What does "the old is better" mean in Luke 5:39?

When preaching Sunday before last on Luke 5:27-39, I was intrigued by the conclusion to the "parable" (vv. 36-39) of the new patch on the old garment and the new wine in the old bottles (skins).  Here are some notes:

Jesus concludes in v. 39 by saying, “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new:  for he saith the old is better.”

Now, what does this parable mean?  We might think it would have been nice if Jesus had given the authoritative interpretation as in the parable of the sower (see Mark 4:13-20).

The standard interpretation is that the new thing (patch, wine) refers to Jesus’ teaching and to his disciples who would be joined to the old practices of the religious Jews of their day with the result of schism and conflict.  The new wine of Jesus’ teaching and way of life would require a new wineskin of the church, apart from the synagogue.  This would include the end of the civil and ceremonial aspects the law, the end of the dietary rules, the end of the sacrificial system, the transformation of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, etc.  The final quote then in v. 39 is meant to be taken ironically, indicating the hard heartedness of those who reject the new teachings of Jesus.  This line of interpretation seems to be the one followed by conservative men both past and present.

Another possibility, however, would be to turn things on their head and say that Jesus was in fact saying that it was the scribes and Pharisees who had introduced something new; whereas, it was he who was the guardian of something that was ancient and proved.  Let’s take fasting as an example (the point of conflict in this context; see vv. 30-35).  Though there were many times and occasions when Israel fasted in mourning or grieving over her sin, the OT only prescribed fasting once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29 speak of “afflicting yours souls” which is usually taken to be a reference to fasting).  The tradition which had developed among the Pharisees, however, was that of twice weekly fasting (see the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18:12).  This was a novelty that, in fact, went beyond what was written in Scripture.  One might say that it was Jesus himself and his disciples who were upholding the old practices, and the Pharisees who were offering something new that resulted in division and destruction.  In that case, when Jesus cites the hypothetical man who prefers the old wine to the new by saing “The old is better” (v. 39), he does not do so ironically but in a straightforward manner.  It is Jesus not the Pharisees who is preserving the old paths.

JTR

Luke 5:35 and Fasting

Sunday before last in my sermon on Luke 5:27-39, we reflected on the Bible's teaching on fasting, especially related to v. 35.  Here are some notes:

One of the keys to interpretation here is how we take Jesus’ words in v. 35:  "But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast in those days."  Was Jesus referring to fasting of his disciples in grief between the time of his crucifixion and the resurrection, or was he referring to fasting as a regular obligation of Christians after the ascension?

In my study, I found that the Reformed interpreters tended to prefer the latter interpretion, making the special point that we should avoid the errors of Roman Catholics who stress man-made efforts at fasting as an onoging way to pursue holiness.

Geldenhuys, for example, offers this exposition of v. 35;  “the Lord here refers to the time from His arrest until His resurrection—then the disciples will of their own accord and without compulsion fast as a result of the grief of their hearts.” He adds, “So we may not interpret the Lord’s words (as the Roman Catholic Church does) as a command for Christians to fast regularly” (Luke, p. 196).

Jesus, indeed, taught in the Sermon on the Mount that believers were to fast as a spiritual discipline but to do so in such a way that other men would not know of it (see Matt 6:16-18).  We are not to go beyond Scripture in requiring fasts (e.g., fasting on Fridays or during "the season of Lent," as the Roman Catholic catechism instructs the adherents of that religion).

The fact is that the risen Lord, our bridegroom, is with us, even now!  Geldenhuys notes:  “every believer is called upon to be joyful in Him and not to fast in sorrow.  A joyful, healthy spiritual discipline indeed always remains the characteristic of a follower of Christ” (p. 196).

JTR

Text Note: Luke 5:39

The issues:

From the top, we might note that this entire verse is omitted in some strands of the Western tradition (D, Marcion, Irenaeus, Eusebius).  It is, however, well attested and is included in both the traditional and modern critical text as authentic.

Metzger notes:  “The external attestation for the inclusion of the verse is almost overwhelming; its omission from several Western witnesses may be due to the influence of Marcion, who rejected the statement because it seemed to give authority to the Old Testament” (pp. 138-139).

