Luke 10:25-37 and Richard Baxter

I've been reading Richard Baxter's 'The Reformed Pastor' recently, and even from a lay perspective I'm just amazed at the wealth of value in this book.  What I find so fascinating is Baxter's focus on the pastor who visits, teaches and knows his congregation on a personal level, which is something so uncommon with so many churches that I've been to.  Baxter emphasizes personal catechizing and instructing of the flock, and this particular book addresses not only the many benefits of this approach, but even takes the time to respond to common objections to this approach.  Do pastors even do as Baxter suggests, and keep a book with a list of their people, with "notes of their character and necessities?"


This could be a misapplication, but I thought of Baxter during the reading of Luke 10:25-37 this weekend on the Lord's day.  The text describes the priest that walks past the mortally-injured man, crossing by on the other side so as to avoid personal contact.  Is it that much of a stretch to apply that to pastors who teach once a week yet distance themselves from personal contact during the week with laity?

Baxter also emphasizes to me the problem I see with lay elders leading a church.  Our previous church planted a sister congregation, pastored by two non-seminary educated men.  And while I do agree there are occasionally rare exceptions of remarkable men who have pastored without seminary (Spurgeon) the bigger problem I see with this model is, these two men both have full-time jobs, a commute, and wives and children to devote time to (in addition to sermon preparation, in addition to the administration of the church.)  How on earth could they practice a Richard Baxter-level of attention to the members of their congregation when their days are already packed full?  They couldn't, and I think this speaks to the negative aspect of expecting laity to pastor, when it should be the responsibility of a full-time dedicated elder/teacher.

Baxter has really shaken the pastoral paradigm for me, and I'm really wondering why there isn't more shepherding of church members like this.  Maybe there are just no shortage of objections, like "I do not thing that God doth require that we should thus tie ourselves to instruct every person distinctly, and to make our lives a burden and a slavery."

Luke 15:11-32 and "The Prodigal God: Finding Your Place at the Table"

We've been using Tim Keller's "The Prodigal God: Finding Your Place at the Table" as a component of our nightly family worship, and its quite excellent. Keller's manner of teaching is remarkably accessible, and it's clear how, as gifted he is in teaching, how he could bring this type of teaching style to a church in the heart of New York.  The DVD features a 30-min session of Keller's teaching on the parable of the Prodigal son from Luke 15:11-32, and gives emphasis to the fact that the parable isn't just about the younger son who runs away, but rather more shockingly is the role of the older brother - the one who, on the return of the younger son, refuses to be a part of the celebratory meal.  In the situaion with both sons there is rebellion against the father:  the younger son (indentified with the "sinners" and tax-collectors listening to Christ) flees to pursue his own interests and desires then returns in repentance, while the older son complains of his faithfulness to follow the rules and restrictions of the house all along, and expresses no joy at the return of the younger brother (the older brother being a a reflection of the Pharisees and teachers of the law - faithful to legalistic standards without a genuine love of the father.)
The DVD also features shorter segments that correspond with sections of the discussion guide, with plenty of thoughtful questions that can be discusses

Luke 6:46

While having coffee at the cafe in the local United Methodist church, at the sanctuary entrance they have a large display (with expensive-looking video and music, etc) to solicit for various questions about who they think God is, questions about the faith, etc, with a bunch of verses listed on sheets of paper with space provided so that you can "sketch or write you(sic) answer on this page." What's amusing about these questions is that one of the verses is Luke 6:46:
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"

For a United Methodist church, with its generally wonky theology, I thought that this is quite ironic that they would choose this particular Luke text as a question.

(Strangely, the wireless internet connection wasn't working today at the UM church cafe, but this wasn't a big deal since I wanted to work on some C# coding with a book that I've been studying, plus I packed along my MP3 player to listen to a Mark Dever 9Marks interview, so all is well. I think the UM staff is on to me and shut it off just for my sake... :)

Also ironically is that in this interview I'm listening to with David Wells they've been discussing the state of the culture and how America is what could be considered predominantly "spiritual" and how this puts the Christian message in a much different context - closer to the Nchurch as it was in the context of Acts. That "spiritual" direction describes a lot of how it feels walking through in this UM church - spiritual flavoring but no high-view of scripture, no Scripturally-sound doctrine, etc.

They do have a nice cafe though with half-decent coffee.  Just would have been nice had the WiFi been working...

Finding Christ Between the Testaments

Fascinating message by Dr. John Barnett on the Intertestamental Period (the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew.)  The message of this silent period is that the Jews were victorious when they were obedient to the Word and defeated when they fell away from the Word.  The intertestamental period also presents the timeframe when the four main religious groups of Christ's day (the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots) came into development, and also gives more background into the very dark and violent times of the life of people like Joseph, Mary, Simeon, Anna, Elizabeth and Zacharius, etc.

Dr. Barnett discusses how Daniel (in Dan. 11) prophesied about Alexander and the four kingdoms (prophetic words that were indeed fulfilled), as well as a little more background into the some of the Apocryphal books.  Although for Protestants we can sometimes be a little quick to dismiss the Apocrypha as non-canonical "Catholic" books, even though these are not cannon they do offer some interesting insight into the dark times between the testaments, including details of events such as the Maccabean revolt.


Some of the Apocryphal works, such as the Ezras books, need to be taken with a grain of salt:  per Dr. Barnett, I Ezras is basically just a copy of the Old Testament book of Ezra with extra stuff added in about "don't mistreat the Jews".  II Ezra's is a "flaming apocalyptic" with various inaccurate prophecies.  Its noteworthy that Jesus nor any of the New Testament ever make mention of the Apocrypha.  Rome clings to these, primarily because of fringy passages like 2 Maccabees 12:43, that talk abotu how Judas Macabees, when his soldiers died, shacked them up and made a sacrifice for them.  The entire Catholic system of purgatory was built around this one verse.

Dr. Barnett gives an excellent overview of this Intertestamental Period, and it helps give an little more background into the lives of those in Luke's gospel and the rough, violent time that they were coming out of.

Darth Vader Exegesis

After recently reading this post at the Blessed Quietness website, it turns out that I'll be going to Hell unless I read the KJV version of the Bible, so I decided that following my last read of the Bible (the "heretical" NASB) I'd better give the KJV another go, if for no other reason than to sharpen up on my Shakespearean English (if not to avoid hellfire!)

Anyhow, I found that the library has an MP3 format of the AV that I could download and listen to while washing dishes at night. And this edition is actually pretty fascinating: the Old Testament is read by Alexander Scourby, who has a rich English accent (he sounds like a Beatrix Potter character) and the New Testament is read by none othen than Darth Vader himself, James Earl Jones. His reading is actually fascinating, because as you listen you sort of visualize Darth Vader reading this aloud, sitting in that pod-thing in "Empire Strikes Back" (the thing he'd open up, tell off an Imperial admiral, then close again). In a strange way, its like you can visualize Vader reading a book like Romans out loud, maybe in a time-frame just prior to the end of "Return of the Jedi", and possibly pondering the words of Chapter 12 and contemplating turning from evil?

Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

In any case, the narration is fascinating and James Earl Jones has a deep, engrossing voice that really makes the AV fascinating to listen to.  And of course, every time he introduces a chapter of "Luke", you can't help but think - oh, you know how the rest of it goes...

Luke 7:11-17

Some more Oak Ridge sermon notes from Luke 7:

The preface to the message was reinforcing that Jesus Christ has eternally existed with God the Father. We understand that creation is a trinitarian work, just as redemption is, and that God speaks things into existence and they exist.

In Luke 7 we read about Jesus raising to life the widows son. In this we see providentially timed "crowd of death" meeting the "crowd of life". To the reader, Christ's instruction to the widow to "stop crying" seems like a strange one, unless it was said by someone with the authority to restore life. From the passage, there is no indication that this woman knew Christ or that she had asked anything of him, but rather He has arrived with a mission to heal.

Luke 7 also touches on the principle of touching the dead/the "unclean", and the idea that touching unclean things makes the clean unclean, but Christ is clean, and when he touches the unclean things (us) we become clean again. In vs. 14, Jesus "went up and touched the coffin", restoring the child to life.

The people here recognized that Christ was similar to the prophets of the Old Testament, and there was excitement that, 400 years following the Old Testament, God was revealing his power again. This passage in Luke is the first account of Christ raising the dead to life again.

Luke 15:11-32

Some notes on the parable of the prodigal son, or "sons", as Tim Keller referred to this passage in some of his messages. Most of these are notes taken some some of his Redeemer sermons (many of which are free from here.)

In Luke 15 Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son, but the story is actually built around two sons. The younger one wants to leave and requests an early inheritance, basically the same as wishing his father dead. the analogy being built here is of one being ungrateful to God's goodness.

The younger son leaves, spends all of the money, and ends up feeding pigs, and even envying their food (and eating with pigs would have been highly taboo and shocking to the Jewish audiences.) Realizing his fallen state, the younger son decides to go home and, as he's returning he prepares what he will say in terms of an apology. Yet on the way home the father rushes to him, interrupting the son's apology message (here speaking about the fact that there is no stipulation on his return.

The younger son is welcomed back, but the story doesn't end here. The older brother refuses to celebrate with the father and younger son. Again here is an example of a son shaming his father, by refusing to be part of the banquet. The father appeals to the older son to come in, and the curious thing about the parable is that we don't know what happens. Does the older brother come in? We never find out, as the parable ends, a new chapter begins and Jesus starts telling a different parable.

One message about the younger son is that it can speak to the mentality of those who merely stay at church until they get what they want, and then they leave. This parable isn't just about "bad" people out there, but can speak to virtually anyone in the church who sees it with a mentality of "what will I get out of this?"

The older brother speaks of legalism and being faithful to the law, yet at the same time being lost by blind, rigid obedience to works-based righteousness. In this story, both brothers were lost and, at the close of the story, we only know that one of the brothers was saved.

Luke 24:13-25 The Road to Emmaus

I've been discussing communion and the concept of transubstantiation with an Anglican friend of mine, and wanted to record some general thoughts about the idea of the Lord's Supper sacrament being more than just a symbolic reminder of the Lord's sacrifice, specifically in regards to Luke 24:13-25. My friend cited this Luke passage to indicate that for these two individuals (Cleopas and his friend) that a revelation of Christ was given to them as they broke bread with the resurrected Jesus - or in other words, Christ was not revealed to them until they partook of the meal, implying that there is something more to the meal, in terms of the revelation given to those taking of the meal.

I dug into these passages, and responded with some of John MacArthur's comments from my study Bible, that Christ, in His resurrected body was *glorified*, and that his appearance was altered from what it was previously (Mary Magdaline didn't recognize Him at first in John 20.) And in a larger sense, if Christ was imparting some special revelation through the breaking of bread with these two, why was it only to these two people and not all of the disciples, as recorded in Scripture?

Another thing I brought up was the idea that with Catholics/Lutherans (and the high-church denominations), my own observation is that the elements are often offered to the congregation WITHOUT the admonition/caution presented by Paul in I Cor. 11. In other words, when you attend a Catholic Mass, the priest generally says some words in Latin, then the elements are presented, unguarded (without an admonition for self-examination, resolution of sins with brother, etc.) and anyone, regardless of the state of their heart, can partake of this sacrament. I believe that Scripture cautions against taking the meal lightly, and that there needs to be a guarding of the elements, and that the meal is only observed/taken by those professing believers who have examined their hearts, completely understand the meaning of the meal, and who have no unresolved sins with their brothers. In a typical mass, ANYONE can line up to take the elements and the table is completely unguarded. I think this goes against what Paul speaks about in I Cor. 11, and is ultimately dangerous to the individual partaking of the elements (as per Paul's warning) and to the church itself. Is there a special revelation granted through partaking of the meal? I'm more convinced that the meal serves as a public reminder of Christ's sacrifice and the importance of this in the life of believers. Is there a spiritual revelation from this meal? I'm more convinced that revelation if given the believer from Scripture alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer.

Now whether or not I believe the person taking the Lord's supper elements needs to be Baptized or not, I'm not completely sure about yet. Could a newly-converted, yet unbaptized individual partake of the Lord's supper, knowing what it means and what it entails? I would say yes, although some churches (like my own) would guard the table from those who have not been baptized in Christ's name.