There is the false wall of fame and the true wall of fame. Many women already have their reward, but if your name is in the Book of Life, you are eternally known
So many people, especially women, are hopscotching the globe founding important ministries, establishing orphanages, ’empowering’ native women, or teaching to packed arenas, that it makes some of the rest of us humdrum ladies feel, ahem, left behind. Should we be doing the big things? Can we do the bigger things? Are we doing enough?
All I do every single day, is go to work. I come home and I study my Bible and pray, I write, and if I have enough energy after that, I read a bit. Then I go to sleep and do it all over again. On the weekends all I do is grocery shopping, laundry, cooking the week’s lunches ahead, and study a lot more and write a lot more. I go to church on Sunday. Bed time. Repeat.
I wash dishes in obscurity in north GA and my job is to help kindergarteners tie their shoes and struggling readers learn their ABC’s. It’s not glamorous. It doesn’t seem like it’s very much at all of a contribution to the kingdom.
I mean, Beth Moore is a nearly 70 year old grandma busy helping her daughter through her unbiblical divorce & remarriage and interacting with her grandchildren yet keeps a packed schedule. Joyce Meyer is 81 and still spouting what she spouts. Younger women also seem to be doing the big things, the glamorous things, like Bianca Olthoff with the charmingly titled book “How To Have Your Life Not Suck” or Dancing with the Stars runner-up Sadie Robertson flitting around from conference to conference. As for me, I’m just trudging along in one small sphere.
Well, let’s hear it for the trudgers.
First, if you are a mother, you are in a highly esteemed Biblical position. You are doing such wonderful work for the kingdom in being a foundation block in society, in raising pure young women and strong young men for the next generation. I thank Lois $ Eunice, Augustine’s mom Monica, Elisabeth Elliot, Mrs John G. Paton, Paton and Mrs Susie Spurgeon and Mrs Patricia MacArthur and all the other Missus’ who raised men and women who in turn, impact the kingdom.
Secondly, mother or not, married or not, if you think of the life of Paul most often we think of the highlights. His speeches before thousands, his dramatic miracles, his appearances before kings and leaders.
However, Paul also walked. Thousands upon thousands of miles, he plodded. He trudged. He hiked. From one town to another, in all weathers. In addition, Paul sewed tents. (Acts 18:3). He did the mundane. He wrote letter upon letter to friends. He fundraised. The in-between miracle times in his three missionary journeys were rife with the mundane and the insignificant, except nothing about a Christian’s life is insignificant. Not Paul’s and not mine and not yours. The Lord cares for all our concerns. He clothes us and feeds us and He even knows the number of hairs on our heads. To Him, it’s all significant.
As for the women of the New Testament, Dorcas was beloved not because she was Raechel Myers on storytelling tours of Rwanda empowering women for great things, but because she sewed. She made clothes for the poor and she “was always doing good”. (Acts 9:36). She lovingly helped, humbly and quietly, within her own sphere.
Mary, mother of God? Do we hear of her going on her book tour, telling about the angel that came to her one day, and the miracle of the three wise men or hyping up audiences with her harrowing tale of narrowly escaping the massacre of the innocents? No. Whether she was in Egypt or in Galilee, Mary simply raised her Son. She brought Him up in the faith and managed her household and she raised Jesus’ siblings too.
A few times a year she made the pilgimage to the Temple and the rest of the time, she did what women then and onward have done, she lived in her home and she was faithful to the Lord through His word.
Here are two articles about the plodding kind of faith that endures. That kind of faith is cement. It’s bedrock.
It’s sexy among young people—my generation—to talk about ditching institutional religion and starting a revolution of real Christ-followers living in real community without the confines of church. Besides being unbiblical, such notions of churchless Christianity are unrealistic. It’s immaturity actually, like the newly engaged couple who think romance preserves the marriage, when the couple celebrating their golden anniversary know it’s the institution of marriage that preserves the romance. Without the God-given habit of corporate worship and the God-given mandate of corporate accountability, we will not prove faithful over the long haul.
This one is one of my favorites. It’s by John MacArthur, titled An Unremarkable Faith
Meet Larry, a thirty-six year old Science teacher. Larry married Cathy 12 years ago. They love each other and enjoy raising their two sons. Larry’s life wouldn’t hold out much interest to the average citizen. His Facebook account doesn’t draw many friends and nobody ever leaves a comment on his blog. In fact, most people would summarize Larry’s life with one word—boring. But not Larry. Teaching osmosis to junior high students, playing Uno with his kids, and working in the yard with Cathy is paradise to him. But the real love of his life is Jesus. Larry’s a Christian. He’s been walking with the Lord for more than 20 years.
Not that founding orphanages isn’t worthwhile or something women or men can’t or shouldn’t do. Not that going on a missionary trip to Africa isn’t something Jesus wants us to do. But the big doers are fewer than we think, despite the hype. Most of the church is populated with plodders. As Kevin DeYoung concluded his article,
Put away the Che Guevara t-shirts, stop the revolution, and join the rest of the plodders. Fifty years from now you’ll be glad you did.
Ladies, keep doing what you are doing, one dish at a time, one child at a time, one year at a time. You are preceded by many magnificent plodders who we will gloriously meet in heaven.
Chris Martin used to write at his blog Millennial/Evangelical, which is now defunct. FYI, Hardcover or paperback books never go defunct, but online essays come and go like milkweed seeds in the wind. OK, old lady rant over, lol.
EPrata photo
In 2015 he wrote a piece called 3 Bad Reasons to Leave Your Church which is in archive mode now. The link works. Mr Martin is currently content director for Moody Radio and keeps a substack instead of a blog now.
I had not read a great quantity of articles at his site, but I did enjoy this piece. At the bottom of it, he has a link to a companion piece called 3 Good Reasons to Leave Your Church. Here is his archived essay ‘3 Bad Reasons’ opening paragraph:
“Stop treating your local church like your high school girlfriend, and start treating it like the bride of Christ.”
“You don’t leave the church when it doesn’t share the same musical interests, when it hurts your feelings, or when a newer, more popular one catches your eye.“
“The people of God, the Church around the world, is the bride of Christ, and the bride of Christ deserves the faithfulness of a bride, not the summer crush you bailed on when you were a jerk in college.“
And in like manner Mr Martin did indeed write about 3 ‘good’ reasons to leave your church. In the former (the bad reasons) they were trivial and self-serving. But sometimes there arises an issue in one’s church which violate one’s conscience, harms the sheep, or otherwise provide a basis for a holy reason to leave. Here are his opening paragraphs about ‘good’ reasons to leave:
On Wednesday I shared “3 Bad Reasons to Leave Your Church.” That sort of piece is common, almost a rite of passage for Christian bloggers these days. As I was brainstorming some blog posts the other day, I realized that I’ve read a bunch of posts on why not to leave your church, but I’ve read very few on reasons why you should leave your church. Allow me a bit of disclaimer as well: even among these “good” reasons to leave your church—it is my hope, as one who deeply cares about the local church, that even these problems wouldn’t cause you to leave. My hope is that somehow you could work through the problems listed below, stay at your church, and see them through to health and new life. However, not everyone is in a position to enact major change in their churches, so leaving may be the best option, unfortunately. Here are three good reasons to leave your church…
I recently left my church. I left in good standing and with recommendations from my elders to the church I’m currently a member of now. It was a plant to which I’d been a member since before the first service when we were praying and organizing. One of the elders who planted it had been my Sunday School teacher for 5 years prior to that. It was very hard to leave. I miss him so much to this day.
EPrata photo. Leaving your church is hard. It SHOULD be hard, anyway.
I left for 3 reasons. I’d had an issue since 2 years into the plant, then another issue cropped up 5 years later, then a final issue which cemented my decision to depart. I’d prayed for the elders and been a submitted member the entire time I was wrestling with my issues, but eventually, the Spirit in me made it clear in the way He makes it clear, that it was acceptable to depart. My first and longest-lasting issue was my church’s eschatology.
This week on Twitter/X I saw a poll and a discussion about eschatology which brought to mind this issue of whether to leave a church over its eschatology. The question was, “If your church required a specific end-times view to become a member, would you agree with that policy, though you held that same view of the end-times?“
I haven’t thought through the part about a membership requirement, but it brought to mind the issue of a church member believing differently on Last Things than their church teaches.
I noticed two things about the replies. Everyone called Eschatology (Doctrine of Last Things) a ‘secondary doctrine’. In purely theological terms a secondary doctrine is one that isn’t salvific, that is, requires a person to believe in if they are to be considered saved. The Deity of Christ is an Essential Doctrine. In addition, most of the Essential Doctrines contain a biblically stated penalty for NOT believing. CARM.org calls them Essential Doctrines and outlines them here.
Then there are Secondary Doctrines, AKA Non-Essential Doctrines that don’t touch on one’s salvation. Believing in the timing of Jesus’ return or the specific sequence of end-time events, isn’t a doctrine that illustrates that a person is unsaved. It’s not that the doctrine isn’t important when we call it ‘Secondary’ or ‘Non-essential’, but that it isn’t a biblical mandate to believe.
EPrata photo
CARM asked this question about secondary doctrines: Women pastors is not an essential doctrine, so why worry about it?Shouldn’t we just let those with whom we disagree go ahead and believe what they do about women pastors and not worry about it? The answer is that we should be concerned – very concerned. The reason is that in order to justify having women pastors and elders, several Scriptures need to be reinterpreted.”
If you’re interested, CARM has a Doctrine Grid here. Last Things is classified on CARM’s page as a secondary non-essential, “Any of them can be denied or affirmed, and regeneration is not questioned.”
But that does not mean these secondary non-essentials are insignificant. They are significant. All doctrines in the Bible are tied together with a thread, all of them touch on all the others. In order to believe certain stances, the interpreter needs to change his interpretive method and/or blatantly discount other clearly stated verses. So though a Last Things doctrine isn’t salvific, it comprises a third of the Bible and are a hinge point for many other interpretations and doctrines. It informs the preacher’s hermeneutic, that is, the WAY they interpret all the scriptures. And the way your pastor interprets the scriptures touches every person under his authority.
The second thing I noticed about the Twitter discussion of Last Things and membership was that though most people said ‘nah, do not require a specific eschatological stance for membership, don’t divide over non-essentials…EXCEPT…’ and then the person would state his exception. ‘Except if they believe preterism…except if they want to become a leader…except if they become divisive over it…’
I agree that Eschatology isn’t salvific, but it’s more important than one would think. The Prophets taught on it. It’s taught in the Gospels, referenced in Corinthians, Thessalonians, 2 Peter, and of course Revelation, among other mentions.
Eschatology informs us as to what to think and how to act when certain things come to pass. Eschatology makes certain demands and commands of us, as in Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, and 1 Thessalonians.
Also, believing alternately from your elders and your church friends creates difficulties and temptations for the member. Several of the Twitter comments referenced this. When one signs on the dotted line to become a member of a church, often there is a clause with asks the prospective member to submit to the church’s teaching.
EPrata photo
In my case, as some of my friends studied and came to eschatological conclusions different from the teaching of our church, they came to me to ask about it. I always referred them to the elders if they had questions. We had open and approachable elders, a blessing. If they insisted to know my stance, I told them in general, but again strongly referred to the elders. If a member goes around teaching something different behind the Elders’ backs, it is divisive and causes confusion and a stumbling block.
This caused me a temptation to teach differently. My conscience was caught between needing to be a submitted member, which the Bible tells us to be, and my conscience in referring people to a teaching I honestly believe is error. A hard go.
Another issue is that the member who believes alternately from his or her church’s teaching on Last Things is muzzled. I wanted to joyfully shout the doctrines and exult in the Lord’s plan. I could not. Eschatology is a third of the Bible that I could not speak to, proclaim, or even encourage. After a while, this hurt my conscience so much.
Why did I join such a church, you ask? It was a plant by a then-young minister who had not completely cemented his personal reconciliation about the Doctrines of Last Things. Two years into it, he had, coming down on an opposite side of what I believed from my own 10 year study of the Old Testament first then the New Testament. What did I do? I was disappointed, but I focused on all the positive things my church did well, and there was a lot to be joyful about.
Until some other issues piled up. Until my conscience issue about the three issues I was having made it impossible and it as clear that I needed to go, not just for myself but for my church family. Let them be joyful in their interpretation, and I’ll go somewhere else and be joyful in mine.
Our church family is family. I know that blood ties feel strong, but they are only fleshly ties. Emotional, yes. Long lasting, yes. But the church family is eternal. It’s a family that is united not by our blood but by the infinitely holy blood of Jesus. Our union is with Him, through Him, and with Him. Leaving one’s church should not be a trivial matter, nor should it be casual.
Here are a few ‘church search’ sites that help you find a church according to the search directory.
TMS church search lists churches led by or planted by The Master’s Seminary Graduates. If you know the doctrinal stances of TMS then you fairly well know the doctrinal stances of these churches. Plug in your zip code or city info and a radius and it brings up a map and a listing. There are links for each search result that bring you to their website with contacts so you can check further:
There are good reasons for leaving a church and there are good reasons for staying. Pray it through, don’t be hasty, honor the Head of the Church and the under-shepherds (your pastors), and may the Lord bless your decision.
Seeing recently that David Platt, though exposed for malfeasance and deception in the documentary The Real David Platt, is still a sought-out speaker on the Conference Circuit, it got me thinking again about his book Radical. Radical was published in 2010, but like many Christian books, started an ongoing cottage industry of related merchandise, podcast, and so on.
Platt’s stance was that particularly American Christians, have had their holy senses dulled by comfort and prosperity. That our call is sometimes to be uncomfortable and abandon all to God and go on mission. A gross simplification, but that is essentially Platt’s stance.
Except! the book heavily intimates that UNLESS you are doing the hard thing and abandoning all for the cause of the Gospel, you’re not a real Christian. That was the overtone.
The Prosperity Gospel
I agree that the American church has a lot to answer for when we all meet Jesus. The prosperity gospel has sunk in deep and permeated every corner of the US. Now it’s exported abroad, and polluting churches in India and Africa and elsewhere. The prosperity gospel is no gospel. It teaches congregants to indulge their flesh, seek worldly things, and keep their eyes focused laterally instead of vertically. Joel Osteen is a master of this kind of gospel.
Joel Osteen flatly laid out the main precepts of Prosperity gospel out in a 2005 letter to his flock. “God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us,” Osteen wrote.
No, that’s not what God wants us to do. God wants us to live holy lives, pick up our cross, obey Him, be witnesses for His name, worship Him, be wise, and share the true Gospel all over the world, among other things. (1 Peter 1:15, John 4:24, Matthew 16:24, 1 John 5:2-3, Matthew 10:16, Matthew 28:19). The destiny he laid out for us includes trouble, persecution, hatred, and hardships, (John 16:33, John 15:18, Acts 14:22, 2 Corinthians 6:4).
The “prosperity gospel,” an insipid heresy whose popularity among American Christians has boomed in recent years, teaches that God blesses those God favors most with material wealth. Cathleen Falsani Wikipedia gives a quick overview of how this insidious gospel came to the fore:
It was during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 1800s. The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Charismatic Movement and promoted by Christian missionaries throughout the world, sometimes leading to the establishment of mega-churches. Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, David O. Oyedepo and Kenneth Hagin. Source
The Prosperity gospel was preached so heavily on televangelist tv channels throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, that the 2010 David Platt book “Radical” touched a nerve and swept the pendulum rapidly in the other direction.
The Uncomfortable Gospel
The book blurb for Radical states:
It’s easy for American Christians to forget how Jesus said his followers would actually live, what their new lifestyle would actually look like. They would, he said, leave behind security, money, convenience, even family for him. They would abandon everything for the gospel. They would take up their crosses daily…But who do you know who lives like that? Do you?
The book challenged Americans to reassess their commitment to the Gospel and make changes if necessary. Making sure that we are living biblically in submissive commitment to Christ is a worthy reassessment, but many people feel (me included) that the book made it sound like if you were living a normal life that happened to include comforts, you were somehow less committed Christian. Tim Challies reviewed Radical in 2011, saying,
First, I think our attempts to live radically can ignore the Bible’s concern that we be radically godly in character. There is no doubt that I am called by God to live sacrificially and generously. My first calling, though, is to know God, to be shaped by him and on that basis to preach the gospel and to live as if it is true. I am called to do all of this right where the Lord has placed me. This means that there is great dignity and great value in doing whatever it is that I want to do, like to do, and can honor God doing. We do not all need to be foreign missionaries and evangelists; we do not all need to move to faraway lands. We can (and must!) primarily honor God in whatever it is he has given us to do. I am concerned that it is difficult to read this book and believe its message and not feel that normal life is dishonoring to God.
However despite book reviews of Radical stating these same concerns, and a subtle rebuttal by John MacArthur titled An Unremarkable Faith, the pendulum swung hard toward ditching everything and running off to Bali barefoot to evangelize whoever happened to be in the way. The collateral damage of this pendulum swing included a backlash against Suburban Christians and suburbia in general. This is where it gets personal.
I agree with Challies. I have not been called to be a missionary in Tonga. I am not called to be a preacher’s wife in the 10/40 belt. I am not a Bible smuggler living dangerously in China or North Korea. I am a white, middle aged Christian woman living in rural/suburban Georgia. I go to a boring ole Baptistic church with regular people who have a variety of blue collar jobs, or are farmers, or work in professional settings. I drive the 2 miles to school every day, assist children in Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades, and drive home. I enjoy covered dish suppers, grocery shopping at the same place where I know all the checkout ladies, and banking at a small town bank where they know my name when I come in.
I live where there are rural farms all around including my own rental property where the birds flit about the tall pines. But horror of horrors, there are also ‘suburban’ subdivisions nearby, malls a half hour away, and a Burger King within a mile.
I don’t make a lot of money and in fact have to watch every penny, but I know by global standards I’m rich. I am comfortable in every aspect of my life, from what I drive, to what I wear, to where I worship, to where I work. Suburbia has gotten a very bad rep. I live in suburban-ish America, and according to many liberal and hipster Christians, I’m doing Christianity wrong.
Here are a few of the most prominent Christian objections to living in the suburbs. How many of them hold up to even a slight bit of scrutiny?
