LifeCoach4God

Book Review on Tim Keller’s King’s Cross

Highlights of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark by Dr. David P. Craig

King’s Cross is a study of the Gospel of Mark designed for both followers of Christ and would-be followers of Christ. Tim Keller’s expertise is that he is always able to take a passage of Scripture and show how it’s all about Jesus. The Bible is not about us, but always finds its purpose in every story in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This work is not an exhaustive study of the Gospel of Mark, rather it highlights the two primary themes of Mark: Chapters 1-8 – Christ the King – highlighting His teachings, miracles, and authority as God ; and Chapters 9-16 – Christ the Servant – highlighting His sufferings that culminate in His death on the cross.

Keller throughout this book manages to weave in and out how Jesus is the answer to all of the major questions, needs, and realities of life. This book is an excellent reminder for the Christian that all of life only makes sense with Jesus at the center of it. For the non-believer Keller makes a cogent case for the necessity of Christ in his or her life. King’s Cross would be an excellent gift to give to college students, co-workers, friends, acquaintances, and family members who are unfamiliar with the main story lines of the Bible.

The gospel in the life of Jesus is presented clearly, articulately, and compellingly in this concise presentation of Mark’s Gospel. The Gospel of Mark gives more than just information about Jesus. It is the account of the person that every human being longs for. We all desperately need Jesus and Keller brilliantly shows us why. One cannot read this book without desiring to have a deeper connection with the Triune God through a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Friday Humor: “The Man Who Never Sinned”

Series: Friday Humor #13

A man walked up to Pastor Ray Stedman and said, “you know pastor I have come to the amazing realization that in all my life I have never sinned.” Ray responded “wow you must be very proud of that huh?” The man beamed “yes I am.” Ray looked him over and said “Welcome to your first sin.”

This story reminds us of the teaching about pride in Proverbs 16:8, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

James Montgomery Boice on the Distinction Between the Rapture and the Lord’s Day

Two Great Days: The Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ

What The Bible Has To Say About The Future: Part 3 in a Series of 9 – By Dr. James M. Boice

To the people of the ancient east the stars had great significance. They were the means by which people determined the hours of the night and the seasons of the year. The morning star was particularly important for it heralded the rising of the sun and the coming of a new day. The Lord Jesus Christ is our morning star, according to the book of Revelation (Revelation 22:16). He is coming. The dark night of human history may be long and filled with grim terrors, but the Daystar is coming and with Him the dawning of a new age.

We will consider the importance of this theme in biblical prophecy, to distinguish between two important aspects of Christ’s coming under the descriptive phrases “the day of the Lord” and “the day of Jesus Christ,” and to develop the relevance of the theme of the Lord’s return.

A Prominent Doctrine

It is unfortunate that in our day the second coming of Jesus Christ has faded to a remote and sometimes irrelevant doctrine in the opinion of many persons, even, it seems, within large segments of the evangelical church. That may be true in part because many extravagant, foolish, and utterly unscriptural teachings have been linked to the doctrine of the Lord’s return. But that has been true of all biblical doctrines at some point of history, and that alone should not deter us from seeking to appreciate a theme which is prominent in the Word of God.

How prominent is this doctrine? In the New Testament 1 verse in 25 deals with the Lord’s return. It is mentioned 318 times in the 260 chapters of the New Testament. It occupies a prominent place in the Old Testament, inasmuch as the greater part of the prophecies concerning the coming of Christ in the Old Testament deal, not with His first advent in which He died as our sin-bearer, but with His second advent in which He is to rule as King. The return of Jesus Christ is mentioned in every one of the New Testament books except Galatians (which deals with a particular problem that had emerged within the churches of Galatia) and the very short books of the New Testament such as 2 and 3 John and Philemon.

The various New Testament writers obviously believed in the Lord’s return. Mark traced the origins of his belief to the very words of Jesus. The first reference to the return of Jesus in Mark occurs in chapter 8. There is recorded Peter’s great confession of faith – “You are the Christ” – which was in turn the occasion of a greater revelation by Christ of the most important events that were to come in His ministry. First, He foretold His death and resurrection. He spoke of discipleship. Then, at the very end of the chapter, He spoke of His coming again. Jesus said, “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 13, where Jesus outlined what would come in the last days, is also full of this doctrine. Jesus spoke of the horror of the days immediately preceding His return, then added, “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” At this point the discourse moved on to teach that the disciples should be watching for this return; Jesus emphasized the point by an illustration: “It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awake — for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning– lest he come suddenly and find you asleep” (34-36).

Finally, this doctrine is mentioned in the account of Christ’s trial before the Jewish high priest (Mark 14). Jesus answered a question about whether or not He was the Messiah by saying, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). Here are three expressions of the truth of Christ’s return in a book which most scholars consider to be the oldest of the four gospels.

In the other three gospels the same doctrine is prominent. Matthew and Luke repeated most of the sayings about the second coming given by Mark, sometimes with additions and variations, and John added others. For instance, John recorded a number of lengthy farewell discourses given by Jesus just before His crucifixion. In one of these Jesus declared, “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John 14:1-3). Christ’s return is also referred to in the last chapter of John’s gospel, in the record of Jesus’ conversation with Peter after His resurrection. The reference is incidental to Jesus’ point, but is all the more authentic on that account. Jesus had been encouraging Peter to faithfulness in discipleship, but Peter with his usual impetuosness turned and saw John. He asked Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” (John 21:21-22). John himself then points out that although many of the Christians of his day had interpreted that to mean that John would not die until Christ came back, that was not what Jesus had said. He had said only that even if that were the case, it should not affect Peter’s call to faithful service.

In all four gospels, then, there are unmistakable quotations from Jesus Christ to the effect that He would return to this earth a second time in glory, and these are quoted in such a way that we cannot doubt that the early church believed that these promises were to be fulfilled literally and in detail, possibly within its lifetime.

Paul’s letters are also full of this doctrine. To the church at Thessalonica he wrote, “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). To the Philippians Paul wrote: “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Philippians 3:2–21).

Peter called the return of Jesus Christ our “living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3). Paul called it our “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13), John declared with conviction: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him” (Rev. 1:7a). The same author ended the New Testament with the words, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).

In these verses and in many others the early Christians expressed their belief in a personal return of Jesus Christ, a return which would be the first of the unfolding events prophesied in the end time. The return of Jesus would be associated with a time of great wickedness on earth, the resurrection and transformation of their own bodies, an earthly rule of Jesus, and a final concluding judgment upon all men and nations. They comforted themselves with these truths in the midst of persecution or some while attempting to live their lives on a moral plane that would be honoring to the returning One.

The Day of the Lord

In the picture I have just presented, however, two important ideas have been merged. Therefore, to paint the prophetic picture for the end times in clearer detail and to have a basis for understanding some of the most important New Testament prophesies we must distinguish between them.

The first idea is associated with the phrase “the day of the Lord.” This phrase is quite prominent in the Old Testament, but it occurs frequently in the New Testament too, even in the context of some of the passages I have been quoting. This phrase is a technical phrase used initially by the Old Testament prophets to designate a future period of catastrophic judgment. Literally, it the day of Jehovah, the day in which Jehovah will break silence and intervene in history to judge Israel and the Gentile nations. The characteristics of this day can be seen in the following quotations:

“For the LORD of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up–and it shall be brought low” (Isaiah 2:12).

“Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!…Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light” (Isaiah 13:6, 9-10).

“Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light, as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him. Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?” (Amos 5:18-20).

It is obvious from the reference to the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars that this is the event referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24, where Jesus taught that He would exercise judgment. It is also the event of which Peter spoke when he wrote,

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed” (2 Peter 3:10).

In the liturgy of the church this is expressed by the Dies Irae, which means the day of the wrath of God. From an examination of these and other texts (Jer. 46:10; Lam. 2:22; Ezek. 30:3ff.; Joel 1:15; 2:1-11; 3:14-16; Zeph. 1:7-2:3; Zech. 14:1-7; Mal. 4:5) several things are clear.

First, the day of the Lord is the day of God’s judgment.
Second, the day is still future.
Third, it is preceded by a time of great trouble on earth.
Fourth, it is followed by the earthly rule of the Messiah.
Fifth, it has nothing to do with the church of Jesus Christ, for the church is not in these prophecies and was, in fact, completely unknown to the Old Testament writers who compiled them.

To be sure, as Kenneth S. Wuest, who summarized much of the data in his collection of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, observed, “Some of the references to the day of the Lord in the Old Testament have a fulfillment in the past, and are precursors of the day of the Lord to follow (Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966, p. 35]). But that does not alter the fact that the strict fulfillment of most of these prophecies awaits a future day.

That day is coming. The disasters of this life — pestilence, famine, wars, natural catastrophes — are only little judgments which come in the most part from man’s activities. When the day of God’s wrath is revealed, these things will pale by comparison, and no one who is not united to Christ by faith will be able to stand against Him.

No one can be sure of defending himself even from man-made destruction. For instance, there is an extensive military radar network called DEW line (Distant Early Waning), which stretches across the North American Continent. This line of defense has cost the United States billions of dollars. It was designed to limit to a minimum the breakthrough of Soviet long-range bombers coming to wreak nuclear destruction on the United States; but today it is outmoded by missiles. Man can never defend himself adequately against the possibility of future destruction.

Thus, too, does he stand before God. Man has run away from God, and God has pursued him. God came to die for him in Jesus Christ. God has warned us of judgment — distant warnings and near warnings, early warnings, and late warnings — and He has warned us that He can penetrate any defense which we may try to throw up against Him. Man stands naked before God. The day of judgment is near. If you are not yet a believer, let me encourage you to turn to Christ. Martin Luther looked at this day and wrote for those of his time:

Great God, what do I see and hear!

The end of things created!

The Judge of mankind doth appear

On clouds of glory seated!

The trumpet sounds, the graves restore

The dead which they contained before:

Prepare, my soul, to meet him.

If you are a believer in Christ, let me encourage you to look up and be faithful to Him.

The Day of Christ (The Rapture)

The second major idea is associated with the phrase “the day of Jesus Christ.” That is not the same as “The day of the Lord.” The day of Jesus Christ is a happy day rather than a day of judgment. Moreover, far from warning men to fear it, the New Testament actually speaks of it as an event to be warmly anticipated. Christians are to be ready and watching, and they are to encourage one another because of it.

What is the nature of this day? The clearest answer to this question is in the verses already quoted from Paul’s first letter to the Christians at Thessalonica. They were in sorrow over certain of their number who had died, and Paul wrote to them to comfort them with the thought that they would see their departed friends once again at the day of Jesus Christ. He describes it thus:

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

Quite obviously, this day does not concern Christ’s earthly rule. It is an aspect of His coming to draw believers out of this world to Himself. He will come in the air and gather His church up to meet Him, first those who have died and then — almost in the same instant — those who are living.

Jesus described this event, also stressing its unexpected and selective nature:

“Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (Matthew 24:40-42).

In biblical theology this event is generally called the rapture. It is the first in the whole series of events prophesied for the end times. It is possible that at this point some of this teaching has become confusing. So let me elaborate upon the distinction between the day of Jesus Christ and the day of the Lord by looking at the way the Apostle Paul dealt with a similar confusion in his day.

Wherever he went, Paul apparently preached the full body of Christian doctrine as it had been revealed to him. And that included, quite naturally, the doctrine of the Lord’s imminent return to be followed, after certain events, by God’s judgment. These events included persecution and great tribulation. We know that this doctrine had been accepted by the church at Thessalonica, for Paul alluded to it in his first letter, reminding the Christians there that they were to be comforted by the doctrine of the Lord’s return in face of the death of their friends. Some time after he had written this letter, however, a time of persecution broke out in the church at Thessalonica. Because the persecution seemed terrible and intense, someone began to teach that the persecutions were those leading to the day of the Lord, with its ultimate judgements, and that the Christians in Thessalonica, therefore, had missed the rapture. The Thessalonians may actually have received a letter purporting to be from Paul which affirmed this idea (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

News of their distress reached Paul, and he immediately wrote to the Thessalonians again, attempting to explain the meaning of their present persecution assuring them that they had not missed the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ for those who believe in Him. First, he dealt with the meaning of present persecution. This occupies the first chapter. Then, in the second chapter, he begins to deal with the view that Christians might already be going through days of tribulation.

