When We Pray... Part 5 "Debts and Debtors" Matthew 6:12

 December 10, 2023

Sermon Series: When We Pray…

Today’s Message: Part 5 “Debts and Debtors”

Matthew 6:12

Mountain View Evangelical Missionary Church

We are going to jump right into today’s sermon. I’m sorry I don’t have any pithy stories or relevant illustrations from today’s movies or TV shows. We are going to examine something that has eternal consequences, so forgive me if I don’t have something to make you chuckle or make me seem hip and trendy. I’m not that guy.

Let’s do a quick recap, and then get to the passage. I will warn you right now, I’m going to challenge you and force you to ask yourself some hard questions and you may have to think about why you believe what you believe.

Truth is what I seek. Biblical truth over simple kind words or church tradition.

So far, we have examined this prayer in Matthew chapter 6 which is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Entire books and commentaries have been written on these passages starting in Matthew 5:3 through to Matthew 7:29. This would have been one single sermon given by the Lord Himself to a large crowd that had gathered to hear Him teach. Contrary to what those Biblical scholars at The Chosen portray, Jesus was not nervous and didn’t need rehearsing or advice from Peter before He delivered this message.

We have zeroed in on a small portion of the original message and this is now the fifth week we have been looking at what Jesus taught about prayer. The depth of knowledge contained in these few verses is astounding to me. I hope you have been enjoying the series so far.

By the way, if you have missed any message, or you would like to read again something that you have heard, all of the sermon transcripts from this series so far, can be found on my blog: Oh Those Bereans. The address is found on the resources page of our bulletin and there will be a link on the church’s website soon as well.

Now, on to the recap:

So far, we have learned:

1. Do not pray hypocritically. Like so many other areas of our Christian lives, Jesus is concerned with our heart attitude when it comes to our prayers and our prayer life.
2. We are not limited to a “sacred space” such as a prayer closet but, rather… we should think that we are entering a sacred space when we pray because we are entering into the Father’s presence.
3. We saw that Father knows best. We must trust that when the Lord grants, delays, or denies our prayer requests,
4. We then learned that because the Father knows best we are to pray to the Father. The prayer found here in Matthew 6 and a similar prayer found in Luke 11 are examples of how we are to pray, and not specifically the words that we are to pray every time.
5. We also learned that we should think of prayer as a form of worship.
6. We have then examined that since prayer is a form of worship, and worship is reserved for God alone, we are not to pray to anyone else except to God, preferably to the Father. We can pray to Jesus, for He intercedes on our behalf, but the example that Jesus sets for us is to pray to the Father.

Moving along in the series, we have seen:

7. We read how God’s name is to be regarded as “hallowed” or Holy and should be spoken with a sense of awe and reverence.
8. Then the thought that God is a King and He has a Kingdom. As followers of Jesus, we should be anticipating that the Lord will return, and the thought of His Kingdom reinforces our need to make Him Lord.
9. We discovered that one of the purposes of prayer was to bend our will to God’s will.
10. Most recently, we dealt with the “missing” verse from this prayer as recorded in the Bible.
11. We then discovered that the Father is a giver.
12. Because He is a giver, the Father meets our daily needs. God does not provide today like He did as recorded in the Book of Exodus. Manna no longer falls from Heaven. Instead, the Lord provides through the opportunities that He gives us to work.
13. Because the Father is a giver, we too are to be givers.

OK, that’s enough of the recap. Let us open our Bibles or turn to our devices and let’s look together at today’s passage. Please turn to Mathew chapter six starting at verse 9.

If you don’t have your Bible with you today, there should be a Bible underneath one of the seats in the row in front of you.

I am going to once again, read the entire prayer so that we will have context for today’s lesson, and then we will drill down on today’s passage. Please follow along in your Bibles with me.

READ MATTHEW 6:9-15

PRAY

OK, let’s take a look at today's passage a little closer. First, we will read Matthew 6:12.

READ MATTHEW 6:12

I have titled today’s message: “Debts and Debtors…” for pretty obvious reasons, that is exactly what the passage mentions, but what do those terms mean biblically? Debt has a variety of meanings. We have simple definitions and then we have more complex psychological understandings, and finally, we have deep theological interpretations of the concept of debt.

On the surface, we could be talking about borrowed money, our credit cards, our mortgages, or car loans.

The Bible does speak to these things, there is the familiar verse from Proverbs 22:7 which states, “⁷ The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.”

Psalm 37:21 teaches us, “²¹ The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously:”

Romans 13:8 instructs us, “⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.”

So, we see that the Bible is clear about debt and owing others money that we have borrowed. There is some real practical thinking in this advice. Does that mean that we shouldn’t have mortgages or car loans. Not necessarily, but the Bible does warn that we should consider all the costs that are associated with borrowing.

However, just look at the stress that these inflationary times are causing for those who have mortgage renewals coming up. So many of the younger people thought that interest rates would remain forever low. Most of us are old enough to remember when the senior Trudeau was Prime Minister and the interest rates we had at that time. When I was 18, my first truck loan was at 18% interest rate. I remember in the 1980’s people walking away from their homes when the mortgages were to be renewed, simply because they couldn’t afford the higher interest rates.

Every day, I drive past the campground across from Zion church and I am saddened at the people who are living in trailers or campers in the campground this time of year. These people are clearly, the working poor who find themselves without a house for a variety of reasons. These people will not show up on a statistic sheet anywhere. They will remain unknown and unreported victims of this economy.

Clearly, the Bible has some wisdom to teach us about owing other men money or debts, but that is not what this passage is speaking about is it? Why would we pray to the Father for Him to forgive us our debts that are owed to other men? I mean, I’m sure we are tempted to ask the Lord for something similar to that when there is too much month left at the end of the money. But that is not what Jesus is teaching His disciples here.

To understand this a little more clearly, we must look to the meaning in the original language.

The Greek word ὀφείλημα ŏphĕilēma, of-i´-lay-mah; stems from the alternate form of ὀφείλω ŏphĕilō, of-i´-lo (S.3784); which figuratively means something owed, or a due that is owed; morally it refers to a fault. In the classic Greek usage of the word ŏphĕilēma, (of-i´-lay-mah), it morally referred to a fault on the part of the one who is indebted. In classic Greek when they attached a moral condition to the use of this word it indicated a fault or a shortcoming in the character of the one that was being referred to. This resulted in a debt being owed by that person.

This classical Greek use of the word ŏphĕilēma, (of-i´-lay-mah), is the basis for the modern legal system. What do we say when someone commits a crime? We say that the state is owed restitution for the crime committed. That is why we use terms like “they paid their debt to society” when a criminal is released from prison. The biggest difference between Biblical justice and the justice we see in the court system today is that the real victim of the crime rarely sees true reparation from the criminal for the crime that was committed against them. Any compensation for the victim usually must come from an insurance company, if they see anything at all.

The Old Testament (which predates the Greek system) has its own concept of debt as outlined by God to the early Israelites when they were establishing their society after the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Deuteronomy 15 talks about legal debt and the establishment of the Year of Jubilee, which occurred every seven years and resulted in the debt holder, freeing the debtor from any remaining monies owed. In Israel, debt was not to be permanently enforced for life.

That was how the Old Testament dealt with legal monetary debt between people, but the Old Testament does not make use of the concept of legal debt in order to depict obligation to Yahweh. This is because in Old Testament times, a person’s relationship with God was not yet conceived on the analogy of a business agreement between partners, but rather, as a relationship where man was to be obedient to God’s will.

This changed in the intertestamental period. I know that I’m sounding really technical here, but stay with me, I want us to trace the development of this thought. If you want to take a short nap we will get to what Jesus taught about debt in a second. What I’m trying to show by tracing this definition is to show how we arrive at what we believe.

So, the Old Testament did not teach that the relationship between God and man was a business relationship, but during the 400 years when Yahweh went silent to His people, what we call the intertestamental period, the four hundred years between the Old and New Testaments, Judaism shifted its thinking and they went from sin being disobedient based on our sinful Nature to thinking of disobedience to God as an outstanding debt that could be compensated by appropriate means by the person.

So, when Jesus came, and He formally taught that humans were debtors, we were indebted to God, just as Judaism did. The difference in the teaching of Jesus was that He began with the Judaic understanding of the relationship being a business-based model and instead, Jesus taught that the concept of a business relationship was not reality but rather a parable of our relationship with God. What this means is that Jesus did not view sin as debt that was linked to achievements or demand for payments of arrears, but rather with the concept of forgiveness just as with the concept of the year of Jubilee in Deuteronomy.

We see that Jesus linked sin with debt and debt with forgiveness. The forgiveness of the debt comes from the holder of the debt and not through redress that is attempted by the one indebted. In other words, Jesus taught that we could do nothing to earn our forgiveness from God. That forgiveness is a gift, a gift that we call Grace.

The theological term that we use to describe this work of forgiveness by Jesus is called “atonement”.

Atonement is an English term originally coined in 1526 by William Tyndale to translate the Latin term reconcilliatio. It has since come to have the developed meaning of “the work of Christ” or the benefits of Christ gained for believers by His death and resurrection”.

We don’t have time to read it this morning, so your homework assignment this week is the read Isaiah chapter 53 which is a prophecy of Jesus and the atoning work that He would do on our behalf.

When you have completed Isaiah 53, then read through Romans chapters 3 to 6 to understand Paul’s take on the atonement.

I would like you to see an example of this for yourself. Turn with me to 2 Corinthians chapter 5 starting at the second half of verse 20 through to verse 21.

READ 2 Corinthians 5:20B-21

We see the Apostle Paul using very strong language, imploring people to be reconciled to God through the righteous work of Jesus on the Cross. Paul is begging us to accept the atoning work of Jesus that He did on your behalf.

Here is where I am going to challenge you to really examine some of the beliefs that you have and the reasons behind holding those beliefs. I am not going to try and convince you what is “true”. I will give my input on some of the theories. But, I want you to pay the closest attention to what the Bible and the Holy Spirit has said to you this morning, go home and read the chapter from Isaiah and the chapters from Romans listed in the bulletin and then think about which theory does and does not sound plausible.

I’m going to rely heavily on Millard Erickson’s book of Christian Theology and the chapters on atonement from the Lexham Survey of Theology for the next little bit. I hope you find it to be as edifying as I did during the preparation of this message.

From Erickson, “Historically, the meaning of the atonement has been controversial. Differing theories of the atonement have covered different elements. Many of these theories do not integrate all of the elements. The elements or truths that certain theories present include the following: the example of Christ, the demonstration of the extent of God’s love, the severity of God’s righteousness and the seriousness of sin, the victory over sin and death, and the satisfaction for our sins. These truths are all evident in the atonement and should be included in the explanation of the atonement.”^[1]

Let me repeat the portion that is on the screen, “The elements or truths that certain theories present include the following: the example of Christ, the demonstration of the extent of God’s love, the severity of God’s righteousness and the seriousness of sin, the victory over sin and death, and the satisfaction for our sins.” All of these truths should be included in the best of the theories on the atonement.

Often a theory is developed as a reaction against other theories. The following is a brief explanation of major theories and a few primary contributors. There will not be a slide for each of these theories, we just don’t have time this morning, but they are included in the transcript of the sermon that you will find on my blog.

We are now going to move on to excerpts from the Lexham Survey of Theology and its chapters on the Theories of Atonement and the Doctrines of Atonement.

•    The Ransom Theory. In this view, the atonement was payment made by God to Satan, because Satan held mankind in bondage to sin and death. Origen in particular argued that the cross was a ransom payment equal in value to man’s sin debt, a debt accrued since Adam’s original sin. At the cross, the death payment of Christ, the devil was obliged to release man from bondage.

Ok, I’m going to say that although this was championed by Origen, who was one of the Early Church Fathers, I think Origen seriously missed the point of who the debt was owed to. Back in Genesis chapter three, who did Adam sin against? God or Satan? If Adam sinned against God, then why does mankind owe anything to Satan? When we read them, we must be aware that the Early Church Fathers were still working out a lot of the theology in their minds and we of course, stand on the shoulders of the giants that have come before us in the faith. Most did not have the entire Canon of Scripture yet, and some like Augustine had little to no working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

 

•    The Satisfaction Theory. This view of the atonement, sometimes called the “Latin view,” was primarily developed by Saint Anselm in Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). This view sets God’s justice or honor against man’s immense sin debt. The satisfaction view is a reaction against the ransom view. Anselm argued that it was not to Satan but to God that man’s sin debt was owed. Now that man’s sin debt has been exacted from the Son, man can be reconciled to God’s divine justice.

 

In my mind, what this theory misses, is the fact that we wish to be reconciled to God himself, not reconciled to his divine justice.

 

•    Christus Victor. This view of the atonement argues—in the words of its best-known promoter, Gustav Aulén—that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil” (Christus Victor, p. 20). This view is a reaction to both the ransom and the satisfaction theories. Instead of payment to Satan or to God, the death of Christ is seen as a conquest in a cosmic conflict.

 

•    Penal Substitution. This view is often associated with the magisterial reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Some studies have demonstrated, however, that key elements of the penal substitution theory are evident in the early years of church history. The word “penal” refers to the divine penalty enacted at the cross. This penalty is more than payment for sin to God (though it is that); it is also the site at which God expended his wrath against human sin. God can be just and the justifier of the ungodly because Christ was our substitute on the cross: he paid sin’s penalty. By his sacrificial death he “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col 2:14). Our sin, in this view, is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us.

 

A couple of things here: imputed simply means transferred. Our sin was imputed to Christ, as the sins of the Israelites were transferred by the laying on of hands to the scapegoat for the atonement of the Israelites as described in Leviticus 16. Conversely, the righteousness of Jesus is imputed or transferred onto those who accept the gift of Grace. This was, of course, a foreshadowing of what Jesus would ultimately do for us on the Cross. This theory allows God to remain Just while at the same time Justifying the ungodly or treating us “just as if we never sinned” by having Jesus become our substitute for the repayment of our debt to the Father. The comfort of this theory is that all the work falls on the shoulders of Jesus and as such, we cannot earn it, nor can we lose it through our actions.

 

•    The Scapegoat Theory. René Girard, a Roman Catholic philosopher, is the figure most often associated with the scapegoat theory. He appeals to the motif of the scapegoat, the azazel, from the atonement rituals in Leviticus 16. In this theory, communal tension that would otherwise erupt in violence is dissipated by redirecting that violence toward a scapegoat. When in Christ God makes himself the scapegoat, directing human violence toward an innocent party, he reveals the error in scapegoating and breaks the cycle of violence. This theory has wide acceptance in those (typically mainline) Protestant circles that tend to shy away from or reject substitution theories.

 

•    The Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius, Charles Finney, and Wesleyan Methodism have championed this view. In the governmental view, Jesus did not pay a penalty for human sin; instead, at the cross he made a display of God’s displeasure with sin.

 

In my mind, the shortfall of this argument is that it does not encompass all that the Bible teaches that Jesus accomplished on the cross. It has too low a view of what Jesus did which leads to a low view of who He is, the very Son of God.

 

Other theories are held by a minority of people and scholars outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

These various theories lead us to different doctrines or understandings of the full range of consequences for the atoning work of Jesus. We want to know exactly who benefits from the work of Jesus on the Cross.

The doctrine of the extent of the atonement asks for whom Christ died and in what sense—and who will finally be saved.

The various major views on the extent of the atonement generally coordinate with a given theory of the atonement. For example, the universalist view of the extent of the atonement generally fits with the moral example or government theories; universalism does not fit with a penal substitutionary view of the atonement.

The five major views of the extent of the atonement are as follows.

 

•    Universalism. Universalists believe that all mankind will be saved. The extent of the atonement is unlimited: even lack of faith is no constraint on the power of Christ’s atonement, and complete reconciliation with God is the destiny of all men. Some universalists believe that there is no hell—or, if there is, hell is only for Satan and his demons. Origen was an early proponent of a universalist view of the atonement. Gregory of Nyssa did not go quite as far as Origen but believed in the annihilation of all evil. Unitarianism has had a history of affinity for universalism. Some Roman Catholic and even some Protestant views on purgatory lean toward a universalist view of the extent of the atonement.

This view of the extent of the atonement stands apart from the other views we will look at. My biggest objection to this teaching is that if there is no hell that we need saving from, then there is no need for a Savior. Some people believe that we simply stop existing after we die. This view is unbiblical, there are numerous examples in the Bible about life after this life.

 

Aside from universalism, every view limits the atonement in some way, and all agree that the atonement is available for all yet efficacious, or the atonement applies only to the elect.

•    General atonement. In this view, the atonement is for the whole world: Christ’s atonement makes salvation possible for all. That atonement is effective for an individual when God sees his or her faith in advance. Jacob Arminius set forth this view after the Reformation, but it is traceable back to the early church. In the modern era Wesleyan Arminianism has been its strongest proponent. Theologians who hold this view often also hold that it is possible for believers to lose their salvation.

This is the official view of the EMCC. I do not personally subscribe to this view as I see that it limits the sovereignty of God and I see it in direct contradiction of the passages from John that we looked at last week where Jesus proclaimed that He would lose none of those that the Father has given Him. The EMCC leadership and I have had open and honest discussions about these differences and they still agreed to credential me for this church. I have also assured you the congregation that I would try, to the best of my abilities, to present both sides of an issue when we come across them in Scripture. My ultimate objective is to teach you to have complete faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, and to have faith in the completed work of Jesus, not to win you to a particular view of the atonement.

 

•    Limited atonement. This view teaches that Christ’s atonement was effectual only for the elect. It is sometimes called “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”—not in order to place the emphasis on who is excluded, but to emphasize what Christ accomplished on the cross. This is closely associated with Calvinism (it is the “L” in the famous TULIP acronym), although it is not perfectly clear whether John Calvin himself affirmed it. The doctrine of limited atonement has been discovered as early as the work of Gottschalk in the ninth century. After the Reformation, John Owen wrote a memorable treatise in its defense (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ).

 

It is important to note that others held this view before John Calvin. This view of particular redemption was held by Augustine back in the fourth century.

 

 

•    Hypothetical Universalism. This view is a moderate Calvinist view of the atonement. The difference between this view and the standard limited-atonement view of five-point Calvinism is that it sees the cross as actually sufficient for all men, since its payment is infinite. At the same time, the cross is also particular in its efficacy to the elect. This dual operation is evident in many verses or passages, such as in 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Several Reformers (mostly English), such as John Davenant (in attendance at the Synod of Dort), John Preston, and James Ussher, wrote on the actual sufficiency of Christ’s death for all. Some studies show that this dual work of infinite sufficiency and particular redemption is evident in some of the early church fathers.^[2]

 

Some key passages outlining these views would be:

•    Ge 3:15–4:26

•    Jn 1:29

•    Jn 3:14–18

•    Jn 10

•    1 Ti 2:3–6

 

The greatest shortfall that all these theories share in common, this sermon included, is that they were all prepared by people with fallen human natures and limited intellect when compared to the unlimited intellect of the one whose actions they are trying to understand.

If you didn’t understand something this morning, that is OK. Download the transcript and read it more closely. Or, just be comfortable in your faith in Christ. If you wish to discuss it further, we can sit down over coffee and dig a little deeper. If you wish to read more, the books in my library are always available to borrow and read.

When I don’t fully understand something, I step back and take comfort in this passage from Scripture:

“ ²⁹ The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.” From Deuteronomy 29:29.

I step back, and then take another run at understanding exactly what the Bible teaches about the subject at hand.

I take comfort in the penal substitutionary atonement theory because I see it as being consistent with Scripture and based on my personal experience. I know that I was not seeking after God when He found me. I went to church on that providential Good Friday to make my wife happy. To be supportive of her in her search for what I thought was just a religion.

The Holy Spirit opened my ears, my eyes, my mind, and my heart that morning, and for the first time in my life, I heard what Jesus did through the sermon being taught, I could see what the Bible said what happened, I understood with my mind what Jesus did for me, how He reconciled me back to the Father, and the Spirit replaced my heart of stone with a heart of flesh filled with His love for Him. I didn’t find a religion; I found a relationship with my Savior and my God. It is only through the atoning work of Jesus that I can find forgiveness for my sins.

That is my hope and prayer for you this morning. If you do not have a personal relationship with the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, then pray to the Holy Spirit to give you the ears to hear, the eyes to see, the mind to understand, and the new heart of flesh so that you too can see Jesus for who He truly is and exactly what He accomplished for you on the Roam Cross nearly two thousand years ago.

The forgiveness of your sins, the wiping out of your debt with the Father, a restored relationship with the Creator and sustainer of all things. Not a cold and distant deity, but a loving Father that permits us to call Him “Abba” or Daddy.

For our final point this morning, I want us to go back to Matthew 6 and look again at verse 12. Back to page 787 of the Pew Bible.

READ MATTHEW 6:12 AGAIN.

I want to be very careful as I point out the second half of this verse. “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”. Did you notice that the two parts are connected? They are not connected in the way that you may think at first. This verse is not saying that “unless you forgive others, your Father will not forgive you. That is not what this verse is saying. How do I know that for sure?

I have mentioned several times before that I use Scripture to interpret Scripture. I guard against pulling a text out of context to try and prove a point, by making sure that my understanding of a certain passage aligns with the rest of the Bible. If, and it’s a big if, if this passage is saying that God’s forgiveness of us is dependent of our forgiving of others then this passage from Ephesians 2 would be in contradiction with Matthew 6:12.

As you can see, Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, “⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast.”

If the Father’s forgiveness was dependent on our forgiving others, then the Father’s forgiveness would not be Grace, it would be something that was earned by us. Instead, what this verse is telling us in the second half is that there is an expectation from the Father, that if we are indeed His children, we will forgive others as He has forgiven us.

We forgive, not to earn His Grace, but because we already possess His Grace. Just as 1 John 4:19 informs us why we love others:

“ ¹⁹ We love because he first loved us.” We are to forgive because He first forgave us. Not to earn, but rather as proof that we are His. I know that this is difficult, and Satan likes to whisper in our ears to remind us of all the hurts of those that have been inflicted upon us by others. The Adversary likes to keep picking at the scabs of some wounds to keep the hurt fresh and prevent the healing. But you guessed it, I’m going to tell you that that attitude is not biblical.

Matthew 18: 15-17 teaches this concept of approaching one who has sinned against God, but it can also be useful instruction on how to deal with someone who has wronged you. Go to your brother or sister in Christ and quietly seek restoration between the two of you. If that doesn’t work, then take two or three witnesses, and if that fails then take someone from church leadership to assist. Please make sure to try the first two steps first before jumping directly to step number three.

So please be sure to offer forgiveness or seek forgiveness with believers that you have had disagreements with. With those who have hurt you, we are to seek reconciliation as evidence of our being “In Christ”.

Ok, let’s stand and sing our final song and then I will come back up and offer a benediction and a blessing over the meal we are about to share together.

 

CONCLUSION

I want you to think about what we discussed today and examine if the view that you hold on certain things aligns with Scripture. For that, is what is meant to be our ultimate guide for all things, not what the pastor says, nor what the denomination says, or what church tradition claims, or not even what we think it is, but rather what does the Bible say about these things?

Benediction

This morning's benediction comes from Romans 15:13, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

---

^[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 713.

^[2] Mark Olivero, “The Extent of the Atonement,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

When We Pray... Part 4 "Give Us Today Our Daily Bread" Mathew 6:11

 Dec 3, 2023

Series: When We Pray…

Give Us Today Our Daily Bread…

Matthew 6:11

Mountain View Evangelical Missionary Church

 

Three sermons ago, we had a bit of an introduction to this section of Matthew chapter six which is part of the great teaching from Jesus collectively known as the Sermon on the Mount. In week one we discovered three main points:

1. Do not pray hypocritically. Like so many other areas of our Christian lives, Jesus is concerned with our heart attitude when it comes to our prayers and our prayer life.
2. The next lesson that we extracted from the text was that you are not limited to a “sacred space” such as a prayer closet but, rather… we should think that we are entering a sacred space when we pray because we are entering into the Father’s presence.
3. Finally, we saw that Father knows best. We must trust that when the Lord grants, delays, or denies our prayer requests, He is doing so because it is best for us and will bring the most Glory to God.

That was the first lesson of this series.

 

Two sermons ago, we examined these points found in Matthew 6, verse 9:

1. We are to pray to the Father. The prayer found here in Matthew 6 and a similar prayer found in Luke 11 are examples of how we are to pray, and not specifically the words that we are to pray every time.
2. We also learned that we should think of prayer as a form of worship.
3. The final point that we examined that week was, that since prayer is a form of worship, and worship is reserved for God alone, we are not to pray to anyone else except to God, preferably to the Father. We can pray to Jesus, for He intercedes on our behalf, but the example that Jesus sets for us is to pray to the Father.

That was the second lesson of the series.

 

Last lesson we discovered the following points:

1.      We read how God’s name is to be regarded as “hallowed” or Holy and should be spoken with a sense of awe and reverence.

2.      Included in last week’s verses was the thought that God is a King and He has a Kingdom. As followers of Jesus, we should be anticipating that the Lord will return, and the thought of His Kingdom reinforces our need to make Him Lord.

3.      We discovered that one of the purposes of prayer was to bend our will to God’s will and we examined how we should commit to following Jesus by moving from just accepting Him as Savior and we should embrace the concept of making Jesus Lord of our lives. We should do this because Jesus is a King and He has a Kingdom. A kingdom that is both in Heaven and on Earth.

 

OK, that’s enough of the recap. Let us open our Bibles or turn to our devices and let’s look together at today’s passage. Please turn to Mathew chapter six starting at verse 9.

 

I advise reading the entire prayer so that we can have some context to what we are studying this morning, verses 9-15, then you should pray, and then we will come back and zero in on verse 11 which we will be looking more deeply at today.

 

So, please read Matthew 6:9-15.

 

PRAY

 

Let me just take a minute to address something that you may have noticed throughout the last few weeks. Have you been getting a little twitch when I have been reading this prayer, and does it seem like I have been missing or skipping a verse at the end of the prayer? Have you been itching to hear the words, “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen?” Let me explain why these words have been missing. If you look in your Bible, there should be a letter and a footnote at the end of verse 13 if those words are not part of the main text.

 

The footnote should say something in the manner of “these words are found in later manuscripts.” I remember as a kid when I was going through Catholic catechism classes having to memorize this prayer and the Catholic church teaches the additional verse. Here’s the thing, this verse only appears in later manuscripts.

 

Of course, you know, that there were no document scanners or photocopiers back in the day and these manuscripts would all have to be copied one at a time by hand. Often by a monk, by candlelight with ink and a quill. Somewhere along the way, a monk decided to add this little phrase to show more honor and Glory to God. It wasn’t a terrible addition, and it certainly didn’t add anything theologically to the passage.

 

The thing is, today’s Bible translators have so many more manuscripts, or parts of manuscripts to compare against each other and they can discover these types of discrepancies and then remove them from the main body of the text and turn them into a footnote all in the name of accuracy. They do this in an attempt to make the best possible Bible and to be as faithful to the originals as they can be. This whole art and science is known as “textual criticism” and there is a whole field of study in this area.

 

Some translations of the Bible have chosen to leave it in the main body of the text like the King James Version has, but for the sake of accuracy, most modern translations have moved it to the sidelines. I just wanted to address this in case it was bugging you as I was reading this passage over and over.

 

It is important that you be aware of these things and I’ll tell you why. This morning I came across a short video put out by a fellow who calls himself the Muslim Cowboy, his name, not my label. Anyway, he put out a short video showing the same sort of thing in a different place in Matthew. Matthew 17:21 has also been removed from the body of the text and become a footnote. The reason for this omission is that earlier manuscripts have been found where this verse is not present. Verse 21 is a word-for-word copy of Mark 9:29. Speculation is that a copyist who was familiar with the Mark account simply added Mark 9:29 to Mathew 17 after verse 20. That was a human error, that was discovered by faithful Bible scholars, who then removed Matthew 17:21 as a way of being faithful to the text in the original documents. But false teachers like The Muslim Cowboy use these methods by the biblical scholars to sow doubt in your mind that the Bible is not trustworthy. They sow these seeds of doubt by not telling you the complete story and the reason why newer translations have omitted or corrected theses copying errors. The thing is the Bible translators are completely open and transparent about what they have done in an attempt to be accountable. But, false teachers come along and try to dissuade you from believing the Bible. I think we can tell this man’s motives from the name of his channel, “The Muslim Cowboy”.

 

If you want to dive into this a little deeper, search YouTube for Dr. James White and the inerrancy of scripture. There are several good talks that Dr. White has given at various conferences over the years where he explains these things in greater detail than I can do this morning. I highly recommend watching them. They will increase your level of assurance and how you can trust the Bible.

 

Well, we have done a little correction, a little recap, and a little housekeeping and we haven’t even gotten to today’s passage. Let’s get started, shall we? Last week we concluded the first half of the prayer by looking at the first three petitions of this prayer. Petitions that are designed to properly orientate ourselves towards God and bring to the forefront of our mind and our prayer, the character of God that He has. Our God, whom we gather each week to worship and to learn from, is a personal, loving, and powerful Father.

 

When we understand this in the very depths of our hearts, then the content of our prayers will be radically affected in two ways.

 

First, God’s concerns will be given priority over our concerns. This is the express goal demonstrated through the order of the petitions in this prayer. God’s role and name, the importance of His Kingdom, and the fulfillment of His will are given preference over our self-centered requests.

 

I haven’t mentioned this fact yet, but if you think about it, this prayer follows the structure of the Ten Commandments. Here is your homework assignment for this week: after the service turn to Exodus chapter 20, starting in verse 1, and observe how the first four commandments are centered on God and our relationship with Him, and how the rest of the commandments are centered on our behaviours. The first four commands are vertical, and the rest are centered horizontally and how we live with each other. I mention this fact, just to show how consistent God is throughout His teaching.

 

The second thing that the arrangement of this prayer teaches us is that our own needs, though demoted to second place, will yet be completely committed to Him. We will be looking at this truth today and in the next few weeks. The three requests exemplified in this prayer start with: “give us”, “forgive us”, and “deliver us” and they all still give major consideration to the Father.

 

Let’s turn back to today’s passage and read the verse that we are going to consider more closely today. You all should still be in Matthew 6, and that would still be on page 787 of the pew bible.

 

READ MATTHEW 6:11

 

Verse 11 starts with a petition for our physical needs. Beginning with this first request, these three requests cover all of our physical and spiritual needs. On this point, Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote the following:

 

“Our whole life is found there in those three petitions, and that is what makes this prayer so utterly amazing. Our Lord has covered the whole life of the believer in every respect. Our physical needs, our mental needs, and of course, our spiritual needs are included. The Body is remembered, the soul is remembered, the spirit is remembered. And that is the whole of man.”

 

Let me repeat, “Our whole life is found there in those three petitions, and that is what makes this prayer so utterly amazing. Our Lord has covered the whole life of the believer in every respect. Our physical needs, our mental needs, and of course, our spiritual needs are included. The Body is remembered, the soul is remembered, the spirit is remembered. And that is the whole of man.”

 

Isn’t that comforting to know this? This Scripture tells us that all our needs are met through Christ from the Father. Notice I said needs, not wants. This is where the false teachings of the health and prosperity teachers get it wrong. What doesn’t this passage say? This prayer does not tell us that we will be rich beyond our wildest dreams, or that we will all own big homes simply because we follow Jesus. Or that we will all drive Mercedes because we pray for them. When we read Scripture and we read into the text a specific interpretation that was not meant by the original author, that is known as eisegesis. Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis, which is the extracting, or discovering in the text the proper meaning that the original writer meant when they wrote that text to the audience at that time.

 

All these false teachers like Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, and others all practice eisegesis by reading into the text exactly what they want to find there. They will take a passage like this that is meant to bring us comfort from the fact that we have a loving Father in Heaven who will provide for His children, and they will twist it to show that God will just give us whatever we ask for and if we don’t have something it is simply because we don’t have enough faith to ask for it. That is hogwash. This teaching is not only false and dangerous, but it is designed to make them rich by sucking every dollar from you that they can.

 

Are you failing? Send them a faith gift so that God will pour out His blessings on you. Or, buy this book on prayer and you will succeed. Plant this seed of giving today and you will reap rewards in the future. Please don’t fall for any of this nonsense. This is why we are always to read Scripture in light of Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself. There are no errors in God’s Word. If we find an error or contradiction when reading Scripture, the error lies in our understanding of what we are reading, not in the intention of the one who wrote it.

 

The Bible warns us of the dangers of following false teachers. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 warns us, “³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

 

The Apostle Paul was warning the young pastor Timothy to not fall into the temptation of chasing after the crowds by teaching them false teachings simply to attract them and tickle their ears with the myths that they desire to hear.

 

You might be thinking right now that the Bible also teaches that God delights in giving us the desires of our hearts.

 

It is true that twice in Psalms the desires of our hearts are mentioned. We read in Psalm 20 what appears to be promises that God will give us the desire of our hearts. A careful reading of the Psalm shows that this was a Psalm written by David in a time of war, and the purpose of the Psalm was to align the hearts and prayers of the Israelites to desire victory in the coming battle and to give the credit for the anticipated victory to God and not to themselves.

 

That is the exegesis of that Psalm, but the false teachers will pluck the second half of verse 5, “May the LORD grant all your requests”. They will take this verse completely out of context and use it as a proof-text of their false teachings.

 

Psalm 37:4 also speaks of the LORD giving us the desires of our hearts. Scripture reads, “⁴ Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” Well, what about that passage pastor Paul, it seems like that his passage is telling us that God will give us the desires of our hearts, and I desire a big house, a fancy car, and a fat bank account.

It does seem like that doesn’t it? At least it does if we ignore the qualifying statement that is in the first half of the verse. Most people skip right over the “Take delight in the LORD” statement. Most people think, of course, I will take delight in the LORD if He is giving me what I ask for.

This is a perfect example of needing more Scripture to help us understand and correct this wrong teaching about this passage. When we read passages like Psalm 37:4 we need to keep in mind Scripture such as Romans 12:2 which reads,

^“2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Paul is telling us to allow our minds to be transformed by the Holy Spirit, and when we do we will resist the patterns and temptations of the world, of our culture, we will be able to spot and resist the false teachers and cling to what is good and what God’s will is for our lives. Paul tells us that God’s will is pleasing to His children. That is a method that we can use to determine if we are truly His children. Are we satisfied with what God has given us, or do we covet what others have?

Another passage to help us interpret passages that seem to tell us that God is there for our pleasure is Galatians 5:16-17. This passage is in a section of Scripture where Paul has been warning the Galatians against those who were using their newfound freedom in Christ to throw off all their inhibitions and chase after their desires. Just before Paul gets to the section where he shows us the proof of our Salvation with the fruit of the Spirit, Paul gives us this advice, “¹⁶ So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. ¹⁷ For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other so that, you are not to do whatever you want.”

Paul was teaching the Galatians, and by extension, us today that we must guard against the desires of the flesh, not just sexual desires, but when our flesh desires the great comforts of life more than we desire our relationship with Jesus Christ. When we ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit and chase after the desires that are contrary to what the Spirit is teaching us, what God’s Word is teaching us, then we conflict with God and we need to do a course correction.

Please, brothers and sisters, don’t let false teachers, slick advertising campaigns, manipulation by others, or even our own fallen nature that put us in conflict with the Lord. We must align our wills with the will of the Father.

We discovered in the past weeks that one of the primary purposes of prayer is to bend our will to the Father’s will. To align our desires with the Father's desires for us. That is one of the primary lessons for this entire prayer found in Matthew chapter 6.

 

Are you seeing the consistency in God’s Word? Don’t be fooled by people who try to tell you that there are contradictions or mistakes in the Bible, it simply isn’t true.

 

Ok, so we have established that the Father is a giver. Not an indiscriminate giver. Not a Father who treats us like spoiled children and grants us our every request. But rather, He treats us like a loving Father, granting those requests that are in keeping with His will, and that are beneficial for us. A loving, caring, personal Father.

 

The Father is so generous that He gave us the greatest gift of all, the gift of Grace. He gave us His Son as a substitutionary sacrifice so that we could have a way back to Him in a restored relationship.

 

The next thing that we can extract from this passage is that our daily needs are met by the Father.

 

Just a little historical and cultural context here: let’s examine the diet of those in the times of Jesus and the agricultural practices of that time in that region of the world.

The majority of calories for the people groups of the Near Middle East were derived from three main sources: bread, olive oil, and wine. These were supplemented by fruits, vegetables, legumes, dairy, and meat, all of which varied depending on seasons, local weather, the social and economic standing of the people eating the food, the shifting geo-political realities, and annual rainfall.

 

Let me go through a quick list of the foods that are mentioned in the Bible and then I’ll explain that last statement. Foods that are mentioned in the Bible or have been discovered through archaeologically digs of that period are: grain, olive oil, wine as mentioned as well as, grapes, vegetables, lentils, fava beans, filed peas, chick peas, figs, dates, pomegranate, almonds, pistachios, honey, locusts, lamb or mutton, goat, beef, gazelle, deer, fish (both fresh and preserved), fresh milk, cheese, ghee (which is a form of liquid butter), and fowl (both domesticated and wild). That’s a rundown of the various sources of the calories for the people of the region in biblical times.

 

Let me explain what determined the variations in their diets. If you lived on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea you probably ate more fresh fish and seafood than you did mutton or beef. Those in the plains were farmers and herdsmen so they would have had preserved fish rather than fresh, as well as more goat, lamb, beef, deer, or gazelle. Both coastal people and plains people probably kept domesticated fowl as they would not require much room, so fresh eggs would have been available to most.

 

Running down the spine of this region was the Silk Road which was a major trade route with India and into China. This would have given the people along that route the opportunity to trade for more exotic food and spices at a cheaper rate and then they would sell or trade with those going towards the coastal region where the same goods would have become increasingly more expensive as they traded hands to get to them.

 

Remember, they didn’t have refrigerators or freezers, so apart from smoking, drying, salting, or pickling, your options for preserving food were limited. Your diet would change with the growing season for the various foods and as the differing crops would mature or ripen, you would incorporate those foods into your diet.

 

Here is some interesting facts for you grain producers. Wheat was primarily grown in the Jezreel Valley, the Upper Jordan Valley, and the Beth-Shen Valley. These were all coastal valleys and they had the appropriate rainfall amounts and soil conditions. Durham wheat was the primary variety of wheat grown simply because of its ease of milling. Emmer wheat and other wild varieties were also grown.

 

The durum wheat was typically sown in November and December which coincided with the early rains, and it would be harvested in May. Production was dependent on early rainfall as well as adequate rainfall in the late spring and early summer which would result in producing the highest yields. The durum wheat of this region thrives in areas that receive 500-700 millimeters of rain annually, but it can produce in areas the get as little as 225 millimeters of rain.

 

Barley was also grown in the region, but it was better adapted to soils that had high salinity and alkalinity. Barley was grown in the regions of the Northern Negev, Palestinian hill country, and parts of the Transjordan area.

 

Ancients typically consumed grain in the form of bread. The Bible also records grain being eaten as roasted kernels, as fresh ears, or as a porridge when mixed with water. There are numerous types of bread known, as well as several ways that bread could be prepared. Milling grain for bread by hand was a laborious process; it has been estimated that the grinding and sieving process could take as much as three hours to produce enough flour for 5–6 people for one day’s consumption. Breads were either leavened or unleavened. It could be baked on stones heated in the coals of a fire, on an iron pan or griddle, or in beehive-shaped oven called a tannur. Breads, cakes, wafers, and grain were so important to the diet that the words for bread in both Hebrew and Greek are used to mean food in general. The caloric contribution grain made to ancient diets is quite high compared with modern Western diets—estimates fall somewhere between 53–75% of calories from grain—but the higher figure may be too low an estimate for people who were poorer.

 

While our most current evidence suggests that ancient Israelites ate more meat than scholars of the late nineteenth century believed, meat made a relatively minor contribution to the diet of most people. Recent attempts to estimate meat consumption have led to estimates of between 30 and 70 grams of meat consumption per person per day. With this amount, meat was neither an unknown luxury nor the cornerstone of the average diet.

 

In the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to Himself as the Bread of Life. Turn with me in your Bibles to John chapter 6, starting in verse 25. That would be page 865 in the Pew Bible.

 

READ JOHN 6:25-40

 

Let’s take a plain reading of this text and see what it is telling us here. Jesus refers to Himself as the Bread of Life because this event happens shortly after the feeding of the five thousand where the multitude was fed with five small barley loaves and two small fish. The Lord provided for those present by supernaturally multiplying what was brought to Him and miraculously fed over five thousand. Now at that event, Jesus provided for them physically. He met their physical needs, but we started today’s lesson by reading a quote from Dr. Lloyd-Jones that pointed out that God provides for all of man, body, soul, and spirit. In this passage in John. Jesus is addressing the needs of our soul and spirit. In verse 26 Jesus confronts the crowd for coming after Him only to have their physical needs met. Like those who chase the prosperity and Gospel or those who use the church for personal gain or comfort.

 

Verse 29 Jesus addresses the very essence of why He came to Earth, “The work of God is this; to believe in the one he has sent”. In verse 32 Jesus goes on to correct their incorrect theology that they believed that Moses had given them the manna, and Jesus said hang on a tick, it wasn’t Moses but the Father in Heaven who supplied the manna.

 

Now look at verse 35, Jesus declares that ““I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.” There were people even in the days of Jesus who saw all the miracles yet they still refused to believe. Now, if you stopped here, it seems like we have the choice of coming to Jesus. That we initiate this step in our Salvation.

 

But look at verse 37, and we have to look at verse 35 and 36 in the context of verse 37. 37 says, “ ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.”

 

What was the will of the Father? That Jesus should live a perfect earthly life, and remain sinless, so that He could be the spotless Lamb of God and thus be the only possible atoning sacrifice that would satisfy the wrath of God.

 

Look at verse 39 as it continues, “³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone” stop there. Who is the “everyone”? All that the Father has given to Jesus. Not everyone in the world and not even everyone who comes to Jesus on their own desires and conditions. Everyone that the Father has given Jesus. Continuing in verse 40,  “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

 

That’s it, that is the Gospel message in a nutshell. Those that the Father draws to the Son and who believe in the completed work on the Cross of Jesus Christ and who believe that He was raised from the dead will be saved. Friends, if you are here today and are hearing this message, it is my sincere belief that the Father is drawing you to Jesus. Do not delay, do not hesitate, and accept the free gift of Grace that the Father is extending to you through His son Jesus Christ.

 

Back to the topic of food. Apart from vegetation being mentioned in Genesis as a generic term, there is only one list of vegetables in the Hebrew Bible. Numbers 11:5 lists cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic. The list appears in the context of foods the Israelites associated with Egypt while they wandered in the wilderness. Vegetable cultivation was more heavily dependent on irrigation (common in the Nile delta) and was not convenient for those who lived in a geography and climate that was better suited to the use of seasonal rains (the land of Israel).

One writer suggests that it may have been people at the extreme ends of the economic scale who commonly ate vegetables: Those who were wealthy and could afford the land and labor for cultivating a vegetable crop, and those who were poor who could gather vegetables that could be found in the wild. Other vegetables that may have been available are turnips, radishes, carrots, watermelon, and kale. I have it on good authority that no one liked kale in those days either.

 

One commentator put it this way, “Ultimately, local conditions—whether geographic, political, social, or economic—contributed to the variety of the foodstuffs consumed by people who lived in Gibeon, Jerusalem, Ashkelon, or Tel Chinnereth. Despite an individual’s status, the “Mediterranean triad”—grain, olive oil, and wine—formed the basis of an ancient Israelite’s diet.”^[1]

I said all of that to show you one thing. What did all of those things require? Two things; first the provision of God for the seeds, livestock, rain, soil, and growing conditions to produce those things. That was God’s part. The second thing that was required was effort from mankind. Fish had to be caught, crops had to be planted and harvested, livestock had to be raised, slaughtered and preserved or traded. Fruit had to be picked. Grapes and olives had to be crushed. All this required effort from men and women.

Again, we will turn to Scripture to help us understand what Scripture is saying to us. Matthew 6:11 tells us that we are to ask our Father to give us today our daily bread. But apart from a very brief time in biblical history, (forty years to be exact) as outlined in Exodus chapter 16, except for the period when the Jews were wandering in the wilderness and God provided the manna from Heaven, man has had to work to produce his food.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 gives us these very wise words of instruction, “¹⁰ For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. ¹¹ For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. ¹² Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

Let’s look at what that passage says. “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat”. This does not apply if the person is not able to work. But… if a person is able to work they must work in order to eat. It doesn’t say that they are only to work at high-paying jobs or easy types of labor. Paul is warning us that those who are too fussy to work at jobs that they deem are below them are not to be supported. If we can work, then we are instructed by the Bible that we are to be willing to work.

There is such a wide variety of jobs available in this world today, that I only see a very narrow range of reasons for people not to be working. We are made for work.

Alright, we are over time, so I am going to short shrift this last point and that is we are to be givers as well.

It is by God’s providence that the reminder is at the bottom of page 5 in your bulletin this morning. Roxanne sent me this reminder to you all to include in the bulletin last night long after this passage had been chosen to preach this morning.

Because we are the Father’s adopted children, we are to emulate the Father. He gives us everything and all that He asks is that we return a small portion of the first fruits back to Him.

This concept is taught all throughout the Bible but it is seen as early as Genesis chapter 4. Genesis 4:2-5 says, “Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. ³ In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. ⁴ And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, ⁵ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.”

I will confess to you that this is an area that I am constantly trying to improve upon. It is an area of trust and faith. When we give from the first fruits of our labor, especially when there seems to be more month than money ahead, it allows God to prove His faithfulness and provision once more.

---

^[1] Jeremy Gabrielson, “Food,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).