Suburbs are inauthentic: I confess to not quite understanding what this means. Yes, suburban things are often newer and feature less exposed brick, but how is that a moral argument? Suburbs are consumeristic: No more than large cities. Suburbs are morally repressive: Wait, overt exhibition of immorality is a good thing? Suburbs lack diversity: The most diverse places in the country are suburbs. Suburbs are full of a lot of Evangelicals who vote Republican: Oh, wait, now we are getting somewhere…
Obviously, each of these charges deserves a post of its own to address these issues with the requisite nuance, but even the one-liner responses should cause us to think. Why are we down on suburbs? Do we have a biblically grounded objection rooted in our personal experiences, or have we merely baptized a secular prejudice and called it Christian ethics?
Why do Christians hate the suburbs? Or if hate is too strong a word, why do so many disparage it? The question was asked by Matthew Lee Anderson in his 2013 article “Is Radical Christianity Radical Enough?“
David Platt, Francis Chan, Shane Claiborne, and now Kyle Idleman are dominating the Christian best-seller lists by attacking our comfortable Christianity. But is ‘radical faith’ enough? … Really. If there’s a word that sums up the radical movement, that’s it. Platt’s Radical opens with it, by describing what “radical abandonment to Jesus really means.” Idleman says he’s going to tell us “what it really means to follow Jesus.” Furtick says that “if we really believe God is an abundant God … we ought to be digging all kinds of ditches [for when he sends the rain, as Elisha did in 2 Kings 3:16-20].” Do those who lead mediocre, nonradical lives for Jesus really believe at all?
Working in day to day jobs, raising children, Coaching Little League, and living holy where God places us IS the great Commission! One thing absent from all the talk against comfort, is that this is where the Lord placed us. Others heed the call to go to the hard places. And some heed the call to dwell in places without discomfort. Like Lydia, Abraham, and others one could name from the Bible.
And there is exposed the subtle two-tiered system that books like Radical instituted. Therein lay the insidious mindset by these holier than thous, that the millions of people living and worshiping and witnessing in suburbia are ‘lesser-than.’
living in suburbia. EPrata photo
I reject that notion because of one important factor. This is where God put me.
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Acts 17:26)
God made the nations and all the peoples in the nations. He placed each one of us where He wants us, whether it be India or Canada, suburban Ohio or metropolitan Paris. He is sovereign and in His will and plan it pleased Him to give me this life. Who am I to speak back to God? Or worse, who am I to disparage His plan for me and many others He has set forth?
Yes- it would be sin if I lived in a comfortable environment and felt the call to become a missionary in Burma and refused Him because I was comfortable. Yes, I understand the original intent of the book Radical was to get us to reject sinking into a mealy mouthed Christianity because we’re surrounded by comfort.
The true fact is, no matter where a person lives, if they are doing Christianity ‘right’, it is not comfortable. It takes commitment, energy, a proactive stance, and diligence. Matthew Lee Anderson concluded his piece this way-
The Good Samaritan wasn’t a good neighbor because he moved to a poor part of town or put a pile of trash in his living room. He came across the helpless victim “as he traveled.” We begin to fulfill the command not when we do something radical, extreme, over the top, not when we’re really spiritual or really committed or really faithful, but when in the daily ebb and flow of life, in our corporate jobs, in our middle-class neighborhoods, on our trips to Yellowstone and Disney World—and yes, even short-term mission trips—we stop to help those whom we meet in everyday life, reaching out in quiet, practical, and loving ways.
The essence of Christianity is loving your neighbor. Suburbia needs loving neighbors ‘reaching out in quiet ways’ just as much as the poor need help in Calcutta or the lost need help in Afghanistan. The daily grind of being a faithful witness for Jesus occurs all over the world, in jungles, mountain villages, cities, farming communities, and suburban plats. I reject the Prosperity gospel, and I also reject the Uncomfortable gospel. I accept and live by the only Gospel.
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia summarizes the gospel message this way: The central truth of the gospel is that God has provided a way of salvation for men through the gift of His son to the world. He suffered as a sacrifice for sin, overcame death, and now offers a share in His triumph to all who will accept it. The gospel is good news because it is a gift of God, not something that must be earned by penance or by self-improvement (Jn 3:16; Rom 5:8–11; II Cor 5:14–19; Titus 2:11–14).
The Uncomfortable Gospel is a pendulum swing from rejection of the Prosperity Gospel. A knee-jerk reaction to the crass consumerism and dulled senses of prosperity. Lot was lulled by prosperity of Sodom, Abraham wasn’t. It is not inevitable that living a quiet life in the suburbs, and doing the day to day mundane things isn’t real Christianity. It is. So is death by martyrdom in the New Hebrides. Real Christianity is obeying to the best of our ability (and beyond) whatever the Lord has set before us.
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…( 1 Corinthians 15:1-5)
I wasn’t saved by love. The Gospel was not attractive to me. It was not made attractive to me by smiling Christians. I was saved by wrath.
This is NOT my Jesus
Glorious Jesus who was and is and is to come did not woo me to the cross. No one fulfilled my felt needs. No one befriended me and cajoled me into loving Jesus. He battered my head with a 2X4, dragging me kicking and screaming to the cross, where He made me face my sin. Once I saw my sin, I saw His coming wrath for it. Our sin is terrible, it renders us religiously dead. It angers the Holy God.
I repented. Veritably looking at the abyss then looking at heaven, I saw what’s what. But it was Jesus who opened my eyes to see it. Otherwise, we are blinded by our sin and never would appeal to God for relief in our pitiful state.
THEN I loved Him. After He opened my eyes I saw all His loveliness and grace and mercy and long-suffering and patience and grief over sin and sinners. But I was not wooed, nor was I loved onto Mt Moriah. It is not true that “Jesus won’t come where He isn’t welcome”. It is not true that “Jesus won’t force Himself on anybody.” He is sovereign God! He goes where He pleases! (Psalm 24:1). He drop kicked Saul/Paul to the ground AND blinded him! He didn’t ASK Mary if she’d like to become pregnant and an object of ridicule and rumor the rest of her life. No, He sent an angel to TELL her how it was going to be. (Luke 1:30-37)
He isn’t wringing His hands in heaven hoping that Jane or Tom or Mary will believe in Him, and maybe they will, if he just sends the Spirit to soften the pew cushions … or energizes the preacher with a louder “WOO!” … or if the musician plays one more verse of “Just As I Am.” Maybe if He can make church “exciting” then Harry will repent and believe. No.
It was the sovereign wrath that convicted me and convinced me. It is why I love passages like this.
The Great Day of His Wrath, John Martin ~1853
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10)
Let us begin the marveling now. Marvel at a Savior who saves by His sovereign election, will, purpose, and plan! Marvel at He who is wrath and judgment and holiness and fierce anger! Be afeared of His anger over your sin. Marvel that El Shaddai… El Elyon …sent His Son to take on all anger for sin. Marvel that He is also Jehovah Rapha, and Jehovah Jireh, the LORD that heals, the LORD will provide. Marvel at the wrath. It makes marveling at the grace all the more sweet.
Kay Cude is a Texas poet. Used with permission. Right click to open larger on new tab, or read text below
Prelude
What is that overcasting darkness of the approaching Tribulation, but the prelude to the resounding Trumpet of God announcing The Lord Christ Jesus’ catching away of His Beloved Redeemed Church, His Bride!
What is that resplendent brilliance piercing eastwards through that dark evil, but the prelude to the Lord Himself descending from Heaven and our beholding Him Face-to-face in All of His Glory!
What is that mighty sound predetermined from eternity past to resonate within the ears of His True Church, but the shout of the archangel as we are caught up midair together with those asleep in Christ, to be always with our Sovereign King!
Watch, Therefore.
all who love the Appearing of His Coming, for He will be visible only to You
His Bride, The Eternally Redeemed of God the Father through Him, God the Son. Within this glorious realm of salvation we live and breath, and we exist: we are HIS beloved redeemed — sealed into eternal covenant with God by His Holy Spirit. Reference: Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Ephesians 1:13-14
Postlude
kay cude, February 2016
Comfort to the Many Who Will Repent Unto Salvation During the Tribulation
“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. THEN THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:25-28
Text by author Kay Cude purposed solely for non-profit, non-commerical sharing.
I was recently made aware of a youth conference happening this coming January called the CrossCon. Speakers at this conference aimed at 18-25 year olds include David Platt and Kevin DeYoung.
Kevin DeYoung has been a solid pastor, preaching truth for a long time. David Platt has been on a downward trajectory ever since his seminal book Radical was published, since he affirmed dreams of Isa as a legitimate evangelization method, and is currently outed as a wolf in the recent documentary The Real David Platt:The Hijacking of McLean Bible Church.
What is DeYoung doing partnering with Platt at this conference?
If you ever watch any cooking competitions and a chef contestant mixes cheese and seafood, you know it never goes well. Those two ingredients simply do not mix. They taste terrible. Or like our friends the Brits say, “chalk and cheese”, meaning, two things that are completely different from each other.
The Bible calls it discernment.
It’s the same with conferences. Uniting with speakers or musicians of questionable spiritual doctrine dirties the more solid speaker and reduces their religious credibility. It also disobeys God. Such partnering presents a confusion to the less discerning or new in the faith. Last, such ‘unity’ presents a false unity.
We live in the age of “tolerance”. It’s not the tolerance you and I might have grown up with. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines tolerance as
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own, or : the allowable deviation from a standard
Christians can have sympathy for people who believe in different gods, but we can never indulge them in their wrong beliefs. And any deviation from the standards set by God’s word is not tolerable either.
There is a throng of false teachers whose fetish in teaching is grace only, usually focusing on “love” to an extreme, and never mentioning sin/repentance/wrath. After a decade or more of love-love-love, people have just as twisted understanding of what love is as they do the new version of tolerance. For women, the ‘love’ teaching even drills further down into weird teaching that Jesus is my romantic boyfriend, a type of eros love the Bible never describes.
That, in combination with a lack of ability or willingness to study and understand scripture, has brought forth a horde of folks ready to squash anyone whose understanding on these matters is biblically based on scripture.
This effect of the false teachers’ teaching was brought home to me as I was having conversations on social media about the need to separate from some professing believers at prescribed times is a matter of command and prescription. When you look at the myriad scriptures, there are actually quite a few situations when brethren are supposed to divide from other brethren.
This fact was met with incredulity, horror, and anger as one after another of these women, and some men, pushed back against this notion. Sharing the scriptures does not resolve anything. It often actually makes them angrier. Many simply ignore the shared scriptures and resort to calling names.
So I thought I’d do a study on what the Bible says about our associations with other people and when to leave a brother alone. This is hopefully to show that as with many other circumstances in our earthly life as humans, the Holy Spirit has given us wisdom and understanding about our associations, friendships, and fellowship.
While it seems “unloving” or dare I say “intolerant” to separate from a brother, there are sometimes good reasons for it, as we’ll see.
Unity at all costs? No.
In many cases, when discerning brethren warn about this or that false teacher, the person will say, “Did you go to him?” meaning, did you have a private conversation with that public teacher before you said anything negative about his or her public teaching? This refers back to Matthew 18. Going to a false teacher prior to critiquing his or her lessons is not necessary, because they are public teachers. They are outside your own church. The Matthew 18 process is church discipline for sinning Christians inside your church. FYI, the Matthew 18 process for sinning church members does end with separation, with an excommunication if the church member is unrepentant and uncorrectable.
It’s baffling to think that naysayers will cling to Matthew 18:15-17 in the first place (‘Did you go to him?’) but avoid the end result of that same process just 3 verses later, which is separation (You’re so mean and intolerant!’).
The individual person’s involvement in this Matthew 18 scenario is in step 1 and 2. When it gets to steps 3 and 4, it is the pastor’s duty to make this judgment call, and the individual sister’s responsibility to submit to the assessment of her leaders in church. The reason for this called-for separation; to prevent sin from spreading.
A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. (Galatians 5:9).
Separating from the sinning professing believer is sometimes necessary
In another case of called-for separation, we see in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11 of Paul that,
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people;But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
Paul expected the Corinthians to disassociate with all who said they were brothers but had a consistent pattern of sin, particularly sexual sin. In the culture of the day eating with someone was a sign of acceptance. Therefore if breaking bread with a homosexual, an adulterer, incestuous person, fornicator etc it was a sign that their behavior was accepted by Christians, who otherwise called for holy living.
Paul said that sexual sin was a sin that brethren were not to tolerate, even to the point of breaking fellowship, because as he explains the verses in 1 Corinthians 6:15-19,
The believer’s body is not only for the Lord here and now (v. 14), but is of the Lord, a part of His body, the church (Eph 1:22,23). The Christian’s body is a spiritual temple in which the Spirit of Christ lives, therefore when a believer commits a sexual sin, it involves Christ with a harlot. All sexual sin is harlotry. (John MacArthur Study Bible note.)
So, that’s pretty obvious why we are to separate.
Here is another example regarding the limits of Christian fellowship.
So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5).
This is the famous case of a man sleeping with his father’s wife. The Corinthians were tolerating it. In today’s parlance, were they trying to “be loving”? Would they think it “mean-spirited” to ostracize this man from their fellowship? Paul pulled no punches with what they were to do.
And of course, we know not to associate with false teachers, as Apostle John instructed in 2 John 1:10 where even participating with the unrepentant sinner for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds as verse 11 states
Turning a believer over to satan puts him back into the cold world to be on his own, apart from the care and support of Christian fellowship inside the warmth of the church, as John MacArthur explains in his commentary.
That person has forfeited the right to participation in the church of Jesus Christ, which He intends to keep pure at all costs. MacArthur, Commentary
As always, the goal is reconciliation. Making this shocking move would let the believing sinner know the limits of tolerance. It bears repeating, there are LIMITS to our tolerance for false teaching and for sin in professing believers
We have another example of separation in 2 John 1:8-11.
Here in this epistle John is giving limits to Christian hospitality. We are to separate from people who go beyond the teaching of Jesus. Do not even greet those who teach beyond what is written. Back then hospitality was important because there were no hotels, so traveling teachers lodged with believers.
John isn’t prohibiting people from sharing the Gospel with unbelievers, or even those in cults and false religions. We always want to evangelize. But do remain apart from and do not even welcome those false teachers, because welcoming them to your home affirms their teaching and gives them credibility. Housing and welcoming false teachers who labor in the faith (to deceive followers) would confuse people and offer a massive stumbling block.
In-person housing of itinerant o traveling pastors happens today, as we learned about Robert Morris who stayed over at his friend’s house when traveling, or Steve Lawson who lodged with hospitable friends also. But both are now outed rebels who we sadly learned were behaving in monstrous ways.
But most of us do not host traveling teachers any more like in the Bible days. ‘Do not welcome them into your house’ more often means do not simulcast their speeches into your home, or buy their books and bring them to a women’s study, and so forth.
Beth Moore reading the epistle at her church last week. False teachers love to be front and center, don’t they? But separation must occur even if it means declining a speaking invitation to a conference or church
This separation edict applies also to standing on a stage with obvious false teachers, as John Piper did with Beth Moore and Francis Chan at Passion conference 12 years ago. Or as Piper did with Mark Driscoll 2 years later. Despite hundreds of emails and internet concern that Piper was publicly platforming and supporting Driscoll, Piper unabashedly went ahead. Piper later even said he had no regret. Is there anyone that Piper will separate from? Apparently not. Piper said in his ‘no regret’ interview that he only wished he had been a better friend to Driscoll.
Biblically, a good friend is one who will obey God and separate to display the seriousness of the person’s sin and that there are biblical limits to tolerating it, in hoes that grace will come and re-infuse that person’s life with truth.
And now here is Piper scheduled to speak with Platt at CrossCon, where Platt has affirmed Isa dreams as an evangelizing method, and has been outed in a documentary as being a conniving, thieving, CRT loving liberal who excommunicates people who question Platt’s actions which were contrary to their church’s constitution. (More here).
It might seem “unloving” to say that there comes a point where we don’t offer the Gospel to a lost person but there are even limits to associating with the unsaved.
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)
Jesus’ point is that certain truths and blessings of our faith are not to be shared with people who are totally antagonistic to the things of God. … Jesus did not give all of his teaching to everyone who happened to be listening. (Matthew 11:25, 11:11-13). … There will be times when the Gospel we present is absolutely rejected and ridiculed and we make the judgment to turn away and speak no more. MacArthur Commentary
We are given the same admonition in Matthew 10:14 where we are told to shake the dust off our feet and move on.
Even Jesus closed His public ministry at a certain point, after He had given sign after sign and miracle after miracle and taught all the days long, and many were still questioning, demanding, and rejecting. So He closed it down and privately taught only the believers and eventual apostles. After His resurrection He only appeared to believers.
One commenter gives a word of caution though,
But while the indiscriminately zealous have need of this caution, let us be on our guard against too readily setting our neighbors down as dogs and swine, and excusing ourselves from endeavoring to do them good on this poor plea. Jamieson Faussett Brown Bible Commentary
We have seen that with love and discernment, there are times to make a judgment call and separate from people who profess Christ but persist in unrepentant sin, and to separate from even the lost who consistently reject. Against the backdrop of the ‘lovey tolerance’ of today, doing so seems harsh and cruel to those who seemingly have no limit to sin. But do we today care more about the feelings of the unrepentant professing believing rebel than the Savior who died to give us power by the Spirit to slay those sins?
Look at Acts 5:13,
But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.
The watching pagans respected the followers of Jesus, but feared to join them. Why? Were they scary? No, they were respected, not feared. The fear came because it was obvious that the followers were serious about sin and hypocrisy in the church. Ananias and Sapphira had just been killed dead in front of everyone in the church. The followers were obviously part of something that was holy and pure. Bystanders respected their witness and were counting the cost of joining. Only serious sin-slayers need apply.
Nowadays people are encouraged to follow Jesus and bring their sin with them.
We love our neighbor in the next pew, yes, but loving that believer doesn’t mean overlooking their sin. Sadly there are times and cases when separation from the believers we associate with is called for. With everything, do so cautiously, in love, and after study and prayer. Some of these situations are pretty clear and others are more gray. Err on the side of love, but remain strong in respecting biblical limits of associations and fellowship. We strive to be strong in both doctrine and life.
James Tissot (Nantes, France, 1836–1902, Chenecey–Buillon, France). Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees, 1886–1894. At Brooklyn Museum
A sermon nugget for me is a moment during a sermon when my attention is grabbed even harder than my usual attention. It’s because the preacher makes a connection to something or gives me new information. It’s an ‘explode the moment’ like we were taught in writing class, when some smaller part of what I’m learning takes over the moment and becomes a fascination.
This past Sunday that happened during our church service when our pastor made a connection from Mark back to Daniel 7.
The following is summarized from the sermon I heard where the preacher made the connection, and summary of some Commentaries:
In Mark 2:10b-11 we read,
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralyzed man, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet, and go home.”
Jesus heals the Paralytic. Artist: Harold Copping, 1863-1932
I underlined ‘the Son of Man’ above because that is the nugget. The term Son of Man was Jesus’ favorite name for Himself during His incarnation. For this nugget we go back to Daniel 7:13 and make a connection there. The Prophet Daniel sees a vision involving the Ancient of Days … and Someone else.
“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.”
This term Son of Man occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament where it refers to the Second Person of the Trinity. When it occurs it refers to the Prophet himself (Ezekiel). It does occur many times in the New Testament. It was Jesus’ favorite expression or title for Himself.
In Daniel’s vision it’s obvious that the title refers to the Messiah. In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary they explain the Daniel verse, “Son of man” expresses His VISIBLE state formerly in his humiliation hereafter in His exaltation. He “comes to the Ancient of days” to be invested with the kingdom.”
So now notice the difference in language from Daniel to Mark. In Daniel the prophet wrote one LIKE A a son of man was coming.
In Mark we read But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralyzed man,
Here Jesus is identifying Himself as THE Son of Man, that He is here, and that He has the authority [from heaven] to forgive sins. This makes Him God.
The Scribes even knew that only God can forgive sins. When Jesus said the paralyzed man’s sins were forgiven, they internally wondered, But some of the scribes were sitting there and thinking it over in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except God alone?”
Jesus’ statement in reply was to formally answer their mental musings (and His omniscience is on display, they should have gotten a clue at that stage!], but Jesus cements it when He used that title by calling Himself the prophesied Messiah. In an in your face confirmation, He healed the paralytic too.
Remember, signs and healings were to confirm Him as Messiah, and to confirm His designated Apostles as His true ambassadors carrying heaven’s message.
He is not like a son of man, He IS THE Son of Man! A prophecy fulfilled, a promise fulfilled, a vision in heaven realized on earth. Him calling Himself the Son of Man was the beginning of the end stages of the long-prophesied Messiah. How heartbreaking the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes missed it.
Jesus is who He says He is. He accomplished what He came here to do. It is finished!
He is not “a gentleman”. He is God and He does as He pleases. He chooses us as a graceful trophy for His glory whether we want Him to or not. In fact, none of us want Jesus before He chooses us. It is He who opens our heart and mind to His Good News. We are His enemies and we resist the confrontation of our sins in front of a Holy God every step of the way.
He slammed Saul/Paul to the ground and burst in on his day with a pointed question “Why are you persecuting Me?”. Then He struck Paul blind. Not so ‘gentlemanly’.
If Jesus came down from heaven, lived to preach endlessly in Judea, Samaria and environs, if He tirelessly taught, healed, and did miracles, if He went willingly to the cross naked and humiliated, beaten and tore apart, do you think Jesus would then leave the final piece of salvation to our sinful hearts? Hearts that are so desperately wicked and so at enmity with God that we would NEVER choose Him?
Of course not.
John 15:16, speaking to the twelve, You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
Yes but that’s just the 12, you say. But think on this. Did Jesus preach and teach and then see who would come follow Him? No. He is sovereign, He chose them.
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; (Romans 8:29)
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
But God…
I am so grateful for His grace. Now I DO want him! I am thoroughly satisfied in His election of me and the knowledge that if He didn’t choose me for eternal life, my punishment would have been just and deserved. O what a sinner I was! What a sinner I still am.
If you are presently dwelling in the in-between of knwoing you are a sinner and have appealed to God, but do not feel saved, keep praying. John Bunyan prayed for five years before he was justified. It was agony for him but he persevered until the moment of God’s timing to justify Bunyan.
Spurgeon prayed and wrestled for an unspecified time before that moment in the showy primitive church in England where he was converted. Spurgeon later wrote,
There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that moment and sung with the most enthusiastic of them of the Precious Blood of Christ.”
If you feel the agony of your sin but haven’t crossed the finish line to the cross yet, take heart. The Lord gives you the agony of the bones. he gives the awareness of sin. He delivers the aroma of death to those who will smell it. If you were not named in His Book of Life, you would be at enmity with God, hating Him at all points and refusing to acknowledge your sin.
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:38-40).
The word of God is so rich, isn’t it? Let’s focus on what Jesus said about His will and the Father’s will.
First, we see that Jesus has a will independent of the Father. He said ‘not my will.’ In no way are the members of the Trinity at odds with each other, Jesus is making the statement here that He is 100% submitted to the will and plan of the Father. But the other indication is that they are one Being in essence but three separate persons. And those persons, God, Jesus, Spirit, do have independent wills.
Gill’s Exposition on verse John 6:38 says,
It is readily granted that they are not one and the same person; they are two distinct persons, which sending, and being sent, do clearly show; but then they are one in nature, though distinct in person, and they agree in will and work. Christ came not to do any will of his own different from that of his Father’s; nor do these words imply a difference of wills in them, much less a contrariety in them, but rather the sameness of them. (Gill’s Exposition on verse John 6:38).
As interesting and mind-bending as that is, let’s take a look at what the will of Jesus IS. From The Will of Christ! at GraceGems, by William Nicholson, 1862:
The will of Christ refers,
1. To the place of happiness. “Where I am.” This, doubtless, refers to Heaven, the dwelling-place of the great King. There he sits at the right hand of God, angels, etc., being made subject unto him. It is there, that his divinity shines through the humanity with ineffable brightness, and there he is beheld in all the moral grandeur of the only begotten Son of God!
It is a Heaven of unspeakable grandeur. It is a house, in which there are many mansions. It is a building of God — it is a kingdom — it is an inheritance. The gates of the celestial city are pearls; its streets are pure gold; it has no need of the sun, Revelation 21:21, 23, 25. Of the glory and beauty of every other part of the universe, compared with the magnificence of Heaven, it may be truly said, that “even that which was made glorious, has no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels.”
It is a Heaven of perfect purity. The “Holy One of God” dwells there, and no sin can exist where he resides. It is the “habitation of his holiness.” Revelation 21:27. O glorious Heaven, where sin will never enter to contaminate!
It is a Heaven of perfect happiness — of pure, boundless, and unmingled delight. Sin will be forever excluded; and as sin is the great source of every kind of misery, there will never be the least apprehension of the happiness of Heaven being interrupted.
It is the Heaven of immortality. The inhabitant will never say I am sick. Death will never depopulate that kingdom. Revelation 21:4.
In this glorious place, Jesus designs his people to dwell. There he lives and reigns. “Father, I will those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory!”
“Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will also write on him my new name!” Revelation 3:12
“To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne!” Revelation 3:21.
end William Nicholson
The Thanksgiving holiday here in the United States is coming up. There is much to be thankful for. When I ‘count my blessings’ I usually thank Jesus for the things He has given me; my car, apartment, job, friends… but He is so much more than the ‘thing-deliverer’. During this season of thanks, let us focus on who Jesus is, His attributes, and His person to cultivate a right perspective of the second Person of the God-head.
It’s hard to describe the level of contempt the Scribes felt for Jesus. They were blasphemous, to their eventual doom. But until that day, the Scribes were a gang like no other gang, and they poured out their invective on their own Messiah!
Copyright The Cooper Gallery / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation
The Scribes were THE authority of the day when it came to scriptures. They were learned and revered and if they weren’t revered, they expected to be. Lots of ego investment in their job.
Being a scribe came with a high esteem, the people regarded them highly because of their literacy, their education, and their influence in the community
The scribes taught the Law, and did so since Ezra the Scribe (who was also a priest) through to the time of Jesus and beyond to today. The scribe’s job was to copy and recopy the scrolls, preserve them, and interpret them. But that was not all. They were the interpreters of the Law.
We always think of the Pharisees’ collusion against Jesus then second, the Sadducees for their hatred and collusion to get rid of Jesus. But probably the Scribes exceeded or at least equaled both of those groups in their hatred of Jesus.
They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and began to teach. 22And they were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Mark 1:21-22)
Here is a transcript from a sermon of a pastor I know describing how seriously the scribes hated Jesus. It’s based on Mark 1:21-22 verses above. Here is a transcript from a sermon describing how seriously the scribes hated Jesus. Once you see it all listed you can almost feel their hostility through the screen.
Begin sermon excerpt-
“The people contrasted Jesus’s teaching with that of the scribes. Now, when you hear the word scribe, you probably think of someone who copies manuscripts or writes documents. And that’s one way to use the word. And that was certainly true in the day of Jesus.“
“But in the Jewish religious system of those days, the scribes were considered experts in the Mosaic law and the traditions handed down by the rabbis. That was their chief role. They were part of the elite religious authority and were looked on as authoritative teachers.”
But Mark’s gospel exposes them for what they really were, corrupt teachers who denied Jesus’s power and authority. They’re never cast in a positive light throughout this book.
“In the pages ahead, Mark shows, for example,“
They accused Jesus of blasphemy. Chapter 2, verse 6.
They condemned him for eating with sinners and tax collectors. Chapter 2, verse 16.
They spread the rumor that he was possessed by the prince of demons and derived his power from Satan. Chapter 3, verse 22.
They demanded to know why he didn’t walk according to the tradition of the elders. Chapter 7, verse 5.
They rejected him. Chapter 8, verse 31.
And were responsible for plotting his death. Chapter 10, verse 33.
They feared him and wanted to find a way to destroy him. Chapter 11, verse 18.
They demanded to know by what authority he taught and performed signs. Chapter 11, verse 28.
They tried to trick him and entrap him. Chapter 12, verse 28.
They came with Judas to arrest him. Chapter 14, verse 43.
They tried him unfairly. Chapter 14, verse 53.
And sentenced him to death. Chapter 15, verse 1.
They even mocked him on the cross. Chapter 15, verse 31.
–end transcript of sermon
Now, that is not to say that the Pharisees also didn’t blaspheme and point their invective toward Christ, also.
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” (Matthew 12:24).
They could not deny a miracle had occurred, but they decided to cast aspersions on Jesus rather than glorify Him for casting out demons!
Barnes’ Notes on that verse says,
“Here was a manifest miracle, an exertion of power unquestionably superior to what people could put forth. The common people were fast drawing the proper inference from it, and coming into the belief that this was the Messiah. The authority and power of the Pharisees were declining. Unless, therefore, some way should be devised of accounting for these facts, their influence would be at an end.” Source Barnes’ Notes
Uh-oh! Can’t let that happen!
“Whatever way of accounting for them was adopted, it was necessary that they should acknowledge that there was “superhuman power.” The people were fully persuaded of this, and no man could deny it. They therefore ascribed it to the prince of the devils – to Beelzebub. In this they had two objectives:” (Barnes)
–To concede to the people that here was a “miracle,” or a work above mere human power. –To throw all possible contempt on Jesus. Beelzebub, or Beelzebul, as it is in the Greek, and correctly rendered in the margin, was an opprobrious name given to the leader of the devils as an expression of supreme contempt. (Barnes)
Unable to deny that a miracle occurred, there were only two options, its power came from heaven. or the power came from hell. They chose hell. Gill’s Exposition says of the Matthew 12 verse,
but to deprive him of the glory of the miracle, and even reproach him for it, and to bring him into contempt with the people they not only speak of him in a scornful manner, “this” sorry man, “this” vile fellow; but ascribe the miracle he wrought to familiarity with the devil, to diabolical influence and skill in magic art: they pretended he was in confederacy with Satan source Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
This shows that the Pharisees and Scribes knew that satan and his demons had supernatural (magical) power. That they could do miracles. In fact, let us remember the wizards at Pharaoh’s throne who performed miracles along with Moses…until the power of God through Moses outpaced the wizards and they could not keep up, as we see in these verses (Exodus 7:11, Exodus 8:18).
Imagine being so invested in your ego, your position, your title, that you’d rather deny the glory of Jesus standing in front of you and point to hell instead.
But the power of sin is so great. We love ourselves. We love ourselves almost more than anything. It’s why Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” – that is a most powerful love but we are supposed to turn it outward instead of inward (like the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees did).
The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Enjoy our God from heaven and praise Him that He saved us from declaring He operated from hell.
the-end-time.org 