Before going any further, please listen to the above one minute clip from Dr. James White’s DIVIDING LINE podcast of 1/2/2018
——————————
Allow me please to preface this piece with a bit of backstory and personal context.

Dr. James White will always have a special place in my heart. We did some minor work together on of all things, the Word of Faith heresies, back in the late 1980’s. The Dividing Line was a radio show then. It was enough however, for him to ask me to write a chapter on that subject in a then upcoming book. I was not able in that season of my life to do that. (Long story) A thing I still greatly lament.

Dr. White was singularly and personally used of the Lord to lead me (kicking and screaming) into the truth of the doctrines of grace in the months after our acquaintance as I followed his reading recommendations. (He’s a year and a half older than me)

It was also through Dr. White that I first heard the name of Cornelius Van Til and it was materials he sent me over snail mail back then that were used of the Lord to teach me the truth of the intellectual godhood of God as proclaimed by Dr. Van Til. He taught me how to think like a Christian. Dr. White (though he was just “Jim” then 🙂 ) was in Arizona and I was in North Dakota in those days.

He will always be special to me. Truly. I still never miss a Dividing Line.

So then, what is the looming “BUT” that this prologue is clearly leading up to?

Dr. White, did I just hear you equate one’s view of the millennium with the theological and spiritual psychosis of the bible butchering lunatics that Dr. Brown closely associates himself with? Did I really just hear that?

One’s persuasion among centuries long established orthodox options of eschatology is the same as differences relating to the unleashed utter crackpottery of the so called “Toronto blessing” for instance? Or the list of other assorted crystal clear heretics that Dr. Micheal Brown has and continues to closely associate with? This is not even about cessationism or continuationism. It’s about biblical soundness of mind and unhinged emotional (and probably demonic in at least some cases) insanity.

In the DL podcast the above clip was taken from, Dr. Brown, as an example, delivers what can only be received as a solid endorsement of Heidi Baker, and then concludes it with… “that’s all.” As if what he just said was not an endorsement. Of course it was, and I can’t disabuse myself of the suspicion that if he weren’t somebody you were so personally attached to, that you yourself would have said so.

Sir, it is simply not possible that a man of your learning, experience, and most importantly, commitment to the truth of God’s self authenticating scriptures, can credibly stand forever by your embrace of Dr. Michael Brown as a legitimate ministry partner while his associations stand as they are.

I promise you, I have nothing personally against the man and a very uneven history with Hall and his crew as well. (another long story still ongoing)

My only interest in writing this piece is a very heartfelt and sincere concern that you are tragically diminishing your influence and credibility by this most unwise and indefensible ministry partnership. It is commendable that you love Dr. Brown and take your long standing friendship with him seriously. I mean that. There are however much bigger considerations at stake here. No matter how painful that may be 🙁 I hope you will reconsider before the damage is nigh irreparable. For Brown’s sake as well as yours and the body of Christ for that matter too..

Now, if I were to demand of you these three things, What is the manifestation of the Spirit? What are miracles? What is sanctification? As far as I have known you from your letters and books, you would appear so great a novice and ignoramus that you would not be able to give three syllables of explanation.
Martin Luther to Desidarius Erasmus. The Bondage of the will. 1525

While not pointed at any particular person or persons, there is a category of contemporary personality types whom I firmly believe are sabotaging their own good intentions, and many times very good work, by acting quite unwisely where the areas of attitude and “tone” are concerned.

I would submit, that while distasteful perhaps, in the American church world of 2017 this issue is subsumed under Paul’s admonitions of becoming all things to all men. Wisely eliminating unnecessary, in themselves morally neutral cultural hindrances to being heard. That is the apostle’s driving point in the oft mangled passage in 1ST CORINTHIANS 9. He is saying that where not sinful, or by some other biblical principle unwise, we should adapt to the norms of the culture, including the religious culture we are presently trying to reach with God’s truth in Christ. All of the examples Paul gives there are indeed morally neutral if properly understood. There is, by the way, a vast difference between that and all the world loving carnality being promoted in the name of some ghastly postmodern butchery of this passage (and some others), but that’s a different post.

The point is, we do not live in 16th century Europe and the soft fluffy American church world certainly reflects that. Our cultural norms, in and out of the visible church, I believe dictate that to the syrupy civil (an extreme for the sake of illustration) we should become syrupy civil in order that (within sane and wise limits) by all means we may win some. Whether they be unbelievers or less discerning and less mature believers. At the very least, in today’s American Christendom, this principle admonishes me, to avoid overt and unnecessary antagonism with such people in an effort to at least be heard in Jesus name.

In other words, the truth of what I am proclaiming should do the offending, and not simply the coarseness of my demeanor. It makes no difference whether the positions I’m advancing are biblically true or not. If the majority of the discussion concerning somebody’s ministry and message is about their pugnacious “tone”, then they’re doing it wrong.

Whether that is right or wrong or limp-wristed or not is irrelevant. That’s the way it is in the society in which we find ourselves. Wisdom and humility dictate that I adapt where ultimately indifferent. That is, to become all things to all men in order to facilitate an audience for the truth of what I am proclaiming as the Lord’s ambassador. Of course we have no control over how anybody responds, but the Lord does give us some responsibility with regard to getting ourselves heard in His name.

Some who know me, may read this and snicker to themselves:

“I don’t know what this guy’s talkin about. He can beat somebody down with the best of em. Wadda hypocrite.”

This is a lesson I am myself learning the hard way. I’m also not saying that everybody has to be Barney the purple dinosaur all the time in order to be loving, humble and wise. True heretics get anathemas. What I am setting forth is, no matter how true what I’m saying may be, how useful is it if nobody listens except those who already agree with me because I’ve unnecessarily driven most everybody else away with my “tone”?

I do hasten to clarify that as alluded to above, Jesus and the apostles had no problem blasting somebody who was grievously perverting God’s truth either. (Matthew 23, The whole books of Galatians and Jude for instance)

There are however, plenty of times where a harmless and indifferent adjustment in “tone”, on a case by case basis, is a small price to pay if the return is a vastly increased audience and effectiveness for God’s truth. Why not simply deny opponents and enemies this weapon in the first place? Do I really want what I say to be dismissed for no other reason than how I say it? Really?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about how God expects His people to interact with what the historical protestant church has referred to as “the civil magistrate.” The government in other words. This post is adapted from a discussion I had with a dear brother a year ago regarding the nature and use of secular citizenship as relates to the corporate repentance of societies for injustices inflicted by that society upon a specific demographic within it. That was the topic then, but the principles discussed are, I believe, also useful to the present dialog. I was asked this question:

What is your interpretation of ACTS 16:37? Was Paul in error for demanding that the pagan Roman governmental officials perform an act of true public remorse over their mistreatment of him?

To which I responded with the following (heavily edited and updated for this post).
—————————————————————————
The immediate context of that PASSAGE begins with verse 16.

First is the fact that this is a face to face interaction between individuals. Even after the state is involved, the situation is first hand and personal, between individual officials and individual citizens. Not between the state as the state and the citizens as a whole in the interest of public policy.

Keeping that in mind, let’s take a closer look at what’s going on here.

The Story begins with Paul casting a demon out of a girl whose occultic powers of divination are being used by greedy pagans for money. (verses 16-19) In retaliation, these now furious greedy pagans incite a mob against Paul and Silas on a list of false charges of what amount to political insurrection.

“They being Jews,” the false witnesses say, “are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans.” Now, all they cared about was that their MONEY TREE had been cut down, but to exact revenge, they made up this story about how Paul and Silas were stirring up the people against Roman authority and culture. (vv. 20-21)

These men of God were actually being persecuted for doing kingdom work. This took the form in this instance of false accusations of attacking Rome, leveled in an attempt to gain the alliance and hence the political muscle of the Roman magistrate. It worked. They are arrested, beaten and imprisoned in shackles and chains. Never once however, are we told that Paul or Silas invoked their Roman citizenship and right to a trial OR even that they resisted this violent mistreatment, until AFTER the earthquake and the conversion of the guard. (ACTS 16:37)

Why not?

Later in Jerusalem in chapters 21-23 Paul had no problem using his Roman citizenship to his lawful advantage. As he was being rescued from the Jews by the Roman soldiers who were sent to investigate the uproar he was causing there, he said to the commander “…I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.” ACTS 21:39 The commander apparently took him seriously enough to grant his request (V.40)

Why does Paul assert his natural citizenship at the Roman city of Tarsus to this commander here? So he can testify to the gospel. (V.39) Which he does through most of CHAPTER 22, until VERSE 22 when upon proclaiming his mission to the gentiles, the Jewish crowd erupts again in frenzied demands for Paul’s demise. The frustrated commander now orders Paul back into the barracks to be beaten into telling them what this was all about.

It seems that in the tumult and aggravation of the moment he either forgets or needs stronger reiteration of Paul’s status as a citizen of Rome. As the apostle is being stretched out for scourging, he asks the centurion who is assisting the commander if it is lawful for him to scourge a fellow Roman who has not been convicted of a crime. (ACTS 22:25) The centurion informs the commander, who then asks Paul point blank this time if he is a Roman citizen, and upon learning that he is, and one by birth at that, he foregoes the scourging.

The next day he releases Paul and convenes the Jewish high council so that Paul can face his accusers (a thing Paul probably figured was going to happen once it was established he had citizen rights) because he really did need to find out about this business between Paul and the Jews. (22:30) It was his job to keep order and failure to do so would bring swift and decisive consequences from the highly structured and unbending Roman chain of command. He could neither knowingly violate a citizen’s rights, nor allow all this riotous unrest to continue either. Paul certainly knew that.

Paul now gets yet another opportunity to preach Jesus to his fellow Hebrew brethren, which as we see going into CHAPTER 23 did not go all that swimmingly, but that’s not the point. The point is that Paul’s appeal to his citizen rights sets up a chain of providential events that brought the gospel, at state expense, from one Roman official to another as we see over the next few chapters. Agents of Caesar.

So, in short, we see Paul avoiding a scourging by declaring his Roman citizenship at Jerusalem starting in chapter 21. Certainly he knew in chapter 16 in Phillipi that he was a Roman citizen seeing that he was born one and all. (22:26) Why wouldn’t Paul and Silas declare their citizenship in Phillipi and save themselves all that pain and grief like Paul did later in Jerusalem?

Because if they had done that then and been released instead of beaten and imprisoned, there would have been no reason for the earthquake and the jailer wouldn’t have been converted and they would have lost the opportunity for the coming highly visible and public vindication as well. When the Phillipian magistrates send their underlings to release them the next day, Paul respectfully demands that they personally come and publicly reveal the fact that they had illegally treated fellow citizens of Rome and let them out themselves. (16:39)

AHA!!! …say those who feel it their God given right to defy and disdain the American magistrates if treated by them in a way they see as unconstitutional. (which may even be the case).

SEE SEE SEE!!!! Paul made those careless self exalting local powers play by the federal Roman rulebook and stood up for his rights!!!

Not so fast. If it were about HIS rights, then, again, the questions is, why did he wait until the next day to say anything about his roman citizenship? No, what Paul was concerned about was the reputation of his beloved Jesus and not leaving Phillipi with the impression that His disciples were seditious troublemakers.

Remember, they were falsely accused of inciting the people against Rome, when in reality, all they’d done is cast a demon of divination out of a slave girl who was being used for money. Nothing to do with the state. (see above)

Why would the chief magistrates just let them go the next morning? Because they had no evidence that Paul and Silas had actually done anything and the previous day had acted simply to appease the crowd. (a common practice as exemplified by Pilate’s crucifixion of Jesus) By refusing to leave quietly until personally released by the very magistrates who had wrongly punished them, Roman citizenship became a cudgel to hold over their heads until they complied and thereby exonerated the preachers of the false charges against them and by extension the Jesus whom they preached. Their primary concern was for the the Gospel and not for themselves.
———————————————————————–
Getting back to the original question posed to me by my friend in the messenger last year and as quoted at the beginning of this piece, when this Roman state employee asked what he must do to be saved, (16:30) why didn’t Paul demand that he repent of his state sanctioned ill treatment of himself and Silas before he and his house could receive salvation? (16:31-34) This would have been the perfect opportunity, but it didn’t even come up. It’s a pretty good bet though that he did repent to them voluntarily, man to man as he was later cleaning their wounds and feeding them in his house. (VERSE 33-34)

What is the driving motivation in all this? Not social justice or community organizing or personal vindication at all. And make no mistake about it all you conservative libertarians demanding your rights and freedoms. You are every bit the social justice warriors as are the liberation Marxists. You just have a different agenda. Same temporal secular focus, different temporal secular lens. Different goals, but worldly just the same. The driving motivation for the great apostle in all of this is THE GOSPEL.

The cause of Christ was best served in Phillipi by taking the beating and bleeding and imprisonment, singing hymns while chained at midnight, and waiting to declare his citizenship until most of it was over.

The Gospel was best served later in Jerusalem by declaring it up front.

He and Silas could have done that in Phillipi just as well. Look what happened when they finally did. The magistrates were terrified and tried to get them outta town before anybody found out how they had illegally abused fellow Roman citizens. These local statists were tricked into violating Roman law and beating and imprisoning Roman citizens without a trial. All these men of God had to do to avoid the whole ordeal would have been to say that they were Romans when first arrested. They didn’t do it that way because what was most important to them was not their own rights, but the cause of Christ.

As it happened though, take a look at the LAST VERSE OF CHAPTER 16. After this display of God’s humbling might and governing providence, they went back to Lydia’s house (a Greek gentile convert) and encouraged THE BRETHREN. This was all about the gospel and encouragement for the brethren. From start to finish. This is a perfect example of the proper use of secular citizenship where applicable. The driving motivation is the Lord’s explicit glory in demonstrations of His power and saving grace.

I’m not saying they necessarily knew all these details consciously ahead of time, but the Spirit’s beautifully wise leading is on full display whether they did or not. Even when Paul does use his citizenship to avoid the wrath of the state, he does so, not to demand HIS OWN rights, but because at that moment, that’s how of the cause of Christ was best served.

To the best of my considered understanding, every last passage in the New Testament winds up in this same place.

They weren’t looking for justice (constitutional rights) from the pagan world as an end in itself. Not that it’s even necessarily always wrong to do so, but like Paul and Silas, all Christians must do all things in Jesus name, to HIS glory and in HIS service alone, displaying all proper fruits of the Spirit at all times.

The take home lesson here is that when encountering and or confronting the government, and let’s not kid ourselves, whoever has the badge and can put you in jail where you live, IS that biblical power that be, how best to serve the Gospel and faithfully represent Jesus Christ to the lost is to be our chief concern. Not OUR rights. Belligerent, disrespectful, rebellious contempt does not become those commissioned as His ambassadors in the earth.

=======================================================

Eighty one times in the book of Ezekiel alone God says some version of, THEN ______________________will know that I am the Lord

5:13-15 “Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the LORD – that I have spoken in my jealousy— when I spend my fury upon them. 14 Moreover, I will make you a desolation and an object of reproach among the nations all around you and in the sight of all who pass by. 15 You shall be a reproach and a taunt, a warning and a horror, to the nations all around you, when I execute judgments on you in anger and fury, and with furious rebukes—I am the LORD; I have spoken

7:4 “And my eye will not spare you, nor will I have pity, but I will punish you for your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the LORD.”

13:14 And I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you shall perish in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the LORD.

21:1 -5 ​The word of the LORD came to me:
“Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem and preach against the sanctuaries. Prophesy against the land of Israel and say to the land of Israel, Thus says the LORD: Behold, I am against you and will draw my sword from its sheath and will cut off from you both righteous and wicked. Because I will cut off from you both righteous and wicked, therefore my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. And all flesh shall know that I am the LORD. I have drawn my sword from its sheath; it shall not be sheathed again.

22:22 As silver is melted in a furnace, so you shall be melted in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the LORD; I have poured out my wrath upon you.”

There are seventy six more where it is promised that somebody is going to know that God is the LORD. Those above and a bunch more are proclaimed against His covenant people Israel where He promises to stomp their brains out from Dan to Beersheba for their idolatry. Why? Is it because their sin is bad for THEM? Like a hot stove? And the LORD doesn’t want them to get burned? It’s not that that is untrue, but it is a woefully self centered and incomplete view of the truth.

Consider the following please.

In chapter 20, God recounts Israel’s idolatry in Egypt (v8) and in the wilderness after the exodus, (vv13 and 21). Through His prophet He tells How furious He was with them and how He was going to pour His wrath out on them right then. In verses 9 and 14 we see why He didn’t.

Ezek 20:9 …But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt.”

20:14 “But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.”

God had been in covenant with the nation of Israel since Abraham. (Genesis 12, 15 and 17) After 400 years of captivity in pagan Egypt, God sends Moses to now lead them out IN HIS NAME. Which name Moses specifically asked Him for. (more on that in a minute) How would it look if the LORD were to exterminate the people He was covenanted with to give the land flowing with milk and honey? Both the Egyptians and the nations round about would say that THE LORD is unable to keep His people and to keep His promises. There was a real military element at play here too.

“Did the LORD, the god of the Hebrews destroy his own sissified army so they wouldn’t face defeat at our mighty hands?”

This is what the nations would say if the conquest of the fertile crescent by THE LORDS people were to fail without even a fight.

He showed them long-suffering faithfulness for the sake of His name.

God is reminding them of the history of their rebellion and His great patience in even allowing them to continue to exist. Why was He faithful to them? “FOR HIS NAME’S SAKE” Here we are 8 or 900 (or so) years later and their unfaithfulness and idolatry are worse than ever. The Babylonians are coming to execute the LORD’S purifying judgement on His own people, who albeit with a few periods of doing what was right in His eyes, just will not stay away from those irresistible false heathen gods.

The LORD, through Ezekiel also comes ferociously against the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. Why again? So that “THEY will know that I am the LORD.”

It’s important to note here as referenced above that where we see the word “LORD” in the Old Testament in all caps, that the NASB translation committee is rendering the tetragrammaton from the Hebrew. That is, the four consonant proper name, that God gave for Himself to Moses at Sinai in Exodus 3:14. Nobody knows for sure how it was pronounced, but it means the I AM. The self existent one. God is avenging the profaning of His name, which represents His character and person. He WILL see to it that HIS NAME is properly exalted and esteemed. Especially by and among His own covenant people.

Eighty one times. Why am I doing and saying these things says God? So that EVERYBODY will know that I AM THE LORD. The only true and living self existing God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient of days. The LORD God who took my people Israel by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.

Then, as is always the case when the LORD pronounces stern discipline on His covenant people for their unfaithfulness, He promises glorious restoration and peace as the result. Guess why?

Ezek 39:7 “And my holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not let my holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

=============================================

Someone is sure to say:

“Yeah, well that’s the old testament and earthly theocratic Israel. God’s not like that anymore.”

The God of the bible never changes (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17) The wrath and fury of the thrice holy offended God as displayed against a harlot Israel throughout, especially the books of the prophets, is exactly what Jesus Christ came to save us from. All of it was satisfied upon God’s crucified spotless Lamb. Never ever to be held to the account of His people again.

The entire bloody burdensome, laborious Levitical machine, slaughtering animals and consuming goods, day and night, unable to keep up with the incessant law breaking of even those who truly wanted to please the LORD their God.

ALL OF IT, summed up and fulfilled in the once for all perfect sacrifice of the man born God, Jesus of Nazareth. Having no sin of His own, death could not hold Him and He stepped forth from that tomb alive on the third day, bringing with Him all of those given Him by the Father from eternity. His life FOR theirs, and now His life IS theirs.

Speaking of this Jesus, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us in the 12th chapter: (caps indicate OT citations as per the NASB translators)

3-For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

4-You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;

5-and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,
“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; (Job 5:17, Proverbs 3:11)

6-FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.” (Deuteronomy 8:5, Proverbs 3:12)

7-It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8-But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

9-Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10-For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11-All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

This passage is for the encouragement of Christians who were coming under severe persecution from unbelievers. Much like with Israel under Babylon in Ezekiel’s prophecies, and also like then, the LORD had a holy reason for this.

Once “sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,…,(Ephesians 1:13) sin can never again imperil our eternal soul. It can however still displease our Father God, hinder our ability to serve Him as we ought and hence move Him to loving reproof, discipline and scourging. Yes, SCOURGING. Same word as when Jesus was scourged. Is this figurative or literal? It can be and has been either and both. (another topic. See 2ND COR. 11:16-28 )

The point is that God uses pain and pressure as an instrument of productive discipline and the writer here even tells us that if we are without this discipline, we have reason to doubt whether we are His. (Verse 8)

Here is the governing principle of all of this for New Covenant believers. In verse 9 we read that God does indeed discipline us for our good. He does this so that we may “…share in His holiness.” His primary concern is not that sin will make us broken and miserable (which it will). His primary concern is about holiness. Holy, is what He is and what we and Adam’s world are not.

He wants us to be like Him. Those who are truly His will want that too. Of course the pursuit referenced just below will not end until death or until the LORD Himself descends from heaven with a shout. With the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God. (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

If we skip down to verse 14 of Hebrews 12, I’ll give a rare nod to the NIV here as it actually gets this verse very right. (not my favorite transla-phrase)

“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.”

We know he can’t be talking about justifying holiness, that is, a holiness that makes us right with the LORD, because we see even from this very book that Christ alone is that right standing holiness before God. He’s saying by implication that the pursuit of holiness is what justified people do.

To sum up. Does the LORD care about the deleterious effects of sin upon His people? Of course He does, but nothing has ever been, nor will anything ever be of greater priority and concern to Him than HIS GREAT AND HOLY NAME. Today’s self obsessed, man centered church really needs to learn this.

Revelation 19:
11-And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12-His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13-He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

14-And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15-From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16-And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
(caps is a quote from Deuteronomy 10:17 referring to the LORD)

A parable ( παραβολή ) is pretty much what one would naturally think it is. We don’t get any earth shattering revelation from the Greek word. A parable is an illustration, metaphor or simile comparing two things, usually one more familiar than the other, in order to make a point. In short.

In today’s church the usual reason we hear for why Jesus of Nazareth often spoke to the People in parables, is that He was the great storyteller and He used His storytelling prowess to masterfully illustrate and set forth divine lessons in charity, justice and life in general. The trouble with this explanation is that it is not what the Lord Himself says. Let’s take a look.

—————————————————————–
Matthew 13, redacted for the purpose of this blog without doing violence to the meaning. (NASB) (The parallel passages are in Luke 8 and Mark 4)

1 That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea. 2 And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.

18 “Hear then the parable of the sower….
—————————————————————–

For our purposes, a few things are worthy of note here.

Jesus closest friends, His disciples, did not themselves understand why He taught the people in parables. Otherwise, why ask, right?

It is also implicit in their question (Luke 8:9 and Mark 4:10) that they themselves didn’t necessarily understand what they meant either. Hence Jesus explanation beginning in verse 18. “Hear then the parable of the sower….”

Much (like REALLY much) more could be said about this passage, but the take home point for this short piece is that Jesus Himself declares that the purpose of His parables is, in fulfillment of Isaiah 6, to HIDE the truth from those to whom it has not been given.

The lessons in them are about salvation and the kingdom of heaven. Not social justice and charity and transforming culture on earth. That’s why only those chosen for heaven are given the true explanation. The Lord mentions the “kingdom of heaven” eight times in this chapter as the reason for all eight parables, and explicitly declares them hidden except to those to whom “it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of HEAVEN,…” (emphasis mine)

If the purpose of His teaching was to transform the world, it seems He would have said that instead of specifying heaven, and would want as many as possible to understand what He taught. Not hide it from most of them, which indeed it is to this day if I take His word seriously no matter who or what it makes me wrong about. Far from a precedent for teaching the unbelieving world God’s truth using fictitious stories, Jesus parables were in fact designed to hide His truth from the world, of which most of the Jews in fact were, and to reveal it to His own. (Which is a major component of the biblical use of art in general, but that’s a much larger story for a different time)

As a bit of an aside here, John Calvin is most instructive in his commentary on verse 12 regarding the “goodness” of those dead in sin, but living under common grace.
——————————————————————————–
“And he that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken from him.’
This may appear to be a harsh expression; but instead of saying, that what the ungodly have not is taken from them, Luke softens the harshness and removes the ambiguity by a slight change of the words: and whosoever hath not, even that which he thinketh that he hath shall be taken from him.

Equally appropriate is the statement of Luke, that the gifts, with which they have been endued, are corrupted by them, so that they shine only in the eyes of men, but have nothing more than splendor and empty display. Hence, also let us learn to aim at progress throughout our whole life; for God grants to us the taste of his heavenly doctrine on the express condition, that we feed on it abundantly from day to day, till we come to be fully satiated with it.”
John Calvin – Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels

——————————————————————-

Feel good stories of secular “love” and sacrifice and good will, may… well… feel good, but unbelievers falling into each other’s arms in broadminded peaceful tolerance for each other for instance. does not impress the God of the bible.

Making people feel better about themselves in their sin is the exact opposite of the biblical principle of applying the law to them so it can show them their need for the penal substitutionary blood atonement of the only begotten Son of God, thus revealing them with us, to be among those to whom: “it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of HEAVEN,…” (emphasis mine).

Ok, HEATHER
Part one of my promised response to your question. The story of the good Samaritan has nothing to do with charity or social justice. That doesn’t mean that charity isn’t good and pleasing to the Lord or that the things the Samaritan does are not good examples.

However, none of that is the point of the story. Here’s the whole passage from the Gospel of Luke.
——————————————————
Luke 10:25-37 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36 Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
——————————————————-
Let’s take a look at what happened there. One of the Jewish scholars of the day is trying to call Jesus out (so to speak)

He asks him a sarcastic question.

“ok pal, you’re runnin all around here talkin about eternal life, tell me how to get it” (picture a thinly veiled smug condescending tone and phony look on this man’s face)

Jesus answers: “gimme your take on what the law says,” … because they mistakenly thought that the law was the way to life. (regardless of what arrogant innovators like NT Wright try to say.)

This is a sharp learned man and maybe he had heard Jesus himself say this very thing, so he answers correctly:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus commends him for this excellent answer and tells him to go ahead and do that and he will live.

Guess what? NObody can do that and nobody does. Now this lettered man of the scrolls gives himself away with this rationalizing question.

“Who is my neighbor?”

He knows that even by his own self examination there are at least some people he is not living this way toward. The Jews of the day had elaborate rationalizations with which they would justify treating gentiles with far lower standards of honor and morality than they did fellow Jews for instance.

The story of the Good Samaritan is Jesus proclamation of God’s actual standard for the lawyer’s answer. It’s as if he’d said:

“Allow me sir, to dispel your delusions of self righteousness by the following illustrative fictitious story. Unless you treat all people like this at all times without fail, you are a condemned man” Which he was, and so are all of us by that standard as well.

In Part Two, I’ll get in to the details of the story itself, the particulars of which are very pertinent to the point I have just made. I ran outta time for now 😀

Image by JOSEPH F. BRICKEY