Introduction

Next year, 2008, the Roman Catholic church will celebrate World Youth Day here in Australia. As a part of this, we can expect to see a massive influx of young people from around the world¹, drawn towards Sydney in particular; the event will climax in an open-air Mass at Randwick Racecourse, conducted by Pope Benedict XVI. On the whole, we can expect the event to be full of life and energy, and no doubt a great witness to Christ… and yet many Christians will feel unable to attend.

It is a fact that no Anglican Archbishop of Sydney has ever attended mass. At the installation of Cardinal Pell as a cardinal, the service was planned with a deliberate pause midway through to allow Archbishop Peter Jensen to withdraw before the commencement of the mass part of the service.

The question must be asked, of course, what kind of issue or issues could be worth splitting the Church over? How can we justify one Christian parting ways with another? Didn’t Christ command unity? Wasn’t Paul’s vision for one Body, rather than many smaller bodies?

In this course it is my aim to explore some of the issues that have split the Church over the years, and tonight we start with the issue of the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide.

History

Martin Luther

In the summer of 1520 a document bearing an impressive seal circulated throughout Germany in search of a remote figure. “Arise, O Lord,” the writing began, “and judge Thy cause. A wild boar has invaded Thy vineyard.”

The document, a papal bull – named after the seal, or bulla – took three months to reach Martin Luther, the wild boar. Long before it arrived in Wittenberg where Luther was teaching, he knew its contents. Forty-one of his beliefs were condemned as “heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, or repugnant to Catholic truth.” The bull called on Luther to repent and repudiate his errors or face the dreadful consequences.

Luther received his copy on the tenth of October. At the ened of his sixty-day period of grace, he led a throng of eager students outside Wittenberg and burned copies of the Canon Law and the works of some medieval theologians. Perhaps as an afterthought Luther added a copy of the bull condemning him. That was his answer. “They have burned my books,” he said, “I burn theirs.” Those flames in early December, 1520, were a fit symbol of the defiance of the pope raging throughout Germany.²

Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German monk, theologian, and church reformer. He is generally considered to be the founder of Protestantism.

Luther’s theology challenged the authority of the papacy by emphasizing the Bible as the sole source of religious authority and all baptised Christians as a general priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.

Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. The translation also furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.

Early life

Luther was born to Hans Luder (or Ludher, later Luther) and his wife Margarethe (née Lindemann) on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, then part of the Holy Roman Empire. He was baptised the next morning on the feast day of St. Martin of Tours. His family moved to Mansfeld in 1484, where his father was a leaseholder of copper mines and smelters, and served as one of four citizen representatives on the local council. Martin Marty describes Luther’s mother as a hard-working woman of “trading-class stock and middling means,” and notes that Luther’s enemies would later wrongly describe her as a whore and bath attendant. He had several brothers and sisters, and is known to have been close to one of them, Jacob.

Hans Luther was ambitious for himself and his family, and was determined to see his eldest son become a lawyer. He sent Martin to Latin schools in Mansfeld, then Magdeburg in 1497, where he attended a school operated by a lay group called the Brethren of the Common Life, and Eisenach in 1498. The three schools focused on the so-called “trivium”: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Luther later compared his education there to purgatory and hell.

At the age of seventeen in 1501, he entered the University of Erfurt — later describing it as a beerhouse and whorehouse — which saw him woken at four every morning for what Marty describes as “a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises.” He received his master’s degree in 1505.

In accordance with his father’s wishes, he enrolled in law school at the same university that year, but dropped out almost immediately, believing that law represented uncertainty. Marty writes that Luther sought assurances about life, and was drawn to theology and philosophy, expressing particular interest in Aristotle, William of Ockham, and Gabriel Biel. He was deeply influenced by two tutors, Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter, who taught him to be suspicious of even the greatest thinkers, and to test everything himself by experience. Philosophy proved to be unsatisfying, offering assurance about the use of reason, but none about the importance, for Luther, of loving God. Reason could not lead men to God, he felt, and he developed what Marty describes as a love-hate relationship with Aristotle over the latter’s emphasis on reason. For Luther, reason could be used to question men and institutions, but not God. Human beings could learn about God only through divine revelation, he believed, and Scripture therefore became increasingly important to him.

He decided to leave his studies and become a monk, later attributing his decision to an experience during a thunderstorm on July 2, 1505. A lightning bolt struck near him as he was returning to university after a trip home. Later telling his father he was terrified of death and divine judgment, he cried out, “Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk!” He came to view his cry for help as a vow he could never break.

He left law school, sold his books, and entered a closed Augustinian monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505. One friend blamed the decision on Luther’s sadness over the deaths of two friends. Luther himself seemed saddened by the move, telling those who attended a farewell supper then walked him to the door of the Black Cloister, “This day you see me, and then, not ever again.” His father was furious over what he saw as a waste of Luther’s education.

Luther dedicated himself to monastic life, devoting himself to fasts, long hours in prayer, pilgrimage, and frequent confession. Luther tried to please God through this dedication, but it only increased his awareness of his own sinfulness. He would later remark, “If anyone could have gained heaven as a monk, then I would indeed have been among them.” Luther described this period of his life as one of deep spiritual despair. He said, “I lost hold of Christ the Savior and Comforter and made of him a stock-master and hangman over my poor soul.”

Johann von Staupitz, his superior, concluded that Luther needed more work to distract him from excessive introspection and ordered him to pursue an academic career. In 1507, he was ordained to the priesthood, and in 1508 began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies on March 9, 1508, and another Bachelor’s degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509. On October 19, 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on October 21, 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible. He spent the rest of his career in this position at the University of Wittenberg.

Indulgences

In 1516-17, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar and papal commissioner for indulgences, was sent to Germany by the Roman Catholic Church to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In Roman Catholic theology, an “indulgence” is the remission of punishment because a sin already committed has been forgiven; the indulgence is granted by the church when the sinner confesses and receives absolution. When an indulgence is given, the church is extending merit to a sinner from its Treasure House of Merit, an accumulation of merits it has collected based on the good deeds of the saints. These merits could be bought and sold.

On October 31, 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” which came to be known as The 95 Theses. Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly “searching, rather than doctrinaire.” Hillerbrand writes that there is nevertheless an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses, particularly in Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that “[a]s soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” insisting that, since forgiveness was God’s alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.

According to Philip Melanchthon, writing in 1546, Luther nailed a copy of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg that same day — church doors acting as the bulletin boards of his time — an event now seen as sparking the Protestant Reformation, and celebrated every October 31 as Reformation Day.

The 95 Theses were quickly translated from Latin into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe.

On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (the one about the boar in the vineyard, already mentioned) that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.

That fall, Johann Eck proclaimed the bull in Meissen and other towns. Karl von Miltitz, a papal nuncio, attempted to broker a solution, but Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, publicly set fire to the bull and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520, an act he defended in Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles.

As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

Reformation Teachings

Whilst Luther’s objection to the sale of indulgences was the initial spark that set the flame of the Reformation, it was not the most significant of his teachings. This distinction, in my view, belongs instead to what are referred to as the five solas.

Five Solas

The five solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarise the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs as compared to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means “alone” in English. The five solas were what the Reformers believed to be the only things needed for Christian salvation. They were intended to highlight the absolute (and only) essentials of Christian life and practice.

The five solas are:

• Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
• Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
• Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
• Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)
• Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)

Salvation comes by God’s grace or “unmerited favor” only — not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus’ sake.

During the Reformation, Protestant leaders and theologians generally believed the Roman Catholic view of the means of salvation to be a mixture of reliance upon the grace of God, and confidence in the merits of one’s own works performed in love. The Reformers argued instead that salvation is entirely found in God’s gifts (that is, God’s act of free grace), dispensed by the Holy Spirit according to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ alone. Consequently, they argued that a sinner is not accepted by God on account of the change wrought in the believer by God’s grace, and indeed, that the believer is accepted without any regard for the merit of his works—for no one deserves salvation. The responsibility for salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree.

Sola fide (“by faith alone”)

Justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, “being declared guiltless by God”) is received by faith only, not good works, though in classical Protestant theology, saving faith is automatically accompanied by good works. Some Protestants see this doctrine as being summarized with the formula “Faith yields justification and good works” and as contrasted with the Roman Catholic formula “Faith and good works yield justification.” However, this is disputed by the Roman Catholic position as a misrepresentation; it might be better contrasted with a comparison of what is meant by the term “justification”: both sides agree that the term invokes a communication of Christ’s merits to sinners, where in Protestant theology this is seen as being a declaration of sinlessness, Roman Catholicism sees justification as a communication of God’s life to a human being, cleansing him of sin and transforming him truly into a son of God, so that it is not merely a declaration. This doctrine is sometimes called the material cause or principle of the Reformation because it was the central doctrinal issue for Martin Luther and the other reformers. Luther called it the “doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. This doctrine asserts the total exclusion of any other righteousness to justify the sinner other than the “alien” righteousness (righteousness of another) of Christ alone.

Sola fide is different from Sola gratia because faith alone is considered either a work or is insufficient for salvation which can only be granted freely by God to whom He chooses. This doctrine is especially linked with Calvinism’s unconditional election and predestination, which we will explore more next week.

Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)

The Roman Catholic church teaches, to this day, that the Bible can only be authoritatively interpreted by those members of the church in direct apostolic succession (called the Magisterium), ultimately embodied in the Pope himself. They take this one step further, holding that the teachings and interpretations of the Magisterium are themselves authoritative and infallible, and a Christian must obey them as the very Word of God.

Luther and the Reformers, however, took issue with this. Instead, they taught that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all believers. They held that to add to the Gospel is actually to subtract from it.

Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)

Some of you will be aware of Pope Benedict’s recent comments to the effect that any church that is not Roman Catholic is not truly God’s church. Because other churches, in his view, are not based upon apostolic succession – that is, they cannot trace a line of successive bishops all the way back to the apostles – their priesthood is invalid, and thus they cannot truly be a part of the Church. This includes the Anglican church, of which we are a part.

According to the Reformers, however, Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and there is salvation through no other. This principle rejects sacerdotalism, which is the belief that there are no sacraments in the church without the services of priests ordained by apostolic succession under the authority of the pope. Martin Luther taught the “general priesthood of the baptized,” which was modified in later Lutheranism and classical Protestant theology into “the priesthood of all believers,” denying the exclusive use of the title “priest” (Latin, sacerdos) to the clergy.

Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the church hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.

Summary

These teachings can be summarised as follows:

Category	Roman Catholic Church	The Reformers
Salvation is offered…	by grace to those who do good works.	by Grace alone.
Justification is received…	by faith and good works.	by faith alone, but leads to good works.
Authority is found…	in the Scriptures and the (Roman Catholic) Church.	in Scripture alone.
Access to God is obtained…	through Christ and his appointed Church.	through Christ alone.
Glory is due…	to God, Mary and the saints.	to God alone.

Endnotes

1. The official World Youth Day website estimates that “500,000 participants are expected to attend at least one event during the World Youth Day week.”
2. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 1995).

(This message was preached at St John’s on the 19/8/07, and the audio may be found here. )

The tale of the Good Samaritan is one of the most famous stories that Jesus told. Most Australians, even those with limited exposure to Christianity and Christian teaching, will have heard some form of this tale. The term ‘good samaritan’ has passed into our everyday vocabulary¹.

Countless variations have been told and retold, for many different audiences, with the only consistent message that “it is good to be good”. Or perhaps more accurately, “it is good to do good”.

Prime Minister Howard, in his recent address to Christians across Australia² cited this parable (along with the parable of the talents, which he called a “model for a free market” – a sermon in its own right!) as being influential for him as a Christian in politics. His exposition of the parable was twofold: everyone is valuable; and thus everyone deserves compassion.

Whilst these two things are unquestionably true, and can clearly be inferred from this parable, are they an adequate summary of Jesus’ message? To find the answer, let us turn to the text.

A story of doing

This episode in Luke’s narrative opens with a man questioning Jesus. This man, a lawyer, asks “What must I do to inherit the kingdom of God?” (25). He is asking Jesus’ opinion on one of the hot topics of the day, in the same way that we might quiz Mr. Rudd and Mr. Howard about their stance on refugee policy, stem cell research or abortion.

Jesus, in typical rabbinic fashion, answers with a question of his own: “What is written in the Law?… How do you read it?” In doing so, he not only turns it back on his questioner, he signals that his teaching is not something new, but something old; it is from the scripture that he is drawing his response.

The lawyer, of course, is delighted. After all, the Law is his specialty, and this gives him a chance to demonstrate his prowess in a very public setting. He quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” – and Leviticus 19:18 – “Love your neighbour as yourself.” To which Jesus responds, “You have answered correctly… Do this and you will live.”

Let’s pause, for a moment, and consider this. The lawyer asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus answers exactly that question: love the Lord your God and love your neighbour. Elsewhere, Jesus says that “[a]ll the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments,”³ and “[t]here is no commandment greater than these.”⁴ That’s what you have to do to inherit eternal life. Sounds simple, right?

Wrong. What Jesus doesn’t say is that you have to do those things perfectly. Every minute of every day. No breaks, no lapses, no rest, no mistakes, no errors of judgment. Perfectly.

Not going to happen.

Sorry, not a chance.

Can you imagine what it would be like to live like that, even if you could do it? Knowing that, even if you have somehow managed to live perfectly up until now – that is, you have done everything the Bible commands without fault – but slip up today, or tomorrow, or next week… all of your efforts will be lost. Or what if, like the rich ruler of Luke chapter 18, you can say “[a]ll these [laws] I have kept since I was a boy”⁵ and then Jesus goes and asks something more than what you’re willing to do? Perfect record… gone.

Paul takes up this theme in his letter to the Galatians:

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law”.⁶

I think it safe to say that Paul does not believe this is a ‘winning’ tactic. In fact, in all of history there is only one man who has ever lived up to that standard, who has walked that path all the way into eternal life: Jesus himself.

But at least our lawyer now has the answer to the question that he asked. Had he asked a different question, he might have received a very different answer.

The lawyer’s second question, together with Luke’s commentary, reveal his motivation: “But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?'” (29).

I was never a good student at school. Don’t get me wrong, I always did well, but this was more by luck than good management. I knew every trick to maximise my marks, took every short cut in order to minimise the amount of work I had to do. As a result, twice a year at exam time I found myself praying for mercy and not justice! One of my most common techniques in preparing for an exam would be to pay very careful attention to what the teacher indicated as being most important. Quite often they would volunteer this information, but even when they didn’t they would usually give some guidance when asked. As a result, I would study those things in detail, sometimes to the exclusion of other material, on the assumption that their priorities would be reflected in the allocation of marks in the exam.

I hear something of the same attitude in the lawyer’s questioning. “What is the minimum that I have to do in order to gain eternal life?” Or perhaps, if we are to give him the benefit of the doubt, “What should be my top priorities?”

This guy knew the law. He understood the implications of being under the curse of the law. But he had a plan; reduce the law to the absolute minimum that was required and live by that. He is asking Jesus for a manageable ‘neighbourhood’ – not too big, and not too small, but just right. One common interpretation of the law was something like this: “love your neighbour, the Jew.” Some among the Pharisees went further and, reasoning that they were the only ones who followed the law they should be the only ones to benefit by it, narrowed it to “love your neighour, the Pharisee.”⁷

Jesus has other ideas. God is not in the business of minimising problems, but rather of maximising solutions. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, not to send such big crops in future”? Of course not! Instead he says “Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”⁸

And so Jesus tells the well-known parable, to enlarge the lawyer’s vision:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

At this point, the lawyer is thinking to himself, “OK, I must be more compassionate than priests and Levites,” a task in itself, as these were the people most entrusted with helping people; perhaps modern day equivalents might be a rescue worker or a Salvation Army officer. The lawyer has already, in his mind, passed judgment on these two, and does not want to identify himself with them. Jesus continues:

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

The Samaritans were traditionally enemies of the Jews. They claimed to worship Yahweh, but chose to do so in their own way, rather than in the way God had commanded; they set up their own temple at Mount Gerizim in opposition to the temple at Jerusalem. Whilst they were descended from the Jews, they had also intermarried with the nations around them. Jewish historian Josephus accuses them of being fair-weather friends, willing to identify themselves as Jews when the Jews were prospering, but distancing themselves whenever they saw the Jews suffering, so as not to share their fate⁹. For these reasons and more, they were held in utter contempt as a cowardly, mongrel, half-breed nation. John is not kidding when he says “Jews do not associate with Samaritans”¹⁰. In fact, in the chapter preceding the one we are concerned with today, James and John were ready to “call down fire from heaven” to destroy a Samaritan village for a minor snub¹¹.

For a Samaritan to overcome social taboo, then, and help a Jew in such a sacrificial way was a powerful statement of compassion. Perhaps the traveller was so badly beaten as to be unrecognisable. The point was that it didn’t matter; the Samaritan’s compassion gave him no choice but to set aside his own journey, his own priorities, his (no doubt) urgent business and turn aside to help a neighbour in need. “When he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine [costly!]. The he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him [even more costly!]. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'”¹²

It all depends on your outlook. To the thieves, this traveling Jew was a victim to exploit, so they attacked him. To the priest and Levite, he was a nuisance to avoid, so they ignored him. But to the Samaritan, he was a neighbour to love and to help, so he took care of him. What Jesus said to the lawyer, He says to us: “Go and keep on doing it likewise” (literal translation).¹³

Up until this point, I think most people would be willing to agree, no matter what their background – Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist or any other. It is a suitably moral story, appropriate for the instruction of children and adults alike, exhorting us to have compassion and kindness on all. To hear him talk about it, this is what Prime Minister Howard would take away from this parable. But to stop there is to miss the point; it is like giving up a deep drink from the spring of living water and taking instead a sip from broken cisterns that cannot hold water¹⁴.

As Carson writes, in answering the lawyer’s query

Jesus does not supply information as to whom one should help; failure to keep the commandment springs not from lack of information but from lack of love. It was not fresh knowledge that the lawyer needed, but a new heart – in plain English, conversion.¹⁵

A story of being

Let’s back up a bit. The very first question that the lawyer asked was, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”¹⁶ One commentator notes that

[e]ternal life is something to be inherited. And to receive an inheritance, you have to be an heir. No amount of doing will make you into one. Keeping the law is a way of life; it is not a way to life. It is only when by God’s grace we have become the right sort of people – his people, by new birth – that we begin to do the right sort of things.¹⁷

There are two things to dwell on here: if we wish to inherit eternal life we must first become an heir; being an heir will lead us to act righteously. Let’s explore these.

Becoming an heir

In telling the tale of the Good Samaritan, Jesus laid a subtle trap. By the time the Samaritan appears on the scene, the actions of the priest and the Levite have already been heard and, in the lawyer’s mind, judged. In the same way that you and I might expect an “And they all lived happily ever after” ending, so he would have been expecting a role model character to come along, someone he could look up to and emulate. I can just imagine him recoiling in revulsion on hearing that it was a despised Samaritan. Many Jews would rather have died than thought of themselves in the same mental ‘breath’ as a Samaritan. But that only leaves one other character to identify with: the traveller. And this is exactly what Jesus intended, for the only difference between the lawyer (or you or me, for that matter) and the perilous pilgrim is that the pilgrim was only “half dead” (30). The Apostle Paul writes:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.¹⁸

We need the ministry of a Good Samaritan to restore us to life or, more accurately, give us new life. Fortunately we have such a Saviour, and his name is Jesus. He offers the only alternative path to eternal life; one based not on doing but on being sons and daughters of God, and thus heirs together with Christ. Those are your two choices: try to earn your way to God, by living under the ‘curse’ of the law; or accept the free offer of God, by acknowledging his Lordship over you. As we’ve already seen, trying to earn your entrance into heaven, trying to cut the task of living righteously down to manageable proportions is chancy at best, even if your salvation isn’t riding on it; on the other hand, relying on the promise of God and the work of his Son is a sure thing.

I know which one I have chosen, and I hope that you have chosen or will choose the same.

But if the important thing is who we are, not what we do, why does Jesus command “Go and do likewise”?

Acting like an heir

Being children of God does not absolve us of responsibility to act. On the contrary: part of being an heir of God is acting like one.

Members of royal families are always under the microscope; every action is analysed, every comment studied and every slip-up proclaimed. We expect them to act in accordance with the dignity of their family, and are scandalised when they do not. How much more then should we who are royal heirs of the living God act in accordance with our parentage?

