Richard Sibbes

Ch 5: The Spirit of Mercy Should Move Us

Conscience is a tender and delicate thing, and must be so treated.
It is like a lock: if its workings are faulty, it will be troublesome to open.

Sibbes, Ch 5, closing sentence

The above quote ends Sibbes’s Ch 5. It is the underlying theme of the entire chapter, closely tied to his recurring theme-word “moderation.” Sibbes’s metaphor of “conscience” being like a “lock” is a deep insight. It’s default position in to be locked. And (we think) only we hold our own key. Rarely do we open it, then likely only in private, briefly before securing it again, perhaps for a decade or two, perhaps unto some life-altering moment wherein we first need to find where we had did that key.

Review, and Reminder, of Our Human Condition

The human situation is this: we are fallen beyond self-redemption. Further, by nature and desire, we have suppressed, and continue to suppress–ultimately unable to ‘unsupress’–our self-realization of our true condition before God our Creator. And we press on, building our cities to reach into the heavens.

⁴ Then they [the cursed line of Cain] said, [speaking the declaration of self-creation]
“Come [gather ourselves, united against / without God],
let us build ourselves a city [a centralize place of humanism / civilization]
and a tower with its top in the heavens, [our self-religious independence of God]
and let us make a name for ourselves, [and our focus will be on us, alone]
lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” [defying God’s Judgment]

Genesis 11:4 (ESV, highlights mine)

Yet, there was not only the line of Cain, doubly fallen in and from Adam. There was the rebirth of the line Abel in Seth. In Seth’s line there was the little spark, from God, making the smoking flax.

In Sibbes Ch 4 we considered how Christ Himself was the Source of that little spark and, further, was the great preserver of it, the latter being known in Theology as “The Perseverance of the Saints,” the “P” of T-U-L-I-P. Here, in Ch 5, Sibbes brings us within the local community of believers, all still in some way smoking flax.

This Ch 5 in particular stands juxtaposed to John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Christian, the central character of the book, is primarily a solitary pilgrim. He encounters many elements of opposition including his own internal failings. But he has limited connections with fellow pilgrims. Christian’s pilgrimage is primarily a solitary one; even his wife and children, the most intimate of one’s relationships, were left behind and form no part of the story except as to their having rejected the call to accompany him.

The Christian life has important, necessary elements of that (primarily) solitary pilgrimage. Someone always hanging around, within the cacophony of endless gatherings, has abandoned their internal outpost. And ‘solitarity’–which is not an official word, but should be–is under-appreciated.

One exemplary life-example is Arthur W. Pink as unveiled in Iain Murray’s biography. AWP, as he self-identified, went from ‘pastoring’ small churches in the U.S. and Australia, with tent preaching to many thousands of people [early in the 20th C], to being functionally excluded from such roles / responsibilities. He then understood his calling to be a writing-expositor of God’s word, a work he did with extreme diligence, and well. And so he has blessed by his texts many more during his life and after his death than he would have otherwise.

But, Scripture makes clear–simply grasping the big picture of the 21 Epistles, and Acts, of the NT–that we are also huddled together as sheep within the common care of The True / Unique Shepherd, Christ.

Sibbes spent much of his life embedded in all the dimensions of a local church. In this Ch 5, he applies the metaphor of smoking flax to all the interactions in all its varied degrees of Christian maturity (relative sanctification).

Sibbes, Community, and the Law of Networks

Before turning to Sibbes, let us consider a little math of connected people. Essential in communications theory is a law of “networks.” (One can think of a network as an interconnection of “nodes” much like all the original landline telephones of a large city, each connected, literally, by a continuous copper wire). If there are “N” such nodes (landline telephones) in one given city, how many “connections” exist in forming a “network?” For large values of “N,” the formula is given by this: number of connection is equal to the square of the number of nodes.

Consider a small city of a 1000 landline telephones. The above network law tells us that there would be 1000 * 1000, or one million, connections. That is, there are a million different one-to-one connections that can be amongst such 1000 individual telephones.

To put this is in an everyday context of a family, consider a unit of seven people, perhaps a husband and wife with five children, or two children and closely located grandparents or other relations. For smaller sized networks, smaller N, the more-exact network equation is this:
the number of connections = N * (N-1) / 2.

So, for seven people, N = 7, the number of connections is 21. With a church community of believers of, say, 30 or so who are in relatively close contact or familiarity (regardless of the total size of the community), then the number of interconnections is more than 400. For N of 40, it is nearly double (780) in size, and so forth growing exponentially. This, by the way, is why organizational groups are functionally bound by groups of 20 to 40, or perhaps a little larger. For larger groups it is not possible to have meaningful connections knitting them together in any kind of cohesion. Such is the idea of a neighborhood, or a rural village. It is likely the same reason a military “platoon” is made up of 20 to 50 soldiers (and even further divided into three or four “squads”): if a group needs to pursue life-challenging missions in a condition of mutual trust, such as a squad, of say seven soldiers, might be called to do, there must be a cohesion that can only exist when there is a limited number of interconnections (here, again, 21).

It is those numerous connections that we all experience that can be a source of encouragement, and joy, and of angst (sadly) even reviling, that is the Christian experience. As quoted in Week 4, Paul David Tripp summarizes even in the context of the simplest marriage structure, where the number of connections is just one, between two “nodes,” it is a connection between two fallen sinners living in a fallen world. Those who have been there know this experience. If one add just a single child, that one connection becomes three connections, and so forth, so by even just five children it become 21, something like a “squad.”

The etymology of “squad” comes from Latin: “exquadra “to square,” from Latin ex “out” + quadrare “make square,” from quadrus “a square” ” (Etymology Online).  The root idea that one needs a core number, N, to be able to fulfill the function of a defensive perimeter.  In the context of “gifts” of the Holy Spirit, the NT gives us the picture of a functional human body, where no gift no matter how great (say, an “eye”) can make a whole operational body.

Outline of Sibbes Ch 5

And, so, we have the context of Sibbes Ch 5. His major and minor sections are as below:

• 5.1 Simplicity and Humility
• 5.2 Sound Judgment
• 5.3 How Those in Authority Should Act
• 5.4 We Are Debtors to the Weak
  • 1. Let us be watchful in our liberty
  • 2. Let us be careful as to slandering falsely
  • 3. Let us be characteristically moderate

5.1 Simplicity and Humility

Sibbes begins with the observation that God chose as His primary messengers in the NT [true also in the OT] those who had experienced the most mercy from God, and needed so. Thus, rather than be heroic figures in their natural condition, they knew themselves to be deeply fallen, and washed clean, sanctified until a called purpose, solely by Grace.

Christ chose those to preach mercy who had felt most mercy, as Peter and Paul, that they might be examples of what they taught. Paul became all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22), stooping unto them for their good. Christ came down from heaven and emptied himself of majesty in tender love to souls. Shall we not come down from our high conceits to do any poor soul good? Shall man be proud after God has been humble? We see the ministers of Satan turn themselves into all shapes to `make one proselyte’ (Matt. 23:15). We see ambitious men study accommodation of themselves to the humours [inclinations, areas by which they can be manipulated] of those by whom they hope to be raised, and shall not we study application of ourselves to Christ, by whom we hope to be advanced, nay, are already sitting with him in heavenly places? After we are gained to Christ ourselves, we should labour to gain others to Christ. Holy ambition and covetousness will move us to put upon ourselves the disposition of Christ. But we must put off ourselves first.

Sibbes, Ch 5.1. (Emphasis mine)

What then of “sound doctrine?” We seem to have puzzle (an “aporia”): if sound doctrine is to be the strong thing, then moderation, tolerance of the immature / wayward is inappropriate; if it’s moderation / tolerance that is the primary thing, then is seems that sound doctrine must give way. So, which is it? Or, how does one harmonize what seems to be poles apart?

Sibbes would answer by his heading: simplicity and humility. The Christian walk is from weak beginnings, and even in the most mature / sanctified there remains some of the poison from Adam. We all die as sinners, but by Grace the audience of Sibbes’s book dies in Grace.

The Fear of Exposure

Sibbes captures a heart condition of one experiencing the smoke of their own flax in a community of (seemingly) smokeless flames:

And likewise those are failing that, by overmuch austerity, drive back troubled souls from having comfort by them, for, as a result of this, many smother their temptations, and burn inwardly, because they have none into whose bosom they may vent their grief and ease their souls.

Ibid.

If one is surrounded by those who look fearless in confidence, and sinless or nearly so in behavior, one is intimidated into silence, which can easily slide into loss of hope.

The Keys

Roman Catholics make a big point about “the keys,” which they claim are retained uniquely by those who are the Apostolic successors of Peter Himself, namely the Pope, and his designees. The heraldry of the Pope makes such keys the evident claim of authority.

Protestants, likewise, have their own ruling symbology:

A crosier or crozier (also known as a paterissa, pastoral staff, or bishop’s staff)[1] is a stylized staff that is a symbol of the governing office of a bishop or abbot and is carried by high-ranking prelates of Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglican, Lutheran, United Methodist and Pentecostal churches. In Western Christianity the usual form has been a shepherd’s crook, curved at the top to enable animals to be hooked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosier

The crozier (shepherd’s crook) is a more subtle version of the keys, but it carries forward the same authoritative claim. As with the claim of holding the keys, holding the crozier moves the authority from uniquely and rightly Christ’s to some man, or religious system (or, as I would say, The Religious Industry, TRI).

And what is Sibbes’s perspective as to a community of believers all of whom are in some wise smoking flax?

We must neither bind where God looses, nor loose where God binds, neither open where God shuts, nor shut where God opens. The right use of the keys is always successful. In personal application, there must be great heed taken; for a man may be a false prophet, and yet speak the truth. If it be not a truth to the person to whom he speaks, if he grieve those whom God has not grieved by unseasonable truths, or by comforts in an ill way, the hearts of the wicked may be strengthened. One man’s meat may be another’s poison.

Ibid.

So, Sibbes would add the necessary discernment of the application of sound doctrine as we are not all in the same condition, life-challenges, or maturities. And all such keys / crooks derive from the Word of God (sound doctrine) under the singular authority of Christ, the Head of His Church.

If we look to the general temper of these times, rousing and waking Scriptures are fittest; yet there are many broken spirits who need soft and comforting words. Even in the worst time the prophets mingled sweet comfort for the hidden remnant of faithful people. God has comfort.

Ibid.

5.2 Sound Judgment

Sibbes here adds to moderation, simplicity, humility, the need for sound judgment (discernment).

Mercy does not rob us of our right judgment….. None will claim mercy more of others than those who deserve due severity. This example does not countenance lukewarmness, nor too much indulgence to those that need quickening. Cold diseases must have hot remedies… We should so bear with others as to manifest also a dislike of evil.

Sibbes, 5.2. (Emphasis mine)

But how does such force of “quickening” rightly be exercised? Sibbes’s emphasizes our mutual humility under the authority of Scripture:

It is hard to preserve just bounds of mercy and severity without a spirit above our own, by which we ought to desire to be led in all things. That wisdom which dwells with prudence (Prov. 8:12) will guide us in these particulars, without which virtue is not virtue, truth not truth. The rule and the case must be laid together…

… that wisdom which is from above, which makes men gentle, peaceable and ready to show that mercy which they themselves have felt. It is a way of prevailing agreeable both to Christ and to man’s nature to prevail by some forbearance and moderation.

Ibid.

5.3 How Those in Authority Should Act

Sibbes, ever the down-to-earth man, begins this section with the admonition regarding any mutual correction: “not to kill a fly on the forehead with a mallet, nor shut men out of heaven for a trifle.”

And on what basis? Sibbes says: “The power that is given to the church is given for edification, not destruction.”

Sibbes’s time was shortly after fearsome wars, even to death, with Roman Catholic authorities both ecclesiastical (the Papacy and its TRI) and civil (Queen ‘Bloody’ Mary, and TPI). And, so, Sibbes writes (where we again see his down-to-earth phraseology)

Authority is a beam of God’s majesty, and prevails most where there is least mixture of that which is man’s. It requires more than ordinary wisdom to manage it aright. This string must not be too tight, nor too loose. Justice is a harmonious thing. Herbs hot or cold beyond a certain degree, kill. We see even contrary elements preserved in one body by wisely tempering them together. Justice in rigor is often extreme injustice, where some considerable circumstances should incline to moderation; and the reckoning will be easier for bending rather to moderation than rigor.

…Misery should be a lodestone of mercy, not a footstool for pride to trample on.

…Here love should have a mantle to cast upon lesser errors of those above us. Oftentimes the poor man is the oppressor by unjust clamors.

Sibbes, 5.3. (Emphasis mine)

Sibbes also extends such reference to moderation and gentleness to our perspective and talk of those in civil authority over us.

…we ought to take in good part any moderate happiness we enjoy by government, and not be altogether as a nail in the wound, exasperating things by misconstruction. …. We should labour to give the best interpretation to the actions of governors that the nature of the actions will possibly bear.

Ibid.

We presently live in such poisonous political times that the above counsel should temper our Christian response to the incessant noise of hatred, and distortion, heaped on one side or another of a socio-political matter. We are strangers here; this world is not our home. Our citizenship, or true one, is in heaven; even now.

¹⁷ Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.¹⁸ For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.¹⁹ Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.²⁰ But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Philippians 3:20 (ESV, emphasis mine)

5.4 We Are Debtors to the Weak

5.4.1 Watchful of our Liberty

Looseness of life is cruelty to ourselves and to the souls of others.

Sibbes, Ch 5.4.1

5.4.2 Faithful in our characterizations

Let men take heed of taking up Satan’s office, in misrepresenting the good actions of others, as he did Job’s case, `Doth Job fear God for naught?’ (Job 1:9), or slandering their persons, judging of them according to the wickedness that is in their own hearts…. A Christian is a hallowed and a sacred thing, Christ’s temple; and he that destroys his temple, him will Christ destroy (1 Cor.3:17).

Sibbes 5.4.2

5.4.3 Slow to ‘smite’ others

Men must not be too curious in prying into the weaknesses of others. We should labour rather to see what they have that is for eternity, to incline our heart to love them, than into that weakness which the Spirit of God will in time consume, to estrange us. Some think it strength of grace to endure nothing in the weaker, whereas the strongest are readiest to bear with the infirmities of the weak….

Where most holiness is, there is most moderation, where it may be without prejudice of piety to God and the good of others. We see in Christ a marvelous temper of absolute holiness, with great moderation. What would have become of our salvation, if he had stood upon terms, and not stooped thus low unto us? …

The Holy Ghost is content to dwell in smoky, offensive souls. Oh, that that Spirit would breathe into our spirits the same merciful disposition! … why should we reject men of useful parts and graces, only for some harshness of disposition, which, as it is offensive to us, so it grieves themselves [that is, it should be expected that those most ‘smoky’ in their flax-condition, are themselves self-aware, and burdened]?

Sibbes, Ch 5.4 (bracketed addition, mine)

Concluding Thoughts

So that we may do this the better, let us put upon ourselves the Spirit of Christ. …The weapons of this warfare must not be carnal (2 Cor. 10:4)…. The Spirit will only work with his own tools. And we should think what affection Christ would carry to the party in this case. That great physician, as he had a quick eye and a healing tongue, so had he a gentle hand, and a tender heart.

And, further, let us take to ourselves the condition of him with whom we deal. We are, or have been, or may be in that condition ourselves. Let us make the case our own, and also consider in what near relation a Christian stands to us, even as a brother, a fellow member, heir of the same salvation. And therefore let us take upon ourselves a tender care of them in every way; and especially in cherishing the peace of their consciences. Conscience is a tender and delicate thing, and must be so treated. It is like a lock: if its workings are faulty, it will be troublesome to open.

Sibbes, Ch 5, selected from the closing paragraphs. (Emphasis mine)

Sibbes Ch 6 here:

Ch 4: Christ Will Not Quench the Smoking Flax

This chapter parallels Ch 2, “Christ Will Not Break the Bruised Reed.” So we can structure Ch 1-4 as follows:

Sibbes’s summarizes Ch 2 and 4 in his opening sentence of Ch 2:

In pursuing His calling, Christ will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, in which more is meant than spoken, for He will not only not break nor quench, but He will cherish those with whom He so deals.

Sibbes Ch 2, opening sentence. Highlights mine.

And such is despite the two key observations of Ch 3, namely: that of our small beginnings, and our mixture of grace and corruption–both which characterize us at the initiation of our faith in Christ and continues in various forms even throughout our earthly walk and growth.

Christ’s active protection of bruised reeds and preservation of the light present even within smoking flax “tends to the glory of His powerful grace in His children” (from Sibbes’s opening paragraph in Ch 4).

4.1 The Least Spark of Grace is Precious

Sibbes give us two opening examples of “the least spark,” two unnamed individuals, both physically condemned by their diseases, both outcasts from the nation and religious system of Israel:

• The leper recorded in Matt 8:1ff, who came to Jesus immediately upon the completion of “The Sermon on the Mount” (Matt Ch 5-7), kneeling in humility, and saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” (ESV) Such confidence, and hope, was clear evidence of the flame within the smoking flax of his state of leprosy.
• In Matt 9:20ff a woman with the unceasing blood discharge likely also kneeling as she touched only the fringe of Jesus’s passing outer garment, saying to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” (ESV) Again there was such a spark of faith, and confidence yet shrouded in her deep shame and infirmity.

Not mentioned by Sibbes are many other such examples in the Gospels:

• The blind men (Matt 9:27ff) crying out “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” (ESV)
• A demon-oppressed man (Matt 9:32ff) who was made mute under such oppression, and so could not have even spoken his hope of deliverance, was yet delivered.
• “And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction.” (Matt 9:35, ESV).

Every such healing, and the many others, were of course actual rescues from the respective afflictions but even more significantly were demonstrations of His care for all those who by their affliction were considered by the religious system of Israel to be undesirables but even further under the judgment of God by virtue of their affliction.

Jesus saw it in exactly the opposite way: instead of their being outcast, or judged, they were “the poor…[those who] mourn…[are] meek…[who] hunger/thirst” toward whom He began The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5).

Further, the apostles and most of His followers were themselves outside of the religious hierarchy, considered to be the unlearned, know-nothings by the system. These, like those who were healed of their infirmities were the smoking flax of that time. And Jesus loved them all.

In addition to the above two categories–(1) the infirm, and (2) the unlearned nobodies–He also did not quench the smoking flax even of (3) sinners. Consider:

• The unbelief of Zechariah, a priest of Israel, who received from the Angel Gabriel himself the announcement of the miraculous birth of the one who would be the forerunner of the Messiah, namely of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5ff)
• The sarcastic scorn of Nathaniel as to non-significance of Nazareth, hometown of Jesus (John 1:45-46)
• The Samaritan woman at the well (John 4)
• The woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11, a passage of some textual uncertainty)
• Simon Peter’s restoration for his overt denial of his knowledge of of Jesus, despite his arrogant assertion that he was ready to die with Him (John 21).
• Comforting and encouraging all the terrified, hiding–unbelieving–apostles: “Peace be with you.” (John 20:19ff).
• Dealing with the unbelieving Thomas who in his skepticism demanded to see, touch, and even penetrate the bodily wounds of Jesus as necessary criteria for his faith (John 20:24ff).
• And even the forgiveness and gift of faith to the many thousands who had just weeks earlier shouted “Crucify Him!” (Matt 27:23) and instead demanded the gracious release of the notorious criminal Barabbas (Matt 27:21), but later came to faith and received the unique miraculous evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2 and following chapters where many thousands of Jews came to faith).
• Saul who became Paul, who became the great apostle to the Gentiles and the human author of much of the NT, who was introduced to us in Acts 8:1-3 upon the martyrdom of Steven followed by Saul’s intent to find those proclaiming Christ in the city of Damascus (Acts 9) so that they could be arrested, dragged back to Jerusalem where they would be tried, convicted and likewise put to death, all to extinguish this belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Thinking Further as to “The Least Spark”

What would be worth your contemplation derives from Sec 1 of Sibbes Ch 4, namely:  “The Least Spark of Grace is Precious.” (This phrase is in reference to the flame / light that is present, but perhaps extremely dim or hidden by “the smoke,” in the “flax”).

What is a huge, central divide of thinking, including Christians, has to do with this idea of “the least spark” (or, the tiny flame of the smoking flax), and more specifically regarding:

1.  From whence did such least spark arise?  In other words, what was the cause / origin of it. To make this question more pointed, and useful, we should take this least spark as representing not some general higher level of humanity, good will, self-actualization, etc., but that which is associated with a genuine seeking for and connection with God Himself.  So such least spark is not mere religiosity, as may be associated with “yeah, I believe in God,” or “I’ve been a member of XYZ church since a little child,” or “I try to live a good life,” and so forth.  What is meant by this question is where did ’the real thing’ of the desire for God come from?  Put in more poetic terms, as excluded from The Garden of Eden, are we longing to be in Eden if the cost is that everything in the outside world becomes of no importance?  Put yet a different way, are we like the OT man Lot, or like Lot’s wife?

2.  Next, if such desire came from God Himself, and it did, then what are the circumstances / conditions of its existence?  Put more concretely, if having the spark can I “lose it” by my neglect, or my sin, especially the big ‘infamous’ sins?  (Note that this question seriously divides Christendom.)  

• One aphorism on this is:  everyone has some true light (some least spark), light responded to yields more light, light rejected loses light, and every person will be judged on the basis of the light they had.
• Another version similar to that just above is ’the doctrine’ of “Prevenient Grace.”  Such ‘grace’ is necessary to achieve the ultimate state of eternal salvation, and it begins with God, but for the recipients there must active receipt and pursuit otherwise it is not efficacious (roughly speaking, it dies off, and in eternal terms, so does the one who once had it).
• A close variant of each of the above two is sacerdotalism, namely the view that there are special power(s) associated with particular sacraments as to infusing “grace” (a spark, light), and additionally with each additional sacramental act.
• The least spark gets fanned into a sufficiently meaningful flame such that the recipient is capable of, and accountable for, a completely faithful and increasingly fruitful walk of sanctification in the sight of God, but is also capable of “falling” (as in “falling from grace”).    

3.  Having reached some judgment as to #1 and #2 above, the final question is “now what?” after that “least spark” experience?  Sibbes makes as an essential point, and is the very title of Ch 4, that Christ will NOT quench the smoking flax, i.e. extinguish the least spark, regardless of the smoke, regardless of the broken reed condition.  Is such claim Scriptural, that is consistent with specific texts but also the grand sweep of the entire Biblical narrative?  Further, and related, if Christ won’t quench / extinguish the least spark, is that something that can happen because of my own action or inaction, or by the action of 3rd party, the Devil or his legion of emissaries, and / or other who have already ‘fallen away?’  In order words, if we hold to the conviction that Christ won’t quench the least spark, does that mean, additionally, that He will see to it that no one else, including me, can quench it, and thus, it is unquenchable?

What this final question leads to is the basis of hope, encouragement for Christians who may be downtrodden because:  (1) perhaps they fear that they never truly had light from God as their calling, or (2) having had such light, they lost it (had it extinguished) by whatever cause, but particularly by their own sin, especially by some ‘big sin,” or (3) are they forever in danger of the light being put out because of the precarious nature of the environment of their walk and internal constitution and faith?

So, the practical application of this boils down to this:  is something absolutely certain, that I can assuredly completely and forever trust, as to my relationship with God?

We will return to this question after consideration of Sibbes’s Ch 4.2, concerning treatment of “the weak.”

4.2 Support the Weak

Here see the opposite dispositions in the holy nature of Christ and the impure nature of man. Man for a little smoke will quench the light. Christ, we see, ever cherishes even the least beginnings.

Ibid., Ch 4, Sec 2, opening sentences.

Here in 4.2, and in the next Ch, Sibbes presents three ideas:

• As Christ supports, bears with, “the weak,” we should do likewise
• Such mercy to “the weak” others may “move us to deny ourselves in our liberties”
• “The weak” includes ourselves, and so this should be a near-comfort to us
• However, “the weak” can need admonishment (us too, us mainly)

As to this latter point, Sibbes distinguishes two contexts:

• “The weakest” are most prone to think themselves low, even despised, so we should be “most careful to given them satisfaction [affirmation, but encouragement as to grow]”
• But the “the weaker” can fall into demanding “indulgence and so to rest in their own infirmities.”

As to this latter point, Sibbes notes the special problem of:

• Blindness AND boldness
• Ignorance AND arrogance
• Weakness AND willfulness

Such a condition a condition in “the weak” is not to be accommodated, because (again quoting Sibbes):

• It renders them odious to God
• Burdensome in society
• Dangerous in their counsels
• Disturbers of better purposes
• Intractable and incapable of better direction
• Miserable in the issue [that is the state of being “weak”]
• For hypocrites need stronger conviction than gross sinners [arrogant, presumptive, indifferent to Grace], because their will is bad.

The balance then to be sought in dealing with “the weak” is:

• Breed humility in them (and in all of us)
• Magnify God’s loves to such as they are
• Preserve against discouragement at one’s condition of weakness
• Bring the weak closer to Grace
• The scope of true love is to make better “the weak”
• [Such is] this honor of gentle use we are to give to the weaker vessels (1 Pet 3:7)
• Mildness [is particularly appropriate toward] those that are weak and sensible of it.

And we are to recognize the twin principles (quoting Sibbes) that:

• Christ refuses none for weakness of parts [evidences of maturity? of gifts? of calling?], that none should be discouraged
• But [Christ] accepts none for greatness, that none should be lifted up with that which is of so little reckoning with God.

And Sibbes gives us a wise piece of advice: “It would be a good contest [principle of behavior] amongst Christians, one to labor to give no offense, and the other to labor to take none.” Such advice taken to heart would prevent many conflicts with the church.

As to the first half of Sibbe’s advice, there is an ancient, relevant Latin saying: Primum non nocere (first, do no harm).

Application to Marriage?

Paul David Tripp, a noted Christian counselor, writes frequently on marital and family harmony. Recently he wrote:

I think there is no more precious thing for a marriage than our Lord’s statement, “I will be with you always.” My hope in marriage is not that I will be so righteous as I’ll never have a marriage problem or that we’ll create this system where we work with one another and it will just be paradise. It’s just not going to happen. Although the power of sin has been broken, the presence of sin still remains in us and it’s going to rear its ugly head in our marriage.

What’s a biblical view of marriage? It’s a flawed person married to a flawed person in a fallen world—are you encouraged yet?—but with a faithful God. So, it’s the third person in marriage that gives me hope. I don’t think we talk enough about the presence and promises and power and grace of this ever-near, ever-active redeemer.

My Lord and his presence is working on my marriage, even when I don’t care to. That’s a beautiful thing! So I want to lift up the theology of God’s presence with his people as being the central hope in marriage. It’ll never be found in yourself. It’ll never be found in your spouse because we will always fail one another, but Jesus never will fail.

Paul David Tripp, the author of Marriage: 6 Gospel Commitments Every Couple Needs to Make.

Sibbes’s focus was on the church. But, is it reasonable also to think that what is good for the one (the church) is good for the other (the home).

Scrupulosity

One of the challenges in dealing with “the weak” has to do with “scruples.”

scruples (Lat. scrupulus, ‘small sharp stone’). In *moral theology, unfounded fears that there is sin where there is none. Scrupulosity may be the result of much ascetic reading of a rigorist tendency, but more often is the outcome of nervous disturbances. It usually manifests itself in the fear of having consented to sinful imaginations and desires, of having made incomplete confessions, and of being unworthy of the reception of the sacraments. It may also err with regard to duties which it is prone to see where they do not exist. Scrupulosity, which often inclines the penitent to refuse submission to the judgement of his confessor, may lead to the sins of obstinacy and despair, or, conversely, to self-indulgence. The scrupulous, who are discouraged from making minute confessions, are usually counselled to disregard their scruples and to act in obedience to the advice of a prudent spiritual director.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

We each have our own mosaic of scruples. By its definition, scruples are not universal principles of absolute rights and wrongs, but they may well be such for each person holding them.

What then is “scrupulosity?” It is the concretized, absolutist, universalized formal body of some person’s scruples. It is that pointed, boney finger we’ve each received in life and, sadly, made for others. And it can kill “the weak,” including such a one inside oneself.

Threat of Ruling Hierarchy

Sibbes makes reference in Bruised Reed to “popery.” His meaning by such reference is [primarily?] the absolute power, both religious (spiritual) and governmental [to the extent possible] then widely exercised by the Pope of the Roman Catholic church. Sibbes was just a generation removed from massive martyrdoms of Protestants born out from the Reformation, which included William Tyndale and John Rogers, two early giants, and would have also included Martin Luther and John Calvin (and others) but for the protection of their respective governmental powers.

But other church hierarchies can become a crushing force on the individual circumstances of “the weak” in their tender stages of growth.

Moderation

Sibbes makes frequent use of the word “moderation” in this Ch 4 and the next Ch 5. Moderation can be thought of as the balance to scruples and particularly scrupulosity.

In the below screen captures of a word search on “moderation” in Bruised Reed:

Discouragement

Dealing with disappointment in one self is difficult enough. Dealing with it in others can be harder perhaps because we seek shortcomings more easily ‘over there,’ and feel even more powerless to counsel, to help.

Such is a recurring theme in the Psalms, many belonging to the category of “laments.” Some of such laments are with respect to enemies of God, and evil in general. But many have to do with the enemies within each us, and our particular circumstance*. (*circumstance is a compound word formed by the idea of encircled + standing; we all have many such standing encirclements, be it limitations skills / abilities, health, finances, job situation, marriage / family situations, etc.. But it helps in the course of “praying always” to “rejoice always” that our greatest encirclement is God Love and our names written in heaven where will be eternally).

And here is a hymn of encouragement based on Psalm 42: Lord, from Sorrows Deep I Call.

Surely He Has Borne Our Griefs (Isaiah 53:4)

Let us consider one of the significant verses in one of the significant chapters of the OT as to the Messianic Promise, namely: From Isaiah Ch 53, let us look particularly at vs. 4.

But first some context:

³ He was despised and rejected by men,
    a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
    he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
⁴ Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions;
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with his wounds we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:3-6 English Standard Version (ESV; highlights mine)

The verses surround Is 53:4 are well-known, commonly memorized. But verse 4 carries a crucial two-fold message:

• Christ carried not just a wooden cross but all the griefs and sorrows from our fallen nature and all its attendant infirmities, and He did so to fulfillment
• And the religious and political systems, Judaism and the Roman Empire, joined by all of us who did cry, or would have had they been there, “crucify Him!” Both systems, and those imprisoned by them, considered that Jesus Christ was being judged by God for his sacrilege and blasphemy whereas He was judged for those who falsely deemed such.

So, by this passage alone, is it Biblically founded to hold that Christ will not quench the smoking flax, the little light, the weakest beginning?

This little verse–Isaiah 53:4–plays a huge role in Scripture. Accordingly, attached below are four pdfs that enable further study, actually a massive further study.

Sibbes Ch 5 here:

In this Session #3 we will review Sibbes’s Bruised Reed book, Ch 3, “The Smoking Flax.”

The “Smoking Flax” phrase, and subtitle of Sibbes’s book, derives directly from the Scripture in the translation used by Sibbes as discussed previously. More modern translations use “smoking wick.” In terms of obvious, every-day meaning, neither forms is revealing.

Here’s how Sibbes’ describes its meaning, and why it is a sub-theme of this book.

In smoking flax there is but a little light, and that weak, as being unable to flame, and that little mixed with smoke. The observations from this are that, in God’s children, especially in their first conversion [but as will be discussed, not only in such stage], there is but a little measure of grace, and that little mixed with much corruption, which, as smoke, is offensive;

Sibbes, Broken Reed, Ch. 3.

This introductory chapter on this topic is divided by Sibbes into two Sections: 3.1 “Grace is Little at First,” and 3.2 “Grace is Mingled with Corruption.”

Sec. 3.1 Grace is Little at First

Excerpting from Sibbes opening paragraph we see the root idea of “smoking flax,” namely:

The seeds of all the creatures in the present goodly frame of the world were hid in the chaos, in that confused mass at the first, out of which God commanded all creatures to arise. In the small seeds of plants lie hidden both bulk and branches, bud and fruit. In a few principles lie hidden all comfortable conclusions of holy truth. All these glorious fireworks of zeal and holiness in the saints had their beginning from a few sparks.

Ibid.

The importance of the idea lies then is recognizing small beginnings.

Let us not therefore be discouraged at the small beginnings of grace, …. Let us look on our imperfect beginning only to enforce further striving to perfection, and to keep us in a low opinion of ourselves…

Ibid.

Thus, the recognition of our condition as “smoking flax” at the beginning of our faith in Christ, and even later, serves (1) a ready reminder of what should be our Christian humility, and (2) an ongoing perspective for our interactions with others who in their new life and walk having further to go (as do we).

Sec. 3.2 Grace is Mingled with Corruption

What about “corruption” that lies within us (and others) and appears and re-appears? Here’s Sibbes:

…grace does not do away with corruption all at once, but some is left for believers to fight with. The purest actions of the purest men need Christ..

…The reason for this mixture is that we carry about us a double principle, grace and nature. The end of it is especially to preserve us from those two dangerous rocks which our natures are prone to dash upon, security and pride, and to force us to pitch our rest on justification, not sanctification, which, besides imperfection, has some stains. Our spiritual fire is like our ordinary fire here below, that is, mixed.

Ibid.

Martin Luther expressed this in Latin, possibly in response to a common question of all times…”how are you doing?” as follows: Simul Justus et Peccator [I am simultaneously just(-ified)] and sinner [peccato]. It is very difficult to grasp both ideas being true at the same time, and impossible for one who sees their complete sinlessness as being the necessary precursor for a justified standing before God. We naturally tend to conclude that if there is sin within there is no justification without (with respect to God), and vice versa. That is the belief that all corruptions, and corruption itself (the principle), is a ‘can-be’ condition, let alone a ‘must-be’ condition of this present earthly life. But it is.

Sibbes puts it like this:

From this mixture [corruption and grace] arises the fact that the people of God have so different judgments of themselves, looking sometimes at the work of grace, sometimes at the remainder of corruption, and when they look upon that, then they think they have no grace.

Ibid.

The re-emergent self-awareness of corruption and grace is a persistent source of emotional stress both as we see it in others and in ourselves. It can lead to despair and all manner of sorrows including calling into doubt ones faith, salvation, and even the very existence of God. If one is true–namely Grace–how come the other–corruption–is yet present, or seemingly, even worse? That this dual presence is the Christian’s condition in this life is one of the major motivations for Sibbes’s book, as it was for Calvin in his Little Book.

Scriptural Basis for Smoking Flax as Such Mixture of Corruption and Grace

Sibbes cites the following Scripture and context:

• Faith’s source is like that smallest mustard seed (Matt. 17:20)
• The significant King David began as unimportant (shepherd boy), the youngest of his family, a family of no particular significance (Is. 53:2)
• And, even, later in life David before he was king he was much less than he ultimately became (1 Sam. 21:13; Ps 34:18; 31:22)
• We are called by God, and should always have such self-recognition, of being elected “holy and without blame” even coming from being enemies of God (Eph 1:4)
• Christ was born Himself in a city of no material significance (Mic. 5:2; Matt 2:6).
• The Second Temple, which was rebuilt after the Babylonian destruction, was far less in material form than at its glory as The First Temple, under Solomon (Hag. 2:9)
• The Disciples in a metaphor based on their fearful physical circumstances saw their imminent demise (Matt 8:25)
• The pharisee of Mark 9, hoping in feeble faith, mingled with unbelief, that Christ could heal (Mark 9:24)
• Jonah’s self-recognition as cast out of God’s sight (Jon 2:4)
• Paul’s sense of corruption yet leads him to praising God (Rom 7:24)
• The seven churches in the opening chapters of Revelation were clearly a mixture of smoke and light, corruption and grace (Rev. Ch 2, Ch 3)

Use of the Word “Corrupt” in the Bible

In the NKJV some form of the word “corrupt” occurs 64 times, 35x in the OT, 29x in the NT. It occurs in 31 different books of the Bible (combined OT and NT).

It’s first use is in Genesis during the lifespan of Noah and cited as the grounds for God’s Flood judgment.:

⁹ This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. ¹⁰ And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. ¹¹ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. ¹² So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Gen. 6 (NKJV). Highlights are mine.

It’s next OT use described the people of Israel who God delivered out of Egypt who were at the base of Mt Sinai while Moses was atop it receiving God’s Law for the people of His redemption:

32:1  Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” ² And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” ³ So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. ⁴ And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” ⁵ So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord.” ⁶ Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. ⁷ And the Lord said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. ⁸ They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” 

Exodus 32 (NKJV). Highlights mine.

In the NT the key passage in 1 Cor 15 displays the contrast between the present corruption of all of us and the body of incorruption that awaits on the other side:

⁵⁰ Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. ⁵¹ Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” ⁵⁵ “O^[n] Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” ⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. ⁵⁷ But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 15 (NKJV). Highlights mine.

And the NT ends with reference to the corruption of “the great harlot” of Babylon, presented in Rev Ch 17 and particularly Ch 19:2. From the time of Noah to the very end of the church age such spirit of corruption has been the character of spacetime, including even the human nature of God’s Elect.

What Does “Corruption” Mean, Signify?

The ‘archaeology’ (the root) of words can be very helpful in understanding better the idea behind the word.

The “co” prefix of “corruption” means “with” or “by.” The Latin prefix “com” takes the form of com, cor, co, and other forms, depending on the rest of the word which it heads; “comruption” would be hard to pronounce so its use evolves to “corruption.”

The suffix “-ion” signifies condition of. That leaves for us the root, “-rupt-” that comes from “rupta” which is used to designate something broken, as in broken open or broken through. It is the root of the English word “rupture” (and interestingly, “routine” as in breaking through the challenge of a day’s minutes sliding by under-utilized).

The basic idea “-rupt” and thus corruption is perversity of integrity, a kind of break-though into an evil condition, even a destruction of that which was whole, together, well-formed resulting in debasement, even ruin unto putrefaction. In English today it is often applied to some major violation of a public trust, such as an elected official using the power of the office wrongly, having been bribed in some way.

This idea of corruption well describes the Fall of Eve and then Adam, and the inner being of the universally fallen human heart with respect to one’s Creator. We think of an automobile or a smart phone as particularly “bad” if it fails to function as it was designed to perform. By such failure that which appears to be a car or phone is actually neither, but only a useless, functionless mass of expensive parts incapable of doing “good” (fulfilling its purpose of existence as determined by its creator / designer).

A particularly maddening form of corruption is intermittent debasement. Think of a gasoline lawmower that starts, or doesn’t, with a ‘mind of its own:’ sometimes it starts on the first pull of the rope, sometimes it’s the 10th pull, and some days it simply will not start no matter how many exhausting rope pulls are performed. In a certain sense, such condition is even worse than a lawnmower that absolutely does not start, cannot start (for some reason), and perhaps never in its life started running. At least such ‘dead’ lawn mower has a certain ‘honesty’ to it–not of course a moral honesty but an honesty as to non-performance of its design function. But the intermittent example destroys the clarity of it either being operable or useless and worthy of destruction.

We tend to think of “corruption” as the ‘dead’ example, but the idea of smoking flax is that it, we, are more like that maddening intermittently operable lawn mower.

The Koine Greek word translated “corruption” is phthorá:

Strong’s G5356. φθορά phthorá; fem. noun from phtheírō (5351), to corrupt. Spoiling, corruption, destruction, ruin, decay, generally a fraying or wasting away.

(I) Destruction, deterioration, slaughter, change of existing state (2 Pet. 2:12).

(II) Death, corruption in a natural sense (1 Cor. 15:42; Gal. 6:8 [cf. Rom. 8:21]; Col. 2:22; Sept.: Ps. 103:4; Jon. 2:7); the abstract being put for the concrete, what is corruptible or subject to corruption (1 Cor. 15:50).

(III) Corruption in a moral or spiritual sense (2 Pet. 1:4; 2:19).

Syn.: apṓleia (684), perdition, destruction; ólethros (3639), ruin, destruction; súntrimma (4938), a breaking in pieces, shattering, ruin.

Ant.: aphtharsía (861), incorruption; adiaphthoría (90), incorruptibility, moral and physical soundness.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers. Highlights mine.

Perhaps an overly simplistic summary of the idea of “corruption” is the vandalization of God’s Creation by the Great Vandal, the Devil Himself. One of the lessons we should learn from Satan’s deception and destruction of Eve in Gen. 3 is that (1) he exists as a real being with certain beyond-human powers, principally those of deception, and (2) most importantly, he is at work seeking to destroy that which God has created. In other words, Satan, although he has at least the first phase of God’s judgment upon him–his being cast down from heaven–and he awaits his second and final judgment–the eternal lake of fire, he is not idle or indifferent to our goings-on. During this in-between period, Satan is neither idle, nor humbly repentant: he is actively, ferociously about seeking to ruin all that he can even as a ferocious lion:

⁸ Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour [katapínō: to swallow up; see below]. 

1 Peter 5:8 (NKJV)

Strong’s G2666. καταπίνω katapínō; from katá (2596), down, and pínō (4095), to drink. To swallow as in drinking, whether in a natural or figurative sense (Matt. 23:24; 1 Cor. 15:54; 2 Cor. 2:7; 5:4; Heb. 11:29; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 12:16).

Ibid.

What Does “Hidden” Mean, Signify?

We think of “existence” as something that has “being” and is in some way visible, detectable, observable. We think of such “being” with what we expect to be living systems as doing something or going somewhere. So if we see an “animal” that is the result of a taxidermist we think of that as not having the “being” of life and so not an “animal.” However, if we visit our doggie under anesthesia at the office of a veterinarian we do see it as having the “being” of a dog perhaps if only by carefully observing signs of respiration.

There is an old joke on this comparison: the office of a veterinarian who is also a taxidermist has a sign on his door “either way you get your dog back.” The joke, such as it is, is a play on “dog.” In the one case you get the material remains in appearance form of what once was a “dog,” and in the other you get the real “dog,” or, namely “dog.”

If we look upon human beings in relation to their “being” before God, namely whether they have within them the breadth (Spirit) of new life, we must be very careful, and humble, about what conclusions we may reach. The Apostle Judas looked to be not just a true apostle but most-certainly a man within whom the Spirit of God resided. And such conclusion would have been false because what was “hidden” in him was that he had no such Spiritual “being.” Conversely, had we ‘looked’ at Saul later Paul before his Damascus Road experience we would not have ‘seen’ that he had been set apart even from his mothers womb as one of God’s own children. As with Judas, Paul’s true “being” was hidden to all for a time.

The Koine Greek word for “hidden” is krypto, from which we get our English words cryptic, encryption, cryptography and so forth. It designates something hidden, often in the context of “hidden” in such a way that its discernment to an exterior person is impossible. Thus kypto is related to another Koine Greek word mysterion, which obviously forms our English words mystery, mysterious, etc., but means in the NT that which could not have been known but for revelation.

“Hidden” and Koine Greek Word krúptō and kruptós

The common NT Koine Greek verb translated “to hide” is krúptō as below (the noun form, “hidden” is kruptós):

Strong’s G2928. κρύπτω krúptō; To hide, conceal. In the mid. / pass. to hide oneself, to be hidden; 2d aor. pass. ekrúbēn, was hidden (Matt. 5:14; Luke 19:42); … To be hidden in something, with en (1722), in, followed by the dat. (Matt. 13:44; 25:25; Col. 3:3); with eis (1519), in, and the acc. (Rev. 6:15); followed by apó (575), from, and the gen. meaning to hide from (Luke 18:34; 19:42, Christ’s word made hidden, i.e., the people did not understand that Christ came to give them peace; John 12:36, He hid Himself from them by miraculously causing others not to recognize Him; Rev. 6:16). …

Deriv.: apokrúptō (613), to hide from, to hide with a benevolent purpose; egkrúptō (1470), to hide in something; kruptós (G2927), hidden, secret; kruphḗ (2931), privately; perikrúptō (4032), to hide by placing something around or to conceal entirely.

Syn.: kalúptō (2572), to cover in order to hide; parakalúptō (3871), to cover with a veil; lanthánō (2990), to escape notice, be hidden from; sigáō (4601), to keep silent, and therefore, secret.

 Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers. Highlights mine.

Such hiding is no isolated, stray idea: the verb form occurs 49x in the NT. We see in the Gospels the hiddenness of the Gospel itself and that Jesus is The Christ (The Messiah):

⁴⁴ “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

Matt 13:44 (NKJV). Highlights mine.

⁴¹ And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, ⁴² saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. ⁴³ For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side ⁴⁴ and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” 

Luke 19 (NKJV). Highlights mine.

We can quickly fall into questions such as “Why was it [the Gospel, the Messiah-ship, etc.] hidden?” and “In what way was it hidden?” and “Who did the hiding?” and so forth. But the most central point is that all such “its” were hidden, and that such “hiddenness” could not be self-unhidden, meaning that it pleased God to conceal from the significant rational and investigative powers of man the ability to self-discover the deepest realities of God’s salvific* purpose. [*Having the intention and power to bring about salvation or redemption…that this is that which only God Himself can do is fundamental to understanding sin, God, and the Scriptures].

Such “hiddenness” applies to that innermost spiritual nature of each of us:

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things ^G2927 of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

I Cor 4:5 (KJV).

And thus are the secrets ^G2927 of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

I Cor 14:25 (KJV)

For ye are dead, and your life is hid ^G2928 with Christ in God.

Colossians 3:3 (KJV)

Smoking Flax and Taking Up One’s Cross

A theme of the NT is expressed by a particular phrase relating to self-denial, namely:

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Matt 16:24 (KJV). Highlights mine.

This verse, among many others, co-locate our new spiritual nature with our old self, whereby neither is extinguished in this life, but we are called (in a process of sanctification) by the Holy Spirit to diminish the one and grow the other.

Why Does God the Holy Spirit Not Extinguish the “Smoke” after our New Birth?

In Calvin’s Little Book (aka The Golden Book), examined elsewhere on this site, he uses an entire chapter on the topic of taking up one’s cross (his Ch 3) as a particularized process of self-denial. Below is one Section from this chapter of Calvin’s book.

3.2. We may add, that the only thing which made it necessary for our Lord to undertake to bear the cross, was to testify and prove his obedience to the Father; whereas there are many reasons which make it necessary for us to live constantly under the cross. Feeble as we are by nature, and prone to ascribe all perfection to our flesh, unless we receive as it were ocular demonstration of our weakness, we readily estimate our virtue above its proper worth, and doubt not that, whatever happens, it will stand unimpaired and invincible against all difficulties. Hence we indulge a stupid and empty confidence in the flesh, and then trusting to it wax proud against the Lord himself; as if our own faculties were sufficient without his grace. This arrogance cannot be better repressed than when He proves to us by experience, not only how great our weakness, but also our frailty is. Therefore, he visits us with disgrace, or poverty, or bereavement, or disease, or other afflictions. Feeling altogether unable to support them, we forthwith, in so far as regards ourselves, give way, and thus humbled learn to invoke his strength, which alone can enable us to bear up under a weight of affliction. Nay, even the holiest of men, however well aware that they stand not in their own strength, but by the grace of God, would feel too secure in their own fortitude and constancy, were they not brought to a more thorough knowledge of themselves by the trial of the cross. This feeling gained even upon David, “In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved. Lord, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong: thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled,” (Ps. 30:6, 7.) He confesses that in prosperity his feelings were dulled and blunted, so that, neglecting the grace of God, on which alone he ought to have depended, he leant to himself, and promised himself perpetuity. If it so happened to this great prophet, who of us should not fear and study caution? Though in tranquillity they flatter themselves with the idea of greater constancy and patience, yet, humbled by adversity, they learn the deception. Believers, I say, warned by such proofs of their diseases, make progress in humility, and, divesting themselves of a depraved confidence in the flesh, betake themselves to the grace of God, and, when they have so betaken themselves, experience the presence of the divine power, in which is ample protection.

 Chapter 3, Section 2, of Calvin’s Little Book, taken from: Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 2, pp. 275–276). The Calvin Translation Society. Highlights mine.

When and How Does God The Holy Spirit Work in our Lives, in the “Smoke” of It?

A common puzzle, and a very distressing one, for Christians is to wonder in sad amazement at the “smoke” that yet remains, and reappears sometimes in greater intensity even years after our new birth in Christ.

One (wrong) answer is that such should absolutely not be our experience because God has called us to complete, and perfect sinless sanctification in this life. However simple and appealing this answer, such is not the Bible’s teaching.

But what then is a reasoned explanation? A solid one has been given above by Calvin’s summary, namely that of continuing, and expanding our humility, and recognition of our utter dependance on God. (Reading more in Calvin’s Little Book Ch 3 gives additional reasons and insight).

Yet the question remains: is such a well-founded fundamental of the Christian faith? The answer is “yes” as demonstrated by the Great Confessions of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Such Great Confessions are discussed elsewhere on this site. Below are given parallel excepts of one particularly relevant passage, in Ch 3, Sec 5 of the below, parallel, Confessions.

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free
purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are
elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,76 are effectually called unto faith
in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,77 and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.78 Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

Footnotes:

76 1 Thes 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

77 Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

78 1 Pet 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree,” Section 6. Highlights mine.

After Westminster, came the Savoy Confession of Faith (1656, by Congregationalists), and the Second Baptist Confession of Faith (of 1689, avowed by more than 100 Baptist churches, following on the First such Confession, in 1643 which preceded Westminster, but based on a small number of such churches at that time), all of which affirmed that same understanding of Scriptures as that highlighted above by Westminster and exemplified below by the Baptists.

Paragraph 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto;13 wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,14 are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,15 and kept by His power through faith unto salvation;16 neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.17 
13 1 Pet. 1:2; 2; Thess. 2:13 
14 1 Thess. 5:9, 10 
15 Rom. 8:30; 2 Thess. 2:13 
16 1 Pet. 1:5 
17 John 10:26, 17:9, 6:64

Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd London meeting (1689), Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree,” Section 6. Highlights mine.

Finally, in the United States, such Second Baptist Confession was adopted (in the above particulars) word-for-word and affirmed in 1724 and widely disseminated by its 1742 printing (small world: printing was done by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia).

The English spirit of the Second Baptist Confession was continued after 1689 including the ministry of Charles Spurgeon who himself republished it in 1855 with a new forward for his congregation: “This ancient document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us.” And in the 20th Century, the also significant ministry of Martyn Lloyd-Jones continued within the framework of the Westminster and Baptist Confessions. And these Great Confessions have continued as the foundation documents for Reformed Churches with certain variations in ecclesiastical practices (baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc., as were contain in Ch 20-30 of the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession).

This 3rd Chapter of all such Great Confessions concerns the “Sovereign Decrees of God.” This subject is deep to the core of all reality, to which any discussion, especially this brief one, cannot begin to expound. The opening sentence of such 3rd Chapter is this:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1

Footnote: 1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18

Ibid., Ch 3, Sec. 1, opening words.

Thus we are drawn to two deep principles: The Trinitarian God (the subject of Ch 2 of such Great Confessions) had decreed (Ch 3) “whatsoever comes to pass” and the Holy Spirit works “in due season” (Ch 3.5) such that whatsoever has been eternally decreed, includes the Works of God with respect to us, the Broken Reeds and Smoking Flax of Sibbes’s writing.

A Touching Iconic Example of a Broken Reed

The late R.C. Sproul worked with the late Chuck Colson on the latter’s work with “Prison Ministry.” In that work, Colson and many others reached out to prisoners in all conditions of crime and punishment with the Gospel message.

When Colson was seeking an idea for an image the organization could use to denote its mission, Dr. Sproul suggested that of a broken reed, deriving the idea from the Bible texts used by Sibbes and in our consideration here. And so, it came to be as seen below:

Sibbes Ch 4 here:

Chapter 2: Christ Will Not Break the Bruised Reed

Chapter 2: Christ Will Not Break the Bruised Reed

2.1 Christ’s Dealings with the Bruised Reed

Sibbes stresses the tender loving nature of God, The Lord Jesus, toward us.

See the gracious way he executes his offices. As a prophet, he came with blessing in his mouth, Blessed are the poor in spirit' (Matt. 5:3), and invited those to come to him whose hearts suggested most exceptions against themselves,Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden’ (Matt. 11:28). How did his heart yearn when he saw the people `as sheep having no shepherd‘ (Matt. 9:36)! He never turned any back again that came to him, though some went away of themselves.

Sibbes, The Bruised Reed

Sheep and Shepherd

Sibbes notes above the reference to people of Israel as shepherd-less sheep, citing Matt. 9:36. So the imagery is that the people to whom Christ came are like sheep, known to to be weak, easily gone astray, desperately in need of a shepherd for their provisions and even survival against predators. But, further, these “sheep” are utterly without any shepherd. This calls out a grave dereliction of duty of who it was that was designated to be shepherd.

There is a recurring theme in Scripture of sheep / lambs cared for by a (or, The) shepherd.

• First, what significance can we take from such imagery here in the context of being bruised, that though bruised we are not objects of God’s judgment?
• Second, what is the significance of absence of any shepherd?

Sheep in the Bible

Just doing a simple search on the the word “sheep” using Biblegateway for the ESV yields nearly 200 cites: Genesis to Zechariah in the OT (156x cites in 27 of the 39 Books) and Matthew to Revelation in the NT (42x, with references in each of the four Gospels–12x in Matthew alone, also in Acts, three Epistles, and Revelation).

If we consider just the OT book of Psalms (13x), here are important examples:

You have made us like sheep for slaughter and have scattered us among the nations (44:11)

Yet for your sake we are killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered. (44:22)

Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell. (49:14)

Then he led out his people like sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock. (78:52)

He chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds; (78:70)

But we your people, the sheep of your pasture, will give thanks to you forever; from generation to generation we will recount your praise. (79:13)

For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, (95:7)

Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. (100:3)

I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant, for I do not forget your commandments. (119:176)

Psalms (ESV)

Looking at Matthew’s Gospel, we find that in addition to his compassion for them (cited previously, Matt. 9:36) because they are sheep without a shepherd, we find:

• The Lord sends out the 12 to “the lost sheep of Israel” (10:6), and Jesus Himself was sent to such “lost sheep” (15:24), and gives us the parable of the “lost sheep” (18:12).
• That the 12 are themselves sheep–NOT shepherds: “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves…” (10:16; and see also 26:31 cited below where the 12, then 11, are the sheep that are scattered upon the arrest of Jesus).
• Because it is Christ Himself Who is The Shepherd: “..and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (25:33) and “you will all fall away…for it is written ‘I will strike The Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ ” (26:32)
• And surrounding the sheep are predators: “I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves” (10:16); and they are commingled with goats, who are not His sheep (25:33).
• The sheep are themselves helpless: the one that goes astray from the 100 and is lost (18:12; also 15:24 references “lost”); and the parable of the sheep fallen and trapped into a pit (12:11).

All of these references did cause all hearers to recognize the many connections of Jesus as His claim to be Messiah (Christ in Koine Greek) to all the OT references and prophesies, including:

• “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6)
• “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 23:1)
• “My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold.” (Jeremiah 50:6)
• “Israel is a hunted sheep driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured him, and now at last Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has gnawed his bones.” (Jeremiah 50:17)
• “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.” (Ezekiel 34:11)
• “As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.” (Ezekiel 34:12)
• “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 34:15)
• “I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep.” (Ezekiel 34:22)
• “And you are my sheep, human sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 34:31)

And, importantly, also prevalent in Ezekiel’s prophecy are multiple references to the abandonment of the sheep by the assigned shepherds: Ezekiel 34:2, 3, 5, 10.

Finally, and importantly, the OT prophesies that the Messiah Himself will take upon Himself becoming the Passover Lamb–highlighted by John the Baptist’s identification of Him at His baptism: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, 36), and note He is The Lamb even in eternal glory as given in Rev. 7:9 and 14:1. This is the richest possible picture of Christ’s mission in His service of imputation (taking our place) on our behalf.

• “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:7)
• And, as we saw above in Psalms 78:70 there is specific reference made to David, and we know that the biological line of Jesus was from David. We recognize that connection as to the Covenant of promise to David, and the Kingship line of inheritance, but this verse in Psalms also links Jesus to the humble role shepherd which also was David’s experience.

Shepherds

Let us consider these four categories of shepherds.

• First we have the absentee shepherds, the one(s) who have abandoned their posts and even in some cases become wolves consuming the sheep.
• Then we have false shepherds (fakes)
• Then there are falsely claimed to be shepherds (such claims being made by others)
• Finally there is The Great True Shepherd.

As to the first category, clearly the NT identifies it as the Jewish leadership, reference (in my terms) to The Religion Industry (TRI) of the NT. They occupied all the titles and authorities but were not the true shepherds of Israel, an assertion that they would have found to be deeply offensive because it was the opposite of their claim and self-belief.

In what way were they absentee and even false and wolves? Because they seriously mis-represented the teachings of the OT, particularly The Law, with the Sabbath as being a recurring exemplar during the Lord’s ministry. TRI asserted that merit with God could, and should, be achieved by following TRI’s interpretation and application of the OT Law. This was fatally in error because the OT showed that no such law-keeping had any hope of meriting the righteousness of God and was rather all pointing to its ultimate fulfillment by the Messiah (the Christ).

As to the second category of false shepherds, these were those who were most adamant on their meritorious adherence to The Law, as exemplified by the Pharisees. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more examples of absentee shepherds.

As to the third category of falsely claimed shepherds, there are examples given to us in the NT. IN Acts we see a man named Simon, not Simon Peter, who seeks to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit so he can be a leader. During Paul’s first missionary journey, he encounters a false prophet named Bar-Jesus (which means, literally, son of Jesus; Acts 13:6). In Corinth there were both false apostles “deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13) and “false brothers” (2 Cor 11:26, as there were in Galatia, Gal 2:4). And Satan was then, and still is, a cause of false signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:9). And there were false teachers prevalent (2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Jude 8ff; Rev 2:2). And false prophets, teachers, and miracle workers will characterize the end of the age: Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10; 21:27; 22:15.

Finally, there is but one Shepherd, and that is Christ who is the Redeemer of His sheep (flock). He is The Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:4) and The Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20), but those are merely amplifications of His being The Shepherd.

Sheep, us, need The Shepherd. Teachers and other gifted ones in the church are used by God to point us to The Shepherd, never to become themselves shepherds of God’s people. (If there is such a claim in the Bible, I have yet to see it; and Eph 4:11 citing “pastor-teacher” or “shepherd-teacher” is about teaching who the true Shepherd is not the teacher himself becoming or behaving as our shepherd).

Compounding the confusion as to the identity of the “shepherd” is how the Latin translation of the Koine Greek has slipped into English. Briefly the situation is this. The NT is written in Koine Greek. The Koine word for shepherd is ποιμήν poimḗn (Strong’s G4166). In Jerome’s Vulgate translation (ca. 400 A.D.) ποιμήν poimḗn was translated into Latin as “pastor” (e.g., Matt 9:36). (So a “pastoral scene” of a painting just means there are sheep in it, and possibly a shepherd too). So all the references in Protestant churches to “a” or “the” “pastor” is simply using the Latin translation for a Koine Greek original word to create a distinctive title for primary platform speaker and atop the church’s organization chart. And, subsequently, the title has proliferated to become affixed to people on the payroll of the church, and others with certain leadership roles.

The word ποιμήν poimḗn occurs 18x in 17 verses in the Koine NT (the Textus Receptus), 15x in the Four Gospels, but only 3x in all the Epistles, namely (citing KJV):

• And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors ^G4166 and teachers (Eph. 4:11)
• Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd ^G4166 of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, (Heb. 13:20)
• For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd ^G4166 and Bishop of your souls. (1 Peter 2:25)

None of the uses of “pastor” in the Gospels are in reference the Apostles, or any disciples. And of the three above references from all of the Epistles plus Acts and Revelation, only the Ephesians one has any connection to a human, and then just in that specific context of a teacher (as discussed above). So in all the many references to local church bodies in the Book of Acts, and in all the of the 12 (or 13) Pauline Epistles, all the “General” Epistles, and all the references to the Seven Churches in Revelation Ch 2 and 3, there is no mention, none, zero, of any human as “a” or “the” “pastor.”

Why does this matter? Because there is one connecting point, one unique one, between us and God the Father, and that is our Redeemer / Shepherd, who is the fulfillment of the vast OT promises of His coming to collect us from the wolves and false claimants to be shepherds and He did not do so to deliver us to some other NT version of a shepherd. Further we can understand the full revelation of both the OT and NT texts themselves, and the manner in which they have been taught, to their having been a ‘shepherd’ leading us to grasp our absolute need for Messiah and recognizing the identify of Jesus Christ as having been, and eternally Being, our unique Shepherd-Messiah.

Sheep, Pastures

Although we are not here making a complete examination of the Bible’s teaching on “shepherds,” I want to note that there are many other passages that have relevant key words but do not include “shepherd(s).” For instance, consider the below text also from the Psalms.

Note first that we do not have the explicit word “shepherd” in the above though we clearly have reference to it “the sheep of YOUR pasture,” and such reference is to God, not any human in the Levitical Priesthood or the Kingship of David.

The context of the above verse (79:13) in Psalm 79 is God / Lord (Yahweh) is shown below:

Psalm 79, context of “You” and “Your” of Ps 79:13

So very very clearly, this 79th Psalm is claiming the God, and “The Lord.” (“The Lord” is the Covenant-Making manifestation of God in the OT, always a referenced to Yahweh, which is translated in the Septuagint as “kurios” and into English when the same word recurs in the NT as “LORD” in reference to Jesus Christ, hence the clarity that Jesus Christ of the NT is Yahweh of the OT, and is the New Covenant-Making manifestation of God). As Ps 79:13 states, such Shepherd – Sheep relationship, between the Lord God and His people, was, is, and will eternally be so.

In the Latin Vulgate of Psalm 79:13 we see the phrase: oves pascuae tuae.

• oves is plural noun, nominative, that comes from the Latin root ovis, which means “sheep”
• pascuae is a singular noun, in the genitive (possessor case), from the Latin root pascua. This word pasture, grass, that is a field for feeding sheep, and is closely related to the Latin word for being fed and is etymologically related to the Latin word “pastor” where “pas” relates to “shepherd” and the suffix “-tor” is a common addition to Latin loan words that form personal agent nouns and verbs (like actor, janitor, orator, victor).
• tuae is a singular noun, also a genitive, from the Latin root tuus which simply means “You,” in the singular, meaning clearly God alone.

I know the challenge to these texts will be John 21:15-17 where the resurrected Lord restores the braggart-coward Peter, who though proud deserted the Lord upon His arrest on the Mount of Olives and then denied knowing Him three times and fled into the night, weeping bitterly. In the context of John 21, Peter has returned to Galilee and more-importantly to his native profession of fisherman. So we have this unique exchange with Peter that does not occur with any other Apostle then or with Paul later, nor does it occur as directed to any other NT leader subsequent to this Gospel.

We have two wonderful epistles written by Peter, located in most translations very near the end of the NT texts that precede Revelation. What does Peter say of this text in John 21:15-17? Nothing. What does he claim of himself as being a “shepherd?” Nothing. In what way does anyone else recorded in the NT, in Acts and all the Epistles, and in Revelation refer to Peter as “shepherd?” Not one. How then does Peter refer to himself in these two important epistles which he himself wrote? “An apostle” (1 Peter 1:1, namely one of the category “apostles,” not “The” apostle as the leader or even exemplary). He further refers to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1, G4850), which means literally “old man,” and is freighted with the idea of age and spiritual maturity, and as “a witness” (G3144, also in 1 Peter 5:1), which generally means “eye witness” as opposed to someone only proclaiming what they believe to be true but did not apprehend it directly and personally. Further in the very next verse, 1 Peter 5:2, Peter makes reference to a verb of responsibility–“to shepherd”–with respect to “the sheep” but of those sheep which belong to God. There is, importantly, no reference here to the elders being addressed in 1 Peter 5:1 that either he, Peter, nor the elders, are themselves “shepherds,” but only to be pasture-seekers / providers on behalf of The Shepherd, God Himself. All this is to be done as “examples” (1 Peter 5:3), not as rule ‘lords’ (kings / princes) which again introduces the Shepherd (1 Peter 5:3) by a single word in the Koine Greek “archipoímēn” (G750) where the prefix “arch” means chief (the idea of the ‘top’). Then in the very next verses, 1 Peter 5:5ff, Peter admonishes his readers that they submit to “elders” in their fellowship–not to Peter himself, not to even other apostles who may have then been still alive, not to so-called apostolic successors (to which there is no Biblical reference), nor to “shepherds” of any kind or status (such as “under-shepherds,” as no such term exists in the Bible).

Peter’s second Epistle is completely consistent with the above. In 2 Peter 2:1 he refers to himself as “a bondservant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” where “bondservant” is the translation of doúlos (G1401), meaning a slave who is in permanent servitude to some person (here, clearly Christ). It was literally the very idea we find abhorrent today, namely that of some of slave status. The connection with “apostle,” which means one sent with a message, is that he is one of such messengers of God, and with the other apostles was an actual eyewitness (witness), but he is such messenger with the status of a slave (of Christ), not a co- or under- shepherd (of Christ). His 2nd Epistle, and his final earthly words to us, closes with: 2 Peter 3:18 “but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.” (NKJV)

One further, and concluding, thought on this matter of Peter and “shepherd.” As noted, the reference to the Lord’s restoration of Peter after his denial, and departure back to Galilee and fishing, was written by the Apostle John. John later wrote three epistles, which are part of our inspired Bible text, and the entire Book of Revelation, all of which writing almost certainly post-dates Peter’s two epistles. Although we do not have an inspired revelation of the life-timelines of each of the Apostles, it is generally accorded that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the 60’s A.D., preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. These events would then have occurred late in the reign of Emperor Nero (who reigned 54 to 68 A.D.), likely shortly after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. (which legend has it that Nero blamed on the Christians). In such chronology, it is believed that the Apostle John lived into the 90’s A.D., and perhaps even beyond 100 A.D., so he lived some 30 years after the deaths of Peter (and Paul), and late in his early life also wrote the three epistles and the Revelation. John as an eyewitness of the exchange between the Resurrected Lord Jesus and Peter on the shores of Galilee, and the only record of such exchange that we have in any of the Gospels, would have connected such event and the Lord’s words with his later writings (his epistles, and The Revelation), but there’s not a word in such reference. Of course we understand that God the Holy Spirit is the true author of all the Bible, and especially the NT, as promised by the Lord in the Upper Room Discourse. Regardless of this distinction, if the text of John 21 cited above was to teach an eternity verity as to uniquely Peter himself, or to all the Apostles, or to any who would follow the apostles to the present day, it is not reasonable to to believe that the silences of these Johannine texts is anything other than signifying the scope of John 21 was to Peter’s restoration and not a hierarchy of subsequent church order (ecclesiology).

2.2 For Ourselves

Sibbes opens this section of Ch 2 as the sub-section 1, below:

1. What should we learn from this, but to `come boldly to the throne of grace’ (Heb. 4:16) in all our grievances? Shall our sins discourage us, when he appears there only for sinners? Are you bruised? Be of good comfort, he calls you.

Sibbes, Ch 2, Sec 2

Sibbes quotes the below passage from Hebrews (shown in five translations and the original Koine Greek). The key phrase that motivated Sibbes citation is translated “draw near with confidence” {NASB95}, “come boldly to” {NKJV}, “come near with freedom” {Young’s Literal, YLT}, “adeamus [adeo, approach] therefore with fiducia [trust, confidence, faith reliance, courage]” {Latin Vulgate}, and “prosérchomai [come, present tense / indicative verb, Strong’s G4334] then with parrēsía [freedom in speaking, even frankness, G3954]” {Koine Greek NT}.

It is too easy to pass by the great significance of this verse. We need to be reminded that one did not in the OT saunter unto any representation / presence of God in any sense of proper access. We would not, most of us, do such to an important person in government, industry, or in some religious context. God is of utmost holiness. Anyone who encountered some direct apprehension of God was struck down physically, psychologically, with blindness, and even sudden death. It would be well to meditate on these examples.

The Epistle to the Hebrews connects many dimensions of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ (“Christ” is Greek for Hebrew “Messiah”) with Yahweh / Jehovah (YHWH) of the OT, because they are in terms of Divine Being (Nature) the same Person. In the imagery of Heb.4:16 above, the locus is God’s Throne, and in particular that aspect of His Throne associated with “the Grace.”

Here we have the essence of our being as “bruised reeds.” Self-recognition of our being as such, is a great sign of God’s Love, exactly as we saw with the first four of the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount in the preceding discussion. And it is exactly, that recognition, that invites us to draw near to that Throne of Grace, even in boldness / confidence, despite being “bruised” because we have grasped an essential truth from the Gospel, the central testimony of the NT, namely: that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and ever sinner is one in the condition of a bruised reed.

However, such “boldness” (or “confidence,” more on this below) is not because we have become victorious or sin or our sin nature, on the one hand, nor because God is utterly indifferent to sin, as though one could attend a wedding feast wearing filthy clothes (as per one of the Lord’s parables), on the other hand. There is a third explanation, and the only possible one by which we have such admission to God’s Throne and it is this: God has by Grace alone, satisfied His Righteousness by the Redemption / Imputation / Reconciliation imparted through the finished Work of Jesus Christ. And by this means, and only by this means, not only do we have access to God’s presence, and to His love, we have it even by boldness, as the young son or daughter of some prominent, inaccessible major figure can be reached by their little beloved child.

A brief word study on the Koine Greek word parrēsía is helpful on this point, as given below:

Strong’s G3954. παρρησία parrēsía;… fem. noun from pás (3956), all, and rhḗsis (n.f.), the act of speaking. Freedom or frankness in speaking. NT meanings: freedom in speaking all that one thinks or pleases (Mark 8:32; John 7:13, 26; Acts 4:13, 29, 31); confidence or boldness, particularly in speaking (Acts 2:29; 28:31; 2 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 3:12; 6:19; Phil. 1:20; 1 Tim. 3:13; Phile. 1:8; Heb. 3:6; 10:35 [cf. 1 John 2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14]); plainness or exactness of speech (John 10:24; 11:14; 16:25, 29; 2 Cor. 3:12; Sept.: Prov. 13:5); openness, speaking publicly (John 18:20); freedom, liberty (Heb. 10:19); being in the public eye rather than being concealed (John 7:4 [cf. John 7:10]; John 11:54; Col. 2:15). Especially in Hebrews and 1 John the word denotes confidence which is experienced with such things as faith in communion with God, fulfilling the duties of the evangelist, holding fast our hope, and acts which entail a special exercise of faith. Parrēsía is possible as the result of guilt having been removed by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10:19 [cf. vv. 17, 18]; 1 John 3:21; 4:17) and manifests itself in confident praying and witnessing (Heb. 4:16; 1 John 5:14).

Deriv.: parrēsiázomai (G3955), [the root verb form of the noun] to speak boldly or freely.

Syn.: pepoíthēsis (4006), persuasion, assurance, confidence; phanerṓs (5320), manifestly, openly; orthṓs (3723), in a straight manner; alēthṓs (230), truly, indeed, verily; thársos (2294), courage; aphóbōs (870), without fear.

Ant.: phóbos (5401), fear; trómos (5156), trembling; deilía (1167), cowardice; ptóēsis (4423), shaking, alarm.

 Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers.

Sibbes’s next sub-section of Sec.2.2, is 2, which opens as below:

2.2 Let this support us when we feel ourselves bruised. …. No sound, whole soul shall ever enter into heaven. …. If Christ be so merciful as not to break me, I will not break myself by despair…

Sibbes, Ch 2, Sec. 2.2

Finally, in Sibbes’s sub-section 3 of Sec. 2:2 we see:

3….He `binds up the broken hearted’ (Isa. 61:1). As a mother is tenderest to the most diseased and weakest child, so does Christ most mercifully incline to the weakest. Likewise he puts an instinct into the weakest things to rely upon something stronger than themselves for support.

Ibid.

2.3 Who Are the Bruised Reeds?

In this final Section of Ch 2, Sibbes’s opens with a battery of key points about the healing, deliverance we have from our bruised reed condition beginning with the recognition that it, the bruising, began with God, and from God, and was / is to our benefit. We are actually, and indeed, “blessed” (Makarios) by our being bruised (poor, mourn, meek, hunger / thirst):

(1) By the bruised here is not meant those that are brought low only by crosses, but such as, by them, are brought to see their sin, which bruises most of all….He has wounded, and he must heal (Hos. 6:1). The Lord who has bruised me deservedly for my sins must bind up my heart again.

(2) Again, a man truly bruised judges sin the greatest evil, and the favor of God the greatest good.

(3) He would rather hear of mercy than of a kingdom.

(4) He has poor opinions of himself, and thinks that he is not worth the earth he treads on.

(5) Towards others he is not censorious, as being taken up at home, but is full of sympathy and compassion to those who are under God’s hand.

(6) He thinks that those who walk in the comforts of God’s Spirit are the happiest men in the world.

(7) He trembles at the Word of God (Isa. 66:2), and honours the very feet of those blessed instruments that bring peace unto him (Rom. 10:15).

(8) He is more taken up with the inward exercises of a broken heart than with formality, and is yet careful to use all sanctified means to convey comfort.

Sibbes, Ch 2, Sec. 2.3

Sibbes concludes Ch 2 highlighting the great reverse of recognizing ourselves as being bruised, and continuing to do so, because it is then and continually that which draws us to the Throne of God’s Grace, knowing we can so approach because it solely by Grace, but Grace which is completely sufficient. Amazing Grace.

…our encouragement to a thorough work of bruising, and patience under God’s bruising of us, let all know that none are fitter for comfort than those that think themselves furthest off.

Men, for the most part, are not lost enough in their own feeling for a Saviour.

A holy despair in ourselves is the ground of true hope. In God the fatherless find mercy (Hos. 14:3)

Ibid.

And in these days of political, legal, economic, social uncertainties–and worse than uncertainties–Sibbe’s quote above of Hos. 14:3 should give us great comfort. (Remember, that Assyria, was a terrifyingly powerful middle-eastern imperial army bent on destroying Israel and enslaving God’s people:

Sibbes Ch 3 is here:

In the book by Richard Sibbes entitled The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax he bases his discussion on certain key Scripture. Within such Scripture are certain “Key Words” worthy of deeper study, and reflection.

Collected here in the respective Greek and Hebrew word sections, respective to the NT and OT, are study resources on such Key Words. Most, if not nearly all, of the below comes from resources in Logos Bible Software (S/W).

Key Words, Broad Background

REED

A tall plant with a hollow stem that grows in marshes (Psa 68:30; Isa 19:6). Often used as a measuring rod or staff (e.g., Isa 36:6; Ezek 29:6; 40:3).

Key Passages of REED

Ex 2:3–4
When she could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the river bank. And his sister stood at a distance to know what would be done to him.

1 Ki 14:15
the Lord will strike Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land that he gave to their fathers and scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the Lord to anger.
2 Ki 18:21
Behold, you are trusting now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him.
Job 40:21
Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh.
Ps 68:30
Rebuke the beasts that dwell among the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves of the peoples. Trample underfoot those who lust after tribute; scatter the peoples who delight in war.
Is 19:6–7
and its canals will become foul, and the branches of Egypt’s Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will be parched, will be driven away, and will be no more.

OT Hebrew Key Words

BRUISED

7533 רָצַץ [ratsats /raw·tsats/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2212; GK 8368; 19 occurrences; AV translates as “oppressed” six times, “broken” four times, “break” three times, “bruised” twice, “crush” twice, “discouraged” once, and “struggle together” once. 1 to crush, oppress. 1a (Qal). 1a1 to crush, get crushed, be crushed. 1a2 to crush, oppress (fig). 1a3crushed (participle passive). 1b (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken. 1c (Piel). 1c1 to crush in pieces. 1c2 to grievously oppress (fig). 1d (Poel) to oppress (fig). 1e (Hiphil) to crush. 1f (Hithpoel) to crush each other.
 Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

REED

Strong’s H7070 קָנֶה [qaneh /kaw·neh/] n m. From 7069; TWOT 2040a; GK 7866; 62 occurrences; AV translates as “reed” 28 times, “branch” 24 times, “calamus” three times, “cane” twice, “stalk” twice, “balance” once, “bone” once, and “spearmen” once. 1 reed, stalk, bone, balances. 1a stalk. 1b water-plant, reed. 1c calamus (aromatic reed). 1d derived meanings. 1d1 measuring-rod. 1d2 reed (as unit of measure—6 cubits). 1d3 beam (of scales—for scales themselves). 1d4shaft (of lampstand). 1d5 branches (of lampstand). 1d6 shoulder-joint.
Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

OT Koine Greek (Septuagint, LXX) Key Words

NT Koine Greek Key Words

BRUISED

Strong’s G4937. συντρίβω suntríbō; fut. suntrípsō, from sún (4862), together or an intensive, and tríbō (5147), to break, rub. To break, strike against something, crush together, or break in pieces.

• (I) Particularly (Mark 5:4; 14:3; John 19:36; Rev. 2:27; Sept.: Ex. 12:46; Lev. 6:28; 26:13). Of a reed, to break so as to have a flaw or crack (Matt. 12:20, “a crushed reed shall he not break off” [a.t.] quoted from Is. 42:3).
• (II) Figuratively, to break the strength or power of someone, to crush, weaken, with the acc. (Luke 9:39, weakens him, breaks him down [cf. Mark 9:18 where the word is xēraínetai {3583}, dries up]). Of Satan, to break or crush his power (Rom. 16:20; Sept.: Josh. 10:10; Amos 3:15). In the pass. (Luke 4:18, “the brokenhearted” [cf. Sept.: Ps. 34:19; 51:19]).
• Deriv.: súntrimma (4938), a breaking to pieces, a broken piece.
• Syn.: sunthláō (4917), to break in pieces; sunthrúptō (4919), to weaken, break one’s heart; thraúō (2352), to shatter, bruise.
• Ant.: katartízō (2675), to mend, restore; sunarmologéō (4883), to fit together; apokathístēmi or apokathistánō(600), to restore.
• Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers.

Verb Usage BRUISED: συντρίβω (syntribō), vb. shatter; smash; crush. fut.act. συντρίψω; aor.act. συνέτριψα; aor.pass. συνετρίβην. Hebrew equivalent: שׁבר 1 (63).

1. to be broken† — to be or become separated into pieces or fragments. Related Topics: Destruction; Fragments; Break. Jn 19:36 Ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ.
2. to be shattered† — to be broken into many pieces. Related Topic: Break. Mk 5:4 καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι,
3. to be shattered (state)† — to be or become broken into many pieces. Re 2:27 ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται,
4. to overcome ⇔ crush† — to utterly defeat, conceived as breaking one’s opponent into small pieces. Related Topics: Conqueror; Conquer. Lk 9:39 καὶ μόγις ἀποχωρεῖ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ συντρῖβον αὐτόν· Ro 16:20 ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς
5. to be crushed (state)† — to be or become compressed out of natural shape or condition. Related Topic: Break. Mt 12:20 κάλαμον συντετριμμένον. Mk 14:3 συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον

Septuagint References Ex 12:10; Ex 12:46; Ps 2:9; Ps 33:19; Ps 33:21; Ps 50:19; Ps 146:3; Job 38:11; Is 42:3; Is 57:15; Is 61:1

REED

2563. κάλαμος kálamos; gen. kalámou, masc. noun. Flexible stalk or stem of a vegetable, hence the stalk of corn. The plant itself, a reed which is easily bent or shaken by the wind (Matt. 11:7; 12:20; “a bruised [crushed] reed,” quoted from Is. 42:3; Luke 7:24; Sept.: 1 Kgs. 14:15; Job 40:21), the stalk as cut for use, a reed, i.e., as a mock scepter (Matt. 27:29, 30; Mark 15:36). A stalk or stem of hyssop (Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:19 [cf. John 19:29]). A measuring reed or stick (Rev. 11:1; 21:15, 16; Sept.: Ezek. 40:3, 5, 6). A reed for writing, a quill (3 John 1:13; Sept.: Ps. 44:1).
● Syn.: rhábdos (4464), rod, staff, stick; kalámē (2562), stubble, straw.
● Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers.