Ephesians Chapter 1: 1 – 4

Eph. 1.1¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Eph. 1.2  Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Although this letter is addressed to the Ephesians it is believed that it is a circular letter for all the churches in Asia.

Paul opens his letter with reminding us that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.
When Paul says this he meant:

1. He is an apostle of Christ.
2. He belonged to Christ.

His life was not his to do with as he like, but he was a possession of Jesus Christ, and he must always live life as Jesus wanted him to live.

He meant that he was sent out by Jesus Christ.
The word apostolos comes from the verb apostellein, (apostolox) which means to send out. It can be used, for instance, of a naval squadron sent out on an expedition; it can be used of an ambassador sent out by his native county. The Christian all through his life should see himself as a member of the taskforce of Jesus Christ. You have been commissioned and sent into the world by Christ 2 Cor 5: 19 – 20  To wit, (in that manner)  that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (20) – Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

We are people with a mission to serve Christ in this world, to share the Gospel and use our gifts within the body of Christ. 1 Cor 12: 27 – 28 – ¶ Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (28) – And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
-
We walk not in our own power, but in Christ’s power through the Holy Spirit. We have delegated authority. So our authority to go out as an ambassador for Christ is not our own, but is a command from the Lord himself. This same Lord who will restore all things. We serve by HIS will just as Paul did.

We should never be filled with pride in any task that God gives us to do, but be filled with thanksgiving and wonder that he would even ask. That is how Paul felt.
It is HE who calls, who sends and who equips us for every good work. It is always HIS work from start to finish.
Paul begins with his usual greeting. “Grace to you” and “Peace.”

GRACE HAS TWO MAIN IDEAS:

The Greek word for grace is charis (Gr).  It has two main ideas one is charm. A Christian should have charm, that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness. A Christian who does not exude these qualities doesn’t offer much to attract the world.

Grace always describes a gift, and a gift, which it would have been impossible for a man to procure for himself, and which he never earned and in no way deserved.

PEACE

1. In Greek the word is eirene but it translates the Hebrew word shalom, which means everything that makes for man’s highest good. It does not depend on outward circumstances. It’s the peace of God that you are in HIS will, it is peace with the Soul. Like the song says “all is well with my soul.” You have come to know the living God in such a way that in the deepest of trouble you know that He is with you. Many people are wealthy, have the big houses, money and the riches of this life, but know not an instance of peace within. It is God’s prosperity that we want, his treasures that are stored up in our heart that we may dwell here on earth, in the assurance that we are right with him, we trust in him, so that no matter our circumstance with have that PEACE that passes all understanding. Rom. 15: 3 1 Cr 14:33, Phi 4:7

Only those that have developed an personal relationship know that peace.
How do you do this?

You come to know HIM through studying HIS Word, Romans 1:16, Romans 16:25

1) It has transforming power to change your life Romans 12: 2 – Eph 4:23

2. Through prayer which is a two-way conversation, you talk and you listen .
By being obedient to HIS word.

THE CHOSEN OF GOD

Ephesians 1: 2 – 4
¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 

In the Greek the long passage from verse 3 to 14 is one sentence. It is really a lyrical song of praise Paul is thinking of the Christians as chosen people of God.
He thinks of the fact of God’s choice. God always chooses us, we never chose him. That is really something to think about and be blessed. John 15:16 It would not be such a wonder if man chose God, but the wonder is that he chose me, and he chose you.

Paul thinks of the bounty of God’s choice. God chose us to bless us with the blessings, which are to be found only in heaven. There are things that are beyond us, things we cannot obtained, we can obtain many of the world’s offerings; but by ourselves we can never attain to goodness or to peace of mind. God chose us to give us those things, which he alone can give.

Paul thinks of the purpose of God’s choice, God chose us that we should be holy and blameless. Holy is the Greek word hagios, which always has in it the idea of different and of separation. A temple is holy because it is different from other buildings; a priest is holy because it is different from other men, we are holy because we are called to be separate and apart from the world. God is supremely holy because he is different from men. The Sabbath is holy because it is different from other days.

Do we see this today in the church. Are Christians different from the world that you can tell they are set apart for God. Some are, but many aren’t.  The early church knew they had to be different, in fact they would very likely be hated and many gave their life for their beliefs.
It must be remembered that this difference on which Christ insists is not one which takes man out of the world; it makes him different within the world. Rom 12:2. In all things our head is Christ, in the workplace, as an employer, as parents as a neighbor. We are to be a transformed people. 1 Pet 1:23

Blameless is the Greek word amomos (amvmoz) . It is interesting because of its meaning) without blemish.
1) as a sacrifice without spot or blemish
2) morally: without blemish, faultless, unblameable

Under Jewish law before an animal could be offered as a sacrifice it must be inspected; and if any blemish was found it must be rejected as unfit for an offering to God. Only the best was fit to offer to God.

3) Amomos things of the whole man as an offering to God. It thinks of taking ever part of our life, work, pleasure, sport, home life, personal relationships, and making them all that can be offered to God. ROM 12:1 We are not to be second best; it means that the Christian standard is nothing less than perfection. How do we accomplish this not by might, not by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. Zec 4:6 , Luke 1: 37

INTRODUCTION to EPHESIANS

There is nothing in Ephesians that is not taught elsewhere.  In his unfinished but valuable exposition of this letter, B. F. Westcott included an appendix in which he discussed the letter’s distinct doctrines  He found 27 distinct doctrines, running from God the Father, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity through the will of God, the world and creation, the unseen world, angels, evil powers, and the devil to the church, the communion of saints, the sacraments, and the Christian ministry.(2)

Not one of these doctrines is unique to Ephesians.   They are just basic Christianity  Ephesians presents the basic doctrines of Christianity comprehensively, clearly, practically, and winsomely.  John R. W. Stott writes, “The whole letter is thus a magnificent combination of the Christian doctrine and Christian duty, Christian faith and Christian life,  what God has done through Christ and what we must be and do in consequence. 

Ephesus at the time of Paul

Ephesus boasted of its great temple to Diana or Artemis.  It was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.  It measured 425 by 220 by 60 feet       (about four times the size of the Parthenon) and housed the statue of Diana, believed to have come down from heaven.  This temple was a depository for huge amounts of treasure and was, in effect, the bank of Asia.  It was served by hundreds of the priestesses of Diana, who were temple prostitutes.  To the Christians of this city, attempting to live for God in the midst of utter paganism, the apostle directs this letter.

———————

THE SITUATION OF EPHESUS, AND THE CHARACTER OF ITS PEOPLE.

This Epistle purports to have been written to the “saints at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus,” though, as we shall see, the fact of its having been directed to the church at Ephesus has been called in question. Assuming now that it was sent to Ephesus, it is of importance to have a general view of the situation of that city, of the character of its people, and of the time and manner in which the gospel was introduced there, in order to a correct understanding of the epistle. Ephesus was a celebrated city of Ionia in Asia Minor, and was about 40 miles south of Smyrna, and near the mouth of the river Cayster. The river, though inferior in beauty to the Meander, which flows south of it, waters a fertile vale of the ancient Ionia. Ionia was the most beautiful and fertile part of Asia Minor; was settled almost wholly by Greek colonies; and embosomed Pergamos, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Miletus. See Travels of Anacharsis, i. 91,208; vi. 192, 97, 98. The climate of Ionia is represented as remarkably mild, and the air as pure and sweet, and this region became early celebrated for everything that constitutes softness and effeminacy in life. Its people were distinguished for amiableness and refinement of manners; and also for luxury, for music and dancing, and for the seductive arts that lead to vicious indulgence. Numerous festivals occupied them at home, or attracted them to neighbouring cities, where the men appeared in magnificent habits, and the women in all the elegance of female ornament, and with all the desire of pleasure.– Anachar.

Ephesus was not, like Smyrna, distinguished for commercial advantages. The consequence has been that, not having such advantage, it has fallen into total ruin, while Smyrna has retained some degree of its ancient importance It was in a rich region of country, and seems to have risen into importance mainly because it became the favourite resort of foreigners in the worship of Diana, and owed its celebrity to its temple more than to anything else. This city was once, however, the most splendid city in Asia Minor. Stephens, the geographer, gives it the title of Epiphanestate, or “Most Illustrious;” Pliny styles it “The Ornament of Asia.” In Roman times it was the metropolis of Asia, and unquestionably rose to a degree of splendour that was surpassed by few, if any, oriental cities.

That for which the city was most celebrated was the temple of Diana. This temple was 425 feet in length, and 220 in breadth. It was encompassed by 127 pillars, each 60 feet in height, which were presented by as many kings. Some of those pillars, it is said, are yet to be seen in the mosque of St. Sophia at Constantinople, having been removed there when the church of St. Sophia was erected. These, however, were the pillars that constituted a part of the temple after it had been burned and was repaired, though it is probable that the same pillars were retained in the second temple which had constituted the glory of the first. All the provinces of Asia Minor contributed to the erection of this splendid temple, and two hundred years were consumed in building it. This temple was set on fire by a man named Herostratus, who, when put to the torture, confessed that his only motive was to immortalize his name. The general assembly of the states of Ionia passed a decree to devote his name to oblivion; but the fact of the decree has only served to perpetuate it. Cicer. De Nat. Deor. 2, 27. Plutarch. Life of Alex. Comp. Anachar. vi. 189. The whole of the edifice was consumed, except the four walls and some of the columns. It was, however, rebuilt, with the same magnificence as before, and was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. It is now in utter ruin. After the temple had been repeatedly pillaged by the barbarians, Justinian removed the columns to adorn the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople. The place where it stood can now be identified certainly, if at all, only by the marshy spot on which it was erected, and by the prodigious arches raised above as a foundation. The vaults formed by them compose a sort of labyrinth, and the water is knee-deep beneath. There is not an apartment entire; but thick walls, shafts of columns, and fragments of every kind, are scattered around in confusion. Ency. Geog. ii. 273, 274.

In the reign of Tiberius, Ephesus was greatly damaged by an earthquake; but it was repaired and embellished by the emperor. In the war between Mithridates and the Romans, Ephesus took part with the former, and, massacred the Romans who dwelt in it. Syll severely punished this cruelty; but Ephesus was afterwards treated with lenity, and enjoyed its own laws, with other privileges. About the end of the eleventh century, it was seized by a pirate named Tangripermes, but he was routed by John Ducas, the Greek admiral, in a bloody battle. Theodorus Lascarus, a Greek, made himself master of it in 1206. The Mohammedans recovered it in 1283. In the year 1401, Tamerlane employed a whole month in plundering the city and the neighbouring country. Shortly after the city was set on fire, and was mostly burned in a combat between the Turkish governor and the Tartars. In 1405 it was taken by Mahomet I., and has continued since that time in the possession of the Turks. Calmet.

There is now a small and mean village named Ayasaluk, near the site of the ancient town, consisting of a few cottages, which is all that now represents this city of ancient splendour. Dr. Chavolla says, “The inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness-some in the substructions of the glorious edifices which they raised–some beneath the vaults of the Stadium, once the crowded scene of their diversions–and some by the abrupt precipice in the sepulchres which received their ashes. Its streets are obscured and overgrown. A herd of goats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon, and a noisy flight of crows, from the quarries, seemed to insult its silence. We heard the partridge call in the area of the theatre and the stadium. The glorious pomp of its heathen worship is no longer numbered; and Christianity which was here nursed by apostles, and fostered by general councils, until it increased to fulness of stature, barely lingers on in an existence hardly visible.” Travels. p. 131. Oxford, 1775. A very full and interesting description of Ephesus, as it appeared in 1739 may be seen in Pococke’s Travels, vol. ii. Part ii. pp. 45–53, ed. Lond. 1745. Several ruins are described by him, but they have mostly now disappeared. The temple of Diana was on the western side of the plain on which the city was built, and the site is now in the midst of a morass which renders access difficult. The ruins of several theatres and other buildings are described by Pococke.

In the year 1821, Mr Fisk, the American Missionary, visited the ruins of Ephesus, of which he has given the following account. “We sent back our horses to Aisaluck, and set out on foot to survey the ruins of Ephesus. The ground was covered with high grass or grain, and a very heavy dew rendered the walking rather unpleasant. On the east side of the hill, we found nothing worthy of notice; no appearance of having been occupied for buildings. On the north side was the circus or stadium. Its length, from east to west, is forty rods or one stadium. The north or lower side was supported by arches, which still remain. The area, where the races used to be performed, is now a field of wheat. At the west end was the gate. The walls adjoining it are still standing, and are of considerable height and strength. North of the stadium, and separated only by a street, is a large square, inclined with fallen walls, and filled with the ruins of various edifices. A street running north and south divides this square in the centre. West of the stadium is an elevation of ground level at the top, with an immense pedestal in the centre of it. What building stood there it is not easy to say. Between this and the stadium was a street passing from the great plain north of Ephesus, into the midst of the city.

“I found on the plains of Ephesus some Greek peasants, men and women, employed in pulling up tares and weeds from the wheat. I ascertained, however, that they all belonged to villages at a distance, and came there to labour. Tournefort says that, when he was at Ephesus, there were thirty or forty Greek families there. Chandler found only ten or twelve individuals. Now no human being lives in Ephesus; and in Aisaluck, which may be considered as Ephesus under another name, though not on precisely the same spot of ground, there are merely a few miserable Turkish huts.

“The plain of Ephesus is now very unhealthy, owing to the fogs and mist which almost continually rest upon it. The land, however, is rich, and the surrounding country is both fertile and healthy. The adjacent hills would furnish many delightful situations for villages, if the difficulties were removed which are thrown in the way by a despotic government, oppressive argas, and wandering banditti.” Missionary Herald for 1821, p. 219.

II.—THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL AT EPHESUS.

IT is admitted by all that the gospel was introduced into Ephesus by the apostle Paul. He first preached there when on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, about the year 54. Ac 18:19. On this visit he went into the synagogue, as was his usual custom, and preached to his own countrymen, but he does not appear to have preached publicly to the heathen. He was requested to remain longer with them, but he said he must by all means be in Jerusalem at the approaching feast–probably the passover. Ac 18:21. He promised, however, to visit them again if possible, and sailed from Ephesus to Jerusalem. Two persons had gone with Paul from Corinth–Priscilla and Aquila–whom he appears to have left at Ephesus, or who at any rate soon returned there. Ac 18:18,26. During the absence of Paul, there came to Ephesus a certain Jew, born in Alexandria, named Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who had received the baptism of John, and who taught the doctrine that John had taught. Ac 18:24-25. What was the precise nature of that doctrine it is difficult now to understand. It seems to have been, in substance, that repentance was necessary, that baptism was to be performed, and that the Messiah was about to appear. This doctrine Apollos had embraced with zeal, was ready to defend it, and was in just the state of mind to welcome the news that the Messiah had come. This zealous and talented man, Priscilla and Aquila instructed more fully in the doctrines of the Christian religion, and communicated to him the views which they had received from Paul. Ac 18:26. Paul having gone to Jerusalem as he purposed, returned again to Asia Minor, and taking Phrygia and Galatia in his way, revisited Ephesus, and remained there about three years. Ac 18:23; 19:1, seq. It was during this time that the church was founded, which afterwards became so prominent, and to which this epistle was written. The principal events in the life of Paul there were,

(1.) his baptizing the twelve persons whom he found there, who were disciples of John. Cmt. on Ac 19:1 and following.

(2.) Paul went into the synagogue there, and engaged in an earnest discussion with the Jews, about three months, respecting the Messiah, Ac 19:8-10.

(3.) When many of the Jews opposed him, he left the synagogue, and obtained a place to preach in, in the school-room of a man by the name of Tyrannus. In this place he continued to preach without molestation for two years, and proclaimed the gospel, so that a large portion of the inhabitants had an opportunity of hearing it.

(4.) The cause of religion was greatly promoted by the miracles which Paul wrought, Ac 19:11-17.

(5.) Paul remained there until his preaching excited great commotion, and he was at last driven away by the tumult which was excited by Demetrius, Ac 19:23-41. At this time the gospel had secured such a hold on the people that there was danger that the temple of Diana would be forsaken, and that all who were dependent on the worship of Diana for a livelihood would be thrown out of employment. It is not probable that Paul visited Ephesus after this, unless it was after his first imprisonment at Rome. See Intro. to 2 Timothy. On his way from Macedonia to Jerusalem he came to Miletus, and sent for the elders of Ephesus, and gave them his deeply affecting parting address, expecting to see them no more, Ac 20:16, seq.

Paul remained longer at Ephesus than he did at any other one place preaching the gospel. He seems to have set himself deliberately to work to establish a church there which would ultimately overthrow idolatry. Several reasons may have led him to depart so far from his usual plan, by labouring so long in one place. One may have been that this was the principle seat of idolatry then in the world. The evident aim of Paul in his ministry was, to reach the centres of influence and power. Hence he mainly sought to preach the gospel in large cities, and thus it was that Antioch, and Ephesus, and Corinth, and Athens, and Philippi, and Rome, shared so largely in his labours. Not ashamed of the gospel anywhere, he yet sought mainly that its power should be felt where wealth, and learning, and genius, and talent were concentrated. The very places, therefore, where the most magnificent temples were erected to the gods, and where the worship of idols was celebrated with the most splendour and pomp, and where that worship was defended most strongly by the civil arm, were those in which the apostles sought first to preach the gospel. Ephesus, therefore, as the most splendid seat of idolatry at that time in the whole Pagan world, particularly attracted the attention of the apostle, and hence it was that he was willing to spend so large a part of his public life in that place. It may have been for this reason that John afterwards made it his permanent abode, and spent so many years there as the minister of the church which had been founded by Paul. See % 3. Another reason why Paul sought Ephesus as a field of labour may have been, that it was at that time not only the principal seat of idolatry, but was a place of great importance in the civil affairs of the Roman empire. It was the residence of the Roman proconsul, and the seat of the courts of justice in Asia Minor, and consequently was a place to which there would be attracted a great amount of learning and talent. Macknight. The apostle, therefore, seems to have been anxious that the full power of the gospel should be tried there, and that Ephesus should become as important as a centre of influence in the Christian world, as it had been in Paganism and in civil affairs.

III.—NOTICES OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS.

THE church at Ephesus was one of the seven churches of Asia, and the first one mentioned to which John was directed to address an epistle from Patmos, Re 2:1-7. Little is said of it in the New Testament from the time when Paul left it until the book of Revelation was written. The tradition is, that Timothy was a minister at Ephesus, and was succeeded by the apostle John; but whether John came there while Timothy was living, or not until his removal or death, even tradition does not inform us. In the subscription to the second epistle to Timothy, it is said of Timothy that he was “ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians;” but this is of no authority whatever. All that can be with certainty learned about the residence of Timothy at Ephesus is what the Apostle Paul says of him in his first epistle to Timothy, 1Ti 1:3: “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” From this it would appear that the residence of Timothy at Ephesus was a temporary arrangement, designed to secure a result which Paul wished particularly to secure, and to avoid an evil which he had reason to dread would follow from his own absence. That it was a temporary arrangement is apparent from the fact, that Paul soon after desired him to come to Rome, 2Ti 4:9,11. The second epistle of Paul to Timothy was written but a few years after the first. According to Lardner, the first was written in the year 56, and the second in the year 62; according to Hug, the first was written in the year 59, and the second in the year 61; according to the editor of the Polyglott Bible, the first was written a.D. 65, and the second A.D. 66. According to either calculation, the time of the residence of Timothy in Ephesus was brief. There is not the slightest evidence, from the New Testament, that he was a permanent bishop of Ephesus, or indeed that he was a bishop at all, in the modern sense of the term. Those who may be disposed to look further into this matter, and to examine the relation which Timothy sustained to the church of Ephesus, and the claim which is sometimes set up for his having sustained the office of a bishop, may find an examination in the Review of Bishop Onderdonk’s Tract on Episcopacy, published in the Quarterly Christian Spectator in March, 1834, and March, 1835, and republished in 1843 under the title of “The Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church,” [pp. 91--114. London edition.]

Whatever was the relation which he sustained to the church in Ephesus, it is agreed on all hands that John the apostle spent there a considerable portion of his life. At what time he went to Ephesus, or why he did it, is not now known. The common opinion is, that he remained at or near Jerusalem for some fifteen years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, during which time he had the special charge of Mary the mother of the Saviour; that he then preached the gospel to the Parthians and the Indians, and at he then returned and went to Ephesus, in or near which he spent his latter days, and in which, at a very advanced age, he died. It was from Ephesus that, under the Emperor Domitian, A.D. 95, he was banished to the island of Patmos, from which he returned A.D. 97, on the accession of Nerva to the crown, who recalled all who had been banished. John is supposed at that time to have been about ninety years of age. He is said to have died at Ephesus in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100, aged about ninety-four years. For a full and interesting biography of the apostle John, the reader may consult the “Lives of the Apostles,” by David Francis Bacon, pp. 307–376.

Of the subsequent history of the church at Ephesus little is known, and it would not be necessary to dwell upon it in order to an exposition of the epistle before us. It is sufficient to remark, that the “candlestick is removed out of its place,” (Re 2:5,) and that all the splendour of the temple of Diana, all the pomp of her worship, and all the glory of the Christian church there, have alike faded away.

IV.—THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE.

It has never been denied that the Apostle Paul was the author of this epistle, though it has been made a question whether it were written to the Ephesians or to the Laodiceans. See % v. Dr. Paley (Horae Paulinae) has shown that there is conclusive internal proof that this epistle was written by Paul. This argument is derived from the style, and is carried out by a comparison of this epistle with the other undoubted writings of the apostle. The historical evidence on this point also is undisputed.

It is generally supposed, and indeed the evidence seems to be clear, that this epistle was written during the imprisonment of the apostle at Rome; but whether it was during his first or his second imprisonment is not certain. Paul was held in custody for some two years in Cesarea (Ac 24:27,) but there is no evidence that during that time he addressed any epistle to the churches which he had planted. That this was written when he was a prisoner is apparent from the epistle itself. “The two years in which Paul was imprisoned at Cesarea,” says Wall, as quoted by Lardner, “seem to have been the most inactive part of St. Paul’s life. There is no account of any proceedings or disputations, or of any epistles written in this space.” This may have arisen, Lardner supposes, from the fact that the Jews made such an opposition that the Roman governor would not allow him to have any intercourse with the people at large, or procure any intelligence from the churches abroad. But when he was at Rome he had more liberty. He was allowed to dwell in his own hired house, (Ac 28:30,) and had permission to address all who came to him, and to communicate freely with his friends abroad. It was during this period that he wrote at least four of his epistles--to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon. Grotius, as quoted by Lardner, says of these epistles, that though all Paul’s epistles are excellent, yet he most admires those written by him when a prisoner at Rome. Of the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, it surpasses all human eloquence–rerum sublimitatem adsequans verbis sublimioribus, quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana—describing the sublimity of the things by corresponding words more sublime than are found else- where in human language. The evidence that it was written when Paul was a prisoner is found in the epistle itself. Thus, in Eph 3:1, he says, “I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ–o desmioV tou cristou–for you Gentiles.” So he alludes to his afflictions in Eph 3:13: “I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.” In Eph 4:1, he calls himself the “prisoner of the Lord,” or, in the margin, “in the Lord “–o desmioV en kuriw. And in Eph 6:19-20, there is an allusion which seems to settle the inquiry beyond dispute, and to prove that it was written while he was at Rome. He there says that he was an “ambassador in bonds“—en alusei in chains, manacles, or shackles; and yet he desires (Eph 1:19-20) that they would pray for him, that utterance might be given him to open his mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, that he might speak boldly, as he ought to speak.

Now this is a remarkable circumstance. A man in custody, in bonds or chains, and that too for being an “ambassador,” and yet asking the aid of their prayers, that in these circumstances he might have grace to be a bold Preacher of the gospel. If he was in prison this could not be. If he was under a strict prohibition it could not well be. The circumstances of the case tally exactly with the statement in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul was in custody at Rome, that he was permitted to “dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him,” Ac 28:16; that he was permitted to call the Jews together, and to debate with them freely, (Ac 28:17-28 and that Paul dwelt in his own hired house for two years, and “received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God,” etc., (Ac 28:30-31.) So exactly do these circumstances correspond, that I have no doubt that was the time when the epistle was written. And so unusual is such a train of circumstances–so unlikely would it be to occur to a man to forge such a coincidence, that it furnishes a striking proof that the epistle was written, as it purports to be, by Paul. An impostor would not have thought of inventing such a coincidence. If it had occurred to him to make any such allusion, the place and time would have been more distinctly mentioned, and not have been left as a mere incidental allusion. The apostle Paul is supposed to have been at Rome as a prisoner twice, (comp. Intro. to 2 Tim.,) and to have suffered martyrdom there about A.D. 65 or 66. If the epistle to the Ephesians was written during his second imprisonment at Rome, as is commonly supposed, then it must have been somewhere between the years 63 and 65. Lardner and Hug suppose that it was written April, 61; Macknight supposes it was in 60 or 61; the editor of the Polyglott Bible places it at 64. The exact time when it was written cannot now be ascertained, and is not material.

THE URGENT NEED FOR REVIVAL TODAY

Lloyd-Jones on Revival

THE URGENT NEED FOR REVIVAL TODAY ‘Then one of the crowd answered and said, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who has a mute spirit. And wherever he seizes him, he throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to your disciples, that they should cast him out, but they could not.”‘ (Mark 9:17-18 NKJ) I am calling your attention to these two verses, and to the second in particular, in order that we may consider together the great subject of revival, and of the need, the urgent need, of a revival in the Church of God at the present time. For I am persuaded that this is a very urgent matter. In a sense, of course all preaching should promote revival and it is only as we, as Christian people, understand the doctrines of the Christian faith that we can ever hope truly to see the need of revival, and therefore to pray for it. But it does seem to me that there are certain considerations which call for a special and an unusually direct and explicit dealing with this subject at the present time. The first of these considerations is the appalling need. But I have a subsidiary reason also for calling attention to this matter and that is that it happens to be the year 1959, a year in which many will be calling to mind and celebrating the great revival, the great religious awakening, the unusual outpouring and manifes- tation of the Spirit of God, that took place one hundred years ago in 1859. In that year there was a revival, first in the United States of America, and afterwards in Northern Ireland, in Wales and parts of Scotland, and even in certain parts of England, and this year there are many who will be calling this to mind and commemorating that great and signal movement of the Spirit of God. I believe it is right that we should participate in this, and understand why it is being done, and why the Church of God should be very concerned about it at this present juncture. This is obviously a matter for the whole Church and not merely for certain of her leaders. The history of revivals brings that out very clearly, for God often acts in a most unusual manner and produces revival and promotes it and keeps it going, not necessarily through ministers but perhaps through people who may have regarded themselves as very humble and unimportant members of the Christian Church. The Church is so constituted that every member matters, and matters in a very vital sense. So I also call attention to this whole subject, partly because I sense that there is a curious tendency today for members of the Christian Church to feel and to think that they themselves can do very little and so they tend to look to others to do all that is needed for them. This, of course, is something which is characteristic of the whole of life today. For instance, men and women no longer take exercise in sport as they used to. Instead, people tend to sit in crowds and just watch other people play. There was a time when people provided their own pleasure but now the radio and television provide their entertainment and pleasure for them. And I fear that the tendency is even manifesting itself in the Christian Church. More and more we see evidence that people are just sitting back in crowds while one or two people are expected to be doing everything. Now that of course is a complete denial of the New Testament doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ, where every single member has responsibility and has a function . . . and matters, and matters in a most vital sense. You can read the Apostle’s great expositions of that doctrine, for example in I Corinthians 12, where you find that he says that our less comely parts are as important as the more comely parts, that every part of the body is to function and is to be ready for the Master’s use, and always to be usable. That is why I believe that this is a matter which really deserves the most urgent attention of every one of us. Indeed, I do not hesitate to go so far as to say that unless we as individual Christians are feeling a grave concern about the state of the Church and the world today then we are very poor Christians indeed. If we are people who come to the Christian Church merely in order to get some personal help, and no more, then we are the veriest babes in Christ. If we have grown at all, then we must have a concern about the situation, a concern about the state of society, a concern about the state of the Church and a concern about the armour of almighty God. It is, I repeat, a matter that should come home to every one of us. So let us start considering this incident in Mark 9, and especially these two verses at the end of the account which constitute a kind of epilogue to the story. In the earlier verses we are told how our Lord had taken Peter and James and John and had gone up into ‘an high mountain apart’ with them. And on that Mount of Transfiguration they had witnessed the amazing event that took place there. But then they were coming down from the mountain, and they found a crowd of people surrounding the remaining disciples, with much argument and disputation. They could not understand what it was all about, when suddenly a man stepped forward and spoke, ‘In a sense,’ he said, ‘I am responsible for this. I have a son here . . . a poor boy who has been subject to fits, to attacks of convulsions from his childhood,’ (it does not matter what it was exactly) ‘and,’ he continued, ‘I brought this boy along in order that you might heal him. I came to your disciples and they could do nothing. They tried, but they failed.’ Our Lord, you remember, put a few questions to the man, and elicited certain information and then quite simply proceeded to exorcise the devil out of this boy and the boy was healed and restored in a moment. Having done that, our Lord went into the house and the disciples went with him. And when they got into the house, the disciples turned to our Lord, and said, ‘Why could not we cast him out?’ It is very easy to understand their feelings. They had tried their utmost, but they had failed. They had succeeded in many other cases. Here they had failed altogether. And yet in a moment and with extreme ease our Lord just spoke a word and the boy was healed. ‘Why could not we cast him out?’ they said and our Lord answered and said, ‘This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting.’ Now I want to take this story and use it as a very perfect representation of the present position. Here in this boy, I see the modern world, and in the disciples I see the Church of God . . . almost at this present hour. Is it not obvious to all of us, that the Church is patently failing . . . that she does not count even as much as she did in the memory of many of us today? Certainly she does not count as she did seventy, eighty or a hundred years ago. The whole situation speaks eloquently to that. And here is the Church, certainly trying, like the disciples doing her utmost, perhaps in a sense more active than she has ever been and yet obviously failing to deal with the situation. And so we can understand the feelings of the disciples only too easily, conscious of failure, aware of certain things that have happened which indicate that there is a possibility of success, and yet not achieving success. And the question therefore that we ask, or certainly should ask, and ask urgently, is ‘Why cannot we cast him out? What is the matter? What is the cause of the failure? What is the explanation of the situation which confronts us?’ Here in this story, our Lord seems to me to be dealing with that very question. And the principles that he laid down on that occasion are as vital and as important today as they were when he uttered them on that famous occasion. Fortunately for us, they divide themselves up very simply into three main headings. Why could not we cast him out? The first answer is ‘this kind’. There we have a significant statement. Why could not we cast him out? Oh,’ says our Lord, ‘this kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting.’ He is telling them, in other words, that the first thing they have to learn is to differentiate between case and case. Clearly what was at the back of the disciples’ question was this: our Lord had sent them out to preach and to cast out devils, and they had gone out, and they had preached and had cast out many devils. Indeed, we read in Luke 10 that on one occasion they had been so successful and had come back with so much elation, that they were very guilty of pride. Our Lord had to rebuke them, saying, ‘Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven’ (Luke 10.20). They were full of jubilation . . . of excitement. They said that the very devils had been made subject to them, and they had seen Satan, as it were, fall before them. So on this occasion, when this man brought his boy to them, they approached the problem with great confidence and assurance. They had no doubt that they were going to succeed. And yet in spite of all their efforts the boy was no better at all, he was as desperate as he was when the father first brought him to them. So naturally they were in trouble and our Lord helped them just at that point. He said, ‘this kind’: there is a difference between ‘this kind’ and the kind with which you have been dealing hitherto, and with which you have been so successful. This is a principle that one cannot but notice in reading through the New Testament. In an ultimate sense of course the problem is always the same. This, like the others, was a case of devil possession. Ah yes but there is a difference, as it were, between devil and devil. In that evil kingdom there are gradations . . . there is a kind of hierarchy. You remember how the Apostle Paul puts it in Ephesians 6: ‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood . . .’ – against what then? ‘. . . principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.’ There is a gradation, and at the head of all is Satan himself, ‘prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience’ (Eph. 2.2). There he is, with all his mighty power. But under him are these various other spirits and powers and forces, which vary much in strength and power. Therefore, the disciples could very easily deal with the lesser ones and master them, and exorcise them. But here, says our Lord, is a spirit of greater power. He is not like those other feebler spirits that you have been able to master. This kind is altogether different, and therefore constitutes a much greater problem. It is important for us to grasp this self-same principle, for it is still as true today as it was then. I. The first thing, therefore, that we must consider is this whole problem of diagnosis. ‘This kind’. The problem with the disciples was that they had rushed into an attempted treatment before they had understood the nature of the problem. And here is the lesson that the Church so badly needs to learn at this present time. We are all such activists; we are all so busy. We are practical people, we say. We are not interested in doctrine and we must be doing something, so we rush off to our activities. And perhaps that is the main cause of our failure. We have not stopped to consider ‘this kind’. We may not be as aware as we should be of the real essence of the problem which is confronting us. But it is a universal rule and principle that it is sheer madness and waste of energy to attempt any kind of treatment until we have first established an accurate diagnosis. Of course, it is a great relief to be doing things. I am always reminded of the people who during the last war used to confess that what they really could not stand was just to be sitting in an air raid shelter. They felt that the strain was intolerable and they were going mad! But if they could only get up and walk about somewhere, or if they had something to do, they all immediately felt better. It is a great relief to have something to do. But it is not always very intelligent just to be doing something. There is this danger of rushing into activity before we fully realise the nature of the problem by which we are confronted. So, as we look at the expression, ‘this kind’, I wonder whether as Christian people we are aware of the real depth of the problem which confronts us, in a spiritual sense, at this present time. I ask that question because it seems to me to be so clear, from the activities of many, that they have not even begun to understand it. They are carrying on with certain methods which were once successful, and they pin their faith to them, and they do not realise that they are not only not successful, but that they cannot be because of the nature of the problem that is confronting them. It is not enough that we should be aware of some general kind of need, because that is always there. When this man brought his boy to the disciples, there was an obvious need, but that had been true in the other cases in which they had been successful. The need is common to all, so that the mere fact that we are aware of it says nothing. The problem for us is the precise nature of this need, what is its exact character? And it is there that we have to think and to realise that we need a little subtlety and understanding in our approach, in order to make our diagnosis. Let me give you an illustration to explain what I mean. Imagine that you are walking along a country road, and as you walk along you suddenly see a man lying on the side of the road. He does not make any move when you come along, so obviously he has not heard you, and you come to the conclusion that this man is in a state of unconsciousness. Very well – so far so good – everybody is agreed about that. Yes, but the really important question is why that man is lying in that state of unconsciousness. Because there are many possible reasons for this. One reason may be that the man has been taking a very long walk, and he has suddenly felt so tired that he cannot proceed any further. So he had just taken a rest and fallen asleep, and he is sleeping so soundly that he did not hear you as you walked along. But there are other possible explanations. The man may be in that condition because he has suddenly become ill. He may have had a haemorrhage into his brain which has rendered him unconscious. Or, again, he may be in that unconscious condition because he has been taking some drug. He may have taken too much alcohol or some other drug. He is poisoned. I need not go into any other possibilities. My point is that if you want to help this man it is not enough just to say that he is unconscious. You must discover exactly the cause of his unconsciousness. Even if it is the case that the man is just asleep, well, it may be raining and he may be in danger of getting wet and getting a chill. And so, if you want to help him all you have to do is to shake him and to shout at him and he will wake up. And when you tell him that he is endangering his health by lying there and sleeping in the rain he will be grateful to you and you will have solved the problem without doing anything further. But if the man has a drug in his system, if he is under the influence of some poison, then your shouting and your shaking will not help him. If this is true, then the situation is more serious, and if you really are going to do anything of value to help the man, you must take measures which will get rid of the poison in his system, and administer certain antidotes, and proceed to deal with him according to the particular necessity. Or if he is suffering from some disease then again, the treatment will be quite different. There, I think, we see in a picture the importance of establishing a clear diagnosis. Oh yes, everybody is aware that there is a need, but the question is what is the need? This is the thing which demands our most urgent attention at this present time, and it seems to me that until the Christian Church, . . . Until Christian people as individuals in the Church, are aware of the nature of the problem, we cannot begin to deal with it as we should. And here I see a very great difference between today and two hundred years ago, or indeed even one hundred years ago. The difficulty in those earlier times was that men and women were in a state of apathy. They were more or less asleep. Going back, certainly two hundred years, there was no general denial of Christian truth. It was just that people did not trouble to practise it. They more or less assumed it. And in a sense, all you had to do then was to awaken them and to rouse them, and to disturb them out of their lethargy. That was also the position a hundred years ago and at the end of the Victorian era. All you needed at that time was an occasional campaign just to rouse people and to awaken them. And that seemed to be sufficient. But the question is whether that is still the position. Are we right if we diagnose that to be the state of affairs at the present time? What is ‘this kind’? What is the problem that is confronting us? I feel increasingly that as we examine this truly, we shall see that the kind of problem facing us is altogether deeper and more desperate than that which has confronted the Christian Church for many a long century. For the problem for us is not apathy, it is not a mere lack of concern and lack of interest. It is something much more profound. It seems to me to be a complete unawareness, even a denial of the spiritual altogether. It is not just apathy, it is not that people really have at the back of their minds what is right and true, but are not doing anything about it. No, the whole notion of the spiritual has gone. The very belief in God has virtually gone. We need not at this point seek the causes of this, but the fact is that because of some supposed scientific knowledge, the average man today thinks that all this belief about God and religion and salvation, and all that belongs to the realm of the Church, is something that should be entirely dismissed and forgotten. He believes that it has been an incubus on human nature all through the centuries, that it has been something that has been preventing the development and the forward march of the human race, and that it should be got rid of. The modern man is impatient with it all. He dislikes it and he dismisses it in toto. Now surely, this is something which we should recognise. It is very difficult for us, because we are Christian people, and because we are interested in these things, to realise the mentality and the attitude of those who do not belong to the Christian Church, but that I would suggest to you is what they are thinking. Not only that, . . . the authority of the Bible is no longer recognised. In past times people did recognise the Bible to be the Word of God. They did not practise it or listen to it, but if you asked them what they thought of it, they would admit that, yes it was the good old book, God’s book, and, yes, they felt that they were sinners. But that is no longer the case. It is regarded as an ordinary book, to be treated like any other book. It is just literature, which is to be criticised, analysed and subjected to our knowledge, historical, scientific and everything else, just a book amongst books. No longer is it acknowledged as the divine, inspired Word of God. Take the essential truths about our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. These are no longer believed as they once were. He is regarded as just a man amongst men, a great man, of course, but nothing more than that. His deity is denied, his virgin birth is denied and his atoning death is denied. He is just a social reformer, just a political agitator, merely someone who laid down certain ethical views with respect to life, which we would do well to practise. Let me give you an illustration of this. A man like Bertrand Russell, for instance, has said that the Christian Church should be telling the nations and the governments what they ought to do, and not to do, about bombs, and yet he himself writes a book saying ‘Why I am not a Christian’. You see, that is the kind of thing we find today. All that is really of value to us about the Lord is denied, and he is reduced to the position of a mere human teacher or of some kind of great example. And then, over and above all that, we are confronted by the way in which people live. It is no longer merely a question of immorality. This has become an amoral or a non-moral society. The very category of morality is not recognised at all, and men and women are virtually in the position of saying ‘evil be thou my good’. Surely, we all see this if we read our newspapers with intelligent eyes. We find a defence, as it were, of immorality, a justification of it in terms of medicine, or a man’s constitution, or in terms of a denunciation of the taboos of the past. And things which should never be mentioned are even allowed to be presented on the stage, as long as they do not violate certain canons of decency. Now, surely, it is time that we who are Christian people had a living understanding of the position which confronts us, that is, the state of society. Our terminology no longer means anything to the masses of the people. They are in a position of plenty, plenty of money, able to get everything they want, and they are unconcerned about spiritual things: no interest in the soul, no interest in the higher things of life, just eating and drinking and enjoying themselves. They have got what they want and all they are anxious to do is to hold on to it. There then, as I see it, is something of ‘this kind’ – the problem with which you and I are confronted. Now it is essential that we understand this because in the second place our Lord goes on to say that II. ‘this kind can come forth by nothing but . . .’ There are certain things which are quite useless when they are applied to ‘this kind’. In other words what our Lord was saying to the disciples can be put like this. He said, in effect: ‘You have failed in this particular case because the power that you had and which was sufficient and adequate for the other cases, is inadequate and of no value here. It just leaves you utterly helpless and hopeless and it leaves the boy in his diseased and powerless condition.’ And surely this is the second step which we need to take at the present time. Is it not becoming obvious at last that so many of the things in which we have trusted and to which we have pinned our faith, are proving to be of no avail? Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is anything wrong in these things in and of themselves. The power that the disciples had was a good power, and it was able to do good work in casting out the feeble devils, but it was of no value in the case of that boy. That is the argument, so all the things that I am going to mention are quite all right as far as they go. I am not saying that they are wrong, what I am saying is that they are not enough, and until you and I come to see that . . . and until we see the greater need, we will just continue as we are in our utter ineffectiveness, in spite of all our efforts, organisings and endeavours. What are some of these things that are proving to be useless? Let me just indicate some of them to you, because these are the things on which the Christian Church is still relying. These are the things to which Christian people are still pinning their faith. A. Let me begin with apologetics – the belief that what we really have to do is to make the Christian faith acceptable to and commendable to the men and women of today. To this end books are written, lectures are delivered, and sermons are preached, in an attempt to produce and present the Christian faith in a philosophical manner to the modern man. And so you take the books which deal with the philosophy of religion . . . take the great works of past philosophers, the great Greek philosophers and others, and you say that Christianity fits into thi . . . that it is rational and so on, and so you show the utter reasonableness of the Christian faith. That is apologetics, presenting itself in the form of philosophy. In particular, at the present time, we are interested in doing this in terms of science . . . reconciling science with religion. We argue that the people of today are scientifically minded, that they have this scientific outlook, and that, of course, they cannot believe the gospel and the Scriptures because they seem to them to dispute the scientific facts, especially as far as miracles and such things are concerned. The Church, therefore, argues that what is necessary is to reconcile science and religion, and so we clutch at any scientist who even remotely hints that in some vague way he believes in God. What excitement there was when a recent Reith lecturer, a scientist, even seemed to indicate that he believed that after all there may be a God who may have created at the beginning. And we find this wonderful! You see the pathetic state we have got into, that we should become excited when a man like that . . . a great scientist though he may b . . . seems even to allow the possibility that there is a God and there is a Creator. And we are so pleased about it, and we all mention it to one another, and say that this is marvellous! It shows, you see, that we are pinning our faith to this kind of thing. What we really ought to say is, ‘Does he really? How kind of him! How nice of him!’ And then perhaps we should pause for a moment and say, ‘Why has it taken him all these years to come even to that nebulous conclusion?’ But it is indicative of our whole attitude that we should clutch at these men, whoever they are, and however vague their statements. It shows that ultimately we really believe that the way to deal with the modern situation is through our apologetics. Ah, we want to show that, after all, the Bible does not deny science. Science is the authority and the Bible has got to be fitted in. And we think that by that kind of effort and endeavour we are going to deal with the present situation. B. Then again it is done in terms of archaeology. Do not misunderstand me, archaeology is very valuable – thank God for everything that it produces which does confirm the biblical history – but if we are going to depend upon archaeology, well then, God help us all. There are different schools amongst the archaeologists and they have their different interpretations. But there seems to be this tendency to clutch at every straw, feeling that this is what is going to prove that the Bible is true. C. And in the same way we clutch at well-known men. What excitement there was when the late Professor Joad wrote a book in which he acknowledged that the war had driven him to believe in evil and to believe in God! But, why all this excitement? It indicates our pathetic faith and belief in these methods which are nothing but apologetics. It was exactly the same way at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when people were pinning their faith on Bishop Butler and his great analogy of religion, and the Boyle lectures, and so on. These, they taught us, are the things that are going to show the truth of Christianity, but they did not do that. ‘This kind’ can come forth by nothing along that line. D. Then let us come to methods. How tragic it is to see the way in which men are pinning their faith upon particular methods. 1.One of these is the excitement about new translations of the Bible. This is based on the belief that the man of today, who is not a Christian, is outside the Church because he cannot understand the Authorised Version. These technical terms, this Elizabethan language, justification, sanctification: this means nothing to the modern man. What he wants, you see, is a Bible in modern language, in modern slang, in the modern idiom, and then men will read it. Then they will say, ‘This is Christianity,’ and they will embrace it. And so we are having fresh translations, one after another. Everybody buys them because all we need is the Bible in modern up-to-date language. Is this not tragic? Is that what is keeping people from Christ? Do you think that people two hundred years ago knew anything more about justification and sanctification than they do today? Were those the common terms of a thousand years ago? Is that the difficulty? No, it is the heart of man, it is the evil that is in him. It is not a question of language, it is not a question of terminology, yet we pin our faith to this. Do not misunderstand me, there may be some value in modern translations, though nothing like as much as people think. You have got to go a long way to improve on this Authorised Version, and we need to be careful with the modern translations, they may mislead theologically. But, whatever their value, that is not going to solve the problem. 2. What else is there? Oh, the belief in the radio and the television. We must make use of these media, we say. Everybody is listening. Take the gospel to their homes. Give them these short snappy messages, that is the way to do it. So we pin our faith on it. 3. Then there is advertising. Big business succeeds because it advertises, so we must advertise the Church, and set up our publicity agencies in the Church. in this way we will tell the people what the Church is and what she is doing, in the belief that if we only tell them the truth they will jump at it and want it and take it, as they do the various commodities that are advertised in these ways. And people seem to believe this. They think that ‘this kind’ can come forth by such methods as this. What we need, they say, is new magazines, new literature, new tracts, and off we go and distribute all these. We write articles in a semi-popular form – now people will get the message, we say. 4. And then of course there is popular evangelism, in which all this is put to practice. Everything that can appeal to the modern man, the last word in presentation is used, in the belief that when it is done, and you do it with a modern technique, then you will get hold of the modern man. But I think that the time has now come to ask this simple question: what are the results? Is the modern problem being touched at all? Of course these various methods, the apologetics and the others may indeed lead to individual conversions. We are all aware of that. Almost any method you like to employ will do that. Of course there are individual conversions, but my question is this – what of the situation, what of the bulk of men and women, what of the working classes of the country, are they being touched at all, are they being affected at all? Is anybody being affected, except those who are already in the Church or on the fringe of the Church? What of the spiritual and religious condition of the country? What of the whole state of society? Is this being touched at all by all our activities? Well, my answer would be that it all seems to put us into the position of the disciples who had tried to cast the devil out of the boy, these men who had been so successful in many another case but who could not touch this case at all. And our Lord gives the explanation, ‘this kind’ can come forth by nothing like this. By what, then? ‘This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer, and fasting.’ You failed there, he said in effect to these disciples, because you did not have sufficient power. You were using the power that you have, and you were very confident in it. You did it with great assurance, you were masters of the occasion, you thought you were going to succeed at once, but you did not. It is time you paused for a moment and began to think. It was your ignorance of these gradations in power amongst evil spirits that led to your failure, and to your crestfallen condition at this moment. You have not sufficient power. I did what you could not do because I have power, because I am filled with the power that God gives me by the Holy Spirit, for he gives not the Spirit by measure unto me. You will never be able to deal with ‘this kind’ unless you have applied to God for the power which he alone can give you. You must become aware of your need, of your impotence, of your helplessness. You must realise that you are confronted by something that is too deep for your methods to get rid of, or to deal with, and you need something that can go down beneath that evil power, and shatter it . . . and there is only one thing that can do that, and that is the power of God. And we too, must become aware of that, we have got to feel it until we become desperate. We must ask ourselves how we can succeed if we do not have this authority, this commission, this might and strength and power. We must become utterly and absolutely convinced of our need. We must cease to have so much confidence in ourselves, and in all our methods and organisations, and in all our slickness. We have got to realise that we must be filled with God’s Spirit. And we must be equally certain that God can fill us with his Spirit. We have got to realise that however great ‘this kind’ is, the power of God is infinitely greater . . . that what we need is not more knowledge . . . more understanding . . . more apologetics . . . more reconciliation of philosophy and science and religion . . . and all modern techniques – no, we need a power that can enter into the souls of men and break them and smash them and humble them and then make them anew. And that is the power of the living God. And we must be confident that God has this power as much today as he had one hundred years ago, and two hundred years ago, and so we must begin to seek the power and to pray for it. We must begin to plead and yearn for it. ‘This kind’ needs prayer. Now, this is but the introduction to the theme that we are going to consider, but it leads me to ask this question: Are you really concerned about the present position? Are you desperately concerned about it? Are you praying about it? Do you ever pray for the power of God in the Church today? Or are you just content to read the weekly newspapers which tell us about all these various efforts and to say, ‘It is all right, the work is going on.’ ‘This kind cometh not forth but by prayer and fasting.’ This word fasting is not in all the ancient manuscripts, but it implies not only literal, physical fasting, but concentration. The value of fasting is that it enables you to give your undivided attention to a subject. So what our Lord said to the disciples is this: you will never deal with this sort of problem until you have been praying, concentrating in prayer, waiting upon God, until he has filled you with the power. When you know you have got it, then you go out with authority. That is the way, and that is the only way. Surely no one should need to be convinced today that nothing short of a mighty outpouring of the Spirit of God is adequate to deal with our situation in this mid-twentieth century? Are you really still trusting to these other things? Here is the vital question. Have you seen the desperate need of prayer, the prayer of the whole Church? I shall see no hope until individual members of the Church are praying for revival, perhaps meeting in one another’s homes, meeting in groups amongst friends, meeting together in churches, meeting anywhere you like, and praying with urgency and concentration for a shedding forth of the power of God, such as he shed forth one hundred and two hundred years ago . . . and in every other period of revival . . . and of re-awakening. There is no hope until we do. But the moment we do, hope enters. Oh, when God manifests his power, it happens as it happened in the case of this poor boy. With apparent ease, in an effortless manner, the devil is exorcised, and the boy healed and restored to his father. When God arises, his enemies are scattered; that is the story of all the great revivals of history. But we shall not be interested in revival until we realise the need of ‘this kind’, the futility of all our own efforts and endeavours and the utter absolute need of prayer, and seeking the power of God alone. A sermon delivered in 1959. Source: International Revival Network: www.openheaven.com. May be freely copied provided source and/or copyrights are included with the text.

Holiness

Holiness

Da 1:9
“Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”–Hebrews 12:14

Now God had brought Daniel into favor – Compare Ge 39:21; Pr 16:7. By what means this had been done is not mentioned. It may be presumed, however, that it was by the attractiveness of his person and manners, and by the evidence of promising talent which he had evinced. Whatever were the means, however, two things are worthy of notice:

(1) The effect of this on the subsequent fortunes of Daniel. It was to him a great advantage, that by the friendship of this man he was enabled to carry out the purposes of temperance and religion which he had formed, without coming in conflict with those who were in power.

(2) God was the author of the favor which was thus shown to Daniel. It was by a controlling influence which he exerted, that this result had been secured, and Daniel traced it directly to him. We may hence learn that the favor of others toward us is to be traced to the hand of God, and if we are prospered in the world, and are permitted to enjoy the friendship of those who have it in their power to benefit us, though it may be on account of our personal qualifications, we should learn to attribute it all to God. There would have been great reason to apprehend beforehand, that the refusal of Daniel and his companions to partake of the food prepared for them would have been construed as an affront offered to the king, especially if it was understood to be on the ground that they regarded it as “defilement” or “pollution” to partake of it; but God overruled it all so as to secure the favor of those in power.

Daniel  is a story of the struggle of the world’s people and culture against God’ people and God’s culture, and it is.  It is also a story of men who lived for God by choosing the path of personal discipleship and holiness.  This is no contradiction, because it is only such persons who actually embody the spiritual standards of “the city of God.”  It is only those who make a lasting difference in the world.

A great evangelical bishop of England, John Charles Ryle, wrote a classic study of holiness in which he urged holiness upon all who call themselves Christians.  After some opening passages in which he describes holiness as separation to God, devotion to God, service to God, being of one mind with God and wanting God’s will  Ryle went on to show why holiness, the kind of holiness exercised by Daniel, is so necessary. 

vdq qodesh ko’-desh

from 6942; a sacred place or thing; rarely abstract, sanctity:–consecrated (thing), dedicated (thing), hallowed (thing), holiness,  holy (X day, portion, thing), saint, sanctuary.

He listed eight reasons.

1.”We must be holy, because the voice of God in Scripture plainly commands it.”  “Peter wrote, ‘As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.  But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written ‘Be holy, because I am holy’ (1:Peter 14 -16) As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy’.  We must be holy because a holy God commands it.”

2.  “We must be holy, because this is the one grand end and purpose for which Christ came into the world.”  You say, “But I thought Jesus came to save us from our sins.”  Yes, he did come for that.  But the Bible also says, “Christ love the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or winkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25-27).  Many Christians think they would like the benefits of salvation without the obligation to live for Christ, but they cannot have them because Christ came to make them holy just as much as he came to save them from the penalty of their sins.  If you are fighting against holiness, you are fighting against  nothing less than the purpose of God in the Atonement.

3.  “We must be holy, because this is the only sound evidence that we have a saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”  How is that so?  Well James in his letter speaks of two kinds of faith; a living, saving faith and a dead faith that saves no one.  The devils have a dead faith; that is, they believe there is a God and that Jesus is his Son, sent to save his people.  But they do not trust him personally.  They do not live for him.  A living faith does live for him and therefore shows itself in good works.   That’s why James says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead”   (James 2:26)

“4.  We must be holy, because this is the only proof that we love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.”  Jesus was quite plain on this point.  He said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15); “Whoever has my commands and obeys them he is thy one who loves me” (v21); “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching” (v23); “You are my friends if you do what I command” (John 15:14)  How could the point be more clearly spoken?  If you love Jesus you will obey him; you will be holy.  If you do not obey him you do not love him–whatever your profession.  Do you love Jesus?  We have a chorus in which we sing “Oh, how I love Jesus.” but you do not love him if you do not do what he says.

5.  We must be holy , because this is the only evidence that we are true children of God.  “Do you remember how Jesus made this point when he was talking with the Pharisees?  They claimed to be children of Abraham and therefore in right standing before God.  But Jesus said  “If you were Abraham’s children, then you would do the things Abraham did” (John 8:39 – 40).  Paul said the same thing in Roman’s, noting that “those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Romans 8:14).  The Spirit of God does not lead you to sin.  The Spirit of God does not lead to disobedience.  If you are led by God’s Spirit, you will lead a holy life, and the evidence of that holy life will be sound evidence that you are God’s son or daughter.

6. “We must be holy because this is the most likely way to do good to to others.”  Many people today have some desire to do good to others, and many of our social and benevolence programs are an expression of that praiseworthy desire,.  But, I ask, “Do you help others by advancing a low moral standard – one that is easy for them to live up to?  Do you help others by whittling down the righteous standard of the Old Testament law of the New Testament precepts?  Not al all?  You help others by upholding the highest possible standards and above all by living according to those standards yourself.  There are several places in the New Testament in which the godly conduct of a believer is said to be the best hop of doing good to someone else.  For instance, Peter writes, “Wives…be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives when they see the purity and reverence of your lives ( 1Peter 3: 1-2)  No doubt many besides husband have been won to Christ by consistent, holy behavior of some Christians.

Are you thinking this way?  Let’s turn back to Daniel, who was not only resolved not to defile himself with the King’s food and wine but was also willing to put the matter to the test and prove God able in his circumstances Daniel said to the guard who had been appointed over him, “Please test your servants for ten days; Give us nothing but but vegetables to eat and water to drink.  Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see” (Daniel 1: 12-13).The guard agreed to this test, and at the end of the ten days the young men look healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food.  Moreover, it was not only in their appearance that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah excelled.  They also excelled in knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning.  The test concludes by noting that at the end of the three years of training, when the king brought his young protégés in for testing, Nebuchadnezzar “found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” (v20).

Do not say, “If I live for God, I’ll lose out.”  You may lose out on some of the things the world offers, which are not good for you anyway, but you will experience a richness of God’s bounty.  The Bible Says, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

7.  “We must be holy, because our present comfort depends much upon it. “  Not all suffering is directly related to a sufferings person’s sins  Christ’s words about the man born blind (John 9:3)  should disabuse us of attempts to make that an easy, one-to-one relationship.  But although all suffering does not come directly from one’s sin, the reverse is true.  All sin produces suffering.

We do not think this way naturally.  In fact, we think just the opposite.  We come up against one of God’s commandments, think that we would like to do something else, and immediately reason that if only we could do what we really want to do we would be happy.  We think that we should be absolutely miserable obeying God.  That was the devil’s argument in his temptation of Eve, but it is as diabolical now as it was then.  To heed it is to forget whence our good comes.  “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows”  (James 1:17)  If we turn from the good, we do not turn to happiness but away from it.

8.  “Lastly, we must be holy, because without holiness on earth we shall never be prepared to enjoy heave.”  The author of Hebrews wrote, “Without holiness no one will see the Lord”  (Heb 12:14)  Revelations speaks of heaven, saying, “Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” Rev. 21:27

Can I be Holy?

The objection  likely is that these points are all very well and good but hat it is just not possible for you to live a holy life in your circumstances.  “If I did the right think in my job, I’d lose it, “you say, Or, “None of my friends would speak to me.”  Or, I’d never get ahead  Or, I just can’t by holy, I’ve tried it and I fail.” The Bible says, “Seek first God’s kingdom and His Righteousness, and all these things will be given to you.

You can’t ever do it alone, but with God’s help all things are possible.  God is more than able.

Daniel 3: 17 -If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king

Acts 20:32 – And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Romans 8:39 – Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Co 10:13 – There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

2 Co 9:8 – And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

Daniel purposed in his heart to choose to serve God!

Daniel 1:8  But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Boice says the most important verse in the first chapter of Daniel is verse 8, which says, “But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine .”  It is said that Daniel was between 15 and 17 at this time.  In Chapter 3 and 4, the King says to bring children, the word should be rendered young men Children – (((dly yeled yeh’-led – youth of noble blood, who were probably well educated.  It was at this young age that he was taken away from his own country and culture, plunged into the strange but exciting life in the great world capital, and lured to loyalty by the best of all possible educations and provisions of the food served to the King, Nebuchadnezzar.  Yet Daniel refused to partake of the food.

Calvin says ” Here Daniel shows his endurance of what he could neither cast off nor escape; but meanwhile he took care that he did not depart from the fear of God, nor become a stranger to his race, but he always retains the remembrance of his origin, and remains a pure, and unspotted, and sincere worshipper of God.  He says, therefore, — he determined in his heart not to pollute himself with the kings food and drink, and that he asked the prefect, under whose charge he was, that he should not be driven to this necessity… We know how far enticements prevail to deceive us; especially when we are treated daintily; and experiences shows us how difficult it is to be moderate when all is affluence around us, for luxury follows immediately on plenty.  Such conduct is, indeed, too common, and the virtue of abstinence is rarely exercised when there is any abundance of provisions.

It is hard for us to perceive this situation, but we are in today’s world enticed by the  people around us, especially in our youth when we desire to be in the in crowd,, not be different.  When we are young it is so important to be grounded in the Word, to be led by the Spirit.  To chose the right friends least we be enticed to walk in the ways of the world.  TV alone is enough to give you the wrong ideas about life and how it should be lived.  When I was a young person, there was no TV, we could not afford one, and those that had one were not exposed to the type of bad behaviors that our seen on TV today.  Most of the time we had good role models.

 If you are a young Christian today you are like Daniel in that you live in a world not your own, a stranger in the land.  Daniel could have said why should we live by Jewish dietary laws while in Babylon?  Let’s eat and drink.  It’s just a small thing. It was a small thing.  Yet that is the point.  For it is in the small matters that great victories are won.  This is where decisions to live a holy life are made — not in the big things ( although they come if the little are neglected), in the details of life. Most young Christians want their lives to count for God.  When temptation comes, however small, your decision is what counts.  Sin is a slippery slope.   It always starts out small and it become easier and easier to sin. Proverbs 10:8  He who walks with integrity walks securely, But he who perverts his ways will become known. Proverbs 11: 3  The integrity of the upright will guide them, but the perversity of the unfaithful will destroy them.

It seems today’s young people learn in school ideas and thoughts that are not Christian,  Homosexuality is ok, the Bible says it is sin, but then so is sex outside of marriage,  The world is not created by God, but by a big boom or evolution.  Who is to teach them, tell them right from wrong.  Parents are not fulfilling their role to teach their kids, hence they believe that what they are taught in school is truth.  Our duty is not to hate those who practice or teach such things, but to love them and pray for their souls, but teach our young one’s the truth so when they have a decision to make they chose the right one.

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.^c

katagellw kataggello kat-ang-gel’-lo

to proclaim, promulgate:–declare, preach, show, speak of, teach

Joshua 24: 15 – And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Dear Lord, help us to serve you this day and every day, fill us with love for others that we may teach them your ways, especially our children so that when they have a choice to make they will make the election for you.  Thank you Lord for our children bless them and keep them safe from the evil one.  Amen

The Study of Daniel

Daniel in the Lion's Den

‘April 3, 2009

In our blog we will be writing about the book of Daniel from my prospective and the thoughts of James Montgomery Boice.  This is a book for our times. We live in a secular and materialistic time as was Daniel.  In Daniel we have a stirring and helpful example of one who not only lived through such times and survived them but who actually triumphed in them and excelled in public life to the Glory of God. 

Five things to look at as we study Daniel.

1.  Daniel was a godly man sent to live in ungodly Babylon at a time when God’s blessings upon the Jewish nation seemed to have been withdrawn or postponed.  This means that his position was much like that of believers trying to live in secular society today.

2.  The Babylon of Daniel’s day was a type of all kingdoms that do not acknowledge God or think they can dispense with him.  This is an apt description of most of the world in our time, including so-called “Christian” America.

3.  Daniel (and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah) was under tremendous pressure to conform.  That is, his religion was tolerated, even respected, as long as he did not allow it to intrude into public life or “rock the ship” of state.  That is our situation also.  We can practice our religion so long as it is not in the schools, at work, or in any public place.  We have to keep it “on the reservation.”

4.  The world seem to be winning. Nebuchadnezzar (and after him Belshazzar) reigned. Nebuchadnezzar (and after him Belshazzar) reigned.  Nebuchadnezzar believed himself to be above having to answer to anybody.

5.  Nevertheless, in spite of these things God told Daniel that it is he, God, who is in control of history and that his purposes are being accomplished, even in the overthrow and captivity of his people.  Moreover, in the end God will establish a kingdom that will endure forever.  The destiny of the people of God is wrapped up in the eternal kingdom.

In times like we are living in now it is important to understand the Sovereignty of God.  His purposes are being accomplished even in these times so I say to you be not discouraged, but know your God.  More later

Dr. A.C. Clayton

prophesy 

April 6, 2009

The nineteenth-century scholar and churchman E. B. Pusey had it right when he wrote, “The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battleground between faith and unbelief.  It admits of no half-way measures.  It is either divine or an imposture”.

What is the value of Daniel apart from its having become a battleground between and unbelief?  The large portion of the book is given to prophesy is one measure of its value –as well as its main reason for having become a battleground.  But it is not the whole basis for the books place in cannon. 

A Tale of Two Cities

Da 9:24
Seventy weeks; of this most interesting prophecy the following is a summary view.

1. The weeks should be understood as weeks of years, making four hundred and ninety years.

2. This period is divided by the angel into three parts, seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week.

3. As the angel reckons by weeks of seven years each, we are not to seek in the fulfilment for any more exact sub-divisions of time.

Da 9:24
 

      24. Seventy weeks–namely, of years; literally, “Seventy sevens”; seventy heptads or hebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of “concealed definiteness” [HENGSTENBERG], a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turning point in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the free Old Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed at times, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity the theocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entire suspension by Rome; and this period of Israel’s subjection to the Gentiles is to continue till the millennium (“>Re 20:1-15), when Israel shall be restored as head of the New Testament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The free theocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourth of Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which the seventy years of the captivity begin. Heretofore Israel had a right, if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Jg 4:1-5:31; 2Ki 18:7) as an unlawful one, at the first opportunity. But the prophets (Jer 27:9-11) declared it to be God’s will that they should submit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and of Israel’s depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium, though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the two destructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus’ persecution, and those which Christians suffered), contains all that was good in the preceding ones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye of faith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing the period darkest of all as to His people’s temporal state. Always fresh persecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so it shall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is the point of the covenant-people’s highest glory, so the captivity is that of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people’s sufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. He is no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype of David, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same time the cross being the way to glory (compare Da 9:1-27; 2:34-35; 12:7). In the second and seventh chapters, Christ’s first coming is not noticed, for Daniel’s object was to prophesy to his nation as to the whole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel; but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ’s first coming, and its effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks date thirteen years before the

On May 2, 2009, we will be participating in the San Diego County CERT Day event. On this day, San Diego County OES with great support from the All State Insurance Company would like every County CERT member to promote the CERT program and the idea of being prepared to help yourself and your neighbors.

¶ In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision

By waqy of historical bacjkground it is helpful to jknow that NEBUCHADNEZZAR ATTACKJED the southern Jewish kingdom of JKudah three times, beginning in 605 b.C. a little more than a hundred years after the northern ingdom of Isreal had fallen to the Assyrians.

The second invasion occurred in 5907 b.c. when Jehoiakjim, son of the King of JKudah mentioned in Daniel 1: 1-2 was compelled to surrender JKerusalem and go into captivity with mnmy of the jkEWISH  leaders, including the royal family, the commander4saa of the army, craftsmen, and even some of the priests likje Ezekjiel.  The third invasion was tghe one we remember most.  It tookj place in 586 nv when JKerusalem was completely destroyed and the people of the land were deported to Babylon.  JKeremiah was in JKerusalem at the time of this final destruction of the city.

Since Daniel begins by relating the events of the book to the deliverance of King JKehoiakim into Nebuchadnezzar’s hands it must have been through the first of these three invasions that Daniel and his friends Hannaniah  were taken to JKerusalem to Babylon to be trained for Nebuchadnezzar’s service. 

April 20, 2009

The chief characteristic of Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s time was what we would call its radical secular humanism.  Why does Boice says this?  Because of a statement Nebuchadezzar makes later on in Daniel, in the fourth chapter: “

Recent Comments

Meta

• Register
• Log in
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.org