Nahum 1:3-6 - The mountains quake

1:3-5

The Lord is slow to anger. In fact the first part of this verse is almost word for word from Ex 34:6,7. There the words are addressed to Israel, here they are addressed to Israel (or Judah, to be more precise), but are explaining His treatment of Assyria. Many years before God had sent Jonah to Nineveh, and they had repented for a time. Peter tells us that God does not show favouritism, and here we have an example of that. He was patient with Assyria. But He is not patient forever, there comes a point when judgement must come. Nor is His patience a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. We may often wonder why God is being so slow to deal with an issue, or with a person! He may well be giving them time to repent. On the last day no one will be able to claim that God acted too rashly.

Natural events are not just random events, they are all subject to God’s control, and are sometimes used as instruments of His judgement or of His salvation. All of creation is subject to the Lord.

1:6

“Who can withstand His indignation?” Judah needed to know that Assyria would not be able to withstand the Lord’s anger, nothing can protect against His wrath. In Isaiah 36-39 we read of the events when Assyria was right at the walls of Jerusalem, and this ended in Assyria being defeated. So Judah should fear the Lord, not Assyria, and these words of the Lord are a double edged sword. For Judah’s primary need was to repent of her own sins. Like Assyria, there were some brief times of repentance, and in these times Judah received mercy, but she always reverted to type, sinning all the more against the Lord. So she too would one day be subject to His irresistible wrath, as happened with the Babylon conquest.

Nahum 1:1,2 - Concerning Nineveh

1:1

“A prophecy concerning Nineveh”. All the direct stuff in the prophecy is directed at Assyria and its capital Nineveh, and that is no doubt one of the reasons why Nahum is so little preached on. This verse is also where we get the sum total of our information on who Nahum was, he was an Elkoshite.

The current NIV describes the message as a prophecy, the older NIV versions have “oracle”, as does the ESV. The word “oracle” is usually reserved for prophecies concerning non-Israelite nations. “Gods” in those days tended to be restricted to either certain peoples or certain geographical areas. The Lord is Lord of all the earth. There is a lot of nonsense talked about how the Old Testament borrows from other religions, often implying it is little more than a copy. Such talk is sheer nonsense. There is an excellent book, The Bible Among the Myths, that very clearly demonstrates the absolute uniqueness of the Bible, in particular its worldview.

As well as clearly referring directly to Assyria and Nineveh, there are general lessons to be learnt. The prophecy is referred to as a book, the only prophecy to be so called. This has led to speculation that it circulated as an underground pamphlet during Assyrian persecution, though that is perhaps being a little fanciful.

1:2

The prophecy comes from God, or as 2 Pet 1:21 tells us, all prophecy came from the mind of God, albeit through human agency. So the character of God is the most important aspect to consider. Here we are given two key characteristics of God, He is a jealous God, and an avenging God. Jealous for whom? Jealous for His people Israel. In understanding the world, and our own lives, we need to appreciate the depths of God’s love for Israel, and for all of us who are His people. And He will avenge Himself on those who abuse His people. It is of course vital that we remember that “vengeance belongs to the Lord” (Rom 12:19). We need to remember this for two reasons. First, we must not take it upon ourselves to execute vengeance, we have no authority to do that. Secondly, we need to appreciate that God will one day execute vengeance. The Lord is a God who judges.

This verse makes it abundantly clear that God executes vengeance, pouring out His wrath. In the modern world we seem to have an enormous problem with the concept of God’s wrath. This is chiefly because we do not want to face up to the reality of sin and its consequences. I will repeat something I have said elsewhere on God’s wrath. There are two key aspects of wrath: (i) it is a passionate hatred of sin, and of what sin does to us, and what our sin does to other people; (ii) God’s wrath is perfectly rational and just. The second of these aspects is very important, for we tend to associate wrath with an irrational, uncontrolled anger. This is not the case with God’s wrath, it is perfectly rational and just, but there is also passion. It is not a dispassionate justice, there is more to it than that.

Nahum - Introduction

Nahum

Introduction

Another brief sojourn into the Old Testament, this time the prophet Nahum, not one who is preached on or quoted much. My main source of information and help will be:

Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah - Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries - David W Baker (1988)

Not too much is known about Nahum. His name most likely means “comforter” or “reassurance”. He came from Elkosh, but apart from that we know nothing about him. In fact we are not actually that sure where Elkosh was, though it was probably a town in Judah. What this does show is that you do not have to be famous to be a prophet of God!

The dating is also a little difficult, but we can tie it down a little. Assyria was the strong nation, and key dates are:

612 BC	The downfall of Assyria
668-627 BC	The reign of Ashurbanipal, and the period of Assyria’s greatest strength.
663 BC	The fall of Thebes, an event mentioned in Nahum (3:8)

There are, of course, those who consider there to be no possibility at all of prophecy being predictive. However, God does know all things, so it is perfectly possible for prophecy to be predictive, therefore the prophecy can be dated between 663 and 612 BC. He does present the fall of Nineveh as imminent, so a date towards the end of this period seems likely. Nahum would then be a contemporary of Zephaniah and the young Jeremiah, and he would have lived under the reign of Josiah.

The book is largely concerned with the fall of Assyria. This might seem to be of limited value to Judah, especially as she was going to later fall to Babylon. However, a vital truth is that our enemies will one day fall. Israel repeatedly made the mistake of fearing her enemies rather than fearing God. This is also a lesson we need to heed today. We should fear no one but God, that means we should listen to His words and follow His instruction. To do otherwise is foolishness, for it means we are following the words of someone or something that is destined for destruction. As I write this (15 Feb 2017) the Church of England is having one if its debates about homosexuality and other LGBT matters. There will, as usual, be many voices urging the church to listen to the modern world, and very few recommending that we listen to God! Oh what fools we can be.

The literary form is that of oracles and poetic forms. Using word pictures, rather than prose. There are those who try to argue that the first chapter is an acrostic (ie each line begins with a succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet. However, evidence for this is tenuous at best and involves making changes to the text, so it seems an idea without much support at all.

Luke 18:36-43 - A blind man healed

18:36-39

Whatever the details, a blind man heard that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. He must have heard of Jesus and knew of His reputation, so he calls on Jesus to have mercy upon him. Note the importance of mercy. We need mercy from God, we have no right to expect anything. The blind man refers to Him as the Son of David, a messianic title.

Those who were leading the way (it doesn’t specify who they were)  rebuked the blind man, but he shouted all the louder. The blind man had a better idea of who Jesus was and His character than did those who were “leading the way”.

18:40-43

Jesus had a different approach, He ordered that the blind man be brought to Him. We too can often regard “misfits” who come into church as a nuisance, we need to realise that they may well be the people who Jesus is seeking, and who are actually responding in faith. Lord, help us to see as you see!

Jesus asked the man what he wanted. “I want to see”, the man replied. So Jesus told him to receive his sight, and that his faith had healed him. Not every miracle involved faith of the recipient, but on many occasions it did. The man was healed and followed Jesus, praising God. The people were amazed and they too praised God.

Luke 18:35 - Varying accounts

18:35

In Mark 10:46 it says that Jesus met blind Bartimeus as they were leaving the city, whereas here it says they met a blind man as they approached Jericho. The other details of the incident are very similar, so it seems that Luke and Mark are reporting the same incident, though it is possible that there were two different blind men. Matthew 20:30 further complicates the matter. Matthew has Jesus leaving Jericho, but Matthew has two blind men, and both get healed. There are some who say that there were four different blind men healed. Now Jesus did heal a lot of people, so that possibility cannot be ruled out. However, the other features of story are so similar that this seems unlikely, if it weren’t for the differences noted. There are some small differences in the details, but these are such that if it wasn’t for the two key differences, the most natural conclusion would be that they were essentially the same thing.

With regard to the one or two beggars issue it is quite possible that there were two, but only one of them did the talking. Hence, Mark and Luke only referring to one of them. And note that Luke and Mark do not say that there was only one beggar.

What about the leaving or entering? Well there were two Jerichos. One was the mound of the ancient city of Jericho, the other was the inhabited city of Jericho. So Jesus could have healed the men as he was leaving the ancient city and entering the inhabited city of Jericho.

We cannot be sure of the exact nature of the case, but it is perfectly possible that the three accounts are in harmony.

Luke 18:31-34 - Jesus predicts His death

18:31

The time of Jesus’ crucifixion was getting ever closer, and they were on their way to Jerusalem. It is probably fair to say that at this stage the disciples really didn’t have a clue of what was going to happen. We need to appreciate that to human understanding the cross makes no sense at all. Jesus tells them that “everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled”. There are a number of points to note. The first is that Jesus saw His mission as the fulfilment of Scripture,  after the resurrection He will tell the disciples on the road to Emmaus that the Scriptures foretold everything that had happened. secondly when He uses the term “Son of Man” He is referring to the Messiah in the Old Testament.

18:32-34

Jesus then expands on what He means, for the disciples would still have been expecting a military Messiah, a saviour from the oppression of Rome. But Jesus tells them that He would be handed over to the Romans, to the Gentiles. The Gentiles would then mock Him, beat Him, insult Him and spit upon Him. Finally they would kill Him, but then on the third day He would rise again.

Jesus has spoken quite plainly, not sparing any details, or sugar-coating any of it. Yet the disciples understood nothing, for it was “hidden from them”. We need the work of the Holy Spirit to take away our blindness and to open our eyes. Only then can we truly see. It is worth noting that the gospels do nothing to glorify the disciples, they are portrayed as the slow witted, blind human beings that they were, just like the rest of us.

Luke 18:21-30 - Camels and needles

18:21,22

The man replies that he has kept all these since he was a boy, and, at least from a superficial level, this was probably true. Though whether there had ever been anger of lust in his heart is another matter. So, given that the man is looking to be qualified for the kingdom, Jesus adds one more thing. “Sell everything you have and give to the poor”. Now what is Jesus doing here? He knew full well that this would really hit home with the man, so Jesus hits on something that He knew the man could not give up. Now, even if he had agreed to sell everything he would still not be righteous, but Jesus wanted to get the man to realise his own shortcomings, and the impossibility of his earning the right to enter the kingdom.

18:23-25

The man was very wealthy and did not want to give everything up. Jesus then declares that it was very hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. The eye of the needle may refer to a particular gate in the city walls, or it may be that He is just drawing a contrast between the largest animal around and the smallest gap, ie something that is totally impossible. The rich may be blessed in this life, but it is impossible for them to enter the kingdom on their own merits, just as it is for anyone else.

18:26-30

v26 indicates that the disciples assumed that the wealthy were indeed blessed by God, and so could enter heaven. So it now seems that no one can be saved. Jesus’ reply is that nothing is impossible with God.

Peter, speaking without thinking, or at least without enough thinking, blurts out that they had given given up everything, so maybe they did actually qualify for the kingdom. Or, perhaps more likely, he is thinking what was the point of us giving up everything in order to follow you? This would fit better with Jesus’ reply that they would receive many times over both in this age, and would then inherit eternal life. We may be called to give up much, but if we do we will be looked after by God, both in this life and the next. However, our making sacrifices does not earn us the right to enter heaven, it is only Jesus who gives us eternal life.

Luke 18:15-20 - Little children

18:15-17

In fact, having just had a parable on how not to be happy in the kingdom of God. Ie there is a human delight when we think we are better than others, the previous parable has shown that that is an utter delusion. Now we get a parable on how we should be happy in the kingdom of God. We receive the kingdom like little children. People were bringing babies to Jesus for Him to bless them. The disciples tried to put a stop to this. Why? Perhaps they thought Jesus had more important things to be doing, they didn’t think these mothers should be bothering Jesus with the babies. Jesus tells them that the kingdom belongs to “such as these”. So the wisdom of the time would have said that the Pharisees were important and right with God, while the tax collector certainly was not right with God, and the babies were of little importance. Jesus turned all this on its head.

So to be happy in the kingdom we come as little children, coming with a trustful attitude, just looking to receive from God because of His goodness.

18:18-20

Well surely the rich must be in the kingdom of God? Not necessarily! A ruler came and asked Jesus what he had to do in order to inherit eternal life. The man was probably a ruler of a local synagogue, or possibly a member of the Sanhedrin. He probably had not given much thought to calling Jesus “Good” teacher, but Jesus immediately picked up on it. Why does He do this? It is to do with the qualifications for entering the kingdom. The basic requirement, without Jesus, is that we are good enough (which of course no one is), and getting the man to realise this is where the whole encounter is going. So Jesus lists a few of the Ten Commandments.

Luke 18:9-14 - Being right with God

18:9-14

Luke makes it very clear what this parable is about, it is concerned with those who look down on others, convinced of their own righteousness. A keenly emphasised theme in Luke is that Jesus came to save sinners, ie came to save the unrighteous (which includes all of us). It is worth noting that human nature hasn’t changed much in 2000 years. The “bad guy” is portrayed as a Pharisee. There seems to be something of a move these days to “rehabilitate” the Pharisees. Now they weren’t all bad, but they certainly do get a bad press in the gospels! So I think we have to assume that self-righteousness was a major problem of theirs.

The Pharisee stood in the temple thanking God that he was not like other people, robbers, evildoers and adulterers being mentioned as examples, as was a tax collector who is the other actor in the play. As well as not being overtly sinful he fasted twice a week and gave a tenth of all he earned. All this was probably true.

The tax collector humbled himself and asked God to have mercy on him, seeing himself as a sinner. And Jesus declares that it was the tax collector who went home right with God.

So what does this tell us? We must not put any trust in any imagined righteousness of our own. We are justified purely on the basis of who Jesus is and what He has done. He is our righteousness. As I have done so before, I will again warn us that this is not the whole teaching. It does not mean we spend all our lives dwelling on the fact that we are miserable sinners. Elsewhere we have had parables about the Father’s joy over sinners who repent, but we most certainly must take on board the message of this parable.

Luke 18:1-8 - Persistent prayer

18:1

We now move back to a series of parables followed by more teaching. Jesus has told them about the coming of the kingdom and how things will not go smoothly from a human perspective. Ie He may seem to be a long time coming, life will seem to be going on as normal, and there will be suffering. He now teaches them to be persistent in prayer. In the parable on money Jesus used the example of the dishonest manager to get their attention. Here he uses a widow who was, quite honestly, a pain in the neck, and an unjust judge. She made a nuisance of herself. In the earlier parable Jesus is teaching us to have a radically different attitude towards money. Here He is teaching us to have a radically different attitude towards prayer.

18:2-5

There is a judge who was not God-fearing nor concerned about people. There was also a widow who was demanding justice from some adversary or other. Being an uncaring fellow, the judge refused to help her, but she kept on and on at him. So eventually he decided to see that she did get justice. Not because of any concern for justice, nor for the woman, but because he wanted some peace and quiet.

18:6-8

So this unjust judge eventually brings justice. So how much more will God, who is perfectly just and does care for people, bring about justice and answer our prayers. The common attitude is that God is reluctant to answer prayers, or that it requires some special act on our part to persuade Him to do something. Jesus is countering this sort of thinking. If we look at Jesus’ life we see that He never had any doubt that His Father could and would answer prayers. “Will He find faith on earth?” We think the problem with unanswered prayer is that God does not want to answer, but the problem is not with God it is with our lack of faith.

Luke 17:26-37 - Judgement and the last days

17:26,27

Noah and the flood is referred to here by Jesus. It is also referenced by Peter (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5). Noah had received a clear warning from God concerning what was going to happen and had acted upon it. At the same time the rest of humanity was going about its normal business, totally oblivious to what was going to happen. Either ignoring Noah, or regarding him as a fool. Then the flood came. The final outworking of the last days will come suddenly.

17:28,29

Exactly the same lesson is derived from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Life was going on as normal then the destruction of the Lord came upon them with fire and sulphur. Note that the lessons the New Testament derives from the acts of judgment in the Old Testament is that we can be absolutely sure that judgement will come, that we need to take it with the utmost seriousness. Sadly the lesson that modern Christians often derive is that that is just Old Testament and God isn’t like that anymore. That is a very serious mistake to make.

17:30-37

Jesus draws the direct lesson that these things are all warnings of what will happen when He returns. The example of Lot’s wife is also used as a warning that it is essential that on that day God’s people act swiftly, not seeking to hold on to the things of the world. In Matthew and Mark similar instructions are applied to what the Christians should do when the fall of Jerusalem was imminent. Luke applies it more generally. This could be seen as a hole in the preterist argument that sees most or all of the end-time prophecies as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. Many, but by no means all, of the end-time prophecies had a partial fulfilment in the fall of Jerusalem in AD66-70. To see them as the complete fulfilment is an act of lunacy. Rather the partial fulfilment is a demonstration that the things prophesied for the end-times really will happen. The reality of judgement needs to be taken most seriously.

If you have KJV or NKJV you will also have v36, but the best manuscripts do not have v36.

There will be a separation, a distinction. Those who seek to preserve their own life will lose it, those who instead trust in the Lord  will preserve their life. Jesus then gives two (three if v36 is included) examples of two people who in human terms are in identical positions, but one is taken, the other left behind. Now remember that earlier on Jesus had said that the kingdom is within you, or among you. The distinction between those taken and those left behind is one of the attitude of heart.

V37 is a bit of an enigma, with Jesus’ answer not really seeming to answer the question asked. It seems that the point He is making is that judgement will certainly come and there will be many on the wrong side.

Luke 17:20-25 - Coming of the kingdom

17:20,21

The Pharisees question may, for once, have been a genuine question, rather than one designed to trap Jesus. For Jesus frequently mentioned the kingdom in His teaching, so it would be natural for them to ask “when will this kingdom come?”. Jesus answers first by pointing out erroneous thinking. The Jews were looking for relief from the Roman occupation, Jesus is effectively telling them that it is not anything like that. The kingdom “is in your midst” can be translated as “the kingdom is within you”, or “the kingdom is among you”. There are other less likely possibilities as well. The meaning may well be a mixture of these two. The people were looking for something external, for something to be done for them, such as freedom from the Romans. What they needed, and what we, need, is change within. We need change to us, not change for us. Then the reality of the kingdom was actually among them in the person of Jesus Christ. He lives his life in complete love, trust and obedience to God, which was why He was able to do what He did.

17:22-25

Jesus now turns to the disciples to teach them about the coming of the kingdom. “The days of the Son of Man”. There are various possibilities as to what this means. It could be that the disciples would long for the day when Jesus was with them here on earth. Or it could refer to the future coming of the Lord. Given the context the latter seems a little more likely. In the future the disciples, both then and now, and at various times in history, would long for Jesus to return and bring in the Kingdom in all its fulness, but that would not happen.

Motivated by emotion, many would claim that Jesus was here or was there. We need to beware of people with idea when the ideas are not motivated by Scripture, but by the flesh. Now this can happen either because the person has evil motives, or because they are misguided, carried along by emotion rather than the Spirit.

When the Son of Man does return it will be obvious to all. No degrees in theology will be required, no prophetic insight will be required. However, before all that happens He would have to suffer and be rejected, and Christians too will suffer and be rejected.

Luke 17:11-19 - The ungrateful ones

17:11-19

Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem and was passing along the border between Galilee and Samaria. We are going to get another healing example, but this time the emphasis is on the reaction of the people. In the miracle stories there has been a progression of the emphasis. Early on in the gospel the main point is the simple fact that Jesus is doing amazing miracles, and having compassion on people. Then there is emphasis on the conflict with religious leaders, especially over Sabbath healings. Here the emphasis is on those who are healed, and they don’t do much better than the Pharisees! We have a tendency to beatify the poor and downtrodden. The Bible does not do that. It does teach that God has a special concern for the poor, and that we too should have concern for the poor. And Jesus most certainly does show compassion to the poor. However, the Bible, as here, is also equally clear that the poor and downtrodden are still sinners.

The lepers called out to Jesus to heal them. Interestingly they call Jesus “master”. They also stood at a distance, something they would be used to doing. There is no record here of Jesus touching the lepers, which He has done before (Matt 8:3), rather He just tells them to go to the priests. This is something they would have to do if they were healed, so that the priest could verify that the person was clean.

The lepers obeyed Jesus’ instruction, which shows some faith in itself, there was no complaint that Jesus had not touched them. On the way they were all healed. One of them, but only one of them, returned to Jesus to express his gratitude. And this one was a Samaritan. The plight of being a leper had brought the Samaritan and the other lepers, presumably Israelites, together, despite the enmity between them. However, the salvation from their plight brought separation, it was the Samaritan who acted in a godly manner.

This is symbolic of Jesus coming into the world, but it is the Gentiles who have welcomed Him, and the Jews who have, for the most part, rejected Him. Jesus commends the man’s faith and tells him that his faith has made him well.

Luke 17:7-10 - Doing one's duty

17:7-10

What did the Pharisees and the other religious leaders of the time do? They lived their lives aiming to get the approval of men, to be looked up to by people as those who were really religious. In fact we have a deep seated human desire to seek approval. We have a desire to be recognised. If we preach, or lead worship, or have other positions within the church there is a part of us that wants approval, or even to be recognised as someone special. Jesus is countering that attitude here. We should do our duty because it is our duty and that is that. That is the attitude we need to have. If our duty is to preach or teach then we should eek to do this to the best of our abilities, and then be satisfied that we have done our duty. If our duty is to lead worship or to lead in children’s church, we should do it to the best of our abilities, and then be satisfied that we have done our duty. There are times when we can feel underappreciated because we have put in a lot of hard work, but no one has thanked us. We should be satisfied that we have done our duty.

Now, these verses are only part of Jesus’ teaching, but they are an important part and we need to take them on board. Elsewhere Jesus tells parables of faithful servants receiving a reward. Elsewhere we are told to honour one another. So we are to do these things as well. The way things work in the kingdom is like this. I am to do my duty, seeking no praise, seeking only to please the Lord. I am to value the work done by others and to honour them. if we live like this things will go well, but if we start doing things looking for praise then things can start going badly. Also, having the duty attitude encouraged here by Jesus is a powerful weapon, it makes it harder for the enemy to stop or hinder us. For one of his tactics is to make us feel disgruntled because “no one appreciates me”, then we either do things with less dedication, or even give up altogether. But if we have the “I have only done my duty” attitude, this attack will have no effect. We will carry on doing our duty, carry on building the kingdom!

In a sense all this is like money and material wealth. If we make money a goal we are in big trouble (1 Tim 6:3-10), but if we seek first the kingdom of God then He will provide all our needs. There may be times when things are hard, there may be times when we have an abundance. When we have little we will know how to carry on serving God, when we have plenty we will know how to enjoy it and receive it properly (Phil 4:11,12). Likewise with being appreciated. If we seek appreciation we are in trouble and vulnerable. If we seek to do our duty then we become mighty soldiers for Jesus. In the times when we are not appreciated it will not deter us. In the times when we do receive appreciation we will receive it aright, rejoicing in God’s goodness to us.

Luke 17:5,6 - Give us more faith!

17:5,6

In the NIV verse 1-10 are all in the same section, in ESV they are split into three sections. The importance is whether the disciples’ request that the Lord increase their faith is a general desire for more faith, or is in anyway related to the previous teaching. Ie do they just need more faith, or do they need more faith so that they can forgive people more readily. For forgiving people does require faith. It requires faith that God will look after us when we are wronged. For when we are seriously wronged it harms, or threatens to harm, our lives. It also requires faith that God will actually change some people.

Whatever the case, Jesus’ reply is that we do not actually need masses of faith, but only a little. The important thing is that we act on the faith that we do have. Now this answer would possibly imply that the question was in relation to the forgiveness teaching. For Jesus did not envisage us going around uprooting mulberry trees, that is not one of the fivefold ministries! We do need to be a forgiving people, a forgiving community. Doing this is hard, and when we do forgive we often have doubts. Have we really forgiven the person? Is it really the best thing to do? All sorts of emotional turmoil can go on inside. When we forgive we will not often feel absolutely wonderful and full of the Spirit, but more likely full of conflicting emotions. In such circumstances we should still forgive, trusting in the Lord. For we only need a mustard seed of faith, not a mountain. When we forgive we are giving the matter over to God, putting our trust in Him.

Something to think about

There has been a great furrough over Eugene Peterson’s “support” and then “retraction” of his support or otherwise for same-sex marriage. I do not wish to add any comments on this, but the first interview did highlight a feature of much of the LGBT debates within the church. In the first interview Mr Peterson said:

“now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do.”

Or consider this from a retired Church of England bishop (similar statements have been made many times)

Church of England 'not listening to gay Christians', say retired bishops

Now let me change both these statements:

“now I know a lot of people who are adulterers and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do.”

Church of England 'not listening to adulterous Christians', say retired bishops

How do you react? Maybe you think what I have done is offensive, if so why do you think that? Maybe you just think, what a couple of absurd statements, but think the the first two are quite reasonable. Again, why do you think that?

Now, of course, any hatred against people, LGBT or otherwise, is wrong, and any incitement of violence is utterly wrong, but behind the first two statements is the implicit assumption that homosexual acts are not sinful, are not forbidden by the Bible.

We need to be aware of presuppositions behind arguments, especially when the presuppositions are false.

Luke 17:1-4 - Causing others to sin and forgiveness

17:1,2

How do we respond to sin in our own lives and in the lives of others? In this teaching Jesus addresses these questions. First of all, there is no point in hoping that we, or they, will never sin. “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come”. From time to time a “sinless perfection” teaching arises in the church, this is always an erroneous teaching. So we need to face up to the fact that sin will happen, it will happen in me and it will happen in you. The human reaction is often to somehow rejoice in the failings of others, thinking their failure somehow makes me less guilty. Jesus tells us here that our first concern should be to seek to ensure that we are not the instrument that causes someone else to sin. It is a terrible thing to cause someone else to stumble. This could come as judgement, or it could be the realisation of the consequences of our actions. “little ones” perhaps implies that Jesus is thinking primarily of new believers.

17:3,4

So we are to keep a watch on what we do. So often we cause trouble because we “weren’t thinking”, we need to think more! So what do we do if a fellow Christian sins against us, as will happen? We rebuke them. Now does this mean we rebuke every little sin? I think not, we need to take all of Scripture into account. Sometimes we should just overlook small things, and we should not be quick to take offence. However, there are times when we do need to rebuke someone. If they repent, ie admit their guilt and seek to change, then we should forgive them. This is the case even if they fail and repent on numerous occasions.

But isn’t this giving licence to sin, we may ask? Well, these words are directed to the one sinned against. So if we are sinned against then we need to have an attitude of forgiveness, but note that the rebuking, repenting and forgiving does not mean pretending that sin does not matter. To the person who keeps on sinning Jesus would have other things to say,  But if someone repents, even after many failures, Jesus sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to pay for that sin. We should also note that elsewhere Jesus has different things to say about someone who refuses to admit their guilt (Matt 18:17).

Luke 16:25-31 - Not listening

16:25,26

We should remember that this is a parable, so should be wary if reading too many doctrinal details into the account. Abraham reminds the rich man that in his lifetime he received many good things, but Lazarus received bad things. Now the situation was reversed. So does this mean that the rich automatically go to hell and the poor to heaven? No. In fact, Abraham, who is in heaven in this parable, was a rich man. It is what we do with our lives that counts. If we have wealth but use it only for selfish purposes, or make an idol out of it, then we are indeed in trouble.

Then the man is told that there is a great chasm, an uncrossable divide. There is a final judgement coming, and we need to live our lives in the light of that coming judgement. None of this is in the context of earning our salvation, but is in the context of how we should live our lives. To live our lives as though this is it is pure foolishness. we need to have an eternal perspective. And that most definitely does not mean that what we do here doesn’t matter, quite the opposite, it means that what we do here has eternal significance.

16:27-31

The rich man accepts his plight, but then pleads for a warning to be sent to his brothers so that they can avoid the same fate. Interestingly he still asks for Lazarus to be sent. But there was no need for this, there was Moses and the Prophets, ie all of the Old Testament. The rich man is unconvinced, just as many today claim that God does not provide enough evidence for His existence. This is not true, and the rich man’s assessment of the situation was not true. If they did not believe Moses and the Prophets, they would not even be convinced by someone rising from the dead. We do not realise how stubborn our hearts are, it takes a work of grace to awaken our spirits, otherwise we remain dead in our sins.

There is ample evidence that we live in a designed universe. Malcolm Muggeridge said “the depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact”. There is absolutely no problem with God not having provided enough evidence, the problem lies entirely with our own blindness.

Luke 16:19-24 - A touch of conscious torment

16:19-21

We then return to a more conventional parable. There was a rich man dressed in purple and fine lined, both symbols of wealth. The man lived a life of luxury. A beggar was laid at his gate each day. Rather unusually in a parable, the beggar is given a name. Perhaps this is to signify that he is considered to be important by Jesus. The beggar was in great need. It doesn’t say so explicitly, but the implication seems to be that the rich man did not give him anything.

16:22-24

Both the rich man and the beggar died, the beggar was carried up to “Abraham’s side”. The Talmud mentions “Abraham’s side” as a term for heaven. Note the implication that Abraham is alive. The rich man is buried and resides in Hades. Note also that he was in torment. Now there are debates about whether hell means eternal conscious torment, or whether there is a period of punishment followed by annihilation, or some variation on this theme.This parable would seem to lend support to the conscious torment view, though one must be careful of reading too much into parables. At least one aspect of the torment was that the rich man saw Lazarus at Abraham’s side, while he was suffering in hell. So he called out to Abraham to have pity on him, and send Lazarus to help him. Note that he still sees Lazarus as somehow inferior to himself! One might have thought that the fact that he was in Hades, while Lazarus was in heaven might have given him a clue as to the true nature of things, but apparently it didn’t.

Luke 16:13-18 - Various teachings

16:13-15

The Pharisees had been listening to all this, and Jesus knew this. We cannot serve two masters, we must serve God, not money. What we serve has an effect on our heart, as does what we love. It is so important that we love properly, and so we must love God above all else.

The Pharisees sneered at Jesus, but Jesus knew what was in their hearts. They sought to justify themselves in the eyes of men, instead of seeking to earn God’s approval. “What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight”. So many religious leaders today totally ignore this and make it their goal to please men. Doing so will not end well.

16:16-18

We get here a couple of random statements about the gospel, that don’t seem to fit into the immediate context. The Law and the prophets represent essentially all of the Old Testament. Then came John the Baptist who acted as a kind of bridge between the old and the new.  “everyone is forcing their way into it” is a statement that no one seems to really know what it means. For one thing, while many welcomed the good news, there were also many who rejected it. Perhaps we should understand it together with verse 17. The “old testament” - John the Baptist - good news progression is a continuum. Jesus and the good news do not do away with the Law at all. This does not mean that we have to obey its ceremonial requirements, or the details of the law that were particular to Israel, but the concept of righteousness has not been lessened at all. Yet today we see many claiming they are being consistent with Jesus and the gospel when they advocate all sorts of unrighteousness.

Then Jesus gives a very strong support for marriage. Here we just get a very terse statement, in Matthew and Mark much more context is given, and you can see my comments there on Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12. Perhaps Luke includes it here as an example of the requirements of the Law not being lessened in the least.