The greatest act of love ever displayed in all of human history is found in Jesus Christ. If you are looking for the proof of God’s love for sinners, even for you, then look to Christ. As those who have received Christ’s love, may we crown him with many crowns and devote our lives to living out his command, “Love one another as I have loved you.”

On the night before his crucifixion, Jesus gave a parting command to his disciples, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” But love is not an abstract, sentimental idea. Jesus makes it clear that love is shown most powerfully in the act of self-sacrifice, even to the point of death. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” But Jesus wasn’t only talking about what we must do. He was also pointing to his death for us, the greatest of all acts of love.
Preaching on this text in 1873, Spurgeon gives seven reasons for why Christ’s laying down his life was infinitely greater and more glorious than any act of sacrifice that has ever been performed. For each one of these, Spurgeon calls for crowns of glory and worship to be placed upon Christ’s head.
Crown #1: Jesus was immortal and never needed to die
Christ’s death was utterly unique because it was an entirely voluntary act of love.
When a man lays down his life for his friend, he does not lay down what he could keep altogether; he could only have kept it for a while, even if he had lived as long as mortals can, till grey hairs are on their head, he must at last have yielded to the arrows of death. A substitutionary death for love’s sake in ordinary cases would be but a slightly premature payment of that debt of nature which must be paid by all. But such is not the case with Jesus. Jesus needed not die at all; there was no ground or reason why he should die apart from his laying down his life in the room and place and stead of his friends.
Crown #2: Jesus sacrificed himself knowing he had no chance of escape
Some people may volunteer to die for another and yet may still have hope that they will escape death. This was not the case for Jesus.
He knew that if he was to give a ransom for our souls he had no loophole for escape, he must surely die. Die he or his people must, there was no other alternative. If we were to escape from the pit through him, he must perish in the pit himself; there was no hope for him, there was no way by which the cup could pass from him. Men have risked their lives for their friends bravely; perhaps had they been certain that the risk would have ended in death they would have hesitated; Jesus was certain that our salvation involved death to him, the cup must be drained to the bottom, he must endure the mortal agony, and in all the sufferings of death extreme he must not be spared one jot or little; yet deliberately, for our sakes, he espoused death that he might espouse us.
Crown #3: Jesus’ sacrifice was motivated by pure, unmingled love
One person might die for another out of a sense of duty or gratitude or debt. But Jesus had no such motivation. His death was an act of pure love.
Read More

In that moment, He saw a demonstration that the Lord reigns. And that gave our brother courage to take every strike all the way to the bitter end. We know from Acts that He has come into His Kingdom. He has all authority in heaven and on earth. And while this martyrdom of Stephen in Jerusalem kickstarted one of the worst periods of persecution and martyrdom the church has ever seen, the standing Christ reminds us that evil did not win, Christ’s Church was not be defeated, and that we must march on in our battles today, knowing that we are gaining ground.

The Beginning of Martyrdom
When you examine the history of the Christian church, there are many reasons why believers have been persecuted and even martyred for their faith. For instance, during periods of Roman persecution, it was commonplace for believers to be murdered for refusing to acknowledge Caesar as Lord. The Romans did not care in the slightest if people wanted to worship a messianic upstart that they, in turn, crucified. They only took issue when Caesar was not a part of your pantheon. You could worship any number of ridiculous gods so long as you acknowledged the lordship of Caesar. And since Christians only have one Lord, they were killed in droves and significantly persecuted.
Now, as we have noted in previous articles, the most violent period of Christian persecution, when you look at it by the percentage of Christians murdered for their faith, overwhelmingly occurred in the first century at the hands of the bloodthirsty Jews. Long before Christianity reached a million people, or 2.4 billion for that matter, and long before it had spread throughout the Roman world, which occurred around the 3rd century AD, this messianic offshoot of Biblical, Old Covenant, Judaism called “the way” (Acts 9:2) began in Judea, and was heavily persecuted in Jerusalem, which is precisely what Jesus promised would happen (Matthew 24:9). That persecution began almost immediately and increased in intensity quite rapidly.
For instance, in Acts 2, the crowds mocked the disciples for speaking in various tongues at Pentecost. In Acts 4, the persecutions intensified, leading to their arrest and warning to never teach in the name of Jesus again. When they failed to heed the warning, they were arrested a second time in Acts 5, this time without warning or offer of release. It was at this point that an angel broke them out of prison, and they went back to the Temple Mount teaching, which led to a third arrest and their first series of violent beatings. By the time you get to Acts 6, one of the early deacons, a man named Stephen, is not only arrested for his faith in Jesus and not only beaten, but he becomes the first Christian to undergo the brutality of martyrdom. After Stephen was stoned, thousands upon thousands of Christians would be butchered in the first century by the Jews in various and sundry ways.
Everybody Needs a Recap
Now, if you have been tracking along with this series on the eschatology of Acts, you will remember where we have been. In week 1, I identified the need for an eschatological series in the Book of Acts. In week 2, we saw how Jesus’ end-time Kingdom was inaugurated in heaven at His ascension. In week 3, we watched as significant eschatological passages from the Old Testament were fulfilled at Pentecost, bringing that heavenly Kingdom down to earth so that it exists in both places. Then, in weeks 4, 5, 6, and  7, we examined Peter’s first eschatological sermon given in Jerusalem, which not only foreshadowed the awful doom of all those who reject Christ but also set forth the glorious Kingdom that would be inherited by all who love Christ. In week 8, we examined Peter’s second eschatological sermon, which teaches how expansive Jesus’ eschatological Kingdom will be on earth for the elect of God. And then last week, we witnessed how the Jews, unwittingly following the prophecy of Gamaliel, were found to be fighting against God and rejecting His Kingdom by rejecting and persecuting His Church. And, just like the messianic upstarts mentioned in Acts 5 (Theudas and Judas), the Jews would soon likewise perish at the hands of invading armies.
Acts and the New Exodus
In a sense, our time in the Book of Acts has been telling us the story of a brand new Exodus. A true and better deliverer than Moses has risen up in Christ, calling all of His people to leave their slavery to sin, be removed from the tyranny of the serpent king, and follow Him to a paradise land where they will be under the canopy of His covenant blessings forever. Like Israel, the early church was experiencing great fruitfulness and multiplication (Exodus 1:7; Acts 6:7). Like Israel, the people of the land were becoming jealous of them and were attempting to stomp them out (Deuteronomy 32:21; Acts 5:17). Like Israel, the early church was being led by the hovering fire and wind cloud of God’s presence. And, in the same way, this growing expansive wandering people became too much for one man, Moses, to administrate faithfully (Exodus 18:17-21), so too, the early church took the advice of Jethro and divvied out the responsibilities to faithful men in the community so that the apostles could focus on the intercessory ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:1-3). Some of these men were set apart as elders in the community (see Numbers 11:16 and Acts 14:23), while others were set apart, like the Levites, as deacons (Acts 6:5-6). Regardless of their position, everyone would come together to joyfully serve the living Christ (the cornerstone of the church) in seeing the Kingdom built up as the true end-time temple (1 Corinthians 3:16), built with living stones (1 Peter 2:5) that would fill the whole earth with God’s glory.
These events are clear allusions to the original Exodus and help us understand why God is going to destroy the first-century Jews. Instead of being the chosen people of God, who with tender hearts followed His chosen deliverer, they grumbled like their ancestors before; they turned on God’s deliverer and not only threatened to kill Him like Moses but shamefully succeeded. For their covenant crimes, killing God’s one and only Son (Acts 2:36), God would do to them what He did to the original wilderness generation, allowing their dead bodies to litter the wilderness ground after a period of forty years (Numbers 14:33; Matthew 24:28, 34).
Amid that Exodus context, God began to raise up faithful men out of that crooked and perverse generation (Deuteronomy 32:5; Acts 2:40). As in the original Exodus, where Caleb and Joshua were set apart for their faithfulness and were allowed to enter the Lord’s good land (Numbers 32:12), seven men were appointed to the office of deacon because of their faithfulness to God. And like Caleb and Joshua, they would not die in the Old Covenant sands with the rest of the rebels; they would lead God’s people like Joshua into the New Covenant paradise that we call the Kingdom of God (or the age of the church).
One of them named Stephen, after they laid hands on him and installed him to the office of deacon, was said to be like Joshua, full of faith and serving God in the power of the Holy Spirit (Deuteronomy 34:9). According to the text, he was doing signs, wonders, and miracles just as Moses did of old (Deuteronomy 34:10; Acts 6:8). When the people of Judah turned on him and threatened to kill him, he broke out in one of the great sermons of the New Testament, mirroring the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. In that sermon, he walked the crowds through the noteworthy events of the Exodus and showcased how they had the same heart as the stiff-necked people of old (Acts 7). Just before his Spirit-wrought message, the people noted that his face was shining like the face of an angel, which is the same phenomenon that happened to Moses (Exodus 34:29-35; Acts 6:15).
In almost every paragraph of the book of Acts, Exodus themes are present. And this, of course, is not by accident. God is alerting us that the same kind of people who rejected Him before will reject Him again. They will be given a window of forty years to repent. And because of their unfaithfulness, they will likewise perish.
Read More
Related Posts:

The modern sexual revolution was responding to real problems. But its solution, Perry argues, has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It hasn’t delivered on its promises. Young people are having less (and less satisfying) sex than their parents or grandparents; divorce, abortion, sexual violence, and pornography have all shot up. And women have borne the brunt of it.

Louise Perry has written a feminist critique of the sexual revolution, and it’s brave, excoriating, and magnificent.
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution isn’t a Christian book. Perry’s critique is rooted in evolutionary biology, feminist passion, and empirical observation, not biblical interpretation or theology. (We could of course argue that feminist passion is ultimately a product of biblical interpretation and theology, but that discussion can wait for another day.) Her language will offend some readers. She mentions practices and depravities that most of us would prefer never to think about. The devastating consequences of sexual “liberation” on vulnerable young women, particularly through loveless sex (chap. 4), pornography (chap. 5), sexual violence (chap. 6) and prostitution (chap. 7) are unsparingly exposed through analysis and personal narratives that can be deeply uncomfortable to read.
But it’s an outstanding book nonetheless: courageous, punchy, compellingly argued, and well written. From the haunting epigrams on the opening page to the delightfully robust conclusion, Perry—a New Statesman columnist and campaigner against male sexual violence—mounts a full-on assault against the sexual free market, the denial of male-female difference, the exploitation of women, the trivialization of sex, and “the matricidal impulse in liberal feminism that cuts young women off from the ‘problematic’ older generation” (189–90). If you have the stomach for it—and if you don’t, you can always skip chapters 5 to 7—you would do well to read it.

Sexual Differences
Perhaps the best way of summarizing The Case Against the Sexual Revolution is through the chapter titles: “Sex Must Be Taken Seriously” (chap. 1), “Men and Women Are Different” (chap. 2), “Some Desires Are Bad” (chap. 3). It almost sounds like a preaching series based on the opening chapters of Genesis. The echoes of Christian anthropology continue throughout the book, as Perry engages the various ways in which sex is distorted and abused in our culture (chap. 4–7) and concludes with “Marriage is Good” (chap. 8) and “Listen to Your Mother” (conclusion). Yet the rationale for each of these statements is empirical, not exegetical, and draws on peer-reviewed research rather than biblical authority.
Sexually speaking, Perry explains, men and women have different interests. These interests are rooted in biology and are as old as the hills. Some relate to the basic facts of life: the male contribution to creating a child takes minutes and costs nothing, while for the female it takes months and could cost everything. Some emerge from psychological differences, such as the statistical reality that men have a much higher desire for sociosexuality, or sexual variety, than women. Some are simply a function of anatomy; the differences in strength and speed between the average man and the average woman mean that men pose an incalculably greater physical risk to women than vice versa.
Every society has to work out how to balance these interests, and no way of doing it is flawless. But, Perry argues, “Western sexual culture in the twenty-first century doesn’t properly balance these interests—instead, it promotes the interests of the Hugh Hefners of the world at the expense of the Marilyn Monroes” (10–11). Powerful men win. Vulnerable women lose.
Not All Desires Are Good
At the heart of this culture is the disenchantment of sex. Sex means nothing for the liberal feminists Perry is challenging; sexual intercourse is just a form of physical recreation, sex work is just a form of work, and any restrictions on either are nothing but outdated, patriarchal, Victorian prudery. Any way in which you want to express your sexuality is good, by definition: “A woman should be able to do anything she likes, whether that be selling sex or inviting consensual sexual violence, since all of her desires and choices must necessarily be good” (14).
But this, for Perry, is simply not true. Some desires are bad. “Liberal ideology flatters us by telling us that our desires are good and that we can find meaning in satisfying them, whatever the cost,” she explains. “But the lie of this flattery should be obvious to anyone who has ever realized after the fact that they were wrong to desire something, and hurt themselves, or hurt other people, in pursuing it” (20).

Related Posts: