Then and Now

Comparisons can be invidious. They can also be instructive and profitable. For instance, a comparison of the physician Luke with the physicians of today reveals the tremendous strides made in medicine during the past 2,000 years.

This is no reflection on Luke. I am sure that a man who was such a careful historian was equally conscientious in the practice of his profession. His character was unblemished, and his dedicated personality led the Apostle Paul to speak of him as “Luke the beloved physician.”

But since Luke’s time and particularly in the last few decades, the practice of medicine and surgery has been revolutionized. What is commonplace today would have been unbelievable even a few years ago.

Visiting in one of our great medical centers, I watched a friend, a much younger surgeon, perform what is now a routine operation in many hospitals. He removed most of the abdominal aorta (for a large aneurysm) and the two large arteries leading down through the pelvis, replacing them with a plastic counterpart in and through which a new aorta and branches would develop. The care, precision, and lack of haste of the surgeon and his three assistants bore testimony to their training and skill. And, best of all, the patient made a brilliant recovery.

In another area, that of open-heart surgery, progress is so rapid that the possibility of complete heart replacements is actually being discussed.

As for the new medicines, it is said that 90 per cent of the prescriptions now written by physicians are for medicines not in use even ten years ago.

It is obvious that while the character of Luke the physician has not been improved upon, the practice of medicine and surgery has advanced fantastically. Bodily ailments continue as in Luke’s day, but the means of relief are immeasurably improved.

What about the preaching of Peter and Paul? How does it compare with preaching today? Luke’s profession sought to heal sickness of the body. Peter and Paul preached to bring healing to the souls of men.

While the practice of medicine has advanced since Luke’s day to unthought-of heights, much of present-day preaching has regressed. This is not meant to be a universal judgment, of course. Yet the facts cannot be ignored.

The preaching of Peter and Paul was based on an accurate spiritual diagnosis and the offer of a sure cure. Much preaching today evades the basic sickness of the soul and prescribes nostrums no more effective than the incantations of a witch doctor.

Those early apostles confronted their hearers with the fact of sin, its enormity, its wages, and its cure. They preached sin, judgment, repentance, and forgiveness through the atoning work and shed blood of Calvary, and they got results.

They made use of the power available in their time and equally so today—the power of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Scriptures, and the power of prayer. How much preaching today is dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit to make it effective, the power of the Scriptures as the Sword of the Spirit, and the power generated by prayer before the proclamation of the Gospel?

An analysis of Peter’s sermons, confirmed in Paul’s preaching and writings, can be exceedingly profitable for us today.

For one thing, the enormity of the crucifixion was stressed: evil men killed the Son of God even as they asked life for a murderer instead. The good and righteous One was rejected in favor of a common criminal.

The vindication of Jesus Christ and his work, by the resurrection, was an ever-recurring theme. Without the resurrection there would have been no preaching, no salvation, no hope, and no Church.

In early preaching, mercy and warning were combined. The Jews had crucified the Lord of Glory in ignorance, but they were now no longer ignorant. The truth eliminated any vestige of excuse and brought responsibility. To hear the Gospel was and is a great privilege, but it always carries with it a terrible responsibility.

Repentance was also a main theme of their preaching. The knowledge of the guilt of sin demanded repentance for that sin. Not only was one’s mind to be changed; there also had to be a change in life itself.

This repentance invariably had certain consequences. The sins of the past were wiped out, much as one might wipe away writing on papyrus. And with remission of sins the entire future was affected. Instead of despair, there was hope; instead of weakness and futility, God-given power to overcome; instead of endless striving, rest and peace.

It is noteworthy that these early preachers believed in the sure return of Christ. The promise of Acts 1:8 would certainly be fulfilled. They knew history was going somewhere, moving with a sure tread. They knew that the God of time and eternity would ring down the curtain of history when he so willed.

These early preachers of the Word believed unswervingly that all that had happened to Christ had been foretold by the prophets. Instructed by the Lord himself, they now knew that the teachings of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms pointed primarily to Jesus Christ.

How much preaching on sin and repentance do we hear today? How really smart is a “sophistication” that denies or evades the reality of sin, with its sure judgment, and substitutes a different “gospel”?

I am convinced that if the chaos that exists in modern theological education existed instead in medical education, the health of the world would be imperiled.

Modern physicians are being trained in the basic sciences and taught how to make use of the latest advances in every field of medicine and surgery.

Modern preachers (with many wonderful exceptions) are being trained away from the simplicity of the Gospel, while the “basic science” of their calling—a heart and head knowledge of the Bible—is woefully neglected. Tragically, many come to regard Scripture as a “bent sword” and turn from it to fields of secondary importance, such as restructuring the social order. Meanwhile the souls of men continue their death march to a Christless eternity.

Many rightly are critical of a cult that denies the reality of sickness and pain. But many modern preachers evade the reality of sin and judgment to come. Concern for the ills of society should be so real that the one solution—the redemption of the individual—should be paramount. Washing the outside of the cup, or making the Prodigal comfortable, happy, and prosperous in the Far Country, is a poor substitute for preaching the new birth.

This is being written in love because of the high esteem in which I hold the Christian ministry. But if a physician is held responsible for malpractice by his fellow physicians, why should a lesser standard prevail for ministers—to whom the eternal destiny of souls is committed?

No one would wish to return to the type of medicine practiced in Luke’s time. But we do need to recapture the content and relevance of the preaching of the early disciples.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.