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5).

Paul’s main points clearly were that the present suffering of the Christians at Thessalonica was not the tribulation prophesied in the Old Testament and taught by himself, that the final tribulation would not come until after the Christians were caught up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air, therefore, that the coming of Christ rather than the final judgment should be uppermost in the minds of believers.

(Note: There is a view in prophetic theology known at “posttribulationism.” According to this view, the church of Jesus Christ will go through the great tribulation, after which Jesus will return for those believers who are remaining. In reply, it is enough to note that, although the church has gone through periods of great persecution in the past and undoubtedly may go through intense persecutions before Christ’s return, nevertheless, the view of a posttribulation rapture is impossible for the simple reason that it makes meaningless the very argument that Paul was presenting in the Thessalonian letters. Paul was arguing for the imminence of Christ’s return. That is to be a major source of comfort for suffering believers. If Christ will not come until after the great tribulation [that is, a specific time of unusual and intense suffering still in the future], then the return of the Lord is not imminent and tribulation rather than deliverance is what we must anticipate. In view of the Bible’s message we must be careful not to adopt any view which turns our minds from Christ. If anything must occur before we see Christ personally, then the anticipation of that event will turn our eyes from Him to it. We may even guess that Satan will try to turn the believers’ eyes from Christ to events or signs that are supposed to precede Him and we should be warned accordingly).

All these themes will be treated in later articles, but even at this point we need to note the importance of the two events which Paul says must take place before the day of God’s judgment. The second event is the appearance of one whom he calls “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:3). This person will attempt to centralize all human worship in himself, and will actually sit in the temple at Jerusalem, claiming that he is God. Since that has not happened, says Paul, the day of the Lord is yet future.

The first event that must take place before the day of the Lord comes is called “the falling away” in the Authorized Version of the Bible (2 Thess. 2:3). This is an unfortunate translation. The basis for this translation lies in the fact that elsewhere in the Bible a time of great apostasy or “falling away” from true Christian doctrine is prophesied for the time preceding the Lord’s return. Although this is true in itself, however, it is not the meaning of the Greek word here. The word apostasia, preceded by the definite article. Apostasia has given us our word “apostasy,” but the word itself simply means “a departure.” In a context where the truth or falsity of doctrine is in view, the word would naturally mean, “a departure from true doctrine” or “apostasy.” But here, where the issue is the past or future coming of Jesus Christ for his saints and where a particular event is specified by the use of the article, the word can mean equally well “the departure of believers to be with Jesus” or “the rapture.”

In Kenneth S. Wuest’s study, referred to earlier, these following additional facts are elaborated. Apostasia occurs in the New Testament only twice. But it is based on the verb aphistemi which occurs fifteen times. Eleven times it is translated “depart,” never “a falling away.” Unfortunately, most of the English versions follow the leading of the Authorized text (The ESV translates apostasia as “rebellion”). But it is significant that in the versions that precede the publication of the King James Bible — those of Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), Cranmer (1539), and the Geneva Bible (1560) — apostasia was translated as “departure,” and the reference was obviously to the much-anticipated rapture of God’s saints.

It is worth pointing out that precisely the same order of events is presented in 1 Thessalonians. Once again the two different days — the day of the Lord and the day of Jesus Christ — are in view, as well as two distinct classes of people. The day of the Lord is a day that should concern unbelievers. Paul speaks of this group as “they” and “them.” The day of Jesus Christ is for believers only. Paul speaks of this class as “us” and “you.”

“For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief…So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober…For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, 6, 9).

Paul’s teaching clearly indicates that the rapture, “the day of Jesus Christ,” must come first. Then will come the unfolding of the other events of prophecy, beginning with a period of great tribulation and continuing though Christ’s return to earth to judge Israel and the nations, the millennium, the final judgment, and a complete transition from the life of this world to the life of eternity.

These are the two greatest days of future world history — the day of Jesus Christ and the day of the Lord. Every man who has ever lived must stand before the Lord Jesus Christ on one of these two days. Which will it be in your case? Will it be the day of the Lord with its judgments? Or will it be the day of Jesus Christ with the joy of seeing Him and the glorification and rewarding of believers? Believers wait only for the coming of Jesus Christ, and they rejoice, knowing that this the next event in the unfolding of God’s prophetic timetable.

A Practical Doctrine

Thus far in our study of the return of Jesus Christ we have dealt with the importance of the doctrine of the New Testament books and with the precise meaning of His return as it is related to the catching away of believers first and to God’s judgment. It would be wrong to stop at this point, however, for we must go on to see that the doctrine of the Lord’s return is practical. In other words, it should have a bearing on our lives.

(1) First of all, the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ should be an incentive to godly living. That is the point Jesus Himself made when talking about His return in Matthew 24. The chapter is filled with imperatives: “See that no one leads you astray” (v. 4); “See that you are not alarmed” (v. 6), “flee to the mountains” (v. 16); “pray” (v. 20); “do not believe it” (vv. 23, 26); “learn” (v. 32); “know” (v. 33). Jesus concluded with the warning, “Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Matthew 24:44). The apostle John, who undoubtedly heard the Lord on this occasion, later made the identical point in one of his letters, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who this hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).

This thought should affect every aspect of your personal life — your prayer life, your choices in the area of ethics and morals, even your social concerns. Lord Shaftesbury, the great English social reformer and a mature Christian, said near the end of his life, “I do not think that in the last forty years I have ever lived one conscious hour that was not influenced by the thought of our Lord’s return.” In his case, the expectation of meeting Jesus was undoubtedly one of the strongest motives behind his social programs.

Are you looking for Christ’s return? In an earlier study of this same subject I once wrote:

If you are motivated by prejudice against other Christians or others in general, whether they are black or white, rich or poor, cultured or culturally naive, or whatever they may be–then the return of Jesus Christ has not made its proper impression on you. If you are contemplating some sin, perhaps a dishonest act in business, perhaps trifling with sex outside marriage, perhaps cheating on your income tax return–then the return of Jesus Christ has not made its proper impression on you. If your life is marked by a contentious, divisive spirit in which you seek to tear down the work of another person instead of building it up–then the return of Jesus Christ has not made its proper impression on you. If you first protect your own interests and neglect to give food, water, or nothing to the needy as we are instructed to do in Christ’s name–then the return of Jesus Christ has not made its proper impression on you (James Montgomery Boice, Philippians: An Expositional Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971], p. 249).

(2) The second result of a belief in the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ should be an effort on our part to comfort Christians who are suffering, particularly those who are suffering the close loss of a friend or relative. We have already seen how the Apostle Paul did this in the case of his friends at Thessalonica. They suffered persecution. They had lost friends through death. Paul wrote to them, reminding them of the blessed hope of Christians. He then observed, “Therefore encourage one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

Dr. R.A. Torrey, a former president of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) and a great Bible teacher, wrote along the same line: “Time and again in writing those who have lost for a time those whom they love, I have obeyed God’s commandment and used the truth of our Lord’s return to comfort them, and many have told me afterwards how full of comfort this truth has proven when everything else has failed” (R.A. Torrey, The Return of the Lord Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966], p. 15). The return of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one doctrine with which God commands us to comfort suffering saints.

(3) Finally, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ should make us more and more energetic in evangelism. If it is true that the Lord is coming, then it is not true, as scoffers say, that all things will “continue as they were from the beginning” (2 Peter 3:4). The end is in sight. The days for evangelism are numbered. Is it not a lesson for our own time that, when the disciples began to ask Jesus Christ for specific details of the time of His coming after His resurrection and before His ascension, He brushed their requests aside and instead reiterated the church’s great commission to evangelize throughout the duration of this age? They were not to look for a precise timetable. They were to go into the world with the Gospel.

He said to them “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).

These were Jesus’ last words on earth. The next words we hear may well be the question: “How well have you carried out my commission?”

James Montgomery Boice, Th.D., (July 7, 1938 – June 15, 2000) was a Reformed theologian, Bible teacher, and pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia from 1968 until his death. He is heard on The Bible Study Hour radio broadcast and was a well-known author and speaker in evangelical and Reformed circles. He also served as Chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy for over ten years and was a founding member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.James Boice was one of my favorite Bible teachers. Thankfully – many of his books and expositions of Scripture are still in print and more are becoming available. He was one of only a handful of reformed theologians that was premillennial in his eschatology (Steven J. Lawson, John MacArthur, Erwin W. Lutzer, S. Lewis Johnson, Rodney Stordtz, John Hannah and John Piper also come to mind). However, what makes him really unique is that he was not Historic Premillennial – but leaned Dispensational (Held to a pre-tribulation rapture) as well. This article was adapted from Chapter Three in one of the first of James Boice’s plethora of books, and is entitled: The Last and Future World, Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1974 (currently out of print). This book is based on 9 sermons that Dr. Boice preached at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia in 1972. Though this book was written almost 40 years ago – it is just as relevant as when it was first written since many of the prophecies taught in the Scriptures and addressed by Dr. Boice in this book have yet to be fulfilled. Scripture verses are quoted from the more modern English Standard Version – DPC.

The Ten Commandments of Mentoring

PAUL D. STANLEY AND J. ROBERT CLINTON ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF MENTORING

Not all mentoring relationships work out well. Sometimes you both expect more than what happens. Occasionally your relationship sags in the middle. Sometimes it drifts off and never finishes. The mentoring relationship can disappoint. You may not know what to do to repair it or improve it. Even so, you almost always gain some empowerment. Learning the hard way, you discover some practical guidelines that can help improve your mentoring. We could list many important guidelines that would help you in specific mentoring relationships. In this article we will describe some common ones that we found helpful for Intensive and Occasional mentoring situations. May you will add new ones, but these are good for starters.

COMMANDMENT 1: RELATIONSHIP

The stronger the relationship, the greater the empowerment. In all dimensions of the Constellation Model-vertical and lateral – relationships are vital. Sometimes mentoring relationships just happen and develop in a natural way. Others take time and are more deliberate. Compatibility and chemistry are true advantages, especially for co-mentoring. Most relationships will not grow to an intimate level, and not all need to. But it is important to keep in mind that you need to continue to develop the relationship.

COMMANDMENT 2: PURPOSE

Sometimes mentoring proves disappointing. This disappointment can frequently be traced back to differing or unfulfilled expectations. We find that expectations should be expressed, negotiated, and agreed upon at the beginning of a mentoring relationship. Commandments two through eight all deal with important areas of expectations. Along with expectations, you need to discuss and mutually affirm the purpose or basic aims of the mentoring relationship.

COMMANDMENT 3: REGULARITY

Disappointments can arise from differing expectations as to regularity of meetings between the mentor and mentoree. Some mentors may have in mind less frequent times together, while growing mentorees may envision more time together. It is better to talk this over and set some ground rules both for regular meeting times and for impromptu interactions. Availability for impromptu times always facilitates the development of the relationship, but there could be conflict with competing time demands if the mentor is heavily engaged in other priorities. Clarify these issues early on in the relationship. Intensive mentoring probably works best with at least once-a-week contact either face-to-face or by phone. Regularity may vary if the mentoree is a self-starter or a person with heavy responsibilities.

COMMANDMENT 4: ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability or mutual responsibility is an important mentoring dynamic. Again, it usually does not just happen. You must plan for it. Agree together on how you will establish and monitor mentoring tasks. The heart of empowerment lies not only in what the mentor shares with the mentoree but also in the tasks the mentor gives to the mentoree. You must complete the tasks in order to benefit. Accountability is the prod to make sure this happens, because change is difficult and rarely takes place without it. It can occur many ways: written reports, scheduled phone calls, probing questions during meetings, or a planned evaluation time. What a mentor likes to see is a mentoree who takes responsibility to see that accountability takes place. The mentoree’s self-initiative in accountability speeds and enhances empowerment.

COMMANDMENT 5: COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS

Frequently mentors see something in a mentoree that needs correction or about which they feel concern. How and when to communicate this is important to clarify early in a mentor relationship. This is particularly important among peers, who are more apt to hold one another accountable in personal areas. As mentors, we have always asked our mentorees, “If I see or learn of an area of need or concern for you – and it may be negative – how and when do you want me to communicate it to you?” It is important to discover timing and procedure so that when the opportunity comes for correction and challenge (and it will!), we are ready for it and can anticipate a mature response. When peers commit to each other, this is important for them to discuss when they make a covenant. A mentoree can also initiate this as he or she is in a place to learn, grow, and respond to challenge by the mentor.

COMMANDMENT 6: CONFIDENTIALITY

Commandments five and six have to do with communication. Five concerns communication between mentor and mentoree, and six concerns communication outside the mentoring relationship. The mentoring relationship, if it deepens, may involve a sharing of personal matters between mentor and mentoree. It may be that one or both of them do not want these things conveyed to those outside the relationship. Several factors influence the level of confidentiality. One factor involves the personalities of both mentor and mentoree. Some people are more vulnerable, and others are less vulnerable. Some are not concerned that others know the deeper issues of their lives, while others feel threatened by the thought that someone may find out about their personal concerns. They may not even want their age known. A mentoring relationship must honor the participants’ personalities and feelings about confidentiality. You will have to explore this with each individual mentoring relationship you set up. In counseling, you should consider all things confidential and not to be shared with others without permission. For other mentoring relationships, you both need to make it clear when something you share should be treated as confidential. Such a simple statement to each other will free you to speak openly and may save much grief later on.

COMMANDMENT 7: LIFE CYCLES OF MENTORING

Periods of mentoring vary in length of time for empowerment to happen. You should realize this and set reasonable time lengths for the type of mentoring you are involved in. Avoid open-ended mentorships. When you enter a mentoring relationship, do not expect it to last forever. In fact, we prefer breaking up potentially long mentoring experiences into obvious or logical segments, so that at each juncture closure can be made if desired. If you assume that the given purposes and accountability measures will take six months, set up a smaller goal of three months with evaluation. Then both of you can back out without losing face if the mentoring relationship does not meet your expectations. On the other hand, if it goes well you can continue the relationship and set up a new evaluation point. Better to have short periods, evaluation, and closure points with the possibility of reentry than have a sour relationship for a long time that each fears terminating. In summary, here are the basic guidelines: Set realistic time limits. Have exit points where both parties can leave without bad relations. Have open doors where the invitation to continue can be open. Recognize the necessity of a time limit in any mentoring situation.

COMMANDMENT 8: EVALUATION

No mentoring relationship is ideal. Expectations are seldom totally realized. From time to time the mentoring relationship should be evaluated. Wise mentors will use the three dynamic factors (attraction, responsiveness, accountability) and empowerment to help them evaluate the ongoing state of the mentoring venture. This allows for mid-course corrections. Evaluation is dominantly a mentor function. Mentorees will sense growth but will not have the perspective to effectively evaluate; therefore, a joint evaluation is best. In fact, in preparing for mentoring sessions it is a good idea for the mentor to review the whole process and see where progress has been made, where there are problems, and what should be done at the present juncture to improve the mentoring. The following is an example of the evaluation steps we suggest:

Step 1: Mentor evaluates first, on his own.

Lacks attention
Little prayer
Assignments not really on target
Interest is flagging
Ready to go on
Need to redefine

Step 2: Mentor initiates appropriate self-correction

Step 3: Evaluate and discuss – mentor and mentoree

Step 4: Mutual agreement to redefine or modify expectations

COMMANDMENT 9: EXPECTATIONS

Commandments eight and nine are two sides of the same coin. While evaluation, commandment eight, is mainly the responsibility of the mentor, expectation, commandment nine, is mainly the responsibility of the mentoree. Expectations are the root of most disappointing mentoring experiences. The basic rule that can offset missed expectations is a simple one: Use evaluation and feedback to modify your expectations so that they fit your real-life mentoring situation. Recognize that you will seldom reach ideal expectations, because real-life situations have complexities you cannot always anticipate. But you will probably reach realistic expectations. After a time of mentoring, modify what you ideally hoped for down to what is most likely going to happen. Recognize that there will be empowerment and rejoice in that. Lack of meeting ideal expectations does not have to be the source of dissatisfaction in mentoring.

COMMANDMENT 10: CLOSURE

A basic rule in planning passed around more and more is, “Begin with the end in mind.” All mentoring should follow this basic notion. Closure has to do with bringing a satisfactory end to a mentoring experience. Vertical mentoring that has no clear end in mind will usually dwindle to nothing with uneasy feelings on the part of both people. Vertical mentoring is not intended to be an ongoing experience. A happy ending for a mentoring experience involves closure, in which both parties evaluate, recognize how and where empowerment has occurred, and mutually end the mentoring relationship. What frequently happens in successfully closed mentoring is an ongoing friendship that allows for occasional mentoring and future interweaving of lives as needed. So then, don’t forget this final commandment: “Bring closure to the mentoring relationship.” This is probably the most violated of all the commandments, and the most detrimental. Even unsuccessful mentoring experiences should have closure.

LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES

Both of us have become increasingly involved in mentoring over the past years. Perhaps you can profit from some of our mistakes. We certainly have! Here are five mistakes to avoid.

1. Don’t be too dominant in establishing the purpose of the mentoring relationship. Draw the mentoree into it for his or her motivation, ownership, and appropriate focus.

2. Do not give out too many tasks too early. Let the mentoree set the pace.

3. Watch out for midway relational “sag.” The mentoring relationship tends to lose its original zest at about the midpoint. Ensure that the mentoree makes bite-size progress, and keep frequent contact.

4. Assess and select mentorees carefully. Check motivation, responsiveness, and right timing.

5. Be careful of “weak closure” and sloppy accountability. Be faithful to the mentoree during the mentoring experience, and end well.

Article adapted from Chapter 13 in Paul D Stanley and Robert Clinton. Connecting: The Mentoring Relationships You Need to Succeed. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1992.

Tim Keller on What Motivates Obedience to God

“The Battle for the Heart” – Series: Splendor in the Furnace – 1 Peter, Part 1—October 31, 1993

1 Peter 1:13–21

¹³Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. ¹⁴As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. ¹⁵But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; ¹⁶for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” ¹⁷Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.

¹⁸For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, ¹⁹but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. ²⁰He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. ²¹Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

What we’re looking at and what we have been looking at is the subject of holiness. We said the passage Peter quotes from out of the Old Testament, out of the book of Leviticus, “… be ye holy, because I am holy,” takes the main Hebrew word for holiness in the Bible, the word qadowsh, which means to cut, to cut it off, to separate. We said when holiness refers to God, what it means is he’s off our scales. He’s transcendently above us. He’s not like anything we can imagine.

However, we also said when you apply the word holy to us (what is a holy person), what it means is we are set apart. We’re separated unto God. That’s a religious sounding word. You sang about it tonight. Did you notice that in your first song, “You Have Called Us?”

We are a chosen race

A royal priesthood by your grace

We are a holy nation, set apart

We said last week if you want a real trite illustration of what it means to be holy, just imagine yourself reading a newspaper. You’re reading it, getting information, and as you’re reading through it suddenly there is one article with some information you can use. You want to use it in a sales pitch. You want to use it in a paper. You want to use it in a promotion. You want to use it. The only way to use it is to set it apart. You have to cut it out of the paper. You have to set it apart from the newspaper. Why?

If you don’t do that, you can’t use it. To cut something out, to set it apart for your use, is exactly what the Bible means when it talks about being holy. Every week we’ll come back to this and look at it from another perspective. To be a holy person is not at all what people popularly think. At the worst, the word holy is a terrible word in modern English now. When we use the word holy we almost always mean something imperious, something inaccessible maybe. We use the word holy to refer to “holier than thou,” condescending and self-righteous.

At the very best, people think of a holy person as somebody who keeps all the rules. Don’t you see this goes so much deeper than keeping all the rules? Holiness is an attitude of heart in which you look at God and you say, “Use me.” This is a tremendous clash with modern culture. In modern culture you’re supposed to be independent. You’re not supposed to let anybody use you, but that’s the antithesis to this. A holy person is someone who looks at God and does not say, “Just give me the rules and tell me what the rules are so I can get to it.”

No! A holy person is someone who says, “I belong to you. I’m set apart for you.” That’s what we’ve been trying to get at each week. Last week we talked about holiness of mind. To be holy means to be wholly his, to wholly belong to him. That means, first of all, we talked about the mind. This week and next week, let’s talk about the life.

It’s great to say to be holy means you have to submit your mind to God and submit your beliefs and so forth, but a person who submits the mind without submitting the life, the heart, and the will is a hypocrite, and we hate them. Therefore, to be holy means more than just to give him your mind; you have to give him your life. What we’re going to look at here tonight is a depiction of what a holy life is. It’s really right here in these verses.

“As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”

There is a contrast here between a life without God and a holy life. If we look at the contrast, we’ll continue to get a better feel for what it means to “be holy, for he is holy.”

1. A life without God is ignorant, but a life of holiness integrates the thought and the life

The word holiness comes from the English word wholeness. Therefore, there is a bifurcation. The life without God is a bifurcation of thought and action, but a holy life means a coherent integration of thought and life. Let me explain this. Most people in Manhattan who don’t believe in God or Christianity, they think they don’t believe in it because they know too much, because they think too much.

They say, “There are Christians. That’s great for some people. They’re religious. Fine. My problem is I’m a thinker. I think, and rational people, thoughtful people, thinking people, aren’t religious people. Religious people are people who have abandoned. They’ve jettisoned the rationality. They’ve given up hard thought. They’ve abandoned and jettisoned their capacities for thought and reason and consideration, so they’ve sort of leapt emotionally into the arms of this faith. They just take leaps of faith.”

People say, “The problem for Christians and for religious people is they don’t think, but not me. I can’t believe because I’m a thinker. I think.” In this text here and throughout the Bible, we’re told that actually the opposite is the case. You see what it says here in verse 14? It says, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.” A life without God is a thoughtless life. Let me show you what I mean.

Some of you, having come to Redeemer for a while, have heard arguments up here, rational arguments for why we believe what we believe. How do we know Christianity is true? They sound so wonderfully compelling, so you go out and you try them on people. For some reason they don’t like them. Do you know why? Here’s how they go. For example, ask somebody sometime who says, “Well, you know, you’re religious. Fine. But I’m not a religious person; I’m a thinker.” You say, “Okay, so think. Think with me. What are you living for? What is the meaning of your life anyway?”

If somebody came up to you after the service and said, “I’d like you to spend your entire afternoon with me tomorrow,” what would you say? You would probably say, “What for? What’s the purpose? Articulate for me the purpose of our meeting.” The person says, “Well, I’m not really sure, but I would like to meet with you.” You’ll probably say. like a busy New Yorker, “Well, a whole afternoon? Unless you can articulate the purpose, unless you can tell me what it’s about, it will be a waste of time.”

“That’s only logical. Well, all right. Let me ask you a question. What is your life about? What is your life for?” They say, “Well, I’m working. I have a career.” “Okay, great. You have a career. What is it for? What do you actually hope to accomplish? What is the meaning of your life? What difference will it make that you have lived?” People don’t like to be asked that. Oh, no. They really don’t like it at all.

“I have to press you a little bit on this. You would not spend an afternoon with me unless you knew the reason for it. Otherwise it would be a waste, and yet you can’t tell me the reason for your life. You can’t tell me what your life is about. How do you know it’s not a waste? What’s it for? What’s the purpose of your life? What is its meaning?”

People don’t want to think about that. They’ll get irritated with you at a certain point. Very quickly, they’ll start to get irritated with you. Why? They don’t want to think. They don’t want to think about these things. The average person’s lifestyle and behavior is based on no thought, no thinking out a philosophy of life. They don’t want to think about that. They think it’s morbid to think about that. They say, “You’re getting religious on me.”

“What do you mean, ‘getting religious on you’? You wouldn’t meet with me all afternoon because you wanted a purpose. I’m asking you, what is your purpose? If there is no God and if you don’t know if there is a God and if when you die you rot, then isn’t it possible nothing you are doing has any meaning and nothing you are doing makes any difference? If when we die we rot and eventually the universe is going to burn up, nothing you do, whether you’re a violent person or a compassionate person, will make any difference. Have you thought that through?” They don’t want to think it through.

Let me give you another example. This week we went to see a movie that is not a particularly good movie, but there are a couple of good scenes in it. It’s the movie Fearless with Jeff Bridges in it. At one point, Jeff Bridges (he’s a survivor of a plane crash and he’s talking with a young woman who is also a survivor of a plane crash, and she believes in God, and he doesn’t) says, “People don’t really believe in God; they just choose not to believe in nothing.” He says, “People want to think life and death have a purpose to them. They like to think they were born for a reason.”

He says, “Like the Giants needed a new homerun hitter, that’s why I was born, or my mother needed somebody to console her. You think you’re born for a reason; you think you die for a reason. We talk about not dying in vain.” He says, “It just happens. There is no God. It just happens. Life happens; death happens. There is no reason for the life when it happens; there is no reason for the death when it happens. There is no reason for anything,” he says triumphantly.

The lady looks up at him and says, “Well, if that’s true then there is no reason to love either.” He looks and says, “What?” She says, “There would be no reason to love.” What she’s doing to him in her own inimical way … he stares at her because there is no answer … is she’s doing what we call presuppositional apologetics, which means she’s pulling the rug out. She says, “If that is true, why are you here trying to help me?”

The whole idea was he was a plane crash survivor and she was a plane crash survivor, and they were having troubles adjusting, so he was there to help. He said, “The only way to help yourself is to get rid of your idea of God. Get rid of it! That’s the reason why you’re all full of guilt and shame. Get rid of it. I’m here to help you.” She said, “If there is no God, why should you help me? Why shouldn’t you just scratch my eyes out?”

A typical person in Manhattan will say, “Racism is wrong, intolerance is wrong, but sexually, you can do pretty much what you want.” Now just ask this question: What is the basis for that distinction? The person says, “Everybody knows racism is wrong.” You say, “Well, there have been countries where everybody knew certain races should go to the gas chamber. I don’t think we should determine morality by a popular vote. Are you saying that as long as a majority of the people think something is right, therefore it’s right?”

“Oh, no,” the person says. “Actually, I believe everybody has to make up their minds on their own. There are no moral absolutes. We have to all determine for ourselves what is right and wrong.” You ask yourself, “You mean there is nothing that is always wrong?”

“Isn’t torture always wrong?”

“Oh, of course, torture is always wrong.”

“Why? Maybe that’s just what some people like to do. Maybe that’s right for them.”

“Oh, no. Torture is always wrong because you can’t mess with human beings.”

“Why not? On what basis have you determined that people are really more valuable than rocks? On what basis?” The person, you see, will get mad at you. They always do. If you’re trying this out on people, they will get mad. Do you know why? They don’t want to think. Most of the simplest, uneducated Christians have worked out epistemology issues. They don’t know the name. They’ve worked out metaphysical issues. They’ve worked out ethical issues.

Let me ask you a question. This is a typical Christian’s framework. A Christian would say, “I discovered there was a body of evidence that indicated there was a man who lived 2,000 years ago who claimed to be God and convinced a lot of monotheistic people that he was God and that he had been raised from the dead. I discovered there were 500 people who claimed in an eyewitness account that they saw this man raised from the dead. It was documented, and I began to study the evidence.” This is how a Christian would speak.

“I began to study the evidence, and as hard as it was to believe this man was God, I decided the alternative explanations for the phenomenon of this man were even more incredible, and I decided to believe he was who he said he was on the basis of the evidence, on the basis of weighing it out. If he is God, therefore, he is my author, and that means I have a purpose in life. I know why I was built; I was built for him. I know what is right and wrong: whatever his will is.” Perfectly coherent, based on evidence, based on rationality. Then go further.

The Christian says, “I’ve begun to live this life in faith. I found that it fits my nature. I found through personal experiences I began to give myself to the will of this One who I have decided to believe in. I began to find that he fits me. The things he says, the things he’s done, they fit my nature.

As that one writer said, ‘I’ve been all my life a bell, and I never knew it till he picked me up and rung me.’ I found out, not only is this fitting me in a way I never thought before, but I found out there were millions of people over 2,000 years who have found the same thing out. I read the works of Christians who lived 1,000 years ago and I read their experience with Jesus, and I discover this is the same relationship I have with Jesus.”

Does that sound like a leap of faith? Sure, there is faith in there. Does that sound like you’re not thinking? Not at all. Let me show you a leap of faith: somebody who you press and say, “Well, how do you know torture is wrong if there is no God? How do you know people are more valuable than rocks if there is no God? How do you know there is any meaning in life?” They say, “Well, you just know. We just know people are valuable just because I know it.” Oh, that’s a leap of faith.

That’s thoughtlessness. That’s ignorance. That’s a bifurcation between your life and your thinking. Friends, life without God is a thoughtless life. A holy life means you integrate how you live. You know why you’re doing the things you’re doing, because you’re always thinking, “What is the meaning of my life?” And you have it in front of you. You’re always looking at what is right and wrong on the basis of the meaning in life, on the basis of whom you know God is and who you know you are. There is an integration. Don’t live a life of ignorance. Don’t go back to that life.

2. A life without God is an imitative life, but a holy life is an examined life

Look down at verse 18. “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers.” A life without God is an imitative life, but a holy life is an examined life. Let me put it this way. Again, just like I said, a lot of people in Manhattan and a lot of people in New York I meet would say, “I’m not a religious person because I think so much.”

I’m trying to show that ordinarily a life without God is not a thinking life or a reflective life; it’s a thoughtless life, but secondly a lot of people say, “Well, I’m not a religious person because I’m not a conformist. I’m an original. I think for myself.” That’s not what Peter says, and I think he’s right. Especially people come to Manhattan and they say, “I got out of bourgeoisie, middle America. I live in Manhattan now. I’m a sophisticated person. I think for myself.” What do you mean, you think for yourself?

If you’re a Christian in Manhattan, you really have to think for yourself. You open up the New York Times and you read the op-ed pages, what is happening? Your faith, your beliefs, your worldview is getting blasted with every article. You have to think for yourself. Most people in Manhattan open up their newspaper of choice, and they’re just kind of affirmed. You get into your particular imitative style of unbelief. Peter says unbelief is handed down. We see people doing certain things, and so we do them.

In C.S. Lewis’ book, The Great Divorce, there is a great place where a man who had lost his faith … He used to believe, but he had lost his faith because he went to college, and he began to think. His friend said to him, “Is that really what happened? Don’t you remember how we really lost our faith? We didn’t want to be laughed at. We heard a lot of other people saying things, and we wanted them to think that we were smart and intelligent and sophisticated, too. We wrote the kinds of papers that our professors thought were courageous and relevant and creative.”

He said, “We never thought our way out of faith; we just wanted to imitate what was around us.” That’s exactly what Peter is talking about. We all have our uniforms. If you say, “I’m a sophisticated person, and I’ve thrown off bourgeoisie, middle-America values,” in Manhattan the only way you’d let people know that is if you have to dress in a certain way. You have to dress downtown, or maybe you dress uptown, but the point is there are uniforms here. There is imitation going on here.

What it means to be a holy person, however, is utterly different. Nothing is passed down to us. The Bible says to be a holy person means that now Jesus is your authority, and the Word of God is your authority, and it doesn’t matter if you say, “I’m Italian; I’ve always done things in an Italian way.” Is it biblical? “I’m Park Avenue.” Is it biblical? “We’ve always done things this way.” Is it biblical? Is it in conformity with your Master and his will and your new self? “Well, we’ve always done things because I’m a southerner.” Is it Christian?

“We’ve always done things this way because I’m from Brooklyn?” Is it Christian? “I’m Irish.” Is it Christian? The great thing about being a Christian is you’re pulled up out of anything that was passed down to you. You don’t say, “Well, this is the way I am. This is the way my parents were. This is the way my family was. This is the way my peers are. This is the way the people are who read the books I read and read the journals we read and hang out at the same parties we hang out at. This is the way we are.” A Christian’s life is utterly examined. Every bit of it is examined. Every single part of it is examined.

One of my favorite memories of a good example of this is how, when I went as a Yankee, as a Northeastern college educated kid, I took a church in blue collar, Southern town. There was a culture there. I remember there were several marks of that culture. That culture was much more frugal than I was used to. That culture was much more hospitable and less privatized than I was used to. That culture was much more negative and scornful of education than I was used to. That culture was much more full of racial stereotypes than I was used to.

As a result, I could see all these differences, but very often the people who were living in the culture couldn’t. I remember one man, a friend of mine, who did not even graduate from junior high school. When he became a Christian he could hardly read, and yet I remember when he became a Christian he grasped what it meant to be holy. He knew just because all the other good ol’ boys did things didn’t mean that was the way he should live, so he began to examine.

Actually, he virtually taught himself to read in order to live a holy life, so he could study the Bible, so he could think things out. He awoke, and here’s what happened. He began to realize the fact he was more frugal than I was. That was a biblical value I had to learn. The fact he was more hospitable than I was. That was a biblical value. But his scorn of education he realized was a kind of ego defense mechanism, and his racial stereotype was also sinful.

What was he doing? He refused to take what was handed down to him. A holy life is an examined life. Isn’t this interesting? Life without God is supposed to be sophisticated, but actually, it’s thoughtless. Life without God is supposed to be original and creative, but actually, it’s imitative.

3. A life without God is a life of slavery without authority, but a holy life is a life of freedom under authority

I know that sounds weird. If you’re under authority you’re not supposed to be free, right? No. Look carefully at this verse. “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had …” Now unfortunately, this another one of those places where the text’s translation is not only wimpy, but kind of misleading. The word conform is a word that means to be shaped or molded.

The translation of the words evil desires is two words that is the translation of one word, epithymia, which is really a poor translation, and here’s why. The word epithymia means an inordinate desire. Think of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Do you remember the pyramid? The more basic needs are you need to eat and drink. Then you move up, and you need relaxation and recreation. Another need is sexuality. Then you keep moving up to more complex needs. You need to be loved. You need to feel like you accomplish things. You need to see your significance in the world. These are all needs.

Every one of those things is a legitimate need. They were all created by God. God invented food and drink. He likes them. God invented rest. You know, on the seventh day he rested. That’s what it says in Genesis. God invented sex, and he saw it was good. God invented our social needs for approval of other people. God gave us the desire to work and to accomplish something. They’re all good, but Peter says a godless life is not a life so much of evil desires. That’s a bad translation of this word. It gives you the impression what it’s talking about are people who pillage and murder and do violence and so forth.

That’s not what we’re talking about. He says, “You used to be molded, you used to be fashioned, you used to be utterly controlled by good desires that had become inordinate.” That’s what the word means: out of order, too important to you, good things. We talked about this last week, but Thomas Oden, who teaches at the graduate school at Drew University, has a fascinating book in which he lays out a couple of principles.

He says, “Everybody has to live for something.” Remember I told you before people don’t want to think about what they’re living for, but everybody has to live for something. “Everybody has to have some central value that is the basis on which we make decisions.” The only way you can make priority decisions, the only way you can decide this and not this, is if you have a hierarchy of values. “There is something that is your ultimate value, your ultimate reason for living. It could be attractiveness. It could be approval of people. It could be power. It could be anything, but everybody has to have something you live for.”

Thomas Oden said, “That central value is that something without which you cannot receive life joyfully.” If you don’t have that your life falls apart. He says, “You can either make God your central value which is an infinite center or you can put something finite in the way, something finite in the center—and when that happens—to the degree that I center my life on a finite value instead of God, to that degree I relate to my past with guilt and to my future with anxiety.” Here are a couple of quotes from him.

For example, he says, “My relationship to the future will be one of anxiety to the degree that I have idolized finite values. Anxiety becomes neurotically intensified to the degree that I have idolized finite values that properly should have been regarded as limited.” He says, “If the thing I’m living for is money or if the thing I’m living for is my children or if the thing I’m living for is the Republican party or the Democratic party, I’m always going to be experiencing anxiety because those finite values cannot last, and so I will always feel threatened.”

He says, “On the other hand, my relationship to the past will be one of guilt. Guilt becomes neurotically intensified to the degree that I have idolized finite values that properly should have been regarded as limited. Why? Because if you’ve decided, ‘The only way in which I know I’m going to be able to look myself in the mirror is because of this value (I will achieve, I will be loved, I will look good),’ whatever you decide that you have to have in order to feel you have meaning in life, when you fail those standards, finite gods never forgive, ever. You’re always down on yourself.”

What is Thomas Odin saying? “I have guilt in my life to the degree that I idolize finite values. I have anxiety in my life to the degree that I idolize finite values. That’s what Peter is talking about. What he is saying is life without God necessarily means I am driven by inordinate desires, good desires for good things that now fill me with anxiety and fill me with guilt.” Isn’t it interesting? A life without God is supposed to be sophisticated, but it’s thoughtless. A life without God is supposed to be original, but it’s imitative. A life without God is supposed to be free, but it’s a life of bondage.

However, a holy life is different. It’s a life of coherence between thought and life. It’s a life of examination. Lastly, it’s a life of freedom under authority. “As obedient children …” Let’s just look at that, and this is the final point. Do you know what it means to be a holy person? First of all, it means you’re obedient, and unfortunately the word obedience means, yes, to be holy you have to submit your will to another’s. To be obedient means there is a submission of your will to the will of someone else.

There are really two basic epistemologies. There are two basic ways of knowing that are dominant in New York right now, and these are kind of fanciful names. There is the scientist view of life and the New Ageism view of life. The scientistic view of life says, “You know, there is no supernatural. There is no spiritual realm. All that exists is matter, and when you die you rot, and that’s that.” That’s one view. You live your life the way you decide, however you see fit.

Then there is the New Agestic view, and of course, the New Agestic view is growing. New Ageism isn’t just one particular group, but the New Agestic view says, “That’s not true. The scientistic view is wrong. Everything is divine. Everything is sacred. God is in everything. God is throughout everything. You are God yourself, and you must come into contact with it. You must get in touch with the greatness of what you are and the greatness of who you are.”

What is so funny is those two views look like they’re against each other, but they agree in one area: neither of them has any concept of obedience. The scientistic view says, “There is no obedience; there is no one to obey. Do what you want.” The New Agestic view says, “Get in touch with God, but this a God who is impersonal, not a God who speaks.” If you want to understand how New Ageism believes you should get in touch with God, you just watch Luke Skywalker. What does Obi-Wan Kenobi say to Luke Skywalker? “Reach out with your feelings. Get in touch with your feelings.” Okay. No obedience. No obedience at all.

A holy life is an obedient life. Right here Christianity is running a head-on collision with the two dominant worldviews of New York City. What does it mean to be holy? It means to say, “Use me.” It means to be cut out. It means to say, “I belong to you.” It means to say, “You have your will, O Lord, and where my will crosses your will, my will goes.” Otherwise, you’re not really his.

In fact, let’s go one step further. Do you notice down here in verse 15 it says, “… as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do?” Let me push this a little further. To be holy means to be wholly obedient. If there is any area of your life in which you’re not being obedient, you’re actually not being obedient at all. Some people will say to me, “Well, I’m a Christian, and I am obeying God … except there. I’ll get it together.” You’re not obeying God except there. There is no such thing as obeying God except there.

Think of it this way: if you can say to somebody, “You can have the whole house except for that room. You can have the whole house, but you can never go in that room,” if you’re in a position to tell somebody they have the whole house except for that room, they don’t have the house; you have the house. Even if you only live in that room, and you give all the rest of the house to that person, if you can keep that person out of that room, you still own the house.

If you say, “Well, I’m going to submit to what Jesus says about this area of my life and this area of my life, but not this area. Not now. No. Not right now, but I’ll give him my life in every other way,” you haven’t done it at all. Do you see? “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do.” Anything else isn’t holy. I’m not saying to be holy you have to be perfectly obedient. Nobody is. We’ve been through this before. A person is a Christian strictly because Jesus died for them. They rest and trust in that, and therefore, they are forgiven.

The only proper response and the only way you can know that you received Christ as Savior and the only proper response to him giving himself utterly for you on the cross is you giving yourself utterly to him right now. Anything else is inappropriate. Anything else is not holy. To be holy doesn’t mean to be perfectly obedient; to be holy means to be completely submitted in the sense of saying, “I take my hands off my life. I give you the rights to every room in my house. Come in. I can’t keep you out of any, because the house isn’t mine.”

More than that, real holiness does not simply consist of external submission to authority. It says, “As obedient children …” That’s the last point. If you want to know what holiness means, it’s not simply getting all the rules and getting all the regulations. Oh, no. Think about this. Why would Peter say “as obedient children?” Why not as obedient people or as obedient servants? Why obedient children? Because the obedience of a child is different than the obedience of a servant or a slave.

A child can’t obey his or her father … a child can’t obey the parent … unless there has already been an action on the part of the parent to receive that child. You can’t obey your parent unless your parent has had you. You can’t obey your parent unless your parent has adopted you. There either has to be a biological action or there has to be a legal action, but the point is your obedience is not the reason your parents have you; the fact that your parents have you is the reason for your obedience. That’s utterly different.

A slave is scared to death. A slave, or a servant, or an employee says, “I’d better do well.” An employee says, “I’d better do well. Otherwise, I could be fired.” The employee is completely motivated out of rewards and punishments. “I want my reward; I fear the punishment. I want my salary; I don’t want to lose my job. I want a promotion; I don’t want to be demoted.” That’s the employee, and there is obedience to an employee. But no! Not for a Christian. The essence of a holy life is that you obey as children.

“I know I’m accepted.” The entire obedience of a Christian is based on this little word, for. Why should you be obedient? Because “… you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed … but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” If you want to get to the very, very heart of what it means to live an obedient life as a holy person, as a child, not as an employee, to be wholly God’s and to belong wholly to him in your life will only issue from a vision of how he wholly gave himself for you.

At the very end of the movie, The Bible, the one John Huston put together some years ago, George C. Scott plays Abraham. My wife and I can never watch that thing without weeping at the end, so we avoid it. (No, we don’t.) Here is George C. Scott playing Abraham, and God comes to him. In Genesis 15, God said to Abraham, “I will bless you and your descendants through Isaac, your son.” God moves between the pieces of cut up animals to show … He says, “I will obey my promise. I will bless you and your descendants, and if I don’t, may I be cut up as these animals.”

Yet, years later, God comes to Abraham and says, “Abraham, do you know that son I promised I was going to bless you through? I want you to kill him.” The Bible tells us Abraham wrestled and wrestled and wrestled, and finally he walked up the hill with his son, and he put him on the altar. In the movie, they add a little line that is not in the Bible, but it’s perfectly appropriate. In the movie, as Abraham is tying up Isaac and Isaac realizes what he’s doing, Isaac says, “Father, is there nothing he cannot ask of thee?” Abraham says, “Nothing.”

Why not? Why was Abraham holy? Why was Abraham wholly God’s at that point? Because he was just knuckling under the naked power of God? Did Abraham say, “Well, there’s nothing I can do; how can I fight against God?” No. The book of Hebrews tells us he walked up with his son, figuring out somehow God was going to raise him from the dead because God would keep his promise. Ah, if Abraham was only here now. Do you know why? Because as soon as Abraham had wholly given even Isaac …

Everybody in this room has “Isaacs,” things we want to hold on to, and yet God says, “You must be wholly mine.” As Abraham was ready to give Isaac up, God said, “ ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ ‘Here am I,’ he replied.” “Do not harm the lad. Now I know that you love me for you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me.” Abraham, as an Old Testament figure, understood God was good. That’s why he obeyed. He understood God was loving in a general way, but, boy, we have something Abraham didn’t have.

If Abraham was here now, do you know what he would know? He would know why God was able to say, “Abraham, you don’t have to kill your son.” Do you know why? Because years after Abraham, God walked up the hill with his Son and he slew him, and there was nobody there to call out from heaven, “Don’t do it.” If Abraham was here now, he would look at God and say, “Here’s why I’m wholly yours. Now I know, O Lord God, that you love me, because you did not withhold your Son, your only Son, whom you love, from me.”

As obedient children, for you know you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver and gold, but redeemed with the precious blood of Jesus Christ. That creates a motivation for obedience that no one else knows. It’s not an oppressive thing; it’s a liberating thing. We put ourselves wholly under him, wholly in all that we do, and obedient in every area of life. Isn’t it amazing? The ungodly life is not sophisticated; it’s thoughtless. It’s not original; it’s imitative. It’s not free; this is freedom. His service is perfect freedom. “You will know the truth,” Jesus said, “and the truth will set you free.” Let’s pray.

Help us, O Father, to get that freedom and to get that holiness of life, which only comes from the sight of you walking up that mountain with your Son and slaying him for our sins so we could know your pardon. Thank you for taking our punishment upon yourself. I pray, Father, that everybody in this room would know tonight that only if they give themselves wholly to you, because your Son gave himself wholly for us, will we know the freedom and the liberty of holiness. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen.

About the Preacher

Timothy Keller is founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City and the author of numerous books, including Every Good Endeavor, Center Church, Galatians For You, The Meaning of Marriage, The Reason for God, King’s Cross, Counterfeit Gods, The Prodigal God, and Generous Justice.

Book Review on John Piper’s Risk is Right

Risk Makes Sense for the Christian – A Book Review on “Risk is Right” by David P. Craig

I have to own up to the fact that I own every book that John Piper has written and yet find that I have a hard time reading most of his books. He writes with such depth and verbosity that I often have started his books and left many of them unfinished. I do better with his devotionals and shorter works like this one. This is a very short book that can be read by slow readers like me in less than four hours (I read at the speed of the spoken word – due to 3 detached retinas in my right eye in the last several months). One of the common denominators that make Piper’s books and preaching so compelling is that he is a man who walks the talk. John Piper has addressed virtually all of the so-called “Politically Correct” issues of the day like abortion, homosexuality, racism, and numerous other issues head on in his ministry and has never veered to the left or to the right to teach, preach, and write on the whole counsel of God no matter what the cost or consequences.

If anyone has earned the right to speak on “risk” in the Christian community its John Piper. He owns up to his own sin and imperfections and always exults in the cross, forgiveness of sins, and God’s glorious grace. This book is to sanctification what Pascal’s wager is to justification. The gist of Piper’s writing in this book is that everyone is risking their life in one way or another. Therefore, the greatest use of one’s life is to risk it for and in Christ. The greatest risk of all is to not live for Christ – that is a tragic risk that is not worth taking.

In the Introduction David Platt writes,

“This [risk] is the picture of Jesus in the gospel. He is something–someone–worth losing for. When we really believe this, then risking everything we are and everything we have, to know and obey Christ is no longer a matter of sacrifice. It’s just common sense. To let go of the pursuits, possessions, pleasures, safety, and security of this world in order to follow Jesus wherever he leads, no matter what it costs, is not sacrificial as much as it is smart. In the words of Jim Elliott, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lost.”

The truth of the matter is that Jesus risked his own relationship with the Father and the Spirit in going to the cross. He was totally forsaken so that we could be forgiven and accepted by the Father. However, He did this for the joy that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). What makes this book powerful is that John Piper has modeled a life of risk – in his faithfulness to God’s Word; entrusting his finances totally to God (he doesn’t earn a penny from his writings), and in his sold out total dedication to his tireless endeavors of spreading the gospel for the glory of God – so that everything he says about risk carries the weight of his own integrity (1 Timothy 4:16).

Giving examples from both the Old and New Testaments on risk, and honing in on the greatest risk taker of them all – the Lord Jesus Christ – Piper does an excellent job of tackling the objections we all have to taking risks. He then demonstrates the tremendous joy and how ironically low the risk actually is for the life of the Christian. When we fully entrust our lives to living in faith on the promises of God in Christ there is ultimately nothing to lose, but everything to gain. In Piper-esque fashion at the end of the book one is left being satisfied in Christ and in the glory of God and with a desire and passion to spread the gospel among the nations so that they like us may live to worship Him in all His splendor. Piper motivates and stirs up a passion for Christ and His gospel in the soul like few others – and for that this book is definitely recommended and worth your time, mediation, and application of the truths explicated.

Chart of All The Supernatural Events Recorded in the Bible

Supernatural Events in the Bible Chronicled: Compiled by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Genesis

1	Creation of the world.
5:19–24	Translation of Enoch to be with God.
7:9–12, 17–24	The Noahic Flood.
11:1, 5–9	The Judgement on the Tower of Babel.
12:10–20	Plagues on Pharaoh for taking Abraham’s wife.
17:15–19; 18:10–14
21:1–8	Sarah’s conception of Isaac.
19:9–11	Angels blind the Sodomites.
19:15–29	The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
19:24–26	Lot’s wife turned to salt.

Exodus

3:1–15	The Burning Bush.
4:1–5	Moses’ rod turned into a serpent and back.
4:6–7	Moses’ hand become leprous and is restored.
7:10–12	Aaron’s rod turns into a serpent and swallows up the rods of the Egyptian sorcerers.
7:19–24	Water in Egypt turned into blood.
8:5–7; 12–13	Frogs brought forth on the land of Egypt.
8:16–18	Lice are brought forth on the land of Egypt.
8:20–24	Swarms of flies are brought forth on Egypt but not on the land of Goshen.
9:1–7	Murrian (deadly pestilence) is brought on the cattle of the Egyptians, but not on Israel’s cattle.
9:8–11	Ashes produce boils on the Egyptians but not on Israel’s men and animals.
9:22–26	A terrible storm of thunder, hail, and fire which ran along the ground.
10:3–19	A plague of locusts on the Egyptians.
10:21–23	A plague of darkness was brought on the Egyptians while Israel had light.
12:29–30	Slaying the first born children.
13:21–22	The pillar of cloud led Israel by day, and the fire led them by night.
14:19–20	The angel of the Lord protects Israel from the Egyptians.
14:21–29	The parting of the Red Sea.
15:23–25	Sweetening of the bitter waters of Marah.
16:12–13	The camp of Israel is covered with quail.
16:14–15	Manna is provided for Israel to eat.
17:5–6	Moses strikes the rock and water is provided.
17:8–16	Remarkable victory over Amalek.
19:16–18	Fire and smoke engulf Mount Sinai.
19:19–25	God answers Moses from the Mount.
20:1–17	God gives the Ten Commandments to Moses.

Leviticus

9:23–24	Fire from the Lord consumes the burnt offering.
10:1–7	The fatal judgment upon Nadab and Abihu.

Numbers

11:1–2	Fire from God to consume murmuring Israelites.
12:10–15	Miriam is made leprous and is healed.
16:35	Fire from the Lord consumes 250 men who offered incense.
16:28–33	Korah and his rebels are swallowed by the earth.
16:46–48	The plague stopped by the offering of incense.
17:8	Aaron’s rod buds.
20:7–11	Moses strikes the rock to bring forth water.
21:6–9	Healing by looking at the brass serpent.
22:21–35	Balaam’s donkey speaks.

Joshua

3:14–17	The waters of the Jordan are divided.
5:13–15	The appearance of the Captain of the Lord’s hosts.
6	The fall of Jericho.
10:12–14	The sun stands still upon Gibeon.

Judges

2:1–5	The Angel of the Lord appears to Israel.
3:8–11	The Spirit of the Lord comes upon Othniel.
3:31	Shamgar slays 600 Philistines with an ox-goad.
6:11–24	The Angel of the Lord appears to Gideon.
6:36–40	The sign of Gideon’s fleece.
7:15–25	God delivers Midian into the hands of Gideon.
13:3–21	The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah.
14:5–6	Samson slays the young lion.
15:14–17	Samson slays the Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey.
16:3	Samson tears down the city gate and carries it away.
16:27–31	Samson causes the collapse of the temple of Dagon.

1 Samuel

3:2–10	The voice of God calling Samuel.
5:1–5	The overturning of the god, Dagon.
5:6–12	Philistines in Ashdod smitten with tumors.
6:19	The Lord smites the men of Beth-Shemesh.
28:15–20	Samuel appears from the dead to rebuke Saul.

2 Samuel

6:6–7

The Lord fatally smites Uzzah.

1 Kings

3:3–28	God gives Solomon great wisdom.
17:1	Elijah prays and rain does not come for 3 years.
17:2–6	Elijah is fed by the ravens.
17:8–16	Meal and oil are supplied for the widow of Zarephath.
17:17–24	Elijah raises the widow’s son.
18:17–38	Fire from heaven consumes the sacrifice of Elijah on Mt. Carmel.
18:41–46	Elijah prays and God sends an abundance of rain in response.
19:5–8	Elijah is fed by the Angel of the Lord.

2 Kings

1:9–15	Fire from heaven consumes two captains and their men.
2:7–8	Elijah parts the waters of the Jordan and walks across on dry ground.
2:11	Elijah is taken up into heaven in a chariot of fire.
2:13–14	Elisha parts the waters of the Jordan.
2:19–22	Elisha heals the waters of Jericho.
2:24	Blasphemous youths killed by she bears.
3:15–20	Ditches are mysteriously filled with water.
4:1–7	A widow’s oil pot is refilled with oil by God.
4:8–17	Elisha prophesies and the Shunammite woman bears a son.
4:32–37	Elisha raises the Shunammite’s son.
4:38–41	Elisha detoxifies the poisonous pottage.
4:42–44	One hundred men are abundantly fed with 20 loaves of bread and 20 ears of corn.
5:1–14	Naaman is healed of leprosy.
5:27	Gehazi is struck with leprosy.
6:5–7	Iron axe head floats on water.
6:16–17	Elisha’s servant’s vision of the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire.
6:18	The Syrian army is struck with blindness.
6:19–20	God opens the eyes of the Syrians after Elisha leads them into Samaria.
13:20–21	A dead man is raised by contact with elisha’s bones.
20:9–11	Ahaz’s sundial returns backward by ten degrees.

Job

38–42:6

God speaks to Job from the whirlwind.

Isaiah

1:1	Isaiah’s vision concerning Jerusalem.
6	Isaiah’s vision of the Lord.

Exekiel

1	Exekiel has a vision of God’s glory.

Daniel

2:26–45	Daniel recounts and interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
3:14–30	Three Hebrew youths delivered from the fiery furnace.
5:5	The handwriting on the wall.
6:16–23	Daniel saved from the lions.
7:1–8:14	Daniel’s visions.
9:20–27	Daniel’s vision of the 70 weeks.
10:1–12:13	Further visions of Daniel.

Jonah

1:4–16	Tempestous storm from God to arrest the fleeing Jonah.
1:17	The Lord prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah.
4:6	The Lord prepares a gourd to shade Jonah.
4:7	The Lord prepared a worm to smite the gourd.
4:8	The Lord prepared a vehement east wind.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John

Matthew	Mark	Luke	John	Description
		1:11–19		An angel of the lord appears to Zacharias.
		1:20–22		Zacharias is struck dumb.
		1:26–38		Angel of the Lord appears to Mary.
		1:64		Zacharias healed of dumbness.
		2:9–15		Angels appear to shepherds.
3:16–17	1:9–11	3:21–23		Holy Spirit decended as a Dove, and a voice from Heaven spoke.
4:11	1:13			Angels minister to Jesus after the temtation.
			1:42–48	Jesus sees Nathanael under the fig tree.
			2:1–11	Water turned into wine.
			2:23	Jesus performs many signs.
			4:46–53	Nobleman’s sone healed.
		4:30		Jesus escapes from the hostile crowd.
		5:6		Catching a draught of fish.
	1:23–25; 4:33–35			Casting out an unclean spirit.
8:14–15	1:30–31	4:38–39		Healing Peter’s mother-in-law.
8:16	1:32–34	4:40		Healing many sick people.
4:23–24	1:39			Jesus heals all manner of sickness and casts out many demons.
8:2–3	1:40–42	5:12–13		Cleansing a leper.
9:2	2:3–5	5:18–20		Healing a paralytic.
			5:6–9	Healing an infirmed man at Bethseda.
12:9–13	3:1–5	6:6–10		Healing the man’s withered hand.
12:15	3:10			Healing of many people.
8:5–13		7:1–10		Healing a centurion’s servant.
		7:11–15		Raising a widow’s son at Nain.
12:22				Casting out a demon from a blind mute.
8:23–26	4:35–39	8:22–24		Stilling the storm on the sea of Galilee.
8:28–32	5:6–13	8:28–33		Casting out the demons and allowing them to enter swine.
9:23–25	5:35–42	8:49–55		Raising the ruler’s daughter.
9:20–22	5:25–34	8:43–48		Healing the woman with an issue of blood.
9:27–30				Healing two blind men.
	6:5			Jesus heals a few sick people in Nazareth.
9:32–33				Casting out a demon from a deaf mute.
9:35				Jesus heals the sick in many cities.
14:14				Jesus heals the sick among the great multitude.
14:15–21	6:35–44	9:10–17	6:5–13	Feeding the five thousand.
14:25	6:48		6:19	Walking on the sea.
14:35–36	6:55–56			Healing of many at Gennesaret.
15:21–28	7:24–30			Healing the Canaanite woman’s daughter.
	7:31–35			Healing a deaf mute.
15:30–31				Jesus heals many among a great multitude.
15:32–38	8:1–8			Feeding the four thousand.
	8:22–25			Healing a blind man at Bethsaida.
17:1–8	9:2–8	9:28–36		Jesus’ transfiguration.
17:14–18	9:17–27	9:38–42		Healing the Epileptic boy.
17:24–27				Temple tax in the fish’s mouth.
			9:1–7	Healing a man born blind.
		11:14		Curing a demon-possessed, blind mute.
		13:11–13		Healing an infirmed woman.
		14:2–4		Healing a man with dropsy.
			11:43–44	Raising Lazarus.
		17:12–14		Cleansing ten lepers.
19:1–2				Jesus heals many at the borders of Judea.
20:30–34				Healing the two blind men.
21:14		18:35		Jesus heals the blind and the lame man in the temple.
21:18–19	11:12–14; 20			Withering the fig tree.
			12:28–29	A voice from Heaven.
		22:51		Restoring a servant’s ear.
27:51	15:38	23:45		The Veil of the Temple is torn from top to bottom.
27:51				A great earthquake, and the rocks were broken.
27:52–53				The tombs were opened and many of the dead are raised.
28:1–10	16:1–8	24:1–12	20:1–9	The resurrection of Jesus.
28:1–7				An angel rolls the stone from the grave and speaks to the women.
28:5–8	16:5–7	24:4–8		Angelic appearance to those at the sepulcher.
			20:11–13	Two angels appear to Mary.
	16:9		20:14–17	Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene.
28:9–10				Jesus appears to the women.
	16:12	24:13–35		Jesus appears to the two on the road to Emmaus.
			20:19–23	Jesus appears to 10 apostles.
28:16–20	16:14–18	24:36–49	20:26–31	Jesus appears to 11 apostles.
			21:1–25	Jesus appears to 7 apostles.
			21:6	Miraculous catch of fish.

Acts

1:3–5	Jesus appears to all the apostles. (Lk 24:24–51)
1:6–9	Jesus ascends into heaven.
1:10–11	Two angels appear to the apostles.
2:1–4	The coming of the Holy Spirit on the apostles.
2:4–13	The apostles speak with other tongues.
3:1–11	Peter heals the lame man in the temple.
5:5–10	Ananias and Sapphira are killed.
5:12	Many signs and wonders performed by the apostles.
5:18–20	Anel releases the apostles form prison.
7:55–56	Stehen sees Jesus at the right hand of God.
8:7	Unclean spirits are cast out of many.
8:13	Philip performs miracles and signs.
8:14–17	The Samarians receive the Holy Spirit.
8:39–40	Philip caught away by the Holy Spirit.
9:3–7	Jesus appears to Saul (cf. 1 Cor. 15:8).
9:10–16	Jesus appears to Ananias.
9:17–19	Saul’s sight is restored.
9:32–34	Peter heals Aneneas.
9:36–42	Dorcas is restored to life.
10:1–8	Cornelius receives a vision.
10:9–16	Peter receives a vision three times.
10:44–48	Cornelius’ household receives the Holy Spirit.
12:7–10	An angel releases Peter from prison.
12:23	The angel of the Lord kills Herod.
13:8–11	Elymas the sorcerer is blinded.
14:8–10	Paul heals a lame man at Lystra.
16:16–18	Paul casts a demon out of a young woman.
18:9–10	The Lord appears to Paul.
19:6	Believers at Ephesus receive the Holy Spirit.
19:11–12	Many unusual signs performed by Paul.
20:9–12	Eutychus is restored to life.
23:11	The Lord appears to Paul.
28:3–6	Paul protected from the viper bite.
28:7–8	Paul heals the father of Publius.
16:25–26	Prison doors opened and Paul’s and Silas’ bands are broken off.

1 Corinthians

15:6	Jesus’ appearance to five hundred people.
15:7	Jesus’ appearance to James.

2 Corinthians

12:1–6

Paul’s vision of heaven.

Revelation

1:1–3:22	John’s vision of Jesus.
4:1–22:21	John’s vision of the future.
6:12	A great earthquake.
6:12	The sun becomes black as sackcloth.
6:12	The moon becomes as blood.
6:13	The stars fall from heaven to earth.
6:14	Every mountain is moved out of its place.
8:7	Hail and fire mingled with blood falls on the earth.
8:8	Something like a great burning mountain is cast into the sea, and a third part of the sea becomes blood.
8:9	A third part of the creatures in the sea die.
8:9	A third part of the ships are destroyed.
8:10–11	A great, burning star falls from heaven and a third part of the rivers and fountains become bitter.
8:12	A third part of the sun is darkened.
8:12	A third part of the moon is darkened.
8:12	A third part of the stars are darkened.
9:1	A star falls from heaven.
9:2	The sun is darkened by the smoke from the botomless pit.
9:3–11	A plague of locusts are given power to torment men for 5 months.
9:18	A third part of mankind is killed.
11:5	The two witnesses devour their enemies by fire from their mouths.
11:6	The two witnesses stop the rain for 3 1/2 years.
11:6	The two witnesses turn water into blood.
11:6	The two witnesses smite the earth with many plagues.
11:11	The two witnesses are raised from the dead.
11:12	The two witnesses ascend into heaven.
11:13	There is a great earthquake in which a tenth part of the city falls, and 7000 men are slain.
11:19	There are lightenings, voices, thunderings and earthquake and great hail.
16:2	Fowl and loathsome sores fall on men who worship the beast.
16:3	The sea becomes as blood, and every living soul in it dies.
16:4	The rivers and fountains of waters become blood.
16:8	The sun scorches men with fire.
16:10	Darkness covers the kingdom of the beast.
16:12	The water of the river Euphrates is dried up.
16:18	There are voices and thunders and a great earthquake.
16:20	The islands flee and the mountains cannot be found.
16:21	A great hail of heavy stones falls on people.
18:1–24	The fall of Babylon.
19:11–16	The return of Jesus Christ.
21:1	The new heaven and the new earth appear.
21:10	The new Jerusalem descending from heaven.

Not all these events are miracles in the technical sense of a direct action of God superseding a natural law. Some (e.g. Gen. 7, 19) may be a special act of divine providence where God uses natural laws to accomplish His purpose.

Chart adapted from Appendix 2 in Norman L. Geisler. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker (1992).

50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

Dr. John Walvoord’s 50 Arguments For A Pretribulational Rapture

In previous discussion of premillennialism in relation to the Tribulation, the respective arguments for pretribulationism, partial rapture, posttribulationism, and midtribulationism have been examined and the pretribulational position in general sustained. By way of conclusion and summary, some fifty arguments for pretribulationism can now be proposed. It is not presumed that the statement of these arguments in themselves establishes their validity but rather that the previous discussion supports and justifies this summary of reasons for the pretribulational view.

For the sake of brevity, the term rapture or translation is used for the coming of Christ for His church, while the term second coming is uniformly used as a reference to His coming to the earth to establish His millennial kingdom, an event that all consider posttribulational. While the words rapture and translation are not quite identical, they refer to the same event. By the term rapture, reference is made to the fact that the church is “caught up” from the earth and taken to heaven. By the term translation the thought is conveyed that those who are thus raptured are transformed in their physical bodies from natural and corruptible bodies to spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal bodies. Strictly speaking, the dead are raised while the living are translated. In common usage, however, this distinction is not normally maintained.

In the discussion, the posttribulational view is considered the principal contender against pretribulationism and is primarily in mind in the restatement of the arguments. The other positions, however, are also mentioned insofar as they oppose pretribulationism on some special point. The preceding discussion has pointed to the preponderance of argument in support of the pretribulational position, and the following restatement should serve to clarify the issues involved.

Historical Argument

1. While posttribulationism appeared as early as 2 Thessalonians 2, many in the early church believed in the imminency of the Lord’s return, which is an essential doctrine of pretribulationism.

2. The detailed development of pretribulational truth during the past few centuries does not prove that the doctrine is new or novel. Its development is similar to that of other major doctrines in the history of the church. Hermeneutics

3. Pretribulationism is the only view that allows literal interpretation of all Old and New Testament passages on the Great Tribulation.

4. Pretribulationism distinguishes clearly between Israel and the church and their respective programs.

Nature of the Tribulation

5. Pretribulationism maintains the scriptural distinction between the Great Tribulation and tribulation in general that precedes it.

6. The Great Tribulation is properly interpreted by pretribulationists as a time of preparation for Israel’s restoration (Deut. 4:29-30; Jer. 30:4-11). It is not the purpose of the Tribulation to prepare the church for glory.

7. None of the Old Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Deut. 4:29-30; Jer. 30:4-11; Dan. 8:24-27; 12:1-2).

8. None of the New Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Matt. 13:30, 39-42, 48-50; 24:15-31; 1 Thess. 1:9-10, 5:4-9; 2 Thess. 2:1-11; Rev. 4-18).

9. In contrast to midtribulationism, the pretribulational view provides an adequate explanation for the beginning of the Great Tribulation in Revelation 6. Midtribulationism is refuted by the plain teaching of Scripture that the Great Tribulation begins long before the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11.

10. The proper distinction is maintained between the prophetic trumpets of Scripture by pretribulationism. There is no proper ground for the pivotal argument of midtribulationism that the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the last trumpet in that there is no established connection between the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11, the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52, and the trumpet of Matthew 24:31. They are three distinct events.

11. The unity of Daniel’s seventieth week is maintained by pretribulationists. By contrast, posttribulationism and midtribulationists destroy the unity of Daniel’s seventieth week and confuse Israel’s program with that of the church.

Nature of the Church

12. The translation of the church is never mentioned in any passage dealing with the second coming of Christ after the Tribulation.

13. The church is not appointed to wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:9). The church therefore cannot enter “the great day of their wrath” (Rev. 6:17).

14. The church will not be overtaken by the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:1-9), which includes the Tribulation.

15. The possibility of a believer escaping the Tribulation is mentioned in Luke 21:36.

16. The church of Philadelphia was promised deliverance from “the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth” (Rev. 3:10).

17. It is characteristic of divine dealing to deliver believers before a divine judgment is inflicted on the world as illustrated in the deliverance of Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc. (2 Peter 2:5-9).

18. At the time of the translation of the church, all believers go to the Father’s house in heaven (John 14:3) and do not immediately return to the earth after meeting Christ in the air as posttribulationists teach.

19. Pretribulationism does not divide the body of Christ at the Rapture on a works principle. The teaching of a partial rapture is based on the false doctrine that the translation of the church is a reward for good works. It is rather a climactic aspect of salvation by grace.

20. The Scriptures clearly teach that all, not part, of the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ for the church (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:17).

21. As opposed to a view of a partial rapture, pretribulationism is founded on the definite teaching of Scripture that the death of Christ frees from all condemnation.

22. The godly remnant of the Tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the church as maintained by the posttribulationists.

23. The pretribulational view, as opposed to posttribulationism, does not confuse general terms like elect and saints, which apply to the saved of all ages, with specific terms like church and those in Christ, which refer to believers of this age only.

Doctrine of Imminency

24. The pretribulational interpretation teaches that the coming of Christ is actually imminent.

25. The exhortation to be comforted by the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:18) is very significant in the pretribulational view and is especially contradicted by most posttribulationists.

26. The exhortation to look for “the glorious appearing” of Christ to His own (Titus 2:13) loses its significance if the Tribulation must intervene first. Believers in that case should look for signs.

27. The exhortation to purify ourselves in view of the Lord’s return has most significance if His coming is imminent (1 John 3:2-3).

28. The church is uniformly exhorted to look for the coming of the Lord, while believers in the Tribulation are directed to look for signs.

The Work of the Holy Spirit

29. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer of evil cannot be taken out of the world unless the church, which the Spirit indwells, is translated at the same time. The Tribulation cannot begin until this restraint is lifted.

30. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer must be taken out of the world before “the lawless one,” who dominates the tribulation period, can be revealed (2 Thess. 2:6-8).

31. If the expression “except there come a falling away first” (KJV) is translated literally, “except the departure come first,” it would plainly show the necessity of the Rapture taking place before the beginning of the Tribulation.

Necessity of an Interval Between the Rapture and the Second Coming

32. According to 2 Corinthians 5:10, all believers of this age must appear before the judgment seat of Christ in heaven, an event never mentioned in the detailed accounts connected with the second coming of Christ to the earth.

33. If the twenty-four elders of Revelation 4:1-5:14 are representative of the church as many expositors believe, it would necessitate the rapture and reward of the church before the Tribulation.

34. The coming of Christ for His bride must take place before the Second Coming to the earth for the wedding feast (Rev. 19:7-10).

35. Tribulation saints are not translated at the second coming of Christ but carry on ordinary occupations such as farming and building houses, and they will bear children (Isa. 65:20-25). This would be impossible if all saints were translated at the Second Coming to the earth, as posttribulationists teach.

36. The judgment of the Gentiles following the Second Coming (Matt. 25:31-46) indicates that both saved and unsaved are still in their natural bodies. This would be impossible if the translation had taken place at the Second Coming.

37. If the translation took place in connection with the Second Coming to the earth, there would be no need of separating the sheep from the goats at a subsequent judgment, but the separation would have taken place in the very act of the translation of the believers before Christ actually sets up His throne on earth (Matt. 25:31).

38. The judgment of Israel (Ezek. 20:34-38), which occurs subsequent to the Second Coming, indicates the necessity of regathering Israel. The separation of the saved from the unsaved in this judgment obviously takes place sometime after the Second Coming and would be unnecessary if the saved had previously been separated from the unsaved by translation.

Contrasts Between the Rapture and the Second Coming

39. At the time of the Rapture the saints meet Christ in the air, while at the Second Coming Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to meet the saints on earth.

40. At the time of the Rapture the Mount of Olives is unchanged, while at the Second Coming it divides and a valley is formed to the east of Jerusalem (Zech. 14:4-5).

41. At the Rapture living saints are translated, while no saints are translated in connection with the second coming of Christ to the earth.

42. At the Rapture the saints go to heaven, while at the Second Coming to the earth the saints remain on the earth without translation.

43. At the time of the Rapture the world is unjudged and continues in sin, while at the Second Coming the world is judged and righteousness is established in the earth.

44. The translation of the church is pictured as a deliverance before the day of wrath, while the Second Coming is followed by the deliverance of those who have believed in Christ during the Tribulation.

45. The Rapture is described as imminent, while the Second Coming is preceded by definite signs.

46. The translation of living believers is a truth revealed only in the New Testament, while the Second Coming with its attendant events is a prominent doctrine of both Testaments.

47. The Rapture concerns only the saved, while the Second Coming deals with both saved and unsaved.

48. At the Rapture Satan is not bound, while at the Second Coming Satan is bound and cast into the abyss.

49. No unfulfilled prophecy stands between the church and the Rapture, while many signs must be fulfilled before the Second Coming.

50. No passage dealing with the resurrection of saints at the Second Coming ever mentions translation of living saints at the same time. The blessed hope of the return of the Lord for His church is a precious aspect of faith and expectation. While learned and devout saints have not always agreed as to the content of this hope, the present discussion has attempted to justify this important aspect of truth. May the promise of our Lord “I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am” (John 14:3) bring comfort and hope to us in a modern world as it was intended to do for the disciples in the upper room on that dark night before the Crucifixion. “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’…He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’“ (Rev. 22:17, 20).

Article adapted from John F. Walvoord. The Rapture Question. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1979 (Chapter 20).

About Dr. John F. Walvoord

John F. Walvoord (May 1, 1910 – December 20, 2002) was a Christian theologian, pastor, and president of Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986. He was the author of over 30 books, focusing primarily on eschatology and theology including The Rapture Question, and was co-editor of The Bible Knowledge Commentary with Roy B. Zuck. He earned AB and DD degrees from Wheaton College, an AM degree from Texas Christian University in philosophy, a ThB, ThM, and ThD in Systematic Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a LittD from Liberty Baptist Seminary.

Walvoord was brought up in a Christian home, but had little interest in the faith until he was fifteen, when his family moved to Racine after his father accepted a position as superintendent of the junior high. They joined the Union Gospel Tabernacle where he committed his life to Christ after attending a Bible study on Galatians.

After continuing his education at Wheaton College, Walvoord went on to Texas Christian University and Dallas Theological Seminary where he completed his ThD in 1936. Seminary president and mentor Lewis Sperry Chafer appointed Walvoord registrar. During his tenure, he also taught systematic theology at the seminary, and pastored the Rosen Heights Presbyterian church in Fort Worth. Walvoord became more involved in the administration of the school, serving as Chafer’s assistant and secretary to the faculty, and upon Chafer’s death in 1952, became the seminary’s second president where he served until his retirement in 1986.

In addition to his responsibilities at the seminary, Walvoord earned a reputation as one of the most influential dispensational theologians of the 20th century and played a prominent role in advocating a rapture of Christians from the earth prior to a time of great tribulation, followed by a literal thousand-year millennial reign of Christ, and a renewed focus of God on the nation of Israel as distinct from the church.

Books Authored

The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago. Moody Publishers (1966).

Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago. Moody Publishers (1971).

Philippians. Chicago. Moody Publishers (1971).

Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1974, rev. ed. 1976 and 1990).

Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago. Moody Publishers (1974).

Major Bible Themes (with Lewis Sperry Chafer) Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1974).

The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation: A Historical and Biblical Study of Posttribulationism (1976).

The Rapture Question. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1979).

The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1983).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (with Roy B. Zuck). Wheaton: Cook Communications (1989).

The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit Chicago: Moody Press (1991).

(Contributor: “The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective”) Five Views on Sanctification. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1996).

(Contributor: “The Literal View”) Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1996).

Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago (1974).

The Final Drama: Fourteen Keys to Understanding the Prophetic Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications (1997).

Every Prophecy of the Bible. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications (1990, 2011).

The Church in Prophecy: Exploring God’s Purpose for the Present Age. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications (1999).

The Power of Praying Together: Experiencing Christ Actively in Charge, (with Oliver W. Price). Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications (1999).

Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (1999).

Blessed Hope. (Autobiography with Mal Couch), AMG Publishers (2001).

Prophecy in the New Millennium. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications (2001).

1 & 2 Thessalonians. Chicago: Moody Publishers (Reprinted, 2012).

Why is Tim Keller Indebted to Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones?

3 Important Reminders on Preaching Dr. Tim Keller Gleaned from Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ Classic Preaching and Preachers

DAVID MARTYN LLOYD-JONES’ Preaching and Preachers remains astonishingly up-to-date. In particular I find these three reminders helpful to me, and have been over the years.

(1) Give preaching the primacy— despite the resistance.

Lloyd-Jones was lecturing in 1969 out of a British context where many claimed that Christian preaching would no longer be effective. World War II had given Europeans a suspicion of “great orators” (think Hitler). Television and radio had changed people’s attention spans and created an appetite for intimate, informal speech. The culture’s loss of belief in authority was another factor; in a post-Christian society how could we think it effective to bring people to hear a monologue? Instead, the objectors proposed using new media (television and radio), or putting greater emphasis on liturgy and art, or making the church more of a social service and counseling agency. Some called churches to abandon their current form totally. Christians, they said, should disperse, throwing themselves into addressing people’s personal and social problems out in the world. Then, when holding gatherings, they should be small, informal, and characterized by dialogue and discussion.

It is surprising how similar this sounds to proposals that have been made in United States more recently under the heading of “the emerging church.” Lloyd-Jones’ answers to these objections are still compelling. He shows how in Acts 6 the apostles appointed others to the important ministry of mercy so they could devote themselves to the primary thing—” prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6: 4). He argues that people sense a power and experience a sermon very differently in person, in a gathered assembly, than they do through media. Most boldly he takes on the main objection—” people just won’t come.” He retorts: “The answer is that they will come, and that they do come when it is true preaching.” Speaking from the heart of secular, pluralistic, late-modern Manhattan, this preacher completely agrees with him.

(2) Don’t preach as if everyone is a Christian— or as if the gospel is not for Christians.

Lloyd-Jones warns preachers not to “assume that all … who are members of the church, are … Christians. This, to me, is the most fatal blunder of all.” He goes on to say that many people have accepted Christianity intellectually but have never come under the power of the Word and the Gospel and therefore have “not truly repented.” Under real Gospel preaching there will always be a steady stream of church members who, every year, come forward and confess that they had never understood the Gospel and had, over the past months, finally repented and believed truly.

There is a flip side to this. Lloyd-Jones calls us not only to evangelize as we edify, but insists that we can edify Christians as we evangelize. As he put it, believers need to feel the power of the Gospel again and again and “almost” go through the experience of conversion again. Lloyd-Jones preached sermons in the evening that were primarily evangelistic and sermons in the morning that were primarily edification, but he insisted that his members come to both and that preachers not make “too rigid” a distinction. The Gospel edifies and evangelizes at the same time.

When I came to New York City in 1989, I listened to scores of Lloyd-Jones recordings. I heard how expository and theological his evangelistic preaching was, and how evangelistic and Gospel-centered his edificational preaching was. It was an epiphany for me. I realized that the Willow Creek strategy of light “seeker talks” every weekend was misguided. I also saw that the reaction against Willow Creek— the move to lengthy, didactic, expository teaching that assumed all were Christians— was inappropriate for Manhattan as well. New York City in the late 1980s was more like midcentury London than anywhere else in the U.S., and so I listened to recordings of sermons by Lloyd-Jones and Dick Lucas, another London preacher. I learned to preach evangelistic-edificational sermons and edificational-evangelistic sermons.

(3) Don’t preach just to make the truth clear— but to make it real.

In 1968, during convalescence after surgery, Lloyd-Jones visited many of the churches pastored by members of his Westminster Ministerial Fellowship. He was disappointed by the preaching he heard. On October 9 of that year he gave the Fellowship an informal lecture (preserved by Iain Murray in Lloyd-Jones: Messenger of Grace, 2008, pp. 99ff.) saying that “once evangelical preaching was too subjective— now it is too objective.” In their concern to avoid entertainment and storytelling, their preaching addressed only the mind and not “the whole man.”

These concerns reemerge in Preaching and Preachers. He speaks against the idea that expository preaching is just a “running commentary.” A sermon must have progression to a climax, it must be life-related with argument and passion. In fact, in a 1976 lecture on Jonathan Edwards, Lloyd-Jones argued that the primary object of preaching is not only to give information to be used later, but to make an impression on the heart on the spot. For this reason he even discouraged people from taking notes. The point of preaching is not just to expound doctrine, but to make the doctrine real to the heart and therefore permanently life-changing.

This message was and is important for those circles that do believe in the primacy of preaching, especially expository preaching. Lloyd-Jones argued strenuously against what he called “the pew dictating to the pulpit,” or overcontextualization. Yet Lloyd-Jones saw that his disciples had overreacted. In his October 9 lecture he appealed to them: “Let us present the sermon the best we can— the best language, the best of everything. We have got the curious notion, ‘It’s the doctrine that matters,’ and ignore this. With the message we have got, it is tragic if we can be cold, lifeless, and dull.”

Preaching and Preachers contains many statements about preaching that many will quibble with, including me. But his main themes and messages to preachers are powerful and still so, so timely. This book likely flies in the face of the last five or six books you have read on preaching. But it is one of the most important books on preaching in print. I personally owe it a debt I can never repay.

*The essay above A “Tract for the Times” was written by Dr. Tim Keller following Chapter 4 (The Form of the Sermon) in the special 40^th Anniversary of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Preaching and Preachers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (2012 Reprint of 1972 edition).

About the Author

Dr. Timothy Keller is founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City and the author of numerous books, including Galatians For You, Every Good Endeavor, Center Church, The Meaning of Marriage, The Reason for God, King’s Cross, Counterfeit Gods, The Prodigal God, and Generous Justice. Be watching out for his new book Encounters with Jesus: Unexpected Answers to Life’s Biggest Questions coming in November 2013.

Dr. Sidney Greidanus on Ten Steps from Text to Sermon

Dr. Greidanus’ *Ten Steps from Text to Sermon

(1) Select the preaching text.

Select the preaching text with an eye to congregational needs. The text must be a literary unit and contain a vital theme.

(2) Read the text in its literary context.

Read and reread the text in its context and jot down initial questions.

(3) Outline the structure of the text.

In the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek text, note the major affirmations, clausal flow, plot line, scenes, or other literary structures. Mark major units with headings and verse references.

(4) Interpret the text in its own historical setting.

a. Literary interpretation

b. Historical interpretation

c. Theocentric interpretation

Review your results with the help of some good commentaries.

(5) Formulate the text’s theme, goal, and need addressed.

a. State the textual theme in a brief sentence that summarizes the message of the text for its original hearers: subject and predicate. What is the text saying?

b. State the goal of the author for his original hearers. What is the text doing? Does the author aim to persuade, to motivate, to urge, to warn, to comfort? Be specific.

c. State the need the author addressed – the question behind the text.

(6) Understand the message in the contexts of canon and redemptive history.

a. Canonical interpretation: interpret the message in the context of the whole canon;

b. Redemptive-historical interpretation: understand the message in the context of God’s redemptive history from creation to new creation;

c. Christocentric interpretation: explore the ways of (1) redemptive-historical progression, (2) promise-fulfillment, (3) typology, (4) analogy, (5) longitudinal themes, (6) New Testament references, and (7) contrast.

(7) Formulate the sermon theme, goal, and need addressed.

a. Ideally, your sermon theme will be the same as your textual theme (Step 5a). If Step 6 forces a change, stay as close as possible to the textual theme. Your theme will guide especially the development of the body of the sermon.

b. Your goal must be in harmony with the author’s goal (Step 5b) and match the sermon theme. Your goal will guide the style of the sermon as well as the content of its conclusion.

c. State the need you are addressing. This need should be similar to the need addressed by the author. The need will inform the content of your introduction.

(8) Select a suitable sermon form.

Select a sermon form that respects the form of the text (didactic or narrative, deductive or inductive) and that achieves the goal of the sermon.

(9) Prepare the sermon outline.

If possible, follow the flow of the text (Step 3) in the body of the sermon. Main points, derived from the text, support the theme. The introduction should expose the need. The conclusion should clinch your goal.

(10) Write the sermon in oral style.

Say it out loud as you write it. Write in oral style, using short sentences, vivid words, strong nouns and verbs, active voice, present tense, images and illustrations.

*Adapted from Appendix One in Sidney Greidanus. Preaching Christ From Daniel (Foundations For Expository Sermons). Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans, 2012.

About the Author:

Sidney Greidanus received his B.A. from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, his B.D. from Calvin Theological Seminary, also in Grand Rapids, and his Th.D. from the Free University in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His dissertation, Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts, was first published in 1970 and reprinted in 1979. Since returning to North America, he served as pastor of two Christian Reformed Churches in Canada, taught at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, The King’s College in Edmonton, AB, Canada, and since 1990 has been professor of preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary.

Besides many articles and sermons, he has published several excellent scholarly and theologically rich books on preaching including:

Preaching Christ from Daniel: Foundations for Expository Sermons. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Preaching Christ from Ecclesiastes: Foundations for Expository Sermons. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Preaching Christ from Genesis: Foundations for Expository Sermons. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.

Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. (from which the article above is adapted).

The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1989. Selected “The 1990 Book of the Year” by the Journal Preaching.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: