Taken from a message preached on Romans Chapter 6 Verse 1 by Dr J Stewart Gillespie

Click here to listen online

In Romans Chapter 5 we saw A Grace that: 1.G – Glory, the ultimate purpose of all Gods dealings in Grace. The Glory of God's Grace, is the reason (5:6,12) that is the reason for Gods permissive will in allowing Adams sin and Eden's fall (Eph1:5-6; 1:10-12) 2.R – Rejoices (5:3-5) in all of life's problems, in tribulations 3.A – Ability of Grace, able to save despite all of our inability. Grace removes (5:6) all obstacles to salvation – no one is lost because they lacked the ability, intelligence, know how or strength to be saved 4.C – Crowned, Grace is crowned King, Grace reigns (5:21) 5.E – Extends to wherever sign has been, Grace reaches (5:18,20) everywhere that sin has reached Not only that but a Grace sufficient for: 1.Life's Problems (5:1-5) 2.Salvations Plan (5:6-11) 3.Man's Plight (5:12-21) No matter what my problems there is grace sufficient for it? Correct! No matter how deep the hole Gods grace can reach me? Correct! No matter how big the mess Gods Grace can sort it out? Correct! Well that's just fine because I love causing problems, making a mess, picking fights, being the awkward customer, I thrive on conflict and contention and I quite enjoy my sin! So I can continue dabbling in my sin with the reassurance that the Lord can sort it all out! “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom6:1) Surely no one can seriously think like that? Gods Grace is not license to sin, because Gods Grace is not the opposite of righteousness. God does not cease to be righteous because He is Gracious His Grace is not His means of ignoring or neglecting His Righteousness but rather His Grace is His means of maintaining His Righteous integrity whilst being able to save the sinner: Rom 3:22, 26. Am I trading on Gods Grace? Would my behaviour change if: i.If I thought that my lie / deception would be dealt with the same way as Ananias Saphira's was? Acts 5 – 2 believers lie to the Holy Spirit, maybe a little ½ lie – they sold the land and gave 'most' of it for the work of the Lord and said that they had given 'all' of it. Just a slight exaggeration? Did it really matter? Ananias executed on the spot by the Spirit of God and his wife executed 3 hours later! God has not changed! ii.If I thought that my greed would be dealt with in the same way as Achan's was – Joshua chp 7. Jericho has just fallen, and explicit instructions have been given by God that the city and all in it are cursed, nothing to be taken for any private use. The gold, silver, brass and iron can be used for the sanctuary but everything else is to be left. Achan – just one man amongst millions who obey, takes 3 items: “...a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight...” (Jos 7:21). Whats the big deal? A few items which were going to be wasted anyway? The righteousness of God was the BIG deal. “...a goodly Babylonish garment” - “a trendy outfit from the high street.” Because of this disobedience of one man the entire army of Israel is defeated at Ai and Achan and his sons and daughters and animals are stoned and burned! iii.If I thought that my grumbling would be dealt with the same way as Miriam's was (Num 12). Miriam and others had an issue with Moses leadership and wanted to push him out and move in (Num12:2). They take a round about approach to manoeuvring Moses out and attack him from the side – his wife (12:1) – not really the issue! Be careful how we approach a ministry that challenges us! Miriam's grumbling against a faithful servant of the Lord was summarily dealt with! iv.If I thought that discord with my brethren would be made as public as that of Euodias and Syntyche's was (Phil 4) – Paul wrote of it in a letter, sent it to the church, copied it around the world and published it for 2000 years! Way to go! Took about relationship counselling apostle style! Name and shame – not invented by the newspapers in the 20th century! If it would change my behaviour to anticipate my sin being dealt with in these ways then I am trading on Divine Grace! I am banking on Gods Grace to allow me to continue in sin! 4 reasons why we don't continue in sin: 1.because I'm dead to Sin (6:1-7) 2.because I'm alive to God (6:8-11) 3.because I must serve God (6:12-20) 4.because sin remains sin (6:21-22) 1)because I'm dead to Sin (6:2-8) vs2-3 – we are dead to sin What does it mean to be “dead to sin”? Notice “dead” is an aorist tense – point tense and usually past, a completed action What does that mean? i.We have lost the desire to sin? Some point out that a dead body is an unresponsive thing, having the lost the ability to respond to light, touch, hearing and pain. Illust: check a person is dead: shine a light in pupils – no response, painful stimuli – no response. Having died to sin does that render us unresponsive, to sin, lacking any desire to sin? This inconsistent with 6:11-14 – for if being dead to sin renders us unresponsive and with no desire to sin and lacking the capacity to sin then Paul would hardly have to exhort us not to allow sin to reign in our bodies (6:12), not to obey sin (6:12) nor to give our bodies over to the service of sin (6:13)! This interpretation is also inconsistent with Col 3 and Galatians 5. We need to be wary of interpreting the scriptures with medical text books rather than using the scriptures to interpret themselves! ii.A broken relationship with sin (Montgomery Boice). Boice points out the same phrase is used of Christ in (6:10) where Christ discharged His responsibilities to sin, dealt with it and finished with sin at Calvary, His relationship with sin is now finished! This is true but what does this mean to me practically? To understand 6:2 I think we need to look back at 5:21. Before my conversion 'sin was King' (5:21) I lived under the domain, the authority, the rule, the tyranny of King Sin (5:21) Now I am saved I live in another Kingdom (5:21) the Kingdom of Grace under Jesus Christ our Lord (5:21). I have at some point left the one Kingdom and come into the other. This is what Colossians 1:3 says: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:” (Col 1:13) Every Kingdom has its boundary, its border to which the rule of the sovereign extends and thus no further: Coming into Scotland from England, M74 sign “Scotland Failte ” The boundary marker for the Kingdom of sin isn't a sign on the road or a line on the map, it is a boundary marker appropriate to sin. Sin cannot cross the boundary marker of death! That link between sin and death cannot be broken: The Kingdom of Sin has a boundary: “as sin hath reigned unto death.” (5:21) After death sin has no more claim upon me! Does this mean there is no sinning in hell? Sin is a falling short of Gods standard it is the rejection of or rebellion against the self revelation of God, but in hell, apart from the experience of Gods eternal judgement there is no revelation of God to reject, revile or rebel against: God is Light – and sin is described as a rebellion against and a rejection of that light (John 3:19), but eternal judgement is “outer darkness” it is the “blackness of darkness forever” God is Love – and sin is a rejection of or a cutting off of the love of God into our life and experience (1John4:7,8) but eternal judgement is a “fearful looking forward to...” (Heb10:27) – a place dominated by fear because there is no love there (1 John4:18). God is Life – man's greatest outrage against God was to kill the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15) - but eternal judgement is the “second death” (Rev20:14) God is the source of Hope – but eternal judgement has no hope, it is eternal! (Heb6:2) God is Peace – but eternal judgement knows no peace - “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” (Rev 14:11) There is no revelation of God in hell to sin against! At some point I came to the boundary of that kingdom of sin and crossed over into the Kingdom of Grace. Being “dead to sin” represents a change of address from the Kingdom of Sin to the Kingdom of Grace That link between sin and death: 1.It is an inevitable link – sin is a rebellion against God and a rejection of God, “in Him is life” therefore sin separated from the source of life and brings death 2.It is an inviolable link – that is a link that cannot be broken – because God has also decreed this link: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen 2:17) “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Eze 18:4) “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23) There is an exit from sin but that exit is labelled 'death' The only way out of the Kingdom of Sin is by way of Death. On the other side of that door marked death the door is labelled either deliverance or damnation! This is an interesting idea that death marks the boundary for the Kingdom of Sin but do you have any clear cut evidence of it? Rom 6:7 “For he that is dead is freed from sin.” That word “freed” is very interesting because it is the word “δικαιόω” - justified! How can death justify us from sin? Does it not take the work of Christ to justify us from sin and make us right with God and bring us into a living relationship with God? (5:11-21) Of course it does and I suspect that is why the word has been translated “freed” in this verse to avoid confusion! This is “justify” in a different sense. This justify does not have the positive thought of being declared righteous by a God satisfied with the work of Christ and being brought into a living relationship with God but this is the “justified” of a criminal, found guilty of a crime who takes his punishment and serves the sentence meted out. He has done the crime and now he does the time. Should he complete his punishment then the demands of righteousness are satisfied. Sin demands death, once death has been reached sins demands have ended! God doesn't defraud sin, He doesn't say 'I know that sin demands death but I'm going to bend the rules here.' Rather He pays the price for that rioghteous demand in the death of His Son! We are therefore declared to have satisfied or fulfilled the Divine decree concerning sin: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen 2:17) “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Eze 18:4) “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23) So are you saying then that once we die then the demands of sin are satisfied and because we have suffered death for our sin we are then free from guilt? Are saying that every sinner therefore who dies is justified and goes to heaven? Who said anything about heaven? The punishment for and the consequence of sin is death and without a Saviour death is simply not an event is an eternal state. Hence eternal damnation in the lake of fire is referred to as the “second death” (Rev2:11; 20:6; 20:14; 21:8) for the just demands of sin against an eternal being is eternal death and separation. But were there not in scripture those who have left the domain of sin without dieing? 1.Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb11:5) 2.Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) 3.The saints of 1 Thess 4 and 1 Co 15:51 How is this possible? The work of Christ involves not only Christ bearing my sin but also dieing my death: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Heb 2:9) Albert Leckie: “Here it is dead to sin as governing my life” Martyn Lloyd Jones: “Christ died to the realm and to the rule and to the reign of sin...we are dead to sin in the sense that we are no longer under its rule, being out of the territory and the jurisdiction of sin” Free from the Domain of sin (5:21) from the Demands of sin and from the Domination of sin (6:9-12)! This identification this union with Christ not only in His Life but also in His death allows me to move out of the Kingdom of Sin and to move on from the Kingdom of Sin, it sets me free from the Domain, the Demands and the Domination of sin. Union with the death of Christ frees me from the POWER and PLACE of sin and one day from the PRESENCE of sin. https://graceinchrist.org/romans

So far in our studies we have considered:

1. Provision for the child in Grace (Romans 5)

2. Place of the child in Grace (Matthew 18)

3. Pictures of the child in Grace (Roms 5:12; 2 Sam 12:20-25; 1Kings 17:18ff; 2Kings 4; Mk5)

Pictures of Resurrection

Perhaps today in our own land one of the most prominent and certainly one of the most promoted anti-Christian philosophies would be that of evolution

The athiest / agnostic and evolutionist would generally cite that their strongest evidence lies in the fact the events of the past have left their echo in the rocks of the present – they look for fossils: 'the present is the key to the past.'

We as Christians know a God who knows not only the past but also the future and we as Christians would often cite as our strongest evidence the very converse of the evolutionist, that lieing within the past are echoes of the future: in other words the past contained and continues to contain within it the key to the future!

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” (Isa 46:8-10)

“I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” (Isa 46:11)

The Christian therefore looks not for fossils of the past in the present but the believer, fully appreciating the greatness and sovereignty of his God seeks for shadows of the future in the past! Only God can do that!

I want to do something that may seem strange therefore to the mind of the unbeliever, the educated but unenlightened mind, the philosopher of the world I want to look for hope in Christ in the future by looking at Gods hand working in the past!

I am seeking Gods promises for the future by looking for Gods patterns in the past.

The believer understands why I am doing this!

As I look back for hope of a future resurrection for the child, I find that out of 8 specific individuals raised again from the dead in scripture other than Christ there are 3 children who are specified as having being raised again from the dead in the past. These 3 are very interesting:

1. Elijah and the widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17)

2. Elisha and the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4)

3. Jarius Daughter (Mark chp 5)

In these 3 resurrections of children in the scriptures we have:

1. The resurrection of the son of the gentile woman (1 Kings 17) – in case we missed this the Lord emphasised this very point on the occasion of the commencement of His public ministry in the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4:26.

2. The resurrection of the daughter of a Jewish man – again hard to miss this; Jarius the scriptures highlight for us was the “ruler of the synagogue” - of what relevance did that have to the resurrection of his daughter or to the greatness of the need of the family?

3. The resurrection of a son “according to promise” (2 Kings 4:16) a condition identical to that of Isaac and the New Testament believer: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (Ga 4:28)

We have therefore pictures of the resurrection of:

1. Children of the gentile nations

2. Children of the Jewish nation

3. Children of believers

In all 3 pictures, for some reason, the state of the dead child is linked with that of sleep:

1. Elijah before he will raise the dead boy of 1 Kings 17: “And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.” (1Ki 17:19)

2. Elisha before he will raise the dead son of the Shunammite in 2 Kings 4 will raise the child under similar circumstances: “And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.” (2Ki 4:32)

3. Most explicitly of all we have the startling and perhaps slightly puzzling statement of the Lord Jesus concerning Jarius daughter: “And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.” (Lu 8:52 AV)

Perhaps you say what could be more natural than for the Lord to raise up a dead person from their bed? Is that after all not where dead people are often to be found lieing on a bed?

Well interestingly if you you look at the other 5 specified resurrections of the Bible you find:

4. The man of 2 Kings 13:21 was raised from a sepulchre

5. The widow of Nain's son, a “young man” was raised from his coffin

6. Lazarus of John 11 was raised from the tomb

7. Dorcas, a believer in Acts 9:39, raised from her place in the “upper chamber” - often used as a guest room

8. Eutychus of Acts 20:9 the young man who fell asleep whilst Paul was preaching, mind you I have to reluctantly confess that the scriptures do seem to blame the preacher for the audience falling asleep: “as Paul was long preaching” - if the audience fall asleep the preacher needs to waken up. Eutychus may well have been in need of his bed but he wasn't raised up from his bed either but from the ground where he landed having fallen from his seat in the open window!

Add to this those who are raised en mass when the Saviour died, unspecified individuals (Matt 27:52) who were raised from the graves!

So as it turns out the children are the only ones to be raised from their beds in a state of sleep!

Although as we are aware, interestingly this picture of sleep becomes a consistent picture of the condition of the dead in Christ (John 11; 1 Thess 4), but ever before the believer in Christ died to sleep with the promise of a future awakening, the child had been for many generations entered already into the enjoyment of that very experience!

Elijah and the Widow of Zarephath: A Picture of Rapture:

A child dies, but more than this, a child is committed into the care of Elijah (17:19)

Carried by Elijah out of the bosom of his mother to abide where he abides, to rest where he rests (cf. Luke 16:22)

1. “he took him” (v19)

“give me thy son” (v19)

Many times the Lord asks us to give to Him that which we least desire to part with, that we might trust Him for that which means most to us.

This is the essence of faith.

This was the essence of Abraham's faith in Genesis 22: “take thy son thine only Isaac.”

The God who requires from me that which I least desire to part with is the God who “spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.”

For the purposes of the narrative it would have been enough to record “he took him” but the Spirit adds “out of her bosom.” From a mothers heart.

For some time, up until the resurrection of her son that was all the mother knew – the pain and sorrow of an empty heart.

Here is our problem – our sorrow lies in time and our hope lies in eternity.

As Elijah departed with the child and the door closed behind them, this widow woman was unable to see what was transpiring above, in the upper room, she only knew of the sorrow which was her portion below, the sorrow of an empty heart.

Here is our great disability, our eyes can only see to the horizon of time.

That is where we are too, trapped in time but with our hope in eternity.

2. “carried him” (v19)

Notice the direction “up” and the location “loft”

“into a loft”: 5944: stair way, upper room, the sky

The deaths of at least 7 individuals in scripture are linked with the loft or upper room:

1. Eglon the king of Moab (Judges 3)

2. David mourns for his dead Absalom in a loft or upper room (2Sam 18)

3. Ahaziah falls through a lattice in the loft (2Kings 1)

4. Son of the widow of Zarephath

5. Shunammites son layed in the loft (2Kings 4)

6. Dorcas lay in the upper chamber (Acts 9)

7. Eutychus (Acts 20) falls from the upper chamber.

Out of these 7 deaths linked with the loft or upper room, 4 know the power of Gods resurrection – the 2 believers and the 2 children!

The widows son is taken not just to a place but to His presence: “where he abode”

Gods place for us is of course consistently defined by His presence there:

“today shalt thou be with me in paradise”

“Abraham's bosom”

“in my Father's house...”

3. “laid him upon his own bed” (v19)

Not only a place and a presence but perhaps also the thought of peace

The place where Elijah slept is now the place where the child sleeps!

There are those who do not simply die and perish but who “sleep in Jesus” (1 Thess 4) perhaps like Lazarus of John 11 “our friend Lazarus sleepeth”

This is where the child is left at the end of verse 19

Is the child left or is the child lost?

Out of the sight of the empty heart of the mother, is there the fear preying upon the mind that the child has not simply left but is actually lost?

Perhaps unappreciated by the mother, the one into whose hands she has committed her son is one who has a powerful intercessory ministry with God (v20) cf. James 5:17.

Will she see her son again? What is the setting of this reunion?

1. A cry / shout (17:20,21)

2. The “voice” of Elijah (17:22)

3. The resurrection of the child (17:22)

4. The child descends (17:22)

5. The child, the mother and Elijah united once again (17:23)

Oh yes, and who is Elijah?

1. 'El' – God

2. 'Jah' – Jehovah – the Lord

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1. For the Lord himself shall

2. descend from heaven

3. with a shout,

4. with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and

5. the dead in Christ shall rise first:

6. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord...” (1Th 4:15-18)

In 2 Sam 12 David has a hope of being reunited with his dead child

In 1 Kings 17 the hope linked with Elijah is not that of being reunited in death but rather reunited in rapture together.

This is fitting of course for Elijah, since he is the prophet who himself never saw death but was raptured to heaven alive in the chariot of fire.

When we come to the hope of the Shunammite woman of 2 Kings 4 her hope is linked more resurrection, to be reunited in resurrection:

1. setting is “carmel” or fruitfulness

2. she is greated with a 3 fold “shalom” (2 Kings 4) as did the Lord His disciples after the resurrection in John 20.

Looking in particular at the NT miracle of the resurrection of Jarius daughter we find that in the pattern of Marks gospel this event is part of a triplet of events in Marks account of the ministry of the Lord Jesus.

There are 3 events in that gospel which are marked out as distinct as the only occasions when Christ is present together with the inner corm of the 3 disciples: Peter, James and John:

1. The raising of Jarius daughter – the resurrection of a dead child by Christ.

2. The Mount of transfiguration – the revelation of the future resurrection glory of Christ, along with the NT believers – Peter, James and John and Old Testament Saints – Elijah and Moses

3. The Garden of Gethsemane – the Lord returns from His sufferings to find His saints whom He has left in His absence, during the night to be active and in prayer, He finds them asleep and raises them up (Mark 14:37). This word “sleep” is the same word as that used of the sleeping saints whom the Lord finds at His return for the saints in 1 Thess 5:10.

Are these 3 groups in Marks gospel pointing forward to 3 groups who have part in His resurrection?

1. The child – covered by His blood

2. Expectant OT and NT saints who await and anticipate His coming

3. Sleeping NT saints – saved but not living on the tip toe of expectancy

The resurrection of Jarius daughter raises a number of problems:

1. Inability

2. Innocence

3. Inaccuracy

4. Inactivity

1. The Problem of Inability:

Can someone who is unable to believe be saved? The question of faith.

Can't believe is different from won't believe

Inability to accept Christ is distinct from active rejection of Christ

Gods eternal condemnation and personal, individual judgement of humanity is always based on the active rejection in part or in whole of the person and work of Christ.

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (Joh 3:19)

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18)

“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;” (2Pe 2:6)

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” (Re 20:12-13)

The condemnation of the whole of humanity, in the opening 3 chapters of Romans and the conclusion of Romans 3:23 is on the basis not of our association with Adam – a reality that brings the condemnation of death in Roms 5:12 but it is on the basis of personal guilt, by virtue of the fact that I have transgressed the revelation of the true God in:

1. Creation (Roms 1)

2. Conscience (Roms 1+2)

3. Covenant (Roms 2+3)

4. Christ (Roms 3+4)

Condemnation to Divine Judgement in the first 3 chapters of Romans is as a consequence of personal corruption.

The condemnation of God in scripture rests upon those who are able but not willing to respond to God.

ii The Problem of Innocence:

What was her status before God?

Born in Adams sin, guilt imputed because Adam had sinned but without any personally committed sins – 'faultless failure'.

Was she condemned to judgement or covered by the blood?

The question of fairness.

Does God regard such as innocent?

Consider the following scriptures:

“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”(Isa 7:16)

“Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”(Deu 1:39)

“Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.”(Jer 2:34)

“Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;”(Jer 19:4)

“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.”(Psa 106:37-38)

iii The Problem of Inaccuracy:

Why did Christ say “she is not dead” ?

There are perhaps echoes here of John 11: “These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.” (Joh 11:11), but the Lord goes a stage further than that here with Jarius daughter: “she is not dead but sleepeth” (Luke 8:52).

In John 11 Christ did not deny the reality of death but here in Luke chp 8 Christ denies the reality of death.

Why is this? Why does Christ not impute death to Jarius' daughter?

Was it simply because in this special case that Jarius' daughter was going to be raised from the dead or was there something different in essence about the death of Jarius' daughter compared to that of an adult?

The Lord did not say: 'she will not remain dead' or 'her death is not permanent' or as He did with Lazarus; 'your daughter will rise again' cf. John 11:23 but here with Jarius' daughter He denies the reality of death!!

The simple reading of the words of Christ here are not consistent with them being a reference to her impending resurrection at all!

Resurrection is life raised up from the dead.

The Lord denies that she is dead in the first place!

This is not the way the Lord approaches the issue of resurrection with Lazarus:

“Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.” (Joh 11:14). The Lord does not deny here the reality of Lazarus death!

How can the Lord say here “she is not dead but sleepeth” (Luke 8:52)?

Is it because He speaks not only as a man amongst men but as God?

Consider a very similar statement in this connection concerning the patriachs of old: “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” (Lu 20:37-38)

4. The Problem of Inactivity:

Why the wait?

Why the delay?

The Lord could have gone to Jarius house at the stage of Luke 8:4, but He took time to deal with the women with the issue of blood.

Why was this?

1. Jarius daughter had enjoyed 12 years of life.

2. The woman had endured 12 years of death!

But if Jarius daughter died and went to hell how could that delay have been justified?

Taken from a message preached at New Cumnock Gospel Hall on 1st September 2009

by Dr J Stewart Gillespie

Click the link below to listen the MP3 recording of this message:

When a Child Dies: Finding God's Grace in our Greatest Grief: Pictures of Grace to a Child

Other messages on Pauls Epistle to the Romans are downloadable in MP3 format from:

http://www.newcumnock.org/romans.html

The position of children in Grace: Far greater and completely different from their position before:

1. The law
2. Roman and Greek society
3. The disciples

When we come to consider the position of children before Christ and in Gods purposes we are going to have to take to heart the words of Isaiah:

“ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9)

There is perhaps no section that deals with children which turns our thinking on its head so much as Matthew chp 18! So much so as you read through some of the commentators on this chapter you will find an almost utterly astounding phenomenon that emerges: many if not most will spend much of their time trying to explain why Matthew chapter 18 doesn't apply to children!

Why? Because if it does say what it plainly says then we would have to radically change our thinking about the child, a thinking which peripheralises and minimises the child and elevates us!

1. The Place of the Child (18:1-2)
2. The Pattern of the Child (18:3-4)
3. The Possession of the Child (18:5) – Possessed by God not by Man
4. The Protection of the Child (18:6-9)
5. The Privilege of the Child (18:10)
6. The Pursuit of the Child (18:11-14)
7. The Promise to the Child (18:14)

If our attitude to the child is better seen and not heard! If our response to the child is one of impatience and intolerance and irritation! If we view humanity as developing in importance as we move from childhood to adulthood, then in Matthew 18 we will find that our perspective on childhood is completely out of step with God! There is perhaps no day, no hour, no place and no land when this teaching of the Word of God is more needed and more timely than in our own land and in our own day; a day wherein since 1967, society, government, hospitals, doctors, nurses, mothers and fathers, politicians and voters have regarded the life of the child as so utterly expendable and disposable that should the developing life of the unborn interfere with the priorities, desires, financial prosperity of the parents to be, then that developing life can be extinguished with impunity. Since 1967: 7,000,000 such lives have been dealt with in that way in the UK. To such the Saviour speaks these solemn words, which will not go away: “ But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” One of the questions which ultimately our studies on this subject will ultimately address is this: 'where are the souls of those 7 million tonight?' The answer I do believe is this: they stand as witnesses in the presence of God against a wicked and perverse generation! We cannot cut off the souls of those who have mediated access into the presence of God and expect to live thereafter with impunity (Matt 18:10)

The Place of the Child (18:1-2)

“at the same time” (v1) – at what “same time”? When the resurrection Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ has been seen on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:1ff) When the Lord has spoken of the fact that:

1. Devils / Demons (17:14-21)
2. Death (17:23)
3. Demands of men (17:24-27) – unpaid tax bills

Cannot hinder the progress of His Kingdom!

“at the same time” (v1): He was faced with a Demon who could not be cast out – so the Lord casts the demon out (17:14-21) Death (17:23) He was faced with the demands of men (17:24-27), and a tax bill that could not be paid, they had no money!

“at the same time” (v1): as so many of the preconceptions that men had about the kingdom were being swept away in the mighty torrent and flood of Christ's Glory!

“at the same time” (v1): as Christ was introducing the impossible to the eyes of the incredulous!

“at the same time” (v1): as the disciples had missed the point and failed to appreciate that the true essence of greatness in His Kingdom was humility!

As soon as they had been given a vision of the Glory of the Kingdom in Matthew 17 they are reminded that the Kingdom was introduced by the ministry of a child (17:10-12) – John the Baptist, a child filled by the Spirit of God from his mother's womb! 1 of 3 remarkable children in scripture involved with revival:

1. Samuel – a child priest
2. Josiah – a child King
3. John the Baptist – a child prophet

This glorious Kingdom was introduced by the ministry of a child (Isa40) As the disciples as the question: “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” the Lord will take them back to the principle established at the beginning of the preaching of His Kingdom; introduced by a child. Filled by the Spirit of God, with a ministry: “to turn the heart of the fathers tot he children” (Lk1:17) Here is something utterly amazing – down through the years as commentators and preachers have come to Matthew 18, as they have watched the Saviour place the child in their midst, listened to the mistake of the disciples and heard the teaching of the Saviour, one of the first things which these commentators and preachers have done is to immediately miss the point and make the same mistake as the disciples by attempting to exclude the child from the promises of this chapter. These promises only become the possession of adult 'child like' believers because they were first the possession of the child whom they have become like.

In society, in the world and even before the disciples the child had little if any place:

Before the world: Luke 9:54 : “maid”: 3816: “pais” possibly from 3817: “paio” : to hit or to strike; a child or servant could be hot or struck with impunity.

Before the disciples: the disciples seemed to have little regard for the child: Matt 19:13-15; Mk 10:13ff; Luke 18:15ff. Perhaps more than a hint of this too in the way the gospel writers record numbers; the feeding of the 5000 – was the feeding of 5000 men plus women and children, the feeding of the 4000 wasn't the feeding of the 4000 at all but the feeding of 4000 men plus women and children!

The teachings of Christ are no reflection of the social and religious ideas of His day! In His teachings and in His person He is once again set apart as a man amongst men.

What place does Christ give to the child?

“...and set him in the midst of them” (18:2) “in the midst” is a place of privilege and of prominence:

1. Christ in the midst of the church (Matt 18:20)
2. The High Priest in the midst (Mk 14:60) of the courtroom
3. Christ in the midst of the doctors (Luke 2:46) of the council
4. Christ in the midst (Luke 5:19)
5. Christ in the midst of the disciples (Luke 24:36; John 20:19; 20:26)
6. Christ in the midst at Calvary (John 19:18)

But here the child is not placed in the midst of the: council, the courtroom nor of Calvary but the child is in the midst of the disciples (18:1). Not only is this a place of privilege and of prominence but it is also a place , which in the gospels is uniquely reserved for Christ! In the gospels it is only ever Christ who is to be found “in the midst” of His disciples: Matt 18:20; Luke 24:36; John 20:19; 20:26 except here.... Where it is a child in the midst of the disciples! Elsewhere in the NT Christ is still found pre-eminently in the midst of His disciples (Heb 2:12; Rev 1:13; 5:6) except in Acts 1:15 when Peter is in the midst of the disciples! What a place of privilege the Lord places this child into!

The Pattern of the Child (18:3)

If there is one reason above all others that the mind of man struggles and wrestles with the salvation of a child it is surely this: 'how can a child in the absence of learning and understanding come to exercise faith in Christ and so come to be saved?' In other words man's greatest problem with the salvation of the child is this: 'how can a child become like an adult to be saved as an adult is saved?' This appears on the surface to be perfectly reasonable but it does of course contain a very serious error: namely that salvation can be hindered by personal inability. If this were true then salvation would be in part dependant on the possession of personal abilities and if that were true salvation would not be entirely of Gods Grace at all. Justification would be by faith and a certain quantity of intellectual, mental, and spiritual ability! We cannot supplement Christ without supplanting Christ – Jack Hunter Romans 5 was very clear on this that personal inability and weakness does not disqualify us from the Grace of God in salvation but rather it is a prerequisite: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Ro 5:6) Salvation was:

1. By His strength
2. In His season
3. By His Son

It is in fact a direct consequence of justification by faith that if Gods way of salvation is all of Grace and not of works then He must be the God who can save those who are unable to do anything whatsoever about the matter of salvation. Their inability does not impact at all on Gods saving ability, it only serves to make His saving work all the more glorious! As a result of this those who have had most doubts over the centuries concerning infant salvation are those who have compromised on justification by faith and added in works or merit of some sort – Roman Catholicism, which has had to come up with doctrines of limbo and baptismal regeneration to compensate for the infants inability to undertake any good works. We might then from our studies in Romans anticipate that the answer of the Lord Jesus to this age old question of 'how can a child be saved?' would prove very interesting indeed, but I wonder if we would have anticipated just how interesting His answer would be! The answer from the lips of the Saviour is little short of startling: not how can a child become like an adult to receive salvation on the same footing as an adult does but rather how can an adult become like a child to receive salvation on the same footing as a child? “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 18:3) We ask how can a child become like an adult to be saved? Christ asks how can an adult become like a child to be saved?

The Possession of the Child (18:5) – Possessed by God not by Man

A remarkable statement, for:

1. To 'receive' the disciple was to 'receive' Christ (Matt 10:40; John 13:30)
2. To reject the disciple with Christ's gospel was to reject Christ
3. To receive the Son is to receive the Father who sent Him (John 5:43; Matt 10:40; John 13:20)
4. To receive Christ is to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

“And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.” Lets not miss the import of this statement – to receive this child in His name, is to receive Christ! In the same way that receiving a believer in Christ's name is to receive the Lord Jesus Himself! Such a statement is only possible “because ye belong to Christ” (Mk9:41) To be received in Christ's name is to belong to Christ! Some have so stumbled at this statement of the Lord Jesus that they have resorted to Biblical gymnastics to contort these verses into something other than they plainly mean. Some have correctly pointed out that in verses 3 & 4 the Lord Jesus has drawn a pattern from the dependant faith of the child, as a pattern for all who would come in faith to Christ, they then claim that from verse 5 onwards the Lord is not speaking about little children at all but rather of believers who have become as little children to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Let's just spend a moment to reclaim these verses about the little child for the little child. I think that it would be safe to say that if it were not for verses 3 & 4 of Matthew 18 that no one would ever have reached that conclusion. So if it were the case that verses 3 + 4 were not there we could conclude with confidence that the little child who is received in verse 5 is a literal and physical little child? Consider Marks summary of this event: Mark 9:33 -37; consider Lukes summary of this event : Luke 9:46-48 – there is no reference in either of these sections to an adult becoming as a little child but the reception of that little child is still linked with the same dignity and blessing.

Who is it that is receiving the “little child” in verse 5? The audience is that of believers: “disciples” (v1). If these “little ones” are believers then why does the Lord have to exhort the disciples to be prepared to receive disciples?? I think if we understand the setting given to us by Mark in his account we will see that no confusion could possibly have arisen in the minds of the disciples, for as the Lord utters Matthew 18:5 He has just a few seconds before picked up the little child of whom He is speaking and held him in His arms (Mark 9:36-37) What is the Lord saying then in Matt18:5? If I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection I receive Him! I am not saying and Christ is not saying that every child is indwelt by Christ, for one thing there is a condition attached to the reception of the child, they are not received simply because of what they are but they are received “in my name” To receive Christ is by definition to receive the Father (John 13:20) – no qualification is required but to receive Christ in receiving the child a condition is attached : I must receive the child in His name! How can I receive a child in His name? Consider those who: Gather “together in my name” (Matt18:20; 1Co5:4) Belong to Christ and receive gifts in His name (Mk9:41) Pray “in my name” (John 14:13; 14:14; 15:16; 16:23,24,26) “in my name” implies at the very least the idea of belonging and perhaps even more the idea of fellowship. We can only receive a child in “His name” if it is true that such a child belongs to Him! If I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection I receive Him! As I read the scriptures to my children, grand children, nieces and nephews, teach the Sunday School class, I as His disciple extend my arms on His behalf to the objects of His affection, I thus receive Him!

The Protection of the Child (18:6-9)

Because that child belongs to Christ Created for a Divine Purpose, enjoying Divine privilege and afforded Divine protection From the moment of birth I am His by right

His by Creatorial Right: Psalm 139:13-16, consider particularly: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.” (Psa 139:13) – God has creatorial rights over the individual. Isa 43:1,7; 44:2;21 – God has creatorial rights over the redeemed of the nation of Israel Isa 46:3-4; 44:19-21 – God has creatorial rights over the whole nation of Israel Psalm 100:1-3 - “all ye lands” - God has creatorial rights over all peoples.

His by Creatorial Purpose: Created for His glory (Isa 43:7) Is it just some who have been created for His glory? Consider Rom 3:23; Rev 4:11 – Gods expectation and design for all of His creatures! If we do not want to be for His Glory He has no part for us in His Universe! If He has power to form the vessel and create the vessel He has power to make the vessel again (Jer 18:4)! The fact that that vessel was damaged did not mean that it was dammed! The difference between the damaged vessels and the dammed vessels of Jeremiah 18 lay in their attitude to the Potter.

His by Creatorial Relationship Psalm 100:1-3 Luke 15 – the prodigal son – was he a backslider? Was he an unbeliever? Quite clearly a lost sinner! Context: Luke 15:1-3 – this is a parable to lost sinners Character of the son (15:13) - “if we say that we love Him and keep not His commandments...” We could only regard him as a backslider if we develop a creedal view of Christianity. This would be completely unbiblical. Consider the Biblical view of Christian character in Luke 6! Condition of the Son (Lk 15:24,32) – he was “dead” But this boy starts off with a relationship with the Father! He belonged by right at the beginning of the parable and by grace at the end! No one ever suggests that the sheep or the coin was a backslider but they belonged to the fold! God retains His creatorial rights over His creature in spite of the fall! He is able to claim those rights and redeem His creature! Eternal ruin and loss come when we reject His claims and His rights on our life and we render ourselves unprofitable. From the moment of conversion I am His by redemption

The Privilege of the Child (18:10)

A privilege which parallels that of the believer and yet it is distinct from it The believers access to the Father is not by angels! Angels were linked with the old covenant (Acts 7:53; Gal3:19) This was a temporary and transient arrangement for access to God. Our access to the Father is not by angels but rather by the Son (Heb 4:14)! This access by angels indicates a temporary or transient arrangement, which is either lost when a soul rejects Christ or is superseded by direct access through Christ at conversion.

The Pursuit of the Child (18:11-14)

Compare Matthew 18:11 “for the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost” - as spoken of the child to to that spoken of Zaccheus: “the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) Note the absence of seeking with the child! No voluntary departure or rejection??

The Promise to the Child (18:14) https://graceinchrist.org/romans