It's time for us to begin.
If you will, take your Bibles and open them to Mark chapter 10.
March, after 10, we'll pick up around verse 13, but let's begin with a word of prayer and then we'll get into our study.
Our gracious Father in heaven, we bow before your throne, grateful for the day that you've granted to us and the life that we have been blessed with.
We're grateful for the opportunity that we have to serve you and we pray that you will watch over us and protect us and take care of us as we know you have done throughout our
lives.
We thank you for this night and we thank you for the rain, the nourishment, it provides the ground.
We're grateful for the uh weather and we're grateful for the opportunity that we have to be out this evening.
And Lord, we also are mindful of those who are in the path of storms, those who are enduring the onslaught of the hurricane uh down in the Gulf.
And we also pray that you be with those throughout the world that deal with.
difficulties regarding their climate and their weather, and we pray that you will be with them as they go through those difficulties and their needs arise.
Lord, we pray that you will be with the congregations in those areas and pray that they might be able to use these opportunities as an opportunity to reach lost souls, for we
know that while weather comes and goes, eternity is nigh for each and every one of us.
Lord, we pray that you be with us as we go through this period of study.
May the things that we say and do be those which are right in accordance with your will.
All this we pray and ask in Jesus' name, amen.
In Mark chapter 10, verse 13 says, then they brought little children to him that he might touch them.
But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
But when Jesus saw it, he was greatly displeased and said, Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.
Here in this passage, the
events or transpiring crowds, of course, we know we're always thronging around Jesus, those who were ill, those who were sick, those who had uh issues going on because of uh
being demon possessed or being blind or being deaf.
People would come to Jesus for many different reasons, and in this scenario,
parents and guardians were bringing these little children to be touched or the idea perhaps is to be blessed by Jesus.
And it doesn't seem as though that these children had some physical malady or some disease that needed curing.
They were just children.
And the disciples see what's going on and they start to put a stop to it.
They start to tell those and criticize those who are the parents or the people who are the adults who are bringing the children and tell them, stop this.
What was Jesus's reaction to the disciples doing that?
All right, he was, as the new King James says, greatly displeased.
Jesus often empowered the disciples to do things.
Jesus did not, in many ways, micromanage the disciples.
They followed Him, but Jesus would often send them somewhere with the authority and with the permission to do things.
And certainly it was the case that when...
The crowds were around Jesus.
The disciples had very specific responsibilities in regards to, you know, essentially being the barrier between him and the crowds.
We read not too long ago in a few chapters back that there was an occasion where the multitudes were around thronging Jesus for such an extended period of time that the
disciples never even had a time to eat during the day.
But in this occasion, as these events are occurring, Jesus is not happy with their choice.
He's not happy with what they are doing.
He is not happy with the fact that they are rebuking these individuals for bringing these children to Jesus.
Now the idea here is that these parents, these guardians, the individuals who are bringing them
are doing so because they desire for these little children to be in the presence of Jesus.
When the text says that he was greatly displeased, he said to them, Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them for of such is the kingdom of God Assuredly I
say to you whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it Jesus is both going to admonish
the apostles in regards to the actual scenario, but Jesus will further teach upon that scenario.
First, Jesus says, not to forbid them because of this or of such are the kingdom of heaven.
What does he mean by of such are the kingdom of God?
You mean that only the kingdom is populated with just children?
Alright, so there's the first aspect of they're innocent.
Now, this is one of those passages that flies in the face of all Calvinism, because as far as Calvinism is concerned, children are what?
totally depraved.
That any individual born is born with the inherited sin of Adam, with an evil disposition, with an evil nature, and that they are totally and inherently depraved.
Kind of odd considering Jesus says that of such is the kingdom of God.
Jesus in no passage anywhere gives any indication to a depraved nature or to an inherited sin nature in humanity.
Now, does Jesus attribute the fact that Satan rules over humanity?
Does Jesus at one point call
uh Satan, the ruler of this world?
He does.
But is he trying to imply that no one has a say because they're born into sin because of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden?
No.
The fact of the scenario is Jesus is indicating these little children are innocent, they are good, and their nature is the Kingdom of God.
that we are to be those who return to and behave as though we are innocent, we are good, we are not those who are involving ourselves in sin and in depravity.
all throughout scripture.
The text is incredibly clear.
We are guilty of sin when we do what?
Sin.
When we by choice do that which is wrong.
Was Eve guilty of sin when at the very moment the serpent tempted her?
When did Eve become guilty of sin?
when she ate of the fruit?
When did Adam become guilty of the sin?
When he ate of the fruit.
Question.
If they became guilty of sin when they acted and chose to transgress the law of God, why is it that someone should believe that from that point forward everyone should be guilty
of the sin when they never participated in it?
The fact of the matter is the text of scripture is incredibly and abundantly clear.
You're guilty of sin when you commit sin.
When you, knowing the difference between good and evil, choose to do that which is in violation of the law of God.
Sin, according to John, is the transgression
of the law.
Can you transgress something when you haven't been born?
Did you transgress something by being born?
No.
Could you have been born as a result of someone's sin?
Certainly you could have.
What's one biblical example?
m Adultery?
Give me an account, someone who we know or an occasion where there was a child born because of sin.
All right.
ah You have David and Bathsheba, they commit adultery.
Nine months later, here comes a baby.
All right.
Did the baby participate in the sin?
Was the baby guilty of the adultery?
No.
Just the same way, in a very sad and unfortunate way, you have scenarios where you have parents, specifically a mother, who may abuse drugs while she's pregnant, and you have a
baby born addicted to an illicit drug.
They've never done anything.
They didn't commit any sin.
They are going to bear the consequences of other people's sins.
but it doesn't mean they're guilty of it.
The text of scripture.
never, anywhere tells us that babies or little children have sin.
Not one place.
As a matter of fact, everything in all of scripture points to there is no sin against anyone who is not accountable for their actions because they cannot understand good or
evil.
What changed in the garden when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
they suddenly understood the difference between good and evil.
And now they understand transgression.
Now they are guilty of the law.
Yes.
All right, Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 20 is a great one.
We'll just turn over there and read that.
18 verse 20.
You really have in Ezekiel 18 the entire text from verse 1 all the way to verse 20 and even a little bit more than that is uh dealing with the same topic but that is the fact
that God holds accountable those who transgress the law and that God does not hold accountable the righteous for the sins of the wicked nor does He release the wicked
because of the righteousness of the righteous.
Alright, so verse 19 says, chapter 18, And yet you say, Why should the Son not bear the guilt of the Father?
Because the Son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all my statutes, and observed them, he shall surely live.
The soul who sins shall die.
The Son shall not bear the guilt of the Father, nor the Father bear the guilt of the Son.
the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." Now, if God, from the beginning of creation, from the time that
Adam and Eve were in the garden, violated that very statement by holding every person who had ever been born accountable for the sin of Adam and Eve, he wouldn't be a very just
God, would he?
He certainly would be contradicting himself when here in Ezekiel he says, I will not hold the father guilty for the sins of the son, and I will not hold the son guilty for the sins
of the father.
And yet there are those who would argue and who would postulate that from the moment that Adam and Eve for took of that fruit, every person who has ever been born from that point
forward
was guilty of their sin.
Nonsense.
The fact of the matter is, God has made it clear in that passage and many, many more that we are guilty when we sin.
Over in the book of Revelation, when it says that we will be held in account, it says that we will be held accountable for the things which we have done in the body.
That means we're not held accountable for the things which our parents did in their bodies, nor accountable for the things which Adam did in his body, but rather we are
guilty or we are justified by the things which we do.
He also says, assuredly, verse 15, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.
What is it about the nature of little children do you think that Jesus is pointing out in regards to entering the kingdom of God?
Purity?
When you teach a little child, most of the time, are they constantly arguing back with you, no, that's not true, that's not true, no, no.
What are children?
They're sponges.
They just soak up the things that are around them.
Now, there are some children who are of the opinion that they are the smartest living being on the planet.
and will insist that they know everything, but in general, the characteristic of a little child is that they are curious, they're interested, they're desirous of learning, they
want to be taught, they ask questions incessantly, but they also accept the answers.
And Jesus is telling the Jews and telling the disciples that
They are to be those who are willing to accept the kingdom as little children.
In stark contrast though, much of the Jewish society will reject the kingdom because it wasn't what they had in mind.
When the kingdom is finally presented to them, that wasn't what they were looking for.
So instead of accepting it because it's what God gave them and it was what God had promised them and it was what they should have had and needed,
They said, nope, not interested.
I'm looking for the physical kingdom where there's a physical king sitting on a physical throne where we can go back to being in power and great and mighty and not under the rule
of the Roman Empire.
That was the kingdom they were looking for.
And Jesus says, if you don't accept the kingdom as it is,
recognizing you're not going to get a say in how it comes.
I would say that it should be true and it should be obvious that children don't have a whole lot of say in what happens to them.
Although I think there's a lot of houses anymore where the children are the ones who run the entire house.
So that's probably not as true as it used to be.
But it should be the case that children don't get a whole lot of say in what happens to them.
They accept it as it comes and certainly it is the case that we as the children of God
God does not ask us, how do you think I should do this?
And if he did, would it be better off for it or worse?
Worse.
Jesus here illustrates that God as the Father is doing what is good on behalf of his children.
And as elsewhere stated,
that God is pleased to give the Kingdom to His children.
but they've got to be willing to accept it on God's terms, not theirs.
And that's part of what Jesus is teaching his disciples.
He took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them concerning the little children.
You also see here the recognition at times of the disciples where they would
They would see through the mundane, they would see through the day to day, and on occasion, they would suddenly look at Jesus and really realize who He was.
For instance, when Jesus spoke and the Sea of Galilee calmed, and they were amazed at who He was and the authority that He had to be able to calm the seas.
There are times and occasions where you finally see the disciples moving away from their physical interaction with Jesus and realizing His power, His authority.
And you see in those moments that that's how they should have viewed Him.
That's how they should have understood Him during these other times.
and that's how little children would see Jesus.
Now as he was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before him and asked him, Good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
So Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good?
No one is good but one, that is God.
You know the commandments.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness.
Do not defraud.
Honor your father and your mother.
Now where do all these commandments come from?
All right, God gave them to Moses.
These are part of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses.
uh Which one is missing?
Or which ones?
All right?
Although, thou shall not murder, do not murder is included here, which by the way, Jesus in the Greek, as recorded here in Mark, says that thou shalt not kill means do not murder.
He interprets the definition of kill there, because if it was no one has authority to kill anyone,
then what would that say about everyone who executed judgment on someone who had been found guilty of murdering someone else?
That they're just as guilty of murder.
That's not what God teaches.
Go back, before we get back on the other topics since we chased the rabbit already, go back to Genesis chapter 10.
Actually, Genesis chapter 9.
Let's see here.
Genesis chapter 9.
So, Noah and his family have just gotten off of the ark, and uh we read verse 4, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning.
From the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of every, and from the hand of man.
From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man.
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.
For in the image of God He made man.
And as for you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it." God pronounces corporal judgment against those who take the life of another.
To be.
quite honest about it, there would probably be far fewer murders if the murderer's life was taken after the first murder.
because many of the murders are committed by repeat offenders.
And if their life was taken after the first one, the number of the total amount would probably come down.
God said that it was wholly justified that if someone murders someone else that their life is forfeit.
Now, you further have additional instructions that are given under the Law of Moses regarding when that murder or that taking of another person's life was accidental.
You had then on that, in that scenario, you had the cities of refuge there within Israel, six of them, basically located around the nation where somebody could get to one pretty
quickly from anywhere.
And the scenario was that if you took the life of someone, their near kinsman could take your life as a result of it, but if it had been accidental, you could flee to the city of
refuge and there essentially go through a process of being put on trial to verify whether or not the thing had been accidental or intentional.
And were you protected by the city of refuge if it was found to be intentional?
No.
You were handed over to the one who was seeking your life and your life was over.
ah Now that's it was supposed to work, not exactly how Israel practiced it.
But the cities were there for someone who had accidentally taken the life of someone else to be able to flee to and have the ability to remain there and have the uh ability to
continue out their life.
They had to remain in that city for how long?
Alright, till the death and changing of the high priest.
So you better hope if that situation came to you, the high priest was really old and not really young because that was a position for life.
So if he was, you know, 35 when he got in and he was 36 when you got there, he might be there for a while and you might be living in that city for the rest of your life.
So God established
from the very beginning, going all the way back to the days of Noah, that when you committed murder, your life was forfeit.
Now, if it is the case that the command, thou shalt not kill, equally applies to the murderer and to the executioner of judgment against the murderer, that would make the one
who's the executioner of judgment against the murder equally guilty of sinning as the murderer.
and that's simply not the case, is taking the life of an individual who is guilty of murder wrong.
No.
As a matter of fact, it is right.
Now.
Should we be careful and judicial to make sure that the person who's accused of taking the life of another is actually the person who did take that life before we carry out
judgment?
Certainly.
But Jesus gives us a clear interpretation of thou shalt not kill.
in the New Testament right here in this text when he says and interprets it in the Greek because the word kill and murder are not always differentiated in the Hebrew but in the
Greek they are.
Jesus uses the term for murder, not the term for killing, not the term for an accidental death, not for the term of just ending a person's life but for murder.
But then notice as well, by trying to remember what it was I was talking about before I got off on that.
oh
What other commandments did he leave out here?
Alright, thou shalt not covet.
This individual is going to come to him and as we read in verse 17 as he was going out, this one came running.
He is anxious to see Jesus.
He is desirous of seeing Jesus.
He has an important question.
He's running.
And when he arrives, he says, good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Isn't that the question we wish more people would ask?
then why does Jesus quibble about the way he approaches him before he answers the question?
All right?
Jesus knew this young man's problem before the young man arrived.
I think it's, I think it is definitely a teaching occasion.
But I think it's for more than just the disciples.
We want, by we, Christians, desire for those who are lost, who are not saved and not in a right relationship with God, we want them to be aware of their scenario and change it.
But does it do them any good to ignore their actual problem and pretend that they're safe?
Do we get any benefit or do they get any benefit if we just, you know what, we'll just act like you're saved even though you didn't change?
No.
This individual comes running to Jesus and he greets him with a term, good rabbi.
Teacher.
This is not, by the way, an uncommon greeting in the first century for someone to greet a rabbi in this way, which perhaps is why Jesus says there's no one good but God.
Jesus responds, Why do you call me good?
There could be a couple of things going on here.
Jesus could be asking, in essence, who were you and how is it you've come to this conclusion?
but I don't think that's it.
I think what Jesus is pointing or pushing back against is a culture that acted as though all rabbis were equally good.
A culture that said, here's a rabbi and we'll accept what he teaches and there's a rabbi and we'll accept what he teaches and here's a rabbi and we'll accept what he teaches and
we'll just pull them all to see what we should do.
Are we judged by the opinions and the doctrines of our teachers?
Or are we judged by the Word of God?
There's the problem.
Should this individual have been able to determine what he needed to do in order to have eternal life without going to a rabbi?
Yeah, which is exactly why Jesus asked him the question that he asked him when he follows up with this.
First he says, why do you call me good?
No one is good but one, that is God.
Your teacher, your rabbis, your religiously schooled individuals are not on the same level as God.
So if you want to know
what you need to do in order to inherit eternal life, you should not accept the opinion of your teacher, your preacher, your rabbi, your person who claims to be an authority in
religion.
You should only accept the opinion of God, because the rest of them will not be your judge.
They will not be the one you stand before on the day of judgment.
He will be.
At which point, their referral won't do you any good.
no matter what they said over your grave, no matter what they said when you passed away and how wonderfully they preached that sermon getting you straight into heaven.
God didn't listen to them.
He says, why do you call me good?
No one is good, but one that is God.
Then he says, now notice the contrast.
You've come to a rabbi, but he says, you know the commandments.
Jesus is getting to the point that this individual has had access to the law himself.
and he should have been able to determine for himself what he needed to do.
He should have been holding himself accountable to the law, not accountable to the opinions of teachers.
So he says, you know the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud.
honor your father and your mother and he answered and said to him, teach her all these things I have kept from my youth.
Indicating he had been taught these things.
He knew the law.
Then Jesus looking at him, loved him and said to him, one thing you lack.
Now...
I don't want to draw more out of this than is here, but I honestly believe this is here.
I don't believe this is the first rabbi that he's been to.
I don't think this is the first teacher he's asked this question to.
I think this is the first teacher who told him the truth.
I think this is the first occasion where a teacher loved him enough.
tell him what he needed to hear.
The text says, Jesus looking at Him, loved Him, and said to Him, one thing you lack, go your way, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
and come take up the cross and follow me.
as Jesus looks at this young man.
who was so anxious in such a hurry to run to Jesus to ask this important question.
Jesus loves him enough to give him the answer.
before going back into the text, may I say, we do no one any good.
when they ask us a question about a religious matter or a biblical matter, and they are sincere in their asking, and we don't tell them the truth.
We may help them feel better about themselves if we don't tell them the truth, but we don't do them any good.
The only good that we can do, the only expression of love that we can offer is to tell them the truth.
Jesus said, go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven.
Jesus, as he replies to this young man, indicates that this man's account is bankrupt.
that he's overdrawn.
You would have thought after all he's kept all these commandments that surely uh his eternal bank account was sitting pretty good, right?
After all, he's avoided all these evil things, he's avoided all these sinful things, he's done good, he's honored his father and his mother, surely he has been worthy of some
marginal balance from the Lord, right?
Jesus said, have no account in heaven.
Go sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
if you are willing to part with the things which you have treasured on earth.
Now, as Jesus says this, Jesus isn't giving the same answer that He's given to every single person that has ever had an interaction with Jesus, is He?
Jesus didn't give this same instruction to every single individual that he met.
I don't remember Jesus ever telling Martha, go sell everything that you have and give it to the poor.
Did Jesus tell Mary to go sell everything she had and give it to the poor?
If so, she wouldn't have had the ointment to be able to anoint him that was worth a year's wage, would she?
Jesus didn't go and tell every one of His followers to take every possession that they have and go and sell it and give it to the poor.
Jesus' primary point was not to provide for the poor.
As a matter of fact, Jesus made the point and
the occasion when his feet were anointed with the oil of spider, this is the pour you have with you always.
Jesus did not give this instruction to every single person.
Jesus gave this instruction to this person.
And the reason is because this young man had a problem.
His problem was that His treasure was on earth.
And yet He's asking about eternal life.
Jesus didn't, by the way, also say, or He did not just say, go and sell everything you have.
and give it to the poor.
He also said, come, take up your cross and follow me.
Jesus doesn't invite very many people to be his disciples.
That is a close disciple, an apostle of Jesus.
You see here that this young man's life was truly at a fork in the road.
and he had the choice, he had the opportunity to be a true disciple of Jesus or to continue down the path that he'd already chosen.
But he was sad at this word and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mark makes it clear.
that this was not the answer he was looking for.
which meant he had been giving some thought to this.
He had been thinking about this question and about its answers.
And this wasn't one he was willing to accept.
We need to realize when we teach people that there will be times they will ask us questions and we will tell them the truth.
and such will end our relationship with them.
because the truth is the one thing they're not willing to accept.
And that was this young man's situation.
And so he went away, sorrowful.
And there's no indication of the text that that ever changed, that he ever changed his disposition.
Now, could he have later in life?
Well, certainly he could have.
But now, connect the two contexts.
Here's the little children coming to Jesus, desiring simply to be in His presence, their parents and others desiring for them to be blessed by Him.
And here's this one with great possessions.
Which one did the disciples turn away?
which one wasn't willing to hear Jesus?
There's a lesson here.
It's the same lesson over in James chapter two.
That so often the people that we're in a hurry to accept are the people who are not interested in the truth.
And the people who were in a hurry to push back against are the ones who are actually willing to have fellowship with Jesus.
and the disciples had it backwards.
This one got through, but they blocked the little children.
And they rebuked the parents of the little children.
When the parents of the little children weren't asking for money, they weren't asking for possessions, they weren't asking for riches, they weren't interested in physical things.
They were interested in spiritual things.
Here comes this rich young ruler, has great possessions, he gets right through.
and his only interest is in physical things.
All right, thank you for your attention.