Calvin's sermons on Luke 1-2

Another source I have found helpful in preaching the opening chapters of Luke’s Gospel is the collection of John Calvin’s selected sermons on Luke 1-2, translated by Robert White under the title Songs of the Nativity (Banner of Truth, 2008).

I used this quote from a Calvin sermon from Luke 1 in last Sunday’s sermon My soul doth magnify the Lord (Luke 1:39-56):

The greatest praise we can render Mary is to take her as our teacher:  she must instruct us, and we will be her pupils.  Not like the papists, who sing masses in her honour, erect altars and chapels, daintily dress her images and sweeten them with incense, yet ignore all she said in the power of God’s Spirit.  We on the contrary must follow her example, and remember that God looked on her with pity.  She should be to us a mirror of God’s mercy.  For in mercy God chose us for himself, sinners though we were, rescued us from the abyss of death and had compassion on us.  Mary is thus set before us as an example to imitate.  With her we acknowledge that we are nothing, that we count for nothing, and are utterly reliant on God’s goodness.  That is how we can be Mary’s pupil, proving by our aptness that we have been attentive to her teaching….  Following her example, we should praise God and learn to rejoice in him (pp. 30-31).

Godet's "Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel"

Image:  Frederick Louis Godet (1812-1900)

In preparing to preach expositionally through Luke’s Gospel, I began looking for a good commentary to read sequentially through as the series progresses.  I ended up ordering a used copy of Frederick Godet’s A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (1881 ed., trans. By E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin), that I found on abebooks.com.

Godet (1812-1900) was a conservative Swiss theologian who taught at Neuchatel and whose native language was French.  John Murray makes frequent favorable references to Godet’s Romans commentary in his own work on that epistle.

Godet’s Luke commentary is one that Spurgeon recommended to ministerial students in his Commenting& Commentaries, giving this sound-bite from Meyer on the work:   "To an immense erudition, to a living piety, Godet unites a profound feeling of reality; there is here a vivifying breath, an ardent love for the Savior, which helps the disciple to comprehend the work, the acts, the words of his Divine Master."

In his New Testament Commentary Survey (I have the 5^th ed. but there is now a 6^th), D. A. Carson observes, “Godet is virtually pre-critical, but can be valuable” (p. 57).  That comment actually was the one that made me want to acquire Godet, but probably not for the reason Carson intended.  I don’t see the pre-critical perspective as limiting its value but enhancing it.  In the preface to the commentary, J. Hall notes that Godet brushes aside “the cobwebs which Rationalist or mythical interpreters heap on the inspired page” (iv).

The problem with most modern commentaries (even, and sometimes especially, from evangelicals) is that they are so intent on demonstrating full immersion in modern historical-critical study that they lack spiritual vitality.

Another related issue is that of text.  Modern commentaries, by and large, assume the validity of the modern-critical text and disregard commentary on the traditional text.  In the preface to the first edition of his commentary, Godet, however, observes:

Since I cannot in any way regard the eighth edition of Tichendorf’s text just published as a standard text, though I gratefully acknowledge its aid as absolutely indispensible, I have adopted the received text as a basis in indicating the various readings; but I would express my earnest desire for an edition of the Byzantine text that could be regarded as the standard authority.

So, Godet’s Luke commentary provides what cannot be discovered today, a conservative and evangelical commentary based on the traditional text of the NT.  I wonder what Godet thought of the TR based on Beza (and harmonized with the AV) edited by Scrivener and originally published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902 (now reprinted by TBS), which would have come out in his lifetime, or would have thought of recent editions of the Majority text by Farstad, et al. and Robinson.  I will be keeping my radar up as I read through the commentary for Godet’s insight into text, among many other things.

JTR

The Vision (6/21/12): Spurgeon on Authentic Evangelism

Last Wednesday morning I met with a couple of CRBC men at a local coffee shop to begin a summer study of C. H. Spurgeon’s The Soul Winner and to discuss the topic of Biblical evangelism.

After noting that we should want to see the church increase by conversion growth (rather than sheep-stealing), Spurgeon warns that evangelism must be authentic:

But, still, all hurry to get members into the church is most mischievous, both to the church and to the supposed converts. I remember very well several young men, who were of good moral character, and religiously hopeful; but instead of searching their hearts, and aiming at their real conversion, the pastor never gave them any rest till he had persuaded them to make a profession. He thought that they would be under more bonds to holy things if they professed religion, and he felt quite safe in pressing them, for "they were so hopeful." He imagined that to discourage them by vigilant examination might drive them away, and so, to secure them, he made them hypocrites. These young men are, at the present time, much further off from the Church of God than they would have been if they had been affronted by being kept in their proper places, and warned that they were not converted to God. It is a serious injury to a person to receive him into the number of the faithful unless there is good reason to believe that he is really regenerate. I am sure it is so, for I speak after careful observation. Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church; and were, as I believe, led to make a profession by undue pressure, well-meant but ill-judged. Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these despatches from the battle-field? "Last night, fourteen souls were under conviction, fifteen were justified, and eight received full sanctification." I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime. Hope for the best, but in your highest excitements be reasonable. Enquiry-rooms are all very well; but if they lead to idle boastings, they will grieve the Holy Spirit, and work abounding evil.
  
May the Lord be pleased to use our flock as in instrument in true evangelism.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

What does Paige Patterson have to do with Jean-Jacques Rousseau?

I am still working my way through Karl Barth’s From Rousseau to Ritschl, in which the neo-orthodox theologian surveys and critiques various Enlightenment figures and assesses their impact on modern theology.  I was struck in particular by his discussion of Rousseau, whom he calls “a kind of martyr to Pelagianism” (p. 106).  It was especially striking in light of the recent semi-Pelagian statement by self-styled SBC “traditionalists.”   One line in the statement, under its second article “The Sinfulness of Man,” states, “We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”

Oddly enough, this apparently puts these Southern Baptists in theological league with Rousseau.  Barth concludes that while the celebrated French thinker admitted that men succumb to occasional moral downfalls this “in no way alters the fact that man is fundamentally, essentially, and naturally good, and has remained so.  It is certainly true that his natural goodness does not preventing him from being less good.  But even while he is deteriorating his natural goodness remains.  Rousseau was a confirmed Pelagian, a declared opponent of the Church doctrine of original sin and no free will:  man can in fact be wicked and is wicked times without number; but he is never essentially wicked and need not be so.  He may well do evil but he is not evil.  The charge to be brought against man is relevant only in certain connexion, namely to his existence in society, which brings with it all the evil possibilities we have mentioned…..” (pp. 105-106).

The last part of that quotation is intriguing.  Barth notes that for Rousseau “sin” in not inherent in man (by original sin and total depravity) but is only due to man’s environment.   This calls to mind another line in the Southern Baptist statement which, while denying original sin, states, “every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin” (also in “Article Two:  The Sinfulness of Man”).  Oddly enough, it seems that the “conservative” Southern Baptists who have embraced this “traditional” statement have actually embraced the humanistic, Pelagian anthropology of the Enlightenment.

JTR

Textual Note: Luke 1:28

Note:  I ran across this textual issue while preparing to preach last Sunday's message, "With God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:26-38).

The issue:

The question here is whether or not the phrase “blessed are you among women” should be included in the text.  The traditional text includes the phrase, while the modern critical text excludes it.  This difference is seen by comparing English translations based on each text:

Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added):

Tyndale (1536) Luke 1:28:  And the angel went in unto her, and said: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

KJV Luke 1:28:   And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Translations based on modern-critical text:

RSV Luke 1:28:  And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

ESV Luke 1:28:  And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

External Evidence:

The traditional reading is supported by A (Alexandrinus), C, D, Theta, family 13, 33, and the vast majority of manuscripts.  It is also the reading of the Syriac, and it appears in the Church Father Eusebius.  Metzger begrudgingly admits that the traditional reading is supported by “fairly good witnesses” (Textual Commentary, p. 129).

The modern critical reading is supported by the “big two” of modern text criticism:  Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  It is also supported by L, W, Psi, and family 1, as well as by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia.

Internal Evidence:

Metzger conjectures, “it is probable that copyist inserted [this phrase] here from v. 42, where they are firmly attested.”  He adds, “If the clause had been original in the present verse, there is no adequate reason why it should have been omitted from a wide diversity of early witnesses….” (p. 129).

In response, however, one might ask if it is also just as likely to conjecture that some copyist might have attempted to remove the phrase because it already appears in v. 42.  In other words, might it reflect an effort to “clean up” the text by removing what some might have perceived as a redundancy?

Conclusion:

The traditional reading has significant ancient support, and it was the reading that was adopted in the majority tradition.  The conjecture that scribes removed the contested phrase in light of its use in Luke 1:42 is just as likely as the conjecture that scribes might have added it for the same reason.  There is, then, good reason to retain the traditional reading.

JTR

Thomas Watson: Jesus Christ is the sum and quintessence of the gospel

Note:  I concluded last Sunday afternoon's message in the Catechism series on "The Offices of Christ" with this quote from Thomas Watson's "The Body of Divinity":

Jesus Christ is the sum and quintessence of the gospel; the wonder of angels; the joy and triumph of saints.  The name of Christ is sweet, it is music in the ear, honey in the mouth, and cordial [medicine] at the heart.

Cove Creek Closing Ceremonies 2012

Image:  2012 Hot Rods take trophies for regular season championship

Image:  Sam R wins 2012 Sportsmanship Award

The regular baseball season at Cove Creek came to an end on Saturday.  Isaiah and Joseph's Hot Rods team in the Rookie League made it to the tournament championship game as the top seed where we were upset by our rivals the Rays.  In the closing ceremonies, we did get acknowledged as the regular season champs, finishing with a record of 14 wins and 4 losses.  Here are the regular season final standings.

Sam's team was also in the 13 year old championship game Saturday where they came up short against the Rangers.  Sam won the Sportsmanship Award on a vote by his peers for the second consecutive year.  He has another month of All-Stars upcoming.

The Vision (6/14/12): "Fear not ... for thy prayer is heard."

Note:  Here are some notes adapted from last week’s sermon from Luke 1:5-25.

Luke 1:8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, 9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

The annunciation of John’s birth to Zechariah comes about while he is performing his priestly duties (v. 8).  The lot had fallen for Zechariah to burn incense in the temple of the Lord (v. 9).  The burning of incense is associated in the Bible with prayer.  In John’s vision of heaven in Revelation 8:3-4 he sees an angel with a golden censer who offers up the smoke of the incense “with the prayers of all saints.”

Notice in v. 10 that while Zechariah is doing this work in the temple, outside the people are praying.  For what are they praying?  We might imagine their prayers:  “Oh Lord, forgive us our sins!  Oh Lord, send forth Elijah the prophet who will come before “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Mal 4:5).  “Oh Lord, send us the Messiah to deliver us!”  In addition to the prayers of the people, there was also the prayer of Zechariah.  His wife was barren and he longed for a child.

Just then, the angel of the Lord appears to Zechariah (v. 11).  Notice his response in v. 12.  He is troubled and fear (phobos) fell upon him.  The presence of God is too great for us to bear, even when it is mediated through his angelic messengers.

Notice the angel’s response, “Fear not, Zecharias, for thy prayer is heard” (v. 13).  This reminds us that the God of the Bible is a prayer hearing God and a prayer answering God.  If an earthly parent would move heaven and earth to respond to the pitiful cries of an injured child, how much more will the heavenly Father reply to the cries of his people in distress and anguish?  Some of you might not know that I have a long scar on my left leg that I received when I was a boy.  I fell while jumping over a creek near my house and badly cut my leg open on an old piece of tin.  The thing that I remember most about that incident is not the injury but the fact that my Dad ran from our home, across a field, to the creek, where he picked me up in his arms and ran back with me to the car to take me to the hospital.  You have to understand that my Dad didn’t run very often.  In fact, I don’t know that I had ever seen him run.  But he ran that day.  Again, if an earthly father can run to help an injured child, what more will our heavenly Father do for his children?

We can find comfort in the knowledge that the Lord hears the prayers of his saints.  He heard the cries of his people, and he heard the personal; prayers of Zechariah and Elizabeth.  Could you put your name in the place of Zechariah in v. 13:  “Fear not, ____ for thy prayer is heard.”? 

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The link between the doctrines of the virginal conception and original sin

Note:  We returned to our series through Spurgeon's Catechism Sunday afternoon at CRBC with Question 21:  "How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?"  The catechism stresses that Christ was a real man with a true body and rational soul.  It also gives emphasis to the virginal conception (virgin birth).  Here is an excerpt from my notes where I try to link the importance of the doctrine of the virginal conception in light of the doctrine of original sin:  

The theological point of the doctrine of the virginal conception is that it provided the way that Christ, the Son of God, escaped original sin (being born in sin) and became the spotless Lamb of God and a perfect High Priest.  Compare:

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

There is always an attack upon the virginal conception and there is also always an attack on the doctrine of original sin.  Modern liberalism rejected the virgin birth not only because it could not stomach the supernatural and miraculous but also because it could not stomach the fact that men are born sinners in need of a sinless redeemer.  Sadly, the doctrine of original sin has come under attack in our day from those who would consider themselves conservative, evangelical Christians.

Back on May 30, 2012 a group of SBC theologians issued A Statement of theTraditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation, attacking Calvinism and its views on man’s total depravity but along the way they also appear to deny the doctrine of original sin.  One line in the statement, under its second article “The Sinfulness of Man,” states, “We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”  In other words, it denies the doctrine of original sin.  It denies that “in Adam’s fall we sinned all” or as Paul put it:  “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom 5:12).

This is, in fact, the revival of an old heresy preached by a British monk years ago named Pelagius who was refuted by Augustine.  In their zeal to deny the sovereignty of God in salvation in the name of defending man’s free will, the framers of this statement appear to have denied the Scripture’s witness to the devastating impact of original sin.  And when we do that we are on a slippery slope to deny the Scriptural teaching of Christ’s virgin birth, because if there is no original sin there is no need for the virgin birth.  There did not need to be a way for Christ to escape that original corruption.

The Vision (6/7/12): The Preface to Luke's Gospel and the Reliability of Scripture

Note:  Last Lord’s Day morning we began a new series in the Gospel of Luke at CRBC by meditating on Luke’s unique preface to his work (Luke 1:1-4).  Below are my notes from the exposition of Luke 1:2.

KJV Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

In v. 2 Luke tells us more about the sources he has used in compiling his Gospel.  First, he notes that the information he has used in compiling his Gospel was “delivered…unto us.”  The verb here is from paradidomi.  It is the verb used for handing down a tradition.  It is the verb Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when he describes the right practice of the Lord’s Supper:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

It is also the same verb Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. when he describes the gospel he has preached and taught the Corinthians:

15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Some skeptics would want you to believe that the Gospel writers and the scribes who copied the scriptures were haphazard, that the transmission of the Gospel truths was like a game of “Chinese whispers” of “telephone” where the original message gets confused and fuzzy as it is passed from one person to another.  But this is not the notion we get from the way Luke writes.  This was not just any information that was being conveyed.  This was sacred and inspired truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.  And it was to be handled carefully and passed on intact.

Luke stresses that this information was also pure and accurate from the sources, from the very tap.  It came from those who “from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.”  The word for eyewitnesses here is autoptai.  It is the same root as for the English word “autopsy.”  When there is an autopsy there is a call for a close and thorough clinical post-mortem examination to determine the cause of death.  We have here that same sense of a determined and thorough study being done.  Luke is, of course, referring to the fact that the sources he is using to write this Gospel come from the eyewitnesses (autoptai) to the life of Jesus.  Namely, the come from Christ’s own apostles, men like Thomas who touched the wounds of Christ (John 20:27-28), Peter who had been there on the Mount of Transfiguration (cf. 2 Peter 1:16-18), and John who witnessed and had intimate contact with Christ (cf. 1 John 1:1).

Luke is declaring to us that we can trust the accuracy of all that he will tell us of Jesus, because it comes from those who witnessed the life and deeds of Christ firsthand.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Vision (5/31/12): O come, let us worship and bow down

Image:  Smokin' Joe Frazier

In last Sundays’ message on Psalm 95 we meditated on the attitude we should have in worship knowing that we are coming “before his presence” (v. 2).  Psalm 95 summons worshippers to bow down before Jehovah and to kneel before him (v. 6).  The physical posture of humility reflects an inner, spiritual quality of humility.  This psalm teaches us that we are to approach the Lord’s presence with lowliness.

In this regard, I noted an anecdote told by theologian Carl Trueman of Westminster Seminary.  Trueman tells of how as a boy he had grown up as an enthusiastic boxing fan.  When he first moved to Philadelphia from England, he was excited about the possibility of meeting Philadelphia resident and boxing legend Joe Frazier.  He tried to email Frazier to set up a meeting but never heard back.  Then one day he went to his local YMCA to exercise, and who was there but Smokin’ Joe Frazier.  Trueman wrote of their encounter in a blog post:

So, what does the sad non-entity say when suddenly in the presence of greatness, of the man who probably had the most lethal left-hook of his generation. The answer? `Yo, Joe, how ya doin'?' ? No. More like `Sir, it's an honour to meet you, sir, Mr Frazier, sir.' Faced with the awesome presence of the former world champ, I responded with stammering, barely coherent awe as I shook his hand and paid internal homage.

Trueman goes on to make the point that if he could be filled with awe in the presence of Frazier, a mere man, how much more should we be filled with awe in the presence of our Maker.   When we meet with God it is not trivial matter.  It is no casual matter.  We are in the presence of our King!  “O come, let us worship and bow down…..”

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Text Note: Luke 23:38 (John 19:20)

The issue:

I recently ran across this interesting textual variation in Luke 23:38.  The traditional text includes mention of the tri-lingual inscription over Jesus on the cross (cf. John 19:20); whereas, the modern critical text omits mention of the three languages.

We can see this difference by comparing translations:

Translations of Luke 23:38 based on the traditional text (emphasis added)

KJV:   And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

NKJV:  And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Translations of Luke 23:38 based on the modern critical text:

RSV/ESV/NRSV:  There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”

NIV:  There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

External Evidence:

The traditional text appears to have strong support among the manuscripts generally held in high regard by modern text critics.  These include the original hand of Sinaiticus, A, D, W, Theta.  It is also supported by the vast majority of manuscripts in the ecclesiastical tradition.  There are some variations in this tradition.  For example, codices A and D omit the phrase “over him” (ep auto) and use the verb epigrapho rather than grapho.

The modern critical text, on the other hand, is supported by p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, 070, and 1241.

Internal Evidence:

The decision to omit the phrase in question in the modern text is no doubt driven by the assumption that there was a scribal effort to harmonize Luke 23:38 with John 19:20, the only other verse in the canonical Gospels to include mention of the tri-lingual inscription.

Metzger in his Textual Commentary gives the modern critical reading a “{B}” rating (see pp. 180-181).  He concludes, “The mention here of the three languages in which the inscription on the cross was written is almost certainly a gloss, probably taken from the text of Jn 19:20.”  He lists three considerations against the traditional text:

(1) “it is absent from several of the earliest and best witnesses”;

(2) there are differences in the texts that include the passage; and

(3) “there is no satisfactory explanation for the omission of the statement, if it were originally present in the text.”

How might one respond to these three challenges?

(1)   The traditional text has especially strong external attestation.  It is even the reading of codex Sinaiticus.

(2) The differences in the texts that include the tradition might be exaggerated.  Would we not expect some variation given apparent conflict in the early scribal tradition over the precise reading?

(3) If it might be assumed that the traditional text represents a “gloss” to harmonize with John 19:20, might we not also reasonably theorize that the removal of the disputed phrase could possibly be an effort to harmonize with the accounts of Matthew 27:37 and Mark 15:26, which omit reference to the tri-lingual inscription?  Do all efforts to harmonize necessarily include expansion or might they also include abbreviation?

In addition, we might note the fact that of all the Synoptic Gospels, Luke appears to have the strongest literary connections with John.  Just one example of this would be the appearance of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42 and their prominence in John 11 (cf. also Jesus’ account of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 and the role of the disciple Lazarus in John).  Would it not make sense for Luke and John to share in this colorful detail regarding the tri-lingual inscription?

Conclusion:

The traditional text of Luke 23:28 has strong manuscript support, buttressed by reasonable internal evidence to validate its continued acceptance as the standard text of Scripture.

The Vision (5/24/12): Five Duties of Parents to Children

Note:  Here are my abbreviated notes from last Sunday afternoon’s message in our Christian Family series at CRBC:

1.      It is the duty of parents to delight in their children and to see them as a blessing.

Having children is a fulfillment of the creation mandate (Genesis 1:28).  The Psalmist stresses that children are a blessing (Psalm 127:3-5; Psalm 128:3-5)

It flows from this principle that the parents will lovingly nurture and care for children.  We carefully protect and nurture that which we value and in which we delight.  It would be sad to see a man who cared more for his car or his house or some other possession than he does for his children.

2.       It is the duty of parents to discipline their children.

There are few things that the Bible detests more than an incorrigible child.  The parents are there to provide the structure and the boundaries that will make the child a responsible adult.  We see this duty persistently addressed in the Proverbs (compare:  3:11; 13:24; 22:6, 15; 23:13; 29:15).

This obligation goes beyond physical discipline.  The most effective “rod” we have is the rod of the tongue wherewith we can give gentle but firm admonishment.

Parents are to be wise guides and trusted counselors for their children.  This “discipline” also extends beyond the childhood years as the parents offer guidance to their children in life decisions, careers, marriage, practical home-making, and productive living.

3.      It is the duty of parents to evangelize and to disciple their children.

The disposition of a Christian to an unbeliever is one of evangelism and toward believers is one of discipleship.  This applies just as well to the home.  There were apparently Christian children whom are addressed by Paul in the household codes (Eph 6; Col 3).  Consider Timothy who was both evangelized and disciple by his godly grandmother and mother (see 2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14).

The Christian method of “indoctrinating” children is drawn from the Old Testament pattern (see especially Deuteronomy 6:3-9).

4.      It is the duty of parents to provide materially for their children.

I would draw attention to the fact that parents are not only to provide for the material needs of the children (food, clothing, shelter, education, etc) when they are young and in the home, but I also think the Bible implies that it would be a blessing for parents to provide a material legacy for their children if the providential circumstances allow (see Paul’s incidental mention of this principle in 2 Corinthians 12:14).

The bumper sticker that reads, “I’m spending my children’s inheritance” is thus unbiblical.  Of course, this is to be guided by prudential wisdom and other Biblical principles.  Adult children are not to be made dependent upon parents.  When they marry they are to establish their own households (Gen 2:24). 

5.      It is the duty of parents not to provoke their children to wrath (or, as one modern translation phrases it, to “exasperate” their children).

The key text here is Ephesians 6:4:  “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture (paideia) and admonition (nouthesia) of the Lord.”

How can a father (parent) provoke his child to wrath?

• By not understanding the natural development and needs of his child.  A five year old should not be expected to act like an 18 year old and vice versa.  This includes holding unrealistic expectations and standards for a child.
• By selfishly expecting that the family should center around the father’s (parent’s) needs rather than self-sacrificially putting the needs of others before his own and the demands of Christ above all.
• By persistent and unkind teasing.
• By neglecting the material and emotional needs of his child.
• By neglecting the spiritual needs of his child.
• By showing favoritism among children.
• By spiritual hypocrisy.  Children are “truth detectors.”  They can sniff out inconsistency pretty quickly.  We provoke our children to wrath when we do not live consistently.  If we criticize others for lack of piety in some area but then live inconsistently in that same area or others, we are being hypocritical.  

Parents, what an incredible privilege and duty we have been given.  We stand in the place of God himself in our families.  Let us fulfill our sacred duties to our children and thereby obey our Lord. 

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Thomas Watson on Psalm 23:4

In preparing to preach last Sunday on Psalm 23 I also found helpful listening to this reading of Thomas Watson's sermon, The Comforting Rod, a meditation on Psalm 23:4:  "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."  Full of typical Watson nuggests like:  "The eye that sin closes, affliction opens."

JTR

Matthew Poole on Psalm 23:1

I preached last Sunday morning on Psalm 23.  In that message, I borrowed this quote from Matthew Poole on "I shall not want" (v. 1):

I shall not want, to wit, any thing which is really necessary for me, either for this life or for the next.  But foolish man may think many things to be necessary for him, which the all-wise God knoweth to be not only unnecessary, but hurtful, and therefore mercifully denies what men ignorantly desire to their hurt.

The Vision (5/17/12): Am I really a Christian? (Continued)

Am I really a Christian?  Answering Eight Doubts (Continued)

Simplified and Abridged from Thomas Boston

Note:  In his spiritual classic “Human Nature In Its Fourfold State,” the Scottish minister Thomas Boston (1676-1732) lists eight “cases” where a true Christian might have spiritual doubts about the authenticity of his faith.  Here is the eighth and final of the eight doubts:

Eighth Doubt:  The struggles I have are strange or unusual.  I doubt that a child of God has ever faced the kind of providential trials I am facing.

Answer:  Much of what was previously said (see Doubt Seven) applies here also.  Holy Job was assaulted with this temptation (see Job 5:1), but he rejected it and held fast.  The apostle Peter says that Christians may be tempted “to think it strange concerning the fiery trial” (1 Peter 4:12).

Sometimes we travel on paths where we can see the footprints of neither man nor beast.  We cannot conclude from this, however, that no one has ever gone this way before us.  Though you cannot see the footsteps of the flock in the way of your affliction, you must not conclude that you are the first to ever walk that road.  But what if you were the first to walk that way?  Some saint or other must be first in drinking from each bitter cup.  Who are we to question the providential circumstances God has given us?  “Thy way is in the sea, and thy paths in great waters; and thy footsteps are not known” (Psalm 77:19).  If the Lord should carry you to heaven by some remote road, so to speak, you would have no reason to complain.  We must learn to allow proper latitude for God’s sovereignty.  Do your duty.  Do not let any difficulty you face hide from you the fact that you are in a state of grace.  As Solomon said, “no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them” (Ecclesiastes 9:1).             

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle