“The Most Beautiful Book Ever Written”
That is how a mid 19th Century New Testament critic described the third gospel. I am certain that anyone who attended the very first Oxford Conference week in August 1964 must remember a striking visual aid used by the late Bro. F.W. Turner in speaking of the beauty of the Word of God.
Apparently absentmindedly, as he proceeded with his address, he took a rose in full bloom from a vase on the table in front of him. Some of us must have temporarily lost his words as we watched in surprise as he carefully detached petal after petal from the rose and dropped them on to the table. Then he scooped them all up together in his hands and pointed out to us that he had ‘analysed’ the beautiful flower; we could count its petals, note its parts, because he had taken it to pieces before us; but he had destroyed its beauty, and he let the individual petals fall down again on to the table, no longer a thing of beauty.
Now, it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the carnal mind cannot appreciate the beauty of the Word and work of God. Brother Turner’s enacted parable is, of course, not a perfect one, because, it may be said, we do not destroy the beauty of the Word of God by analysing it and considering its parts. Yet it is possible for us to lose sight of the rose by looking only at the petals. I suppose we must be in the forefront of those who take the Word of God to pieces and examine every jot and title.
At that same Oxford Conference, Brother Edgar Wille gave us “Seven points for Bible Study”, and the first two were “See the thread of every thought” and “Watch every word.” We even get into such absurd extreme arguments as to whether the word ‘spirit’ means something different if it has a capital’s’ or a lower case ‘s’. We avidly compare not only scripture with scripture but translation with translation, and paraphrase with paraphrase. New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are traced back to see how even the contexts of both are parallel.
We infer from Luke 4:18,19 that the Lord stopped the reading of Isaiah 61 in the middle of verse 2 because this is “the acceptable year of the Lord” and that “the day of vengeance of our God” has not yet come.
Is this why “the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him” because he sat down in the middle of a sentence?
Incidentally, isn’t it interesting, the way we accept some ‘traditions’ and reject others? Why do we refer to ‘Matthew’, ‘Mark’, ‘Luke’ and ‘John’ as the authors of the four gospels? Apart from a reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in the fourth gospel we have no indication of the identities of the writers. If Matthew Levi wrote ‘Matthew’ and John Barzebedee wrote ‘John’ then they were the only two eyewitnesses of the events recorded. If John Mark wrote ‘Mark’ one may assume he was only a youngster during the days of the Gospel events, and if Luke wrote ‘Luke’ he too depended on other sources for his information.
Tradition links Mark’s source of information with Peter. In around AD140 Papias wrote, “Mark, who had been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered…” To whom does the “he” refer, Mark or Peter? Similarly, Eusebius quotes Papias’ statement that Matthew collected the oracles in Hebrew language but everyone interpreted (or translated) them as he was able.
Irenaeus in the 2nd Century attributed the third gospel to Luke and it is clear from 1:1-3 that the writer was trying to tidy up many ‘witness documents’ which were in circulation by bringing to bear his knowledge of what had happened. He says (v.3) he had this knowledge “from the very beginning”, or as some have translated it, “from above”, so he is either claiming to be an eye witness, or inspired, or both.
Again we owe it to Irenaeus who quoted Polycarp (died c.AD155) that he had heard John Barzebedee recounting events in the life of the Lord, though Polycarp nowhere refers to personal contact with John, does not refer to his gospel, but does quote the Epistle of John.
But is not all this rather barren information not rather balanced by the direct statement of the Lord in John 14:26 & 16:7-14?
We may be certain that however the Lord enquires into our lives finally, he will not be asking us to quote Papias, Eusebius, Ireneus or Polycarp, nor even to repeat verbatim quotations from ‘Matthew’, ‘Mark’, ‘Luke’ or ‘John’, but he will look for evidence that we are entitled to be addressed as “…most excellent Theophilus,(God-lover)”, and have shown in our relationships with others that we “know the certainty of those things…” wherein we have been taught.
We need to be taught – God has graciously provided us with instructors.
We need to know the certainty – God has given an assurance unto all men in that He raised the Lord Jesus from the dead.
We need to believe – that is our sole contribution.
How are these three desirable things achieved? How can we be taught by God? We cannot see Him; millions deny they experience Him; how can we know the certainty? Is not all history, like beauty, seen in the eyes of the beholder, but biased by heredity, education and experience? And does not a person believe only what he wants to believe?
What can Luke contribute? Nothing, if he were only another historian recording the events as he saw them. But as another divine commentator he performs an entirely different function. He is one of God’s prophets, revealing the past, the present and the future from God’s viewpoint.
The past, like the words on the previous pages, is unknown to us. The future, like the words on the next pages, is unknown to us. There are many things in life of which, naturally speaking, we have no knowledge. The historian, the scientist and the monthly prognosticator are all just trying to enlighten our darkness. But all they teach us emphasises that the things that are seen are temporal. They have told us Julius Caesar came to Britain in 55BC and again in 54BC – so what? He’s dead, and I’m no better for knowing the facts. The scientists have looked into the atom and now life is full of fear. The monthly prognosticators peep and mutter for money and the people love to have it so.
But only God knows the end from the beginning, and only those who see life through His revelation understand the past, the present and the future. And to this Luke makes his contribution.
Tear a hole in this page and see the unseen words on the next one. They are the events of the future, read in due course when you come to them. But what power gives us the penetrating sight to pierce through the mists of yesterday and tomorrow? Luke, by divine revelation, makes his contribution. More also; he and others equipped by God let us see ourselves today. We spend a great proportion of our time reading divine history and divine prophecy, and often overlook divine enlightenment for today. Think again of this: not only is the page of history torn so that we may see through and learn the right understanding of things that are past; not only is the page of the future torn so that we may learn the right understanding of the things yet to come; But more important – the vail on our eyes, which prevents us seeing even today in perspective is torn away. We see ourselves as God sees us; we see our experiences as God sees them; we see the unseen involvement of God in today. What is the use of seeing God in history and seeing God in the future if we cannot see God today?
Read again Luke 4:16-32 and feel the impact of “This Day…” They’d never seen God in their affairs before. They’d never imagined that God was more than a God of the past or a God of the future.
God in Moses’ day.- Yes! God in Isaiah’s day – Yes!
God in Messiah’s day when the Kingdom came back to Israel – Yes!
But God today – No!
Their first reaction was amazement at such Good News – God was concerned about them and was fulfilling His purpose then. This was indeed the Good News for Today.
Now, when we are reading through Luke again let us feel the impact of that revelation for ourselves – God is concerned about us TODAY. This is the Gospel of the Grace of God.
The divine political Kingdom of Israel restored, and promises fulfilled with the Lord Jesus enthroned in Jerusalem and saints reigning over cities is a part – only a part – of the Good News. In fact, it will come to an end and be replaced by a more glorious stage of which man can understand nothing because he has neither words nor ideas to comprehend that state.
The other part of the Good News enshrined in the gospels is that God is showing His concern for man in Jesus Christ, now, today. Why do people show no interest in our preaching? Is it because we are only saying, “Tomorrow the scripture will be fulfilled…” instead of today God is concerned about you? Why do brethren and sisters lose faith and leave the Truth? Is it because we who preach, exhort and write are only promising them jam tomorrow, instead of good solid food to sustain them today? The religious authorities once kept men in some order and discipline by offering them the’ pie in the sky when they die’ sedative against the ills of today, or threatening hell-fire torments if they didn’t accept iniquitous exploitation by their masters. “It will all be well in the end, my son”, they said soothingly, rubbing their unctuous hands whilst taking bread from the mouths of the children and the shirts from the backs of the poor. That’s no Good News, of course, as we know. But are we better than they?
“What shall we have, therefore? says Peter – or if he doesn’t say it, he thinks it. “Well, my son, if you accept enough of the world’s education to enable you to do just enough reading and arithmetic to work out Daniel’s dates and the symbols of the Revelation you’ll know that in just under 2,000 years…”
No wonder Daniel collapsed when he learned how long it would be before the end came. You’ve got to have the faith of Daniel – that God is with us in the lion’s den, or the furnace – to stand that kind of information without giving up.
But to return to the people in the synagogue at Nazareth. Whilst we’ve been away in thought their reaction has changed from amazement to rebellion. Rebellion? Yes, rebellion against God being involved in their lives today. They made an early unsuccessful attempt to quieten the voice which said God is not a God afar off but very nigh to everyone of you, because they were embarrassed to see through the vail and find God standing in their midst.
They wanted the Kingdom, but they didn’t want God.
They wanted God’s concern, but they didn’t want to be concerned.
They wanted God to slay the wicked, but they didn’t want to allow God to convert them from sinners to saints, and slay their wickedness.
Like us they were always looking for the Kingdom to come. They collected signs like David and Jean Pearson collect postage stamps. The Lord commended seeking first the Kingdom of God, and doubtless his exposition of “all that the prophets have spoken” was given many times. But he knew it was achieving nothing in the vast majority of cases. Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Luke tells us that on one occasion the Pharisees demanded when the Kingdom of God should come. A good question, it showed interest in the things of God, didn’t it? Doubtless all godly men and women from Adam and Eve to the present writer of the ‘Signs of the Times’ in the ‘Christadelphian’ have been concerned with that question.
What a shock it must have been then to hear the Lord Jesus say, “The Kingdom won’t come just with you standing looking for it. If you’re waiting to hear news that it has been established, thinking that you can then go and join it, You’re mistaken: “The Kingdom Of God Is Within You!”
And immediately all the Christadelphian writers and speakers jumped up in their mothers’ wombs and began to explain that he’d not meant that. The rule of God is for the future, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, Jerusalem, Ezekiel’s temple, vines and fig trees, crowns for us when the wicked bite the dust…
Read the A.V. margin (what would we do without the ‘margin’ – if ever they find an original scroll we’ll be disappointed if it hasn’t got a ‘margin’) – there – it says AMONG you. “Heaven’s royal majesty” was among them for them to see.
Unfortunately at that stage he wasn’t the King. (This article is going on too long to go into that now.) And he did say that the Kingdom of wasn’t something to look for, like the outward show of the Kingdom of Men to be recognised by observation.
The Kingdom of God, Today, is not seen in outward show – that will Indeed be tomorrow’s manifestation in glory and power, righteousness and peace. But today it is love, joy, peace in the hearts of men and women who learn, are certain and believe. These will become the Kingdom of God political, and then the Kingdom of God eternal. But if the Kingdom of God is not within us now – we shall not, cannot, be in the Kingdom when the Lord returns.
Let us look in the right place for the rule of God. In history – yes, Amongst the nations – yes. In the glories of the future – yes indeed. But TODAY? When every imagination of men’s hearts is only evil continually, when men’s hearts are full of surfeiting and wickedness, when the heart of man is sick, failing for looking on those things that are coming on the earth – God says TODAY – my son, give me your heart.
Reflections on the Potter and the Clay