← Back to sermon library
You can turn back to the book
of Acts, Acts chapter 14. We're in between books. We finished
the book of Leviticus a month or two ago, so we're taking some
time off from Numbers until after our summer break. So we'll finish
the month of June, these Wednesday night studies, and then take
July-August off, and then, God willing, get back to Numbers
in September. There was no rhyme or reason,
not sure why I alighted in the book of Acts, but it seems like
a good, or it seemeth wise unto me to at least continue on here
in Acts 14. So last time, last two weeks,
we considered 14.1-7, the ministry of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas
in the city of Iconium. This puts it in its larger context,
what we call the first missionary journey in the Book of Acts.
It's from Acts 13.1 all the way to Acts 14.28, took place in
around AD 47 and 48, covered about 1,400 miles. So it would
have been Cyprus and the churches in southern Galatia, Pisidian
Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. So the return is recorded
in chapter 14 at verses 27 and 28, so they're sent out, or rather
the Holy Spirit comes to the church, the Holy Spirit tells
the church to set apart Paul and Barnabas, the church then
sends those men out, they engage in missionary enterprise, and
then they come back to the church, report what God had done, and
then they stay there for a time, and then they go back out on
a missionary journey. So it's a very church-oriented
methodology and strategy, very much in terms of God's working
in and through the local church to evangelize and to promote
gospel mission in the world. So I will read beginning in verse
8, and as I said, we'll continue here, 8 to 18, the ministry in
Lystra. So, and in Lystra a certain man
without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his
mother's womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently
and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud
voice, Stand up straight on your feet. And he leaped and walked. Now when the people saw what
Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycanian
language, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of
men. And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul Hermes, because
he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose
temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands
to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when
the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes
and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, Men, why
are you doing these things? We also are men with the same
nature as you. and preach to you that you should
turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the
heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their
own ways. Nevertheless, he did not leave himself without witness,
in that he did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful
seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. And with these
sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing
to them. Just continue to the end of the
chapter. Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there. And having
persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out
of the city, supposing him to be dead. However, when the disciples
gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And
the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. And when they
had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples,
they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the
souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith,
and saying, We must, through many tribulations, enter the
kingdom of God. So when they had appointed elders
in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them
to the Lord in whom they had believed. And after they had
passed through Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. Now when they
had preached the word in Perga, they went down to Adalia. From
there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended
to the grace of God for the work which they had completed. Now,
when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported
all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door
of faith to the Gentiles. So they stayed there a long time
with the disciples. Amen. Well, as we consider this
section in Acts 14, specifically at verses 8 to 18, the ministry
in Lystra, We'll not only learn something about the missionary
enterprise of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas in the book of Acts,
but there's a bit of theology that we can learn on the way.
For some of you, this will be a review, not only Acts 14, but
the particular theology that we will look at, specifically
when the Apostle Paul declares in verse 15, we also are men
with the same nature as you. We'll deal with that when we
come to it, but it does hold out for us some truth concerning
the living God. So when we look at this section,
I want to look first at the healing of the lame man in verses 8 to
10. Secondly, the folly of the pagans in verses 11 to 13. And
then thirdly, the proclamation of the living God in verses 14
to 18. And this is a specimen sample
of the apostolic preaching to heathen or pagan. Remember, Acts
chapter 17, which we looked at several weeks ago, is another
instance of that. The Apostle Paul in Athens is
there meeting the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who wanted
to understand something concerning Jesus and the resurrection. So
Paul takes that opportunity to preach to them the glory of God
Most High. Remember that when he preaches
to the Jews in the synagogues, he doesn't spend his time on
the doctrine of creation. He doesn't spend his time on
the doctrine of God's sovereign governance. He usually spends
his time on demonstrating and reasoning from the scriptures
that Jesus is in fact the Christ. The Jews already believe that
God made the world. The Jews already believe that
God sustained and governed the world. The Jews did not believe
that God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who assumed our
humanity, to live as the Messiah that was promised in the Old
Testament Scriptures. So Paul's strategy or tactic
in the synagogue was to reason and to demonstrate and to show
from Scripture that Jesus was in fact the Christ. When he comes
upon these pagans, he teaches them concerning the sovereignty
of God, the nature of the true and living God, and that is precisely
what he does here in Lystra. So looking first at the healing
of the lame man, there's obvious similarities to what you see
back in chapter 3, specifically in verses 1 to 10. That instance
when Peter and John went to pray, they met a lame man on the way,
and he held out his palms and he asked for alms, and this is
what Peter did say. There's a song that obviously
goes to that, and Peter famously makes that statement, silver
and gold have I not, but what I have I give to you. And in
the name of Jesus Christ, he calls upon him to be healed.
So we have an instance like that here in the ministry of the Apostle
Paul. So there's some similarities
with Peter in Acts 3, but as well with Jesus in his ministry
relative to the healing of the paralytic, specifically in Matthew
chapter 9. As well, you see parallels in
Mark and in Luke. So we are in the city of Lystra.
It's not too far away from Iconium, I think, probably about 60, 68
kilometers, so it's not a long distance. But notice how the
man is described in verse eight. And in Lystra, a certain man
without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his
mother's womb who had never walked. So his condition was severe and
incurable. J.A. Alexander says, congenital
infirmities of this kind being commonly regarded as incurable,
the man's condition seemed to be a helpless one. And so we
need to make sure we appreciate that. What happens in this instance
is great and glorious. God, through Paul and Barnabas,
brings the gospel to bear upon these heathen in Lystra, but
also this man who had these feet that were without strength and
a cripple from his mother's womb was cured and was healed through
the power of God. not the power of Paul. Remember,
Paul doesn't have the ability in and of himself to go out and
heal people. It's God who works these miracles
and signs through the apostles. And as I explained last time,
when we were looking at the situation in Iconium, if you look back,
or up, if you will, specifically in verse 3, it says, I mentioned
that the Bible is a book full of miracles. but those miracles obtained at
the time of revelation. So in other words, we see miracles
during the ministry of Moses, we see miracles during the ministry
of the prophets, we see miracles in the ministry of our Lord Jesus,
and we see miracles in the ministry of the apostles. Now, the miracles
aren't just to simply dazzle and to surprise and cause people
to stand in awe of the miracle worker. They come at times when
God is revealing his word. So the miracles that Moses performs
confirms or authenticates that Moses is speaking the truth of
God's word. When the prophets engage in miraculous
activity, it confirms and authenticates that they are preaching God's
word. When Jesus does that, same thing. When the apostles do that,
the same thing. In the ending of Mark, some call
it the long ending of Mark, I'll just call it the ending of Mark.
Mark chapter 16, specifically at verse 20, I think you get
that emphasis. And they went out and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the
word through the accompanying signs. Amen. There seems to be
a misplacement or a misguided approach on the part of some
that are looking for the miracles as an ending of themselves. That's not wrong to pray to God
to relieve you of whatever your situation or your issues are,
but understand that biblically speaking, miracles come to confirm
the miracle worker as being God's man with God's word and revelation
is the end game. So, when we come to this particular
man, we see Paul's action in verses 9 and 10. This man heard
Paul speaking, Paul observing him intently and seeing that
he had faith to be healed. The fact that he saw that he
had faith to be healed probably indicates that the Spirit enabled
Paul to see this in the man. There was nothing in the man
necessarily that demonstrated this. He didn't have a light
above his head or some sort of indicator that, yeah, I've got
the faith that is requisite for this particular thing. Remember
that the Spirit is active in the ministry of the apostles,
and here when Paul observes him intently and seeing that he had
faith to be healed, it's most likely leading by the Holy Spirit.
And then Paul says, what Paul says there in verse 10, So again,
the power of God is such that Paul is able to speak and the
man is healed. a congenital defect. He had never
walked before, and now he is walking. This is, in fact, the
power of God. It's miraculous, it is glorious,
it is wondrous, and in the larger context of redemptive history,
it confirms that the word that the apostle is speaking is, in
fact, the word of the living and true God. Bruce says that
this lame man had faith, was made plain by his ready obedience
to Paul's command to stand up. He jumped to his feet, found
that they supported his weight, and began to walk for the first
time in his life. It really is miraculous. I mean,
the man had never walked, and here he is walking. Again, similarities
with our Lord Jesus when he looks at that man who's lowered down
on the mat, and he says, son, your sins are forgiven you. And
of course, everybody wonders how in the world can this man
forgive sins? And Jesus knows that they're
thinking this way, and Jesus asks the simple question, which
is easier, to say to the man, your sins are forgiven, or to
say, rise, take up your mat, and walk? Well, it's easier to
say that your sins are forgiven, because we can't see that. I
can say that, and you don't know whether or not it's true. And
then Jesus says, but that you may know that the Son of Man
has power on earth to forgive sins, he says to the man, rise,
take up your mat, and walk. So the miraculous healing demonstrated
the more glorious miracle that the Son of Man has power to forgive
sin. So what we find with Peter in
Acts 3 and what we find with Paul here in Acts 14 is similar
to the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. So the healing of the
lame man. Now, that brings us to the folly
of the pagans in verses 11 to 13. Certainly, they were there. They had seen. They had understood. They saw what Paul had done.
So of course, their pagan heathen instinct was, well, let's worship
this one. If he's able to say in a loud
voice to this man who's been crippled since his mother's womb
to get up and walk, and the young man or the man was able to get
up and walk, certainly Paul is one to be reckoned with. And
so we see they ascribe to Paul and Barnabas deity. Notice in
verse 11. Now when the people saw what
Paul had done, they raised their voices saying in the Lycanian
language, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of
men. It says, and Barnabas they called
Zeus and Paul Hermes because he was the chief speaker. So
what you have here is a demonstration of the power of the living and
true God, and so then the heathen ascribe it to their deities. They ascribe it to the gods coming
down in the form and likeness of men. So get that in your head,
that that's the particular issue that's in view, and that's the
particular issue that the Apostle Paul is going to address. These
men think that other men are actually gods, and so Paul needs
to correct their theology. That's why I said, it's not only
a historical study in the first missionary journey, but Paul
teaches theology to these heathen, and I think by virtue of that,
we need to pay attention, because if we're not as more accurate
in our understanding of who God is, and I would argue that at
least some chunks of the church aren't, then we need to get it
together. Because if the heathen are instructed,
and not that it took with all the heathen, we see that in verse
18, but nevertheless the apostle taught good theology to them
to correct them from this idea that God is kind of just like
us, but perhaps a better version of us. So they ascribe deity
to these men. They speak in the Lycanian language.
Probably tells or explains why it took Paul and Barnabas a little
bit longer to sort of clue in on what was going on. And then
they identified Barnabas as Zeus. Zeus is the Greek name. Jupiter
is the Roman name, the king of the great gods. Paul as Hermes. Hermes is the Greek name. Mercury
is the Roman name, the messenger of the gods. Not sure why. Other than Paul was the one that
was speaking. Paul was the one with the loud
voice. So perhaps they concluded he must be Mercury or Hermes.
And Barnabas perhaps was an older man, must be Zeus. He must be
the king of the gods. But that shows you the conception
that these persons had. That the gods had come down to
us in the likeness of man. So they identify Barnabas with
Zeus. They identify Paul with Hermes. And then notice this attempt
at worship in verse 13. These heathen are at least consistent
with their belief system. I've got to give them credit
for that. If they thought that the gods had come down to them
in the likeness of men, then what we find there in verse 13
is perfectly appropriate. That's legit. That's the way
we ought to be with reference to the living and true God. We
ought to have that response, that reflex in terms of worship
and praise and adoration. So notice in verse 13, then the
priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought
oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the
multitudes. Brethren, as far as they were
concerned, the gods had come down in the likeness of man.
What do you do when the gods come down in the likeness of
man? You worship them, you ascribe deity to them, and then you were
a sacrifice to them, and you do everything that is appropriate
to being in the presence of the gods. Heathen, in the book of
Acts, at times, demonstrate the coldness of Christian hearts
in many instances. We've got to get provoked. We've
got to be harangued. We've got to be sort of argued
into church attendance at times. The heathen, they just come.
If they know that divinity, or at least they suspect that divinity
is present, their reflex response is to worship and to praise and
to adore. And then that brings us then
to the proclamation of the living God. First we see the rejection
of worship, then we see the proclamation of the truth, and then we see
the section end with a bit of a misunderstanding of the truth
set forth by Paul. But notice the rejection of the
worship. Verse 14, when the apostles Barnabas
and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among
the multitude, crying out and saying, This is consistent with
what we know concerning our God and true religion. Turn back
to Acts chapter 10. Again, another parallel with
the ministry of Simon Peter. Specifically at verse 24, "...and
the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting
for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends.
As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his
feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up saying,
stand up, I myself am also a man. As well, you can turn to the
book of Revelation, Revelation chapter 19. Another instance
where a creature attempting to worship another creature is rebuked
by that creature saying, don't worship me, but rather worship
God and God alone. I think I got the wrong text.
It's not, oh yeah, it is Revelation 19.10. So intriguingly, we have
Paul, we have Peter, we have an angel rejecting worship when
it's issued or given to them. Compare that with the several
instances in the gospel records where people worship Jesus. Does
Jesus shoo them away? Does Jesus reject them? Does
Jesus rebuke them? Does Jesus say, no, don't do
that? No, Jesus receives it. When Thomas
says, my Lord and my God, Jesus doesn't redirect him. Jesus accepts that and approves
of it. So there is a stark contrast
between what we find in the apostles and what we find in the angels
versus what we find in true divinity. So our Lord receives it. So we
have this consistency with other creatures on the part of Paul,
but then the rejection. Notice this response, and it's
similar to what you see elsewhere in scripture. Notice specifically
in verse 14 again, it says, but when the apostles Barnabas and
Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the
multitude. Remember Jesus before the high
priest and the high priest put him under oath. Are you the king? Are you the Messiah? Are you
the Christ? And he says, you have said rightly. What does
the high priest do? He tears his clothes. As far
as he's concerned, this was a blasphemous statement. And so what the apostles
do in this particular instance evidence that. It reflects that. It demonstrates that. And the
question, why are you doing these things, is the appropriate question
for the people of Lystra to ponder. And it sets the stage for what
the apostle is going to do by means of corrective theology.
He wants to lead them to this place of contemplation and reflection. Why are you doing these things?
We're just men. We're like you. Bruce says, the
summary which Luke proceeds to give of their expostulation provides
us with one of the two examples and acts of the preaching of
the gospel to purely pagan audiences. to people who, unlike the Gentiles
who attended synagogue worship, had no acquaintance with the
God of Israel or with the Hebrew prophets. The other and fuller
example is the speech delivered by Paul to the Athenian court
of the Areopagus in chapter 17. So then we move to the proclamation
of that truth in verses 15b to 17. And the first thing I want
us to appreciate is the non-divinity of the apostles. the non-divinity
of the apostles. We're going to slow down a bit
and just sort of unpack some of the theology in this particular
section. As I said, it's a review for
those who've heard the sermon on Acts 14. It's a review for
those who have heard of the doctrine of divine impassibility. If you're
relatively new to our church, you've probably heard that doctrine
more than you ever heard it in your life before. Why are these
people so caught up with this doctrine of impassibility? What
is it about impassibility that really fires their passions?
What is it about these people? Well, I'll give you a brief synopsis
of what it is about these people. In 2014, we were part of a larger
association of churches called the Association of Reformed Baptist
Churches in America. And when we were a member of
that particular association, controversy broke out over a
clause in our confession. In the confession of faith, we
have a description, or rather a definition, or rather a sort
of summary statement of what we call God's perfections. We
might call them God's attributes. We might call them whatever,
you know, other things. I tend to prefer the word perfection. but it tells us that the Lord
our God is but one only, living and true God, whose subsistence
is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection, whose
essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, a most pure
spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only
hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
everywhere infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute,
working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable
and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious,
merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving
iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that
diligently seek him, and with all most just and terrible in
his judgments." Nothing too out of the ordinary in terms of Christian
theology, except for a particular clause or a series of clauses
that seem to have gotten neglected over the years. In other words,
if I asked you what are the attributes of God, you might recite Westminster
Shorter Catechism number four. What is God? God is spirit, infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable. In His being, wisdom, power,
holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Typically, when we
discuss the attributes or perfections of God, that's where our minds
go. God is loving. God is holy. God is just. God
is righteous. God is good. God is, you know,
whatever. We don't usually ponder, at least
up until 2014, probably some people did, but some of us didn't
really ponder some of the more fundamental grammar of the doctrine
of God that is set forth here in our confession. This statement
of most pure spirit. a most pure spirit. There's a
world of theological reflection behind that statement. I may nod to it as we move through
the material tonight. And then it says invisible, and
then this next three, without body, parts, or passions. That was where the debate centered,
specifically on the passions part. So without body. We know
God's without body because Jesus tells us in John 4, 24, God is
spirit. So what do we conclude from that?
God doesn't have a body. He's not spatial. He's not, you
know, he doesn't extend. There's no material to him. He's
spirit. But there have been in the history
of the church people that have taught that God has a body. He's
got feet, he's got arms, he's got hands, he's got whatever.
And then this next statement, that God is without parts. That may seem a bit odd, but
it simply is what's called the doctrine of divine simplicity.
You didn't get that. I said it's simply the doctrine
of divine simplicity. Now, the doctrine of divine simplicity
isn't altogether simple for us simple-minded folk. But nevertheless,
simplicity simply means that God's not made of parts. Now,
that's a profound statement, because if he was, that means
those parts are more ultimate than God. If there is some part
out there that comes together to form God, then there's something
outside of God that's more ultimate than God. God is a simple being. There's no composition. There's
no two parts. There's no, you know, he's made
up of a bit of this and a bit of that. We are made up of flesh
and spirit. We are material and immaterial. We are compound beings. We are
made good. in a way that God is not. And
when it comes to the Trinity, never say that God is three parts. That is bad, bad stuff. Don't
ever say, well, you know, God is three parts. That's not the
doctrine of the Trinity. That flies against divine simplicity. It flies against divine triunity.
It's just a bad way. But it's kind of common to say
that, well, you know, God's three parts. No, he's not. The doctrine
of divine simplicity means that God is not made up of parts.
He is without parts. Simple. Again, some things stretch
it a little bit when you get a little bit more detail. But
for now, he doesn't have a body, doesn't have parts, and he doesn't
have passions. And this is where people get
their sort of pants hung on the nail on the fence. What do you
mean he's without passions? Passions are good. We use passions
typically in a positive way. That guy is really passionate.
That's great to see. We like a passionate preacher.
We like a passionate politician, provided we agree with them.
We don't like passionate commies. We certainly don't like passionate
heretics. But so far that they're passionate
and they're on the right track, we like that. Passion's good.
Well, the fundamental issue with passion is change. So this without
body, parts, or passions is a negation of or denial of change in the
divine being. Passion is consistent with movement
from one state to another. That's what the confession is
denying when it says he's without passion. Now, the typical response
is, well, then that means God doesn't love us. No, it means
that God is love, that He loves us, as the confession says, with
mostness. It's the without passions bit
in this paragraph that can lead to the most holy bit, the most
wise bit, the most free bit, and the most absolute bit. It
then says most loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering. Most means he can't get better
and he can't get worse. There's no increase and there's
no decrease. And you can thank the doctrine
of divine impassibility for that. There's no shadow of change or
turning with God. And so what we have is this doctrine
of divine impassibility, the without passions. So in Arbka
in 2014, one in the ranks started challenging that doctrine. He
was graciously and kindly asked not to do it. Not, you know,
he wasn't kicked out, he wasn't treated harshly. He had a blog,
a public blog, and he represented ARPCA. And they just said, look,
you know, that's not the position of our confession, and it would
be nice if you didn't do that. Well, as you might imagine, he
continued to do that. So it caused this big disruption,
which was a good thing. Outsiders thought, oh, I can't
believe those guys are arguing over something so insignificant.
I'm sorry, but what better thing to argue over than the doctrine
of God? I'd rather argue over that than the color of the hymn
book that we use. At least it's something we're
supposed to be arguing about. And it's something that, again,
by and large, seemed to have been lost, at least for some,
in the context of the church. So when this kicked off, there
was a process set in motion for people to study it, to try and
understand it, for a committee to answer the question as to
whether or not the confession actually taught it. What did
the other confessions at the time teach? What did the early
church teach? What did the medieval church
teach? In other words, historical theology. What has the church
done with the doctrine of divine impassibility? Are we just some
innovators here? Or are we actually doing something
that's consistent with the life of the church? Which is always
the way to do theology. For all the negativity out there
about the church, the church is Christ's bride. And we shouldn't
do theology without being in concert with the church, not
only our local church in terms of any writing or preaching or
teaching we may do, but in terms of study, it's good to see how
the fathers dealt, it's good to see how the medievals dealt,
it's good to see how the reformers dealt, it's good to see how the
post-reformation guys dealt. We're not the first ones to take
the kick at this can. And Christ ascended on high,
he led captivity captive, and he gave gifts to men. And those
gifts of men to men have spoken and written valuable and precious
truth to help us to understand scripture. So basically, in the
Arbka impassibility debate, it ended with Arbka affirming this
particular statement in its historical, biblical, theological sort of
universe, basically saying, yeah, God is impassible. Now, some
left Arbka as a result of that. Others stayed around, but only
for a short time, because there was another torpedo fired at
Arbka, and that's when we left. So we didn't continue on in Arbka. That's why there's a push, if
you are new to our church, as to why we want to start an association
of churches here in Western Canada. We think it's a good thing to
work together and to be in concert with brothers and sisters and
other churches that we know and love. So when we come to this
particular passage of scripture, it's actually a proof text in
the Westminster Confession of Faith for without passions. And I'm going to try to navigate
through this. So notice what it says in verse
15. The first thing is the fact that
Paul and Barnabas were not God. He says, we also are men with
the same nature as you. The word passion is the Greek
word here, like passion, similar passion. It's exactly what he
says. Man, we are of like passion. So basically, the Greek word
means pertaining to experiencing similarity in feelings or circumstances
with the same nature as someone. Barrett, a commentator, not Matthew,
but a different one, said, same experiences and the same feelings. A modern commentator, Bach, says
it beautifully, literally, of like passions. That's exactly
what Paul says. The King James gets it right.
We also are men of like passions with you. Thumbs up for the King
James! That's a wonderful translation.
You see it used in James 5.17 as well. Elijah was a man with
a nature like ours. Elijah was a man with like passions. So what Paul says to these worshiping
heathen, not worshiping heathen worshiping the true God, but
trying to worship Paul, is that Paul is saying, we're not God.
He's stressing non-divinity. He's stressing their creatureliness
and thus the inappropriateness on the part of the heathen to
worship that. Worship is due and fit only for
the living God. And he puts himself and Barnabas
with these men. Men, why are you doing these
things? We also are men with the same passions, or like passions,
as you. We're just like you. Gill comments,
men, not gods, of the same human nature, and that as created,
alike sinful men, and need a sacrifice better than those. Frail mortal
men, subject to frailty, imperfection, afflictions, troubles, diseases,
and death itself, and so very improper objects of worship.
So the first thing to observe is the fact that Paul and Barnabas
were not God. The second thing to observe is
the fact that God is not like us. See, if Paul says, men, we
are of like passions with you, what's he saying by implication
about God? God's not of like passions as
you. God is not the same nature as
you. There is something significantly
different about the true and living God. In the sense of the
doctrine of divine impassibility, this like passions, this similar
nature, God's is dissimilar from us. When the confession says
that God's essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself,
as I've said on a number of occasions, that does not mean we cannot
know truth about God. That does not mean we're drooling
idiots when it comes to the 31,000 propositions in scripture, and
we just scratch our heads and we can't understand. We can certainly
understand them. But in terms of who God is as
God, the finite can never penetrate the infinite. The creature can
never see fully the creator. There is a chasm that exists,
and the apostle is stressing that. So the text supports, again,
it's not explicitly, Paul's not saying, OK, I'm going to teach
you the doctrine of divine impassibility, what later confessional authors
will describe as God without passions. But it's certainly
there in the text. So the text supports the doctrine
of divine impassibility. Now impassibility basically is
described this way. God does not experience inner
emotional changes, whether enacted freely from within or affected
by his relationship to and interaction with human beings in the created
order. He's not like us. There's no ups and downs. There's
no good days and bad days with God. There's no, yeah, I'm just
going to have to cancel on that. There's no variation. There's no shadow of turning.
There's no change in God. God does not experience inner
emotional changes. See, the opponents of divine
impossibility say, well, he wills that. He does that. No, he doesn't. He doesn't have any inner turmoil. He is blessed. He is perfectly
happy. He's pure act. That means there's
no potency in God. He can't move from one place.
He can't decrease. He can't increase. There's no
change with God. And brethren, dare I say, that's
the God we need. We're messed up. We change all
the time. If I'm out sailing, as I often
do, and I come to straits and I have to throw my anchor, I
don't want to throw it on the sand that's shifting and sinking. I want to throw it on the rock
that's going to hold on to it. And that's the exact imagery
that the apostle uses in the book of Hebrews in chapter 6.
We don't want a God who's shifting. We don't want a God who's changing.
We want most loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth. We want all that God has promised
to be in Holy Scripture. So He's pure act, and then this
idea of simplicity. Now, I don't want to confuse
anybody, but I think it's important for us to understand this. God
is all that is in God. For us, we are human nature,
and then we have the capacity to love, we have the capacity
to hate, we have the capacity to be kind, we have the capacity
to do certain things. There's no capacity in God. There's
no potency in God. He's simple. He's not He's not
moving. There's no getting better. God's
not graduating next year from God University to be all that
He ever was supposed to be. That's just not the God of the
Bible. He is who He is. So He is His attributes. That's
a bit of a tough one, and it takes some time to sort of process
it, but it simply means that everything that is in God is
God. And a perfect illustration is from 1 John. John tells us
God is love. John doesn't tell me I am love,
because I'm not. I have the capacity to love,
I can love, I'm built for that ability to love, but I'm not
definitionally love. God definitionally is love. God definitionally is holiness.
God definitionally is justice. He's righteousness. He's all
that we see here. So all that is in God is God. Again, there's no getting better
for God. There's no bad days. There's
no getting worse for God. These are glorious truths. The doctrine of divine impassibility
does not teach that God is static, inert, or unrelated to his creature. or his creation. And I just read
that. In 2nd London, he's most holy,
most wise, most free, most absolute, most loving, gracious, merciful,
long-suffering. That's not static. That's not
inert. The idea of static or the idea
of inertia is applicable to a creature, but it really has no meaning
when it comes to God, because God is pure act. No potency in
God. It's not like he can not be static
or be static. That's a category for creatures,
not a category for us. As well, the doctrine of divine
impassibility highlights the distinction between God as creator
and man as creature. We always need to maintain that,
and that's what Paul is doing. Man, why are you doing these
things? We also are men with the same nature as you. And interestingly,
notice Paul's evangelistic strategy. Notice what he doesn't do. God
loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. No, he wants
to set their thinking straight first and foremost about God.
Not just start promising them good things, but telling them
about the good God. He wants to correct their bad
theology. So the doctrine of divine impassibility
highlights the distinction between God as creator and man as creature. Listen to James Dolezal. James
Dolezal says, God is not to be counted as existing in an ontological. Ontological is the doctrine of
being. We might call it metaphysics. Again, some of these concepts
or words, just stick with it. Brethren, theology is like any
other enterprise. You get into a hobby, do you
know what you know about stamps on day one, what you know about
stamps on day 100? No, you've learned a bit, right?
By, you know, you're 80 years old, boy, you know a lot about
stamps, or coins, or whatever your deal is, whatever floats
your boat in that regard. You don't go, well, there's big
words there, I'm not going to do it. No, you are interested
in the subject, so you think, maybe those big words will help
me with that subject. Never understood why in the church
we have the best of subjects, and people argue that way. Doesn't
seem fitting to me. Doesn't seem appropriate. Of
course, I'm a lecturing, scolding pastor. That's probably got something
to do with it. So he says, God is not to be
counted as existing in an ontological series with any creature. I think
what he means is this. You don't have worm, and then
animal, and then man, and then angel, and then God. God's not
man writ large. He's not the top of a series
of being. You've got creature, man, angel,
That's it, in the creaturely realm. God's in another category.
God's in the God category. He's in the infinite. He's creator.
We're creature. He says, as the absolute cause
of all creaturely being, God himself cannot be numbered as
one of those things appearing with being in general. You can't
just throw him in with the rest of us. He is different. The God of Holy Scripture condemned
Israel in Psalm 50. Why? Because you thought I was
altogether just like you. What's God saying? I'm not like
you. That's a good thing, brethren.
We don't want just a better version of us. We want God Most High,
the infinite, glorious One who created all things. Boevinck
says, God is the real, the true being, the fullness of being,
the sum total of all reality and perfection, the totality
of being, from which all other being owes its existence. He
is in an immeasurable and unbounded ocean of being. the absolute
being who alone has being in himself. So there is a difference,
and that's what Paul is highlighting. And then I would suggest that
the fourth observation under the fact that God is not like
us is that the doctrine of divine impassibility necessarily follows
from the doctrine of divine immutability. That's usually the more popular
of the two. People have heard of immutability.
That means God is unchangeable. In case you hadn't heard of immutability,
I'm going to tip my hand. That's what it means. God is
unchangeable. So the doctrine of immutability
tells us that God cannot change. So the doctrine of divine impassibility
comes along and tells us he doesn't change. It's kind of like the
relationship between infallible and inerrant. In the 20th century,
there were debates about biblical inerrancy, and some person said,
well, the confession doesn't have inerrancy, but it has infallibility. Infallibility means that the
word of God cannot lie. So it necessarily follows that
if it cannot lie, it does not lie, which is inerrancy. And
I see that impassibility as a subset of divine immutability. It's
an amazing thing. People affirm and confess immutability. And then you start talking about
impassibility. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You mean God doesn't
cry? God doesn't repent? Because the Bible says he does.
Yeah, the Bible also says God has a powerful right arm. The
Bible also says that the eyes of the Lord are in every place.
Does God have eyes? No, we always understand that
as what's called an anthropomorphism, the predicating of God, physical
traits, to teach us something about Him. Well, the Bible does
that with emotions and passions because we cannot, as the finite,
enter into the infinite unless the infinite accommodates it
for us. And so he accommodates it, in
the language of Calvin, like a nurse lisping to a two-year-old. You don't have dialogue with
a two-year-old the way you do with your 22-year-old, unless
you're a very bad parent. If you're talking to your 22-year-old
the way you talk to your two-year-old, you didn't do your job at some
point, because you should be able to speak to them in a different
way. So the doctrine of divine impassibility
necessarily follows from the doctrine of divine immutability. Numbers 23, 19, God is not a
man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent.
1 Samuel 15, 29, and also the strength of Israel will not lie
nor relent, for he is not a man that he should relent. Malachi
3.6, for I am the Lord, I do not change, therefore you are
not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Do you hear that? The doctrine
of divine immutability, including impassibility, is the foundation
of Israel's status that they continued on. I the Lord do not
change, therefore you are not consumed. If the Lord changed,
He don't wipe them out, because they deserve to be wiped out. But He doesn't change. He covenants
to preserve, He covenants to keep, He covenants to do, and
He'll preserve, He'll keep, and He'll do. Because He is immutable. He is impassable. James 1.17,
every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes
down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation
or shadow of turning. Upon which Manton comments, but
God doth not change, there is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity,
the arm of mercy is not dried up, nor do his bowels of love
waste and spend themselves. I guess what I'm trying to present,
brethren, is that when Paul says, men, why are you doing these
things? We also are men with like passions
as you. He is affirming their non-divinity,
but he is affirming something unique about the living and true
God. That living and true God does not have like passions.
He's not given to change. He is not affected by those creaturely
emotions. He's not affected by any emotions. If there are motions communicated
concerning God in Scripture, they're what we call an improper
predication, an analogical predication, again, designed to teach us truth,
but not compromising the person, or rather, the doctrine of God.
So when we come back to this, notice then what they say, based
on this true theology. You might say, well, you know,
that's not the biggest lesson on theology. It's a big one to
a bunch of, you know, man-worshiping heathen. What else would you
tell these guys? Good job, as far as you know.
No, that's not what Paul says. Men, why are you doing these
things? We also are men with the same nature as you. So on
the heels of this true theology, he says, we also are men with
the same nature as you and preach to you that you should turn from
these useless things to the living God. preaching repentance to
them, just like he does in Acts 17 at the Areopagus. And as I
tried to show in our study in Acts 14, repentance and faith
go hand-in-hand in the Book of Acts, in the Bible as a whole,
but especially in the Book of Acts. You see repentance, you
see belief. Belief and repentance are two
sides of the same coin. It's believing repentance, it's
repentant faith. So when he says that you turn
from these useless things to the living God, implicit in that
is belief on this living God. And then notice, he then highlights
the works of God. So persons might wonder, how
does an impassable God relate to creation? Well, Paul's going
to tell you how an impassable God relates to creation. First,
he created it. Notice in verse 15, after turn
from these useless things to the living God, who made the
heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.
turn from this useless paganism or heathenism or Zeus and Hermes
to the living God. Why? Because the living God made
the earth, he made heaven, he made the sea, and he made everything
that is in that. As well, he then highlights the
sovereignty of the living God. Notice in verse 16, who in bygone
generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Listen
to Poole. Poole, I think, describes this
well. There were two main objections which these heathen idolaters
might make against the gospel and the worship of the true God.
And they are, first, from the antiquity, secondly, from the
universality of that false worship. Right? They might say, wait a
minute, your God is the new God. We got Zeus, we got Hermes, we
got this pantheon. So what's Paul saying? No, the
true and living God made everything and the true and living God has
been present throughout bygone generations. The true and living
God let bygone generations or allowed these nations to walk
in their own ways. So Poole draws this lesson, both
which, the idea of antiquity and universality, both which
the apostle here gives a critical answer unto, telling them that
the reason why so many, and for so long a time, they had followed
idols, was from the just judgment of God upon them, as he does
elsewhere. Psalm 81, Romans 1, Romans 1,
24 and 28. So what we see here is that God
made the world, God governs the world, and whatever the question,
well, why did God do that? Well, why did God? That, I think,
is sufficiently answered elsewhere, but that God did that is obviously
clear from verse 16. And then in verse 17, he underscores
something about the created order. and God's revelation of Himself
through the created order. Notice in verse 17, nevertheless,
He did not leave Himself without witness. Even to you heathen. even to you pagans. We call this
natural theology, general revelation. Belgic Confession says we know
God by two means. First, by creation, preservation,
and government of the universe. Second, he makes himself known
to us more openly by his holy and divine word. I think Paul
does that in Acts 17. He certainly does this in Romans
chapter 1. How does he say that God has
demonstrated or made it clear that he exists even to the atheists?
Well, through his invisible attributes are seen through what is made.
In other words, the effect should lead you back to the cause. And
that's what he's saying here. So God has revealed himself,
even to heathen and pagan. Nevertheless, he did not leave
himself without witness in that he did good, gave us rain from
heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food
and gladness. And then we see this misunderstanding
of the truth. First of all, notice that Paul's
intention is not simply to set forth their theology. I mean,
he wants to do that, and he knows that it's intimately connected
with soteriology. But for Paul, and as you look
through the book of Acts, when they give information, it's not
just to give information. Paul wants the Lystrans to repent.
He wants them to come to Jesus. He wants them to know forgiveness.
He wants them to be saved. He's an evangelist. He's a missionary.
He's got a pastor's heart. He loves people. And he's out
there on the mission field. And he corrects their theology.
He tells them to repent. And when we see that, it's unfortunate
that verse 18 is there, but we see that at the Areopagus as
well. Not everybody receives the preaching of the Apostle
Paul and says, I'm going to be saved. There's some who mocked
in the Areopagus. There were some who said, well,
we'll hear about this again later. And some did believe. Well, same
thing here in Lystra. Verse 18, and with these sayings,
they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing
to them. So there was this, nevertheless,
in them, this pagan, heathen desire to worship them because
he had done this great thing for this man who had been crippled
from his mother's womb. Well, I had hoped to be done
a bit earlier because if anyone has questions, but we do have
some time, so I'll close in prayer and I'll save the application
for another day. Father in heaven, we thank you
for your Word. We thank you for the doctrine of God as we find
it in Scripture, as we have been helped in the history of the
church to understand things in a In a clearer way, we thank
you for our confession of faith and the good and robust definition
that it gives concerning these truths. I pray that you would
help us to get these things in our minds and in our hearts,
and may it cause us to worship and to praise, to adore and to
glorify our great and our holy and our awesome God. And we pray
this in Jesus' name. Amen. There's got to be questions. Dr. Wright, I imagine, is revising
his primer. And that primer's on pre-order
right now at Broken Point. Yes, that's true. So Sam Ranahan
has a primer. I always think it looks like
primer, but it's called God Without Passions, a primer, or primer,
if you're rude like me. And then he has God Without Passions,
a reader. I cannot commend highly enough
that primer. It just sets forth the doctrine
of divine impassibility in a very simple way. Very clear, very
concise, very biblical, wonderful. The reader is basically a compilation
of quotations. Here's what the dudes in the
church have said all throughout the history of the church on
this doctrine. The early church, many of the
battles fought over Nod and especially the person of our Lord Jesus,
were fought at the level of divine impassibility. The heretic said,
no, divine impassibility is true, which everybody to a man agreed
on. So for the heretic mind, well,
how could Jesus do what Jesus did? I thought for sure that
question was going to come up. How could Jesus do what Jesus
did? Because didn't Jesus cry? Didn't Jesus demonstrate passion? Didn't Jesus have, you know,
what appears to be ups and downs? Nobody has that question? Yes. So it was a really helpful
overview of bio-impossibility. before like that, so thank you. And interesting statement I just
picked up earlier on, when he said he's not like us. He does
not experience inner emotional change. And I was just thinking,
how do you understand those texts in the Bible where the Lord's
anger burns, is kindled against, I would say those are anthropopathic
statements. Similar to an anthropomorphic
statement, the predication of human emotion to God. So you
predicate human limbs to God in anthropomorphism, the Bible
does that. It's by way of accommodation.
The technical terminology is it's an improper predication.
And an improper predication doesn't mean it's wrong or it's not true.
It's not proper to God as God. What is proper to God as God
are the perfections of holiness and righteousness and justice. Improper, but again, not true,
is wrath and fury and anger. That accommodates God to us,
so we understand the gravity of the human condition, the gravity
of the sinfulness of man, and it's an improper predication
that shines the light on the truth of his justice, his righteousness. It's spoken in the manner of
men. That's another convention that
you see often in older commentaries. John Gill will say, spoken in
the manner of men. And that is a technical phrase,
actually, in theological literature and biblical commentary to characterize
what is an improper predication. Proper predication is saying
what the Bible says about God in terms of his nature or being.
So he's holy, he's righteous, he's just. That's a proper predication. And improper is when it puts
human emotion on him so that we learn something from, again,
the human sin and the glory of God, and it's spoken in the manner
of men. It's accommodated language to
us. Does that make sense? That's probably the best question
you could possibly ask, so you get an A. You must have been
in a good church years ago. I'm kidding, and presently. Jeff,
he was a member here many, many years ago. That was well taught.
Good to have him here. But you, that all predated the
impassibility stuff. But method, that's a great question. And I would suggest the method
is, the first question we ask of scripture is who is God? And
then we ask, what does God do or how does God act? Whatever
God does or acts has to be consistent with who He is. If God says,
I change not, and then we read that He relents or repents, We
don't say, well, there's a contradiction. We don't say, oh, I don't know
how to square this problem. God doesn't change. But I know
that God is condescending in communicating to me, so he uses
language for me that I can get my mind wrapped around. So the
priority is, who is God? How does the Bible describe our
God? And then when we see God do things that seem to be a bit
out of character for God, we let the who is God condition
us. In other words, if something
seems to be out of character with our God, change, for instance,
we come back to, no, he doesn't change. So whatever's going on
here cannot mean he changes the way that we change. It's a revelatory
way for the Lord to communicate to us. We know what relenting
means. The gravity of the situation
in Genesis 6 is best described by God relenting that He had
made man. There's no better way to describe
the enormity of sin, the gravity of the problem, the glory and
the majesty of God. If you think about it, there's
no better way for God to have communicated this than, I'm sorry
I even made man. That cannot mean, though, again,
if you're thinking theologically, biblically oriented, that God
messed up. God doesn't mess up. That's not
a potential in God. There's no way that God is going
to ordain the creation of the world and all things in it, down
to the very fall of Adam and Eve, down to the flood, every
jot and tittle. We believe in the divine decree.
Nothing takes place apart from the plan and purpose of God.
So for God to get to Genesis 6 and say, man, I just... It's
too bad I made man. The issue isn't God saying, man,
it's too bad I made man. The issue is, look at what's
happened to man. Look at how bad man is. And look
at God's holy revulsion against that sin. And then that backdrop
then becomes the broader context for the sending of the son of
his love to save us from our sin. So who is God? What does the Bible say who is
God? And it's from that vantage point
that you interpret texts that then seem to suggest something
contrary in terms of the who is God-ness of God. So it's always a question of
strategy, methodology, or hermeneutic. And I would suggest that the
faulty hermeneutic is to, well, you know, it says he changed.
It says his heart was broken. It says, you know, yeah, it does,
but what does the analogy of scripture and the analogy of
faith teach us? Are you content with, you know,
a God who's really sorry that he made man? That opens up a
world of issues and challenges and problems in theology that
none of us are capable of tackling, unless we end up in open theism.
And oftentimes, that's where people go. Open theism is a great
commentary on the negation or the neglect of divine impassibility,
among other fundamental grammar truths of God. Well, you can't take us past
nine. I have an unwritten covenant
with the brethren. We don't go past nine. Sleep is good. We're not angels. Thank you. God speaks to us with
human language and imagery. As Herman Boving states, Scripture
does not contain a few scattered anthropomorphisms, but is anthropomorphic
through and through. As infinite in existence and
essence, God's perfection of meaning cannot be comprehended
by us. Finite minds cannot contain an idea of God adequate to his
infinite perfection. Neither can human language univocally
express the perfection of his pure actuality and fullness of
being. Thus, in speaking to us of the Bible and in distributing
the messages of his perfection throughout the natural world,
God clothes himself in creaturely imagery and communicates the
truth about his infinite and unchanging existence under the
form of what is finite and changeable. Furthermore, he reveals himself
to humans bit by bit in the changing dynamic of our temporal and finite
lives. He alters the revelation of himself in order to meaningfully
interact with us in our historical pilgrimage and to lead us into
an increasingly deeper knowledge of himself. This does not mean,
though, that God's intrinsic manner of being univocally corresponds
to the manner in which he discloses himself. Yeah, that's a tight,
that book is great. I would say Dolezal's All That
Is In God is really, really an excellent book. But I'm saying
the book by Gozal kind of summarizes and brings these things to bear.
And one final thought, Jeff, just put the analogy, keep it
in your head, between anthropopathism and anthropomorphism. You don't
get to 2 Chronicles and see that God's eyes run to and fro through
the earth and think there must be actual eyes. We need to think
that way about change. We need to think about the implication
of God moving from one state to another. There are grave and
significant challenges with that. So, you know, it's like Asaph
starts his Asaphian Psalm 73, where he's gonna basically say,
I had some problems with God. How does he start? God is good
to Israel. He starts with that axiomatic
principle, and then he says, but as for me, my foot nearly
slipped. I saw the righteous suffer. I
saw the unrighteous prosper. I was a mess until I went into
the sanctuary. So I think axiomatically, foundationally,
fundamentally, What the Bible says about who God is in terms
of his perfections has to be the operating assumption. And
so that when texts come that seem to challenge that, we need
to understand them in light of who God is. Just like God is
spirit, doesn't have a body like men, so whatever it means about
his arm, whatever it means about his eyes, can't mean there's
actual spatial, temporal eyes running to and fro throughout
the earth. I think it probably indicates his omissions. It indicates
his presence. It indicates things. Again, it's
an improper predication. The eyes of the Lord are in every
place. So what do we learn from that?
It's an improper predication. God doesn't have actual eyes,
but it teaches us truth about divine omissions. Just like his
wrath, his fury, his relenting shows us something of his righteousness
and justice. So that's it. It's a great subject. Yeah, go ahead. If anybody needs
to leave, I don't want to violate your contract. All that is in
God is $3 on Kindle. Oh yeah, it's $3 on Kindle. All
that is in God. It is a great book. I just listened
to an 8-minute thing by R.C. Sproul before he died. Stephen
Nichols was in his office, in his library, and saw this new
book by James Golezal, All That Is in God. And Sproul said, yep,
I've read it twice. It's fantastic. It is absolutely
fantastic. And he commended it wholeheartedly,
gave a little background about open theism, and just the necessity
for classical Christian theism. He even says at one point, I
sometimes get more out of reading Plato than I do modern theology. I told Wim, put that on Facebook
and watch the crazies come out. We will definitely get hit. Yes? I just had a comment about
the man that was healed in that first aid. It's all these modern
day miracle faith healers. They never seem to be successful
with people like Wayne from birth. Yeah, oh yeah. And the other
thing is, it's always on stage. Remember with the hospitals,
you might tell people they're... Yeah, just go to the ER. That'd
be a good thing. That's what I've always thought. Good observations. OK.
