Category: Sermons

In 1965, a CRC mission work in Charlotte, Michigan — a city so named after the wife of settler Edmond Bostwick –had been sponsored by Plymouth Heights CRC and Shawnee Park CRC  arrived at the point where it could begin a building project to house those who had been meeting in the parsonage for Sunday services prior to this time. CRC Evangelist Rev. Al Bytwork had been the Church planter and had been diligent and faithful in his calling. Mr. Gary Douma was the Building chairman for the facility and provided the leadership to see the project to completion. As I  understand it costs were kept at a minimum by men of the Church volunteering their time and abilities.

Of course it was a far different world then.

1965 — Petrol 30.9 cents per gallon — 2.33 per gallon adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average New home — 13,600 — $102,150.68 adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average loaf of bread — .21 cents — 1,58 adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average new car —  $2,650.00  — 19,904.36 adjusted for inflation 2015

The nation was just getting knee deep in Vietnam.

The Mary Quant designed Mini Skirt appears in London and will become  the fashion statement of the 60’s while the infamous Connecticut vs. Griswold decision was handed down. Each of these presaged and confirmed the burgeoning sexual revolution.

The British Rock -n- Roll invasion was not very old and Rev. Bytwork, citing author David Nobel, wrote about the effects of Rock -n- Roll on thinking in one of his newsletters.

President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty and expanded Medicare.

In June of 1965 The Gemini IV mission launches and carries astronauts Edward White and James McDivitt.

In 1965 the Hart-Cellar act was passed … a act which eventually ended up radically and forever changing the Demographics of the country forever.

In the context of all this something even more enduring and with greater potential impact was happening in Charlotte Michigan. An outpost of God’s Kingdom was being given a place to gather for Word and Sacrament, for catechism and fellowship, for worldview training and for discipleship. This was a place where God’s army would be trained and equipped for battle.

The Kingdom outpost planted had a humble start, numerically speaking, and in God’s providence, numerically speaking, this church has always been modest in its numbers over its 50 years.  This is something that was shared with that Hebrews congregation and all of the congregations of the New Testament. The letter to the Hebrews was sent to a congregation that was small and struggling against the zeitgeist of their times. This small group of Hebrew Christians were in a place of having to decide whether or not they were going to return to cultural Judaism or whether they were going to remain Christians.  The writer tries to show the readers that the right choice was to continue to trust in Jesus. He does so by demonstrating how the Lord Christ is superior to the Old Covenant.

This plea upon a small group of people, by the writer of this Epistle, to not give into to the prevailing Spirit of the age … to not disavow their confession is a point that we should consider ourselves. Our danger in the Church today is the danger of those Hebrews written to in this Epistle. However our danger is more often to give up on Christianity by reinterpreting it as consistent with the prevailing opposition than it is to just leave Christianity to go back to ways that are more acceptable to the culture as these Hebrews were on the cusp of doing.

We, like they, are feeling the pressure to give up on Christianity. We, unlike they, tend to respond to this pressure by just reinterpreting, or re-adjusting the Christian faith in order to fit in to the culture as opposed to just leaving Christianity behind as the Hebrews were tempted to do.

When we consider this passage proper we see three components. Realities that were true for that Charlotte CRC Church in 1965 and realities that remain true for us today.

I.)  We see in this passage the Church’s Confidence. (19-23)

The confidence we speak of here is the Church’s foundation and cornerstone of every generation. Our confidence is the person and work of our Elder Brother the Lord Christ for His people.

In 1965 when they built this place it was to the end of, corporately, having the boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus. And of course this is why Church’s are built and why people assemble for Church. It is for the opportunity to corporately come into God’s presence by the blood of Christ. Why build churches or attend services if not to enter into this privilege of unique worship of the thrice Holy God?

Of course the whole idea of entering the Holiest is the idea to come into God’s presence. In the OT culture, which the Hebrews are tempted to return to, there was no ability for them to individually and corporately enter into the Holiest. Only the High Priest could do that.  This passage reminds us of the intimacy God’s people may have with God. Other passages remind us that Christ is at the right hand of the Father on our behalf, but this passage reminds us that we ourselves may enter God’s heavenly sanctuary by trusting in Christ alone.

Now the impact of that statement  impacts each of us in relation to our estimation of the character of God. If we have come to appreciate the Holiness and Transcendence of God and have come to know our sin the idea that God has made a way for us to come into His presence is overwhelming.

By this reminder that we can come boldly into God’s presence we are reminded that we as Christians are ourselves now Priests under the authority of the Lord Christ who is our great High Priest. Like the veil of hold that was torn from top to bottom signifying entry into the presence of God so Christ was torn that we might be a Kingdom of Priests ministering in God’s presence speaking to God on behalf of His saints.

This passage with its reference to blood and flesh emphasizes again the work of the Lord Christ for God’s people. The premise is that there was a chasm of hostility between God and man that only could be closed by God and with the arrival and work of Christ the chasm of hostility is closed and God is reconciled to man. The Hebrews were tempted to give up on that for a little relief.

Hebrews 1o:19-25, with its reference to Christ as our High priest, reminds us of the absolute necessity and singularity of Christ as the means of introduction to the Father. In a church culture that has too often given up on the idea of the uniqueness of Christ, Hebrews reminds us that there is no peace with God apart from a Christ who is consistent with God’s revelation.

People who don’t believe this don’t build churches. People who don’t believe this typically don’t attend Biblical Churches. People who don’t believe this don’t celebrate 50th anniversaries.

Before we press on please do not miss that Christ is said here to the High Priest over the house of God.

God’s house throughout Scripture has been his people. The celebration this morning is not primarily a celebration of this facility, as beautiful as it is. The celebration this morning is the celebration that God deigned in 1965 to build a household in this place for the manifestation of His glory.

II.) We see in this passage the Church’s Covenant (vs. 23)

And that is simply put as God’s faithfulness. The idea of God’s faithfulness as deep roots and long tentacles in Scripture.

Alec Motyer has described God’s hesed or covenant love as

combining the warmth of God’s fellowship with the security of God’s faithfulness.

God’s quality of being faithful is everywhere spoken of in Scripture. It is a component of His covenant promise to His people. In the OT that covenant faithfulness is expressed by the Hebrew word “Hesed” which expresses both God’s loyalty to His covenant and His love for His people along with a faithfulness to keep His promises.

God never ceases to be faithful. He is first faithful to Himself but He is also faithful to all those He claims as His own. We are called to hold fast to our confession of our hope here without wavering knowing that God is faithful.

God was faithful to that handful in 1965 and He remains faithful to this handful today. Amidst all the uncertainties of a contemporary Church that is too often unfaithful and a culture increasingly tetched God remains faithful. Regardless of the highs and lows of life … regardless of the disappointments or the joys …. whether in wealth or in poverty God remains faithful. It is the certainty of His faithfulness wherein we can find the stability for our lives. We celebrate then His faithfulness.

It is this faithfulness of God that is to be that which motivates us to hold fast our confession  of hope without wavering. Given the immediate context where there is mention of sprinkling and washing with pure water it is not unreasonable to understand that the “confession of our hope” is a reference to Baptism. If so the confession of our Hope would be anchored in the person and work of Christ that Baptism symbolizes.

We can be unwavering in a hope which promises Christ because God is Faithful.

Some of you are young. You will live to see many years and things that many of us won’t see. Through your life I would have you remember that  God is faithful.

III.) We see in this passage the Church’s Commitment (22-25)

Consider one another to stir up love and good works

The modern church often trips over the idea of what it means to stir up love. We would say that to stir up love is to stir up the demonstration of God’s character towards one another.

Obviously the temptation with all fallen creatures is to be self focused, self centered, and self preoccupied. Here the writer of the Hebrews encourages them to not look only to their own needs but also the needs of others. In the imperative to “consider one another,” we are driven off the instinct to look down on fellow saints as inferior. We are to consider each other.

I think Charlotte CRC has done this well over the years. God’s people here have considered one another. They have looked after one another in illness. They have sought to share the load when there was more month than money. This assembly has helped the widow and  sought to encourage the downcast. In a triage culture Charlotte CRC has been good about considering one another. Over the years I’ve had many many people hand me a envelope of money and say, “Could you give this to so and so.” I’ve seen people bring baskets and bags of food to those who lost their employment. I’ve seen house mortgages paid for consecutive months so that families would not lose their home. I’ve seen numerable hospital visits and the caring for one another’s children when in need. I’ve seen people share their holidays with those unrelated by blood but related by Faith. While there is always room for improvement I must say “well done” Charlotte CRC for the way you have considered one another over the years.

The Heidelberg catechism gives us the standard for the good works. It seems proper to cite the catechism on a CRC’s Church’s 50 anniversary.
91. Q. But what are good works?

A. Only those which are done out of true faith,[1] in accordance with the law of God,[2] and to His glory,[3] and not those based on our own opinion or on precepts of men.[4]

Note here that a good work is in keeping with God’s law. God’s law has fallen on hard times in the Church but one thing the Church should be routinely doing is expositing God’s law so that people can stir up one another to good works.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves

Why the importance of assembling of ourselves?

I think that the importance of this is the fact that in the assembling of ourselves we are reoriented again to the vertical. The Church is the one place where we ought to be able to attend and find ourselves reminded that life is not horizontally regulated. When we regularly assemble we are reminded that we live and move and have our being in God. This vertical reorientation is likely not going to happen institutionally anywhere else. It is in the Church, as we assemble, week by week, that we find ourselves reminded that our orientation in life remains vertical. The Liturgy here goes a long way in doing that.

There are many Churches now where the service has been horizontalized and people leave the assembly not being vertically realigned.

Exhorting one Another

Conclusion

Without wavering (vs. 23)

 

^{John 15:26} “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me. ²⁷ And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

^{John 16:4} But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. “And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. ⁵ But now I go My way to Him that sent Me, and none of you asketh Me, ‘Whither goest Thou?’ ⁶ But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. ⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. ⁸ And when He is come, He will reprove the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment: ⁹ concerning sin, because they believe not in Me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to My Father and ye see Me no more; ¹¹ concerning judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. ¹² “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³ However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. ¹⁴ He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you.

¹⁵ All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you.

“The term “collect” is traceable to the word in Gallican sacramentaries collecta, and even earlier to the Latin word collectio.  Some have suggested that the term reflects the function of the prayer it described, namely that of gathering the people together for worship.  In the Roman Use, the collecta is called the oratio.  The Roman Use appears to be the source of the collect, as its style is Roman in its conciseness and clarity. ”

Introduction

Jesus speaks these words concerning the coming “Spirit of Truth” who is also designated as the “Comforter. ” to his disciples just prior to His looming Crucifixion. He is seeking to console their sense of abandonment and fear, while at the same time suggesting that the Holy Spirit will sustain them in the context of fierce opposition.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is often expressed by the English Word Whitsunday or White Sunday. This has reference to the White garments worn by the newly baptized or to the gift of Wisdom by the Holy Spirit. This feast was a popular time for baptism especially in the Northern European Churches where climate led them to prefer Pentecost to Easter as the season for baptism. The liturgical color is Red as a reminder of the tongues of fire and the blood of the martyrs, the seed of the church. So this Sunday: Happy White Sunday!!

As we come to the text we are reminded of the greatness of the Holy Spirit. A 17th century Theologian once offered,

“The work of the Holy Spirit for the elect is as great as those of the Father or the Son. Why? Because all that Christ did would have profited us nothing, if the Holy Ghost did not come into our hearts and bring all home to us…. Christ leads us to the Father (as it were) with one hand, the Holy Ghost with the other. Christ showed His love for the elect by dying for them; the Spirit shows His love for the same people by indwelling them.”

Thomas Goodwin
17th Century Puritan

I.) The Outward Work Of The Spirit — To The World

He is the Primary Witness to Christ. One might say He is “God, the Evangelist.”

The context here in which the Spirit is spoken about is one of opposition by the world to the Disciples of Christ.

1.) So we might say that one of the outward works of the Spirit to the World is to sustain the Disciples as they bear up under the hatred of the World.

In vs. 26 we get the sense that they would be able to endure the world’s despite because the Holy Spirit testifies with us. Those first Disciples were not alone in their bearing witness work (27) but were sustained and strengthened by the Witness of the Holy Spirit in the Evangelism project.

Indeed the word here translated as “Comforter,” is the Greek Word “Parakletos.”  It is often translated as “Advocate.” When used of the Holy Spirit the word is defined  in the widest sense, as a helper, one who gives succor, and aide. The Spirit is One who has been summoned or called to the side of another–literally,  as an “advocate,” or, by extension, a helper or legal representative in a trial or other arena of judgment.

As the Holy Spirit was ordained to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), it was His work to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom.

As you read the book of Acts it is clear to see the opposition to the Disciples witness to Christ and yet the word of the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection of Christ went forward because of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

This reminds us that the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity associated with the successful spread of the Good News of Christ providing reconciliation for all those who would surrender to God’s love, dominion, and authority as placarded by Christ.

We need to take comfort when we are opposed by men, both within and outside the Church, that the Holy Spirit is greater than opposition arrayed against us. Because of His witness we can witness and we can be confident that the Spirit of God will triumph. We needs remember when we are opposed by the most vicious of men that if the Holy Spirit could turn the heart of Saul who loved to breathe out threats against the Church and persecute the Church, that the same Holy Spirit can overcome all opposition today.

On this Whitsunday we esteem the Spirit of Christ for the Holy Spirit is why you have an interest in Christ (Eph. 1:14).

He is the One who gives you confidence concerning being approved by God (Romans 8:15-16).

He is why you have an interest in bearing witness of and to Christ.

He is the reason that you have not folded to the opposition of the World.

He is the One who gives you understanding and fits you with resolve to press on so as to be always abounding in the work of the Lord.

Were it not for the Spirit of Christ you would have no interest in esteeming God’s commands. No interest in marrying in the Faith. No interest in staying in Christian marriages.

He will be the one who will sustain your faith in your dying moments, thus preparing you to meet the Lord Christ whom He is the Spirit of.

2.) Another outward works of the Spirit to the World is to do the work of Evangelism

According to the text, the promised Spirit will bring the world to the recognition of the meaning and reality of sin, righteousness, and judgment.  Another way of saying this is that the Spirit will expose to the outsiders, to those who do not believe, the error of their unbelief.

Not to believe is the greatest sin according to John’s Gospel, and that sin keeps one outside the community. The Spirit, thus, has the function of continuing to confront the world (outsiders) with the presence of Jesus after his ascension.

(a.)In pursuit of making Christ known to the world the Spirit of Christ is said in the text to be one who convicts the world of sin (8).

The verb here in the Greek means to literally ‘to show someone his sin and summon him to repentance’ (TDNT). The English word “expose” captures some of what is intended here. The Spirit will expose the world’s sin.

Of course moderns don’t like the notion of “sin.” It is considered one of those “cringe” words that we try to avoid. Sin reminds us that there is a standard. It reminds us that truth is not person or cultural variable.  And yet we hear our Lord Christ saying that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of Sin.

We see this activity operating immediately upon the consequence of the Holy Spirit’s arrival at Pentecost.

Peter begins to speak of, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God … as you yourselves know. Peter tells them his Jewish audience that they, via the Romans had crucified the Messiah. Acts then tells us that the listeners,  “were cut to the heart.”

The Holy Spirit as witness, empowered Peter’s witness, and convicted Peter’s listeners of their sin.

We should note already at this point that it is only the Holy Spirit who can open blinded eyes. He alone can convict of sin.

Ours is to bear witness to the Truth, but it is the Spirit of Christ’s work to cause men to see that of which we are witnessing.

Those outside of Christ are like blind men sitting in a darkened room. We can and must shine the word of God’s light but a light turned on, while dispelling the darkness of a dark room will not help blind men to see. Only the Spirit of the living Christ can open blind eyes to see the light of our witness and yet His opening of blind eyes normatively happens in the context of the light be flicked on.

This reminds us, in the context of his Johannine passage, that if our witness is to be to successful to the end of moving people towards Christ it is dependent upon the Spirit’s witness.

Too often in the Church today we have forgotten this. We have thought it our job to do the converting. But that is a job only the Spirit of Christ is qualified to do.

We have employed techniques to convict. Lowered lights. Psychological pressure. Raised hands. When those didn’t have the desired results we began to dumb the message down in order to make it easier for people to accept.

Puritan Wm. Gurnall reminds us

“God never laid it on thee to convert those he sends thee to. No; to publish the Gospel is thy duty.”

Likewise Puritan Joseph Alleine,

“Ministers knock at the door of men’s hearts, the Spirit comes with the Key and opens the door.”

We do serious and long lasting harm when we see it as our role to convict of sin. We cannot convict of Sin. Only the Spirit of Christ can do that. Ours is to, like the sower in the parable, to cast the seed. The Spirit’s job it to convict the world of sin.

We can not force people to convert. This is readily seen when after an Evangelism effort with Mormons Anthony was told, “Yeah, we see the contradictions in what we are saying but we don’t care.”

(b.) The Spirit will do the work of convicting regarding righteousness

This conviction regarding righteousness is in relation to Christ going to the Father (10)

The Jews had insisted that Jesus was unrighteous. A criminal worthy of death. The work of the Spirit is to convince men that the Lord Christ was, not only the righteous one, but also that He was the essence of the righteousness of the Father.

Again, men will not be convinced of this outside of the work of the Spirit.

I was viewing a documentary yesterday titled “Marching to Zion.” In it there were several Rabbis interviewed and the hostility towards Christ remains palpable. Clearly they remain unconvinced of Christ’s righteousness.

But not only is it the Spirit’s work to convict demonstrate that Christ was the righteous one but also the Spirit works to convince men that it is the Righteousness of Christ that they need for their righteousness. The Spirit alone shows men that their righteousness before God depends not on their own efforts but on Christ’s atoning work for them.

This conviction of sin and righteousness then go together. What good would it do to be convicted of sin if there was not an answer for that sin one is convicted of? No, not only does the Spirit convict the world of sin but He convicts it also of the answer to sin … the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

(c.) the spirit will do the work of convicting of judgment

The judgment has to do with the triumph of Christ over Satan. Satan, as the prince of this world, has been judged and condemned. The Spirit in testifying to the Gospel reveals that the one judged on the cross was Satan. This is significant in the Gospel presentation because inasmuch as Satan has been judged and condemned so it is the case that all those who belong to “their Father, the devil” are judged along with the prince of this world.

Conclusion

It is significant that all three of these (sin, righteousness, and judgment) are all to be understood because of they relate to the finished work of Christ. This is why we must preach Christ when we speak of these matters.  When we speak of sin we must emphasize that its greatest (though not only) expression is in the refusal to believe on Christ. When we speak of righteousness we must speak of the Righteousness that can only be given by the Christ who was vindicated as righteous before the Father. When we speak of a judgment to come we must speak of the judgement of Christ that will land on all men if they remain in the one who has been already judged.

II.) The Inward Work of The Spirit — In The Church (13-15)

Text — John 15:1-8
Broadest Context — Re-capitulation
Broader Context — Johannine “I am” discourses
Narrow Context — Upper Room Discourse … Last teachings before Cross in John

“I am Statements of John”

1. Bread

“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35

2. Light

“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

3. Gate

“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9

4. Good Shepherd

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11

5. Resurrection and Life

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25

6. Way, Truth, Life

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6

7. True vine

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

The fundamental role of the “I am” statements is to reveal the person of Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and imagery. We should note that when Christ speaks of Himself as “The Vine” He is taking upon Himself the supreme symbol of Israel. This is seen in the great golden vine that trailed over the Temple porch. Further, when Israel would revolt against Rome after Christ’s death it would be the vine that they stamped on their coinage.

Israel itself was often compared in the Old Testament to a vine (Hosea 10:1-2, Isaiah 5:1-7, Jeremiah 2:21, Ezekiel 15:1-5, 17:1-21, 19:10-15, Psalm 80:8-18). The overwhelming preponderance of  the Old Testament passages which use the symbol of the Vine appear to regard Israel as faithless or as the object of severe punishment. So, just as when the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “the good shepherd,” in contrast to faithless shepherds of Hebrew establishment leadership up till His arrival, so now He speaks of Himself as the “true vine” in contrast to the false vine of failed Israel. Just as the Good Shepherd gives His Life for the sheep so the true vine is the Life for the branches unto the reproduction of Christ in the branches.  Mixing the metaphors of the Good Shepherd and the True Vine we might say that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the Sheep to the end that, as the True Vine, He might reproduce Himself in His people.

All of this reminds us that it is Christ Himself who put Himself as the central reality in the Christian faith. It is Christ as the Good shepherd who takes upon Himself our death and it is Christ as the True Vine who nourishes life within us. Christ is the central truth of Christianity. Note here that it is not the Lord Christ as our great moral example to follow that is emphasized with these metaphors but it is the Lord Christ who gives His life for the Sheep and as the one in whom the nourishment of life is found that is emphasized.  This means that those “Theologies” that focus on our work in following Christ’s moral example, to the neglect of  articulating Christ’s work on our behalf and for us are “Theologies” that are not Biblical.

We would also note that while the Good Shepherd emphasizes the work of the Christ for the Sheep, the True Vine emphasizes the work of Christ in the branches. The Good Shepherd emphasizes the mission of Christ. The True Vine emphasizes the mission of the branches (Fruitfulness) as in the True vine.

These “I am” statements of John’s Gospel as well as other motifs that we find in the Gospels remind us again that there is much in the life of Christ, as given in the Gospels, that communicates recapitulation. Christ, as God’s faithful Son, recapitulates with victory, where God’s faithless Son Israel failed. Christ is the Israel of God and was all  God called faithless Israel to be. OT Israel was to be a Good Shepherd … it was to be a True Vine but it failed of its calling. The Lord Christ is the True Israel of God and in gathering to Himself the Church (Branches) as reconstituted Israel the mission work of God’s people is taken up again in the Church’s call to be a light to the Nations.

And it is this idea of Mission, as we shall see, that is emphasized in this passage. Christ recreates Himself in His people just as the vine recreates itself in the fruit of the Branches. As the Lord Christ is our sustenance what is produced in us, as the fruit of the vine, is the Character of Christ. And that Character of Christ is to the end that God is glorified (John 15:8).  Think about this for just a moment. As the fruit of the branches, drawing its life from the vine, we reproduce the Character of Christ. This is axiomatic. We become that which we draw our life source from.

Now, if the Character of Christ is the incarnation of God’s Grace and God’s Law that means that what is recreated in us, who abide in Christ, is God’s Grace / Law.  As we abide in Christ we become living and breathing instantiations of God’s Grace and God’s Law. It might be bold to say it but we increasingly become embodied Scripture as we, as branches, draw our nourishment from Christ the Vine.

Well having now drawn together some threads of thought from the passage as it is informed by its broader context, let us turn directly to the text.

I.) The Occasion

We should keep before us that this “I am” statement was spoken during the evening of the Passover meal and more precisely either during or shortly after the the institution of the Lord Table.  On that night the company of Christ would have had before them the lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine (wine.)

The lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine. In John’s Gospel the Lord Christ is spoken of repeatedly as the great embodiment of the Symbology of Israel. John the Baptist spoke of Christ as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.”  The Lord Christ spoke of Himself saying that “I am the bread that comes down from heaven,” and now here Christ says “I am the true vine.” Perhaps He said this prior to saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

It is interesting to note the association. We understand that  the Wine at the Table is the elixir of eternal life when we drink in faith but at the same time we are to recall that we ourselves find only find life as we abide in Christ as a branch to a Vine.

II.) The Participants

Father — Vine-Dresser
Christ — Vine — Giver of life
Church — Branches — Receiver of Life … bearers of fruit

Note the harmony of interests between the Vine-dresser and the Vine. They are both interested in producing fruit. We might note this harmony of interest between the Father and the Son points us again towards a Trinitarian understanding of the harmony of interests that exists between the members of the Trinity. They always work in concert together.

By this Vine-Dresser / Vine Metaphor the Lord Christ is affirming His equality in essence with the Father.  We affirm this by acknowledging that in this metaphor, both vine and Vine-dresser — Father & Son) are source and sustainer of the life of the Branch.

Yet the Lord Christ is also emphasizing the fundamental difference in His role and that of the Father. The point is that the Father cares for the Son and for those joined to the Son by faith. Thus we see in this passage the Unity of the Father and the Son and the diversity of roles of the Father and the Son. We see then the continued reliance of the Son upon the Father. The Son see’s Himself as the agent of the Father. His concern is for the glory of the Father but as we know the glory of the Father is reflected upon the Son.  We thus see here again the unity of purpose between the Father and the Son.

The Father, as the owner of the Vineyard, does what it takes in order to insure that the vineyard produces fruit. We should remind ourselves that this is really the emphasis of this passage. The passage is concerned with insisting that fruit production and the Father is the one responsible for the care of the vineyard to that end.

Well, what does the Father do? (Read vs. 2)

The text says (vs. 2) “He takes them away.” However, I’m not confident that what is being aimed at here is the same that is aimed at in vs. 6 where the unfruitful branches are gathered up and burned.  The Greek word here can be translated also as “Lifts up” or as “purgeth.”

If it should be translated as “lift up” the idea communicated is seen by what was often done by Vindressers in the ancient world. Often the branches would run along the ground and get diseased by mildew as the dew would not dry soon enough off the branch. In such a case the Vinedresser would take several thin shale rocks and build up a small elevation in order to place the branch upon it so as to expose it more readily to the sun in order to heal it.

If it should be translated “purgeth” (as in the Geneva Bible) the idea would be pruning.  Branches that don’t produce fruit are pruned back to the end that they would produce  fruit. This idea of pruning is painful to think about.  What would a plant say if it could talk during the pruning process? And yet God prunes us as His people to the end that we might better produce fruit for the Kingdom that His Name might be honored.

If and when the pruning seasons come in our lives we must keep in mind during the pruning that,

^11  No chastising for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: but afterward, it bringeth the quiet fruit of righteousness, unto them which are thereby exercised.

In either case the idea is that the Vinedresser will do whatever it takes in order for His branches to produce fruit.

The passage also says that the Vindresser cleanses.

Peeling off the old crusty dead bark where disease and damaging insects might hide.

Christ informs the disciples that they are clean because of the Word Christ has spoken. This idea of cleansing reaches back to 13:10 where, in this same “Upper Room Discourse” the Lord Christ says,

¹⁰ Jesus said to him, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

This cleansing doubtless refers to the fact that the Disciples had faith in Christ as the Word.

III.) Branches necessity to Abide and be Fruitful

Both John’s Gospel and 1st Epistle as this theme of “abiding.” We find this idea of abiding 118 times in the NT … 64 of those occurrences are in John. Such frequency and focus supports understanding the word “abide” as an synonym a mutually defining word for “believe.” Together “believing” and “abiding” point both to the reality of “life in Christ” and to the characterization of that life not in some hope of a future reunion in heaven, but to the promise of that abundant life in the here and now. In this passage the verb abide like the phrase bear fruit appears over and over — eight times in four verses here — and will be repeated in part two of the passage next week when we learn that abiding in Jesus means abiding in Jesus’ love.

So, to abide is to believe on Christ and to continue in faith, the same word Jesus used in John 8:31: “If ye continue (abide, remain) in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed”. Paul said to Timothy: “But continue (remain. abide) thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:14-15). To abide in Christ is to continue believing and obeying the Word of the Gospel.

Perhaps the reason why it is emphasized that we are to abide is because as Christians we are

Prone to wander, Lord I feel it
Prone to leave the one I love.

As the Branches we are to go from abiding to abiding … from belief unto belief and this abiding and believing is connected to the work of the Word in us (7). Notice, Christ here the Incarnated Word, points to Himself as the Inscripturated Word as the means by which we abide. This is one reason why we attend the Word with each passing Lord’s Day. The intent of our assembling here is that Word might be preached into us that we might go from abiding unto abiding.

So, what is highlighted by the text is the necessity to abide in Christ. Bringing fruit is not a result of personal human effort, but of abiding in Christ.44 The natural, human self can never bring forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Believers are called to abide in Christ the same way Christ abides in his heavenly relationship to the Father. They are indeed one single being. Left on their own and by their own power, Christians can do nothing. This is why Jesus says here “for apart from me ye can do nothing” (15:5)

Next we go on to see that the the overwhelming thrust of the passage is fruitfulness. The words bear fruit appear six times in these eight verses. Fruit-bearing is not something that the branches do by force of will. The fruit happens organically because the vine is true and the gardener good. But the branches of this passage do choose to abide.

Now when we speak of Fruit here we needs be careful that we see this text in its largest context. The thrust of this passage is the renewal of the Mission of Israel. Israel was to be God’s light to the Nations. Thus fruitfulness here, in this context,  does not primarily have to do with our inward relationship with the Lord Christ, though that is not entirely absent (see vs. 10, 12, 17). The primary emphasis is the objective missionary impulse of spreading the Gospel to the Nations and extending the Crown Rights of King Christ into every area of life. The disciples would be sent into the world to carry on the task of Christianizing the World (i.e. — Discipling the Nations). This is the fruitfulness in mind.

So when we stand for Christ against opposition we are being fruitful. When we build beautiful community for the world to see we are being fruitful. When we evangelize and and when we give a reason for the hope that lies within us we are being fruitful. When we shut the mouths of God’s enemies with a Spirit inspired apologetic we are being fruitful. When we die to the desires of personal glory and rewards so that the Gospel is not embarrassed we are being fruitful. When the character of Christ is reproduced in us to the end of extending Gospel and His Crown Rights we are being fruitful.

All of this is bearing of much fruit so that the Father is glorified (vs. 8)

IV.) The Branches burned up

So we’ve seen the importance of the Christian’s life, which must bear fruit. Should a life be fruitless, that life will be rewarded with punishment. The New Testament clearly explains that the fruit is a sign of the true Christian.

Think Judas

Not all of Israel is of Israel

Wheat and Tares

Matthew 13 — Seed sown that produces plant but no fruit … it is the fruit that identifies the plant as genuine.

Outward attachment to the covenant vs. Inward attachment to the covenant.

Quoting Rev. Mahan

“Many people today have a religion that is outward, external, and formal. It is possible to join a church, give money, sing hymns, confess the Creeds, pray prayers, listen to sermons, partake of the Sacrament, and speak openly about religion with no grace in your heart or inward work of the Holy Spirit.”

I would add here that it is possible to mount a pulpit every Sunday and not abide. It is possible to go to be considered part of the leadership in a Denomination and not be abiding.

Continuing to quote Lutheran Mahan,

“The Christian faith is the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus said to the church at Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent” (Rev. 3:1-3a). You have two choices, either you will abide in Christ by faith in this life or one day you will be separated from true believers and like withered branches, be gathered and cast into everlasting fire.”

Conclusion

Re-cap

Text — Luke 24:36f

There are advantages to preaching the Church Calendar (Lectionary) in as much as the themes and texts are laid out with a thematic unity. For the preacher this obviates the necessity to try to be creative with Sermon plans. This is an advantage. The disadvantage is that there will be times, due to the season, where there will be a danger of repetition given the thematic approach of the seasons of the Church Calendar. This Sunday is such an example as we find again, a text that deals with the resurrection.

Both last week and this week in each text Jesus appears to the disciples who are afraid and unbelieving. The Lord Christ convinces them that he is, indeed their Rabbi and Leader and is not just a Spirit but is corporeally raised from the dead. Further, there is the necessity that the disciples believing His resurrection should be heralds of His truths throughout the Nations.

The danger then is avoid being repetitive and the challenge is to communicate the freshness of the text.

Here in Luke 24 we find a Resurrection account. The two appeals of the Lord Christ for the reality of the Resurrection are (1) His post Resurrection body as continuous with His pre-Resurrection body and (2) The authority of the Scriptures.

That is the proof he offers the disciples and it is the proof that we have to work with today.

However a Theology exists and has existed for quite some time that plays fast and loose with these proofs.

I.) The Shrinking of the Historicity of the Resurrection As a  Proof of the Resurrection

All the Resurrection accounts are straightforward. They each emphasize the simplicity of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was dead and came back to life by the power of God to vindicate the righteousness of the 2nd person of the Trinity. All the Gospel accounts teach this. Paul goes out of his way to teach this in I Cor. 15 where he talks about the 500 witnesses.

However, this resurrection has never been good enough for the Skeptics. A breed of theologian has always been with us that desires to reinterpret the resurrection in a way that unbelievers can remain unbelievers while having the ability to call themselves “Believers.”  And so through history the resurrection has been spiritualized, historicized, and gnosticized so that that affirmation of it is reduced to a few words that lose their meaning in the Church because to many affirming the Resurrection are filling that affirmation with different meaning.

One example of this that is in the Church today is called “Barthianism,” after its founder Karl Barth. It is alternately called “Neo-orthodoxy.” What Barth did in his doctrine was to untie the truth of Scripture from the Historicity of Scripture as we understand History. For this School the Supernatural events of History, as recorded in Scripture, became Supra-Historical (above History) or Trans-Historical (beyond history) though there remained an insistence that these trans and supra historical events still impacted History.

Arminian Philosopher William Lane Craig gives us a taste of what I am speaking of when he describes Barth’s view of the subject of Resurrection

“. . . Liberal theology could not survive World War I, but its demise brought no renewed interest in the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, for the two schools that succeeded it were united in their devaluation of the historical with regard to Jesus. Thus, dialectical theology, propounded by Karl Barth, championed the doctrine of the resurrection, but would have nothing to do with the resurrection as an event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans (1919), the early Barth declared, “The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle — that is, without really touching it.”

There it is. Did you catch it? “The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle — that is, without really touching it.”

There are many many who followed in this train of thought. For example Dietrich Bonhoffer, who Evangelicals have tried to turn into a Super-Saint Hero because of his resistance to the Nazis shared this thinking. As taken from several of his books (Christ the Center, p. 112; Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 93-94, 110), Bonhoffer had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the “historicity” of the Resurrection was in “the realm of ambiguity,” and that it was one of the “mythological” elements of Christianity that “must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith.” He also believed that “Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death,” and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were “mythological conceptions” as well

About 20 years after Bonhoffer’s murder a different Neo-Orthodox theologian writing in the 1960’s .. a chap named Mueller pointed out:

“Many interpreters are of the opinion that the detailed accounts of the events in and near the, tomb of Jesus … are embellishing narratives of the later church. The resurrection of Jesus itself, they say, was not a physical process, but something that happened as a spiritual or ‘mythical, super-historical’ process in the hearts of the disciples.”37  “Faith in the risen Christ is not decided by the question of what happened to the material substance of his physical body.”38  “We therefore should not think we are contributing to the defense of faith or historical truth when we agonize over some external side of the resurrection message of the Bible.”

Do you see the elements of what I am speaking of here? There is the affirmation by these people of the Resurrection. An affirmation that allows them into our Churches and into our pulpits but it is a affirmation without any substance. It is the retaining of the word “Resurrection” while the displacing of it of all original meaning.

Neo-Orthodoxy  thus was contrasted with the Biblical world by denying of the Resurrection the following,

Biblical Resurrection        Neo-Orthodox Resurrection

Organic  Identity               Non-Organic identity
A Material body                 Non material body
An event in History           An event beyond history

Now we should introduce here the idea that the Academic and intellectual neo-orthodox theologians are agonizingly careful to qualify and nuance statements regarding the supernatural in Scripture. Indeed, their preternatural ability at studied ambiguity in the language they use is one reason that they were able to go initially undetected in Denominations that had historically been orthodox. However, studied ambiguity once it hits the streets of the average run of the mill clergy becomes less studied and less ambiguous and more obvious in the ability to detect.

We see this from a sermon I found online from a Pastor I personally know that demonstrates some of what I’m speaking of. This does not have to do with the Resurrection account but with the Creation account but the consistency between the two is the inability to hold to the explicit account of Scripture,

Third, some clarification. Genesis 1 is not a scientific report. Genesis 2 and 3 is not an eyewitness account. And Revelation 21 and 22 is neither. What we have in these biblical texts is literature. Literature intended to evoke awe and wonder. Literature intended to sustain faith and hope. Literature intended to give understanding. To read these biblical texts not literarily but literally is misguided. It’s misguided to read them literally and then to dismiss them as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Now notice the distinction between literal and literary. If we apply that hermeneutic to the Creation account why can we not apply it to the Resurrection account? Why can we not say that in the Resurrection account what we have is literature. Literature intended to evoke awe and wonder. Literature intended to sustain faith and hope. Literature intended to give understanding. To read these resurrection texts not literarily but literally is misguided. It’s misguided to read them literally and then to dismiss them as hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Now why do I spend so much time on this? Simply because we are awash in neo-orthodox theology of one form or another. Call it neo-orthodoxy. Call it post-foundationalism. Call it “Reader-Response” theology. Call it post-modern. Call it emergent. Call it what you will. In the end there is a consistency between the inability to affirm without doubt, qualification, caveat or nuance that Christ is bodily resurrected per the Scriptural accounts.  In the end there is a desire to sound Christian by using the language but a denial of being Christian because of the refusal to actually believe what Scripture everywhere insists that we must believe.

