John 13 is an extraordinary passage as everyone knows. This account of Jesus washing the Disciple’s feet, releasing Judas to his wicked work and preparing His inner-circle for His departure is filled with rich food for the soul.

“He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?”” (John 13:6, ESV)

RAF: Peter’s objection might have arisen from several causes. But we must note that he seems not to have objected at Christ’s washing the feet of the others, only when it came to him. Perhaps he thought – “I do not need cleansed like this – I’m not that dirty.” Maybe he was implying he was cleaner than the rest. Who knows but that they had washed their own feet already when they came in? Men hate to own the depth of their own uncleanness. Then again, perhaps the issue was that this was simply too humbling. To have the one he wanted to serve, serve him, was a challenge to his pride. How much we want to have a part in grace – and not to be purely a recipient of it.

“When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” (John 13:12-15, ESV)

RAF: True humility does not confuse what we are called to do with who we are. Jesus was not rejecting His position and authority as “Teacher and Lord” – but showing that such positions are not to be thought of as outside the circle of serving. Jesus knew He was called to serve others, but He did not work “for” them per se. He was employed by the Father to serve them. But the people didn’t give Him His marching orders – the Father did. He would serve them as the Father desired, not necessarily as they desired. All in ministry need to find this right balance and order. We serve our people, but we do not work for them or do their bidding. We do the Father’s bidding on their behalf. And it is up to us to search out the Father’s desire in this regard, and use that to govern our service. Otherwise, we will be at the every whim of the people, and fail to serve them in what they need most as the Father sees it. A Baby-sitter or better yet a nanny or governess really fills out this model. Serving the children in raising them, educating them and protecting them – but this is all done as an agent of the parents, not of the children. Thus they forbid and allow as the parents would desire, not the children. This is wonderful paradigm for pastoral ministry.

” After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”” (John 13:21, ESV)

RAF: Jesus was no stoic. The thought of being betrayed by one of His dear 12 troubled Him. Yes, He knew He came to die. Yes, He knew who it was who would betray Him from the beginning (John 6:64). Yes, He was the eternal Son of God and this was His mission from all eternity. And yet, as the word in the original has it – he was disquieted within, disturbed, agitated with an inward commotion. He fully felt the weight of every step on His way to the Cross. It was no light thing to be betrayed. He did not pass it off as if it didn’t matter – it did! Oh how the betrayal added to His sorrow on our behalf. The mystery of the eternally joyful God permitting Himself to endure this species of suffering is beyond us. But make no mistake – He suffered so, so that His compassion and mercy might be absolutely thorough for us. He truly KNOWS our pain. What a blessed Savior He is. Beyond human description.

Proverbs 12:16 – The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult.

RAF: Knee-jerk reactions are the reactions of a jerk – or more properly, a fool. The one who is easily provoked, is the slave of the provocateur. The only buttons someone else can push, are the ones you give them access to. And if you cannot set the provocative aspects aside to stay focused upon the real issues at hand, you will be forever barred from arriving at solutions to problems. I know. I’ve been there. I have played the fool. Heaven help me to be more like my King, Jesus.

Proverbs 12:18 There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

RAF: Do you tend to use your words as weapons – to wound others? Chances are, they were uttered rashly – like the knee-jerk responses of verse 16. But even if not – even if well considered, what a poor use of such a powerful tool – this tongue of ours. Even in reproof, our aim ought to be healing and never simple denunciation or hurting someone back. If someone needs correction, may we truly bring correction, for their good, and not merely give vent to our personal vitriol. Our job is not to punish others with our words. Ultimately, that is never more than our own desire to hurt the other. Even “when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” (Jude 9). Neither should we.

Proverbs 12:24 “The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor. ”

RAF: This is as true in spiritual matters as it is in natural ones. The “farmer” who is not diligent to plow thoroughly, plant liberally, water carefully, pull weeds ruthlessly, protect from ravaging pests watchfully and harvest punctually – will not survive. The “Christian” who does not feed their soul on the Word daily, attack indwelling sin viciously, drink in worship thirstily, breathe in prayer repeatedly, seek holiness intentionally and pour grace into others as providence allows – will not survive either. I believe it was A. W. Tozer who said that most of us are not as holy as we wish were, but all of us are as holy as we are willing to be. If your spiritual progress has been stalled, or has taken a back seat – is it not time to see if you are being diligent about the things which make for true growth in the likeness of Christ? We will not rule over ourselves and indwelling sin, if we are not diligent to pursue those things which make for it. Nor should we be surprised then that spiritual matters have become more like forced labor than joyful privileges.

Proverbs 12:26 “One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor, but the way of the wicked leads them astray. ”

RAF: Today, this would probably be titled – “Lifestyle Evangelism”. The truth is BOTH, what we say AND what we do matters. When it comes to evangelism, some would lay more or all of the stress in our efforts in proclamation. And proclamation is absolutely essential. People must hear, understand and believe – the Gospel – the message. Others would place the bulk of the stress upon lifestyle and the “what” of our lives. But good actions are not the Gospel by themselves, the “message” of Christ’s atoning death is; and the Message negated by graceless lives is an exercise in futility. We are to be men of women of integrity – of life and message so wrapped around one another that they cannot be separated. The bottom line is – if Jesus hadn’t lived in perfect holiness, He could not have been fit to be our Savior. And if the message of the meaning of His death were not proclaimed, there is no faith by which one is justified. Neither one could be omitted without salvation being a myth.

Justice and evenhandedness are attributes of God mankind is meant to display. In John 10:34 where Jesus cites Ps. 82 He notes that the Law says “you are gods” in the context of Israel’s leadership having perverted justice while being the recipients of God’s Law. We are meant to be His vice-regents here. And nowhere is that more manifest than in judging right and wrong, based upon God’s own just nature communicated in the rights and wrongs He delineates. Whenever people pervert justice, we openly and graphically deny God. This is true for those apart from Christ – and especially true for those who own Him. Christians above all ought to be concerned with miscarriages of justice in our society – and even more within the Church.  (Scroll all the way down to click for the rest.)

Note more however that the Cross is a matter of justice as well as grace. The two are married At Calvary. When we are inequitable in our dealings with others, we violate His image drastically. But when we preach a Cross which was not a place where God’s just wrath was poured out and satisfied, we deny His just nature. And when we preach a Cross without forgiveness freely offered on the basis of it, we deny His mercy and grace.

How cautious Christians ought to be in dealing with people justly, fairly and equitably. The Gospel is at stake. A false balance, not trading and dealing in equity with all, is an affront to who God is in His very nature. And how He delights for His children to make Him known to the world in how we deal with one another. Those who are sharp in their dealings – so that they want something for nothing – to gain unfairly over another, deny Him for our 30 pieces of silver.

Honor Christ by honoring the justice and grace of the Cross by being people if equity and balance.

Tim Challies over at CHALLIES.COM has written an excellent resource for those wrestling with sexual purity – which in our day can be almost all of us.

What is exciting, is that Tim went on to produce this in e-book format, and then posted it – which means you can download it free of charge from his website.  You can click on the various links here or on the book image to the left.

If you are struggling in this area, or know someone who is – get this or recommend it to them.

If you are a parent, this ought to be on your own reading list, and made available to both your sons and daughters. Tim has produced something practical, Scriptural, helpful and sound. Everyone of us ought to go through it once. Know it or not, we ARE interacting with folks every day – even in our own homes for whom this is vital. Get it today.  TIM CHALLIES.COM

Two recommendations – A PBS special, and a book on the life of Aonio Paleario. Say what?

A few weeks ago, Jack Otto (a friend in our congregation) asked me if I had seen a recent PBS special on Michelangelo? I hadn’t. Its titled “Michelangelo Revealed” and you can watch it on line HERE: (or click the PBS logo).

In any event, thanks to Jack’s largess in securing a DVD copy, I popped it in my player at home and was in for a treat. Without giving everything away (you really do need to watch it for yourself) it appears that Michelangelo became intimate with a group within the Roman Catholic Church called the “Spirituality” – which group had embraced the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and sought to reform the Church from within, even as Luther and others now outside were continuing their efforts at reform. The account is fantastic. One could easily conclude the great artist himself had come to embrace justification by faith before his death.

Now the work of this group – the “Spirituality” included publishing a little book titled “The Benefit of Christ’s Death.” This book clearly articulated justification by faith and may who were involved in its publication and distribution were eventually silenced by the Inquisition. Not the least of these were the book’s author.

I was so intrigued by the PBS special, I began to search out this title. It wasn’t long before I was rewarded with a page from Google Books. I was not disappointed. The salvation message was clear. But now I wanted to know more. My search ended at SOLID GROUND BOOKS and their reprint of this amazing little book, along with a biographical piece on the author – the little known (to us) scholar Aonio Paleario.

The biographical section reads a novel of high intrigue. And then, you get into this obviously ground-floor work wherein the author tries to call his Church back to the centrality of Christ, and the simple gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

My recommendation – watch the PBS special, and then get to SOLID GROUND BOOKS and order a copy of “The Italian Reformer – The Life and Martyrdom of Aonio Paleario and The Benefit of Christ’s Death.” You won’t be disappointed.

“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8, ESV)

If there is one question I am asked frequently by folks it is this: “How can I get closer to Christ? How can I get more intimacy with Him? How can I know and experience His love better?”

And the answer – at least for some is in our text today. But let me paraphrase it in a little different way: Stop dating Jesus! He will not give you the intimacy you desire, apart from your full out, exclusive commitment to Him.

Those of us who are married remember well those words we uttered in vows to our spouses. There was a question put to most of us: “Will you love her (or him), comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all others, keeping yourself only for her so long as you both shall live?” To which both parties responded in order “I do.” Those of us who are not married have heard those vows – or some like them repeated over and over again. But it is in those few words “forsaking all others” that we find the root and permission for true intimacy. And apart from them, intimacy loses all meaning. Not only with our spouses, but with God as well.

Just as any prospective husband or wife would (and SHOULD) refuse to to yield up the physical (as well as other) intimacies that belong to a committed, monogamous marriage, so too is our relationship with our Savior. He does not allow us the familiarity of a spouse, apart from the commitment of one. And it is precisely here that we so often find the reason for our lack of sensing or enjoying a deeper, richer, fully satisfying relationship with Him. In truth, we’re still wanting to play the field some, to keep certain options open which are meant to end forever the moment we said “I do.”

Let me break it down. You cannot have intimacy with Christ while you still want to hold hands with bitterness and unforgiveness. He will not let you draw nearer, while you still want to keep up your late night phone conversations with greed and the pursuit of earthly wealth. You can’t get the security you want from Him, if you are still flirting with it in your bank account. Keep up texting your former satisfactions, and you’ll soon find out He is distant. He will not share you with your former sins. He will not be intimate with you while you are still wanting to date sexual immorality, or dishonesty or find your sweetest pleasure in pride.

This beloved is Paul’s point. He states is unambiguously – I have to forsake all others if I really want Him. I’ve got to make the break. He will not finally walk down the aisle with us (remember, we are but betrothed to Him now) unless it is clear we have left off our former loves, and do not seek them out for a little fun when we are down or feeling sorry for ourselves or lonely or whatever. We are either His, and His alone, or we are at arm’s length. And arm’s length is not a marriage.

In plain language, Paul was unwilling to cling to anything that might jeopardize the possibility of his having and experiencing and enjoying and loving Christ freely, intimately, fully and exclusively.

So, who or what are you dating on the side, claiming to be Christ’s, but not quite wanting to sever ties with? What sin, what pursuit, what attitude or personal goal or pleasure do you want to still have recourse to, just in case Jesus isn’t enough? Until you break with that – you will never know the sweetness of His nearness. He will not hold hands with you, while you are still holding hands with another. He was willing to forsake all of Heaven for you. He laid down every single legitimate pleasure to commit to you. What are you still clinging to that prevents you from “forsaking all others?” Because whatever or whoever it is – that is why He is not as near as you might like.

“Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:32-33, ESV)

One issue which has made its appearance of late in Calvinistic circles, is one raised by a friend of mine in a discussion a while back. The basic assertion (as he expressed it) was “I was ALWAYS a sheep, and never a GOAT.”

So I’d like to take some time to unpack that idea, and see what exegetical evidence (if any) there might be for either making or denying such a claim.

Lemme warn ya – its a little long.

Read on.

Again, the argument basically states that those whom God has elected unto salvation as per Eph. 1:3-6 and other passages, are in fact actually or fundamentally or in some capacity IN THE CREATURE, different than the non-Elect. And that this difference can be expressed in terms of the difference between sheep and goats, based upon extrapolations of three passages of Scripture:

a. Matt. 25:31-46; b. John 10:1-18: And to a lesser extent c. Rev. 13:5-8 (Which I will not treat here)

I’ll confess that the very idea was a surprising one to me. I had never thought of the issue in those terms before, but it is intriguing. The simple fact that Scripture unequivocally teaches that God sovereignly elects individuals unto salvation, and did so before creation is not in question here. That, in my mind is beyond any true debate. Such a sovereign election is clearly taught throughout God’s Word.

The issue here is fundamentally different. Here, the view is not only that election is designation ( I would state categorically ONLY designation given the Biblical data) – but somehow makes the elect themselves in some capacity different than the non-elect. Goats and sheep are ontologically different. They have different natures. So what we are being asked to consider in this question is whether or not those God has elected unto salvation have in fact a different nature than other human beings – PRIOR to their actual regeneration and conversion.

I did not at the time understand where this topic came from. And, in going back to investigate the issue, I discovered that I could not find assertions or a teaching in this regard in Church history. That is not to say it is not there somewhere, but I could not find it apart from its cropping up rather lately in the 20th century. At least not developed as fully as my friend had asserted it.

In any event, because this seems to be such an important consideration for some, (given the results a Google search on the topic will give you) it seems prudent to go back and examine the Scriptures to see if such a concept as this sheep/goat – elect/non-elect distinction is a valid one, and if so, what are we to do with it?

We begin then with the text already cited above, Matt. 25:31-46. We need to make a series of observations regarding the passage itself.

I. Matt. 25 is an eschatological passage having especially to do with God’s final judgment of mankind. We start with this text for as best as I can tell – this is the ONLY place in all of the NT Scripture the goats/sheep dichotomy is ever used. Be that as it may, there are a number of significant features to notice in the section relating to the sheep and goats.

a. It seems clear that the passage is using a SIMILIE or an ANALOGY here, and NOT making a theological statement regarding the NATURE of the ones being deal with. This is apparent in verse 32 where Jesus states: “he will separate people from one another as a shepherd separates the “sheep” from the “goats”. “AS A”, is the qualifying phrase.

The caution we need is not to extend the simile so far as to designate people as sheep or goats ourselves, but simply to see that He will perform a separating act when He judges at last. The text DOES NOT say Jesus is separating SHEEP from GOATS, but is performing a separation of some sort – IN THE SAME WAY a shepherd would separate sheep from goats.

We cannot make an analogy take on a wooden and literal interpretation it was never meant to have. This is obvious in many places in Scripture. For example – That Jesus is the “door” (John 10:9) is not meant to communicate He has a knob, is made out of wood, is hung on hinges and can be opened at will. This is to take the words in ways they were never meant to be understood.

So here. He will separate one group from the other AS A, like a Shepherd does.

Contextually, this sheep/goats analogy is the 3rd analogy or metaphor in this chapter. The 1st analogy being that the Kingdom is like 10 virgins with lamps and oil (1-13). The 2nd is the parable of the 10 talents – where what we’ve been given is likened to coins (14-30). But to over-literalized any of these is to fail to get the message in each one.

In the 1st the main point is “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” (25:13) In the 2nd the summary concept is located in vs. 29 – “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” And in the 3rd – 25:45 informs us “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” All three combining to give us a full-orbed picture of the stewardship of grace to be accounted for.

b. As you work through the passage is also seems clear enough the basic distinction being made is that between believers and non-believers. Those who lived out grace in their lives, and those who did not. What is cited here is taking place at the judgment seat of Christ and not to be used as a means of making distinctions prior to that point. At least no other passage alludes to such a distinction among ourselves. Mankind is bifurcated and judged on being believers or unbelievers, not on whether or not they are sheep or goats.

c. It is clear in both verses 37 & 44 that those being dealt with were unaware either of this status, nor of how it is their having lived out their belief or unbelief was seen and revealed. Their status as “goats” or “sheep” is never the issue. Their lives are. Have they lived as those graced in salvation or not? It is not their ontological condition that is being treated here at all.

d. The text says absolutely nothing about what any once were, or what they became or anything of the sort. There is no Biblical teaching to this effect anywhere else in Scripture. That the dead are made alive? And, a host of other term we’ll examine later. But someone conceiving of themselves as “sheep” over and against others to be thought of as “goats”? – Such a thought does not make its appearance.

On this level, the current passage functions identically to the parable of the net on Matt. 13 – 47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. 48When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. 49So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

If we take the interpretive grid of those arguing for this “I was never a goat, only a sheep” paradigm, then we would should also argue for “I was never a bad fish, always a good one.” But such thinking is not encouraged in Scripture anywhere.

The issue in this passage at least is that Christ will make a final separation between those who are His and those who are not. And this will be evidenced by how they lived their lives, manifesting grace, or no. We cannot import much more into it than that. The text simply won’t support extending the metaphor out so far as to make the kinds of judgments some make in saying they were never goats but only sheep.

e. As cited above, the chief problem with all of this is that this idea is not borne out any place else in the Word.

What happens when we do extend such metaphors too far? We’ll have lots of trouble with other passages. Let me give two examples.

If “goats” is taken as a normative Scriptural representation for the non-elect: Then we struggle with how it is the Passover “lamb” could be taken from either the sheep OR the goats (Exodus 12:5). Or, on the Day of Atonement, it was two GOATS which served as the blood sacrifice and the scapegoat (Lev. 16). Are the goats supposed to represent the non-elect again? Certainly not.

If we press Matt. 25 beyond its main and simple point that there will be a final separation and judgment, and build an entire doctrine upon who were sheep? who were goats? and can one become the other – in my estimation is to build such a doctrine on thin air. That is not the idea being taught in the passage, and the erection of such a doctrine based upon it fails at the start.

The real question we must ask is – were we once unbelievers? Were we once under the wrath of God? Were we once as Eph. 2 describes us before we were converted as:

1.(vs. 1) “You were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked,

2. following the course of this world,

3. following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind,

4. and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

As with Romans 9, the nature of the elect is noted here as not being any different than the nature of the non-elect prior to regeneration. The denial of any such difference is one of Paul’s points here.

5. 11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—

6. 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, 

7. alienated from the commonwealth of Israel

8. and strangers to the covenants of promise, (Note covenants – PLURAL, Old & New)

9. having no hope

10. and without God

11.in the world.

12. you who once were far off

What makes the change? 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

I just don’t know how many more terms Paul could have applied to make the point. But let us take Jesus’ words to heart on this as well: John 3:18 – “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

This is the condemnation we need delivered from by Christ’s sovereign, saving work. It does not mean we were not elect – we were! Praise God! If He didn’t eternally elect men to salvation – none would be saved. But election is DESIGNATION – it does not signal any ontological difference (i.e. like the ontological difference between sheep and goats) – as though we were constitutionally different in some way prior to the Spirits’ sovereign work in regenerating us.

This is completely proven by the fact that WE ALL FELL IN ADAM – because we all share a common nature. Once regenerated I will agree there is a true difference between the believing and unbelieving.

No question there. But until then, the difference is in the mind and purposes of God, and not in any way the persons themselves.

II. An appeal to John 10 in this issue fails on two heads.

1. The chief problem with citing this passage in this discussion is evident – there is no mention of “goats” in this passage at all.

In this text, the only difference mentioned is between sheep who hear His voice and sheep who do not. To import goats into this text is to put something there which is not in the text at all. I have heard some argue that goats are implied – but am at a total loss as to see how, apart from inserting the already problematic thought from Matt. 25. There is no mention of “goats” ANYWHERE in John – let alone in this regard.

The fact is – outside of Matt. 25, the only other references to goats in the entire New Testament is Luke 15:29 in the parable of the Prodigal Son. There, the older brother was angry he never got so much as a “goat” to have a party with his friends with. Additionally we have 5 references in Hebrews – but without exception are all in connection with Levitical sacrifices and thus have no bearing on the topic at all.

2. More importantly, the point of the passage isn’t about sheep as opposed to goats – but speaks instead to the problem of false shepherds versus the True Shepherd.

In the final analysis, to argue about whether one was once a goat and is now a sheep- is in the end one which cannot be sustained from Scripture on either side – and has (in my humble opinion) not the slightest relevance unless one is trying to make some theological point from a construct. It certainly cannot be made textually and exegetically.

When we were in unbelief – we were “condemned already”. Whether someone was a sheep or a goat is both unprovable and irrelevant – we were lost, and condemned – even though the elect were also marked out to be heirs of salvation. We were all the things listed in Ephesians 2 where we are told we were “by nature children of wrath even as the rest of mankind”. We were once unbelievers.

The three main concepts being taught in this portion of John are by virtue of manipulating a single basic metaphor.

a. (1-6) FALSE Shepherds vs the TRUE Shepherd. Anyone who tries to take or own the sheep except their rightful Shepherd are thieves and robbers.

b. (7-10) CHRIST as the exclusive WAY or GATE. John 14:6 (ESV) 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

c. (11-18) Christ the GOOD SHEPHERD vs the HIRELINGS. His giving of His life because He is NOT a hireling, the sheep BELONG to Him.

To sum up the problem with the John 10 passage then: There are NO goats in the passage. Anywhere. None. Its like trying to argue for infant baptism from 1 Cor. 7:14. Nice thought, but whatever may be going on there, one thing is certain, baptism isn’t mentioned in that passage at all. And goats are not mentioned in John 10.

One other argument advanced for assuming goats are somehow implied is that in verses 3-5 & 14-16 it is “the sheep” who know His voice. But as D. A. Carson notes – The metaphor works from the picture of the “common pen”. Secondly, we are still left with the fact there is no mention of goats – there are some sheep not hearing Him as opposed to goats not hearing Him. Thirdly, we also know that we do not all “hear” Him – right away. We do not all follow Christ there very first time we hear His voice in the Gospel.

Yes, in time, the elect do all eventually follow: Galatians 1:11-17 (ESV) 11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Scripturally, I cannot find any place where the elect and the non-elect are spoken of in terms of having some fundamental or ontological difference OTHER than, God’s designation.

As Calvinists, we get shot at enough regarding the stuff that IS Biblical – without wanting to invite bullets over things which aren’t. This one needs to go by the wayside.

Whether you believe you were always a “sheep” or once a “goat” seems to me both irrelevant and impossible to prove by Scripture. You can make a logical argument, but not an exegetical one.

The question which must be asked is: Do you know yourself a sinner, standing under the just judgment of God, and have you fled to Christ Jesus for mercy – depending upon His sacrifice at Calvary for your salvation? Is He YOUR sin-bearer?

Our first grandchild arrived this morning a little before 8 am – 10 pounds 5 ounces and 22″.

Sky & I are now officially “Itsy” and “Big Daddy.”

How GOOD our God is!

” At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”” (Matthew 18:1, ESV)

The draw to human greatness in this life is virtually irresistible. No, I don’t mean everyone strives identically to be praised by others. But what is true of everyone of us is that regardless of how anyone else may see us, we still want to think well of ourselves. We still want some small slice of greatness in our own eyes. The proof that this is systemic and universal is the great sadness we experience when we fail, or look foolish, or do something stupid, careless or mock-worthy, even when no one else sees. But oh the blush if someone DOES see. We can do something as innocent as trip, and the first thing we do is look around to see if anyone else saw it. We can deny our pride all we want, but just let us be falsely accused of something or thought ill of or made fun of and we find out just how much we still cling some small bit of greatness inwardly. I can’t fault the Disciples here one whit. The truth is, if I didn’t think I’d be thought ill of for asking it, I’d ask it too. It is only my desire for others to think of me in good terms that would prevent me. And just because my “cancer’ isn’t visible on my skin, doesn’t mean it rages any less below the surface. Secret sin is no less sin because it is invisible.

So far, Jesus has drawn out four signs of greatness in the kingdom of heaven. They are not the stuff of which greatness is made in our world. This is no less true with His 5th and final discourse. Here, Jesus takes the most amount of time to unpack the thought. And because He does so, we can, in direct proportion, take less. The answer is a simple as it is profound.

Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Those who forgive others as lavishly here as they have been forgiven by God.

How those words pierce my own soul even as I write them. How exceedingly, abundantly, constantly, repeatedly, faithfully, consistently and freely God continues to forgive me every moment of every day for sins so grievous and heinous that they are nothing short of infinite cosmic crimes against the One who has never done anything toward me but express and exercise grace and goodness and boundless love. If only we understood how sinful we really are, we would get some grasp of how just how immense His great forgiveness is toward us.

Given the above, the question is, how stingily, conditionally, sporadically, 3-strikes and you’re out, unfaithfully and inconsistently (consistent for those I like, inconsistent for those I don’t like) do I forgive the meager offenses of one fallen creature against another? If the blood of Christ is sufficient as a basis for the Father to forgive me, how come it is not a sufficient basis for me to forgive others?

Truth be told, if we begin to forgive as freely as our Father does for Christ’s sake, we will be thought fools, doormats and spineless in this world. So be it. Better to be like my Father and have His smile in the kingdom to come.

Does all this somehow imply we simply ignore sin? Impossible. The last installment in Jesus’ instructions showed we absolutely CANNOT simply dismiss sin. We MUST deal with it. How? is the question. And how deliberately do we prize those opportunities to manifest a mercy and grace toward one another which is so other-worldly, that this World is at a total loss to explain it – apart from the Cross?

Want to be great in the kingdom of heaven? Forgive greatly – like your Father in heaven.

“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” (Colossians 3:12-13, ESV)

” At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”” (Matthew 18:1, ESV)

Who indeed is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? So far Jesus has told us three things which signal heaven’s kind of greatness. First, those who have no concern for greatness in their own eyes nor in the eyes of men. Second – those who not only avoid seeking greatness in this world, but who violently oppose that tendency in themselves. And third, those who invest their lives in the lives of the humble.

But Jesus isn’t done rounding out His answer just yet. In a passage that tends to almost always be disconnected from the rest of this chapter – verses 15-20 – and assigned solely to the topic of Church discipline, Jesus opens yet another amazing description. Those who are greatest in the kingdom of heaven, are those who will humble themselves to almost any extent rather then let division prevail between true brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now THAT’S a challenge.

The divine pattern of how to resolve the issue of when another Christian sins against us is rehearsed in wonderful steps here. What fails to get our attention is the context in which Jesus is giving these instructions. He is still answering the disciples’ question of verse 1. And in it He places before us the way in which our flesh must be crucified in this most important matter. For if there is anything we are prone to in unresolved conflict when another Christian has sinned against us, it is refusing to humble ourselves to deal with the larger issue – that we do not have the luxury of being needlessly divided from other genuine Believers. Let’s face it beloved, we don’t value the unity of Christ’s Body so much, that personal offenses MUST be resolved if at all possible. And note that concern here isn’t over simple differences of opinion on non-essentials, it is actual sin.

I do want to be clear here. There are areas of faith and doctrine which absolutely cannot be compromised under any circumstances in order for us to be considered Christians at all and therefore part of Christ’s Body together. That is not the topic here nor can we go into it here. We must have a common foundation such as that formulated in Eph. 4:4-6. The concern of Jesus in this passage is that we can have two brothers (or sisters) in Christ, one having sinned against the other, bringing division between them – and somehow imagine it OK to just let us remain divided. And He is saying – no its not OK.

Look at the chief attitude here: If sin has divided us, even personal sin against ME, I will take whatever steps are necessary to resolve it. This is heavenly greatness. When the unity of the Body of Christ takes precedence over personal grievances I may have with another – no matter how legitimate. When my pride and how “I’ve” been offended takes second place to how Christ’s Body has been affected.

Note that he does not tell us to ignore sin. Certainly, if the sin committed is not such that we see it as a binding pattern in the others life, or we can remain in right relationship with no damage to our closeness, such can be left in the realm of love covering a multitude of sins (1 pet. 4:8). But if there is severance, we absolutely MUST do what we can to recover our unity to the point of involving others; having them examine our own actions, attitudes and motives; if necessary even involving the whole assembly – and perhaps even discovering a false profession which grants an opportunity to bring salvation where it was only feigned. On EITHER part’s part.

Those who are great in the kingdom of heaven don’t stand in the room of the perpetually wounded, and thus self-justifyingly estranged from their brothers and sisters in Christ. They will humble themselves to undertake the most painful steps to recover what was lost. They are more interested in the health and welfare of the greater Body than in their own feelings, agendas, pride or standing. They want Christ glorified.