Affirming its inclusion, we will consider two questions within this verse:

1.      Should the adverb “immediately [eutheos]” be included?

It is part of the traditional text, but it is omitted in the modern critical text.

2.      Should the adjective “good [chrestos]” be in the standard or the comparative form [chrestoteros]?

Should it read, “For the old is good [chrestos]” (as in the modern critical text) or “For the old is better [chrestoteros]” (as in the traditional text)?

Translation comparisons:

Here are some translation comparisons (emphasis added):

Following traditional text:

KJV Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

NKJ Luke 5:39 "And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, 'The old is better.' "

Following modern critical text:

RSV/ESV Luke 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’

NAS Luke 5:39 "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'"

 

External evidence:

1.      For the adverb “immediately”:

The traditional reading is supported by the usual suspects:  codices Alexandrinus, C (second corrector), R, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the majority.

The modern critical reading is supported by p4, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and family 1 (among others).

2.      For the comparative “better”:

Again, similarly, the traditional reading is supported by:  codices Alexandrinus, C, R, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, and the majority.

The modern critical is supported by p4, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, B, L. W, and 1241.

 

Internal evidence:

 

1.     For “immediately”:

Metzger does not address this variant.  My guess is that modern text critics see in its inclusion as assimilation to Markan style.  Conversely and along similar lines, one might imagine that an ancient scribe could have deemed the adverb as non-Lukan and intentionally omitted it.  Of course, it is also quite easy to see how it might have been omitted through parablepsis.

2.       For “better” versus “good”:

Metzger speculates:  “The comparative degree of the adjective is probably a scribal emendation introduced in order to make the comparison more apparent.”  He then proceeds to offer a further speculation based on a theological interpretation of the verse:  “Actually, however, the point is that the prejudiced person does not even wish to try what is new (the Gospel), for he is satisfied that the old (the Law) is good” (p. 139).  Metzger’s interpretation of the verse may or may not be correct.  The main consideration here for our purposes is that Metzger’s preference does not appear to be made on a purely text critical basis but an interpretive basis.  Might early scribes have acted similarly in transforming the comparative into the standard form?

Conclusion:

Luke 5:39 should be included in the text of Scripture.  There is ancient support for the traditional text and no compelling or decisive reason to abandon it.

 

JTR

John Owen on the Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture

I’m working my way again through John Owen’s “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture” (Collected Works, vol. 16, pp. 345-421).  Owen wrote this work in response to the publication of Brian Walton’s Biblia Polyglotta, one of the earliest efforts to collect and publish variant readings in a critical text.  Here is Owen’s abstract of his response:

As the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and luster (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represents the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority (pp. 349-350).

The Vision (12/6/12): CRBC Midweek Winter Home Fellowships

CRBC Midweek Winter Home Fellowships

Second Fridays at 6:30 pm

  

December 14, 2012

 

Meeting at the Woolfolk’s home (in Louisa County)

 

Topic:  Prayer and Bible Study

Menu:  Bring snacks to share

 

January 11, 2013

 

Meeting at the Houseworth’s home (in Greene County)

 

Topic:  Prayer and Bible Study (2013 Annual Church Conference)

Menu:  Bring snacks to share

 

February 8, 2013

 

Meeting at the Riddle’s home (in Albemarle County)

 

Topic:  Love in Marriage and Family

We will have a CRBC Talent Show.  Each household is asked to present a talent that (hopefully) incorporates all family members (ideas:  music, skits, show and tell, demonstrations, readings, etc.)

Guest devotional by Pastor Steve Clevenger of Covenant RBC Warrenton

Menu:  TBA

 

Text Note: Luke 5:30

The issue:

There is an interesting and easy to overlook textual variation in Luke 5:30.

Traditional text:

“But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples….”

Modern critical text:

            “But the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples….”

External evidence:

The textual support falls out pretty much as we have see with other significant variations in Luke.

The traditional text is supported by Codex Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority.

The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus (though it omits the final pronoun “their”) and Vaticanus, along with several other codices (C, L, R. W, et al).

Internal evidence:

Metzger does not bother to address this variation in his Textual Commentary.  Indeed, the variation is incidental and does not otherwise affect the content or meaning of the verse.  Either variation clearly might have arisen through scribal error in transposing the two nouns.  The traditional reading might appear the more difficult since it leads with the noun modified by the pronoun.  Might the modern critical reading represent an effort to smooth out such a rough expression?  Is this, in fact, a mark of the traditional reading’s authenticity?

Conclusion:

Such a variation is easy to overlook in translation.  The traditional reading again has ancient support, and there is a plausible explanation as to why this reading might have been altered.  Thus, there is good reason to contend for the authenticity of the traditional text.

JTR 

Film Note: Tender Mercies

OK, so I am reluctant to mention or recommend any mainstream films (or perhaps I should say any films in general).  I am almost persuaded by David Murray’s argument that Christians just ought to do without them.

I heard a radio interview a few weeks back, however, with someone who was describing the 1983 move Tender Mercies as one of his favorites.  In fact, he was describing this scene as one of the saddest ever filmed.  I got intrigued by his description of the movie and got in on Netflix—It came right after Beauty and the Beast to give you some idea of the typical movie fare in our house.

The film is only c. 90 minutes long with beautifully framed shots of the bleak Texas landscape.  Robert Duvall won best actor at the 1983 Academy Awards for his portrayal of Mac Sledge, a washed up alcoholic and former County & Western star who hits rock bottom in a small Texas town.  Through his relationship with a young widow (whom he eventually marries) and her son he finds sobriety and contentedness.  The film offers one of the few positive portrayals of evangelical Christianity ever to come out of Hollywood.  Sledge’s transformation comes as he begins to attend his wife’s church where she sings in the choir (great scene of the country choir warbling through “Jesus Saves”).  How many films feature a baptism (Mac and “Sonny,” his stepson, are baptized on the same day) as a key point in the plot?  The film’s climax comes in a theological discussion between Mac and his wife in their garden.  As he handles the hoe, they discuss the death of Mac’s adult daughter in a car accident, the sovereignty of God, providence, grace, and theodicy.  Again, there aren’t too many films where the climax is someone essentially going through the trauma of becoming a Calvinist (though it closes with him saying “I don’t trust happiness” the ending of the film makes clear that Mac has made a giant stride forward in his faith).  Here’s the scene:

 

This got me thinking about what makes a “Christian” film.  Tender Mercies (even the title comes from the Psalms and there is also reference to James 5:11:  “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.”) is a “secular” film, but it also offers a very powerful presentation of Christianity.  Yes, there are a few curse words in the beginning, realistically conveying Mac’s state and his world before his transformation begins (btw, another great scene is the truck ride back after the baptism when Mac and Sonny discuss whether or not their baptism has changed them, and they determine they are the same people, but they are changing—a nice portrayal of progressive sanctification).  It also offers a powerful and winsome presentation of Christian marriage and fatherhood (much more compelling than, say, in the overtly “Christian” film Courageous, imho).  There are not many films worth commending, but this might be one.

JTR     

For Sale: Bay Psalm Book (Fair condition; rarely used in recent days)

 

There was an interesting story this evening on NPR's "All Things Considered" on "The First Book Ever Printed in North America And A Church's Decision to Sell It."  The story is about Boston's historic Old South Church (now a liberal UCC congregation), and its decision to sell one of its two copies of the Bay Psalm Book, the first book printed in America in 1640.  Of the 1,600 copies originally printed only 11 remain, and the church owns two of them.  The church recently had a divided vote to approve selling one of the two copies in order to "convert it into doing God's ministry in the world today" (a quote from the female senior pastor).  Aside from the level of liberal mainline churches needing to do fundraising to keep afloat, the story is a reminder of the heritage of psalm singing among the Puritan New Englanders.  This value is clearly demonstrated by the fact that it was the first book published in the New World.  The "old" hymns that we consider today to be "traditional" worship were really novel innovations that pushed out psalm singing.  Now, they, in turn, are being pushed aside by the latest innovation, contemporary, third-wave influenced praise and worship music (both choruses and contemporary hymns).  There has been a recent revival of interest in the Puritans among new Calvinists.  Will there also be a revival of interest in Puritan worship (psalm singing)?

 

JTR 

2012 Fuller Conference Audio

 

 

When I've had time of late, I've been listening the audio messages from the 6th annual Andrew Fuller Conference held at SBTS on September 21-22, 2012 under the theme "Andrew Fuller & His Friends."  You can find links to download audio of all the conference messages on Dr. Michael Haykin's blog.   Ever since I read (and reviewed) Paul Brewster's biography of Fuller, I've been intrigued by how Fuller's legacy might be interpreted.  Did he help bring about a revival of evangelistic zeal among high-Calvinistic Particular Baptists?  Or:  Did he introduce Arminian views that would set many of those Particular Baptists on the road to pragmatism and doctrinal compromise?  The speakers at this conference would answer affirmatively to the former (listen espcially to Finn's message; though this issue is not the focus of the conference).

 

JTR 

The Vision (11/29/12): Two Pictures of Man's State Apart from Christ

In last Sunday’s sermon from Luke 5:12-26, one of the closing applications was a call to consider the leper and the paralytic as figures for men in their unregenerate state.  Here are some notes:

The physical state of these two men creates a figurative picture of man’s spiritual state apart from Christ.

Consider initially the man “full of leprosy.”  Sin clings to the unregenerate man in the way that the leprosy clung to this man in our passage.  It radically touches our whole being.

Sin has at least a threefold impact:

First, physically, it leads to uncleanness and eventually to death (Romans 6:23).  No matter how men try to escape this reality or to cover it up, the truth is always there.

Second, socially, our sin puts us outside the camp of God’s people.  One may be a tare hid among the wheat but one day he will be uprooted and cast in the fire.

Third, religiously, our sin alienates us from our God.  We cannot worship or serve him.  We are not even worthy to stand in his presence but deserve only to be cut off.

Notice then the submission and humility with which this man approaches Christ.  He does not come with presumption or haughtiness or spiritual pride.  He knows that he cannot get rid of this awful disease by himself.  He knows that he is completely at the mercy of Jesus, so he begs him, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” (v. 12)  And he hears the merciful answer of Christ, “I will:  be thou clean” (v. 13).

 

If this first man (the leper) is a figure of man apart from Christ, what of the second (the paralytic)?  He is perhaps an even more compelling figure.  He is a paralytic, unable even to move.  He cannot come to Christ; he must be carried to Christ!  What he was physically, we are spiritually apart from Christ.  What a picture of our spiritual inability before the Lord.  What a picture of our complete and total dependence upon him!

The depth of man’s need accentuates the greatness of Christ’s mercy.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

A Presbyterian and a Reformed Baptist talk Baptism

"The Screwtape Letters" on the Historical Jesus

In C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, the demon Screwtape writes to his junior colleague Wordwood about how best to disuade a young man from becoming a Christian.  Letter XXIII is devoted to the usefulness of "the historical Jesus."  Here are some of Screwtape's instructions:

 

You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder, at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later "accretions and perversions" and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction of such a "historical Jesus" on liberal and humanitarian lines; we are now putting forward a new "historical Jesus" on Marxian, catastrophic, and revolutionary lines. The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold.

 

In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist, for each "historical Jesus" is unhistorical.  The documents say what they say and cannot be added to; each new "historical Jesus" therefore has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and exaggeration at another, and by that sort of guessing (brilliant is the adjective we teach humans to apply to it) on which no one would risk ten shillings in ordinary life, but which is enough to produce a crop of new Napoleans, new Shakespeares, and new Swifts, in every publisher's autumn list.

In the second place, all such constructions place the importance of their Historical Jesus in some peculiar theory He is supposed to have promulgated. He has to be a "great man" in the modern sense of the word—one standing at the terminus of some centrifugal and unbalanced line of thought—a crank vending a panacea. We thus distract men's minds from Who He is, and what He did. We first make Him solely a teacher, and then conceal the very substantial agreement between His teachings and those of all other great moral teachers. For humans must not be allowed to notice that all great moralists are sent by the Enemy not to inform men but to remind them, to restate the primeval moral platitudes against our continual concealment of them. We make the Sophists: He raises up a Socrates to answer them.

 

Our third aim is, by these constructions, to destroy the devotional life. For the real presence of the Enemy, otherwise experienced by men in prayer and sacrament, we substitute a merely probable, remote, shadowy, and uncouth figure, one who spoke a strange language and died a long time ago. Such an object cannot in fact be worshipped. Instead of the Creator adored by its creature, you soon have merely a leader acclaimed by a partisan, and finally a distinguished character approved by a judicious historian.

 

And fourthly, besides being unhistorical in the Jesus it depicts, religion of this kind is false to history in another sense. No nation, and few individuals, are really brought into the Enemy's camp by the historical study of the biography of Jesus, simply as biography. Indeed materials for a full biography have been withheld from men.  The earliest converts were converted by a single historical fact (the Resurrection) and a single theological doctrine (the Redemption) operating on a sense of sin which they already had—and sin, not against some new fancy-dress law produced as a novelty by a "great man", but against the old, platitudinous, universal moral law which they had been taught by their nurses and mothers. The "Gospels" come later and were written not to make Christians but to edify Christians already made.

The "Historical Jesus" then, however dangerous he may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged....

Thoughts on the historicity of Jesus

I’m still doing reading in the field of “the quest of the historical Jesus” and just finished reviewing one of the texts I’ll use for the class, The Historical Jesus:  Five Views (IVP Academic, 2009), edited by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy of Bethel University. The five views range from Robert M. Price (denial of the very historical existence of Jesus) to John Dominic Crossan (Jesus as a non-violent anti-imperialist) to Luke Timothy Johnson (what matters is not the historical Jesus but the Jesus of faith constructed by the Evangelists) to James D. G. Dunn (what matters is not the historical Jesus but the Jesus remembered in the church’s “living tradition”) to Darrell L. Bock (evangelical view which upholds continuity between the historical Jesus and the presentation of him in the canonical Gospels).

As for Robert Price’s revival of the “Jesus Myth” theory, here is Albert Schweitzer’s assessment of this view as it was presented in his day:

It is clear, then, as a matter of fact, from the writings of those that dispute the historicity of Jesus that the hypothesis of His existence is a thousand times easier to prove than that of His nonexistence.  That does not mean that the hopeless undertaking is being abandoned.  Again and again books appear about the nonexistence of Jesus and find credulous readers, although they contain nothing new or going beyond Robertson, Smith, Drews, and the other classics of this literature, but have to be content with giving out as new what has already been said (Out of My Life and Thought, p. 129).

Even arch-skeptic Bart Ehrman in his most recent book, Did Jesus Exist?  The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne, 2012) vigorously affirms the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, even as he rejects with equal vigor orthodox confessional claims about him.  Ehrman’s point seems to be that you might not believe in Jesus, but you ought at least believe that he did exist as a historical figure.

Godet on leprosy

Note:  I preached Sunday from  Luke 5:12-26 on the accounts of the healing of the leper (vv. 12-16) and the paralytic (vv. 17-26).  In expositing the account of the leper's healing, I leaned heavily on F. Godet's vivid comments on the depth of the man's illness which, in turn, accentuate the magnitude of Christ's compassionate healing.  Here are some notes:

The subject is introduced with the stark “behold a man” (cf. 4:33:  “there was a man”).  On the heels of the introduction of this man there is also made clear his malady:  he was a man “full of leprosy” (v. 12).  Leprosy is the classic Biblical ailment that is known today as “Hansen’s disease,” a chronic infectious disease affecting the skin and peripheral nerves.  In the ancient world there was no treatment for the disease other than isolation.

Godet notes:  “Leprosy was in every point of view a most frightful malady” (p. 166).  This was true in three aspects:

First, physically:  “In its physical aspects it was a whitish pustule, eating away the flesh, attacking member after member, and at last eating away the very bones; it was attended with burning fever, sleeplessness, and nightmare, without scarcely the slightest hope of cure.”  It was “a living death” (p. 166).

Second, socially:  “the leper was separated from his family, and from intercourse with men, and had no other company than that of others as unhappy as himself” (p. 167).  We have just celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday, but what if you had been barred from being with family and friends due to such a disease?  Lepers lived in bands outside the community.  Food was left for them out of charity.  At the approach of others they had to announce their uncleanness (cf. Leviticus 13:45 says the leper had to tear his clothes, leave his head bare, put a covering over his mouth and cry out “Unclean, unclean.”).

Third, religiously:  “the leper was Levitically unclean, and consequently excommunicate.  His malady was considered a direct chastisement from God” (p. 167).  This disease cut him off from public worship, from both synagogue and temple.

JTR

Schweitzer on Jesus

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a modern day renaissance man.  He made his mark in no less than three fields:  as a New Testament scholar who wrote the definitive The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German original Von Reimarus zu Wrede); as a musician, organist, and organ builder who wrote a valuable study on the life of Bach; and as a humanitarian physician who set up a hospital and became a “jungle doctor” in Africa based on his “reverence for life” ethic.

I’ve been doing some reading in Schweitzer to prepare for the “Life and Teachings of Jesus” course I’ll be teaching next semester.

In Out of My Life and Thought, Schweitzer reviews his influential work on “life of Jesus” research.  He is well known for his critique of the lives of Jesus produced by ninteenth century Protestant liberalism and his contrasting eschatological presentation of Jesus.  Though Schweitzer had no sympathy for the non-eschatological Jesus of liberalism, this does not mean he was favorable towards orthodox Christology.

According to Schweitzer, the historical Jesus erred in announcing the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God.  Thus, Jesus was “capable of error” (p. 57).  Furthermore, Schweitzer argues that we are not acting “in the spirit of Jesus if we attempt with hazardous and sophisticated explanations to force [his] sayings into agreement with the dogmatic teaching of His absolute and universal incapability of error” (p. 57).

Schweitzer adds that the historical Jesus never made any claims to omniscience and he “moves us deeply by His subordination to God.  In this He stands out as greater than the Christ personality of dogma which, in compliance with the claims of Greek metaphysics, is conceived as omniscient and incapable of error” (p. 57).

Schweitzer makes clear that although his analysis of the historical Jesus undermines the liberal Protestant view of a this-worldly Jesus, this does not mean that it supports orthodox or dogmatic presentations of Jesus.  Nor does it mean that he supports the notion that Jesus himself taught dogmatically.  He notes, instead, that the historical Jesus “does not think dogmatically.  He formulates no doctrine.  He is far from judging any man’s belief by reference to any standard of dogmatic correctness” (p. 58).  According to Schweitzer, Jesus taught “the religion of love” which has been “freed from any dogmatism” (p. 58).  This “religion of Jesus” may now become “a living force in our thought, as its purely spiritual and ethical nature demands” (p. 59).  While expressing “reverence” and “thankfulness” for the faith of “ecclesiastical Christianity” handed down “in Greek dogma and kept alive by piety” he unilaterally rejects it (p. 59).  What matters in Christianity is not adherence to “articles of belief” but devotion to “Jesus’ religion of love” (p. 59).  Thus, “If the Church has the spirit of Jesus, there is room in her for every form of Christian piety, even for that which claims unrestricted liberty” (p. 59).

At the least, one might say that Schweitzer attempted to put his theology into practice.  At age 30 he began his medical studies in preparation to go to Africa as a physician.  He applied to a French mission agency to go as a “missionary” to Africa, but questions were rightly raised about his unorthodox theology.  Schweitzer describes orthodox missionary efforts as holding to a faith “in the fetters of dogmatism” (p. 95).  When the mission agency invited him to appear before a committee to be examined as to his beliefs, Schweitzer notes, “I could not agree to this, and based my refusal on the fact that Jesus, when He called His disciples, required from them nothing beyond the will to follow him” (p. 115).  He offered instead to meet individually with the committee members to explain his beliefs.  In the end, they agreed to send him with the understanding he would only serve as a physician and would do no preaching or teaching [an understanding, by the way, which he reneged upon after reaching the field and began to accept invitations to preach; see p. 143].  Schweitzer notes that one member of the committee sent in his resignation upon the agency’s acceptance of this compromise (p. 116).

What, in the end, did Schweitzer teach about Jesus?  For Schweitzer, Jesus was an ordinary yet extraordinary man who wrongly expected the imminent end of the ages.  He was not God but made his mark in his radical subordination to God.  Thus, like most historical-critical scholars of his era, Schweitzer held to an essentially “Arian” view of Jesus.  These convictions naturally led to his rejection of pre-critical, orthodox, confessional views of Jesus.  Though he offered a stinging critique of the liberal lives of Jesus of his age, in the end, Schweitzer advocated an equally murky Jesus who called for an amorphous “religion of love.”

Evangelism Series (Part Five): Thomas Boston: Ten Ways Ministers Are Like Fishers

 

Note:  This is another post in an ongoing series on Biblical evangelism.  For an archive of past posts, click the "Evangelism Series" label below.
 

In 1773 when Thomas Boston was only 22 years old he wrote a classic little book on evangelism titled The Art of Man Fishing.  It is a meditation on Matthew 4:19 wherein Jesus says to Peter and Andrew, “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.”  I used some quotes from Boston in last Sunday’s sermon on the Lukan parallel passage (Luke 5:1-11).

Boston wrote in a time of declension in the churches of Scotland when the gospel ministry had been neglected by many.  His book presents what we might call an “old school” approach to evangelism (as yet untainted by revivalistic notions).  He sees Biblical evangelism as primarily accomplished through the ministry of the Lord’s servants as they preach the gospel “in the public assemblies of the Lord’s people” and in “private conference.”

In a chapter titled “Ministers are Fishers by Office” Boston presents ten ways in which ministers are like “fishers.”  Here is an abbreviated summary:

They are catchers of the souls of men, set “to open the eyes of the blind, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.”  Preachers of the gospel are fishers, and their work and that of fishers agree in several things.

The design and work of fishers is to catch fish.  This is the work that preachers of the gospel have taken in hand, even to endeavor to bring souls to Christ…..

Their work is a hard work; they are exposed to much cold in the water.  So is the minister’s work.

A storm that will afright others, they will venture on, that they may not lose their fish.  So should preachers of the gospel do.

Fishers catch fish with a net.  So preachers have a net to catch souls with.  This is the everlasting gospel, the word of peace and reconciliation wherewith sinners are caught.

It is compared to a net wherewith fishers catch fish, first, because it is spread out, ready to catch all that will come into it, Isa. 40:1:  “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money, and without price.”  God excludes none from the benefits of the gospel that will not exclude themselves; it is free to all.

Second, because fish are taken unexpectedly by the net, so sinners by the gospel….

Third, as fish sometime come near and touch the net, and yet draw back; so many souls are somewhat affected by the hearing of the gospel yet remain in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity….

Fourth, some fish that have been taken fast hold enough by the net, struggle, and get out again.  So some souls have convictions, and may seem to get caught; but yet alas! they stifle all their convictions, stay in the place of the breaking forth…..

Fifth, all that are taken in the net do make some struggling to get free….

Sixth, yet this struggling will not do with those which the net hold fast enough…..  Indeed God does not convert men to himself against their will, he does not force the soul to receive Christ; but he conquers the will, and it becomes obedient.  He that was unwilling before, is then willing.  O the power of grace!

Seventh, in a net there are many meshes in which the fish are caught.  Such are the invitations made to sinners in the gospel, the sweet promises made to them that will come to Christ…..

Eighth, lest the net be lifted up with the water, and so not fit for taking fish, and the fish slight it and pass under it; there are some pieces of lead put to it to hold it in the water….  So….there must be used some legal terrors and law-threatenings to drive the fish into the net.

Ninth, the meshes must not be over-wide, lest the fish run through it.  So neither must doctrine be general, without particular application, lest thou be no fisher of men…..

Tenth, neither must they be too neat and fine, curiously wrought, lest they hold out the fish….

Fishers observe in what places they should cast their nets, and where they may expect fish….  There are two pools wherein the net should be set:  in the public assemblies of the Lord’s people….  The second place the net is to be set is in private conference…..

A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

From the Answering Muslims blog: