There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great; Psalm 25:11(ESV) for evils have encompassed me beyond number; my iniquities have overtaken me, and I cannot see. Be pleased, O LORD, to deliver me! O LORD, make haste to help me! Psalm 40:12-13(ESV)
O do not remember against me my former iniquities, let your compassion come speedily to meet me, for I am brought very low. Help me, O God of my salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver me, and atone for my sins, for your name’s sake! Psalm 79:8-9(ESV)
Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O LORD! Psalm 25:7(ESV)
The blessed condition which they are in whose sins are pardoned.
O let me have the blessedness of those whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; of that man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. Psalm 32:1-2(ESV)
O let me have redemption through Christ’s blood, even the forgiveness of my trespasses, according to the riches of your grace, which you have lavished upon me, in all wisdom and insight. Ephesians 1:7-8(ESV) That being in Christ Jesus, there may be no condemnation for me; Romans 8:1(ESV) that my sins, which are many, having been forgiven me, Luke 7:47(ESV) I may go in peace: Luke 7:50(ESV) For no inhabitant will say, “I am sick,” if the people who dwell there have been forgiven their iniquity. Isaiah 33:24(ESV)
Nehemiah 9:1-37 In this week’s study we see that sorrow for sin and repentance came in response to hearing God’s Word read and preached.
Theme
The Prayer of the Levites: Israel’s History
Yesterday, we saw that the first part of the Levites’ prayer praised God as the Creator.
2. A review of Israel’s history (vv. 7-31). The second, major part of the Levites’ prayer is a review of Israel’s history. It begins with God’s calling of Abraham (vv. 7-8), as Genesis does. The people must have been thinking about the actual text of Genesis at this time, for Nehemiah 9:7 contains the only Old Testament reference after Genesis to the changing of Abraham’s name from Abram to Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:5). The name change calls attention to the unilateral way in which God dealt with Abraham, a point made repeatedly throughout this section. Notice that God is the subject of every action. But unlike God, who kept His promises, the people (so it is implied) did not keep theirs. God was utterly faithful; they were not.
The next paragraph recounts the events of the Exodus in brief form (vv. 9-12), and again God is the subject of each action. In recounting God’s acts, the words also reveal God’s attributes. They show that He is omniscient (“You saw [our] sufferings”), all-powerful (“You sent miraculous signs and wonders against Pharaoh”), righteous (“You hurled their pursuers into the depths”) and merciful, since this is an account of deliverance.
The next paragraph retells the giving of the Mosaic Law at Sinai, the preservation of the people during their passage through the wilderness, and the command to enter and possess the Promised Land (vv. 13-15). In these verses there is an emphasis, as above, on God’s sovereign activity. The text stresses the justice of God’s commands and God’s goodness. These characteristics place the rebellion described in the next verses in a proper light. The people rebelled against God, and it was both wrong (it was against God’s righteous commands) and ungrateful (it was against God’s goodness). The verses that come next describe the rebellion of the people for the first time explicitly, and they also contain these two elements. On the one side, the prayer is unstinting in its honest description of the people’s rebellious attitude and sin. Their forefathers: 1) “became arrogant” and 2) “stiff-necked,” 3) “did not obey (God’s] commands,” 4) “refused to listen,” 5) “failed to remember the miracles,” and 6) “appointed a leader in order to return to their slavery.” On the other side, God behaved as “a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love.” This verse is a direct quotation from Exodus 34:5-7, showing that the people had remembered it also from the earlier reading. (The same verses are quoted in Jonah 4:2). God was slow to anger even when the people “cast for themselves an image of a calf and said, ‘This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt’” (v.18). The same theme continues in the next paragraph (vv. 19-21), which recounts how God sustained the people during their forty years of wilderness wandering.
So also when they eventually entered the Promised Land (vv. 22-25). God drove out many enemies, caused them to increase in numbers, gave them fortified cities, fertile land and homes with “wells already dug, vineyards, olive groves and fruit trees.” The people “reveled in [God’s] great goodness.”
Yet they turned from God again. The next three paragraphs (vv. 26-31) describe what became a sad but steady pattern in the nation’s life. There was increasing sin and rebellion, followed by God’s disciplinary judgments, followed by a temporary return to God, followed by more rebellion, sin and apostasy. The list of Israel’s sins grows very specific in these paragraphs, as all true confession of sin must. Yet alongside this swelling cacophony of rebellious voices, God continued to speak quietly and show mercy. The last line says, “But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God” (v. 31).
Study Questions
What about this review of Israel’s history indicates that the people must have been thinking about Genesis?
List the events of Israel’s history that this prayer covers. What is the common emphasis?
From this historical review, how did the people of Israel behave, and what was God’s response?
Application
Reflection: In what ways do you rebel against God, in spite of knowing all that you do about who He is, what He has done for you, and what He commands? How does the Levites’ prayer convict you and spur you on in obedience?
For Further Study: Download and listen for free to James Boice’s message, “A Psalm of Repentance.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
For Further Study: The book of Nehemiah is much more than a manual for leadership. It teaches us of the character of God, and of our need to confess our sins, repent of them, and follow the Lord with all our heart, mind, and strength. Order your paperback copy of James Boice’s Nehemiah, and receive 30% off the regular price.
SYNOPSIS In a time of heightened emotion and spiritual activity—such as the Asbury Revival and recent cultural flashpoints like the Charlie Kirk memorial—Christians are often stirred to act. But is all zeal for God genuine? Drawing on Scripture, historical revivals, and the powerful preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, this essay explores the critical distinction between true zeal rooted in knowledge and false zeal fueled by emotionalism, activity, or crowd-driven momentum.
“Carnal zeal is living on our own activities and busyness rather than true understanding and growth. It relies on atmosphere and momentum rather than the Spirit. We must avoid extremes and follow Christ’s balanced example.” ~Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Two years ago I posted an essay about real versus false zeal. The Asbury ‘revival’ was going full blast, and people were getting mixed up with what a real move of God is or isn’t, what revival is or isn’t.
South African evangelist Angus Buchan at one of his ‘revivals’.
Paul noted in Romans that there is a kind of zeal absent of knowledge,
Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. (Romans 10:1-2).
By this verse we see there is such a thing as a zeal that is not of God. There can be zeal, or fervor, or energy around religious things, but not according to what we know from the Bible. AKA knowledge. True zeal must always come from a place of knowledge first, which involves the mind.
I was prompted to write about zeal in 2023 because the “Asbury Revival” was a week-long event that had occurred at a college in Kentucky where a seemingly spontaneous move of God spread across the campus, drawing hundreds of matriculated students, then busloads of students from other campuses, then rubber-neckers. The event seemed to indicate a spiritual move of the Spirit to awaken dead sinners. Or was it? There certainly was an abundance of zeal present. Was it real or false? How to tell? At the very beginning it was especially hard to tell.
Zeal for God can include knowledge or be absent of knowledge. Zeal by itself is mereely emotion.
Zeal: great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective. Synonyms: passion, fervor, enthusiasm.
The Charlie Kirk Memorial sparked a similar momentum, emotion, and energy.
But how can we discern if we are observing a true zeal or a false zeal? How do we know if our own zeal is false or true? Let’s turn to the scriptures.
As Paul finished Romans 9, before he went on to mentioning false zeal in Chapter 10:1, he had reminded the Roman Christians that Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. (Romans 9:31-32).
Israel/Pharisees appeared to be doing a religious effort, they looked like they were on the right track, and part of that appearance of devoted religiosity was because of their fervent energy.
They went across the world to make one proselyte, but wound up making him twice the sons of hell they were. (Matthew 23:15). So much zeal! Yet that verse is the example of zeal without knowledge. And it shows how dangerous the wrong kind of zeal can be. They were sons of hell and they were making sons of hell. This is why we MUST be diligently careful to ensure our own zeal is with knowledge and properly controlled.
Saul/Paul had zeal. You can be passionate, you can be busy making disciples, but a false zeal will make disciples who miss the mark completely.
Some devout men buried Stephen, and mourned loudly for him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and he would drag away men and women and put them in prison. (Acts 8:2-3).
True zeal: being brave enough to stand for Christ in the face of persecution in order to mourn Stephen publicly and to bury him.
False zeal: Saul/Paul jailing and killing Christians. His religious zeal was misplaced. He came to deeply regret this later (1 Corinthians 15:9). It was a zeal without knowledge.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached on the Romans 10:1-2 verse in a sermon called False vs. True Zeal. The sermon is stunning, relevant, and informative. He laid the foundation as he always does, logically, then laid out tests to determine of someone is exhibiting false zeal. Then in the later part of the sermon he laid out how to determine if a person is exhibiting true zeal. I’ll excerpt his sermon.
[Some people say] nothing matters except that Christian people get together and act together and do something to stem the tide of communism or of immorality or any other reason that may be threatening. They say, “What’s it matter what you believe? If you can get hold of a body of sincere, zealous people who are anxious to do something, this is no time to be questioning as to what they believe about this doctrine or that doctrine.” They say, “When the whole house is on fire, isn’t it being rather ridiculous to be paying attention to particular pieces of furniture? The thing to do is to do something to put out the fire and not to be quibbling with one another about particular articles of the Christian faith. Now you are familiar with that. That is more or less what is being said in terms of what is called the ecumenical movement. So the tendency now is to exalt sincerity and to exalt zeal and activity.”Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Test of False Zeal by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, paraphrased & quoted from his sermon
MLJ preached 9 tests of false zeal but I’ll only post a few here that seem relevant to me in the emotion and turmoil after the Memorial. One is to test if you find that you put greater emphasis upon doing than upon being, it’s always an indication. You should be careful if you are more anxious to do things than to be a saint. You better examine your zeal again.
Another way of putting it is this- the activity is always very prominent and at the center of the life rather than the truth. The thing you are hit by all along is the activity, this energy that’s being put forth, rather than by the truth.
An example here is Beth Moore. People always have remarked on her energy, fervency, urgency. But all that charisma and energy hides the fact that she does not teach with knowledge. Lots of energy and emotion can mask a lack of substance.
Let’s go on to another test from Lloyd-Jones – false zeal is always impatient to the examination. It dislikes being examined. It dislikes being questioned.
It resents scrutiny- it says ‘Can’t you see that I’m zealous … I’m enthusiastic … I’m sincere … I want to do …’ But you say ‘Well but let’s make sure, because of the teaching.’ No, no, it’s impatient of all that. It wants to get on with things, must be doing something. False zeal dislikes slowing down long enough to be examined.
An example here is when podcaster/influencer Alisa Childers changed her position & practice from declining invites to speak on platforms with false teachers to accepting invites to be with false teachers, because she feels we have to capture this emotional moment after the Kirk Memorial where people’s hearts are soft. Deciding to do an activity based on capturing an emotion while abandoning knowledge (in this case separating from false teachers) is misplaced zeal. Accompanying that is the outcry from people who agree with her new stance,with cries of ‘We have to get the gospel out NOW, we have to DO rather than BE!’
There is a danger of setting up zeal or sincerity to the supreme position.Martyn Lloyd-Jones
True zeal is always the result of knowledge. It is always the outcome of knowledge. It aligns with knowledge. With the Apostle is really put this very wonderfully for us already in chapter 6 in verse 17, (KJV), says Lloyd-Jones-
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
There is a difference between a proper emotional response to a scriptural truth, and emotionalism.
Notice the order. He actually puts the obeying first. This is what he says has happened to you – he says the first thing was this a form of doctrine was delivered. The gospel was preached to them and they received it and believed it with their minds. But it wasn’t only in their minds, the heart was involved. After receiving the knowledge, they were moved by it. They gave obedience to the knowledge by changing their practice, rather than changing their practice due to emotion and abandoning the knowledge.
Their will came into action but that was the order they received it with the mind first, it THEN moved the heart it prompted them to action.
We all want the Gospel to get out widely. We would love a revival to happen. But Jesus said that many turned away from the hard teaching and few walked with Him. The crowds wanted a spectacle, miracles, and personal boons and gifts. Once those dried up, they weren’t interested. Whenever you see crowds of Christians, be wary if they are there for the spectacle or the knowledge.
I am inspired by the reaction to the Charlie Kirk killing. It genuinely did motivate many to re-think their positions, revise their practices, and to bring the Gospel forward as primary. But within that, is also the danger of emotional zeal absent of knowledge. When Stephen was killed, there was a mixture inteh crowd of genuinely zealous beleivers and false beleivers zealous for satan (unknowingly, Saul.)
Even Jonathan Edwards was wary of the creeping emotionalism he saw soon after the Great Revival started, a Revival sparked by him, no less.
MacArthur writes of Edwards’ cautions around the Great Awakening. citing Iain Murray, Iain Murray writes that some observers-
began to encourage the idea that the greater the outcries and commotion, the more glorious was the evidence of God’s power, and once this idea was accepted the door was open to all manner of excess. . . . Far from attempting to restrain themselves, people sometimes willfully gave way to sheer emotion. [5]
“At this point division crept into the revival. Many who were swept up in the emotion and excitement of the phenomena began to distrust any voice of caution. Pastors who warned that mere noise and excitement were no proof of the Spirit’s working often found themselves the targets of backlash. Wise words of friendly caution were discarded as if they were hostile criticism,” writes John MacArthur, paraphrasing Murray.
Emotion accompanies zeal. Emotionalism is emotion without thought. It is wonderful to be emotionally moved to action, to rekindle one’s fervency and love for Christ. Zeal must always accompany knowledge, however, and be self-controlled. I recommend Lloyd-Jones’ sermon on true zeal and false zeal, linked at the top and below.
Article from Expositors: Turning information into knowledge discusses the difference between gainign information about God and turning that information into knowledge.
I recently received the kindest e-mail from a sweet lady at a movie subscription service – sort of a “family-friendly” version of Netflix – asking me to write an article pointing my readers to the movie subscription service (hereafter: “MSS”) as a resource for whatever issue I was addressing in the article:
“I am hoping to hear your advice on some ways to relay valuable lessons to others in a post on your page. Maybe you have used a book or a movie to help someone better understand how to deal with bullying. Or maybe you have used parables from the Bible to demonstrate how to deal with a tough situation. We would love our movies to be a resource for your readers to utilize as a tool, since we have many relevant Christian movies and shows.”
This is a brilliant and creative marketing/publicity strategy, and I really admire whoever it was at the MSS who came up with and implemented this idea. It’s grassroots, it reaches their target audience, they get to harness the creativity and energy of the bloggers they contact, and it’s free. Very smart.
Nice people, smart marketing, a variety of attractive products, the desire to help others, a company built on wholesome morality- what’s not to endorse, right? And if they were selling hand cream or light bulbs or waffle irons, I’d agree.
The thing is, when you sell something, that product is supposed to correctly fill a need your potential customers have. You sell hand cream to people with dry hands, light bulbs to people wondering why they’re sitting around in the dark, and waffle irons to people who want to enjoy breakfast in their jammies rather than driving across town to IHOP.
But this MSS is not selling you the right tool for your problem. Though I’m sure they have the noblest of intentions, they’re attempting to sell you a waffle iron to rake your yard with: movies as theology.
Though I’m sure they have the noblest of intentions, they’re attempting to sell you a waffle iron to rake your yard with: movies as theology.Tweet
I like movies. I watch them all the time with my family (at home- have you seen the price of a movie ticket lately?!?!). But movies are for leisure time fun and entertainment, not for proper instruction on how to live a godly life or the way to solve personal problems, and certainly not for what to believe about God, as we’ve recently seen with The Shack debacle. When Christians have issues, questions, and problems, we don’t go to the movies, we go to the Bible.
When Christians have issues, questions, and problems, we don’t go to the movies, we go to the Bible.Tweet
God’s word is the primary source document for Christians. It is the authority that governs our thoughts, words, and deeds. It is the sufficient answer to any question we might have about life and godliness. Above any other advice, instruction, help, or input, we need the Bible, and we can rest assured that its counsel is always right and trustworthy since its words come straight from the lips of God.
But just for the sake of argument, let’s try it the MSS’s way. Let’s say you do have the problem of being bullied. And let’s say this MSS has a good movie about a character in similar life circumstances to yours who overcomes being bullied. So you watch it, hoping to get some advice on how to handle your own problem. You’re a Christian, so, by definition, you want to address the situation without sinning, in a way that pleases God, and, hopefully, in a way that is conducive to sharing the gospel with the bully.
How do you know whether or not the character in the movie overcame her bullying problem in a godly way? That’s right- you have to open your Bible, study it, and compare what she did in the movie with rightly handled, in context Scripture. So why not just go straight to the Source and spend the hour and a half you invested in the movie studying Scripture instead?
Another issue with watching movies to learn how to solve your problems or teach you how to live rightly is that doing so subtly trains you in poor hermeneutics. It trains you to follow the example of a character who is just as broken, sinful, and unwise as you are instead of looking directly to the perfect, holy, infallible instruction of God Himself. Which is often the way people incorrectly read the Bible.
As I’ve previously mentioned, there are two main types of Scripture: descriptive and prescriptive. Like a movie, descriptive passages describe something that happened: Noah built an ark. Esther became queen. Paul got shipwrecked. These passages simply tell us what happened to somebody. Prescriptive passages are commands or statements to obey. Don’t lie. Share the gospel. Forgive others.
If we wanted to know how to have a godly marriage, for example, we would look at passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7, and Exodus 20:14,17. These are all passages that clearly tell us what to do and what not to do in order to have a godly marriage.
What we would not do is look at David’s and Solomon’s lives and conclude that polygamy is God’s design for marriage. We would not read about Hosea and assume that God wants Christian men to marry prostitutes. We would not read the story of the woman at the well and think that being married five times and then shacking up with number six is OK with Jesus. All of which is the same reason we should not be watching movies – even “Christian” movies – as a resource for godly living.
“But,” the kind MSS lady would probably reassure me, “our MSS also has non-fiction videos of pastors and Bible teachers that could be helpful.” And indeed they do. There are a handful of documentaries on missionaries, some of the Reformers, current moral and societal issues, and Bible teaching that look like they could be solid. The problem is, they’re mixed in with the likes of Joyce Meyer, John Hagee, Henri Nouwen, Greg Laurie, a plethora of Catholic leaders, and even those who don’t claim to be Christians like Betty White, Frank Sinatra, and Liberace. The few videos with good teaching are combined with many that teach worldly ideas, signs and wonders, mysticism, Bible “codes” and “secrets,” false prophecy, faulty eschatology, and other false doctrine.
It’s a great example of why God tells Christians we’re not to receive false teachers nor to partner with them, as, sadly, this MSS has chosen to do. Mixing biblical truth with false teaching confuses people. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
When a little bit of truth is mixed in with the false, how are we to know which is which? We have to do exactly what the Bereans did with Paul- examine the teachings against Scripture, accept what matches up and reject what doesn’t. Again, why spend the time and confusion searching for, hoping you’ve found, and watching a video you’re not sure will teach you biblical truth when you could simply pick up your Bible, study it, and confidently believe what God says about the issue instead?
There are some good, clean movies on this MSS that would make for an enjoyable evening of family fun, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But for instruction in holy living and resolving the dilemmas of life in a godly way, we need to use the right tool for the job: the Bible.
Rake your yard with a rake, not a waffle iron.
Rake your yard with a rake, not a waffle iron.Tweet
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (9:18–22)
The second reason for the death of Christ was that forgiveness demands blood. This truth is directly in line with the previous point, but with a different shade of meaning. Blood is a symbol of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a testator’s having to die in order for a will to become effective. But blood also suggests the animal sacrifices that were marks of the Old Covenant, even, in fact, of the Abrahamic covenant. In the Old Covenant, the death of animals was typical and prophetic, looking forward to the death of Christ that would ratify the second covenant. Even before the old priestly sacrifices were begun, the covenant itself was inaugurated, or ratified, with blood. As explained in verse 19, Moses sprinkled blood on the altar and on the people (see Ex. 24:6–8). “Look at your great Moses,” the writer is saying, “He himself inaugurated the Old Covenant with blood.” It is hard for us today to understand how bloody and messy the old sacrificial system was. But among other things, the great amount of blood was a continual reminder of the penalty of sin, death. When He sat with the disciples on that last night before His death, Jesus picked up the cup and said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). He was to ratify the New Covenant through His own blood, just as the Old Covenant was ratified by Moses with the blood of animals. It is possible to become morbid about Christ’s sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus. Thus bloodshed was the symbol for death when Moses ratified the covenant on Sinai. Likewise, when the Tabernacle was inaugurated, Moses sprinkled the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood, again picturing the price to be paid for sin. The central lesson of the covenant was thus illustrated by the sprinkling of blood in the Tabernacle and Temple as long as that covenant stood. The purpose of the blood was to symbolize sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin. Therefore, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Again, however, we need to keep in mind that the blood was a symbol. If Christ’s own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals. It is not surprising, then, that the Old Covenant allowed a symbol for a symbol. A Jew who was too poor to bring even a small animal for a sacrifice was allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah (about two quarts) of fine flour instead (Lev. 5:11). His sins were covered just as surely as those of the person who could afford to offer a lamb or goat or turtledove or pigeon (Lev. 5:6–7). This exception is clear proof that the old cleansing was symbolic. Just as the animal blood symbolized Christ’s true atoning blood, so the ephah of flour symbolized and represented the animal blood. This non-blood offering for sin was acceptable because the old sacrifice was entirely symbolic anyway. Yet this was the only exception. And even the exception represented a blood sacrifice. The basic symbol could not be changed because what it symbolized could not be changed. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (Lev. 17:11). Since the penalty for sin is death, nothing but death, symbolized by shedding of blood, can atone for sin. We cannot enter into God’s presence by self-effort to be righteous. If we, on our own, could be good, we would not need atonement. Nor can we enter His presence by being model citizens or even by being religious. We cannot enter His presence by reading the Bible, by going to church, by giving generously to the Lord’s work, or even by praying. We cannot enter His presence by thinking good thoughts about Him. The only way we can enter into God’s presence, the only way we can participate in the New Covenant, is through the atoning death of Jesus Christ, made effective for us when we trust in Him as saving Lord. God has set the rules. The soul that sins will die. The soul that is saved will be saved through the sacrifice of God’s Son. For this sacrifice there is no exception, no substitute, for this is the real thing. Because they were symbols, God provided a limited and strictly qualified exception (flour) to the old sacrifices. But there can be no exception for the real sacrifice, because it is the only way to God. Forgiveness is a costly, costly thing. But I often think to myself how lightly we can take the forgiveness of God. I have come to the end of a day and put my head on the pillow to say, “God, I did this and this today,” listing off the things I had done that I knew were not pleasing to Him. I know He knows about them, so there is no use trying to hide them. I also know He forgives them, because He has promised to forgive them, and I thank Him. I fall off to sleep in a few minutes, accepting but not fully appreciating the marvelous grace that made such assurance and peace so easily available to me. At other times, as I study the Word of God, and look more closely at the great cost that was paid for my salvation, I am overwhelmed. When I meditate on the infinite cost to God to forgive my sins, I realize how often I abuse my loving Father’s grace. Paul tells us that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). Then, anticipating how some might distort this truth, he goes on to say, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (6:1). To realize and rejoice in God’s boundless grace is one thing; to presume on it by willfully sinning is quite another. How can we, as forgiven sinners, take lightly or presumptuously, the price paid for our forgiveness? We become so used to grace that we abuse it. In fact, we are so accustomed to grace that when God brings down just punishment we may think it unjust. God does not forgive sin by looking down and saying, “It’s all right. Since I love you so much, I’ll overlook your sin.” God’s righteousness and holiness will not allow Him to overlook sin. Sin demands payment by death. And the only death great enough to pay for all of mankind’s sins is the death of His Son. God’s great love for us will not lead Him to overlook our sin, but it has led Him to provide the payment for our sin, as John 3:16 so beautifully reminds us. God cannot ignore our sin; but He will forgive our sin if we trust in the death of His Son for that forgiveness.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Hebrews (pp. 236–239). Moody Press.
This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” 21. In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Two matters stand out: first, the expression first covenant relates to the same phrase in 9:15. Therefore the two intervening verses, given in the form of an analogy, may be placed within parentheses. Second, in verses 18–22 the word blood appears six times. Because of this repetition it receives emphasis in this section. We shall examine the term blood in the context of each verse in which it occurs. a. “Not put into effect without blood.” The institution of the first covenant is recorded in Exodus 24. Moses read the law of God to the people, presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to God, sprinkled the blood of young bulls (sacrificed in these offerings) on the altar and on the people, read the Book of the Covenant to the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:8). The writer of Hebrews observes that this first covenant was sealed with blood. And he notes the connection between the first and the second covenants: Christ shed his blood and thus sealed this new covenant with his blood. His death made the new covenant valid and effective. b. “The blood of calves.” If we compare the biblical account of the institution of the first covenant, recorded in Exodus 24, with the description in Hebrews 9:19, we must conclude that the writer of Hebrews relied on oral tradition, extrabiblical material, or the five books of Moses. Perhaps he gained his material from various passages of these books. The differences are pronounced:
Exodus 24:5–6, 8 Hebrews 9:19 Then [Moses] sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar … [and] on the people. [Moses] took the blood of calves [and goats], together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.
On the Day of Atonement the priests offered a young bull and a goat (Lev. 16:3–28). The author of Hebrews, therefore, could have combined the account of the sacrificial ceremony of the Day of Atonement with that of the institution of the first covenant. Also, he may have gleaned the phrase “scarlet wool and branches of hyssop” from the description of the ceremony of the cleansing of a person with an infectious skin disease (Lev. 14:4, 6). In these verses the expression scarlet yarn and hyssop occurs. Then, in the passage that describes the water of cleansing, hyssop, scarlet wool, and water are mentioned (Num. 19:6, 9, 18). According to the Exodus account, Moses sprinkled the blood of young bulls on the altar and on the people. He read to the people from the Book of the Covenant. We may assume that he sprinkled blood on this book, too. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes surmises that “on the day of solemn ratification of the former covenant, Moses would have sprinkled not only the altar he had built and the people but also the book he had written.” c. “The blood of the covenant.” From a New Testament perspective we immediately see a resemblance between the words of Moses cited by the author of Hebrews and the words spoken by Jesus when he instituted the Lord’s Supper. Moses said to the Israelites, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:8). The writer of Hebrews has Moses say, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep” (Heb. 9:20). The variation of “the LORD has made with you” and “God has commanded you” is one of form, not of content. We would have expected the author of Hebrews to refer directly to the well-known words spoken by Jesus at the institution of the Lord’s Supper and repeated whenever this supper is celebrated. Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24). The purpose for Christ’s shed blood is given more explicitly in Matthew’s Gospel: “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). The connection between the words that Moses spoke when the first covenant was instituted and the words that Jesus uttered when he brought into practice the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is plain. Perhaps because of the self-evident link, the writer of Hebrews has left the missing details for the readers of his epistle to supply. d. “Sprinkled with the blood.” Once again we note a difference between the Old Testament account (Exod. 40:9–11) and the words of the author of Hebrews (9:21). When Moses set up the tabernacle, God told him to “take the anointing oil and anoint the tabernacle and everything in it; consecrate it and all its furnishings, and it will be holy” (Exod. 40:9). The writer of Hebrews, however, asserts that Moses “sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies” (9:21). In the account of the ordination of Aaron and his sons, we read that Moses killed a bull and with the blood purified the altar. Already he had consecrated the tabernacle and everything in it, including the altar, with oil; he even anointed Aaron with oil (Lev. 8:10–15). Because of this parallel account in the Book of Leviticus, we can safely assume that the writer with his intimate knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures relied on the account of Leviticus more than that of Exodus. Josephus comments on the inaugural ceremonies of the tabernacle and the ordination of Aaron and his sons. He, too, speaks of purifying Aaron and his sons and their garments “as also the tabernacle and its vessels, both with oil that had been previously fumigated … and with the blood of bulls and goats.” Josephus, like the author of Hebrews, is fully acquainted with the biblical record in Leviticus 8. Yet both writers contend that Moses purified with the sprinkled blood the tabernacle and its vessels. That information is not found in Leviticus; most likely it had come to them by oral tradition. e. “Cleansed with blood.” The writer of Hebrews testifies that his constant emphasis on purification with blood is not his own idea. He bases it on the law of God. Says he, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood” (9:22). That law is recorded in Leviticus 17:11 where God through Moses says to the Israelites: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” Note that the author writes, “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood” (italics added). The term nearly leaves room for exceptions, because some items might be cleansed by water or by fire (see Lev. 15:10 and Num. 31:22–24). f. “Shedding of blood.” The second part of Hebrews 9:22 is even more direct: “and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” These two—the pouring out of blood and the forgiveness of sin—go hand in hand. The one does not exist without the other. The first part of the verse implies that exceptions were permitted, for the author says that “nearly everything” needs to be cleansed with blood. But in the second half of the verse, the writer does not allow exceptions. He posits negatives: without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The absolute demand for blood to secure remission of sin responds to the terms of the covenant. Transgression of the laws of the covenant that were agreed upon and ratified by the Israelites constitutes a serious offense. This sin can be removed only by death, that is, the substitutionary death of an animal whose blood is shed for the sinner. The new covenant, instituted by Christ on the eve of his death, is sealed in his blood that has been shed on Calvary’s cross for remission of sin. Jesus’ words, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28), are clearly echoed in the second part of Hebrews 9:22.
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of Hebrews (Vol. 15, pp. 257–260). Baker Book House.
He that watereth shall be watered also himself.Proverbs 11:25
If I carefully consider others, God will consider me, and in some way or other He will recompense me. Let me consider the poor, and the Lord will consider me. Let me look after little children, and the Lord will treat me as His child. Let me feed His flock, and He will feed me. Let me water His garden, and He will make a watered garden of my soul. This is the Lord’s own promise; be it mine to fulfill the condition and then to expect its fulfillment.
I may care about myself till I grow morbid; I may watch over my own feelings till I feel nothing; and I may lament my own weakness till I grow almost too weak to lament. It will be far more profitable for me to become unselfish and out of love to my Lord Jesus begin to care for the souls of those around me. My tank is getting very low; no fresh rain comes to fill it; what shall I do? I will pull up the plug and let its contents run out to water the withering plants around me. What do I see? My cistern seems to fill as it flows. A secret spring is at work. While all was stagnant, the fresh spring was sealed; but as my stock Rows out to water others the Lord thinketh upon me. Hallelujah!
On the day of judgment, we will stand before the living God. Today, R.C. Sproul presents the stark difference between relying on our own righteousness and standing solely on the righteousness of Christ.
FORGET NONE OF HIS BENEFITS volume 24, number 40, October 2, 2025
I will dwell on a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite, Isaiah 57:15.
A massive interest in Christianity is currently taking place all over the world. Recently in very secular Holland, 60,000 young people gathered to worship Jesus. The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk seemingly is a catalyst for thousands of college students to gather in various settings to praise God and to thank Him for Charlie’s ministry. Without question, the Gen Z demographic, especially the young men, are rushing to Bible believing churches. There is a new boldness amongst campus evangelists and pastors to bring conservative politics (which are based on the Christian and Biblical worldview) back into their preaching and teaching ministries. Are we currently in a revival? How can we know?
A number of years ago I preached nine sermons on Revival from various Old Testament passages that record revivals. In these sermons I stressed our need for revival, what revival is, what hinders it, saying that it is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, meaning we cannot produce a revival, but we can and should prepare the way for one.
At the time I was preaching those revival sermons, a church member asked, “If revival came to our town, what would it look like? Your historical examples are interesting and inspiring, but what would this look like today in our secular culture when so few people have been interested in Christ and His gospel?” That’s a fair question and using Old Testament examples, the book of Acts, and the history of revivals as a template, if we are in the early stages of a true, Biblical revival then it will look something like the following.
First is the matter of preparation. God will move people to pray earnestly for revival, what I call revival prayer. People will be burdened to pray. The condition of the church and culture will be intolerable to them. They must see change. They will cry out earnestly to God. They will be serious about repenting of their sin, making restitution to those whom they have wronged, being zealous to right the wrongs they have done to others. They will be very grieved with their sin, and will not rest until they have dealt Biblically with all known sin. They, with Nehemiah, Ezra, and Daniel will be very aware of their profound guilt. This will not merely be in sins of commission, things we have done against God and His law, since many are outwardly obedient and righteous. Instead it will reveal itself in the guilt over their sins of omission, not doing all that God commands us to do. In summary, we will be profoundly aware and humbled to the dust over our failure to love our neighbor as ourselves. Then there will be earnest preaching for and about revival. Preachers will boldly and without compromise call their people to repentance, bearing down very specifically about sin, urging them to be grieved over it, exalting Christ as the only remedy, and expecting the Spirit to promote Biblical holiness in the congregation.
Secondly, if this a true revival then there will be a sovereign visitation upon God’s people. By this I mean several things. As the Holy Spirit begins to work in the hearts of God’s people there will be public confession of sin along with sincere contrition, and a keen sense of how we have grieved the Holy Spirit and the Father of love and grace. We will become indignant about our sin, seeing that we have so easily and casually sinned without regret and remorse. We will begin separating ourselves from our sin. Those things we previously did not consider to be sin, then will deeply burden us, and we will be very quick to rid our lives of them—things like certain social media platforms, music, television programming, books, and places we frequent. We will begin to fear God, being aware of the warnings of Hebrews, realizing how fearful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. We will genuinely love the word of God. We will not be able to get enough of sound, biblical preaching. One sermon a week will not be enough for us. If meetings are held nightly at the church we will want to attend, not being able to stay away from them. The word of God will come alive to us. We will feed on the word of God and make the preachers task a great joy because we will be so eager to listen and change our behavior accordingly. We will give ourselves to true worship, to the adoration of God. Worship will be a great delight to us, not only corporate worship but also family and personal worship. This will not be a burden or chore rather it will be a joy from the heart. Our lives will be dominated by joy, a sense of God’s love for us, and a boldness in speaking to others about Christ and their souls. Our evangelizing, teaching, and counseling will be effectual. People will listen and be transformed.
And thirdly, this sort of thing happening in the lives of God’s people will then begin to impact previously hard-hearted, disinterested, prideful, self-righteous, and wicked people. They will be awakened to their perilous condition. They will be fearful of their soul’s estate. They will begin to pursue God. Instead of coercing or pleading with them to join you at church or to attend a Bible study, they will be hungry for these things. They will see these things as vital, of paramount importance. Then many of them will be soundly converted. I don’t mean a few here and there who make a decision for Christ, and then you wonder what happened to them, that you never see them again. No, in revival many come to Christ and give clear evidence of sound conversion, turning from darkness to light, from loving sin and hating God, to hating sin and loving God. Then this will mean a transformation of families, churches, and communities. It will affect all levels of society—the rich and the poor, the professional and day laborer, all the various ethnic groups in your community. Perhaps the revival will be very quiet and non-emotional, like the ones at Midway, Georgia in the nineteenth century; or perhaps they will be highly charged with emotion like the one at Cambuslang, Scotland in 1742. To put it another way, the normal Christian life to which we are accustomed will, in revival, be supercharged. Instead of one or two conversions, here and there, many will be soundly converted at the same time. It will be the normal Christian life on “steroids.”
To summarize, if we are currently in perhaps the early days of true revival, then people will exhibit Biblical holiness, beginning with a return to living by the Scriptures. Young people will forsake fornication, pornography, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like. They will put away leftist ideology and the politics which flow from it. They will marry a godly spouse and rear their children purposefully in the fear and instruction of the Lord. They will give their money for the propagation of the gospel to the nations. Over the long haul there will be a return to a conservative ideology and lifestyle because both are based on the Scriptures.
Are we currently in the early days of revival, something for which many of you have been praying for forty or more years? I hope so. I am cautiously optimistic. Time will tell. In the meantime we should certainly continue to pray for revival and watch with eagerness, especially amongst young preachers and leaders like the late Charlie Kirk and my friend Ryan Denton, how God uses such men as his instruments of revival. Almost always, God has used young men in their twenties or thirties as catalysts for such a glorious work.
A friend sent me a draft e-mail, that he wrote to a family member, who has rejected historic Christianity for progressive Christianity. He was asked to give the basics of salvation, and his attempt to explain the gospel to her is below. My advice included taking out the Christianese terms. Do you think he did a good job? I think his emphasis on what is not the gospel (what needs to be rejected) makes this a first-class explanation of the gospel.
So, you’ve asked the 10,000 talent question (alluding to Matthew 18:23-35). You are basically asking me what I think the Gospel is. I’ll try to answer that in a minimalistic way, using my own characterization of it rather than just making doctrinal statements.
One must accept that there is a God, who is a higher authority than themselves. How much one must first believe about that God is debatable, but candidate beliefs would be that He is personal (having a mind like, but greater than, ours), powerful, and the creator of this cosmos and everything in it — He owns it all. Our natural intuition is to see beauty, order, complexity, and “design” in nature. There is a difference in belief vs unbelief in that some think it is just the appearance of design and some acknowledge their intuition that it actually is designed.
One must acknowledge their moral intuitions, and recognize that there are actually right and wrong things in this world. It’s not just whatever you want to do, or whatever society decides in a given time or culture.
Given that morality is then understood to be a transcendent thing (universal and independent of time and culture), the connection is made to God as the author of this moral law.
One must then recognize that he/she regularly fails to live up to this law, even according to just their meager understanding of it, and even by the standards of morality that they make up for other people.
One must not try to suppress this, or therapize it away. One must recognize there is a problem and real moral culpability. One must recognize that they feel guilty and have self-esteem issues because they actually do have guilt and issues.
One must make the connection between guilt and their standing before God. Being good sometimes and in some ways does not erase the bad you do, past, present, or future. One must be willing to bend the knee to God’s will regarding morality.
One must also come to see the moral failure (sin) in their lives as a bad thing that they’d like to be rid of, rather than excusing it as the fault of others, or revelling in it as part of the pleasure of life, or shrugging it off as just “who I am.”
One must appeal to God in these matters for both forgiveness and help in living as they should.
Given that God has provided a champion for the problem that humanity faces (the backstory of which not all will fully know), one whose heart is truly yielded to all these things will naturally and eagerly receive Word of this as Good News. God has solved the seemingly irreconcilable demands of both justice and forgiveness in that champion.
Those with ears to hear will receive this solution — Jesus — and believe what He has done in life and on the cross for their sake — the resurrection being both confirmation of His divine authority and also the sign of the defeat of death which awaits us all, and is the only barrier between us and facing this God whom we fail at every turn. They will believe on (or upon) Jesus as Lord and their means of salvation, surrendering dependence upon their own ideas of self-righteousness and earning the favor of God.
The outward expression that we have understood and accepted these things is that we have made Jesus Lord and committed ourselves to following Him, conform our character to His, resist our sinful inclinations, and are interested in learning all about Who God is and what has been done for us in Christ.
This commitment to the Lordship of Christ naturally leads to the acceptance of subsequent beliefs. If Jesus is indeed Lord, then He holds all authority, and what He said and taught to His followers is our guide — the New Testament. And if this is the divine story, as intended by God for men, then we have reason to believe that it is comprehensible to us, and He will insure (in spite of the fallibility of men and demonic plots) that its essential message will not be lost or corrupted until all things are completed. Given that Jesus affirmed every categorical section of the Old Testament, and claimed to be its promised Messiah, then that, too, is a source of truth and understanding.
Those doctrines that are sometimes characterized as “essential” for salvation, are merely the highlights of this redemption narrative, which are those things being clear and consistent, and which indicate that someone has yielded themselves to the authority of Christ and the scriptures, and understands these things. It is not that believing them is what saves, but they are what the saved naturally come to believe. Confessing them is the tangible, verbal act of affirming the Gospel, but is not necessarily identical to a life committed to putting it into practice, which is saving faith.
Vers. 5. But He was wounded for our transgressions.—The sufferings of Christ:— Three things suggest themselves as requiring explanation to one who seriously contemplates the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ.
An innocent man suffers.
The death of Jesus is the apparent defeat and destruction of one who possessed extraordinary and supernatural powers.
This apparent defeat and ruin, instead of hindering the progress of His work, became at once, and in all the history of the progress of His doctrine has been emphatically, the instrument whereby a world is conquered. The death of Jesus has not been mourned by His followers, has never been concealed, but rather exulted in and prominently set forth as that to which all men must chiefly look if they would regard Christ and His mission right. The shame and the failure issue in glory and completest success. What is the philosophy of this? Has any ever been given which approaches the Divinely revealed meaning supplied by our text? “He was wounded for our transgressions, etc. We learn here— I. THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS CHRIST RESULTED FROM OUR SINS. II. THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS WERE RELATED TO THE DIVINE LAW. III. THE SUFFERINGS OF JESUS BECAME REMEDIAL OF HUMAN SINFULNESS. (L. D. Bevan, D.D.) A short catechism:—
What is man’s condition by nature? (1) Under transgression. (2) Under iniquities. (3) At feud with God. (4) Under wounds and most loathsome diseases of a sinful nature.
How are folks freed from this sinful and miserable condition? (1) In general, before the quarrel can be taken away, and their peace can be made, there must be a satisfaction. (2) More particularly there must be a satisfaction, because there is the justice of God that hath a claim by a standing law; the holiness of God, that must be vindicated; the faith of God, that must cause to come to pass what it hath pledged itself to, as well in reference to threatening as to promise.
Who maketh this satisfaction? The text says, “He” and “Him.” The Messiah.
How does He satisfy justice? (1) He enters Himself in our room. (2) Christ’s performance and payment of the debt according to His undertaking, implies a covenant and transaction on which the application is founded. (3) Our Lord Jesus, in fulfilling the bargain, and satisfying justice, paid a dear price: He was wounded, bruised, suffered stripes and punishment.
What are the benefits that come by these sufferings? (1) The benefits are such that if He had not suffered for us, we should have suffered all that He suffered ourselves. (2) More particularly we have peace and pardon. Healing.
To whom hath Christ procured all these good things? (1) The elect; (2) who are guilty of heinous sins.
How are these benefits derived from Christ to the sinner? (1) Justly and in a legal way; (2) freely. (J. Durham.) Sin:— Verses 5 and 6 are remarkable for the numerous and diversified references to sin which they make. Within the short compass of two verses that sad fact is referred to no less than six times, and on each occasion a different figure is used to describe it. It is transgression—the crossing of a boundary and trespassing upon forbidden land. It is iniquity—the want of equity: the absence of just dealing. It is the opposite of peace—the root of discord and enmity between us and God. It is a disease of the spirit—difficult to heal. It is a foolish and wilful wandering, like that of a stray sheep. And it is a heavy burden, which crushes him on whom it lies. So many and serious are the aspects of sin. (B. J. Gibbon.) The sufferings of Christ:— I. ATTEND TO THE SUFFERINGS OF THE SON OF GOD, as described in the text. The sufferings of the Saviour are described in the Scriptures with simplicity and grandeur combined. Nothing can add to the solemnity and force of the exhibition.
The prophet tells us that the Son of God was “wounded.” The Hebrew word here translated “wounded,” signifies to run through with a sword or some sharp weapon, and, as here used, seems to refer to those painful wounds which our Lord received at the time of His crucifixion.
The prophet tells us that the Son of God was “bruised.” This expression seems to have a reference to the labours, afflictions, and sorrows which our blessed Lord sustained, especially in the last scenes of His life.
The prophet tells us that the Son of God bore chastisements and stripes. II. CONSIDER THE PROCURING CAUSE OF THE SUFFERINGS OF THE SON OF GOD. “Our transgressions.” “Our iniquities.” III. ATTEND TO THE GRACIOUS DESIGN AND HAPPY EFFECTS OF THE SUFFERINGS OF THE SON OF GOD. “The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.”
One gracious design and blessed effect of the sufferings of the Son of God was to procure for us reconciliation with God.
The renovating of our nature. (D. Dickson, D.D.) Substitution:— There is no more remarkable language than this in the whole of the Word of God. It is so clear a statement of the doctrine of the substitution of the innocent for the guilty, that we do not hesitate to say, no words could teach it if it be not taught here. We are distinctly told— I. THAT THERE BELONGS TO US A SAD AND GRIEVOUS WEIGHT OF SIN. There are three terms expressive of what belong to us: “our transgressions,” “our iniquities,” “gone astray.” These three phrases have indeed a common feature; they all indicate what is wrong—even sin, though they represent the wrong in different aspects.
“Transgressions.” The word thus translated indicates sin in one or other of three forms—either that of missing the mark through aimlessness, or carelessness, or a wrong aim; or of coming short, when, though the work may be right in its direction, it does not come up to the standard; or of crossing a boundary and going over to the wrong side of a line altogether. In all these forms our sins have violated the holy law of God.
“Iniquities.” This word also has reference to moral law as the standard of duty. The Hebrew word is from a root which signifies “to bend,” “to twist,” and refers to the tortuous, crooked, winding ways of men when they conform to no standard at all save that suggested by their own fancies or conceits, and so walk “according to the course of this world.”
The third phrase has reference rather to the God of Law, than to the law of God, and to Him in His relation to us of Lord, Leader, Shepherd, and Guide. There is not only the infringement of the great law of right, but also universal neglect and abandonment of Divine leadership and love; and as the result of this, grievous mischief is sure to follow. “Like the sheep,” they find their way out easily enough; they go wandering over “the dark mountains,” each one to “his own way,” but of themselves they can never find the way home again. And so far does this wandering propensity increase in force, that men come to think there is no home for them; the loving concern of God for the wanderers is disbelieved, and the Supreme Being is regarded in the light of a terrible Judge eager to inflict retribution. And all this is a pressure on God. He misses the wanderers. And through the prophet, the Spirit of God would let men know that the wanderings of earth are the care of Heaven. Nor let us fail to note that in these verses there is an entirely different aspect of human nature and action from that presented in the verse preceding. There, the expressions were “our griefs,” “our sorrows.” Here, they are “our transgressions,” etc. Griefs and sorrows are not in themselves violations of moral law, though they may be the results of them, and though every violation of moral law may lead to sorrow. Still they must not be confounded, though inseparably connected. Grief may solicit pity: wrong incurs penalty. And the sin is ours. The evil is wide as the race. Each one’s sin is a personal one: “Every one to his own way.” Sin is thus at once collective and individual. No one can charge the guilt of his own sin on any one else. On whom or on what will he cast the blame? On influences? But it was for him to resist and not to yield. On temptation? But temptation cannot force. In the judgment of God each one’s sin is his own. II. THIS SERVANT OF GOD BEING LADEN WITH OUR SINS, SHARES OUR HERITAGE OF WOE. How remarkable is the antithesis here—Transgressions; iniquities; wanderings, are ours. Wounds; bruises; chastisements; stripes, are His. There is also a word indicating the connection between the two sides of the antithesis, “wounded for our transgressions”—on account of them; but if this were all the explanation given, it might mean no more than that the Messiah would feel so grieved at them that they would bruise or wound Him. But there is a far fuller and clearer expression: “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” This expression fixes the sense in which the Messiah was wounded and bruised on our account. In pondering over this, let us work our way step by step.
The inflexibility of the moral law and the absolute righteousness and equity of the Lawgiver in dealing with sin are thoughts underlying the whole of this chapter. The most high God is indeed higher than law; and though He never violates law, He may, out of the exuberance of His own love, do more than law requires, and may even cease to make law the rule of His action. But even when that is the case, and He acts χωρὶς νόμου (“apart from law,” Rom. 3:21), while He manifests the infinite freedom of a God to do whatsoever He pleaseth, He will also show to the world that His law must be honoured in the penalties inflicted for its violation. This is indicated in the words, “The Lord hath laid on Him,” etc. Nor ought any one for a moment to think of this as “exaction.” Exactness is not exactingness; it would not be called so, nor would the expression be tolerated if applied to a judge who forbade the dishonouring of a national law, or to a father who would not suffer the rules of his house to be broken with impunity.
It is revealed to us that in the mission of this servant of Jehovah, the Most High would act on the principle of substitution. When a devout Hebrew read the words we are now expounding, the image of the scapegoat would at once present itself to him.
The Messiah was altogether spotless; He fulfilled the ideal typified by the precept that the sacrificial lamb was to be without blemish. Being the absolutely sinless One, He was fitted to stand in a relation to sin and sinners which no being who was tainted with sin could possibly have occupied.
The twofold nature of the Messiah—He being at once the Son of God and Son of man, qualified Him to stand in a double relation;—as the Son of God, to be Heaven’s representative on earth—as the Son of man, to be earth’s representative to Heaven. Thus, His offering of Himself was God’s own sacrifice (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10; Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:19), and yet, in another sense, it was man’s own sacrifice (2 Cor. 5:14, 21; Gal. 3:13).
By His incarnation, Christ came and stood in such alliance with our race, that what belonged to the race belonged to Him, as inserted into it, and representative of it. We need not use any such expression as this—“Christ was punished for our sin.” That would be wrong. But sin was condemned in and through Christ, through His taking on Himself the liabilities of a world, as their one representative Man who would stand in their stead; and by the self-abandonment of an unparalleled love, would let the anguish of sin’s burden fall on His devoted head. Paul, in his Epistle to Philemon pleads for Onesimus thus, “If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee ought, put that to my account.” So the Son of God has accepted our liabilities. Only thus can we explain either the strong language of the prophecy, or the mysterious sorrow of Christ depicted in the Gospel history. On whatever grounds sin’s punishment was necessary had there been no atonement, on precisely those grounds was an atonement necessary to free the sinner from deserved punishment. This gracious work was in accord with the appointment of the Father and with the will of the Son.
Though the law is honoured in this substitution of another for us, yet the substitution itself does not belong to law, but to love! Grace reigns; law is not trifled with; it is not infringed on: nay, it is “established.” III. CHRIST HAVING ACCEPTED OUR HERITAGE OF WOE, WE RECEIVE THROUGH HIM A HERITAGE OF PEACE. (C. Clemance, D.D.) Vicarious suffering:— In a large family of evil-doers, where the father and mother are drunkards, the sons jail-birds and the daughters steeped in shame, there may be one, a daughter, pure, sensible, sensitive, living in the home of sin like a lily among thorns. And she makes all the sin of the family her own. The others do not mind it; the shame of their sin is nothing to them; it is the talk of the town, but they do not care. Only in her heart their crimes and disgrace meet like a sheaf of spears, piercing and mangling. The one innocent member of the family bears the guilt of all the rest. Even their cruelty to herself she hides, as if all the shame of it were her own. Such a position did Christ hold in the human family. He entered it voluntarily, becoming bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; He identified Himself with it; He was the sensitive centre of the whole. He gathered into His heart the shame and guilt of all the sin He saw. The perpetrators did not feel it, but He felt it. It crushed Him; it broke His heart. (J. Stalker, D.D.) With His stripes we are healed.—The disease of sin:— I. IT IS A WASTING DISEASE; it bringeth the soul into a languishing condition, and wasteth the strength of it (Rom. 5:6). Sin hath weakened the soul in all the faculties of it, which all may discern and observe in themselves. II. IT IS A PAINFUL DISEASE, it woundeth the spirit (Prov. 18:14). Greatness of mind may support us under a wounded body, but when there is a breach made upon the conscience, what can relieve us then? But you will say, They that are most infected with sin feel little of this; how is it then so painful a disease?
If they feel it not, the greater is their danger; for stupid diseases are the worst, and usually most mortal.
The soul of a sinner never sits so easy but that he has his qualms and pangs of conscience, and that sometimes in the midst of jollity; as was the case of Belshazzar, while carousing in the cups of the temple.
Though they feel not the diseases now, they shall hereafter. III. IT IS A LOATHSOME DISEASE. IV. IT IS AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE. Sin cometh into the world by propagation rather than imitation: yet imitation and example hath a great force upon the soul. V. IT IS A MORTAL DISEASE, if we continue in it without repentance. (T. Manton, D.D.) Recovery by Christ’s stripes:—
None but Christ can cure us, for He is the Physician of souls.
Christ cureth us not by doctrine and example only, but by merit and suffering. We are healed by “His stripes.”
Christ’s merit and sufferings do effect our cure, as they purchased the Spirit for us, who reneweth and healeth our sick souls (Titus 3:5, 6). (Ibid.) Healed by Christ’s stripes:— “With His stripes we are healed.” We are healed—of our inattention and unconcern about Divine things. Of our ignorance and unbelief respecting these things. Of the disease of self-righteousness and self-confidence. Of our love to sin, and commission of it. Of our love to the riches, honours and pleasures of this world. Of our self-indulgence and self-seeking. Of our lukewarmness and sloth. Of our cowardice and fear of suffering (1 Pet. 4:1). Of our diffidence and distrust, with respect to the mercy of God, and His pardoning and accepting the penitent. Of an accusing conscience, and slavish fear of God, and of death and hell. Of our general depravity and corruption of nature. Of our weakness and inability; His sufferings having purchased for us “the Spirit of might.” Of our distresses and misery, both present and future. (J. Benson, D.D.) His stripes:— This chapter is not mainly an indictment. It is a Gospel. It declares in glad while solemn language that, terrible as sin is, it has been dealt with. The prophet dwells purposely upon the varied manifestations of the evil in order to emphasize the varied forms and absolute completeness of its conquest. He prolongs the agony that he may prolong the rapture. I. OUR NEED OF HEALING. There is no figure which more aptly represents the serious nature and terrible consequences of sin than this one of bodily sickness. We know how it prostrates us, takes the brightness out of life, and, unless attended to, cuts life short. Sickness in its acutest form is a type in the body of sin in the soul. Sin is a mortal disease of the spirit. A common Scriptural emblem for it, found in both Old and New Testaments, is leprosy—the most frightful disease imaginable, loathsome to the observer and intolerably painful to the sufferer, attacking successively and rotting every limb of the body, and issuing slowly but certainly in death.
It is complicated. It affects every part of the moral being. It is blindness to holiness, and deafness to the appeals of God. There is a malady known as ossification of the heart, by which the living and beating heart is slowly turned to a substance like bone. It is a type of the complaint of the sinner. His heart is hard and impenitent. He suffers, too, from the fever of unhallowed desire. The lethargy of spiritual indifference is one of his symptoms; a depraved appetite, by which he tries to feed his immortal soul on husks, is another; while his whole condition is one of extreme debility—absence of strength to do right. In another part of the book our prophet diagnoses more thoroughly the disease of which he here speaks (chap. 1:5, 6). No hospital contains a spectacle so sickening and saddening as the unregenerate human heart.
The disease is universal. “There is none righteous; no, not one.” What the Bible declares, experience confirms. The ancient world, speaking through a noble literature that has come down to us, confesses many times the condition expressed by Ovid, “I see and approve the better things, while I follow those which are worse.” Christendom finds its mouthpiece in the apostle Paul, who, speaking of himself apart from the help of Christ, mournfully says, “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” And modern culture reveals its deepest consciousness in the words of Lowell, the ambassador-poet, “In my own heart I find the worst man’s mate.” It is a feature of the malady that the patient is often insensible to it. But from every lip there is at least occasional confession of some of its symptoms. There is discomfort in the conscience; there is dissatisfaction at the heart; and there is dread in the face of death and the unknown beyond. The Scriptures are the Röntgen rays of God, and their searching light reveals behind an uneasy conscience, behind a dissatisfied heart, behind the fear of death, behind all the sorrows and evils of life, that which is their primary cause—the malady of sin.
This disease is incurable—that is, apart from the healing described in the text. “The end of these things is death”—spiritual death; insensibility to God, and absence of the life of fellowship with Him which is life indeed—physical death, in so far as that natural process is more than mere bodily dissolution, and is a fearful and hopeless leap into the dark; for “the sting of death is sin”—and eternal death. Men are great at quack remedies, and the world is equally flooded with nostrums for the disease of sin. And what is the result of these loudly-hawked specifics? They are as useless as the charms which our grandmothers used to scare away diseases. The Physician is He who gave His back to the smiters; the balm is the blood which flowed from “His stripes.” II. OUR MEANS OF HEALING. “With His stripes.” “Stripes” does not mean the lashes that fell on His back, but the weals which they left. We remember how He “suffered under Pontius Pilate” before He “was crucified, dead and buried.” His back was bared, His hands were tied to a low post, and a coarse, muscular giant flourished a whip above Him. It was a diabolical instrument, that Roman whip—made of leather with many thongs, and in the end of each of them a piece of iron, or bone, or stone. Every stroke fetched blood and ripped open the quivering flesh. The Jewish law forbade more than forty stripes being given, but Christ was scourged by Romans, who recognized no such merciful limit. But as we know that Pilate intended the scourging to be a substitute for crucifixion, and hoped that its severity would so melt the Jews to pity that they would not press for the worse punishment—which end, however, was not reached—we may infer that He was scourged until He could bear no more, until He could not stand, until He fell mangled and fainting at His torturer’s feet. Nearly two thousand years have passed since that awful affliction, but its significance is eternal. But how can the sufferings of one alleviate the sufferings of another?
Because the sight of them moves us to sorrow. There are certain maladies of the mind and heart for which there is hope if the emotions can be stirred and the patient made to laugh or cry. There is hope for the sinner when the thought of his sin melts his heart to sorrow and his eyes to tears. Sorrow for sin—repentance of wrong-doing—is the first stage in recovery. And there is nothing that will cause penitence like a sight of the Saviour’s wounds.
The sight of them relieves our consciences. For as we look at those livid weals we know He did not deserve them. We know that we did merit punishment direr far. And we know that He endured them, and more mysterious agonies of which they were the outward sign, in our stead. Then, gradually, we draw the inference. If He suffered for us, we are free. If our load was laid on Him, it is no longer upon us. Conscience accepts that logic.
The sight of them prevents further outbreaks. This cure is radical. It not only heals, it also strengthens. It gradually raises the system above its tendency to sin. For the more we gaze upon those livid stripes, the more intolerable and hateful sin, which caused them, appears, and the more difficult it becomes for us to indulge in it. Our medicine is also a strong tonic, which invigorates the spiritual nature and fortifies its weaknesses. Stanley, in one of his books on African travel, tells of the crime of Uledi, his native coxswain, and what came of it. Uledi was deservedly popular for his ability and courage, but having robbed his master, a jury of his fellows condemned him to receive “a terrible flogging.” Then uprose his brother, Shumari, who said, “Uledi has done very wrong; but no one can accuse me of wrong-doing. Now, mates, let me take half the whipping. I will cheerfully endure it for the sake of my brother.” Scarcely had he finished when another arose, and said, “Uledi has been the father of the boat boys. He has many times risked his life to save others; and he is my cousin; and yet he ought to be punished. Shumari says he will take half the punishment; and now let me take the other half, and let Uledi go free.” Surely the heart of the guilty man must have been touched, and the willing submission by others to the punishment he had merited must have restrained him from further outbreaks as the strict infliction of the original penalty never could. By those stripes he would be healed. Even so, the stripes of our Lord deliver us from the very tendency to sin. For the disease to be healed the medicine must be taken. Our very words “recipe” and “receipt” remind us of this. They are related, and signify “to take.” The selfsame word describes the means of cure, and commands that it be used. Look upon His wounds! And let those of us who have looked for our cure, still look for our strengthening. We should not have so many touches of the old complaint if we thought oftener of the stripes by which we are healed. Look all through life, and you will grow stronger and holier. (B. J. Gibbon.) The universal remedy:— Not merely His bleeding wounds, but even those blue bruises of His flesh help to heal us. There are none quite free from spiritual diseases. One may be saying, “Mine is a weak faith;” another may confess, “Mine is distracted thoughts;” another may exclaim, “Mine is coldness of love;” and a fourth may have to lament his powerlessness in prayer. One remedy in natural things will not suffice for all diseases; but there is a catholicon, a universal remedy, provided in the Word of God for all spiritual sicknesses, and that is contained in the few words—“With His stripes we are healed.” I. THE MEDICINE ITSELF WHICH IS HERE PRESCRIBED—the stripes of our Saviour. By the term “stripes,” no doubt the prophet understood here, first, literally, those stripes which fell upon our Lord’s shoulders when He was beaten of the Jews, and afterwards scourged of the Roman soldiery. But the words intend far more than this. No doubt with his prophetic eye Isaiah saw the stripes from that unseen scourge held in the Father’s hand which fell upon His nobler inner nature when His soul was scourged for sin. It is by these that our souls are healed. “But why?” First, then, because our Lord, as a sufferer, was not a private person, but suffered as a public individual, and an appointed representative. Our Lord was not merely man, or else His sufferings could not have availed for the multitude who now are healed thereby. He was God as well as man. Our Saviour’s sufferings heal us of the curse by being presented before God as a substitute for what we owe to His Divine law. But healing is a work that is carried on within, and the text rather leads me to speak of the effect of the stripes of Christ upon our characters and natures than upon the result produced in our position before God. II. THE MATCHLESS CURES WROUGHT BY THIS REMARKABLE MEDICINE. Look at two pictures. Look at man without the stricken Saviour; and then behold man with the Saviour, healed by His stripes. III. THE MALADIES WHICH THIS WONDROUS MEDICINE REMOVES.
The mania of despair.
The stony heart.
The paralysis of doubt.
A stiffness of the knee-joint of prayer.
Numbness of soul.
The fever of pride.
The leprosy of selfishness.
Anger.
The fretting consumption of worldliness.
The cancer of covetousness. IV. THE CURATIVE PROPERTIES OF THE MEDICINE.
It arrests spiritual disorder.
It quickens all the powers of the spiritual man to resist the disease.
It restores to the man that which he lost in strength by sin.
It soothes the agony of conviction.
It has an eradicating power as to sin. V. THE MODES OF THE WORKING OF THIS MEDICINE. The sinner hearing of the death of the incarnate God is led by the force of truth and the power of the Holy Spirit to believe in the incarnate God. The cure is already begun. After faith come gratitude, love, obedience. VI. ITS REMARKABLY EASY APPLICATION. VII. Since the medicine is so efficacious, since it is already prepared and freely presented, I do beseech you TAKE IT. Take it, you who have known its power in years gone by. Let not backslidings continue, but come to His stripes afresh. Take it, ye doubters, lest ye sink into despair; come to His stripes anew. Take it, ye who are beginning to be self-confident and proud. And, O ye who have never believed in Him, come and trust in Him, and you shall live. (C. H. Spurgeon.) A simple remedy:— I. THESE ARE SAD WORDS. They are part of a mournful piece of music, which might be called “the requiem of the Messiah.”
These are sad words because they imply disease.
There is a second sorrow in the verse, and that is sorrow for the suffering by which we are healed. There was a cruel process in the English navy, in which men were made to run the gauntlet all along the ship, with sailors on each side, each man being bound to give a stroke to the poor victim as he ran along. Our Saviour’s life was a running of the gauntlet between His enemies and His friends, who all struck Him, one here and another there. Satan, too, struck at him. II. THESE ARE GLAD WORDS.
Because they speak of healing.
There is another joy in the text—joy in the honour which it brings to Christ. III. THESE ARE SUGGESTIVE WORDS. Whenever a man is healed through the stripes of Jesus, the instincts of his nature should make him say, “I will spend the strength I have, as a healed man, for Him who healed me.” (Ibid.) Christopathy:— I. GOD HERE TREATS SIN AS A DISEASE. Sin is a disease—
Because it is not an essential part of man as he was created. It is something abnormal.
Because it puts all the faculties out of gear.
Because it weakens the moral energy, just as many diseases weaken the sick person’s body.
Because it either causes great pain, or deadens all sensibility, as the case may be.
Because it frequently produces a manifest pollution.
Because it tends to increase in the man, and will one day prove fatal to him. II. GOD HERE DECLARES THE REMEDY WHICH HE HAS PROVIDED.
Behold the heavenly medicine.
Remember that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious.
Accept this atonement and you are saved by it.
Let nothing of your own interfere with the Divine remedy. Prayer does not heal, but it asks for the remedy. It is not trust that heals; that is man’s application of the remedy. Repentance is not what cures, it is a part of the cure, one of the first tokens that the blessed medicine has begun to work in the soul. The healing of a sinner does not lie in himself, nor in what he is, nor in what he feels, nor in what he does, nor in what he vows, nor in what he promises. It is in His stripes that the healing lies. III. THE REMEDY IS IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE. How are we healed?
Our conscience is healed of every smart.
Our heart is healed of its love of sin.
Our life is healed of its rebellion.
Our consciousness assures us that we are healed. If you are healed by His stripes you should go and live like healthy men. (Ibid.) Healed by Christ’s stripes:— Mr. Mackay, of Hull, told of a person who was under very deep concern of soul. Taking the Bible into his hand, he said to himself, “Eternal life is to be found somewhere in this Word of God; and, if it be here, I will find it, for I will read the Book right through, praying to God over every page of it, if perchance it may contain some saving message for me.” The earnest seeker read on through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and so on; and though Christ is there very evidently, he could not find Him in the types and symbols. Neither did the holy histories yield him comfort, nor the Book of Job. He passed through the Psalms, but did not find his Saviour there; and the same was the case with the other books till he reached Isaiah. In this prophet he read on till near the end, and then in the fifty-third chapter, these words arrested his delighted attention, “With His stripes we are healed.” “Now I have found it,” says he. “Here is the healing that I need for my sin-sick soul, and I see how it comes to me through the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be His name, I am healed!” (Ibid.) Self-sufficiency prevents healing:— I saw a pedlar one day, as I was walking out; he was selling walkingsticks. He followed me, and offered me one of the sticks. I showed him mine—a far better one than any he had to sell—and he withdrew at once. He could see that I was not likely to be a purchaser. I have often thought of that when I have been preaching: I show men the righteousness of the Lord Jesus, but they show me their own, and all hope of dealing with them is gone. Unless I can prove that their righteousness is worthless, they will not seek the righteousness which is of God by faith. Oh, that the Lord would show you your disease, and then you would desire the remedy! (Ibid.) Sin deadens sensibility:— It frequently happens that, the more sinful a man is, the less he is conscious of it. It was remarked of a certain notorious criminal that many thought him innocent because, when he was charged with murder, he did not betray the least emotion. In that wretched self-possession there was to my mind presumptive proof of his great familiarity with crime; if an innocent person is charged with a great offence, the mere charge horrifies him. (Ibid.)
Exell, J. S. (n.d.). Isaiah (Vol. 3, pp. 112–118). Fleming H. Revell Company.
5 This verse expresses over and over again the truth that the servant not merely shares our griefs but actually suffers in our place as sinners. Four times the contrast between ‘he/him’ and ‘we/us’ appears.
He is pierced … our transgressions.
He is crushed … our iniquities.
The chastisement of our peace … upon him.
His wounds … we are healed.
On account of our transgressions he is ‘pierced through’ (i.e. mortally wounded), while for our iniquities he suffers under incalculable emotional and spiritual pressures (cf. the use of the verb dâkâ’ in Ps. 51:17, ‘a broken and a crushed heart’). Moreover, ‘the chastisement that makes us whole’ (RSV) is part of the redemptive judgment that he vicariously bears, while our healing is at the cost of his wounds. In this context ‘wounds’ implies death. The healing effected is spiritual, for the Messiah’s death brings believers into a new relationship with God. The verb ‘to heal’ (Heb. râfâ’) is used here as in 6:10; 19:22; and 30:26, since diseases and sorrows ultimately flow from sin. All these references probably go back to the promise, ‘I the LORD am your healer’ (Heb. ’anî yhwh rof’ekâ, Exod. 15:26). The servant is to suffer not simply as a consequence of sin but as an efficacious remedy for guilt.
Harman, A. (2005). Isaiah: A Covenant to Be Kept for the Sake of the Church (p. 365). Christian Focus Publications.
53:5. Pierced … crushed … punishment … wounds are words that describe what the remnant will note about the Servant’s condition on their behalf and because of their transgressions (peša‘, “rebellion”; cf. v. 8; 1:2) and iniquities. As a result those who believe in Him have inner peace rather than inner anguish or grief (see comments on “infirmities” in 53:4) and are healed spiritually. Ironically His wounds, inflicted by the soldiers’ scourging and which were followed by His death, are the means of healing believers’ spiritual wounds in salvation. Jesus’ physical agony in the Crucifixion was great and intense. But His obedience to the Father was what counted (cf. Phil. 2:8). His death satisfied the wrath of God against sin and allows Him to “overlook” the sins of the nation (and of others who believe) because they have been paid for by the Servant’s substitutionary death.
Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1108). Victor Books.
“It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit, and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties.” —Thomas Jefferson (1813)
Senate Dems keep voting to extend shutdown: Another seven-week funding bill failed to pass the Senate yesterday in a vote of 55-45. Three Democrats have now broken with their party twice: Catherine Cortez Masto, John Fetterman, and Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. Only one Republican, Rand Paul, has voted against the funding bill. Paul wants an end to Biden-era spending levels, while Democrats are trying to save expiring COVID-era ObamaCare subsidies. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune says no negotiations on the expiring subsidies will take place until after Democrats help pass this funding bill. Even then, Thune insists no subsidies can be renewed without major reforms.
SCOTUS says Lisa Cook can stay for now: The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal for an emergency ruling from the Trump administration regarding Donald Trump’s August firing of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The Court did not give an explanation for its decision. The case will now continue according to schedule, with SCOTUS hearing arguments in January and issuing a ruling by early summer. In the meantime, Cook will maintain her position on the board. Trump’s firing of Cook is the first time a president has taken such an action against a member of the Federal Reserve Board since it was established in 1913. His administration is arguing that Cook’s firing is for cause related to alleged mortgage fraud and not for political reasons. Cook disputes that claim.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia will not remain in the U.S.: A saga of Democrat desperation began this spring, when they pulled out all the stops to try to protect the right of a “Maryland Man” (read: wife-beater and MS-13 gang member) to remain in the U.S. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was initially deported to El Salvador, and after much legal wrangling, the Democrats successfully had him returned to the U.S. That was the basis of this most recent attempt to keep the human-trafficking scumbag here. Garcia’s lawyers argued that he had a year from his most recent entry to the U.S. to apply for asylum. Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge Philip Taylor shut down Garcia’s motion to seek asylum as “untimely,” coming as it did six years after his immigration proceedings. Garcia will be deported, and justice will at last be served.
Appeals court rejects illegal alien journalist’s deportation avoidance bid: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mario Guevara’s effort to negate a deportation order. Guevara, a journalist and illegal alien, sought to frame the deportation order as the Trump administration retaliating against his critical reporting. However, the court noted that the deportation order preceded his latest request for a stay. Indeed, Guevara, who is from El Salvador, first entered the U.S. in 2004 on a visitor’s visa. He later applied for asylum, which was denied, and in 2012 he was ordered deported. He appealed the deportation order and has now lost the appeal. Unsurprisingly, Reporters Without Borders is decrying this as “an outrageous miscarriage of justice and a devastating blow to American press freedom.” The obvious problem is that following the law is how justice is legally identified, and an illegal alien, by definition, is not an American.
FBI cuts ties with ADL over TPUSA designation The Anti-Defamation League designated Turning Point USA as an extremist group in its now-retired “Glossary of Extremism,” saying the late Charlie Kirk’s organization had garnered support from anti-Muslims and white supremacists. Former FBI Director James Comey often expressed his “love” for the ADL and had drawn the FBI into a closer partnership with it. After the political assassination of Kirk, Elon Musk accused the ADL of being a “hate group” over the fact that it was investigating Kirk and TPUSA instead of his murderers. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna pointed out that the “hate group” designation seems to have a lot to do with disagreements with the ADL. Yesterday, FBI Director Kash Patel announced, “That era is OVER. This FBI won’t partner with political fronts masquerading as watchdogs.” Not a moment too soon.
Musk calls for cancellation of Netflix to protect kids: Clips from an already canceled animated show on Netflix called “Dead End: Paranormal Park” circulated on X this week, along with charts shared in a company report highlighting its DEI policies. Responding to the viral posts, Elon Musk wrote, “Cancel Netflix for the health of your kids.” This was due to a scene from Paranormal Park in which one character in the kid-aimed animated show comes out as trans and proclaims resulting happiness. Netflix has a long history of downright despicable programming. The call for cancellation has had some effect, with Netflix shares dropping 2.3% on Wednesday and down another 2.99% at the time of writing.
UPenn’s Michael Mann steps down: Michael Mann, a climate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, infamous for his alarmist “hockey stick” graph depicting spiking global temperatures, has stepped down from his role as vice provost for climate science, policy, and action at the Ivy League school. Mann came under criticism from Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Dave McCormick for reposting a social media comment the day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated that called Kirk the “head of Trump’s Hitler youth.” McCormick called Mann’s behavior and rhetoric “despicable” and “dangerous,” and he demanded UPenn condemn it and take action. Before stepping down, Mann defended his rhetoric, dubiously claiming, “I was not criticizing Charlie Kirk. I was criticizing those who were lionizing him as a paragon of free speech and good faith discourse.” Mann held the position of vice provost for less than a year.
CA red tape blocks fire rebuilding: In the immediate aftermath of the Pacific Palisades fire that consumed hundreds of homes in Malibu, California, Democrat politicians led by Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to ensure that rebuilding would happen quickly and that crippling regulations would be set aside. Nine months later, of the 720 structures destroyed, the vast majority of which were people’s houses, the state has granted just two rebuilding permits. The reason has everything to do with the state’s overly onerous building regulations, the very regulations Newsom promised would not impact efforts to rebuild. Democrat politicians love to talk about solutions but never seem to do anything except hinder actual progress.
Headlines
Trump admin halts $18 billion in funding for NYC projects over DEI (Newsweek)
Trump admin cancels nearly $8 billion in climate funding to blue states (CNBC)
UK attack outside synagogue leaves two dead, three injured (Fox News)
Greta Thunberg’s flotilla detained by Israel yet again (NY Post)
Humor: 7 most terrifying consequences of a government shutdown (Babylon Bee)
Democrats are always shrieking with indignant self-righteous outrage about something, and this time, it’s a couple of AI videos President Donald Trump posted on social media.
Dems have been calling Republicans Nazis and fascists for decades, leading to not one but two assassination attempts on Trump and a successful assassination of Charlie Kirk, but they’re upset over a humor video? Give me a break.
The video portrays Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explaining why everyone hates Democrats and what their real strategy is for causing the government shutdown this week — giving “illegal aliens free healthcare” as a ploy for votes. That’s very funny (and also kind of true, which I’ll explain later). Putting a sombrero and mustache on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries while a mariachi band plays in the background is silly and totally hilarious.
I’ve watched it a dozen times at least, and I’ve laughed out loud every time. Is such low-brow comedy beneath the dignity of the office of the presidency? Sure. Is it simply treating the ridiculous Democrats with all the seriousness they deserve? You better believe it.
Welcome to 2025.
Schumer handled it by … reposting the video, albeit with a finger-wagging response: “If you think your shutdown is a joke, it just proves what we all know: You can’t negotiate. You can only throw tantrums.” From the Senate floor, he fussed about the “deeply offensive” video and Trump’s “trolling away on the internet like a 10-year-old.”
Jeffries posted, “Bigotry will get you nowhere. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save Healthcare. We are NOT backing down.” He attached a picture from the real moment he and Schumer upbraided the president outside the White House after their meeting earlier this week.
He tried being macho in a stump speech, telling Trump, “The next time you have something to say about me … say it to my face.”
Sounds like somebody took too much Tylenol.
He was a lot less macho on MSNBC, whining to Lawrence O’Donnell, “It’s a disgusting video, and we’re gonna continue to make clear: bigotry will get you nowhere.”
Trump responded by posting that clip and, immediately after Jeffries finished that line, putting an AI sombrero and mustache on him again with a four-man Trump mariachi band in the background.
As if to put icing on this whole delightful cake, Vice President JD Vance — Mr. Meme himself — told the White House press corps that “you can negotiate in good faith while also poking a little bit of fun at some of the absurdities of the Democrats.” To Jeffries specifically, he said, “I make this solemn promise to you that if you help us reopen the government, the sombrero memes will stop.”
Holy moly, this is funny!
Again, leftists don’t think much of anything is funny, so they’ve been stomping their feet and pulling their hair in objection. Jeffries called the video “racist,” but Vance responded, “I honestly don’t even know what that means. Is he a Mexican-American who feels offended by a sombrero meme?”
Undaunted by truth or humor, the Leftmedia simply parroted Jeffries. “Racist tropes,” huffed USA Today. “Racist, AI-generated,” scolded CNN. You get the idea, though none of them explain why the videos are “racist.”
There is one exception to the humor bit, and that’s Gavin Newsom, who’s spent the last few months doing his worst impression of Donald Trump’s social media style. He posted a couple of AI videos of Vance to get back at Team Trump.
As The Babylon Bee’s Kyle Mann wryly noted, “Gavin should be thankful we at @TheBabylonBee sued the state of California and got the law he signed to stop people from parodying politicians using A.I. overturned.”
Okay, now let’s get serious for a moment. (Sigh, I know.)
Why did Democrats force this shutdown? Healthcare, which needs some background explanation that begins in 2008.
Way back in the heady days of Barack Obama, Democrats decided to use their huge congressional majorities and the White House to create ObamaCare, roughly as its namesake campaigned on in 2008. What is fascism? That question has been prevalent in recent days, and one answer is ObamaCare. Fascism is the federal government dictating what product private companies sell and then forcing every American to buy that product. That the Supreme Court upheld this unconstitutional monstrosity will forever be a stain on John Roberts’s record.
Conservatives warned that the policy and the law would make healthcare and health insurance vastly more expensive. Lo and behold, the last decade and a half has borne that out. We also couldn’t keep our doctors and plans like Obama lied that we would.
In 2021, to hide the massive cost increases they caused, Democrats again utilized their majorities and the Joe Biden White House to pass taxpayer-funded subsidies for ObamaCare in a stated attempt to get more people to sign up. They justified it as a COVID emergency, and they authorized the spending for just two years. In 2022, they came along with the grossly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act and extended the subsidies for three more years. Never let a crisis go to waste, right?
They never reduced the cost of healthcare, mind you. They just added millions more people to the ObamaCare rolls and gave the bill to taxpayers — in fact, future generations through deficit spending.
Those subsidies are quickly running out, however, and Americans who currently receive “free” or very low-premium health insurance aren’t going to like it much when their bill goes up in 2026. With a midterm election to win, Democrats can’t have that.
Hence, the current fight. They’re demanding that Republicans — none of whom voted for ObamaCare or either version of the subsidies — allow a very expensive extension of “emergency” funding to be included in the continuing resolution to keep the government open. And they want Americans to blame Republicans for the resulting shutdown. (Thanks to Leftmedia propaganda and pollaganda, it seems to be working.)
Worse, Democrats want to repeal provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that rolled back some of ObamaCare, including one that blocked illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits.
“The Biden administration gave mass parole to millions upon millions of illegal aliens and then they simultaneously made those parolees eligible for healthcare benefits funded by taxpayers,” Vance explained. “In the One Big Beautiful Bill, President Trump and congressional Republicans turned off that funding for healthcare to illegal aliens. And Democrats want to turn it back on.”
Cue the Leftmedia “fact-checks” accusing Republicans of lying about this. Their justification? That the Biden administration waved the magic autopen to simply dub illegal aliens “lawfully present.” This legal charade, the Leftmedia and Democrats reason, means the people getting taxpayer-funded healthcare aren’t technically “illegals.” But it’s all a lie.
Beyond the semantics games, some of the money we’re talking about is for Medicaid, which goes to the states — some of which dole out benefits regardless of legal status.
Now you understand the sombreros and why Democrats are actually mad. They fear that too many Americans will see their game and disapprove. So they caterwaul about “racism” and “fascism” rather than have a substantive debate about the merits of their policies.
It’s not to say that Republicans don’t face risks of a real backlash, but Trump, Vance, and others are treating Democrats with all the disrespect they’ve earned.
Samantha Koch: J.K. Rowling Rejects Emma Watson’s ‘Apology’ — After years of voicing her objections to the “transgender” cult, Rowling finally dropped the gloves and responded to criticisms from a couple of “Harry Potter” actors.
Michael Smith: My Message to the American Left — God exists, and for His sake, stop voting for your current leadership. Find new, sane people to lead you. Find someone who has their head in the real world.
Emmy Griffin: Spiritual Warfare and Kirk’s Assassination — A left-wing rag authorized a writer to hire witches to curse Charlie Kirk a few weeks before he was murdered. What should we think about this in light of his death?
Thomas Gallatin: Biden’s ‘Quiet Skies’ Abuse Exposed — The Biden administration used the Transportation Security Administration’s now-shuttered surveillance program to target political opponents.
Patrick Hampton: Practical Solutions to Protect Our Churches — The goal isn’t militarization; it’s peace of mind so worship can continue, communities can flourish, and faith can shine through in a city that never stops.
Reader Comments
Editor’s Note: Each week we receive hundreds of comments and correspondences — and we read every one of them. Click here for a few thought-provoking comments about specific articles. The views expressed therein don’t necessarily reflect those of The Patriot Post.
Latest PodcastPopCon #116: J.K. Rowling Has Had It!Grab the popcorn as we untangle “The Witch Trials” featuring author J.K. Rowling and actress Emma Watson.
Antifa Threatens to Shoot Journalist — Two DHS snipers use their lasers to send a message when journalist Nick Shirley is threatened by antifa in Portland, Oregon.
They Told You It Was Gone. They Lied. — Winston Marshall sits down with Mike Benz to expose how governments and NGOs are working hand-in-glove with Big Tech to police free speech across the West.
‘Do You Renounce This Report?’ — Sen. Josh Hawley questions Gregory Jackson Jr., former deputy director of the Biden administration’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
“Violent crime is even used when people are accused of burglary and there happens to be a housing unit in that same dwelling. So violence is an artificial construction. And we have to be very clear that what is happening here with these district attorneys, that is violence. That is violence of the highest degree.” —New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, 2021
Braying Jenny
“The idea that [America] is a white nation that must be preserved is a fascinatingly disgusting view because this country is one for the many.” —Rep Ilhan Omar
Touché
“When I was a young United States Marine, I did not have a beard. I am now the vice president. So I get to do what I want to do.” —JD Vance
For the Record
“It’s one thing to say that we should solve the healthcare crisis for Americans. It’s another thing to say that we’re gonna shut down the government unless we give … billions of dollars of taxpayer funding for healthcare [to] illegal migrants. That’s ridiculous.” —JD Vance
“Everything happens for a reason. But sometimes the reason is, ‘You’re stupid and made a bad decision.’ That’s the bottom line of this Democrat government shutdown.” —Sen. John Kennedy
“We should use this government shutdown as a chance to shrink government permanently. Privatize the TSA. Privatize the FAA air traffic controllers. Abolish the IRS. Remove ‘non-essential’ workers. If workers aren’t essential, they shouldn’t be working in government in the first place.” —Charlie Kirk, January 2019
Belly Laugh of the Day
“I make this solemn promise to [Hakeem Jeffries] that if you help us reopen the government, the sombrero memes will stop.” —JD Vance
Village Idiot
“He’s an idiot. He’s a total idiot. He’s not my president. I will never call him the president of the United States.” —actor Michael Shannon
And Last…
“President Trump is the dealmaker. I don’t want him teaching my daughter’s dadgum Sunday school class but I love him at Pennsylvania Avenue. He knows how to cut a deal.” —Rep. Tim Burchett
ON THIS DAY in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke that left him unable to fully function or discharge his duties. His wife Edith played an outsized role in running the White House for the last year and a half of his presidency.
Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray for the protection of our uniformed Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Lift up your Patriot Post team and our mission to support and defend our legacy of American Liberty and our Republic’s Founding Principles, in order that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
As President Trump’s deadline for accepting or rejecting the ceasefire/peace agreement approaches, the terrorist group says it’s reviewing the terms of the plan, but pushes back on demands to disarm and says it’s skeptical that the plan offers a path to Palestinian statehood; Israel keeps up its attacks on Hamas on Gaza City, as tens of thousands flee and Israel’s defense minister says those who stay will be seen as supporting terror; some 200 American evangelical leaders call on Trump to back Israel’s claim to the Biblical lands of Judea and Samaria; Jonathan Tobin of Jewish News Syndicate discusses why this offer to Hamas is different, and why Palestinians have rejected peace deals in the past; no end in sight as the government shutdown enters its second day; the dangers of kids finding companionship with chatbots – as some of their advice can be dangerous, even deadly, as one family has sued over their son’s suicide, and reports warn of sexually suggestive conversations and emotionally manipulative behavior; and more than 8,000 attend a Unite Us gospel event at the University of Tennessee, with around 500 accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior.
New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen gets humiliated on Fox and Friends by co-host Lawrence Jones during an interview on the government shutdown. Credit: Fox News Screenshot
The Democratic Party’s ill-advised shutdown of the federal government continues to backfire spectacularly, with the latest humiliation occurring on Fox News.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Schumer Shutdown took effect at 12:01 am on Wednesday after two measures to avert the government shutdown failed in the Senate.
The measures needed 60 votes to pass. The GOP-backed measure failed to pass in a 55-45 vote – Rand Paul voted with the Democrats.
The Democrat Party and Paul decided to put the health care of illegal aliens and more garbage ahead of keeping the government running.
On Thursday, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) appeared on Fox and Friends to attempt to gaslight the audience into believing that Democrats really do not want to give health care to illegals.
“I haven’t heard anybody in my party saying illegal immigrants should get access to the health insurance market!” Shaheen claimed.
But Fox and Friends co-host Lawrence Jones had an ace up his sleeve: he had footage of several prominent Democrats saying the exact opposite.
“I’m so glad you said that,” Jones replied. “Actually, I have some tape of your Democratic Party members saying this on the debate stage.”
“Let’s play the clip.”
Footage then emerges from a June 2019 Democratic Presidential Primary Debate where EVERY candidate raised their hand when moderator Savannah Guthrie asked if their health care plans would cover illegal aliens.
WATCH:
Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: I haven’t heard anybody in my party saying illegals should get taxpayer-funded health care!
*ROLLS THE TAPE*
Fox: “That’s literally every member of your party from moderate to more progressive…” pic.twitter.com/ziu6pMhLKO
“That’s literally every member of your party, from moderate to more progressive, that have said that (illegals should get health care),” Jones explained.
Yet another Democrat narrative blown up on the spot. Well played by Lawrence Jones.
Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld bring Fox News viewers their fresh takes on the top news of the day. #fox #media #breakingnews #us #usa #new #news #breaking #gutfeld #foxnews #jessewatters #lauraingraham #seanhannity
Lewandowski, who serves as an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security, also called out the NFL for selecting a performer as polarizing as Bad Bunny.
Democrats voted for a government shutdown, and that’s precisely what they got.
They find themselves in an optics nightmare – as party leaders were surely aghast watching CNN‘s Jake Tapper call out House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) over the hill they’ve chosen to die on – restoring provisions that were eliminated in Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ that provides free healthcare to illegal immigrants.
Tapper: Here is the provision that shows you want to give illegals healthcare. I understand it’s not an accurate depiction.
Jeffries: It’s a lie.
Tapper: It’s a lie… but it does bring back funding for healthcare for illegals. pic.twitter.com/jyQS3RMj7e
What’s more, Democrats handed President Trump a gift – not only do they look stupid for trying to add $1.5 trillion to the national debt, they’ve opened the door for President Trump to deliver on one of his core campaign promises; cutting waste and fraud, a crusade that began with Elon Musk and DOGE in his first term but has since lost momentum – well, until now.
On Tuesday, the president warned that he could “get rid of a lot of things” that would heavily impact the Democratic Party, adding, “We can eliminate many things we didn’t want … and they’d be Democrat things.”
President Trump on “A lot of good can come down from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want.” pic.twitter.com/8VoDQ2cdq8
By Wednesday morning, left-wing New York Governor Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats were furious about Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought’s announcement that the Trump administration withheld $18 billion in New York City infrastructure projects due to “unconstitutional DEI principles“. This shows how the administration has a lot more power during the shutdown to slash and burn spending that funds the Democratic Party machine.
Late last night, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “Republicans must use this opportunity of Democrat forced closure to clear out dead wood, waste, and fraud. Billions of Dollars can be saved.”
Vought has fired up the chainsaw … again.
Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled. More info to come from @ENERGY.
The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA
Panic mode sets in for Democrats in the far-left state of Maryland.
🚨 JUST IN: Nationwide, Democrats are in full-blown panic mode upon hearing that Russ Vought is being unleashed to fire federal workers during the Schumer Shutdown.
Democrats appear to have made a miscalculated move in forcing a shutdown, one that now inadvertently gives the Trump administration the runway to cut even more waste and fraud from a bloated federal bureaucracy. A January Ipsos poll found that a majority of Americans support downsizing the federal government. With the national debt soaring to $37.5 trillion, savings must be found wherever possible. Those savings now appear to be coming from defunding the Democratic Party’s globalist machine, which has squandered not only the inheritance of previous generations but also the future of young Americans through its nation-killing woke policies.
•
NEWS: Hurricanes batter the Outer Banks, toppling homes into the sea. Washington grinds to a halt as the U.S. government officially shuts down. And in Michigan, a powerful story of forgiveness emerges after a tragic church attack.
•
•
FOCUS STORY: Scientists claim they’re growing human eggs in a lab. What does this mean for ethics, theology, and the future of life itself?
•
•
MAIN THING: Police in the U.K. arrest a man at his home—his “crime” was a single tweet criticizing Hamas and Islam.
•
•
LAST THING: Psalm 25:5 — “Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.”
Truth2Freedom's Blog 