Sibbes Study Session #4 - Making Scriptural Connections

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:

Ch 1 We are ‘bruised reeds’	Ch 2 Christ does not ‘break’ even ‘the bruised’
Ch 3 We are ‘smoking flax’	Ch 4 Christ does not ‘extinguish’ even ‘smoking wick’

Framework of Sibbes’s Book

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:

³He 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.
⁴Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
⁵But 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.
⁶All 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.