Mississippi Presbyterian

Jesus before Pilate

2011-12-16T20:33:00.000-06:00

These are a series of three sermons on Matthew 27:11-26. The first concerns the Father's exoneration of Jesus; you can link to it here. The second explores the lack of Pilate's resolve; you can link to it here. The third looks at the blindness and brashness of the mob; link to it here.

Blood Money

2011-12-16T14:54:00.001-06:00

Here is the link to my sermon on Matthew 27:6-10. This was preached back in July (on the 10th). I know I am way behind in posting these things but it has been a full Fall this year.

Judas in the Court of Conscience

2011-09-21T21:56:00.000-05:00

So, here is the next sermon in the series. It's on Matthew 27:1-5, and was preached the first Sunday in July. By the way, I never have titles for my sermons, so it's a hit and miss exercise to add titles to them for posting, especially when they were preached a couple months back.

Sermon on Peter's Denials

2011-08-29T13:37:00.002-05:00

Okay, after a couple months thinking about how to do this cheaply, I think I have got it.
I'm going to start posting some of the morning sermons here. The first is on Matthew 26:69-75. I preached it June 26, 2011. The text is on Peter's denial. I think I'll post one or two a week till I get caught up.
Please note, we do have an full evening service here in Heidelberg with preaching but I am not going to record those. Sunday is a technology light day for me and that little recorder drives me crazy as it is.

A Low-Church/Reformed Defense of the term Sanctuary

2011-06-16T11:37:00.001-05:00

What should we call the building we, as the church, worship in? Amongst Protestants there are generally two words that come to mind: auditorium and sanctuary (this excludes the more traditional language of the Church of England because her vocabulary is drawn from the Medieval church). Sanctuary is more common today, but auditorium has a venerable history and much theologically to commend it.

Sanctuary has sacerdotal and high church overtones. It means holy place. It is used in the Bible to identify either the main building of the Temple complex, or the holy of holies. It was never a place into which the common worshiper entered. It was reserved for the priests. Those churches which have a sacerdotal view of the ministry, where there is a priesthood and a sacrifice, never refer to the common gathering area as a sanctuary. It generally refers to the area where they place the altar or the container for holy objects (though I think the container for the “real presence” is called a tabernacle — same concept though).
An auditorium, on the other hand, has none of those priestly associations. It refers to a place where one hears. Auditorium makes clear that the central act of worship in a Protestant worship service is the hearing of the word of God. For these two reasons, auditorium was our forefathers’ preferred nomenclature for the church’s main building. The older architectural style of American churches reinforced this vocabulary; there was nothing priestly about an old meeting house.
If these were the only considerations this would be a blog post advocating auditorium. But words and their associations change. Today auditorium is synonymous with theatre. It is a place of entertainment. It is a place where applause is given. Auditoriums use to be filled with auditors; but auditors no longer mean listeners, rather critics and evaluators. All the wrong associations for the church meeting house. It would be fine, perhaps, if it were not for the fact that it is exactly entertainment and autonomy that mar Protestant piety today.
Does that mean we must use the sacerdotal language of the sanctuary? Absolutely not, but consider: when Protestants use sanctuary as the name of their gathering place they subtly undermine sacerdotalism. What gathers in a sanctuary? Saints do. The whole is holy because of who gathers there, not just the spot reserved for priests. Here then is tacit witness to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Sanctuary is still not without problems, it is still not a holy place. But we can adjust to same qualifications we have grown accustom to using about the word church. After all, who has not made the clarification that a building is a church because it is the church that gathers there?
Perhaps the solution is to go a third way. I kinda like moot, but that’s because I like obscure old words. Tyndale faced the same problems. His first New Testament translation used congregation exclusively to translate ecclesia (church). It is a better word on all accounts but one, traditional usage. In the end it was better to use a word that was familiar, even if it had to be explained, than use a word that sounded alien. Of course congregation would be perfectly understandable after a half millennium of Protestantism, but translators still use church. So, after weighing pros and cons, and limiting myself to the two traditional words given me, I prefer sanctuary. But I’m not dogmatic on the issue, sometimes you will hear me call it an auditorium. But my meaning will always be clear (even if, on occasion, I call it a church moot).

The Threat to Mississippi RUM (THE RUM)

2011-01-13T15:33:00.001-06:00

Reformed University Ministries is a product of the heart for students found in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Because of its Mississippi origins RUM Mississippi has always enjoyed a somewhat separate existence from the Atlanta bureaucracy, which was developed from it. Of course, human envy and lust for power drives all bureaucracies and Atlanta is no different. Here's an article showing the threat to the fine ministry here in our home state: (be sure to read Roger Collins's heart-breaking letter at the end)

Major Debate in Covenant Presbytery on the Structure of R.U.M. in Mississippi

Book, eBooks, eReader, and iPads

2010-09-23T18:05:00.000-05:00

I am a reader. I am also a bibliophile. I love books; I love the feel of books and I love the look of books. I also have a Kindle e-reader. I have had one since they first came out and I have recently added the new Kindle WiFi to the family. There are some who believe or hope that e-books will replace paper books. Then there are some that think that e-books are a passing fad. I belong to neither camp.

A paper book, since the invention of the codex (the present form of most books, a clear advance from the scroll), is a perfect marriage of form and function. You can open a book anywhere; you can flip through to find a favorite place; and you write all over it. You can leave one book open while you consult another. Books can be stacked or shelved; they can be used to hold other things down. And a book is sustainable. Paper comes from forests grown for such purposes.

E-books have there own virtues to commend them. They take up minimal space. They are light. They can be accessed through the internet on a variety of devices. An e-book can be searched for words or phrases (try that with a concordance) and are often read on devices that provide instant dictionary services. They can be hidden away in a directory file; out of the prying eyes of friends and family.

Some books are just not designed for optimal use in an electronic format. I like having two or three books open on my desk at one time. Most of the books I use in work and study I use by flipping through them. I also like having paper copies of books I love just so I can turn to a favorite passage or see it on the bookshelf. I have bought books for the shelf that I read first on an e-reader.

On the other hand, there are some books that are best experienced in an e-book format. Generally theses are books that you read from cover to cover. I find that I read these books much faster on an e-reader than I do in a paper book. I think it focuses the reader on the forward flow of the book or something. Others have experienced this; just read any e-reader forum. E-books are also a lot more portable and handy. And, much to my wife's chagrin, have purchased e-books that I already own in a paper copy. There is no better format for a book you might only read once and will not boost your ego by sitting on the book shelf for everyone to see.

As you can see, both paper books and e-books find a place in my reading life. In fact, I read more fiction since I got an e-reader than I did before. The above considerations play into the decision to go either paper book or e-book or both.

When one decides to go with an e-book another question presents itself: How does one read it? One can read an e-book on a cell phone, a computer screen, a tablet device (think iPad, iPod touch, iPhone), or a dedicated e-reader. Having choices is one of the great things about e-books. However, I do think that an e-book reader should have a dedicated e-reader. It best mimics the advantages of paper books without some of the disadvantages. The e-ink screen used by most e-readers is like paper and does not tire the eyes for sustained reading. Most e-readers are light and ergonomically designed to facilitate one handed reading. The problem with the multi-purpose devices are their backlit screen that can tire the eyes and the distraction of a billion other things. The iPad is a beautiful device and great to use, but it is a better internet interface than a e-reader (though the Kindle app on it is great for a quick read). I like my e-reader to feel like a book, and my computer to feel like a tri-quarter.

Social Justice? Social Envy:

2010-08-16T12:59:00.000-05:00

Hand in hand with covetousness goes its close companion— invidia or envy—which hates to see other men happy. The names by which it offers itself to the world’s applause are right and justice, and it makes a great parade of these austere virtues. It begins by asking, plausibly, “Why should not I enjoy what others enjoy?” and it ends by demanding, “Why should others enjoy what I may not?” Envy is the great leveler. If it cannot level things up, it will level them down; and the words constantly in its mouth are “my rights” and “my wrongs.”

--Dorothy Sayers, Letters to Diminished Church, Kindle location 1132.

Here is the truth by what usually names itself "social justice".

First Eggs!!!!

2010-08-03T13:03:00.001-05:00

My wife gathered our first eggs from our chickens last evening. Apparently the Easter-eggers mature a little quicker. Both eggs are a beautiful light robins egg blue.
UPDATE: Wed., August 4, 2010:
The eggs, along with two other we harvested yesterday, were delicious scrambled with two slices of bacon.

Do we still believe the Bible is sufficient?

2010-07-03T21:48:00.001-05:00

In the past century Presbyterians fought, and ultimately divided, over the inspiration and authority of scripture. In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) our commitment has been solidly to the Bible. That, I believe, is still the case. However, there is another doctrine regarding scripture that IS JUST AS IMPORTANT -- the sufficiency of scripture. What does that mean? It means that the scripture is the only direction that the church needs to accomplish her mission. How do I you share the gospel? Go to the Bible. How do I relate to my fellow believers? my neighbor? my enemy? Go to the Bible. What ought the church to do when she gathers together? Go to the Bible and find out. The Bible is sufficient for all these things, despite being over 2,000 years old, because it is the Lord's message to us. Is his wisdom sufficient for these things? Then so is his word. Without a vigorous commitment to the sufficiency of the Bible, it doesn't matter a whit whether you believe the Bible is infallible or not. Just as good works reveal the sincerity of one's faith, so living by the Bible gives proof that the church believes the Bible to be authoritative.
Sufficiency is dealt with in the Confession
of Faith, chapter I.6:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

It should be noted that the power behind the Bible's sufficiency is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit uses the Bible to reveal Christ to the church. I have included the whole section because many would use the latter part to argue that the church should use human means (such as sociology and marketing). But circumstances are not strategic plans and methodologies. They are not worship styles. Circumstances are those things you run into implementing biblical worship, biblical church government, and preaching the gospel. Think worship time, scheduling presbytery meetings, and how much of a biblical passage to preach.

The PCA is not divided on its commitment to an infallible, inerrant Bible. But the main conflicts plaguing the church since I have been attending General Assembly have to do with sufficiency; and that division is the heart of biblical authority. In the Nineteenth Century the Presbyterian Church split Old School/New School; in the Twenty-First Century the Presbyterian Church may well split Biblical Means/ Strategic Means.

New Blog in the Blog Roll

2010-03-30T17:04:00.002-05:00

Christianbook Distributers has a great blog about Christian books. Particularly useful is their interviews with authors of new titles. Check them out.

P.S. If you're interested, they have a great contest for a set of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.

Wealth and Liberty

2010-03-29T09:35:00.003-05:00

It is commonly held that with wealth comes liberty. I mean liberty or freedom in the classical sense: not so much the existence of choices but the removal of barriers that hinder one's goals. One can easily imagine that a little more money, a slightly more secure situation, a larger pool of resources could open many doors that currently remain shut. The doors might not be that obvious. A liberal education is not cheap. Certain social circles are hard to break into without the experiences that come with wealth. Time comes at a price when one lives from paycheck to paycheck. Philosophers will deny all this, but philosophers have generally come from privileged classes.
Yet wealth comes with its own chains and burdens.
One must increase wealth to keep wealth. It is not a static entity. Wealth requires its keeper to be constantly vigilant to thwart its ever more cunning escape plans. There is also the fact that it is never quite delivers what it promises. It is never enough. There is always more comfort, more freedom, to secure. Wealth possesses the one who has wealth (be it ever so little) and becomes the master. Far from being a means to freedom and liberty, wealth is a secret tyrant and slave master.
When one makes wealth the means of liberty, and thus an agent of good, one implicitly makes poverty an agent of evil. Man's problem becomes a problem of want. Because it is obvious that everyone cannot have everything, mankind is thrown into competition with himself. A wealthy man becomes the enemy of Everyman. In such a world there must be constant warfare and class struggle. There can be no peace.
Jesus strikes the common misconception (the common idolatry) at its root: "Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." [Matt. 19:23,24]. In answer to the disciples astonishment he explains why: "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God?" [Mark 10:24]. That Jesus is not speaking in rhetorical hyperbole is made evident by his answer to his disciples regarding who may be saved: "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." [Matt. 19:26]. Here is the impossibility and the possibility, destruction and salvation, law and gospel.
Wealth is not fit to give liberty because evil takes no notice whether one has or has not. Wealth may change the circumstances of evil, but it can not free one from evil. Man's problem is not a problem of want, not material, not physical, nor mental, nor even emotional. What mankind lacks is rectitude; he lacks righteousness and holiness. Man's problem is rebellion and guilt. These are not problems wealth can solve. Sin is not a burden money can remove. True liberty cannot be bought by such means. True liberty comes from Christ alone: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." [John 8:31,32; continue with the rest of the paragraph]. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." [John 14:6]. True liberty is freedom from the dominion and burden of sin; liberty is the freedom to truly glorify God, and enjoy him forever.

Spring Is Here

2010-03-28T15:09:00.000-05:00

Spring has come and it is time to spruce up the look of the blog. Thanks to Blogger for the improved templates and customizing options, I can brighten things up a bit. Let me know if you think it is an improvement or disaster. :-)

Marriage, the Core of Society:

2010-02-27T10:30:00.000-06:00

In chapters 2 & 3 of the Politica, Althusius identifies the family as the basis of human society. Of course, this is sort of a common place. We hear this sort of thing in political rhetoric all the time today. It was an old concept (indeed a biblical one) even in Althusius' day, but it was not popular. The nation state was emerging with its strong centralized power. Althusius believed that society and government was organized around consent and commitment, that is, covenants. There was no absolute human authority.

Are these two ideas compatible? Can the basis of society be the family and, at the same time, consent? After all, we do not general choose our family members. But a moments reflexion identifies the basis of the family is the covenant between man and wife. If were but one society, only one family, at its base would be a commitment between a man and his wife, between a woman and her husband. This is the teaching of the Bible. Adam and Eve were joined together in marriage by God (see Genesis 2, and Matthew 19). In fact the creation of man included the creation of both male and female, they together complete the concept of man.

The bond of this union is such that it even trumps the duty of a child to his or her parents (see again the two references above). Now the law of God does not pit one duty against another, we are to honor father and mother AND keep the marriage bond pure and unbroken. However, we live in a sin-sick world and their are times when our duty to God overrules our duty to our neighbor. It is better to obey God rather than men, says our apostles. When we remember that our duty to respect and honor civil government is derived from the fifth commandment (our duty to honor our parents), the sacredness and solemnity of the marriage bond is intensified. In human society it is covenant, not power, that is fundamental.

But can the same argument be made outside of revelation? I think so. While our understanding of humanity's early years is clouded and based largely on conjecture, recorded history sees mankind already organized in complex societies. And common to all those societies is the institution of marriage in one form or another. It is true, that hierarchies of power asserted themselves over the mutual commitments of men, patriarchs of families began to undermine their sons' marriages by demanding unwavering loyalty, and that sacred institution became a way of extending political clout, it became one more tool of power. But in the beginning it was not so, and our Lord makes that clear. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Another Warning against Faith in Government:

2010-02-20T11:33:00.001-06:00

This article is a must read:

Is Joe Stack a Wake-Up Call to America? by John W. Whitehead

Its purpose is to show the tragic futility of trusting government. Government is not God, it is not capable of doing what it promises & often promises what it has no intention of doing. Why? Because government is human. It is made up of men and women wielding power. It is subject to human corruption. And like mankind everywhere, it lies, cheats, steals for the extension of its own "good" (which, from the perspective of government, is power). Of course, government wants to put the best spin on its actions and so it creates myths and presents itself as the protector of human freedom, prosperity, and wellbeing. But that is its own useful fiction. The tragedy is that many people believe government myths, and they either become pawns in the oppression of themselves and their neighbors or they end up disillusioned and despondent: thus Joe Stack.

This is not to say that government serves no good purpose for mankind. All things work together for good to them that love God, and to them who are the called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). God uses the evil of the world to bless his people. Government, as evil as it is, is still a restraint against humanity's utter depravity. God uses many such restraints. But when we confuse a restraint with a positive blessing, we set up an idol. This is the problem with the so-called Christian Right and the Christian Left, both replace politics with the gospel. Government is a burden, but with Paul we can say, I can do [endure] all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Phil. 4:13).

The Social Imperative

2010-02-19T18:14:00.002-06:00

Moreover, Aristotle teaches that man by his nature is brought to this social life and mutual sharing. For man is a more political animal than the bee or any other gregarious creature, and therefore by nature far more of a social animal than bees, ants, cranes, and such kind as feed and defend themselves in flocks. Since God himself endowed each being with a natural capacity to maintain itself and to resist whatever is contrary to it, so far as necessary to its welfare, and since dispersed men are not able to exercise this capacity, the instinct for living together and establishing civil society was given to them. Thus brought together and united, some men could aid others, many together could provide the necessities of life more easily than each alone, and all could live more safely from attack by wild beasts and enemies. It follows that no man is able to live well and happily to himself. Necessity therefore induces association; and the want of things necessary for life, which are acquired and communicated by the help and aid of one’s associates, conserves it. For this reason it is evident that the commonwealth, or civil society, exists by nature, and that man is by nature a civil animal who strives eagerly for association.

--Althusius, Politica §32,33.

Here is an argument from natural law (and God's revelation in the book of nature) that undergirds all social intercourse amongst men. Man is, by the necessary conditions of his creation, a social being. Man cannot be alone and be complete: thus moral obligation and love. By the same law, a Christian man cannot be alone and be complete: thus the church. Moving from natural theology to revealed theology, God has declared unto us that we are created in his image. Is it any surprise then that he has also revealed himself to be a community of persons in one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Another Way to Read Althusius

2010-02-17T12:32:00.001-06:00

This link will take you to an online version of Althusius' Politica. You may access the whole translation for free, with the same page numbers in the print version.

Thank you Liberty Fund.

Introduction to Althusius' Politica

2010-02-15T16:21:00.002-06:00

"Politics is the art of associating (consociandi) men for the purpose of establishing, cultivating, and conserving social life among them. Whence it is called "symbiotics." The subject matter of politics is therefore association (consociatio), in which the symbiotes pledge themselves each to the other, by explicit or tacit agreement, to mutual communication of whatever is useful and necessary for the harmonious exercise of social life."

Thus Althusius begins his Politica (p.17). His vocabulary does present some problems to the casual reader so I would like to help clear things up a bit. First, we should not read politics as referring to the squabbles of political parties. Nor does he have in mind political government per se. He is seeking to explain the principles underlying every association between individuals (government, church, family, professional associations, &c.). Art is used in the sense of a subject of inquiry or a skill.
Symbiotics is from a Greek word meaning "living together." The symbiotes are, therefore, those who live together (or associated together for whatever purpose they are so associated). Communication is sharing, related more to communion (the modern word indicates the sharing of ideas, words, thoughts, &c.). This is how the older English versions of the Bible use the term (typically rendered fellowship in newer versions).
One should note that Althusius was committed to the "social contract" theory of politics before the Enlightenment formulation. However, Althusius' preferred word would be covenant. As man's relationship to God is covenantal, so is his relationship with the rest of mankind. And so his understanding of politics includes elements of piety: "The end of political "symbiotic" man is holy, just, comfortable, and happy symbiosis, a life lacking nothing either necessary or useful."
Althusius constructs his Politica on divine & natural law, both conceived as coming from the Lord. As such his politics assumes the liberty of mankind (though this was less a concern before Thomas Hobbes). Along with the mutual agreement of the members of the political body being considered is the belief that human sovereignty in a commonwealth lies not with the prince but with the people as a whole. He concludes "that the efficient cause of political association is consent and agreement among the communicating citizens." (Page 24). Of course, these ideas are at the very heart of our free society (or at least they were).

A Different Direction & a Good Book:

2010-02-13T21:38:00.003-06:00

I know some of you miss the short run-throughs of the sermon texts from week to week, but I really cannot bring myself to them justice. I may still do some of that, but obviously I cannot do it consistently (the last such post being back in November). So what should I do? I did get some feedback on my last post. It was just a link to an article I read with some of my own comments attached. That seems to be a good use of the blog, but certainly not a primary use. I am considering posting reading notes on some of the books I am reading. Right now I have several books in the queue and several strategically locating in my reading zones (on my desk, by the bed, near the couch, &c.). I will probably write most on Johannes Althusius' Politica. Althusius was an early advocate of popular sovereignty, federalism (and social contract), and local rule. However, he is pre-Enlightenment and his views grow out of his commitment to the Reformed faith (Calvinism) and natural law.
The link below has information about Althusius' Politica (and how to order):
Liberty Fund | Fifty years of affirming the ideal of individual liberty

Posted using ShareThis

Why God warns us against faith in government:

2010-01-29T12:34:00.003-06:00

How To Fix the Jobs Problem by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

This is an article that should be read. This a cogent explanation of the blessings of a free society. Note, freedom encourages a strong work ethic, entitlements encourage laziness. Government policies are inherently oppressive (see 1 Sam. 8). As St. Augustine taught, we have government because we are sinners and it is the punishment of the Fall. Paul teaches us that we are to honor those in authority because they are ordained by God, but we do not give them our devotion (and the early Christians' failure to do so got them eaten by lions). Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and with Abraham we have our eyes on a better country.

Satanic Peter

2009-11-10T13:10:00.001-06:00

In Matthew 16:17, Jesus pronounces Peter blessed because Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Matthew 16:23, Jesus rebukes Peter as a Satan, trying to tempt him from his mission. What happened? Peter confesses Christ by forsaking the evaluations of the flesh and relying on the Father’s revelation. In seeking to shield his master from suffering and death, Peter savored of men not of God. From standing firm against the gates of hell to being one of the Devil’s own siege weapons, Peter’s fall is dreadfully quick. Yet it is the common lot of the disciples of Jesus Christ to this very day.

The problem, as Jesus clearly points out, is the fact that Peter falls back on his own conception of what it means to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Sin is such that only with constant vigilance can its corrupting influence be mitigated. We know the truth, we learn God’s will from the Bible through private reading and personal study, preaching, and study groups. And yet, as sinners, we are constantly avoiding the implications of God’s word to us personally. We place ourselves and our comfort at the center of the Lord’s work, instead of God’s glory.

Peter was not content with Jesus’ description of his mission: rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection. It did not fit with his idea of Christ’s glory. It did not fit his idea of discipleship. What would it mean for the student, if the master was to be so cruelly and dishonorably used? And that is the point of Jesus’ teaching in the rest of the chapter (Mat. 16:24-28). Of course, our Lord has already been crucified and is raised in glory. But we are content to let him bear the cross for us. We chafe at any notion that suffering is part of our life with God. To that our Lord says, “Get thee behind me Satan.”

The Rock

2009-10-20T10:11:00.001-05:00

When Peter confessed Jesus to be Christ, the Son of the living God, our Lord made a confession to and about Peter (Mt. 16:16-18). Jesus declared Peter blessed in that he had received the truth from God himself. He also gave Peter his name, which in Greek means rock (John tells us in his Gospel that Jesus gave him his name upon meeting him, but this is a confirmation and an explanation of what made him a rock). Jesus also said that, “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Now whatever else this may mean, it has nothing to do with which bishop is head of the true church. The New Testament knows of no individual but Christ as the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11). The Bible does name the prophets and the apostles as the church’s foundation with Christ as the chief cornerstone in several places (see Ephesians 2:19-22; Revelation 21:14). And it is true that the church must be apostolic, which means she must be founded on the teachings of the apostles. But she can only be built on the apostles as she is built on their witness, which is the holy Bible. Like Peter, the church must receive and submit to the Father’s revelation (see verse 17). Like Peter, the church must trust Jesus as the Christ, God’s anointed servant to bring salvation from sin and death; the church must trust Jesus as God’s Son, the very bosom of the Father. To be built on the rock of Christ, the church’s faith must be the same as Peter’s faith.

Amen Brother

2009-10-20T09:37:00.001-05:00

Here is a post that needs to be read and thought over: Growing Hatred for True Christianity at Two-Edged Sword.

Behind the Question

2009-10-11T22:18:00.001-05:00

In Matthew 16:13-20, we have one of the foundational texts regarding the church under the new covenant. In this post I want to point out how this passage begins. Jesus continues instructing his disciples after he has warned them of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5-12), by questioning about his reputation among the people: “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” Why? Obviously the answers the disciples gave do not reflect their own ideas. They certainly knew he was not John the baptist and it is unlikely that they ever identified him with the other prophets that they name. Peter spoke for all of them when he answered Jesus, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

So what value did Jesus’ question have? Questions are a very old way to teach. We usually associate the method with Socrates, the great Greek philosopher. But even the Greeks knew that the socratic method was older than Socrates. In fact, God himself may have been the first to use it when he inquired of Adam, “Where art thou?” Jesus asked his question of the disciples, as he did of Adam, with more in mind than finding an answer. He was teaching them who he is.

The disciples could see immediately that the popular theories regarding Jesus’ identity were woefully insufficient. Jesus is more than a mere prophet of God; all their experiences with him told them that. God the Father made himself evident in the mighty works and authoritative teachings of Jesus. Compared to the fancies of the world, the Father’s testimony was brought home and made firm. Before Jesus asked, the disciples thought that Jesus was the Christ, afterwards they knew. Flesh and blood did not reveal it unto them, but their Father in heaven.

Jonah, Jonah, Jonah

2009-09-18T22:11:00.001-05:00

Jonah is a strange choice to serve as the go-to sign for Jesus Christ. Certainly the time Jonah spends in the belly of the whale is a fitting sign for Jesus’ time spent in the grave. That, of course, is Jesus’ point in referring to Jonah. But Jonah teaches a lot about ourselves in relation to God’s gospel. In Jonah 1:1-3, we have the Lord’s call to Jonah and Jonah’s reaction to his call. It does not reflect well on Jonah, but not for the reasons we may, at first, think.

The Lord calls Jonah to preach to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was the great city of the Assyrians and the enemy of Jonah’s people. But the message was one of judgment and destruction (see the content of Jonah’s preaching in chapter three). You would think that the prophet would crave the opportunity to be the message of ruin for the enemy of Israel. So why does he flee?

Of course we might chalk up Jonah’s flight to a fear for his own safety. After all, prophets were sometimes martyrs. The Assyrians were cruel enemies. Peter, in fear for his own safety, would deny his Savior three times. Certainly we could relate to his fear, but it was not fear that drove him away from the presence of the Lord.

Jonah tells us himself what he was thinking in 4:2. He flees because he knew that the Lord is merciful and long-suffering. Jonah flees not because he was afraid, but because he wanted no role in the salvation of his enemies.

Jonah understands the Lord’s ways, he just doesn’t want to travel in those ways. Jonah understands that the Lord is merciful when he warns and when he chastises. The Lord could have simply exterminated the people of Nineveh. Did he give warning to Sodom? As Paul tells us in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, even the Gentiles give evidence that they know the law. But when the Lord makes his anger at sin evident, it is to humble sinners and call them to repentance. The knowledge of the Lord’s wrath is a revelation of his mercy. Jonah wants no part of it.

How are we different when we shut our hearts to the plight of sin-sick and lost? Are we all that better than Jonah?