming Kingdom of God. And these are just the reasons we should worship him too. Jesus is worthy of our trust But Jesus is not only worthy of our worship. He is worthy of our trust too. The two disciples he sent ahead to get the donkey had come to trust Jesus, even when what he asked them to do might have been questionable. But they had not always. Remember, for example, the feeding of the 5,000? Jesus says, You give them something to eat. But, they reason, that would take eight months of a man's wages. Again and again, they had questioned his instructions, but by now they were learning to trust him. They obey his instructions and, of course, find things just as Jesus has said. They had learned to trust him, because they had discovered that Jesus knows best. And we can trust him too. He sees what we cannot see. He knows what we do not know. He has detailed knowledge of future events. And, of course, we can trust him, not only because of his knowledge, but also because of his power. He is not only omniscient. He is omnipotent. He is no longer here on earth as man, exercising power as he was led by the Spirit. He is seated at God's right hand. All authority has been given to him in Heaven and on earth. We can trust him because he has the power and authority to accomplish whatever he knows is best for us. And we can trust him because he is good. An all-powerful God who was not good would not be someone to trust, but rather to fear. But our God is not a king who comes to terrorise his people. Like Jerusalem of old, we can rejoice greatly because our king comes to us gentle and riding on a donkey. The gentleness, the humility, the goodness and love of Jesus assure us that we can trust him. And finally… Jesus is worthy of our obedience and sacrifice We have already seen the trust and obedience of the two disciples Jesus sent to get the colt. But we also see the sacrifice of those who spread their cloaks on the road (v8). No thought of how dirty or how damaged they might get, not only from the hooves of the donkey but also from the feet of the crowd who were following Jesus. Their worship was expressed in an extravagant disregard for their worldly possessions. And they did not understand that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem to suffer and die for the forgiveness of their sins. But we do. How much more extravagant should be our commitment to the Lord Jesus? But now, one final thought. We have seen in this passage that Jesus was a man of authority, a man who received supernatural revelation of future events. We have seen that he was the Messiah, the Son of David, the king of Israel. And yet the story reveals that he needed something. He needed a donkey! Note those words in verse 3 – The Lord… needs it. The Lord, the Creator of the universe needed a donkey! It was to play a part in the fulfilment of God's purposes. And, believe it or not, he needs you too. Of course, he could fulfil his purposes without us, but he has chosen not to. He has chosen to use donkeys like Peter and Andrew and James and John, like you and like me. Do you know who he is? How extravagantly will you worship him? How much will you trust him? To what extent will you obey him? Jesus is worthy of your sacrificial obedience. He won't enforce it. But doesn't his love demand it. Isaac Watts certainly thought so: Were the whole realm of nature mine, That were an off'ring far too small. Love so amazing, so divine, Demands my soul, my life, my all.
Talk 32 Mark 10:46-52 Blind Bartimaeus receives his sight Welcome to Talk 32 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we are looking at Mark 10:46-52. It's the story of how a blind beggar called Bartimaeus receives his sight. It's a short passage so let's begin by reading it. 46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" 48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" 49 Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. 51 "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him. The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see." 52 "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. We'll begin by looking at what this passage has to tell us about Jesus. Then we'll consider what we can learn about Bartimaeus, and finally we'll see how this story may well have an application in our own lives. Firstly, then, what does the passage teach us about Jesus? Jesus The first thing we notice is that Jesus is accompanied not only by his disciples but by a large crowd. This clearly indicates his popularity. We know from what we have already seen in Mark's gospel, Jesus was opposed by the Pharisees and other religious leaders, but it's also clear that the common people heard him gladly. This was almost certainly because of the miracles of healing he was performing as well as the wonderful things he was teaching. Secondly, we see indications that people were beginning to realise that Jesus was the Messiah. Notice that in verse 46 the passage makes a distinction between the disciples and the crowd. The disciples had left all to follow Jesus. Many in the crowd would have been following just because they hoped he might heal them, or that at least they might see some amazing miracle. The disciples on the other hand had begun to understand who Jesus was. For most of the crowd he was at best a prophet, known to them simply as Jesus of Nazareth. Some, however, like Bartimaeus we're beginning to wonder if he might be the promised Messiah. Notice that Bartimaeus refers to him by the messianic title, Son of David. Thirdly, the recognition that Jesus was the Messiah sprang from the authority Jesus clearly possessed. We see this in verse 49 in the way Jesus gives clear instructions and is immediately obeyed – Call him. So they called him… They have just told Bartimaeus to be quiet, but at one word from Jesus they immediately change their tune. And, of course, Jesus' authority is even more evident in his power to grant Bartimaeus his request – Go, your faith has healed you. And immediately Bartimaeus receives his sight. And finally, our passage reveals the compassion of Jesus, not just in healing the blind man, but in the fact that he stopped (v49) to do so. Remember verses 33-35. He was on his way to Jerusalem to be crucified – probably in only a few days' time. The very next thing Mark records is the triumphal entry into Jerusalem which happened less than a week before Jesus was crucified. But despite the knowledge of his imminent suffering and death, Jesus takes time to stop and to meet the need of a beggar. But what does the passage teach us about Bartimaeus? Bartimaeus The first thing we notice is his desperate need. He was blind and he was a beggar. In those days there was little else that the blind could do, other than beg. His needs were physical – he was blind. His needs were financial – he had to beg. But less obvious perhaps was his need for acceptance in the society in which he lived. It was commonly believed that blindness was caused by sin – either the sin of the blind man or of his parents. This is very clear in John 9:2 where, in connection with another blind man, the disciples asked Jesus: Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus was quick to correct this wrong assumption, but the fact that even his disciples made it is evidence of the view prevalent at the time. So, although it's not mentioned here in Mark 10, it's not unreasonable to assume that many of the people regarded Bartimaeus' condition as the result of sin. However, as we shall see, it's spiritual blindness that results from sin, not physical blindness. So the first thing we learn about Bartimaeus is his desperation. Closely connected with this is his determination. Imagine the scene. He's sitting at the roadside begging. He can see nothing, but he can hear. And he hears a commotion. There's a crowd of people coming down the road. He wonders what the noise is all about. And then he hears that it is Jesus. Now he must have heard about Jesus and the miracles he had been performing. He had possibly heard about the blind man Jesus had healed in Mark 8, or the many blind people who had been healed in Luke 7:22. And now Jesus of Nazareth is passing his way. Faith is quickened in his heart and he's determined to be healed. He cries out: Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. The people rebuke him and tell him to be quiet. But this only makes him shout louder. And when Jesus calls him, he responds immediately. He jumps to his feet. He wants nothing to hinder him coming to Jesus, so he throws his cloak, possibly his most valued possession, aside, and he comes to Jesus. Why? Because he wants to see (v.51). But why did he so earnestly want to see? Was it only to meet his physical and financial needs, or could it also be that he wanted to find the acceptance in society that we were talking about earlier? I find it interesting that many people today who were born with a disability have no real desire to be healed. They want to be accepted for who they are, just as they are. And rightly so. But while I understand and respect their position, and certainly have no intention to criticise, I sometimes wonder if one reason we see so few outstanding miracles of healing in such cases is that there is no real desire to be healed – but of course the reason could easily be a lack of faith on the part of those who pray for them. Thank God that in the case of Bartimaeus there was no lack of faith on the part of Jesus or of desire on the part of Bartimaeus. But that brings us to the third thing the passage reveals about Bartimaeus – his faith in Jesus. We know that Bartimaeus had faith because Jesus said in verse 52 that it was his faith that healed him. Yet we know that it was Jesus who healed him because he asked Bartimaeus, What do you want me to do for you? There is no contradiction here. Jesus healed Bartimaeus because Bartimaeus had faith in him. Faith alone is not enough. What matters is who you have faith in. The evidence of Bartimaeus' faith in Jesus is that he called out to him, he came to him immediately Jesus called him, he took Jesus at his word when he said, What do you want me to do for you?, and he believed that Jesus could heal him – Rabbi, I want to see. But where did that faith come from? The key is undoubtedly in that little word heard in verse 47. Romans 10:17 tells us that Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Of course, we're not told how Bartimaeus came to hear about Christ, but as we've already suggested, he must surely have already heard what Jesus had been doing for others. And had he heard what Jesus had said in the synagogue at Nazareth when he read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah quoting the words he has anointed me to… proclaim recovery of sight to the blind? (Luke 4:18). We don't know, but somehow Bartimaeus had come to understand that Jesus was indeed the Son of David, the Messiah. His faith sprang from a recognition of who Jesus is and an acknowledgment that what Jesus had done for others, he could also do for him. And as a result he immediately received his sight and became a follower of Jesus. The NIV translation of verse 52 doesn't quite do justice to the text. Translated literally it says he followed Jesus in the way. Admittedly this could mean just what the NIV says, along the road. But by the time Mark wrote his Gospel, Christians were becoming known as followers of the Way (cf. Acts 9:2; 18:25; 19:9) and he may well have intended us to understand that Bartimaeus became a Christian. At all events, he became a follower of Jesus. His faith had not only healed him. It had also saved him. But that brings me to the significance of what Jesus says in verse 52 – Your faith has healed you. The Greek word used for healed here can also be translated saved. Sozo is used in a variety of ways in the New Testament. It can refer to the salvation of the soul, or to the healing of the body, or to deliverance from danger, for example. Exactly the same Greek wording is used when: · Jesus heals a woman with bleeding (Matt. 9:22, Mark 5:34, Luke 8:48) · He cleanses the grateful leper (Luke 17:19) · He saves a sinful woman (Luke 7:50). Of course, only the context can tell you whether sozo should be translated heal or save etc. But sometimes it can mean both, and here in our passage the context suggests that Bartimaeus' faith had not only healed him, but saved him too. He followed Jesus in the way. He didn't just go away and do his own thing, as so many seem to after receiving a touch of healing from the Lord. The only right response when God has wonderfully met our needs is to do what Bartimaeus did, to follow him in the pathway of his will for our lives. How does all this apply to us? The lessons we learn from the story of Bartimaeus apply to all of us, whatever our needs may be. So let's summarise what those lessons are: 1. Bartimaeus had a desperate need for which there was no human solution. 2. He recognised his need and wanted to find a solution. 3. When he heard about Jesus he did not delay in asking him to have mercy on him. 4. He would not let anything or anyone deter him from coming to Jesus. 5. He took Jesus at his word believing that he could do whatever he asked him. 6. So he was specific in his request. 7. When it was granted, he became a follower of Jesus. If you're already a follower of Jesus, you have already recognised who Jesus is. If you have a desperate need you need to recognise that. Don't pretend you haven't got it. It may be that you need to honestly ask yourself if you really want to be free from it. You need to let nothing hinder you from coming to Jesus and asking him to meet it. Don't let other people put you off. Be determined. Let no one and nothing deter you. Don't put off the decision. Come to Jesus immediately and be specific in your request. Tell him what you want him to do for you. Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. If he could meet Bartimaeus's need, he can meet yours too. You have already trusted him for your salvation. Trust him for this too. He may well surprise you with an immediate answer. And if the answer is not immediate, remember that Jesus loves you and he will do what is best for you. If he says to you, as he said to Paul, My grace is sufficient for you (2 Corinthians 12:7-10), you need to trust him that he knows what is ultimately best for you. Sometimes our prayers are answered immediately. Sometimes they're answered gradually. And sometimes they're answered later. The important thing is to keep on believing and to keep on following Jesus in the way. However, there is one prayer that God will always answer immediately. Bartimaeus prayed, Jesus… have mercy on me. Mercy is more than pity. Pity is feeling sorry for someone. Mercy means much more than that. When we ask God to have mercy on us we are asking him to grant us something that we don't deserve. This applies first and foremost to the forgiveness of our sins. You may not be physically blind, like Bartimaeus, but if you have not yet come to Jesus and asked him to forgive your sins, you have a more desperate need than physical blindness. But Jesus can open your eyes to the truth. Do you want to see? The lessons we learnt from Bartimaeus apply to you too. If you recognise your need and realise that only Jesus can meet it, all you need to do is ask him to save you. Resist the temptation to delay. Reject the attempts of others to dissuade you. Rely completely on Jesus – take him at his word, and you will receive your sight. And when you do, become a real follower of Jesus.
Talk 31 Mark 10:32-45 Jesus teaches the way of sacrificial service Welcome to Talk 31 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today our passage is Mark 10:32-45 where Jesus again predicts his death and resurrection, deals with a request from James and John that they might sit next to him in the coming kingdom, and teaches us that the way to true greatness is sacrificial service. The passage is also a healthy reminder about how we should pray, and has much to say that's relevant to church leadership today. We'll begin by reading verses 32-34: 32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 "We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." The NIV translation of verse 32 seems to suggest a distinction between the disciples and those who followed. However, although there may well have been people following who were not among the disciples, the word disciples is not in the Greek text and Mark almost certainly intends us to understand that all those who were following Jesus were both astonished and afraid. They may well have been astonished by what Jesus had said in verse 31 – Many who are first will be last, and the last, first. And his mention of persecutions in verse 30 could easily account for them being afraid. And what Jesus says next could hardly have made them feel any better! He tells them what is going to happen to him, and this time in more detail. In Mark 8:31 we read that he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again (Compare Mark 9:31). But now he tells them he will be betrayed… condemned him to death… handed over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. This information was both astonishing and terrifying, and it seems unlikely that they had any clear idea about what he meant by saying that three days later he would rise. Of course, it's easy for us, with the benefit of hindsight, to know what he meant, and of course so did the disciples after he had showed himself to be alive by many convincing proofs over a period of six weeks (Acts 1:3). But they clearly did not understand it in advance. Even as late as resurrection morning, John 20:9 tells us that they still did not understand that Jesus had to rise from the dead. But Jesus himself knew what he was saying. He knew that he would be betrayed. He knew they would condemn him to death. He knew they would mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. But he went up to Jerusalem anyway because he knew that he must give his life as a ransom for us (v45). For you, for me, and for people like James and John whose self-seeking attitude we read about next: 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." 38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" 39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." The main purpose of these verses, and those that follow, seems to be to teach us the importance of having a servant heart and not to seek great things for ourselves, but they also teach us some important principles about our attitude when we come to God in prayer. James and John want Jesus to do for them whatever they ask him. This certainly revealed some faith. They believed that Jesus could do whatever they asked. And according to Matthew 20:20-28, along with their mother, they also believed in his coming kingdom. And didn't Jesus say elsewhere that If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer (Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24)? So what was wrong with James' and John's request to sit beside Jesus in his coming kingdom? Three things. Firstly, their motive was wrong. It was selfish. They were seeking personal greatness. In the letter that James the Lord's brother wrote to first century Jewish Christians he stresses the importance of having faith when we pray (James 1:6-7), but he also warns of the possibility of not receiving what we ask for if we ask with wrong motives (James 4:3). Secondly, they didn't get what they asked for because they didn't know what they were asking (v38). Promises like the one we have already referred to in Matthew 21:22 must be balanced with what John was later to write in 1 John 5:14, when he says: This is the confidence we have in approaching God; that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. I wonder if, when he wrote this, John had in mind Jesus' refusal to grant his request in today's passage. The truth is that, unless we have received a clear revelation from God in a certain matter, we too do not know what we are asking. We never fully understand the implications of what we ask for in prayer. Our requests should always be made in faith, but also in an attitude of submission to God's will. And thirdly, closely connected to the last point, they did not understand that even Jesus could not grant their request without reference to his Father. In verse 40 he says your request is not for me to grant. In John 5:19 he said: The Son can do nothing by himself. He can do only what he sees the Father doing… Everything Jesus said and did was in dependence on what he saw the Father doing. Each of the members of the Trinity works in complete harmony with the others and does not work independently. And while he was here on earth Jesus as a man did not know everything. He did not know the day or the hour of his second coming. Only the Father knew that (Mark 13:32). So these verses teach us much about how we should bring our requests to God. Our motives should be right. Our requests should be brought in submission to God's will, recognising that we do not always know the significance of what we are asking, and if there were some requests that even Jesus did not have the authority to grant, they are certainly not for us to claim! God's perfect will for us may be, as it was for James and John, a pathway of suffering (vv38-39). But before we leave the subject of prayer, just one more thing. In verse 36 Jesus says, What do you want me to do for you? He actually asks the same question of blind Bartimaeus in verse 51. More of that next time, but just for now please notice that the question does not guarantee the answer we may be looking for. For Bartimaeus his request was granted. For James and John, theirs was not. Beware of preachers who tell you that Jesus is asking you, What do you want me to do for you? implying that whatever you ask you will get. Of course it's fine to tell Jesus what we'd like him to do, but we need to understand that, because he knows best, his answer could be No. 41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Quite understandably, when the other ten apostles heard about James' and John's request, they became indignant. Who do they think they are? I hear them saying. So Jesus calls all twelve of them together. It's important to notice here that, although Jesus' teaching in these verses would be of value in society as a whole, in the context what he says it's addressed to the future leaders of the church. And he stresses that church leadership must be very different from the style of leadership we see in the world. So let's look at what Jesus says here and then see how his teaching was reinforced by his own example and by the teaching of apostles like Peter and Paul in the New Testament. Firstly, then, Jesus himself. In these verses he teaches that true greatness is expressed in a willingness to serve, to become a slave for the sake of others (vv. 43-44). Even the Son of Man, the Messiah, did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many (v.45). This reminds us immediately of two passages of Scripture, John 13 and Philippians 2. In John 13 Jesus literally fulfils the role of a servant and washes his disciples' feet, and after he has done so he says: 12 …Do you understand what I have done for you? 13 You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger (Greek, an apostle) greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them (John 13:12-17). We hear a lot about apostles in the church today, and I truly believe that this ministry is essential for the church in every generation – see Body Builders, Chapter 2 – but the signs of a true apostle must surely include a willingness to take the role of a lowly servant. That's what Jesus did, for, as we read in Philippians 2: …being in very nature God, (he) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:6-11). And, as we have seen, Jesus told the apostles that they should follow his example. But it doesn't just apply to apostles. Listen to what Peter says: To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away (1 Peter 1:1-4). Here in verse 3 Peter is reflecting the words of Jesus in today's passage when he talks about the rulers of the Gentiles lording it over those who are under their authority, and says Not so among you. Peter is referring to every aspect of leadership in the church. He refers to the elders as shepherds (or pastors), and as overseers (or supervisors or bishops). Now is not the time to discuss the significance of each of these terms – for more, please see Body Builders, Chapter 5, where I deal with the matter in more detail – but what is abundantly clear is that, whatever the role of leadership, what's required is a servant heart. This does not mean that church leaders should not be honoured and respected. They certainly should. But it's not for them to seek that honour or respect. Respect must be earned, not demanded. While I welcome the renewed emphasis on the importance of apostles in recent decades, it's a sad fact that in some quarters, abuses have occurred to the detriment of all concerned. There is a desperate need for a biblically balanced understanding of the subject. So let's finish with a brief look at two words that are frequently used in the New Testament to describe what church leaders should be – diakonos and doulos. Diakonos is the word used in today's passage where Jesus says in verse 43, Whoever wants to become great among you must be you servant. See also Matthew 20:26 and Mark 9:35 where it's used in the same way. Its basic meaning is a waiter or someone who runs errands. It's used in this way in John 2 to describe the servants at the wedding feast in Cana and in Acts 6 we have the related word diakonia to describe the ministry of those who were to wait on tables and supervise the distribution of food to the poor. It may be that this was the role of those who are described as deacons in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-12. But it's also used more widely to refer to anyone who serves the church in whatever capacity. There are too many examples in the New Testament to mention them all, but it's noteworthy that in 1 Corinthians 3:5 Paul refers to himself and Apollos as Only servants through whom you came to believe – as the Lord assigned to each his task. But in fact he often uses a far stronger word than diakonos to describe his ministry. He uses doulos which means slave – a word also used by Jesus in Mark 10:44. It's the very first word Paul uses to describe himself in his letter to the Romans – Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle. Yes, he's an apostle, but first he is a slave. Compare also Galatians 1:10, Philippians 1:1 and Titus 1:1. In these verses he's a slave of Christ, but in 2 Corinthians 4:5 he goes even further and says: For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves your slaves for Jesus' sake. He is not only a slave of Jesus Christ, he's the Corinthians' slave too! His apostolic authority came from none other than the Lord Jesus, but his right to exercise that authority was his willingness to serve not only Jesus, but those to whom he was called to preach. And finally, it's worth mentioning that it was not only Paul who saw his ministry in this light. That's how James saw himself too (James 1:1), and Peter (2 Peter 1:1), and Jude (Jude 1:1), and John (Revelation 1:1). It seems that they had all learnt the lesson taught and exemplified by Jesus: Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all (Mark 10:43-44). My prayer is that we may learn it too.
Talk 30 Mark 10:13-31 The Kingdom of God Welcome to Talk 30 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we're looking at chapter 10 verses 13-31 where we read of how Jesus blessed the little children, and about a rich young ruler – Mark calls him a man. Matthew tells us that he was young. Luke tells us that he was a ruler – who asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. We'll work through the passage reading each section as we come to it, so we'll begin with verses 13-16. People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. v.13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. Mark has already shown us how powerful the touch of Jesus could be. It could bring healing to the deaf and mute, cleansing to the leper, and sight to the blind. We're not told why the people wanted Jesus to touch these children. It could be that they too were suffering from some such affliction, or it could simply be that they wanted Jesus' blessing on their lives. Matthew also tells us that they wanted Jesus to pray for them, but we're not told what for. Neither are we told why the disciples rebuked them. Perhaps, like many people in those days, they considered children unimportant. If so, that would account for Jesus' indignant response in the following verses. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. These verses teach us first and foremost about the importance of little children or babies (Luke 18:18). We are to do nothing that would hinder them in coming to Jesus, or to put it more positively, we are to do everything we can to help them come to him. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if there is anything more we could do to reach children for Jesus. But we also see in these verses important truths about the kingdom of God. There are no less than five references to the kingdom of God in today's passage, two in the verses we have just read and three in verses 23-25 where Jesus stresses how hard it is for the rich to enter it. We'll turn to the story of the rich young ruler in just a moment, but first let's compare what Jesus says in verse 15 with what he says in verse 25. In verse 15 he says: I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. and in verse 25 he says: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." There's nothing wrong with being rich, but the problem can be that people who are rich can easily become self-reliant. Instead of depending on God, they can come to depend upon their wealth. How different is that from little children, who are totally dependent on their parents. So Jesus is saying that the only way to enter the kingdom of God is with childlike trust and total dependence on God our heavenly Father. But what does he mean by entering the kingdom of God? That will become apparent as we now turn to verses 17-22: 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good – except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honour your father and mother.'" 20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" There are quite a few things we can admire about this young man's attitude. He's enthusiastic. He's respectful to Jesus. He asks a very important question. But what he says reveals a deep misunderstanding. This becomes clear as we read Jesus' answer. 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good – except God alone. Jesus is implying two things here. First, since only God is good, to call Jesus good is to acknowledge his deity, something which Jesus does not deny. And secondly, he is saying that no-one is good enough to inherit eternal life. There's nothing you can do to achieve it. You can only enter the kingdom of God by total dependence on him and childlike trust in his love. But since the young man thinks he can achieve eternal life by doing good, Jesus says: 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honour your father and mother.'" To which the young man replies: Teacher, all these I have kept since I was a boy (20). We wonder if the young man was hoping that this would be enough, but Jesus makes clear that it is not. He loves this young man, but love does not hide the truth. He says: 21 One thing you lack. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. Preaching the gospel involves pointing out that people have a need and then showing them how that need can be met. What was the one thing this young man lacked? Not the selling of everything he had, but the childlike dependence on God that would enable him to do so. And so we read that 22 He went away sad, because he had great wealth. The wealth of this world deprived him of the treasure in heaven that Jesus so wanted him to have. And finally, before we move on to verses 23-27, please notice that throughout this passage entering the kingdom of God refers to having eternal life in heaven. The rich young ruler asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus shows him the way to have treasure in heaven and comments to his disciples that it hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. But that brings us to verses 23-27: 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" As we've already explained, there's nothing wrong with being in rich – most listeners to this podcast will be richer than 98% of the rest of the world's population – the problem arises when we put our trust in riches. God does not expect every Christian to sell all they have and give to the poor – though the early Christians in Acts certainly did so (Acts 2:45, 4:32) – but he does expect us to be willing to do so. Following Jesus means total commitment. We cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24). 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The disciples are amazed, but Jesus reemphasises what he is saying by using an extreme illustration. Various suggestions have been made about what he meant by a camel going through the eye of a needle. For example, in koine Greek the word for camel (kamelos) is almost identical to the word for rope (kamilos), so it's suggested that Jesus was actually referring to a piece of rope, which it is argued makes more sense. But Jesus' purpose is not to make sense. He is using hyperbole, extreme exaggeration to make his point. Remember how, when talking about not judging others, he uses the word plank to contrast with speck in Matthew 7:3-5. And the same goes for the idea that the ‘eye of a needle' was a reference to a small gate in the wall of Jerusalem through which camels found it difficult to pass. Both these suggestions water down the extreme emphasis Jesus is placing on what he is saying. 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." The disciples' question is quite understandable. If entering the kingdom of God is as hard as Jesus is saying, how can anyone be saved? And now Jesus goes even further. Salvation, entry into the kingdom of God, is not just hard, it's impossible! At least, it's impossible with man, but it's not impossible with God. We saw earlier how, in calling Jesus good, the rich young ruler, without realising it, was actually implying that Jesus was God. Salvation would have been impossible for us, if it were not made possible by Jesus, who, because he was good enough to pay the price of sin, was able to unlock the gate of Heaven and let us in. So far, we have seen that entering the Kingdom of God means being saved, receiving eternal life, and having treasure in Heaven. Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God belonging to little children (v14), and about it being received (v15). But the thing he mentions most is entering it. Putting all these things together we see that to enter the kingdom of God means to be saved, to receive eternal life, to know that you are going to Heaven, because the kingdom of God belongs to you because you have received it as a little child. And this is something that is only possible because of Jesus. But in the final few verses of our passage we see the rewards that Jesus gives to those who follow him. 28 Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" 29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first." 28 Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" Peter and his fellow fishermen had not given up as much as the rich young ruler was asked to give up. But they had left their means of livelihood and followed Jesus the moment he called them (Mark 1:16-19). It was not the forsaking of these things that earned them their salvation, for, as we have seen, salvation cannot be earned. What saved them was the childlike trust in Jesus that enabled them to do so. Nevertheless, there are abundant rewards for doing so, and this applies to all. 29-30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. The ultimate reward is eternal life in the age to come, but salvation brings its blessings down here. The blessings of the future kingdom are in some measure available now. Throughout the New Testament there is an eschatological tension between the present and future aspects of the kingdom of God. It's already, but not yet! But that's a subject for another time. There are abundant blessings in this present age, even if at times they come for some with persecution. I am reminded of what the writer to the Hebrews says talking of the heroes of faith: Others were tortured, and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection (Hebrews 11:37). In Heaven there are rewards for suffering for Christ and there are rewards for service, but our passage ends with the serious reminder that we may be surprised when we get to Heaven. Jesus says: 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. The standards of God's kingdom are not the standards of the world. It's the meek who will inherit the earth. It's those who humble themselves as a little child who will be the greatest in the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:4). I'm so glad Jesus has made it possible for me to go to heaven. And I'm glad for the opportunities to serve him I've had down here. What little I have given up for him is nothing compared with the abundant blessings he continues to shower upon me. It's by his grace that we are saved. It's by his grace that we are privileged to serve him, and whatever blessings may be stored up for us in the age to come will only be ours because of that amazing grace. Lord, please help us to continue to trust you like a little child and to learn to live in total dependence upon you. Amen.
Talk 29 Mark 10:1-12 Jesus answers questions on divorce Welcome to Talk 29 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 10:1-12 where Jesus answers questions on divorce, and in so doing teaches us key principles about the nature and sanctity of marriage. Of course, in a talk of this length, it won't be possible to go into the subject in great detail or to refer to the wide variety of opinions that are held on the matter. But in my view, there are some things that stand out very clearly from what Jesus has to say, and it's those things that we'll be concentrating on today. So let's begin by reading Mark 10:1-12. Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." So far Jesus' ministry has centred largely on the region of Galilee, but now, and for the rest of Mark's Gospel, it has transferred to the region of Judea where the people were very different from those in Galilee. But whatever the region, some things never change. Jesus continues to teach. Crowds come to listen. And the Pharisees are determined to catch Jesus out by asking him trick questions. And it's in that context that we need to understand his teaching on divorce in this passage. We need to bear in mind that the Pharisees had seen on several occasions how Jesus was radically reinterpreting the Law of Moses. They were so annoyed about this that they were already trying the find ways to have Jesus killed. (Mark 3:6 tells us that they had begun to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus, because he had healed a man on the Sabbath day). John the Baptist had already been executed by Herod for speaking out against divorce and adultery (Mark 6:17-28). So it seems likely that the Pharisees' purpose in testing Jesus in this way was to have him killed. That's why we mustn't see Jesus' reply to their question as a full-blown theology of marriage and divorce, but rather as a wise answer that avoided the trap the Pharisees had set for him. However, what Jesus does say reveals vitally important truths on the subject, as we shall see as we work through the passage. But before we start, just one more thing. Matthew's account of the same incident (Matthew 19:1-12) includes a little more of Jesus' reply than we find in Mark. For example, in verse 2 where the Pharisees ask Jesus, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Matthew's account includes the words for any and every reason. And in verse 11 Matthew includes the words except for marital unfaithfulness. This, of course, does not mean that Matthew is contradicting Mark. He is simply including more of what Jesus actually said, and we'll be taking this into account as we seek to understand what Jesus was saying. And in case you're wondering why Matthew, Mark and Luke sometimes have slightly different accounts of the same incident, it's probably worth mentioning that each writer had a different audience in mind. For example, Matthew was writing for a largely Jewish audience while Mark, who was probably based in Rome, would have had a readership that was largely Gentile. But now, putting Matthew's and Mark's accounts together, let's look at the implications of what Jesus says about marriage and divorce. The Pharisees begin by asking Jesus, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" The question was relevant because at the time of Jesus there were two schools of thought among the Jewish rabbis. The followers of Shammai maintained that only unchastity or adultery were grounds for a man divorcing his wife. On the other hand, the disciples of Hillel allowed divorce for the slightest reason – even something as trivial as bad cooking! Jesus answers their question in Matthew 19:11 where he says that divorce should be limited to cases of porneia – adultery or marital unfaithfulness. But his first response to their question is to ask them, What did Moses command you? To which they say, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away. But in saying this the Pharisees are not being honest with the text of the very passage they are referring to. All that Moses says in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that if a divorced woman marries another man, and if he also divorces her, she may not be remarried to her first husband. Jesus, however, refuses to get embroiled in an argument about the interpretation of the Law of Moses, but tells them the reason why it was given: It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law. (Notice incidentally that Jesus interprets the scripture by looking at the reason for which it was given in the first place. When we're interpreting scripture it's always important to ask why it was written). Even the Pharisees had acknowledged that Moses had permitted divorce. He had not commanded it. Now Jesus explains why Moses had permitted it – because your hearts were hard (v5). But what does Jesus mean by saying because your hearts were hard? Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately sick (ESV). This is true in all generations because of our fallen nature, and at the time of Moses that was particularly evident in the context of marriage, because men saw themselves as free to put away their wives for any reason, no matter how trivial. And it's important to note that there was no provision in the law of Moses for a wife to divorce her husband! Men tended to view their wives as their property – something which may be reflected in the tenth commandment where women are listed as things that should not be coveted, alongside houses, servants, oxen and donkeys, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour (Exodus 20:17). So man's heart was hard because of his fallen nature, and this was reflected in the way they viewed the role of women in general and their wives in particular. But Jesus takes the Pharisees back to long before the law was given and reminds them that divorce was not God's intention from the beginning. In verses 6-9 he says: 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." He is referring, of course, to Genesis 2:22-24, which says: 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. So in going back to Genesis Jesus sidesteps the trick question set by the Pharisees and takes the opportunity to reveal the true nature of marriage and God's purpose in it. From his answer we see very clearly five things. 1. Marriage is between male and female In verse 6 Jesus says that at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. Now notice what he says in verse 7: For this reason (i.e. because God made them male and female) a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. Here Jesus is quoting directly from Genesis 2:24. Now in both the Hebrew of Genesis and the Greek of Mark's Gospel, the word translated as wife in our English Bible is exactly the same as the word used elsewhere for woman. So both the Hebrew and the Greek literally say, A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his woman. This shows very clearly that from a Biblical perspective there can be no such thing as a same sex marriage. It's a contradiction in terms. 2. Marriage is a uniting of male and female Now let's add verse 8 to verse 7: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his woman, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. This is an obvious reference to sexual intercourse, where a man and a woman are physically united. They become one flesh. But more than that, they are no longer two but one. The implications are surely more than physical. God's intention for marriage is that the love husband and wife have for each other should result in unity, not merely of the body, but of purpose, intention, faith, heart, mind and soul. How different from the attitude of the Pharisees is the New Testament teaching that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her (Ephesians 5:25-33). 3. Marriage is intended to be permanent It's interesting that Matthew makes something clear that is not obvious in Mark's account. In 19:5 he records Jesus as saying that God said the words recorded in Genesis 2:24. It was the Creator himself who at the beginning said, They will become one flesh. And on the strength of this, Jesus says in verse 9, What God has joined together, let not man separate. Jesus is not referring here to what happens in the ceremony we call a wedding. He is referring to what God said at creation. God intends marriage to be permanent, and so should we. Two or three years after Eileen and I were married, a fifteen-year-old girl in an RE lesson I was teaching asked me a question: Sir, how do you know you will still love your wife in 10 years' time? To which I replied, Oh, that's easy. Because I've promised to. Love is more than a romantic feeling. It involves an act of the will. And for a Christian, knowing that in God's sight marriage is for life should be the determining factor in the decision to keep on loving and to stay married till death us do part. But where does that leave the matter of divorce? 4. Divorce was a concession but not God's perfect plan As we've already seen, even the Pharisees acknowledged that Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife (v4). In the next verse Jesus does not deny this but says that it was only because of their hardness of heart, which we've already talked about. God's perfect plan was that people should stay together. But because of the weakness of our human nature, he allowed divorce in certain circumstances, but NOT for any and every reason as the followers of the school of Hillel were teaching. But that brings us to our final point. 5. Divorce for any and every reason followed by remarriage leads to adultery, except where there has been marital unfaithfulness. We've already mentioned that Matthew includes some words of Jesus that are not recorded in Mark. In Matthew, Jesus says: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." In the Greek, the word for marital unfaithfulness is porneia. This word has a fairly wide range of meaning (adultery, unchastity, prostitution etc.) but is invariably connected with some form of sexual activity. That's presumably why NIV translates it as marital unfaithfulness. This appears to be the only basis on which Jesus allows a man to divorce his wife – or presumably a wife to divorce her husband. I say this because Mark 10:11-12 indicates that what applies to the husband applies to the wife too. But how does all this apply to us today? First, let me say that I'm well aware that sincere Christians have very different views on this and that we all need to tread carefully as what we teach may have a serious effect on the lives of people who are divorced or who are facing very real problems in their marriage. But, having said that, as Christians we must take the teaching of Jesus seriously and should never attempt to water down what he has said. We also need to bear in mind that there are other NT passages which deal with the subject of marriage and divorce and in this short talk I have not attempted to deal with them. What we have said with regard to this passage is that in the answers Jesus gave the Pharisees he was not attempting to give a full-blown theology of marriage and divorce. He was answering a trick question based on how Deuteronomy 24:1 should be applied in the context of first century Judaism. Nevertheless, what he says relates beyond the context of the day because he takes us back to God's intention for marriage from the very start. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the uniting of that man and woman in a lifelong relationship. Man must not separate what God has joined together. Nevertheless, there are, Jesus tells us, certain circumstances in which divorce may be permitted. Those circumstances are cases of marital unfaithfulness, a term which, as we have seen, can cover a variety of forms of sexual activity. But is this really the only legitimate basis for divorce? Could the term be extended to mean unfaithfulness of a nonsexual nature like persistent physical violence, for example? If a man commits adultery, he is breaking the covenant that he made with his wife. Would he not also be breaking that covenant if he beat her black and blue? Would she not have the right to divorce him? If we insist on the letter of what Jesus said, we would have to say no. But Jesus' example teaches us (as we have seen in this passage) to look beyond the letter of the law to the reason behind it. To say this is not to legitimate divorce for any and every reason. But such an approach does allow us to consider the spirit rather than the letter of the law and to apply it with sensitivity and compassion to those who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an impossible marital situation. I offer this suggestion in a spirit of humility, knowing that there will be those who radically disagree. All I can say is that after more than 60 years in church leadership I know that there is no easy answer. Every case is different and church leaders need to pray for wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit in seeking to understand the scriptures and to apply the principles that the Lord Jesus has taught us.
Talk 28 Mark 9:30-50 Self-denial and total commitment Welcome to Talk 28 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 9:30-50 where Jesus teaches his disciples lessons that are essential for all those who would follow him. The passage begins with the statement that Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, because he was teaching his disciples (vv30-31). And, as we look at the passage, we discover that what Jesus is teaching is self-denial and total commitment. But first, let's read the rest of the passage, beginning in verse 31. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." 32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it. 33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." 36 He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." 38 "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. 42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. 50 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other." Jesus begins by reminding his disciples what he has already told them more than once. He is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise (31). The disciples don't understand this yet, but it will be essential that they do. The reason Jesus came to earth was to die on the cross to save us from our sins. It would involve self-denial and total commitment – saying No to self and Yes to God. And this would be the example he set for his followers (1 Peter 2:21). And now he is teaching his disciples in advance that following him will mean following his example of self-denial and total commitment. And in today's passage we see various ways how Jesus challenges us to do the same. The challenge of self-denial There is to be no self-seeking among the followers of Jesus (33-37) In our last talk we saw how the disciples were arguing with the teachers of the Law. Now we discover them arguing among themselves (v33). And they're arguing about who was the greatest. We're not told the details, but it may well have been over who they thought would get the best positions in the Messianic kingdom Jesus was about to bring in. Perhaps Peter, James and John felt they had a claim to greatness because of the privilege they had had to be present at the transfiguration. We know that James and John had aspirations like that because of what we're told in the next chapter where they ask Jesus: Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory (10:37). But to such ambition Jesus replies: If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all (9:35), and taking a little child in his arms he says: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4) and adds: Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me (Mark 9:37). Selfish ambition may bring glory to oneself, but it doesn't bring glory to Jesus. It only causes division and dissention among the followers. So there is to be no self-seeking among the followers of Jesus, but, closely connected to this, our passage also shows that there is to be no competition among them either. There is to be no competition among the followers of Jesus (38-41) In verse 38 John tells Jesus that they have seen a man driving out demons in Jesus' name but that they stopped him because he was not one of us. But Jesus replies Do not stop him. No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. It's certainly possible that the disciples' reason for stopping the man was well intentioned. They knew that as his disciples they had been specially chosen by Jesus and that he had designated them apostles (Mark 3:14). They had been in his close company since he first called them to be fishers of men. What right had other people to think they could speak in Jesus' name (i.e. with his authority)? Their motivation could well have been like that of Joshua in Numbers 11:28, when out of loyalty to Moses he asks him to stop Eldad and Medad from prophesying because they had not been in the Tent of Meeting when the Spirit had come upon them as the rest of the elders had been. To which Moses replied, I wish that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them. Moses was secure in his God-given position of leadership and had nothing to fear from what may have appeared to be a challenge to his authority, and how much more secure was Jesus in the knowledge that he was God's well-beloved Son. He had nothing to fear from a man who was not one of his immediate disciples driving out demons in his name. And a person using his name to do so could not possibly say anything bad about him (v38). But what does he mean when he says, Whoever is not against us is for us? Did he not say on another occasion, He who is not with me is against me (Matthew 12:30)? Of course there is no contradiction in these two statements. In God's sight there are only two kinds of people in the world – not Jew or Gentile, not male or female, not black or white, not rich or poor etc. – but those who are for Jesus and those who are against him. Neutrality is not an option. And on that hangs our eternal destiny. But Jesus' statement also implies that there are those who are actually for him whom we believe to be against him. The Lord knows those who are his. We're reminded of Elijah in 1 Kings 19:10 who protested to God that he was the only one left who was following him and to whom God replied that there were 7000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal (v18). I'm sure that when we get to Heaven we'll be surprised at some of the people we meet there! So we need to be careful that we don't assume that Christians who worship differently than we do, or who do things differently from us, are not really Christians at all. Of course we need to contend earnestly for the precious truths of God's word, but our motivation in doing so should never be for the reputation or position of our own group or denomination. For example, I don't believe that infant baptism is scriptural, but that does not mean that some of those who practise it are not being powerfully used in healing and evangelism. Jesus said that anyone who gives you a cup of water (i.e. seeks to help you in the simplest way) …because you belong to Christ, will certainly not lose his reward (v41). There must be cooperation, not competition, among the followers of Jesus. But that brings us to the second major challenge that Jesus presents to his disciples in this passage – the challenge of total commitment. The challenge of total commitment (vv42-50) In these verses Jesus warns his disciples about the seriousness of sin. Our sin can, not only keep us out of Heaven, but also keep others out too. He challenges us to a life of total commitment, a life that pleases God. Verse 42 contains a strong warning about causing anyone else to sin, especially those who are children, but it could also be taken to refer to those who are young in their faith. A spirit of competition among Christians or a personal ambition for greatness can easily do just that. Such attitudes are a poor example to set to new believers. There's the twofold danger that they either follow the example we are setting, or that they will be completely put off the faith because of it. Sin is so serious that in verses 43-47 Jesus uses what may seem like an extreme illustration to make his point. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off… if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off… if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. In other words, Get rid of anything that causes you to sin. If your sin is not dealt with, Jesus says, only hell awaits. If this seems harsh, we need to remember that Jesus has already provided a way for us to get rid of our sin. That's why he died, taking the punishment our sins deserved. We get rid our sin and its consequences when we receive Jesus as our Saviour. Heaven, not hell, is our destiny. But that does not mean that the moment we become Christians we start to live sinless lives. In fact, if we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves (1 John1:8), but, thank God, If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). But God's promise of forgiveness does not mean that we should go on sinning. Our sins are forgiven, but sin is still serious. That's why Jesus tells us to cut off anything that causes it. And cutting something off can be painful. Giving up something we enjoy or someone we love may well be costly, but if we know that it or they may lead us, or others, into temptation, we also know that it will be worth it in order to maintain our right standing with God. As we've already pointed out, our sin can affect the eternal destiny of others if it leads them to follow our example or abandon the faith. That's why Jesus says in verse 50: Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other. As Christians we can make a real difference in the world we live in, rather like salt changes the flavour of food (Matthew 5:13), and just as salt preserves food from decay, we can counteract the moral decay we see in the world around us. If, like the disciples in today's passage, we're arguing and quarrelling among ourselves, how can we expect to influence the society in which we live? If we cannot live at peace with each other, we will lose our saltiness and we'll be of little use in the Lord's service. That's why, as we've already seen, there must be no self-seeking or competition among the followers of Jesus. He challenges us to self-denial and total commitment. And if that seems hard, just remember that that is exactly what Jesus did.
Talk 16 Mark 6:1-13 Preaching the gospel in a hostile environment Welcome to Talk 16 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we'll be looking at Mark 16:1-13. We'll be concentrating on verses 1-5 where Mark tells us that Jesus was unable to do any mighty miracle in his home town because of the people's unbelief, and then we'll see how this relates to verses 6-13 where Jesus sends out the twelve apostles. We'll begin by reading verses 1-6. 1 Jesus left there and went to his home town, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honour." 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith… 1 Jesus left there and went to his home town, accompanied by his disciples. Jesus leaves the home of Jairus and travels with his disciples away from the shore of Lake Galilee to his home town of Nazareth. He had been born in Bethlehem, and, as we've seen in previous talks, the base for his ministry was Capernaum, but he was always known as Jesus of Nazareth because that is where he had been brought up. So by Jesus' home town Mark means Nazareth. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue He does in Nazareth exactly what he has done elsewhere. He begins to teach in the synagogue. By saying that Jesus began to teach Mark is indicating that Jesus might well have continued to teach there if only the people had accepted him. Mark doesn't tell us here what Jesus' message was, but he would expect us to assume that it was in line with what he has already told us in Mark 1:14-15: … Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news! But the people of Nazareth would not believe the good news. They took offense at him (v3). Why? Because the good news is Jesus! They were amazed. They asked, Where did this man get these things? They recognised that he had been given wisdom and acknowledged that he worked miracles. But they could not look beyond the fact that they had known him as the carpenter. So in verse 3 they say: 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?” Despite the supernatural evidence of the miracles they had heard about, they refused to look beyond the natural. Yes, he was the carpenter. Yes, he was the son of Mary – if they had heard the story of his virgin birth, they had clearly not believed it. Yes, he was the half-brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon and his sisters. But didn't the miracles show that he was so much more! He was, in the opening words of Mark's Gospel, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And they took offense at him. The verb that's used here is closely connected with the noun skandalon which is frequently used in the New Testament to mean a stumbling block or something that trips you up. What tripped up the people of Nazareth was their refusal to see beyond the humanity of Jesus. And Paul, using the same word in 1 Corinthians 1:23, tells us that the Jews in general stumble at the message of Christ crucified. There is a danger that our preconceived ideas prevent us from seeing the whole truth about Jesus. 4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honour." This reminds us of Luke 4:24 which records Jesus as saying, No prophet is accepted in his home town. Note the word accepted. The problem with the people of Nazareth was that they refused to accept Jesus. It's interesting that Luke's account of this whole incident is far more detailed than Mark's. He tells us that Jesus read from the passage in Isaiah where it says: The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18-19, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2). Luke goes on to tell us that Jesus went on to say, Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing (v21), and that the people spoke well of Jesus and were amazed at the way he spoke. As in Mark 6, their amazement sprang from the fact that they knew his family. Their familiarity with his humanity prevented them from seeing his divinity. They had heard of the miracles Jesus had performed in Capernaum and were expecting him to do something similar in Nazareth (v23). But Jesus knew that they would not accept him, and provocatively stated: I tell you the truth… no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed – only Naaman the Syrian (vv24-27). As a result, Luke tells us that: All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way (vv28-30). So they not only refused to accept him. They actually tried to destroy him! But, perhaps surprisingly, Mark leaves out all this detail and simply tells us in verses 5-6: He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith… Does Mark really mean that Jesus could not do any miracles there? Couldn't Jesus do anything? We may be tempted to say that Jesus could have but chose not to do any miracle there. But that is not what Mark says. The Greek literally means he was unable to do. So how do we explain this? Of course, God can do anything, but he has sovereignly chosen to work in response to faith. Jesus only did what he saw the Father do (John 5:19). He was unable to work outside of the parameters by which God has chosen to operate. So he was unable to do any miracle (literally, powerful thing) there because of their lack of faith, although presumably a few sick people had enough faith to be healed. I personally believe that this teaches us a very important principle. We know from experience that miracles seem to happen more frequently in some places than in others and we wonder why. The answer lies in this passage. Community unbelief inhibits the miraculous. If even Jesus could do no miracle in a place because of unbelief, we must not be surprised if we find that the same is true for us today. But why is faith so important? The answer lies in the message of salvation. Salvation is by faith. Jesus preached, Repent, and believe the good news. He came because God loves us. He came to give his life a ransom for many. He came to take the punishment our sins deserved, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. He knew that we would never be good enough for Heaven by our own self effort. That's why he made a way for us to be saved by faith. Accepting Jesus, believing in him, is the only way to be saved. That's why faith is important. And that's why Jesus worked miracles and why he commissioned his disciples to do so. He came to die for us. He wanted people to have faith in him for salvation, and miracles encourage faith. They give a practical demonstration of God's love for us. By working miracles Jesus was giving people every opportunity to believe. But if they refuse to believe despite the evidence of the miracles, they will have no excuse when they stand before God on the day of judgment. Our eternal destiny is determined by whether or not we accept Jesus. But sadly, for the time being at least, the people of Nazareth would not, and so Jesus leaves them and goes around teaching from village to village (v6). But now let's read verses 7-13. 7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits. 8 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff – no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. 7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits We know from Mark 3:14-15 that Jesus had already chosen his twelve apostles so that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These verses express Jesus' purpose in choosing them, but it's not until now in chapter 6 that Jesus actually gives them that authority and sends them out. God's timing is so important. He often reveals his purposes for us before he intends us to begin to fulfil them. And he gives us the authority we need as and when we need it. In the case of the Twelve, it was almost certainly so that they might have time to learn from his teaching and example before he gave them authority and sent them out to preach. It was by following him that he would make them fishers of men (1:17). The specific instructions Jesus' gave on this occasion are recorded in more detail by Matthew, where it is clear that this was a specific mission to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6), but not at this time to the Samaritans or the Gentiles. That would come later. And where Mark only mentions that Jesus gave them authority over evil spirits, Matthew includes authority to heal every kind of sickness and disease, to cleanse lepers, and even raise the dead. Some Christians take the view that these passages are intended to indicate that as Christians we all have the right to ‘take authority' over these things, but that ignores the fact that nowhere in the Bible are we told to take authority. We only have authority if we are given it. Even Jesus' authority was given him by God (Matthew 18:19). The fact that Jesus gave this authority to twelve specific disciples at a specific time and for a specific mission does not automatically mean that he has given it to you or me today. Indeed, these very disciples, after Jesus had ascended into Heaven, had to wait to receive the power of the Spirit. In the Gospels they worked miracles with a specific authority given them by the Lord Jesus, but in Acts he would continue to work miracles through them as they were led and empowered by the Holy Spirit. And so it is with us. We can, and we should, expect the Lord to work through us in miraculous ways, but only as we are led by the Spirit. The fact that he sent them out in pairs provides us with a wise example of how we should work today. Teamwork is essential. However great our gifting or experience, none of us is infallible, and we all need the wisdom, support and encouragement that comes from others who work alongside us. This principle was followed by the disciples in Acts – e.g. Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas etc., although Paul's apostolic teams were often larger than two. The basic principle is that we should not go it alone. 8 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff – no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Again, these instructions were given with regard to a specific mission, and we should certainly not assume that when we go out on evangelism we must never take any money with us and that we should wear sandals rather than shoes! But we can certainly learn from the principles Jesus was teaching. We can trust the Lord to meet our needs as we seek to proclaim the good news. How can we have faith to work miracles if we cannot trust God to provide for our basic needs? The Christian life is by faith from first to last. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." Amazed at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (v6), Jesus was only too aware of the opposition that he and his disciples were facing. Nevertheless, people must be given the opportunity to accept him, or to reject him. So he sent his disciples out to preach the good news to the surrounding villages, knowing that some would not listen. The disciples were to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the message. This was something Jewish people did when passing through a Gentile town or village. It was a sign that they were distancing themselves from them because they were different. They were the people of God. But Jesus' disciples were not visiting Gentile towns or villages on this mission (Matthew 10:5). They were visiting Jewish villages. So by shaking the dust off their feet the disciples were showing the Jews that there is a distinction between those who believe the good news and those who reject it. Only those who accept Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, are truly the people of God. In most cultures today shaking the dust off one's feet would mean nothing to those who might be watching, but as Christians we need to show by what we say and how we live that we are different from those who deny Christ. We have a different lifestyle and a different destiny. 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. We saw in Mark 1:15 that Jesus' message was, The time has come. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news. The miracles were the evidence. They helped people to believe. Sadly, as we have seen in today's passage, there were those who refused to believe despite the evidence. Could this have been because they were not willing to repent? It's much the same today. There's plenty of evidence for the truth of the Christian message, but many refuse to believe it because of the implications it has for their lifestyle. So what can we learn from this passage about preaching the gospel in a hostile environment? Follow the example of Jesus. Proclaim the good news. Expect miraculous confirmation of the message. Miracles demonstrate God's love and make it easier for people to believe. Remember that Jesus gave his disciples authority for that specific mission. After he had returned to Heaven they received their authority from the Holy Spirit. As we keep filled with the Spirit he will lead us and empower us. The Holy Spirit will enable people to repent and believe, but he will not force them to do so. If people adamantly refuse our message we should move on to those who will accept it. Whether they accept it or reject it, it's our responsibility whether people accept it or not to tell them the truth. We are not to blame if people refuse to accept Christ. But it is our responsibility to point out the consequences of doing so.
Talk 27 Mark 9:9-29 Jesus heals a demon-possessed boy Welcome to Talk 27 in our series on Mark's Gospel. In our last talk we were considering what we can learn about Heaven from the story of Jesus' transfiguration at the top of a high mountain. Today we're looking at Mark 9:9-29 where Jesus heals a demon-possessed boy. In verses 9-13 we read how, coming back down the mountain, Peter, James and John ask Jesus about a verse in Malachi which said that before the Messiah came, Elijah must come first. In Matthew's account Jesus identifies this ‘Elijah' as John the Baptist who had already been rejected and put to death for what he had preached. And Jesus then reminds his disciples that it would also be necessary for him to suffer too. But verses 14-15 tell us that at this point they saw the other disciples and …a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. And that …as soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him. When Jesus asks them what they're arguing about (v16), a man in the crowd answers. Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not (vv17-18). I expect that most of my listeners will be familiar with this story, but let's just remind ourselves of the details by reading verses 19-29: 19 "O unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." 20 So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. 21 Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?" "From childhood," he answered. 22 "It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us." 23 "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." 24 Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" 25 When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again." 26 The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up. 28 After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, "Why couldn't we drive it out?" 29 He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer." This passage teaches us four main things: · The desperate condition of the boy · The cause of the problem · The inability of the teachers and the disciples · The secret of Jesus' authority. The desperate condition of the boy He was unable to hear or speak He was possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech (17) Jesus says, You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him (25). He suffered violent convulsions Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid (18) When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth (20) The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out (26). His life was often in danger It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him (22) His condition was longstanding Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?" "From childhood," he answered (21). His condition was incurable They saw the other disciples and a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them (14) I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not (18) The cause of the problem The passage makes clear that the boy's condition was caused by a deaf and mute spirit that needed to be cast out of him. However, the symptoms of his condition were very similar to certain forms of what we refer to today as epilepsy. As a result, some have assumed that all those with epileptic symptoms have a demon that needs to be exorcised. However, since epilepsy is usually treatable with the right medication, and since it seems unlikely that demonic forces could be controlled by medical means, this view is clearly mistaken, especially bearing in mind the pastoral difficulties that would almost certainly arise if this theory were put into practice. Equally mistaken is the view that demons do not exist and that in those days, without the knowledge that we have today, people mistakenly assumed that all sickness was caused by evil spirits. But if that view were correct we would have to conclude that Jesus himself was mistaken when he said: You deaf and mute spirit …I command you, come out of him and never enter him again (v25). So what's the solution? Quite simply, in some cases epileptic symptoms may result from the activity of evil spirits, but that does not mean that they always are. It's interesting that in Matthew 4:24 those having seizures are distinguished from the demon-possessed making it clear that they're not the same. But Jesus healed them all. Prayer for healing is always appropriate, but we need always to be led by the Holy Spirit in how we pray. Attempting to cast out something that isn't there will cause more harm than good. But this passage reminds us how evil Satan is. We see how he torments and tries to destroy. As Jesus said in John 10:10, The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. And as we look around us at the world today we see abundant evidence of his work. Not only the thousands of lives being destroyed in war zones like Ukraine and Gaza, but the young people being led astray by his lies in so many different ways leading them to do things that are contrary to God's natural created order of things. The Holy Spirit has clearly stated that …in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons (1 Timothy 4:1) and this is undoubtedly being fulfilled before our very eyes. Satan not only works through demon possession, but by putting perverse ideas into people's heads that are even now being taught to the children in our schools, and have led to an unprecedented crisis in mental and emotional health. The inability of the teachers and the disciples When Jesus came back down the mountain, he found the disciples and the teachers of the Law arguing. When he asked them what they were arguing about, the boy's father answered telling Jesus about the desperate condition his son was in and his disciples' inability to help. So it seems that the argument was about the boy. We don't know the details of the argument, but perhaps the teachers of the law were challenging the disciples' authority to drive out the demon. But if so, why didn't they drive it out? In Matthew 12:27 Jesus acknowledged that some of the Jews were exorcists. We don't know the answer to these questions, but what is clear is that while they were arguing, the boy was still being tormented. Could it be that even today people are suffering because we Christians are too busy arguing with the opposition rather than using the authority Jesus has given us to set them free? But that brings us to why the disciples couldn't drive it out. Mark 6:31 tells us that they had already cast out demons. However, on this occasion they were unable to do so. The Greek verbs used in verses 18 and 28 imply that they were not strong enough and did not have the power to deal with this demon. The passage gives us two reasons why: · Lack of faith (v19) Cf Matthew 17:20 Because you have so little faith. · Lack of prayer (v29). So which was it? The answer must surely be both. There is no contradiction here. Faith comes by hearing from God, and prayer, communing with God, is how we hear from him. It's through prayer that we know what God wants us to do and receive the faith to do it. But that brings us to: The secret of Jesus' authority Notice: The authority with which Jesus speaks in verse 19: Bring the boy to me. In verse 25: I command you, come out of him The immediate reaction from the demon in verse 20: When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. In verses 26: The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. Matthew 17:18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment. Why did Jesus have such authority over the demon? It's clear from these verses that Jesus had total authority over the demon. But why? Not just because he was God, because it's clear from verse 19 that he expected his disciples to have been able to do it. The secret of his authority lies in the answers he gave the disciples when they asked why they had been unable to do it. Because of the communion he had with his Father through his prayer life, Jesus had faith. Look at verses 22 and 23 again. The boy's father says, If you can do anything, take pity on us… to which Jesus replies: ‘If you can'? …Everything is possible for him who believes. The emphasis here is on the word if, not on the word you. Jesus is not saying that if the father can believe, the boy's healing will be possible – though that is not to deny the importance of having faith when we come to God with our requests – what Jesus is really saying may be paraphrased as follows: You are doubting if I can, but I assure you that I can because I believe, and everything is possible to those who believe. Jesus works the miracle, not because of the father's imperfect faith, but because he himself had faith. He had faith in his own authority because he lived his life under the authority of God. That's how he had conquered Satan in the wilderness. He knew what the Father wanted him to do, and he did it. He only did the things he saw the Father do (John 5:19). He was a man of authority because he was a man under authority (Matthew 8:8-10). The secret of his success lay not in his deity but in his submission as a man to the absolute authority of God. With that kind of authority, there is no need to argue as the disciples had. When we know we have heard from God, and only when we know it, we have authority to speak the word of command knowing that in Jesus' name, with his authority, we too can drive out demons and heal the sick (Mark 16:15ff). But there are no shortcuts, no magic formulae. This kind can come out only by prayer and the faith that results from hearing from God.
Talk 26 Mark 9:1-8 The Transfiguration – a Glimpse of Heaven Welcome to Talk 26 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 9:1-8 where we read of a truly awesome event in the life of Jesus and three of his disciples. It's what is known as the transfiguration. The chapter begins with Jesus saying: I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power. There has been much discussion about what Jesus meant by this, but in my view the explanation is almost certainly found in the following verses where we read how Jesus took Peter, James and John up a high mountain and he was transfigured before them (v2). So let's begin by reading verses 2-8: 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters – one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) 7 Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" 8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. Transfiguration is not a word that's in common use today, but its basic meaning is transformation. The Greek word that's used in verse 2 is metamorpho'o from which we get our English word metamorphosis which we use to mean a change in the form of a person or thing into a completely different one, as, for example, when a caterpillar turns into a chrysalis and then into a butterfly. In the case of Jesus, Mark tells us that his clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them, but in 2 Peter 1:16-18 Peter himself describes what he saw: 16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. He refers to the transfiguration as the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Compare this with what Jesus said in verse 1 about the kingdom of God coming with power). He uses words like, majesty, honour, glory, and God's voice coming from the Majestic Glory. It seems clear to me that what Peter is describing is nothing less than a glimpse or foretaste of Heaven itself. Of course, the day is coming when Jesus will finally come in power and great glory, a day Jesus refers to in 8:38 when he talks about the Son of Man coming in his Father's glory with the holy angels. But that was not to happen yet. Jesus must first suffer and die and rise again (v12). The transfiguration was not the second coming, but it was certainly a prophetic foretaste of it, a revelation of Jesus in power and glory, that Peter wanted to assure his readers was not a cleverly invented story. He had seen it for himself. He knew it was true. And, as he was approaching the end of his earthly life, his hope and his faith for eternity were securely founded on the revelation of Heaven he had received on that mountain. So, with this in mind, let's look at the passage and see what we can learn about Heaven. What is Heaven like? If you know Jesus as your Saviour, you're already on your way to Heaven, but do you have any real idea what it's going to be like? My wife, Eileen, went to Heaven recently and I've been trying to imagine her there. Actually, I've found it quite hard, and I've realised how little we know about Heaven. Of course the Book of Revelation paints a certain picture for us, but it contains so much symbolism that it's hard to know whether some passages are to be taken literally or metaphorically. Even the great apostle Paul had to admit that now we know only in part (1 Corinthians 13:12) and that we cannot yet imagine the things that God has prepared for those who love him (1 Corinthians 2:9). So it looks as though we'll have to wait and see. But that does not mean that we know nothing about what Heaven is like, and today's passage gives us some clear pointers. Heaven is a place of dazzling purity and awesome majesty In verse 3 Mark tells us that Jesus' clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. In Matthew 17:1 we're told his face shone like the sun. Paul on the road to Damascus had a glimpse of that brightness. Testifying before King Agrippa he says: At midday, I saw in the way, O king, out of heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round me a light – and having fallen to the earth…I heard a voice… (Acts26:13-14). John on the Isle of Patmos saw it too: His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:14-18). Heaven is a place of dazzling purity and awesome majesty. But it's a place where it's good to be – a place where you'll want to stay! Notice what Peter says in verse 5: Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters – one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah. Of course he didn't realise what he was saying. Jesus, Moses and Elijah would not have needed shelters! All Peter knew was that he wanted the experience to last. Heaven is a place where the righteous dead are still living v4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. The Sadducees, who did not believe in life after death, once asked Jesus about a woman who had had seven different husbands because they all died one after the other. In the next life, whose wife would she be? Jesus replied that they were making a big mistake because they neither knew the power of God nor understood the Scriptures. Quoting the well-known passage in Exodus 3, he pointed out that God had revealed himself to Moses, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The point here is that God did not say, I was. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had all died centuries before God said this. Yet God still said I am. He was still their God centuries after they had died, so they must be still alive! Now, in today's passage, we have another evidence of this. Moses and Elijah appeared and were talking with Jesus. They had both died centuries earlier and Moses had died well before Elijah was born. So they were still alive long after they had died. What's more, they were recognisable. We don't know how the disciples knew who they were. Perhaps they overheard them referring to each other by name – it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that in Heaven we will be able to recognise and communicate with each other, even with Christians of earlier generations whom we have never met. Furthermore, they were not only recognisable, they seem to have been still serving God. It must surely have been God who sent them to have this conversation with Jesus. The exact details and the purpose of the conversation we do not know, but Luke tells us that they were speaking about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfilment at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). More of this later, but I'm glad that in the life to come it seems that God will have something for us to do! Heaven is a place where Jesus is recognised for who he is At the transfiguration God declares Jesus to be his Son (v7). The disciples are to listen to HIM. He is exalted above both Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets). He fulfilled them both and supersedes them both. All authority is given to him. No wonder Peter could say that Jesus received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Heaven is a place where Jesus is recognised for who he really is, and only those who recognise it will be welcome in Heaven. In the end the disciples are left seeing no-one except Jesus (v8). In the final analysis, Jesus is all that matters. Not the Law. Not the prophets. Just Jesus. It's our response to him that will determine our final destiny. Experiencing a foretaste of Heaven I have already suggested that the disciples' experience of the transfiguration was a glimpse or foretaste of Heaven itself. But that raises the question whether it's possible for us today to have such a foretaste – obviously not an identical one, because that was unique, but is there any sense in which Christians can experience a taste of heaven today? And the answer is certainly yes. They are rarely, if ever, as dramatic as that of the disciples at the transfiguration, but Hebrews 6 tells us that as Christians we have tasted the heavenly gift and… shared in the Holy Spirit… and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age (vv4-5). In my book, Just a Taste of Heaven, I have sought to show that the supernatural healings we receive now through the power of the Spirit are best understood as a foretaste of the age to come, when we will enjoy permanent good health in the new imperishable bodies we will receive when Jesus comes again (1 Corinthians 15:52-54). But of course, healing is not the only foretaste. All the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are available, as he determines, to bring us into a new dimension beyond the natural level of our everyday lives. This is confirmed by Paul's use of Greek words like arrabon and aparche to refer to the Holy Spirit. Both these words indicate that through the Spirit now we may receive a foretaste of what Heaven will be like. But these experiences are of course just a taste! There's much much more when Jesus comes again! But for a detailed explanation you might like to take a look at the final chapter of my book, The Holy Spirit – and Introduction, or listen to podcasts 022-024. Meanwhile, as we wait for Heaven, there's a sense in which we ourselves are being transformed. The same verb as is used for Jesus being transfigured, or transformed, is used elsewhere about Christians. In Romans 12:2 Paul encourages us not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. And in 2 Corinthians 3:18 he tells us that …we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. For us the transformation is gradual. The extent to which we reflect the Lord's glory will depend on how much time we spend in his presence renewing our minds. Remember, the disciples experienced the transfiguration while they were alone with Jesus (v2). What makes Heaven possible for us We said earlier that the transfiguration was a metamorphosis – a change in the form of a person into a completely different one – not a different person, but a different form. But actually this was not the first transfiguration. Jesus had changed his form before. Look for a moment at Philippians 2:5-8, which translated literally reads like this: Jesus, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself empty, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross! The word I have translated as form is morphe from which is derived metamorpho'o, the word used to refer to the transfiguration in Mark 9. So the first ‘transfiguration' was the incarnation. At the incarnation he remained God but took upon himself the form of a man. At the transfiguration, he remained a man, but took again for a brief moment the form of God which he later resumed after his resurrection and ascension. Our salvation was only possible because Jesus was willing to take the form of a servant, to be made in human likeness, to appear as a man, and to humble himself to death on a cross. As we have seen, he came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, to live a sinless life in obedience to his Father, to suffer and die in our place. We mentioned earlier that Luke tells us that Elijah and Moses were speaking with Jesus about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfilment (or accomplish) at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). The word used for departure in this verse is exodos which means a way out. Jesus' death on the cross was to be his way out. But it was also to be ours. As God provided a way out of slavery in Egypt for the Israelites in the Book of Exodus, so Jesus has provided a way out for us from the slavery of sin and the death penalty it brings. One day we shall all be transformed into his likeness, for we shall be like him because we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2). Meanwhile let us seek to be daily transformed by the renewing of our minds and to allow the Holy Spirit to be constantly changing us from one degree of glory to another as we spend time in the glorious presence of Jesus.
Talk 25 Mark 8:27-38 The Challenge of the Cross Welcome to Talk 25 in our series on Mark's Gospel. If you listened to my Easter Sunday message recently (which was not part of this series), you will remember that we concentrated our attention on the repeated emphasis on the use of the word must in connection with Jesus' death and resurrection. One of the verses we referred to is found in today's passage: 31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. We saw that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and to die and to rise again because that was the only way we could be saved. But in today's passage we see that this was clearly something the disciples, especially Peter, didn't want to hear. Nevertheless, Jesus went on to insist that not only was it necessary for him to suffer and die, but that if anyone wanted to follow him, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow him (v34). This presented an enormous challenge to his disciples then, and, if we take Jesus' words seriously, it is equally challenging for us today. In this passage we see three challenges: · The challenge of confessing who Jesus really is (27-30) · The challenge of acknowledging that his death was necessary (31-33) · The challenge of taking up our cross and following him (34-38). The challenge of confessing who Jesus really is (27-30) 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. The important thing here is not what other people – your parents, your brothers and sisters, your friends – say about Jesus. What matters is what you say. And notice that the word is say, not think. Of course, what we say will be affected by what we think, but if we believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be, it's important that we say so. Paul tells us that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9). Of course, Peter had not yet come to understand these things, but by divine revelation (see Matthew 16:17) he had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and was not afraid to say so. Others might see Jesus as an outspoken preacher like John the Baptist, or as a powerful miracle worker like Elijah, or as just another prophet or religious leader, but salvation depends on the acknowledgement and confession that JESUS IS LORD. But, as the next few verses make clear, Jesus was not the kind of Messiah that Peter and the other disciples were expecting. They were certainly not expecting a Messiah who would suffer and die. The challenge of acknowledging that his death was necessary (31-33) 31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." The disciples would have understood that the Son of Man was a title used for the Messiah in Daniel 7:13-14. 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 and everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. This was almost certainly the kind of Messiah they would have been expecting, and Jesus' claims that as the Son of Man he had authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2:28) would undoubtedly have backed up their conviction. And later in today's passage Jesus uses the title in connection with his coming in his Father's glory with the holy angels (v38), a theme which he repeats in 13:26 and 14:62. So their expectation was not entirely wrong. But it was only half the story. Jesus now had to teach them that certain things had to happen first. The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed. We should not be surprised at Peter's reaction. Surely suffering and rejection and death could not possibly be the role of the Messiah? But in fact they were not only possible. They were essential. The Son of Man must suffer… And Jesus not only rebukes Peter strongly for remonstrating with him, but he repeats the message again and again in chapters 9 and 10 (Mark 9:12, 31; 10:33, 45). But why was his suffering necessary? Why must he die? Because this was the only way that we could be saved. He died for our sins. He died in our place. He took the punishment our sins deserved. He died, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin. He only could unlock the gate of Heaven and let us in. To be saved we must acknowledge that his death was necessary. Our pride holds us back. Human wisdom rejects the message of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18-19). We hesitate to admit that it was our shortcomings that made it so. But there was, there is, no other way. The Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), for me, for you, and if it were not so, would the Messiah have allowed himself to be crucified? The challenge faces every man and woman, every boy and girl. The challenge must be faced, and it must be embraced. To be saved I must accept the fact that Jesus died for me. The challenge of taking up our cross and following him (34-38). 34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Having begun to teach his disciples that it was necessary for him to suffer and die and rise again, Jesus now includes the crowd. What he is about to say applies to everyone. Notice the use of the words anyone and everyone. There can be no exceptions. Acknowledge Christ and be saved or deny Christ and perish. The way of the cross is inevitable, not only for Christ, but for all who will follow him. If he must suffer, then we must expect to suffer too. We must take up our cross and follow him. Peter, from whom Mark probably obtained most of the material for writing his Gospel, writing to Christian slaves who were being unjustly punished, reminded them of the suffering of Christ and told them: To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:21). If the opponents of Christ treated him unfairly, we must not be surprised if they treat us unfairly too. But Jesus said that whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. Throughout the world today there are thousands who are losing their lives because of their faith in Christ. But suffering for the cause of Christ must not be confused with the things we suffer along with the rest of humanity. By no means all that Christians suffer is caused by persecution. Most of our suffering is caused by the fact that we're living in a fallen universe. In Romans 8 Paul tells us that, ever since the Fall, creation has been in bondage to decay and has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time (vv21-22). But our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us (v18). Meanwhile we are still eagerly waiting for the redemption of our bodies (v23). So suffering is inevitable. We are not exempt from it. Until Jesus returns we suffer along with the rest of humanity. The difference is that we Christians have hope. If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. So suffering along with the rest of humanity because we're all living in a fallen universe is not the same as suffering for the sake of Christ. It is not taking up our cross to follow Jesus. Yet this is required of every Christian. Jesus says, If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. This will mean different things for different people, but if I am not denying myself and actively choosing to make sacrifices for the cause of Christ, can I really call myself a Christian? This choosing to deny ourselves and to live a sacrificial life for Christ is a practical demonstration of what is known as our identification with Christ. When we first came to Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, believing that he died in our place, God counted Jesus' death as our death, and we too were accepting his death as our death. That's why Paul could say that we died with Christ, we were crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, made alive with Christ and raised with Christ. In short, we are identified with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. With this in mind, let's compare verse 31 with verses 34-35. First Jesus teaches them that he, the Son of Man, must suffer many things and be rejected … and that he must be killed and … rise again. Then he says that as his followers his disciples must expect the same: If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. The pattern is the same. Rejection and suffering, followed by resurrection and reward. But of course, we don't want to suffer. We don't want to be rejected. But neither did Jesus. Hear him praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death… My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will (Matthew 26:38-39). Taking up one's cross means saying this daily. Not what I want, but what you want. Jesus didn't want to suffer and die, but he chose the way of the cross, and so must we. But of course, the cross was not the end of the story. He rose again, and so, says Jesus, will we. What a wonderful promise to all who will accept him, but how serious a warning to those who reject him: If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels (v38) And then he will reward each person according to what he has done (Matthew 16:27). And in Matthew 10 he says: 32 Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. …38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. The choice is ours. And the consequences of that choice are eternal. What choice will you make? Will you accept the challenge of confessing who Jesus really is? Will you acknowledge that his death was necessary for you? Will you take up your cross and follow Jesus?
It had to happen – or did it? This week, as I was reading through the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, I was struck by a statement in John 20:9 which tells us that the disciples did not yet understand the Scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead. I found myself asking: · Why didn't they understand? · What was the scripture that John was referring to? · Why did Jesus have to rise from the dead? We'll deal with the first two questions fairly quickly, before answering in more detail why Jesus had to rise from the dead. Why didn't they understand? Four possibilities: Some things we don't understand until after they have happened Their minds were clouded by unbelief – too good to be true? Jesus had not yet opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45) They had not yet received the Holy Spirit who would guide them into the truth (John 16:13). What was the scripture that John was referring to? It's clear from Acts 2:24-32 that Peter, having been filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, now understood Psalm 16:8-11 to be a clear prophecy that Jesus would rise from the dead. He says in verse 24 that God raised (Jesus) from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. Quoting where the psalm says my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay, Peter applies it directly to the resurrection of Jesus, saying in verse 31 that David saw what was ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. There are, of course, many other OT passages which prophesy the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (notably Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53). But we can't be sure exactly what scripture John had in mind because he doesn't tell us. What we do know is that Jesus himself had explained to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22). But notice that these verses not only say that he must be raised to life, but that he also must suffer and be killed. So that now widens our question. We need to ask not only why Jesus must be raised to life, but why he must suffer and die in the first place. Why did Jesus have to suffer, to die and to be raised to life? Because: · The Scripture must be fulfilled · It was the only way that we could be saved The Scripture must be fulfilled Matthew 26:53-54 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" Luke 24:25-27 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24:44-47 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Why are these references to the fulfilment of Scripture so important? Because what God says in the Bible MUST come to pass. He said, Let there be light, and there was light. What he says, happens. Jesus had to rise from the dead because in the Bible God had said he would. We've also seen that it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. Why? Because he was God's holy one. But why did Jesus have to suffer and die. The NT gives us clear reasons for this, but, before we come to that, we need to think about what the words had to mean in this context. Did he really have to die? Didn't he have a choice about it? Yes he did. Notice what he said in John 10:17-18: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. So Jesus didn't have to suffer and die. But before man ever sinned he voluntarily chose to do so, because he loved us. He knew that if he chose not to, there would be no hope for us. The only way to save us from the just punishment our sins deserve was to take that punishment for us by dying on the cross. So in Gethsemane he ratified the decision he had made before the world began. He knew he must suffer. He knew he must die. It was the only way that we could be saved. It was the only way that we could be saved Let me explain it like this. Because God loves us, he wants what's best for us. Because he knows what's best for us he sets boundaries for our actions. If we go beyond those boundaries, there can be serious consequences. For example, we heard about the tragedy in Baltimore recently where a bridge collapsed. I imagine that as soon as it happened, they erected a NO ENTRY sign to prevent traffic from crossing the bridge. If anyone ignored it the consequences could have been fatal. It's like that with God. NO ENTRY signs like You shall not kill…You shall not steal… You shall not commit adultery… You shall not lie are there for a good reason. And the Bible has a word for ignoring God's NO ENTRY signs. It calls it sin. And if we disobey those signs, there's a price to pay. And the Bible is clear that this applies to all of us: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). There is no one who does not sin (1 Kings 8:46). If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8). And the Bible warns us of the seriousness of sin. Sin separates us from God. Our sins have hidden his face from us (Isaiah 59:2) And unless our sins are dealt with, our separation from God will be eternal. Jesus himself talked eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46). Paul tells us that the price we pay for our sin is death (Romans 6:23) So sin is serious. It separates from God. And there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot hide it, for our sin will find us out (Numbers 32:23). We cannot cleanse ourselves from it. Turning over a new leaf today won't eradicate yesterday's sin. No one can be righteous in God's sight by keeping the law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). We have all sinned. We are all separated from God. There is nothing we can do. We all need a Saviour. And this is why Christ died. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He died on the cross to reconcile us sinners to God (Colossians 1:20). He did this by offering himself as a sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:2). He died in our place. Because of our sin, we should die. Instead, Christ has died for us. He took the punishment for us. He was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5). He suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18). We deserved to die because of our sin, but because he loved us, he came and died in our place, so that we could live. So why did Jesus have to suffer and die? So that we could be saved. But what must we do? You must be born again Listen to what Jesus once said to a very religious man called Nicodemus: I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again… You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' Of course, Jesus was not talking about physical birth. He was talking about a spiritual birth where God so completely changes us that we become a new person. This happens when we repent of our sin and trust Jesus for forgiveness, relying on the fact that he has already taken the punishment for us when he died on the cross. The Bible also calls this being saved and it's important because it's the only way to get to Heaven. Jesus said, I am the way… no one comes to the Father except by me (John 14:6). And Peter said Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And that's why the gospel must be preached. The gospel must be preached Mark 4:43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God …because that is why I was sent." John 9:4 As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. And finally, in 1 Corinthians 15 we find two more MUSTs. 1 Corinthians 15:22-25 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 1 Corinthians 15: 50-53 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." Your immortality is as certain as his reign!
About Eileen – a tribute to my wife by David Petts Eileen was born on 6th January 1939 in Stockport, Cheshire. Her parents, Cecil and Sarah Littlewood, were from a Methodist background but were not regular church goers. However, they did send Eileen to Sunday School, and when they moved to Dagenham their nearest church was Bethel Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God or AoG) and it was there that, at the age of seven, Eileen accepted Jesus as her Saviour. From that moment on she never doubted and unswervingly followed the Saviour she had come to love so much. When the family moved from Dagenham, she attended Hornchurch Baptist Church where she was baptised in water at the age of fifteen. I was attending Elm Park Baptist Church and when we were both 18 we met at a joint youth rally held in the local park. That meeting turned out to be the beginning of a wonderful sixty-seven year long relationship. At that time I was expecting to become a Baptist minister, but in September 1959, having heard about the baptism in the Spirit from some Pentecostal friends, we both started to attend prayer meetings at Dagenham AoG and were both baptised in the Spirit in the very church where Eileen had received Jesus as her Saviour. We were married three years later as soon as I had graduated from Oxford, and moved to Colchester where I became the pastor of the AoG church in Straight Road, Lexden. Eileen held down a very responsible administrative job in the Colchester Education Office until Deborah and Sarah were born (1964, 1965). Although a busy mum, Eileen always made room in our home for the thirty teenagers who crowded into our small lounge every Sunday afternoon for Bible Class and who had come to Christ in the youth meetings we held in our church. In 1968 we moved to Basingstoke where I had accepted the pastorate of the AoG church. During the ten years we were there Eileen was responsible for setting up and running the pre-school playgroup for 40 children held five mornings a week and teaching the teenage Bible class on Sundays. She also played an active part in organising and preparing the meals for up to 150 teenagers at the New Forest Pentecostal Youth Camp we held annually during the 1970s. During this period my ministry was becoming increasingly in demand both nationally and internationally, and, although she now had three young children, Jonathan having been born in 1970, Eileen never complained, but totally supported me in all the Lord was calling me to do. And that support became all the more important when I was appointed to be the principal at Mattersey Hall Bible College. Eileen served as Matron of the college from 1978 to 1999. Her responsibilities included supervision of all kitchen and domestic staff, organising the rotas for the regular domestic duties undertaken by the students, and attending weekly Faculty meetings. Although she was well equipped for these responsibilities by her administrative skills and experience, she often felt rather inadequate for the task and constantly depended on the Lord to help her. But by far her most important role was as my support, encourager, and advisor throughout the 27 years I led the college. Eileen was very conscious of the privilege the Lord had given her in fulfilling this role, especially as, when the children were grown up she was able to travel with me in connection with my responsibilities representing Assemblies of God attending meetings of the Pentecostal European Fellowship and the World Pentecostal Fellowship. She greatly appreciated the fellowship with other like-minded Christians around the world, especially at the annual EPTA conferences where we met with other Pentecostal Bible College workers from across Europe. When I retired from Mattersey in 2004, we moved to Devon and became members of Brixham Community Church (AoG) where Eileen used her gift of hospitality in organizing garden party cream teas for the over sixties, barbecues for the neighbours, and serving coffee after church on Sunday mornings. She also continued to travel widely with me both in ministry and on holiday. Sadly, this all came to an abrupt end when Eileen was left severely disabled by a massive stroke in June 2016. Despite all the frustration that this caused to a woman who had previously been so active, Eileen never lost her sense of humour and was convinced that God had a purpose in what he had allowed to happen, knowing that one day she would walk again. That day has now come, and, no longer in a wheelchair, she stands in the presence of the Lord she loved and served for so many years. Although I am missing her already, I am full of joy, knowing that she is now where she wanted to be. Until we meet again in Heaven, I will remember her for her love, her faithfulness, her devotion, her patience, her sense of humour, her impact on our children's lives, her smile, her perseverance in suffering, her courage in face of adversity, and above all, her childlike trust in Jesus and her total commitment to him. I thank God for the precious gift of Eileen and the privilege of being her husband for sixty-two years. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Talk 24 Mark 8:22-26 The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida Welcome to Talk 24 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida. Jesus healed many blind people during the course of his ministry. Luke 7:21 tells us that he gave sight to many that were blind and the healings of Bartimaeus in Mark 10 and of the man born blind in John 9 are well known examples. But this incident, which is found only in Mark's Gospel, is particularly interesting because it's the only occasion where Jesus needed to lay his hands on someone twice before they were completely healed. So let's begin by reading the passage together. 22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spat on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?" 24 He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around." 25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Jesus sent him home, saying, "Don't go into the village." The first thing I'd like you to notice in this story is that some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. Of course, it's understandable that a blind man would need others to bring him to Jesus, but what's most significant here is that it is the people, not the blind man, who beg Jesus to touch him. This is quite different from the healing of Bartimaeus who is discouraged by the people as he seeks healing from Jesus and who calls out, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me, and to whom Jesus says, Your faith has healed you (Mark 10:46-52). In fact Jesus uses this expression on several different occasions in the Gospels: · After giving sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10:52) · When speaking to the woman who touched the hem of his garment (Matthew 9:22, Mark 5:34, Luke 18:42) · to the grateful leper he had cleansed (Luke 17:19). · and to the woman who poured perfume on his feet and received forgiveness for her sins (Luke 7:50) It's exactly the same Greek expression on all these occasions, and it shows the important role personal faith plays in receiving forgiveness and cleansing and healing. But there are other occasions in the New Testament where it's the faith of other people that brings about the healing: · The faith of the four friends who brought the paralytic to Jesus (Mark 2:5) · of the Centurion for his servant's healing (Matthew 8:10) · of the SyroPhoenician woman for the healing of her daughter (Matthew 15:28) · and the faith of the elders when anointing the sick with oil (James 5:15). And here in today's passage it's the people who bring the blind man to Jesus who are begging him to heal him. It's by no means clear how much faith the blind man had, but it seems safe to assume that he was in full agreement with his friends' request. The second thing we notice in this story is that Jesus took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village (v23). We're not told why Jesus did this, but it reminds us of the deaf and mute man that Jesus healed in the last chapter. Jesus took him aside away from the crowd (Mark 7:33). We suggested there that he may have done so because he wanted to get the man's full attention, to show him that he was not just one of the crowd, but an individual he cared about personally, or that perhaps Jesus himself felt the need to get away from the crowd, to get a moment of quiet when he could hear what God was saying about how to deal with this man's need. And on this occasion Jesus may have done so for similar reasons. However, in this case it seems that Jesus might have had a further reason for taking the man out of the village. Notice that, after he has healed him, Jesus says, Don't go into the village. We have seen on several other occasions in Mark's Gospel how Jesus tells those he has healed to tell no one about it, and it's possible that this is just another such occasion. Jesus was concerned that his miracles should not be the focus of people's attention. They were signs to confirm the truth of his message. He wanted people to hear what he said, not just to see what he did. But the fact is, we simply don't know why he led the blind man out of the village. What we do know is that Jesus only did what he saw his Father doing (John 5:19) and the reasons for Jesus' specific actions were related to what God was telling him to do, and to the individual needs of the person he was ministering to – a principle we should all be aware of when we are praying for the sick, and which is particularly relevant to the next thing Mark tells us: When he had spat on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?" We're not surprised that Jesus put his hands on him, but spitting on the man's eyes is not what we might have expected. Of course, we remember how, when he healed the man who was deaf and mute, Mark tells as that Jesus spat and put his fingers in the man's ears. We may also remember how, when he healed the blind man in John 9, Jesus spat on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes (v6). There were no doubt specific reasons why Jesus used saliva in each of these three cases – one suggestion, for example, is that the man in John 9 was born without eyes and that Jesus was creating eyes for him from the dust of the ground, as God did when he created Adam. But, in the absence of any clear explanation in the Scripture, it would be unwise to jump to conclusions. It's all right to suggest what the reasons might have been but beware of people who are over dogmatic on such matters. As far as following the example of Jesus is concerned, we can learn from this that the Holy Spirit might lead us on rare occasions to do something out of the ordinary when ministering to the sick, but we need to be very sure that we are hearing God correctly, and we should remember that the New Testament authorises two main ways of ministering healing, the laying on of hands (Mark 16) and anointing with oil (James 5). But even with these, the important thing is to hear what God is saying. The New Testament offers no formula for healing. Notice next, still in verse 23, that Jesus asks the man, Do you see anything? There is, of course, a simple explanation for this. It's not immediately obvious to anyone except the blind person who has been prayed for (or treated medically for an eye condition) whether or not they can see. We have to ask them. But surely Jesus would have known. He was God, wasn't he? Yes, but he was also man. This simple question to a blind man reveals one of the great mysteries of the incarnation (cf. 1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus was both God and man. Not half God and half man, but 100% God and 100% man. Our finite minds simply can't grasp it. But a God who can be fully understood by my tiny mind couldn't possibly be God at all, could he? But the Bible is clear that while Jesus was here on earth, as man he did not know everything. He grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). Even though he never ceased to be God, when he was hungry and saw a fig tree he had to go and find out if it had any fruit (Mark 11:13). So, here, to find out if the blind man can see anything, he asks him. There's no need to look any further for an explanation. Neither do we need an explanation for how a blind man knew what people and trees looked like. After all, we're not told that he was blind from birth. But what does require an explanation is why the man is not completely healed immediately. Why did Jesus need to lay hands on him twice? Answers to this seem to fall into three main categories: · Jesus was aware that the man was lacking in faith · Jesus was teaching his disciples that some healings would not be instantaneous · Jesus was illustrating his attempts to get his disciples to ‘see' the truth about him. Let's consider each of these ideas in turn. Jesus was aware that the man was lacking in faith As we saw earlier, Jesus was constantly looking for faith in those who came to him. Sometimes it was the faith of the person who was in need. At others it was the faith of the friends or relatives who asked Jesus to help them. Whichever it was, it seems that it was the person who was bringing the request who was expected to have faith that it would be granted. Now if this man was lacking in faith, we are certainly not told that he was. What's more, it was the people who brought him to Jesus who made the request. And there is no mention of a sudden increase in faith before Jesus laid his hands on the man the second time, although we can imagine that his faith was encouraged by the improvement he experienced after Jesus laid hands on him the first time. However, we cannot say with any certainty that the reason why the man's healing was not immediate was lack of faith. Jesus was teaching his disciples that some healings would not be instantaneous I suspect that this idea comes from the fact that healings today are often either partial or gradual. Of course we do see immediate answers to prayer for healing, especially in an evangelistic context when a miracle of healing is granted to help people come to faith in Christ (cf. Mark 16:15ff., John 20:30-31 etc.). But there are many cases where people ‘receive a touch' of healing but are not completely healed. At other times, even when there is a full recovery, this may take some time before it is complete. And in attempting to explain the reason for these incomplete healings, it's easy to refer to this passage as biblical evidence. However, it's surely clear that, in the case we are looking at, if the blind man's healing was delayed, it was not delayed for very long! And it could hardly be described as gradual. Jesus lays hands on him, and there's an immediate improvement. He lays hands on him again, and the healing is complete. If Jesus really wanted to show his disciples that some healings are not instantaneous, this was hardly the best example give them. Furthermore, there is no evidence of gradual or partial healings in the ministry of his disciples. That is not to say that healing does not sometimes happen gradually or in stages – there's plenty of evidence that it does. But I think it unlikely that this was the reason that Jesus laid hands on this man twice. Jesus was illustrating his attempts to get his disciples to ‘see' the truth about him The merit in this suggestion is that it takes into account the context in which the story is set in Mark's Gospel. As we saw in our last talk, Jesus was often disappointed with his disciples for their lack of faith and slowness to understand, and only a few verses before today's passage we hear him saying: Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? The disciples had physical eyes to see, but they were spiritually blind. But Jesus did not give up on them. He persevered with them. And it's possible that Mark included this story at this point in his narrative as an illustration of Jesus' determination to persevere with his disciples until their spiritual eyes were opened to see who he truly was. And this makes all the more sense when we consider what follows. Jesus takes his disciples to Caesarea Philippi and asks his disciples who they think he is. And Peter replies, You are the Christ. His eyes have been opened, but not to the whole truth, for when Jesus tells them about his coming death and resurrection, Peter refuses to accept it. His eyes has been opened to part of the truth, but he had yet to see clearly the whole truth. I confess I find this explanation very appealing because of the context in which the passage is set. However, if Mark does include the story here as a kind of living parable illustrating how Jesus will persevere with people until they come to see the truth about him, that need not necessarily mean that this was why Jesus did it in the first place. The simple fact is, we simply do not know why Jesus healed this man in this way. The evidence for all these suggestions is inconclusive. And whatever explanation we prefer, we must be careful not to be dogmatic. What we can say with certainty is that Jesus did not leave this man unhealed. So what other lessons can we learn from this passage? We see that: Nothing is impossible with God He responds to our prayers We may not understand why he answers in the way he does What he does he does perfectly He keeps on working in us until we see everything (including Jesus) clearly. Once he could see clearly, the first thing this man saw was Jesus. One day we will see clearly. Now we see through a glass darkly, but then (when we get to Heaven) we will see face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). Only a day before making this recording my darling wife Eileen went to be with Jesus. Now she sees him perfectly. Oh hallelujah. Thank you Jesus. And one day we shall too.
Talk 23 Mark 8:1-21 Feeding the Four Thousand Welcome to Talk 23 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we are looking at Mark 8:1-21. This passage includes the story of Jesus feeding the 4,000, which is similar in many ways to the account of the feeding of the 5,000 recorded in Chapter 6. As a result, liberal scholars have suggested that this is just a variant account of the same miracle rather than a totally separate one. So today we'll begin by looking at the biblical evidence that this was indeed a distinct event which took place at a different time, in a different place, and with a different group of people. We'll then consider what lessons we can learn from the passage with regard to Jesus, his opponents and his disciples. So let's begin by reading Mark 8:1-21. During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2 "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3 If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance." 4 His disciples answered, "But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?" 5 "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied. 6 He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7 They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8 The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9 About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10 he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha. 11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. 14 The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod." 16 They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread." 17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied. 20 "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" They answered, "Seven." 21 He said to them, "Do you still not understand?" So, to begin with, what's the evidence that this is not a variant account of the same miracle as the feeding of the 5,000 recorded in Chapter 6? Why this is not a variant account of the feeding of the 5,000 We need not spend much time on this. If you take seriously the authority of the Scriptures, you will quickly see that this is a completely different miracle from the feeding of the 5000. Firstly, both Matthew and Mark record them closely together as two separate accounts of two separate miracles. Secondly, despite the similarities, there are also many differences in the details of the two accounts. Thirdly, the two miracles took place in different places and with different people. The feeding of the 5000 took place in the largely Jewish region of Galilee. The feeding of the four thousand was in the Gentile region of the Decapolis. And finally, and most important of all, Jesus himself refers to them as separate events. In verses 19-20 he says: When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied. 20 "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" There is no way that Jesus could have said this if the two stories were variant accounts of the same miracle. And if Jesus was able to perform such a miracle once, he was certainly able to do it twice! But that brings us to what we can learn about Jesus in this story, Lessons about Jesus When we looked at the feeding of the 5,000 in Talk 18 we noticed three main characteristics about Jesus: · His compassion for the people · His concern for his disciples as he seeks to train them to trust him · His confidence in his heavenly Father. And we noticed that these qualities are seen over and over again throughout his ministry. So it's not surprising that we see them here as he feeds the 4,000. Again he has compassion on the people because they have nothing to eat (vv.2-3). Again we see his concern for the weakness of his disciples' faith and their lack of understanding (vv.4, 17-18, 21). And again we see his confidence in God as he gives thanks for the few loaves and fishes he has (vv.6-7) and feeds a multitude with them. But perhaps there's just one more thing we can learn about Jesus from this passage. The repetition of such a miracle shows us that if Jesus has done something once, he can do it again. And if he could do it again then, he can do the same kind of thing again today. Lessons about his opponents The Pharisees are mentioned in verses 11 and 13. In verse 11 they come to test Jesus and ask for a sign from heaven, to which Jesus replies Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it (v.12). And in verse 15 Jesus warns his disciples Be careful…Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod. Two questions arise from these verses: 1. Why does Jesus refuse to give his opponents the sign they are asking for? 2. Why does he warn his disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees? Why does Jesus refuse to give his opponents the sign they are asking for? First, it's worth noting the significance of the particular wording Jesus uses here. Although it's not clear in our English translations, his hearers would have understood him as taking an oath. So his refusal to give them a sign was extremely strong. He was determined not to take a course of action that he had already firmly rejected when Satan had tempted him to throw himself down from the highest point of the temple (Matthew 4:5-6). Secondly, please note that his refusal is recorded in all four Gospels. In Matthew 12:39, for example, Jesus also says that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign and goes on to say that the only sign that would be given it would be the sign of his resurrection from the dead (cf. Luke 11:29-32). And he knew that even then, despite the clear evidence for his resurrection, they, like many today, would still refuse to believe. Notice what he says in Luke 16:31 when talking about rich man and Lazarus: If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. By mentioning Moses and the Prophets Jesus was referring to the Old Testament, the only Bible they had at the time. If people are determined to reject the testimony of Scripture, they will also reject the evidence for the resurrection. God does not work miracles in an attempt to convince those who, in their hearts, really do not want to believe, those who, like the Pharisees, only wanted to test him. He does, however, work miracles to help those whose hearts are open to his word. John's Gospel records seven signs to enable people to believe and in chapter 20 it says that Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (vv30-31). It's by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that we have eternal life. And miraculous signs are given to help us to believe. So when Jesus sent his disciples into all the world to preach the gospel, he promised them that signs would accompany their preaching (Mark 16:15-20). But, as may become clearer as we answer our second question, he does not work miracles for those who, like the Pharisees, have no intention of believing him. Why does Jesus warn his disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees? v. 15 Be careful…Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod. Yeast, or leaven, is what is needed to make bread rise. You only need a small amount and it will soon spread throughout the dough. In the New Testament, with only one exception (Matthew 13:33), yeast is used to symbolize evil. It's an unseen influence that can spread quickly in any society or church. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Paul says: Don't you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Here Paul was referring to the Jewish custom of clearing the house of yeast before Passover. He sees the church as an unleavened batch of dough because Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed for us. We are unleavened. Sin has been cleared out because of what Jesus did for us. So we are told to be what Christ has already made us. In effect he is saying, Christ has made you holy, so BE holy. Live holy unleavened lives. And he uses malice and wickedness as examples of leaven or yeast, and sincerity and truth as examples of unleavened bread. So if yeast represents something bad, what exactly does Jesus mean when he talks about the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod? The answer surely lies in what we have already seen about their attitude to Jesus. We saw in Talk 17 (Mark 6) how Herod: · Hardened his heart to God's word through the preaching of John the Baptist · Refused to repent (of his adulterous relationship with Herodias) · Insisted on preserving his reputation at all costs · Was eventually complicit with Pontius Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus (Cf. Acts 4:27). And we have repeatedly seen how the Pharisees too persistently hardened their hearts against Jesus, even accusing him of being demon-possessed. Their reputation and social position were more important to them than the truth, and they were already seeking a way to kill him. Their words and their actions against him were expressions of what was already in their hearts. The ‘yeast' of the Pharisees was essentially an attitude of heart that is persistently opposed to Christ. And there are two possible reasons why Jesus warns his disciples to guard against this yeast. He knew that the attitude of the Pharisees and Herod (or Herodians) would eventually spread like yeast to make the entire population rise up against Jesus and he wanted his disciples to be aware of this. But it's more likely in my view that he was warning them of the danger of allowing such an attitude to develop in their own hearts. Paul was later to warn the Corinthians that a little yeast leavens the whole lump. A wrong attitude of heart among Christians can spread very quickly in a local church and we must be careful not to allow our thinking to become like that of the world (Romans 12:2). Lessons about his disciples But that brings us finally to what we can learn about the disciples from this passage. In verse 4 they're still asking the same kind of question as they did before the feeding of the five thousand: But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them? They were still thinking at a purely human level, and even after Jesus has worked a similar miracle again, he has to say to them: 17 Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied. 20 "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" They answered, "Seven." 21 He said to them, "Do you still not understand?" They had failed to understand. They had failed to see and hear. They had failed to remember. But before we get too critical of these men, we need to examine our own hearts and ask if we are still prone to the same hardness of heart. The disciples had failed understand: · Who Jesus really is · Why his resources were not limited to the natural · Why they themselves need not be limited to their own natural resources. They had eyes to see and ears to hear, but they were blind to what God wanted to show them and deaf to what he wanted to tell them. Are we so very different? I think not. So what's the cure? The key is in that word remember. We need to remember what God has said to us in his word. We need to remember what we have seen him do already in our own lives. And, most important of all, we need to remember who Jesus is. As we take our eyes off the problems that face us and our limited resources to solve them, and remind ourselves of who Jesus is, and the infinite resources at his disposal, we will learn, as the disciples eventually came to learn, that nothing is impossible to those who believe.
Talk 22 Mark 7:31-37 Jesus heals a man who is deaf and mute Welcome to Talk 22 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at the story in Mark 7:31-37 of how Jesus heals a man who is deaf and mute. But before we turn to the passage, let me begin with a testimony of a similar healing that happened in my own family. From my earliest years I can remember being told of how one of my aunts had been miraculously healed in answer to prayer . Her name was May and in the 1911 census she was recorded as being ‘deaf and dumb from birth'. When she was in her twenties, my grandmother took her to a divine healing meeting conducted by the evangelist, George Jeffreys , who placed his hands on her and prayed for her. That evening, as they were travelling home to Poplar in the East End of London, they went down to catch the underground train. While they were waiting on the platform, suddenly, with a shocked expression on her face, May put both hands over her ears. She could hear the roar of the train as it came through the tunnel approaching the platform! Until that moment, from the day she was born she had never been able to hear, but now she could hear, and within a few weeks was beginning to speak. My father was her younger brother, and when, years later, I was told at school that miracles did not happen, he was quick to remind me of my aunt's healing. I suppose that's why I've never doubted God 's miracle working power and firmly believe that we should expect to see miracles today. But now, to the passage in Mark 7. 31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man. 33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spat and touched the man's tongue. 34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!"). 35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly. 36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. 37 People were overwhelmed with amazement. "He has done everything well," they said. "He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak." This miracle is recorded only in Mark. It's the simple but wonderful story of a man's need and how Jesus met it. Jesus leaves the region of Tyre and Sidon and goes down to the region of the Ten Cities known as Decapolis. Some people bring him a man who is deaf and can hardly talk. There is no mention of faith in this story, but, as we saw last time, faith comes by hearing the message about Christ. How much these people were able to communicate with this deaf man is not clear, but they themselves had heard about Christ and had enough faith to bring him to Jesus. It's interesting that in the New Testament it is often the faith of others that results in healing, and not always the faith of the person who is sick. Note too that they don't specifically ask Jesus to heal the man, but just to place his hand on him. But let's look carefully at what Jesus actually does. The first thing we notice is that he took him aside away from the crowd. He took him aside away from the crowd. Why did Jesus do this? We're not told. It can be great to be part of a crowd, especially where miracles are happening, but sometimes the crowd can be a distraction. The miracles Jesus is performing on others can in certain circumstances take our eyes off what he might want to do for us. Jesus deals with us as individuals. And in this case he wants to get the man's full attention, to show him that he is not just one of the crowd, but an individual he cares about personally. Perhaps the man's condition, unable to hear and hardly able to speak, made these personal moments with Jesus all the more necessary. And perhaps Jesus himself felt the need to get away from the crowd, to get a moment of quiet when he can hear what Father is saying about how to deal with this man's need. When ministering to the sick it's so important to take time to hear what God is saying in each individual situation, and not be rushed into trying to deal with the needs of everyone who is asking for prayer at the same time. He put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spat and touched the man's tongue. Jesus usually healed by a touch or a word of command, and his disciples sometimes healed by anointing people with oil. On one occasion he even healed a blind man by anointing his eyes with mud made from the dust of the ground and Jesus' own saliva (John 9:6). But occasions like this, and the one we are considering in today's passage, were exceptional, and should certainly not be seen as a methodology of healing. Jesus' only methodology was to hear what the Father was saying (John 5:19.) So why does Jesus on this occasion put his fingers into the man's ears, spit and touch the man's tongue. It's possible that he was miming. The people who had brought the man to Jesus had shown a measure of faith just by bringing him, but it's possible that Jesus was also looking for faith in the man himself. And, as we have seen, faith comes by hearing… But the man could not hear. But by miming Jesus could well have been indicating to the man that he was intending to heal him, and the assurance that would give the man would create faith in his heart. But another aspect of Jesus' unusual actions is how personal and intimate they are. He is not just touching the man; he's putting his fingers into his ears. He's spitting and touching the man's tongue, presumably with the saliva! Today we might say, He's invading his space! But if we want God's blessing in our lives, we must be prepared to let him invade our space. We must make room for him. When he left heaven and came to earth he was, in a sense, invading our space, but he only did so because he loves us. And he's constantly looking for that intimate relationship with us where he's involved with every aspect of our being. If we allow him to do so, the reward, as it was for the man in our story, will be wonderful. He looked up to heaven Jesus often looked up to heaven when he prayed. He did so before he blessed the loaves and fed the five thousand (Mark 6:41). And the fact that he does so here suggests three things. First, Jesus had constant contact with heaven. He was sinless. There was no barrier between himself and God. At his baptism the heavens were torn open and the Father's voice was heard saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mark 1:10-11). Jesus lived under an open Heaven. Secondly, by looking up to Heaven Jesus would be reminded of what Heaven is like. In Heaven there is no sin, no suffering, no sickness. He taught his disciples to pray, Your will be done as it is in heaven… God's will is that earth should be like Heaven. And Jesus had come to do God's will (Hebrews 10:7). Jesus knew that in the age to come earth would indeed become like Heaven and he had come to show us by his sinless life, his love and compassion, and by the miracles he performed, what a foretaste of Heaven could be like. And thirdly, looking up to Heaven was a sign of his submission to heaven's authority. As we have already said, Jesus only did what he saw the Father do (John 5:19). He looks up to Heaven in submission to Father's authority before he speaks the word of command – be opened. And we should never presume to speak a word of command in Jesus' name without first receiving by the Spirit authority to do so from Heaven. We can not take authority. We only have it if it is given to us. He sighed deeply It's been suggested that Jesus' sigh reflects the cost and pain of ministry. And Jesus certainly did pay a heavy price, not just by his death on the cross to save us from our sins, but even through the years of preaching, teaching, healing, and training his disciples, he warned those who thought that following him might be easy, that Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20). But I think it more likely that Jesus' sigh was an expression of his compassion for the suffering. Jesus' compassion was the motivation for his healings. In Matthew 14:14 we're told that he healed their sick because he was moved with compassion for them. It was because of his compassion that he gave sight to the blind (Matthew 20:34), cleansed the leper (Mark 1:41), cast out demons (Mark 5:19), and raised the dead (Luke 7:13). It is also possible to see his sigh as an expression of anger with this man's affliction. Does not God, who is holy, have a right to be angry with sin? Yes, but his anger with sin springs not only from his holiness, but also from his love. He hates sin because he knows what it does to our lives. He hates sin because he loves us. And he hates sickness because of the havoc it wreaks in human lives. It's because of his compassion for this man that he is angry with the affliction that bound him, and no doubt with any Satanic forces that may have caused it. So Jesus looks up to Heaven and sighs, and then he says, Ephphatha, BE OPENED. He said to him, Ephphatha… BE OPENED Just one word – Ephphatha. One word from Jesus is enough. It was enough because it had all the authority of Heaven behind it. Jesus only did what he saw the Father do. He who said at the beginning, Let there be light, now says, Be opened. Now notice what it says in verse 35: 35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened, and he began to speak plainly. Th word translated at this literally means immediately! Immediately he could hear. Immediately he could speak – plainly. No wonder the crowd said, He has done everything well (v37). And, as my aunt's testimony shows, the age of such miracles is not past, though admittedly she did not speak immediately she was healed. I think that perhaps her inability to speak had been caused by her being deaf. Once the Lord opened her ears she was able to begin to learn to speak. But this man began to speak plainly immediately. My aunt's experience does not in any way suggest that miracles today cannot be as great as Jesus performed while he was here on earth. Did not he say, I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father (John 14:12)? No, my aunt's experience simply shows that God deals with different people differently. What doesn't change is his love, his compassion, and his power. But is there perhaps also a spiritual message in this miracle that applies to us all? Look at verses 36-37. 36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. 37 People were overwhelmed with amazement. "He has done everything well," they said. "He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak." When we met Jesus our ears were opened to his word and our tongues were loosened to speak it out. Have we begun to speak plainly to others about him? Are they overwhelmed with amazement? Does our testimony about Jesus cause them to say, He has done everything well? Do they keep talking about it? But finally, let's remind ourselves that Jesus opens more than ears, and mouths, and eyes. He opens the door to Heaven to all who will believe. There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin, He only could unlock the gate of Heaven and let us in (C.F Alexander). He is the one who opens and no-one can shut (Revelation 3:7). He alone can open the book (Revelation 5:7). And in John 5:28 Jesus tells us that a time is coming when the graves will be opened and all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. And Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that the Lord himself will come down from Heaven with a loud command (a shout) with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet call of God and the dead in Christ shall rise… I wonder what that shout might be. Could it be Ephphatha?
Talk 21 Mark 7:24-40 The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman Welcome to Talk 21 in our series on Mark's gospel. Today we will be considering Mark 7:24-40 where Jesus casts a demon out of the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman. In recent talks we have seen how Jesus often tested the faith of his disciples, and today we will see him testing the faith of a Gentile. The story is also recorded in Matthew 15:21-28 where Matthew adds some details that are not mentioned in Mark's account. So, as I read the passage in Mark, I'm going to weave into it the extra details we find in Matthew. (If you're looking at the notes the words in brackets are from Matthew). 24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre (and Sidon). He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was (a Canaanite) a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter (crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me. My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession'. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said). 27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs (that fall from their master's table)." 29 Then he told her, (Woman, you have great faith. Your request is granted). For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter. (And her daughter was healed at that moment). 30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. Jesus travels about 30 miles from the shore of the sea of Galilee to Tyre and Sidon which were Canaanite cities on the Mediterranean Sea just north of Israel. He must have been known at least to the Jews living in that area and was probably staying in the home of a Jewish disciple. Mark tells us that he didn't want anyone to know he was there. We're not told why, but it was almost certainly so that he could take time to rest and to pray. But it wasn't long before the news got out about his presence in that territory and a woman whose little daughter was demon possessed came begging him for help. From all we have learnt about Jesus so far, we can have no doubt that he had compassion on this woman, but on this occasion he did not respond immediately to meet her need. There are two possible reasons for this: · She was not a Jew · He was testing her faith She was not a Jew. Jesus says that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, and adds, First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs. The woman would have understood what Jesus meant by this because the Jews frequently referred to the Gentiles as dogs. At first sight it seems that Jesus is dealing with this woman very harshly, but we need to remember when he said it. God's ultimate purpose was that the good news of the kingdom would be preached to all nations, but that was to take place after Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul tells us in Ephesians 2 that by his death Jesus broke down the wall of the temple that separated the Jews from the Gentiles, but during his earthly ministry Jesus' purpose was first to give an opportunity to the Jews – the lost sheep of Israel – to repent and believe. But that did not mean that even then the blessings of his kingdom were completely unavailable to the Gentiles, if only they would believe. The true Jew, the true descendant of Abraham, has always been the person who believes as Abraham believed. Because of her faith this Gentile woman not only received healing for her daughter, but also became one of God's children. But that brings us to the second reason why Jesus did not immediately grant her request. He was testing her faith. The fact that God sometimes tests us does not mean that he does not love us, but by being tested our faith is strengthened. Reading the passage, we see various facets of this woman's amazing faith that provide important lessons for us today. 1 She heard about him In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet (v25). How had she heard and what had she heard? We don't know. But Mark 3:8-12 might give us a clue: When they heard all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small boat ready for him, to keep the people from crowding him. For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." She had almost certainly heard about the healings and the exorcisms. Why else would she come to Jesus to ask him to help her demon-possessed daughter? Her faith came by hearing the message about Christ (cf. Romans 10:17). The more we learn from God's word about who Jesus is and what he did, and the more we learn of what he is still doing today, the greater will be our faith. And if we want others to come to faith in Jesus, we must tell them about him. 2 She acknowledged who he was She cried out, Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me (Matthew 15:22). Admittedly, the Greek word kurios could be used then, as it still is in Greece today, as a polite form of address, rather equivalent to Mr. or Sir. But the use of the Messianic title Son of David surely implies that here it means something more. She certainly seems to have had an understanding of Jesus' authority, rather like another Gentile, the Roman centurion, who came to Jesus for help, believing that Jesus could heal at a distance, and of whom Jesus said, I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith (Matthew 8:10). So faith begins as a result of hearing about Jesus and coming to recognise who he is. When we do, the appropriate response is to humble ourselves. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. 3 She humbled herself · She fell at his feet (v25) · She begged Jesus to drive out the demon (v26) · She recognised her need for mercy (Matthew 15:22) · She came and knelt before (worshipped) him (Matthew 15:25) · She admitted that she needed help (Matthew 15:25) · She acknowledged that she was not one of God's children (vv27-28) But despite all this she boldly persisted. 4 She boldly persisted Notice that she begged Jesus. The word used for begged here means that she kept on asking. But Jesus doesn't reply. The disciples urge him to send her away because she keeps crying out after us. Now Jesus speaks. I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Undeterred she comes and kneels before him and says, Lord, help me! Jesus responds by saying that his first responsibility is to the Jews. But she still persists. Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs. To which Jesus replied, Woman, you have great faith. Your request is granted. Sometimes faith is rewarded immediately. Often it's demonstrated by a dogged persistence that is determined to believe despite adversity and disappointment. 5 She believed Why did Jesus tell her that she had great faith? · She believed that Jesus had the power to deal with an impossible situation. · She believed that he could do it at a distance. (She wouldn't have expected him to come to her house). · She believed because her eyes were on Jesus, not on her ethnicity or inadequacy. · She kept on believing despite Jesus' initial silence and apparent denial. · She declared her faith. 6 She declared her faith In verse 27 Jesus says: First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs. The word used for dogs here means little dogs and refers to family pets. It's possible that what Jesus meant by this was that his first priority was to provide food for the children (teach his disciples), and not to allow pets to interrupt the family meal. But, as I have already mentioned, the Jews commonly referred to Gentiles as dogs. So there is also the implication that the time for the Gentiles had not yet arrived. Despite this, however, the woman replies: Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs (that fall from their master's table). And it's at this point that Jesus says: Woman, you have great faith. Your request is granted. For such a reply, (literally, because of this word), you may go; the demon has left your daughter. Notice that it's because of her reply that Jesus says she has great faith. He clearly sees this as a declaration of faith. And the declaration of faith is important. In 2 Corinthains 4:13 Paul says: It is written: ‘I believed; therefore I have spoken'. Since we have the same spirit of faith, we believe and therefore speak. And in Romans 10:10 he says that it's with our mouth that we profess our faith. But this is no ‘Name it and Claim it' teaching. He does not say, I spoke, therefore I believed! He simply means that if we really believe something in our hearts we will declare it. On another occasion Jesus said, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). Jesus saw the woman's declaration as evidence of the faith that was in her heart, and that was enough for him to grant her request. 7 She received what she asked for 30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. She received a foretaste of the blessings that would soon become available to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. And we too have received a foretaste of future blessings. In the gift of the Holy Spirit we have tasted of the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:4-5). For example, the ultimate healing takes place when we receive new bodies when Jesus comes again, but by the Spirit through the gifts of healing, which are distributed as he determines, we may receive by faith a wonderful foretaste of the age to come. So, to conclude, if Jesus is testing your faith right now, remind yourself who he is, keep your eyes on him and not on the problem, humble yourself before him, persist in asking him to help you, and decare your faith in him. And at the right time, he will do it.
Talk 20 Mark 7:1-23 Beware of the Pharisees Welcome to Talk 20 in our series on Mark's Gospel. Today we're looking at Mark 7:1-23 where the Pharisees see some of Jesus' disciples eating food without first giving their hands the ceremonial washing that was required by Jewish tradition. So they ask Jesus about this. Jesus replies by quoting a passage from Isaiah where God says: These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. He then adds: You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. As an example of this, Jesus points out that they were getting around God's command to honour your father and mother by a practice known as Corban. Instead of helping their parents when they were in financial need, they would say that whatever money they had was devoted to God, and so they were unable to help them. In doing this they were setting aside the commands of God in order to observe their own traditions! Jesus then calls the crowd to him and tells them that Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' When his disciples ask him to explain what he means by this, he tells them that what we eat or how we eat it can't make us unclean because it doesn't go into our heart but into our stomach and then passes out of our body. Mark then adds that In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean." Jesus then says that what makes you unclean is what comes out of your heart – things like evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. These are the things that make us unclean. So what can we learn from all this? Notice first the continued opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus. The continued opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus They seem to have been against him right from the start. They have challenged his authority to forgive sins, they've criticised him for eating with tax-collectors and ‘sinners', they've complained that his disciples have done what is not lawful on the Sabbath, they've accused him of being demon-possessed, and they've already begun to plot how they can kill him. And now they're complaining about the behaviour of his disciples again: Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands? (v5). And that was the root cause of their opposition – the tradition of the elders. There's a clear contrast in this passage between man-made tradition and the commands of God. The contrast between man-made tradition and the commands of God Notice the repetition of the word tradition in this passage: 3 …the tradition of the elders. 4 …they observe many other traditions 5 …Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders…? 8 …You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. 9 …You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 13 …you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. What stands out in these verses is that traditions are made by men, not God. They are handed down by men. And there is the danger that in following man-made tradition we may not only let go of the commands of God, but even nullify his word. It can also easily lead to hypocrisy. The danger of hypocrisy Look at verses 6-8. 6 He (Jesus) replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." The word hypocrite comes from the Greek word hupokrites which means actor. In ancient Greece plays were performed in amphitheatres by actors who wore masks. So a hypocrite is someone who covers up who they really are, pretending to be someone else. This was just what the Pharisees were guilty of, honouring God with their lips, but far from him in their hearts. Their hypocrisy involved insincerity and dishonesty. As a result, Jesus said that they worshipped God in vain. They were not honouring God by teaching his word, but rules taught by men. They knew what God had said, but they had let go of his commands. In Matthew 23, talking of the Pharisees, Jesus said: …do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. "Everything they do is done for men to see… (Matthew 23:3-4). In fact, to get a full understanding of Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees, it's worth reading the whole of Matthew 23, but the verses we've just quoted give a clear idea of the nature of hypocrisy. Their motivation for what they did and said was clearly wrong. They did not practice what they preached, and by their nit-picking rules they placed heavy burdens on people's shoulders and were totally unwilling to lift them. But that brings us to the next key principle we see in today's passage – the freedom that Jesus has brought us. The freedom that Jesus has brought us The legalistic regulations imposed by the traditions of men stands in stark contrast to the liberty that Jesus introduced through his teaching. Notice Mark's statement in verse 19 that Jesus declared all foods clean! (Compare Peter's experience on the rooftop at Joppa in Acts 10). What a contrast to the strict food laws imposed by Moses! As we saw in Talk 8, the kingdom of God which Jesus had come to proclaim could not be contained within the framework of Judaism. This is reflected in what Mark says in verse 3: The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing. Admittedly it had taken some time for the church to break free from the restraints of Judaism, but the Council of Jerusalem (c.48-50AD) was a great step forward towards the freedom that Jesus had so vehemently proclaimed. I have dealt with this subject at some length in my book, The Voice of God, where I point out that the decision made by the church leaders in Acts 15 regarding food was an ad hoc decision motivated by the Holy Spirit to deal with a specific problem facing the church at that time. It was not binding on all Christians for all time. As we have seen, Jesus had already declared all foods to be clean, and this was clearly the understanding of the apostle Paul when he says in Romans 14:17-20: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. The underlying principle in this teaching is love. When a Pharisee who was an expert in the Law asked Jesus, What is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"(Matthew 22:37-40). Notice that Jesus says, All the Law and the Prophets. Not just the ceremonial law. All the law. The Ten Commandments are included. And everything taught by the prophets. The entire Old Testament. As Christians we are free from it all! But of course, if we really love God with all our heart and soul and mind, and if we really love our neighbour as ourself, we will not kill or steal or commit adultery etc. The Law was given to show us our sin and our need of a Saviour (Galatians 3:23-25). But now we are free. It was for freedom that Christ has set us free and we are to stand firm in that freedom (Galatians 5:1). As Paul says in Galatians 5:13-14: You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself'. The importance of the heart In verses 18-23 he says that nothing you eat can make you unclean because it doesn't go into your heart. It's what what's in your heart that makes you unclean. In Matthew 5:27-28 , for example, Jesus warns against adultery in the heart. This is because, as he says here: …from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' This list is clearly connected to the Ten Commandments, where theft, murder, adultery, and coveting are strictly forbidden. But whereas the Ten Commandments relate largely to a person's actions, Jesus is here emphasising the motivation behind those actions and the source from which they spring, the human heart. In Jeremiah 17:9-10 God says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds (ESV). The desires of our hearts influence the thoughts of our minds, and our thoughts determine our actions. But as those who have received Christ as our Saviour, Hebrews 10:19-22 tells us that we have confidence to enter God's presence because Jesus has made a way for us by dying for us and as a result we can: draw near to God with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience… What's more, Galatians 4:5-6 tells us that we have been redeemed from the law and adopted as God's children, and God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. That's why, rather than giving in to the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), we are able now to follow the desires of the Spirit allowing the fruit of the Spirit to grow in our lives: Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). How different these qualities are from the attitudes and actions of the Pharisees. From their bad example there is so much we can learn to avoid. Even as Christians we can fall into their ways as even Peter did briefly (Galatians 2:11-13). As those who follow Jesus we should never: · Put man-made traditions before the word of God. · Find ways of getting around God's commands to further our own interests. · Impose heavy burdens on others by our legalistic rules. · Be more concerned with outward appearance than with true holiness. · Act like hypocrites, honouring God with our lips, but far from him in our hearts. And, of course, unlike the Pharisees, we must practise what we preach. If we don't want to fall into their ways, we need to examine our hearts.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