In a recent book we find this kind of disbelief again modified ever so slightly,

“Christianity has never been able to “prove” its claims except by appeal to the experiences and convictions of those already convinced. The only real validation for the claim that Christ is what the creed claims him to be, that is, light from light, true God from true God, is to be found in the quality of life demonstrated by those who make this confession. . . . the claims of the Gospel cannot be demonstrated logically, they cannot be proved historically. They can be validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.”

But you see, this negates the Historicity and the situated “eventedness” of Christianity from space and time and shifts the meaning of it to our experience. In this understanding it does not matter if Christ really rose from the Grave. It only matters that individuals are convinced that Christ rose from the grave … even if he didn’t. It turns the objective claims, such as we find here in Luke, to be of little consequence so that what emerges is the subjective importance for the individual. Whereas the Gospels are telling us that the Resurrection is True, this kind of theology is telling us that the Resurrection is true to me.

Now what is the upshot of all this.

1.) Well first of all we have gotten to the point that we absolutely must listen to ministers in the Church and professors in our Seminaries with a hermeneutic of suspicion. That is to say, that we cannot trust words out of people’s mouths that sound right without closely examining the Worldview in which their words rest.  And of course we cannot succeed at this unless we know what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it.

2.) We must be very detailed in catechizing ourselves and our children. One reason that this kind of theology was able to take over the Church is because generations in the Church were not anchored in an exact Christian faith.

3.) We must pray pray pray. We are currently living in a Babylonian Captivity of the Church. We must pray that God might be pleased to deliver us from this captivity.

II.) The Shrinking of Revelation As a Proof of The Resurrection

Christ not only demonstrates the Resurrection via His wounds but He also Demonstrates the Resurrection via the Scripture (Moses, Prophets the Psalms).

Perhaps He goes back to Gen. 3 where He is the Seed of the woman promised to crush the seed of the serpent. Perhaps He interprets God’s post fall covering of Adam and Eve with Animal skins as analogous to being covered by God with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. He could have taken them to the Abraham with Isaac on Mt. Moriah and told of the words that “God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering, my son,” as a substitute for Isaac. The Lord Christ could have pointed to Himself as the Passover Lamb of the Exodus who delivers from the Wrath of God. He could have spoken of Psalm 2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 110 and a host of other Messianic Psalms. He could have pointed to the Aaronic Priesthood and the Sacrificial system as Promissory of His own coming Priesthood and Sacrifice. Going to the Prophets He could have picked out the sign of Jonah as fulfilled in Him. The Lord Christ might have pointed to Zechariah the Prophet and the disrobing of Joshua the High Priest and the re-clothing of Joshua with royal clothing as metaphor for imputation for the Believer in Christ.  The entire Old Testament points to Christ and everything happened just as the Revelation said it would. 

We will notice in this Resurrection account the Importance the Lord Christ puts on Scripture (Lk. 24:44f). As combined with the Historical reality of the Resurrection Christ invokes the Scriptures as proof positive of the Resurrection.

But Moderns redefine the import of the Scriptures just as they reinterpret the import of the Resurrection.

“Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views”, Avery Dulles describes Barth’s view of scripture as follows (Theology Today Vol. 37, No. 1. 1980):

“According to this school, the word of God was to be identified with Jesus Christ and him alone. The Bible was not itself the word of God but a witness to that word. Christ, however, could address the community through the word of Scripture, and when he did so the Bible became, in a genuine sense, the word of God. The believing community could encounter Christ personally through that word.”

So we see here is what this school does is it abstracts Christ from the Scripture so that a Christ outside of Scripture is the authority over Scripture. This, of course, tears away the objectivity of the Word as authoritative and subjectivizes the Scripture to the authority to a Christ who does not necessarily have to be shaped by Scriptural categories. The abstracted Christ takes precedence over the Inscripturated Christ.

Also, in this paradigm Scripture is NOT the Word of God but only BECOMES the Word of God upon a existential personal encounter. Because this is so, appeals to the Word can gain little traction because the Word can only mean something Objectively true if someone has had a subjective encounter that affirms an objective character.

Again, the problem here is the loss of the Objective quality of Truth Claims in favor of a personal experience with the word.

Now, we should say here that there is nothing wrong with a personal encounter with the Word but any personal encounter with the Word must be based on the prior Objective truth of the Word. I can’t have an encounter with the Word via an Abstracted Jesus that is inconsistent with what the Objective Word teaches.

Continuing with Dulles

“In Barthian neo-orthodoxy the classical theses of Protestant orthodoxy were notably modified. Inspiration was no longer a property of the biblical authors or of the books taken in themselves. Rather, it was “the promise of God and the Holy Spirit to be present among the faithful when these writings are used in the common life of the church.” Inerrancy, as a property of the texts, was vigorously denied, yet a genuine authority was ascribed to the Bible insofar as it became, on occasion, the word of God. In spite of the errors of the human writers, God acts with sovereign efficacy to lead the believing reader to an authentic faith-encounter.

You see we move here again from an objective word to a word made objective by our subjective authority.

In Luke Christ gives us two proofs of the Resurrection; Himself and the Scriptures. What neo-orthodox theology does is to give verbal affirmation all the while denying the appeal of Christ by reinterpreting Resurrection and the authority of Scripture in a unbelieving worldview.

Conclusion

Re-cap