Through the Bible -- Mark 4:1-34

Previous chapters of Mark at bottom.
_________________________
1. In the Gospel of Mark up to this point, Jesus has healed. He has cast out demons. He has called disciples. We know that he has preached about the kingdom of God. But it is not really until Mark 4 that we get our first real excerpt of his teaching.

In Mark 4:33-34, we are told that Jesus routinely taught in parables -- or riddles, you might say. You may have heard at some point that parables were stories that made Jesus' point clearer. There was once a book on preaching titled, Learning to Preach Like Jesus whose premise was that the point of your preaching can be clearer if you use stories. [1]

But that is not the sense we get from Mark 4. After Jesus gives this "parable of the sower," he indicates that the purpose of the parables was to filter out those who "have ears to hear" (4:9) from those who do not. They were riddles of a sort. Jesus anticipates that, to those outside the kingdom, his riddles will be heard but not understood (4:12). Although they will see Jesus, they will not perceive him to be who he is.

Ironically, the disciples do not understand the meaning of the Parable of the Sower, whose point is that only those with ears to hear will understand. Jesus remarks, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any of my parables?" (4:13). They apparently do not have ears to hear.

Here is a second major theme of the Gospel of Mark. One theme is the "messianic secret," which refers to Jesus' consistent practice of veiling his true identity as Messiah. A second theme is the dullness of the disciples, their difficulty in understanding the nature of Jesus' mission and his core message. I have sometimes summarized this theme as "the disciples don't get it."

Yet the disciples are in a different category than the outsiders. Jesus will unveil the meaning of the parables for them. "To you has been given the secrets of the kingdom of God" (4:11).

Mark 4:34 says that Jesus didn't open his mouth without a parable -- an obvious hyperbole. But it is clear that parables were Jesus' main mode of teaching. When we then read the Gospel of John, we are immediately struck by the fact that there is not a single parable of Mark's type in it. It alerts us that the Gospel of John is not so much a literal, historical presentation of Jesus as a symbolic, theological one.

2. Jesus delivers the Parable of the Sower by the Sea of Galilee (4:1). The sea remains a centering feature of these chapters. Again, because the crowd is so large, Jesus teaches from a boat slightly off shore.

In the Parable of the Sower, seed is scattered everywhere. Jesus pictures four different types of soil in particular. There is the path. There is rocky "soil." There is soil where thorns are also present. Finally, there is good soil.

These four types of soil are a kind of allegory for how the word of God plays out among those who receive it. [2] For some people, the word of the good news goes in one ear and out the other. They are like spiritual Teflon -- nothing sticks. They might not have even heard you. They have no interest in the things of God or at least the true things of God. They are like seed spread on a path that the birds immediately eat. Satan snatches the word right out of their ears.

There is another kind of soil that is rocky. Because the seed cannot get any deep root, it springs up immediately but just as quickly withers in the sun. These are the shallow Christians, the "fair-weather" Christians. When the faith gets hard, when it demands something of you that makes you uncomfortable or requires you to sacrifice something, you're out of here.

These are also those who like Christian faith when it fits their culture. This can take place on either side. There is the sugar daddy Jesus who gives you everything you want and doesn't require any changes to your life. But there is also the political, militant Jesus who doesn't require you to change your tribal thinking or desire to squash those who are different. These are the cultural Christians who say they find Christianity attractive even though they don't believe in God, but what they find attractive is a skewed version of Christianity without Jesus.

The third soil has thorns alongside the wheat. It eventually chokes out the faith. This can be the cares of the world -- how can I feed my family. But it can also be the abundance of the world -- Mark singles our riches as well (4:19), The world takes over in this person's heart. Perhaps they go through the motions of faith but their heart is no longer in it.

Finally, there is good soil. It takes root. It goes deep. It doesn't wither with correction or persecution. It keeps looking to Jesus even though the cares of the world might try to crowd him out. It reproduces and bears fruit manyfold. 

3. We get to hear these interpretations because the disciples do not understand what Jesus is saying without Jesus' interpretation. But Jesus is willing to give it to those who seek it. I have heard individuals use this parable as an argument for predestination -- you are predestined to be a certain kind of soil. 

However, note that the disciples get to understand. They are not good soil initially, but they take the first step. They ask for Jesus to explain. And so there can be movement from bird food to good soil. Lord, help us to see what we do not see.

4. Mark has probably taken some loose sayings of Jesus and put them here alongside the Parable of the Seeds. We should not find this a problem as it wasn't a problem in Mark's day. Many have a strange expectation that we almost need to be looking at a videotape of Jesus. But Mark's concern was likely to include as much of Jesus' teaching as he could practically fit in an orderly way rather than to give us a blow-by-blow of the order in which things happened. Matthew 13 will expand these parables even further.

Mark gives us three additional parables alongside the Parable of the Sower, a fitting place to put them. First is the parable of the lamp and the bushel basket. You don't put a lamp under a basket because the purpose of the lamp is to give light. And the things you try to hide will eventually come to light (4:22). If the sequence of thought seems a little unclear, it could be because Mark is collecting a few of Jesus' different sayings into one place.

What I mean is that Jesus' sayings likely circulated only by word of mouth for decades. That doesn't mean that they got all messed up like the telephone game -- that's a bad representation of the process. In the telephone game, you whisper something around the room and then see how messed up the message is by the time it gets to the last person. The person who whispered the original message says what it was in comparison to how it gets mangled going around the room.

But in the first century, the message was not whispered, it was preached publicly. Like the end of the telephone game, the first disciples were still "in the room" for decades to correct any inaccuracies in the message. Further, recent studies have shown that the core of oral tradition is usually quite persistent, although the details often vary on the edges. [3] This is exactly what we find in the Gospel traditions.

So it seems likely that Mark has placed some individual oral sayings of Jesus here and there as seemed appropriate. When the train of thought is unclear, that could be a sign of a collection of sayings (e.g., Mark 9:49-50). Of course, it could simply be our (or my) problem of not realizing how the train of thought actually goes. In the end, each statement is true one way or another.

5. One of those sayings preserved here in Mark 4 is that God gives more to the one who has, and takes away from the person who doesn't have (4:25). The measure you give is the measure you get (4:24). If you give more, you get more. These are riddles which, unfortunately, have been twisted in unhelpful directions.

For example, some might take these to say that you will automatically prosper materially the more you give to others. Others have taken these saying as a kind of divine blessing on the rich and curse upon the poor. The poor should have everything taken away, and the rich are those whom God likes. These are self-indulgent interpretations (me, me, me) rather than interpretations with the spirit of Jesus.

The key is not to think of what one "has" in terms of possessions but in terms of faith. When one has faith, more will be given. Also, 4:24 speaks of giving as the key to "getting more," but the more one gets is not money or possessions but divine favor.

6. The parables of the growing seed and the mustard seed are similar in meaning. You can't always see growth in the short term. It seems to happen when you're not even looking. Then suddenly it is there blossoming. The mustard tree is one of the biggest bushes known in Israel, yet it starts out so small to begin with. 

Such is the kingdom of God. You do not always perceive how God is growing it. Yet, suddenly, it is time for the harvest or suddenly, it has grown so much that the birds nest in its shade. No doubt at times the growth of the kingdom did not seem great at first. As we can infer from what Paul says in Romans 9-11, Israel did not seem to embrace Jesus as its Messiah. 

But God's kingdom was growing nonetheless, even if it was not always apparent. The time for harvest would come before you knew it. Then Christ would reign and all would be right.

[1] Ralph Lewis and Greg Lewis, Learning to Preach Like Jesus (Crossway, 1989).

[2] In the late eighteen hundreds, the German scholar Adolf Jülicher suggested that Jesus wouldn't have used allegory (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu). He argued that any allegories in the Gospels were later additions by the church and that Jesus' original parables would have only had a single point.

I think he meant well, but my reaction has always been, "Who says?" Silly German categorizers with anti-Catholic biases. If Jesus wants to use an allegory, he can use an allegory. You and your silly rules.

[3] The work of Kenneth Bailey has been very helpful here, although there are perhaps some extremes to his work (e.g., his chiastic interpretation of 1 Corinthians). For an excellent yet measured presentation of these basic insights, see James D. G. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Baker Academic, 2005).

_________________________
Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection)

7.1 How we "know" what we think we know

Selections of earlier material will eventually appear at the bottom.
_____________________
1. In the first six chapters, we have tried to pull back the veil on some of our potentially false pretenses to knowledge. Quite often, we start off with a "unitary" way of thinking about a subject or way of behaving. We just think that way and we aren't necessarily very aware of why. We behave a certain way more or less without reflection. It's just the way we do it. These are unexamined assumptions.

It isn't practical to question everything all the time. We grow up trained to work on cultural autopilot. We don't think about whether to put our socks on before our shoes. We just do it. If we are hungry in the western world, we don't likely catch a lizard to fry up.

We just know you can kill a spider but not a dog. We just know that Christians vote for Republicans because of abortion or that Christians vote for Democrats because of people in need. We just know that things are getting worse and worse before Jesus returns or that we need to work to make the world a better place. We just know that all people need to be treated with respect or that some types of people should be treated with suscpicion.

Then we are exposed to the "other side." Someone points out that we crossed the street because a black person was coming toward us on the sidewalk. Someone makes a Democrat sound virtuous. We get defensive or go on the attack. We go into "binary," us-them mode. "That's not why I crossed the street!" "That's not really how Democrats are!" 

In the second half of the book, we'll go back through the areas we have introduced and discuss them from a more "spectrum" approach. We'll ask about the main options that philosophers of the ages have suggested as answers to ultimate questions. That process begins with this chapter as we begin to talk more objectively about how "knowing" actually works from a "meta" perspective.

If you wish, consider what follows a heuristic device. For some, it will come across as very modern in a postmodern age. However, I would maintain that such a conversation remains more useful than some postmodern sharing of perspectives that mainly improves our relationship with each other. Modernism is like looking under the hood of a car that isn't running properly. If it helps the car run more smoothly, it's more useful than two people sharing their perspectives on the car without its performance improving.

2. René Descartes (1596-1650) is often considered a turning point in epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Epistemology asks how we know that we know what we think we know. How does "truth" work?

The claim has often been made that, prior to Descartes, there was clearly discussion of what is true and discussion of the sources of truth. But there was largely an unexamined assumption about our human reliability as knowers. If our senses were considered a source of truth, it was assumed that our senses were more or less reliable. More often our human reason was assumed to be a reliable source of truth.

As a sidenote, it is sometimes claimed that Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a very important Christian thinker from the "Middle" Ages, did not believe that our human reason was fallen. It seems to me that this is a somewhat unfair accusation in that the very question assumes a post-Cartesian perspective ("Cartesian" refers to Descartes' way of thinking). That is to say, before Descartes everyone more or less assumed as an unexamined assumption that human thinking worked. It just wasn't an issue yet. So even if Aquinas more or less assumed that human reason worked, he largely did so as the common assumption of his day. Further, he did believe that the mind could be clouded by sin.

From a Christian standpoint, there was also the unexamined assumption that we somehow automatically know what the Bible means. Luther and Calvin were largely unreflective in the 1500s about themselves as interpreters. People debated the meaning of the Bible, but they did not see the role their own assumptions and paradigms played in the process of interpretation. Most Christians today remain unaware of the role their paradigms play in their interpretations -- as we will explore in more depth later in this chapter.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the same unexamined assumptions applied to church dogma. There was no discussion of the historical and cultural forces at work on on the participants in the Council of Nicaea or the ebbs and flows of ideological trendlines in church history. If you were Roman Catholic, you assumed that the received dogmas were correct. If you were Orthodox, you assumed the received Orthodox perspectives were correct. Debates were really proxies for intergroup relations.

3. The time of Descartes was a time of unprecedented epistemological uncertainty. Protestantism had dethroned the church as the authoritative source of truth. Instead, Luther had called Christians back to the Bible, as John Wycliffe and John Huss had tried. If it was not found in Scripture, it must not be required of belief or practice.

However, as a text, the Bible is susceptible to a myriad of possible interpretations and integrations. From the moment Luther and Zwingli were unable to reconcile their biblical understandings of communion in 1529, the course of Protestantism was revealed to be one of endless multiplication of interpretation. Martin Marty once estimated that there were over 20,000 individual Protestant groups. All of these have their own interpretations of the Bible.

By the time of Descartes, there were now Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Anabaptists, and more. Who decides what the Bible means? The answer was largely local and "tribal."

It seems to me that it is no coincidence that rationalism (the mind as the source of truth) and empiricism (our senses as the source of truth) rose to prominence as epistemologies in the 1600s. They had been around in ancient times. Plato was largley a rationalist. Aristotle had elements of both rationalism and empiricism. But Plato and Aristotle still largely took a "what you think is what you get" or "what you see is what you get" approach. That is to say, they largely assumed the reliability of whichever path of truth they chose.

Descartes questioned almost everything. [1] Are my senses reliable? Are my assumptions about truth reliable? He doubted everything he could doubt until he thought he couldn't doubt any more. "I think; therefore, I am" was his conclusion (cogito ergo sum). What he couldn't doubt is that he was doubting.

Even here, I would say he had unexamined assumptions. Chiefly, he assumed that "I" is something that exists. He more or less assumed that he was a unitary entity that existed. I would modify his saying to something like "I think; therefore, something exists." I think therefore existence (cogito ergo esse). In the venacular, you might say, "I think, therefore, stuff." What that "stuff" is goes beyond what we can know for certain.

Descartes fought his way back from that ultimate doubt, sneaking in assumptions of reason into the process. "If this is true, then that has to be true." He assumed the operations of reason. His road was paved with rationalist assumptions. If you could conceive of something clearly and distinctly, it was true. This seems to me potentially a horribly unreliable criterion.

4. At about the same time, Francis Bacon was developing the scientific method (1561-1626). [2] Later in the 1600s, John Locke (1632-1704) would lay a more philosophical groundwork for empiricism as a path to knowledge. The path to truth is through our senses. "Seeing is believing." Building on a tradition that ran from Aristotle through Aquinas, Locke would agree with them that there was nothing in our mind that wasn't first in our senses. [3]

For Locke, we are born with a blank slate, a "tabula rasa." [4] ...

[1] See Descartes' work, Discourse on Method.

[2] See Bacon's work, Novum Organum.

[3] Aristotle qualified this -- "except the mind itself." In this way, his language anticipated what we will explore later in the chapter.

[4] See Locke's work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

_____________________________
Previously,
1.1 Unexamined Assumptions
1.2 "Unitary" Thinking
2.1 Binary Thinking in Ethics
2.2 Contextualization in Missions
2.3 Beyond Relativism and Absolutes

Through the Bible -- Mark 3

Sunday summaries of Mark continue for Through the Bible. Previously:

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection)

_________________________

1. At the end of Mark 2, Jesus got into his first conflict over the Sabbath. There, it was because his disciples were picking grain to eat as they walked through a field. In the story, the Pharisees consider this harvesting -- working on the Sabbath and thus breaking the commandment. Jesus quotes Scripture to show that the Sabbath commandment is not an absolute. There are exceptions, and he is one of them.

Immediately following at the beginning of Mark 3, we have another Sabbath story involving Pharisees (3:1-6). [1] In ths case, there is a man who is not whole physically. Jesus senses that some who are more legalistic are watching to see if he will "break the Law" by healing on the Sabbath. Of course, this is not breaking the Law. This is breaking their interpretation of the Law, which was wrong. [2]

Jesus sets their priorities straight. Life is more important than a rule for its own sake. It angers him, their out-of-focus view of things. God's laws are for our benefit, not mere tests of obedience. They need to grow up in their sense of God's priorities. God makes exceptions. He heals the man, and we see for the first time the beginnings of plots to kill him. 

This is one of only three times that the Herodians are mentioned in the New Testament. We have to make an educated guess about who they were. Quite possibly, they were a group that wanted to see a Herod as ruler of Israel again, as opposed to a Roman governor like Pontius Pilate.

2. Word gets out that people get healed when Jesus is around. Those possessed with evil spirits are liberated. The result is that Jesus is mobbed. Here he gets a little offshore in a boat to preach to the crowds so he doesn't get mobbed (3:7-12). We see him withdrawing for the first time.

We see the second instance of Mark's "messianic secret" theme. When Jesus engages evil spirits, he commands them not to tell others that he is the Son of God (3:11-12). They must obey. It is not Jesus' time yet. Peter is the first human to confess it in Mark 8:29. But the first human to get that this means he will die for humanity is the centurion at the cross in 15:39.

3. In 3:13-19, we have the chosing of the 12 core disciples. This number seems to echo the twelve tribes of Israel. The implication seems to be that Jesus mission involves the restoration of Israel. This is certainly how the disciples themselves seem to have understood it (Acts 1:6).

The lists in the Gospels differ a little from each other, leading tradition to line up various ones from the different accounts. The list here in Mark 3 is Simon (Peter), his brother Andrew, and the brothers James and John the sons of Zebedee. These are the core disciples in Mark. Then there was Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas. There is James the son of Alphaeus, sometimes called "James the Less." Then the list finishes out with Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

Mark adds some details. We are reminded that Peter or "Rock" was a name that Jesus gave Simon. It wasn't his given name. In Aramaic, the actual name Jesus gave him was Cephas. We are told that Jesus called James and John the "sons of thunder" (3:17). We can see that thunder in the book of Revelation! Thaddaeus might be Judas son of James in Luke 6:16. 

It is interesting that the second Simon is called "Simon the Zealot." The Zealots were not an organized group until around the time of the Jewish War in AD66-70. Mark would have known this group. It seems natural therefore to think that Simon may have participated in the war. Otherwise, he surely would have avoided the term as Matthew does.

4. In the final part of the chapter, the opposition to Jesus increases (3:20-35). Interestingly, his family tries to talk some sense into him (3:21). His mother and brothers arrive and try to get him to come out of a house where he has been so mobbed that they can't even eat (3:20, 31). 

Jesus distances himself from his family. They don't see the big picture. Perhaps there is also some envy. You think of his brothers who were born legitimately and so could do what siblings do, needling Jesus for being born before their parents were fully married. Later, his brother James still seems a little too preoccupied with purity laws in the face of the mission (Gal. 2:12).

Jesus astoundingly (especially for that day) puts the will of God above his family. "Those who do the will of my Father are my brothers and sisters" (Mark 3:35). The church is a new family that is more real than one's biological family. Note that even Mary does not seem to fully understand what is going on. Joseph, quite possibly, is already out of the picture.

5. "Headquarters" is getting involved. Teachers of the Law have heard about Jesus and have come "down" from Jerusalem. "Down" in this context relates to the fact that Jerusalem is elevated but also reminds us that our sense of north as up is part of our worldview. They are there to exert their power and control over things religious. Jesus is a charismatic fly in their ointment. He hasn't gone through the proper ordination process that might involve their approval. Who does he think he is? He needs to be brought under control or at least knocked down to size.

Not going to happen. They accuse him of using the power of Satan (Beelzebul) to cast out demons. Jesus looks at them like they're crazy. Don't put any of these guys in charge of a battle because they'll have their own side attacking their own side. Satan doesn't fight himself!

Organizationally, there is great insight here, as we would expect. If an organization is full of infighting and backstabbing, without trust between its members, it's not going to do so well. "A house divided against itself cannot stand," Jesus said (3:25). These are words Lincoln would quote during the Civil War as he tried to keep the country together as a union.

6. It is in this context that Jesus articulates what is called the "unpardonable sin." The unpardonable sin is attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit. It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is a warning to us today not to attribute to Satan works that could actually be the work of God. I have sometimes thought of those who might suggest tongues-speaking is of the Devil. I would be very careful.

Some of those with a overly sensitive conscience have wondered if they might have committed such a sin. I remember hearing a story of a man who was faithful to the church, tithed faithfully, and was in all respects one of the most eager helpers. But when asked if he would join the board, he said he couldn't because he had once committed the unpardonable sin.

No one should worry about the unpardonable sin. If it is true that the Holy Spirit draws us to him, then anyone who truly comes to God in repentance has not committed this sin. After all, it is the Spirit that makes that repentance possible. Any prodigal can return if his or her repentance is genuine.

In this case, these teachers of the law are way past that point. They have a form of godliness but without the power. They once had a choice but now their heart is hardened of their own doing. They have the official position but no position in God's kingdom. So often those who hold official positions of power on earth are nothing from a heavenly perspective.

[1] Remember that the chapter divisions were added later. Mark has clustered these two stories together side by side likely because of their common engagement of the Sabbath. Mark did.not likely arrange all of the stories in chronological order. In these early chapters, we see some thematic grouping and also a sense of increasingly conflict.

[2] We should not think that these individuals represented all Pharisees either. It is hard to see the famous Hillel having any problem with Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath.

从神而生之人的伟大特权 （约翰·卫斯理讲道19）

“凡从神生的就不犯罪。”（约翰一书 3:9）

一、称义与重生的区别

1. 人们常常以为“从神而生”与“称义”是同一回事，认为“重生”与“称义”只是表达同一个概念的不同方式。确实，凡称义的也是从神生的，凡从神生的也必定是称义的，并且这两样恩典常常在信徒生命中是同时发生的：在同一时刻，他的罪被涂抹，他也因神而重生。

2. 尽管如此，称义和重生虽然在时间上不可分割，却在本质上有着显著的不同。称义只是关系上的改变，重生却是实质性的更新。称义是神为我们成就的事，使我们与神和好，从敌人成为儿女。而重生则是神在我们里面的工作，使我们由罪人转变为圣徒。称义除去罪的定罪，重生则除去罪的权势。因此，虽然这两者在时间上同时发生，但性质上却迥然不同。

3. 没有区分这两者，导致许多人在解释“凡从神生的就不犯罪”这个伟大特权时思想混乱。

4. 为了清楚理解这一点，我们需要：

• 首先，思考“凡从神生的”这句话的正确含义；
• 其次，探究“他就不犯罪”在什么意义上成立。

I. “凡从神生的”是什么意思

1. “从神生的”这一说法，并不单指受洗或任何外在的改变，而是指一种极其重大的内在变化，是圣灵在灵魂里所做的更新工作。一个人从神生了之后，他的生活方式与以往截然不同，仿佛进入了另一个世界。

2. 这个说法的含义其实很容易理解。因为属灵的重生与自然出生有诸多相似之处，所以理解自然出生的过程，有助于我们理解属灵重生的意义。

3. 一个未出生的婴儿虽然靠空气维持生命，但几乎没有感知能力。他几乎听不见，看不见，生活在黑暗之中。他也许有些微弱的生命迹象，但灵魂的感官尚未开启。

4. 他对这个世界一无所知，不是因为世界离他远，而是因为他的感官尚未打开，且有一道厚厚的帷幕将他与世界隔绝。

5. 然而，一旦婴儿出生，他的感知就大大改变。他开始呼吸空气，身体各个感官也随之觉醒。他的眼睛看见光，耳朵听见声音，开始与这个世界建立联系，获得新的知识与经验。

6. 属灵重生也是如此。一个人尚未重生时，虽然“生活、动作、存留都在乎神”，但他对神毫无知觉。神的呼唤他听不见，神的事对他没有影响。他可能有一些属灵生命的萌芽，但没有属灵的感官，无法感知属灵之事。

7. 他与看不见的属灵世界几乎没有交集。不是因为这世界远离他，而是因为他没有属灵的感官，也因为一道厚重的帷幕隔绝了他。

8. 但当他从神而生，重生之后，他的全人就对神变得敏锐。他能够经历神的同在，并且能在爱与祷告中不断回应神的爱。这种属灵的呼吸持续不断，使他的属灵生命日益增长，各种属灵感官也逐渐觉醒。

9. 他的“心眼”打开了，看见了那看不见者。他清楚知道神赦免了他的罪，并且因基督的面得见神的荣耀。他活在神的光中。

10. 他的耳朵也打开了，能听见神的声音。他遵行神的呼召，与看不见的属灵世界有清晰的联系，经历属灵的平安、喜乐与爱。他“住在神里面”，而神也“住在他里面”。

II. “他就不犯罪”是什么意思

1. 明白了“从神生的”的含义后，我们继续探讨“他就不犯罪”的意义。

一个真正从神生的人，持续接受圣灵的恩典，并在信、望、爱与祷告中不断回应神。只要他这样行，他就不会犯罪。“那存在他里面的种子”（就是信心与爱）保守他，使他不能犯罪。

2. 这里所说的“罪”，是指明显的、外在的、故意的违背神已知律法的行为。而“凡从神生的”，在持续信靠与爱神的状态中，不仅不会，而且不能这样犯罪。

3. 然而，一个疑难问题随之而来。许多显然是从神生的人，确实曾犯过明显的外在之罪，这如何与约翰的断言相符呢？

4. 大卫就是一个例子。他明明是属神的、爱神的、敬虔祷告的神的儿女，但他却犯了奸淫与谋杀的罪。

5. 新约中也有例子。巴拿巴曾被圣灵呼召与保罗同工，但后来因争论而离开了事工。

6. 彼得在安提阿也犯了罪。他因惧怕犹太人而与外邦人分离，行为不合福音的真理。

7. 这些事例表明，从神生的人若不保守自己，就可能犯罪。只有在他“保守自己”的时候，恶者才无法触摸他。

8. 大卫的例子可以进一步说明。他虽然爱神，却在疏忽、失去对神的专注时被诱惑。他没有回应圣灵的警告，心中罪恶的欲望逐渐生根，最终导致了外在的罪行。

9. 这显示出人如何从恩典一步步滑向罪恶。从爱神到接受诱惑、爱冷淡、信心软弱、拒绝圣灵、欲望滋生，最终陷入外在的罪。

10. 彼得的例子也是如此。他曾凭信心活在神面前，却因怕人而屈服于试探，失去了信心与爱心，最终犯下明显的罪。

因此，“凡从神生的就不犯罪”这话是真实的，只要他保守自己。但若不如此，他就可能犯各样的罪。

III. 结论与教训

1. 首先，我们学到，外在的罪总是发生在失去信心之后。在犯外在之罪前，必先经历了某种程度上的内在犯罪与信心衰退。

2. 其次，属神之人的生命是持续不断与神互动的生命。神不断向他施恩，而他则不断以爱、赞美与祷告回应神。

3. 再次，我们看到，若没有这不断的回应，属灵生命就无法持续。若人拒绝回应神的爱与光，圣灵最终将离开他，他将陷入黑暗。

4. 最后，正如使徒所说，“不要自高，反要惧怕。”让我们时刻警醒，警惕罪比死亡或地狱更可怕。即使今天我们站立得住，也要小心，不可自满。让我们不断地祷告，常常信靠与爱神，这样我们就必永不犯罪。

重生的标记（约翰·卫斯理讲道18）

重生的标记

约翰·卫斯理
讲道第十八篇
（1872年版，托马斯·杰克逊编辑）

“凡从圣灵生的，都是如此。”（约翰福音 3:8）

一、重生的第一个标记，也是其他所有标记的基础，就是信心。

第二个属圣经的标记是盼望。

第三个属圣经的标记，也是最重要的，就是爱。

什么是重生？

每一个“从圣灵而生”的人，也就是重生的人，都是从神而生。那么，重生到底意味着什么？什么是从神而生，或从圣灵而生？成为神的儿子或神的儿女，或者拥有“儿子的灵”，意味着什么？我们知道，这些特权通常是通过神的怜悯，在洗礼中赐下的（因此主耶稣在上一节称其为“水和圣灵的洗”）。但我们希望进一步了解这些特权的内涵：究竟什么是重生？

或许没有必要对它做出严格的定义，因为圣经也没有。但这个问题对每一个人都极为重要，因为“若有人不重生，他就不能见神的国。”因此，我打算用最简单的方式，正如圣经所描述的，陈述重生的标记。

一、信心

第一个标记，也是所有其他标记的基础，是信心。正如保罗所说：“你们因信基督耶稣，都是神的儿子。”（加拉太书 3:26）约翰也说：“凡接待他的，就是信他名的人，他就赐他们权柄作神的儿女；这等人不是从血气生的，不是从情欲生的，也不是从人意生的，乃是从神生的。”（约翰福音 1:12-13）又在书信中说：“凡信耶稣是基督的，都是从神生的。”（约翰一书 5:1）

但这里所说的信心，并非只是头脑的同意或理论上的认知。这不仅是认同“耶稣是基督”这一命题，或赞同《使徒信经》与《旧新约圣经》所有教义。魔鬼也相信这些，却依然与神为敌。因此，这里所讲的不是死的信心，而是活的、真实的基督徒信心。这信心是神放在我们心里的，是确实的倚靠，是对神的信赖，相信借着基督的功劳，我们的罪已得赦免，与神和好。

这种信心意味着，人首先要弃绝自己，完全依靠基督，而非倚靠自己的行为或义。他承认自己是罪人，无可夸口，彻底需要救主。这种对罪的深刻认识（尽管常被误称为绝望），加上对基督救恩的切望，是活信心的前提。真正的信心是信靠那位为我们舍命、完成律法义务的救主。

这种信心的即时和持续的果效，就是胜过罪的能力——胜过一切外在的恶行，也胜过内心的不洁。这就是保罗在罗马书第六章中所说的：“这样，我们既然在罪上死了，怎能仍在罪中活着呢？”（罗马书 6章）我们与基督同钉十字架，使罪的身体灭绝。信心的人对罪是死的，对神却是活的。“罪必不能作你们的主。”（罗马书 6:14）

约翰也同样强调：“凡从神生的，就不犯罪；因为神的道存在他心里，他也不能犯罪，因为他是从神生的。”（约翰一书 3:9）一些人试图解释为“不习惯性犯罪”，但经文中并没有“习惯性”的字样。圣经明说“他不犯罪”。若有人添加自己的解释，实在是危险之举。

约翰在第五章继续说：“我们知道凡从神生的，必不犯罪；从神生的必保守自己，恶者也就无法害他。”（约翰一书 5:18）

这种信心的另一个果效就是平安。“我们既因信称义，就借着我们的主耶稣基督得与神相和。”（罗马书 5:1）耶稣在离世前曾说：“我留下平安给你们，我将我的平安赐给你们。”（约翰福音 14:27）这种出人意外的平安，是任何环境、任何痛苦都无法夺去的。它使神的儿女无论在顺境还是逆境中都能喜乐知足。

二、盼望

第二个标记是盼望。彼得说：“愿颂赞归与我们主耶稣基督的父神，他曾照自己的大怜悯，借耶稣基督从死里复活，重生了我们，叫我们有活泼的盼望。”（彼得前书 1:3）

这盼望不同于死的盼望。活泼的盼望出于神，必带来圣洁的生活。正如经上说：“凡有这指望的，就洁净自己，像基督洁净一样。”（彼得前书 1:3）

这盼望包括良心的见证，即我们在“单纯和虔诚”中行事；还包括圣灵的见证，向我们的心灵见证我们是神的儿女。若是儿女，便是神的后嗣，与基督同作后嗣。（罗马书 8:16-17）

神的灵与我们的心灵同作见证：“我们是神的儿女。”这是主耶稣所应许的安慰，是痛苦转为喜乐的根源。即使在试炼中，活泼的盼望也带来说不出的喜乐。

三、爱

第三个标记，也是最重要的标记，是爱——“神的爱借着所赐给我们的圣灵浇灌在我们心里。”（罗马书 5:5）

圣灵在我们里面呼叫“阿爸，父！”（加拉太书 4:6）我们因爱神，常常呼求祂，依靠祂，喜乐于祂。祂是我们心中的喜乐和满足。

“凡爱那生他的，也必爱从他生的。”（约翰一书 5:1）爱神的人必爱主耶稣基督，也爱众弟兄姐妹。正如经上说：“我们因为主舍命，知道何为爱，我们也当为弟兄舍命。”（约翰一书 3:16）这爱甚至包括我们的仇敌。

真正的爱必结出顺服的果子。约翰说：“我们遵守神的命令，这就是爱他。”（约翰一书 5:3）爱神不仅仅是外在的行为，更是内在的情感。爱必使我们在行为上顺从神，活出圣洁与良善。

四、结语

我已经清楚陈述了圣经中重生的标记。重生之人是凭信心不犯罪，享有神赐出人意外的平安；是靠盼望充满喜乐和荣耀；是靠爱心顺服神，爱人如己。

你们中间有谁是从神生的？你们自己知道。不要靠洗礼的记号自满。问问自己：“我现在是神的儿女吗？圣灵住在我里面吗？”若没有，单靠过去的洗礼并不能证明你是重生的。

不要说“我受过洗礼，所以我现在是神的儿女”。许多受过洗礼的人仍然活在罪中，是魔鬼的儿女。因此，你必须重生。

如果你没有这些属神儿女的标记——无论你受没受洗——你就必须得着，否则你必灭亡。你唯一的盼望，就是重新得着“作神儿女的权柄”，得着圣灵的内住与更新。

阿们，主耶稣！ 愿每一位愿意寻求你的人都重新领受那“儿子的灵”，呼叫“阿爸，父！” 让他们凭信心成为神的儿女，得着你宝血的救赎与赦罪。让他们如今被重新生为有活泼盼望的人，如你一样洁净。愿圣灵充满他们，使他们完全，圣洁敬畏神！