It’s fairly obvious, from Christians that I know and from my own life, that this does not happen instantaneously. There is a process involved, and that process centres around the work of the Holy Spirit. He works in us to change our hearts and minds and to conform us to the image of Christ, because this is God’s will for us¹⁹. Michael Wilcock puts it well:

It is much less important that [disciples of Jesus] should rush out doing the things they believe he wants, than that they should let him make of them the kind of people who inevitably will do such things.²⁰

Do you struggle to give generously when the Salvo’s come to your door? When someone at the train station approaches you for money, is your first reaction one of compassion or of cynicism? When a single mum is struggling to shepherd 3 kids, do you grin and bear it, perhaps with a sad smile of sympathy, or do you offer to help? Perhaps participating in the 40 hour famine too much effort, or too inconvenient?

God says:

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.²¹

We must continue to pray for the truth of this promise to be revealed in us.

So will you do or will you be?

Jesus offers us two paths to eternal life. The first involves living under the ‘curse’ of trying to live up to the law. Like the lawyer, you can seek to cut the law down to make it manageable, to carve out a neighbourhood for yourself and do your best. If this is your current strategy, however, I urge you to reconsider because it does not work. God’s way is not to reduce the problem; he wants instead to increase the solution!

The alternative is to accept the Good Samaritan’s help, to allow him to bring life through new birth into his family, and to thus become heirs together with him of eternal life. And if you choose this, he will make you into the kind of person for whom there is no neighbourhood too large.

Endnotes

1. Even such a militant atheist as the celebrated Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins unblushingly uses the language of this tale to describe the presence of altruism amongst humans and other species (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion [Bantam, 2006] p. 215.).
2. 2007 Make it Count, organised by the Australia Christian Lobby, and webcast to hundreds of Australian churches on the 9th August, 2007.
3. Matthew 22:40
4. Mark 12:31
5. Luke 18:21
6. Galatians 3:10
7. Similarly, at Qumran the scope included only the “sons of light” – i.e. other members of the Essene community. “Sons of darkness” – anyone else – were to be hated! (1QS 1:9)
8. Luke 10:2
9. Josephus, Antiquities IX.xiv.3.
10. John 4:9
11. Luke 9:51-56
12. Luke 10:33-36
13. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Cook, 2001) p. 213.
14. Jeremiah 2:13
15. D. A. Carson et al, New Bible Commentary (21st Century Edition, IVP, 1994) p. 998.
16. Luke 10:25, emphasis mine
17. Michael Wilcock, The Message of Luke (IVP, 1997) p. 123.
18. Ephesians 2:1-2
19. Romans 8:29
20. Michael Wilcock, The Message of Luke (IVP, 1997) p. 121.
21. Ezekiel 39:26

Yet, O LORD, you are our Father.

     We are the clay, you are the potter;

     we are all the work of your hand.

- Isaiah 64:8

After reading through Isaiah 64 together, a friend shared this image with me.

When you work with wood, there is usually some measure of imperfection in each piece of timber that you use. Some will try and avoid that imperfection, or perhaps cover it up; others will stubbornly work in spite of that imperfection; the sign of a master woodworker, however, is that he or she is able to take that imperfection and incorporate it into the beauty of the overall design.

God is the ultimate master craftsman. He takes our weaknesses and turns them into his strengths; he creates beauty out of ugliness; he uses our imperfections to accomplish his perfect will. And in doing so, he demonstrates his glory. Paul knew this:

But [the Lord] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

Don’t be afraid of your weaknesses; pray that God will use them as an opportunity to show his power. Don’t pray for the removal of hardships, persecutions or difficulties (Paul tried this – read 2 Corinthians 12:1-10); instead, pray that God will bring glory to himself through them.

And he will make a thing of great beauty out of you.

Anyone who has suffered devastating grief or dehumanizing pain has at some point been confronted by near relatives of Job’s miserable comforters. They come with their clichés and tired, pious mouthings. They engender guilt where they should be administering balm. They utter solemn truths where compassion is needed. They exhibit strength and exhort to courage where they would be more comforting if they simply wept.

- D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? (2nd edition, Baker Academic, 2006) p. 221.

Over the last two posts, we have looked at some of the ways in which people understand and explain the presence of evil, pain and suffering in the world. Initially I was planning to leave it at that, but the more I thought and prayed about the issue, the more I was convinced that that was not enough.

No matter how thorough your understanding of these ideas, there will still be times when explanations and theories are not enough. Platitudes about building a better character will sound hollow in the ears of a date-raped woman; explaining God’s higher purposes for creation will probably not comfort a man who has just lost his family in a car accident. In this post, then, I wish to offer some suggestions about comforting those who are grieving, ill or suffering.

At this point I should offer a brief disclaimer: I am neither a trained nor an experienced grief counsellor. I debated about whether to write this article at all, given my lack of qualification, but came down in favour of doing so in order to bring a necessary balance to the last 2 articles. Much of what I will offer here, then, is drawn from the experiences of others and as a result your mileage may vary.

The first thing that you need to know about counselling those in grief is that it is not your job to ‘fix’ them. Your chief allies in such a situation will be your ears, not your brain or your mouth. You do not need to have all the ‘answers'; you do need to have a compassionate heart and listening ears.

Frequently in the midst of suffering the most comforting “answers” are simple presence, help, silence, tears. Helping with the gardening or preparing a casserole may be far more spiritual an exercise than the exposition of Romans 8:28. The Scriptures themselves exhort us to “mourn with those who mourn” (Rom. 12:15).

- D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? (2nd edition, Baker Academic, 2006) p. 223.

The second thing I would say is this: don’t be afraid of, or embarrassed by, strong emotions. Unless you are able to accept the tears, the uncomfortable silences, and even the anger, you will not be able to meaningfully share in the journey. By being embarrassed, you add to their burden because (naturally) they then feel they have become an embarrassment to you – and hence they won’t want to be around you. Consider these words from C. S. Lewis, written in the period after his wife died of cancer:

An odd byproduct of my loss is that I’m aware of being an embarrassment to everyone I meet. At work, at the club, in the street, I see people, as they approach me, trying to make up their minds whether they’ll say something about it or not. I hate it if they do, and if they don’t… Perhaps the bereaved ought to be isolated in special settlements like lepers.

- C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) pp. 10-11.

There is no such thing as ‘normal’ grief. There will often be common areas, but no two people will grieve in exactly the same way. Some people will want to talk about things, to remember the good times out loud with you; others will not, preferring to process these things privately. Some will want to have others around; others will not cope with being around people. Some will turn to God for comfort; others will rage against him.

This last, by the way, does not necessarily signal a loss of faith. Even a man like C. S. Lewis, so greatly respected for his faith, may have severe doubts in the midst of trials.

Meanwhile, where is God? This is one of the most disquieting symptoms [of grief]. When you are happy, so happy that you have no sense of needing Him, so happy that you are tempted to feel His claims upon you as an interruption, if you remember yourself and turn to Him with gratitude and praise, you will be – or so it feels – welcomed with open arms. But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is in ruin, and what do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside. After that, silence. You may as well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become. There are no lights in the windows. It might be and empty house. Was it ever inhabited? It seemed so once. And that seeming was as strong as this. What can this meani? Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble?

- C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) pp. 5-6.

All of these preferences and emotions are valid – there is no such thing, in my view, as a ‘wrong’ way of expressing grief. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to tell your friend how they ‘should’ feel or act. In other words, share their journey without dictating the destination, or even the mode of transport.

I am sure that there are many more things to be said than these brief cautions, but I don’t have the experience or wisdom to know what they are. Perhaps you have some suggestions, based on your own experiences… why not leave a comment to share them with us?

(This article is a continuation of an earlier one. If you haven’t read it yet… read it now!)

Last time we looked at the questions of pain and suffering from the point of each of the world’s main religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and atheism. The treatment of each was necessarily brief, partly because I was trying to boil it down to the core ideas so that we could readily compare, and partly because I am in no way qualified to discuss any more than the basics of any of those world-views.

There was, of course, one notable exception from our list of religions – Christianity. The rest of this article will be devoted to redressing that imbalance.

Before we start, let me offer an apology: If you are expecting to find here the answers to all of your questions how and why God allows pain and suffering to occur then I am afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed. I am not presumptuous enough to think that I have answered all of my questions, let alone yours as well! My aim is much more modest. I have attempted to pull together some (but by no means all!) of ways the Bible treats suffering. I hope that this will be a useful starting point for you as you wrestle with God’s Word yourself.

Because this is both an important issue and a complex one, I would really appreciate any feedback that you have to offer – either questions or comments. You can do this either by emailing me, or leaving a comment here. I will do my utmost to respond to all questions as best I am able.

A result of sin

Key to any Christian’s understanding of the presence of pain and suffering in the world is a correct understanding of sin. As we read through the first three chapters of Genesis, we understand that God created the world, that he created mankind “and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Gen 2:15). Adam and Eve, however, were not satisfied with the role that God had set out for them, and took matters into their own hands; as a result both mankind and the earth itself were placed under a curse (Gen 3). All suffering since is a result of that sin of rebellion, and millions just like it, subverting God’s plan for creation.

One thing that it is important to note, however, is that this relationship between sin and suffering is a causal one, but not a mathematical one. That is to say that more sin does not necessarily mean more suffering on an individual basis. Otherwise why would the psalmist write:

I envied the arrogant
    when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
They have no struggles;
    their bodies are healthy and strong.
They are free from the burdens common to man;
    they are not plagued by human ills.

- Psalm 73:3-4

On the surface, this does not seem at all ‘fair’. Why should it be that “only the good die young” (as Billy Joel would put it)?

[W]e must always remember that the Bible does not present us with a God who chances upon neutral men and women and arbitrarily consigns some to heaven and some to hell. He takes guilty men and women, all of whom deserve his wrath, and in his great mercy and love he saves vast numbers of them. Had he saved only one, it would have been an act of grace; that he saves a vast host affirms still more unmistakably the uncharted reaches of that grace. From a biblical perspective, hell stands as a horrible witness to human defiance in the face of great grace.

- D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?, (Second Edition, Baker Academic, 2006) p. 92.

Don’t fall in to the trap that Jesus’ disciples did, of trying to trace individual afflictions back to individual sins (see John 9:1-2). God doesn’t work that way – at least not in the kind of time frame we can see. Ultimately, of course, God’s justice – his ‘fairness’, if you like – will be revealed in his final judgment of the entire earth.

A signpost to God

[E]verything I have learned in my seventy-five years in this world, everything that has truly enhanced and enlightened my existence has been through affliction and not through happiness, whether pursued or obtained. In other words, if it ever were to be possible to eliminate affliction from our earthly existence by means of some drug or other medical mumbo jumbo… the result would not be to make life delectable but to make it too banal or trivial to be endurable. This of course is what the cross [of Christ] signifies, and it is the cross more than anything else, that has called me inexorably to Christ.

- Malcolm Muggeridge, Homemade, July 1990, cited in John Piper, Desiring God, (3rd Ed., IVP, 2003) p. 266.

As I mentioned in another place, I believe that God sometimes uses suffering and pain to point us to himself.

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

- C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (HarperCollins, 2002) p. 91

We have a God who invites us to come to him and express our doubts, to question God and to plead with him for some kind of response. Consider the start of Psalm 22:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why are you so far from saving me,
    so far from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
    by night, and am not silent.

- Psalm 22:1-2

It is OK for us to be baffled when a father is taken away from his family by a fatal car crash; it is right for us to be outraged at the rape of a young woman; it is proper for us to pour out our anguish when those we love are struck down with cancer. We should, like so many of the psalmists, bring those things to God, because it is in doing so that God promises to act.

No temptation [the Greek word here could also be translated testing/suffering] has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted [tested] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted [tested], he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

- 1 Cor 10:13

God offers us comfort in two facts: he knows you, and will not let suffering increase so much that you cannot bear it; and he will give you the strength and courage (“a way out”) to “stand up under” suffering when it comes.

Jesus was and is certainly no stranger to strong emotion. The gospels record him as being tired (so tired, in fact, he fell asleep in a fishing boat in the middle of a storm! See ); grieving at the death of his friend; indignant at his disciples ‘shielding’ him from children; angry at the immense corruption in the temple; and desperately afraid as he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. He suffered agony on the Cross for our sakes – and when he did so, in his hour of greatest suffering and torment, he turned to the very words of Psalm 22 above (see Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34).

This is not a cry of self-doubt from Christ’s lips, as if he is here questioning his identity and mission. It his [sic. is] deliberate and agonizing identification with the suffering poet of Psalm 22 and therefore, with all those who have cried out to God ‘Why?’. There on the cross, so the Bible insists, God intentionally enters our pain and misery, getting his hands dirty and even bloody. This is God at his most vulnerable and yet at his most glorious.

- John Dickson, If I were God I’d end all the pain (2nd ed. Matthias Media, 2002) p.66.

Jesus chose the way of suffering, so that he could understand our pain.

For we do not have a high pries who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have on who has been tempted [tested] in every way, just as we are – yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

- Heb. 4:15-16

A cause for hope

Hard as it might seem to believe, God also permits suffering in order to bring us hope. James, the brother of Jesus, puts it this way:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

- James 1:2-4

So, in other words, trials of many kinds help us develop perseverance, which is required for us to be “mature and complete.” Paul fleshes this out a bit more in his letter to the Romans:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

- Romans 5:1-5

The hope, then, is this: through our sufferings, God is making us more and more like his Son every day, in accordance with his will (Rom 8:29). And because of this, we have a hope that is eternal:

Praise be to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade – kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this we greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith – of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire – may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

- 1 Peter 1:3-7

My prayer, then, for me and for you, is the same one that James recommends:

If any of you lacks wisdom [to be able to rejoice when facing trials; see v. 2], he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

- James 1:5-6

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

- Declaration of Independence

“I wonder how Jefferson knew to include the word ‘pursuit’?”

So ponders Chris Gardner (ably played by Will Smith) in the 2006 movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

Tracing the journey of a struggling salesman with a product few want and nobody needs, The Pursuit of Happyness is a tale of courage and determination. In the face of his difficult life, Chris has the desperate inspiration to try for a stockbroker internship where one in twenty has a chance of a lucrative full time career. Even when his wife Linda (Thandie Newton) leaves him because of this choice, Chris clings to this dream with his son – even when the odds become more daunting by the day.

For me, one of the most poignant scenes sees Chris and his son Christopher playing basketball.

Christopher: “Look at me, Dad, I’m going pro!”

Chris: “Well, actually, son, you have my genes, so it’s not terribly likely.”

Seeing the slump of his son’s shoulders on hearing that, however, Chris repents.

Chris: “Never let anyone tell you you can’t do something – not even me!”

It is this gritty determination that pervades the entire movie and ties it together. It is a true “pursuit of Happiness”.

All in all, The Pursuit of Happyness is an enjoyable film. Will Smith is a revelation as a dramatic actor, and his performance delivers on an excellent script. Whilst I can’t agree entirely with the content of the film (the pursuit of money is not the same as the pursuit of happiness in my book), nevertheless I heartily recommend it as a film of great humanity and emotion.

Temptation. Lust. Masturbation. Sensuality. Sex.

A code of silence has grown up in the church around these issues – many hoping that if we don’t talk about them, they will just go away. And yet men of all ages continue to struggle to attain the standard of Ephesians 5:3 – “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality”. How is this possible in an age where we are constantly bombarded by sexual images that open the door to temptation – TV, magazines, music, the Internet?

Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker shatter this code of silence in the “Every Man” series. The latest installment, Every Young Man’s Battle, addresses “the challenge every man faces… the fight every man can win” from the point of view of single Christian men. (The original book in the series, Every Man’s Battle, is more geared towards married men) It explores how our thought lives control our actions, and are in turn controlled by what we allow in.

I found one of the most potent images was one of doing battle with a sumo wrestler. In one corner is Mr Sex Drive – fed up on “a billion meals of lust and fantasy”. In the other corner… you. Things don’t look good – he’s many times bigger than you, and consistently, effortlessly, sends you flying out of the ring. The book goes on to explain that the only way to overcome is to “Starve the sumo”. By cutting out the sumo’s food – sexy movies, TV, music, websites etc. – you can reduce his power over you, even the odds in those contests in the ring.

Every Young Man’s Battle is a highly practical book, and “will show you how to train your eyes and your mind, how to clean up you thought life, and how to develop a realistic battle plan for remaining pure in today’s sexually soaked culture”. Personally, I found it very encouraging for two reasons: a) I’m not the only one who struggles (nor are you!), and b) the battle can be won! I highly recommend Every Young Man’s Battle to any man who is committed to sexual purity God’s way, and would be happy to lend my copy to anyone who wants to have a read.

The following is the content of a sermon I preached in January 2005, and is reproduced here for posterity… or something

• Luke 2:1-20
• Revelation 12:1-12

“What is the Matrix?” This was the question that formed the basis of a series of movies, about a world within a world. As the lead character pursues the answer to this question, he is suddenly taken from his “World”, that which he believes to be reality, and forced to completely re-evaluate it. Everything that he knows is shown to be false, a “prison for the mind”.

For Neo and the millions of other people blissfully unaware of the existence of the Matrix, life inside the Matrix was the only reality they knew. People lived and died, got married, had children, made friends, ate & drank. They experienced love, grief, joy, peace, anger, laughter, sadness and any other emotion known to man. Life was, so far as they were concerned, complete.

Yet, when Neo sees his life from a different perspective, when he understands that his “life”, as he knows it, is nothing more than a computer simulation, he is suddenly empowered to do all kinds of things – he jumps off 30-storey buildings and is not hurt, he learns skills in an instant, simply by having them ‘loaded’ – he even dodges bullets! The life that he thought he knew so well is completely changed through a new perspective, a different understanding.

Tonight, however, the question is not, “What is the Matrix?”, but “What is Christmas?”. I have entitled tonight’s sermon “Christmas Reloaded”. It is my hope that, through gaining a different perspective on what is arguably one of the best known stories in the world, we might, like Neo, see our lives transformed. Not that I recommend you run out and try dodging bullets after this sermon!

When you think about the Christmas story, what are the images that come to mind? For me, they are images of peace, tranquility and joy. “Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men,” as many carols put it. Indeed this is what we find in our reading from Luke. Aside from the minor problem of having to sleep in a stable, there seems little to indicate anything out of the ordinary. Hardly material for a story or movie, surely? Children are born all the time, there hardly seems anything special about this one. Sure, there are a few angels, some wise men, but where’s the action? Where’s the drama? The romance? Sure doesn’t seem to fit into any book or movie genre I know – it’s all so dull!

Then we turn to Revelation 12. The same event becomes so much more interesting. Crowns of stars, clothing of sunshine, a seven-headed dragon, warrior angels, great battles. You name it, it’s there! Much more like what we are used to seeing on TV.

And yet this is not the Christmas story we know. This is not the part of the bible that we turn to each year at Christmas time, that our parents read to us when we were little. Why not? Perhaps because it is somewhat harder to come to terms with, lacking the solid, earthy realities of mother and father, stable and manger, donkey and cattle. Without these things, Revelation 12 (and indeed Revelation in general) is dismissed by many Christians as being a dream bearing little or no relation to reality. Without easily recognisable anchors to things we are familiar with, we find ourselves unable to understand what is going on.

To understand Revelation 12, we must first understand something of its context. The book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, somewhere between 20 and 60 years after the death of Christ. He writes of a vision that he had whilst on the island of Patmos, a vision that God intended for him to share with seven gentile churches around Asia Minor. This kind of writing is often referred to as apocalyptic literature, which simply means writing that is prophetic in nature, often referring to the end of the world. If you’re interested, another example of apocalyptic writing in the bible may be found in Daniel 7.

Since the invention of SMS, we have taught ourselves a new way of writing, almost a new language – words and phrases get compressed down to as few characters as possible. ‘I will see you later’ becomes ‘Cya l8r’, ‘Where are you?’ becomes ‘Wru’. These conventions are used so often that they are simply understood. And because everyone understands them, nobody feels the need to explain what each one means, we simply use them as a normal part of our communication.

As John writes Revelation, he takes similar shortcuts. He uses symbols and metaphors to express himself, many of which are completely foreign to us. The churches that John is writing to, however, were part of a culture very much used to interpreting such ‘signs’. It was quite common for people to go to the temples of the gods of their culture to receive an oracle from a seer – kind of like today’s horoscopes, only even more vague and obscure. It was then up to either the priest of the temple or the person receiving the oracle to interpret it. Over time, a rich tradition of how certain symbols were to be interpreted was developed. These would not have had to have been explained to the people receiving this message from John, but we don’t have the luxury of having grown up with them. Just like some future generation trying to understand our SMS messages, we struggle to understand what these symbols mean.

As we go through the passage tonight, I will try to highlight some of the most important symbols, and explain what they mean.

Let’s start by examining the characters in Revelation 12.

1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

The first of our three major characters appears, at first glance, to be Mary. A pregnant woman, giving birth to a child who will “rule all the nations with an iron scepter” (v. 5) (more on this later!). A closer examination, however, gives us a different interpretation.

The woman wears a “crown of twelve stars” (v.1), is clothed with the sun and has the moon for her footstool. There is another place in the bible where this combination of sun, moon and stars occurs – Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37. There, Joseph dreams of the sun, the moon and eleven stars bowing to one star. The dream is interpreted to mean that the stars are the twelve sons of Jacob, whilst the sun is Jacob himself and the moon is Rachel, Joseph’s mother. Extending this somewhat, we can then understand that the stars in the woman’s crown represents the twelve tribes of Israel, with the woman herself representative of the people of Israel.

The next character to appear in our unfolding drama is a dragon.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.

One of the most common symbols throughout Revelation is that of the horn. A horn, quite simply, is a symbol of strength. The dragon has ten horns, and so is a creature of great strength.

In Revelation (and elsewhere in the bible) the number seven is usually symbolic of completeness. Having seven heads and seven crowns, therefore, indicates the completeness of the dragon’s power on earth – he is overwhelmingly powerful. This becomes clearer when we understand from verse 9 that the dragon is “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the world astray” – that is, the dragon is the “Prince of this World”¹. Jesus himself does not dispute Satan’s claim when he offered Him the “kingdoms of the world” and the glory of them.

The line, “His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky,” (v.4) probably refers to the angels that Satan deceived, and who were cast out of heaven with him.

The third character is, of course, the child himself:

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

Without any doubt whatsoever, the child is Jesus. The “iron scepter” is a reference to Psalm 2:9:

You will rule them with an iron scepter;
You will dash them to pieces like pottery.

The image is of an iron rod being used to shatter clay. Just as the clay doesn’t stand a chance, so too is evil doomed under Jesus’ rule.

Now that we have a feel for who the characters are, we can turn to examine what they are doing. I don’t think the woman giving birth needs any explanation… so let’s instead ask ourselves why the dragon is hanging around in the delivery room.

Two weeks ago, Dave shared with us about two people who had been waiting for Jesus to appear – Simeon and Anna. Their waiting would have been characterised by longing, a massive desire to see the promised saviour. For them, the appearance of Jesus was an occasion for great joy, together with great peace that God was keeping his promise.

There was another, however, for whom the waiting period had not been so pleasant. Satan knew very well what the result of Jesus coming would be – indeed we see his fears come to pass towards the end of tonight’s passage:

7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down… He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

You see, Satan knew that his days were numbered – God had promised way back in Genesis 3 that there would come a descendant of Adam and Eve who would “crush [the serpent’s] head”. Since we have identified Satan as being the serpent (v.9), this prospect would not have been a pleasant one for him. Like Captain Hook hearing the crocodile’s clock, Satan has long been able to hear the sound of his death approaching.

In fact, Satan has been doing his level best to destroy the “seed” all along. Throughout history, he has taken every opportunity to try and kill off those who would be Jesus’ ancestors. Examples include: when Cain killed Abel; when Haman sought to have all of the Jews killed; the barrenness of both Sarah and Rebekah; and Esau threatening to kill Jacob for robbing him of his birth-right. In spite of this, he has failed every step of the way. His last remaining chance is that he can somehow corrupt or destroy Jesus himself.

Once again he fails, as Jesus is “snatched up to God and to his throne.” (v.5)

It would seem, from this passage, that Jesus was no sooner born than he ascended to be with God. The reason, I think, is that this passage is not really concerned with the fate of Jesus. Jesus’ story is covered much more thoroughly elsewhere in Revelation. Instead, the point of this passage concerns the fates of the woman and the dragon.

The woman, we are told, “fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days”². In Israel’s history, the desert was traditionally a place of refuge – God took care of Israel whilst they wandered through the desert for 40 years. More specifically, this reference reminds us of Elijah being cared for in the desert during three and a half years of drought – 1,260 days. Whilst there, God provided food in the form of the widow’s flour and oil which miraculously never ran out. Because of this, the period of 1,260 days is traditionally associated with a time of testing and trial – it is not actually a literal 1,260 days, but is symbolic. It is also, by the way, the exact length of time that Satan is given to “trample on the holy city” (v11:2), as well as the length of time given to God’s witnesses for witnessing (v11:3). It is important to note that there is a fixed end to Satan’s rule on earth – it will not go on for ever. This is an important promise to us, who have to live through it!

The final part of the passage explains exactly what happens to Satan:

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
They did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.

12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.

Wherever you come across the words “I heard a loud voice say”, it generally means that an explanation is on the way. The Scooby gang is about to pull the rubber mask off the bad guy and tell us exactly who dunnit, how and why.

The who? The word Satan is the Hebrew word for ‘accuser’, so when the voice talks about the accuser having been “hurled down” (v.10), we know it is Satan they are talking about.

Why did they cast him out? Well, the only reason Satan was allowed to remain in heaven was because of his role as ‘accuser’. Kind of like the heavenly prosecutor – his purpose was to accuse us of our sins, to remind God that we are sinful and to invite his judgement upon us. More than just a job, this is something he did “day and night,” (v.10) suggesting that it is his purpose for existence. It is easy, now, to understand why Satan was so desperate to prevent Jesus’ coming – his reason for living was being taken away!

And God’s verdict? “Case dismissed. Thankyou Mr. Prosecutor, your services are no longer required, please remove yourself from my presence!”. Then when he refused to go, it was up to Michael and the other angels to remove him.

Now hang on. How could God, who is just, deliver a not-guilty verdict when we are so obviously guilty? From verse 11, we find that “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) and by the word of their testimony.” You see, when Jesus came to earth and died for our sins, Satan no longer had grounds for accusing us. As C. S. Lewis puts it in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe:

‘Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.’

The Witch, like Satan, had the role of accuser. Her demands that Edmund was hers because of his treachery, and that his treachery could only be dealt with through blood, are not denied by Aslan. Instead of killing her then and there and removing the problem that way, instead of breaking the Emperor’s law, he chooses instead to be killed on the Stone Table in Edmund’s place – with amazing results! Aslan lives, whilst Edmund is freed from his guilt and the punishment that go with it. And the Witch? Her role as accuser is done – there is no-one left to accuse – and so she dies at Aslan’s hands (or paws!).

So out of all of this, what have we learned in answer to the question, “What is Christmas?” Christmas is, if you like, history’s alarm bell. The coming of Jesus marks the commencement of the time between his birth and his return – sometimes referred to as the “last days”. It heralds the 1,260 days of Satan’s time on earth, and of God’s witnesses witnessing. We who live in these times should remember that we, like the woman, have a place of shelter and refuge made ready for us by God. More than anything else, however, it should be a reminder of a victory already won:

Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down. (v.10)

Endnotes

1. John 12:31
2. Wherever you see the phrase “Times, time and half a time,” in the Bible, it is referring to this length of time – a ‘time’ is a year, so ‘times’ is 2 years and half a time is half a year – three and a half years or 1,260 days.

Searching the Scriptures is a training course in reading and understanding the Bible. I initially developed it in May 2007, to be run over 3 x 1.5hr sessions.

Printable notes available here (NB: may not be as up to date as pages here).

Week 1 (Handout)

• Why read the Bible?
• How to read the Bible
• How to read a narrative
• How to read an epistle

Week 2 (Handout)

• How did we get the Bible?
• How to read a psalm
• How to read an apocalypse
• How to read wisdom literature

Week 3 (Handout)

• How to read law
• How to read prophecy
• How to read the Gospels

Understanding the Gospels

The Gospels are roughly divided up into Jesus’ teachings and narratives, and so it would seem appropriate to follow the principles already set out for epistles and narratives respectively. Indeed, this is true, but the Gospels offer us a few additional challenges, born out of their nature.

For example, where the teachings of Paul, Peter, James etc. were written down by the authors themselves, the words of Jesus were not written down by Jesus himself. In fact, Jesus’ native language would most likely have been Aramaic, and so the fact that the Gospels were originally written in Greek means that his teachings have already been interpreted for us. What’s more, there are 4 of them, each written by a different author, each with a unique perspective on Jesus and his significance. Together, these two factors combine to force us to consider the author of each Gospel (the evangelist), their context, their personality, their interests etc.

Let’s consider an example. Church tradition suggests that Mark’s Gospel records Peter’s memoirs, and that it appeared in Rome shortly after Peter’s martyrdom. It was initially received by the church in Rome, who were then facing the prospect of great suffering at the hands of the Romans. In this light, Mark’s repeated descriptions of the Messiah as being Isaiah’s Suffering Servant¹ are significant in suggesting to the suffering church in Rome that they should expect suffering, for their Master did. Similarly, Luke was a Gentile, and so much of his message is given over to explaining that the Messiah/Christ was equally significant for Gentiles as for Jews.

Another complication is that the contents of the Gospel were not recorded as they happened, but were instead most likely passed down as individual stories and sayings. As a result, many of Jesus’ sayings and teachings were transmitted without context. The evangelists, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, placed them in the contexts in which we now have them. In doing this, they usually followed one of two practices:

• The teaching was placed adjacent to narratives illustrating the teaching.
• The teaching was placed in a group of similar teachings. Matthew in particular seems to have followed this practice, with 5 groupings of teachings: life in the Kingdom²; instructions for ministers of the Kingdom³; parables of the Kingdom at work in the world⁴; teaching on relationships and discipline in the Kingdom⁵; and the consummation of the Kingdom⁶.

Some things to remember when reading the Gospels:

• Think horizontally: Consider the parallel accounts in the other Gospels. The point here is not to ‘flesh out’ the account being considered, but rather to get a feel for the distinctive characteristics of the Gospel you are looking at.
• Think vertically: Consider the passages both before and after the one you are looking at to get a feel for context in which the evangelist has placed it.
• Target audience: Jesus frequently switches between talking to his disciples, to the crowds, and to his opponents. You need to be alert for the evangelist’s clues as to when this has taken place.

Jesus made use of many different teaching methods:

• Parables: (More on this in the next section.)
• Hyperbole: e.g. Mt 5:29-30.
• Proverbs: e.g. Mt 6:21; Mk 3:24.
• Similes & Metaphor: e.g. Mt 10:16; 5:13.
• Poetry: Mt 7:6-8; Lk 6:27-28.
• Questions: Mt 17:25.
• Irony: Mt 16:2-3.

Most of these have already been covered in the notes on psalms, wisdom literature and prophecy. The main exception is parable, which we glossed over in the notes on prophecy, but will consider in more detail here.

Understanding parables

Since parables are such a significant (and frequently misunderstood/misapplied!) I thought it important that we consider them on their own.

There are actually 3 types of parable:

• True parable: True parables are characterised by having a clear beginning and end, with some sort of ‘plot’ in between. e.g. the Good Samaritan⁷, the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin and Lost Son⁸.
• Similitude: An illustration taken from every day life. e.g. the Yeast in the Dough⁹.
• Metaphor: e.g. the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth¹⁰.

The following comments mostly apply to true parables, although some will apply also to the other two categories.

The purpose of a parable is always to get a response. For this reason, it is very important to identify the people to whom the parable is directed – otherwise how will you understand the response that is being sought?

Each true parable has a number of points of reference, which are what the listener/reader is expected to identify with and hence be drawn into the story. Unless you first understand the points of reference, you will not understand the impact of the unexpected twist found in most parables.

For example, consider the story of the money-lender¹¹. The points of reference are the money-lender and the 2 debtors. These are expected to be identified with God, the woman and Simon respectively. Each of these people would have been expected to ‘see’ themselves in the story being told.

The process for reading a parable, then,is as follows:

1. Identify the points of reference
2. Work out how the original hearers would have identified with each of the points of reference.

Applying the Gospels

Again, applying the Gospels is a combination of the principles for application of epistles and narratives. For example, as for an epistle, we must consider cultural relativity. e.g. we are unlikely to be forced to go the “extra mile”¹², but we can readily identify comparable situations to which it might apply.

Some of Jesus’ imperatives (commands) seem to us a lot like law – and an impossible law at that¹³! This is a misconception. Jesus’ words are intended as a description of what our lives should be like because of God’s acceptance, not a formula for gaining entrance into the Kingdom.

When reading Jesus’ teachings and considering application, you need to pay attention to the surrounding narratives. As already mentioned, sometimes a story is included especially to illustrate a particular teaching. For example, the story of the Rich Young Ruler¹⁴ is not intended to teach that everyone needs to give away all of their possessions, but rather how difficult it is for the rich to enter heaven.

The final note about applying the Gospels (and in fact the entire New Testament) is this: they are drenched with the tension of the transition between this kingdom and God’s Kingdom. The coming of Jesus signalled the “beginning of the end.” We now live in a time where both kingdoms are present: the consummated Kingdom will bring full and free forgiveness, but this is not yet perfected¹⁵; we have victory over death¹⁶ and yet we will still die¹⁷; we can live in the Spirit, yet Satan still attacks us¹⁸. When we pray “Your Kingdom come,” therefore, it is first of all a prayer for the consummation of the Kingdom, but it also has implications for us today.

Further reading

• Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, “The Gospels: One Story, Many Dimensions” and “The Parables: Do You Get the Point?” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd Edition, Zondervan, 2003) pp. 127-162.

Endnotes

1. Is 8:27-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-45
2. Mt 5-7
3. Mt 10:5-42
4. Mt 13:1-52
5. Mt 18:1-35
6. Mt 23-25
7. Lk 10:25-37
8. Lk 15
9. Lk 13:20-21
10. Mt 5:13-14
11. Lk 7:36-50
12. Mt 5:41
13. Consider for example Mt 5-7.
14. Mt 19:16-30
15. Phil 3:10-14
16. 1 Cor 3:22
17. Phil 3:20-21
18. Eph 6:10-17