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
In the classic film The Princess Bride, the swashbuckling Inigo Montoya tries to restart his life after the failed kidnapping of Princess Buttercup. “When the job went wrong, you went back to the beginning,” he reminded his leader. Israel went wrong and they ended up in exile. In the book of Ezra, the people could return! But after 70 years, what kind of nation would they build? Ezra, a teacher who returned with the nation, showed them the way. They needed to go back to basics.Ezra understood that if they were going to rebuild their nation in a way that would honor God, they needed to know and obey the Law of God. For the nation of Israel, the beginning started with the Law of Moses. Centuries before, God had made a covenant with Israel. That covenant included many things they needed to obey. Now given a second chance, Ezra made it his aim to set the nation on the right footing. He was a man who “devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel (v. 10).Although Israel had endured seventy years of exile, Ezra understood that God had not changed. Therefore, those who wanted to be in a right relationship with Him needed to return to His word.Centuries have come and gone since Jesus Christ walked this earth and proclaimed the good news of salvation. If people today want to build, or rebuild, their lives in a way that pleases God, they need to return to the simple message that Jesus proclaimed from the beginning: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2). There is no need to search for a new message, go back to the beginning.
Go Deeper What basics did you understand when you first became a Christian? What might you need to return to today? Extended Reading: Ezra 5-7
Pray with Us Father, show us what lessons we need to learn from the book of Ezra. May we follow Ezra’s example of coming back to You and Your Word. May we learn from this godly leader how to serve You with diligence!
We may then recommend ourselves to the conduct, protection, and government of the divine grace, in the further services that lie before us and in the whole course of our life.
And now, let me be enabled to go from strength to strength, until I appear before God in Zion; and while I pass through the valley of Baca, let it be made a place of springs, and let the rain of divine grace and blessing fill the pools. Psalm 84:6-7(ESV)
Now speak, Lord, for your servant hears. 1 Samuel 3:9(ESV) What does my Lord say to his servant? Joshua 5:14(ESV) Grant that I may not turn away my ear from hearing the law, for then my prayers would be an abomination; Proverbs 28:9(ESV) but may I listen to God, that he may listen to me. Judges 9:7(ESV)
And now, the LORD my God be with me, as he was with all my fathers in the faith; may he not leave me or forsake me, that he may incline my heart to himself, to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his rules. 1 Kings 8:57-58(ESV) And let my heart be wholly true to the LORD my God all my days, 1 Kings 8:61(ESV) and continue so till the end; that then I may rest and may stand in my allotted place, and let it be a blessed place at the end of the days. Daniel 12:13(ESV)
1 Corinthians 13 In this week’s lessons we learn how Jesus perfectly carries out the biblical understanding of love, and how we, as His disciples, are called to show that same kind of love to others.
Theme
The Importance of Love
Paul teaches the importance of love by contrasts. He says that if he could speak with the tongues of men, or even angels, but without love, it would be nothing. Or prophecy: “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge” but if I do not have love, it is nothing. Or faith: “If I have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Finally, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
That is really hard for us to take, because when we evaluate ourselves, it is in those terms that we measure how successful, great, or spiritual we are. We say, “Ah, if I could only be eloquent when I speak! You know, if only I had a supernatural gift for communication, then I could make a real mark!” Or we say, “If only I were wise, if only I were smarter than everybody else, then people would seek me out and say, ‘I have a problem. What should I do? Tell me what to do.’ And I could say, ‘This is what you ought to do.’” Or we might wish we had great faith. “If I had the kind of faith that can move great mountains of opposition, then I would be a leader!” Or, “What if I were noted for my good works? What if people would say, ‘There is someone who gives generously to the poor. That person must be very godly’?”
But Paul says, “No, that is not the way to evaluate your spiritual progress or greatness. You should ask instead, ‘Is my life characterized by love?’”
You say, “Well, isn’t it good to be able to communicate well?” Yes, of course, it is. In chapter 12 Paul called communication ability a gift, along with wisdom, knowledge, faith, and good works. These are all important. But the reason why love is more important than those other things is that love is the one thing that cannot be counterfeited. If you are talking about eloquence, there are many people who are eloquent but who do not have the faintest idea what the Christian faith is all about. There are also many wise, unbelieving people, some of whom have actually become theologians. They dazzle some by their wisdom. Or there are people who are models of charity, yet are unregenerate. They can be all these things and yet not actually be in the kingdom of God.
If you are evaluating yourself on the basis of those things, if you are saying, “I am eloquent; I am wise; I am charitable,” you are making a big mistake. It is possible to be all those things and still not belong to the family of God. The way you can know that is by love.
At a Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology John Gerstner talked about the nature of revival in the Puritan age—under men like Jonathan Edwards. He pointed out that, far from approaching evangelism with the superficiality so characteristic of our own time, the Puritan preachers went to extreme lengths on the other side, because they did not want to give people the impression that they were saved when they may not have been.
Being Calvinistic in their theology, the Puritans stressed that regeneration is the work of God. But they did not conclude from this that there was nothing for the unregenerate person to do. They would say, “You should come to worship. You should listen to the preaching of the Gospel. You should live an upright moral life. You should do good works.” As a result they had unconverted people in their churches, sometimes for years, who did all a Christian would normally do. Indeed, they became the kinds of models of Christian life and piety that should shame most Christians today.
Well, in the question-and-answer period after this address a number of people asked, “If that is the case, if a person like this could be a model of piety—know the creeds, do the right things, pray, be in church, observe the Sabbath—and yet not be born again, how in the world was he ever to know if he was born again?” Gerstner answered, “By love. It was whether in his or her heart the person had come, first, to love God and then, second, to love others.” Without love, all these other gifts and achievements are nothing. But when motivated by love they all become useful for the edification and building up of God’s church.
Study Questions
What are some of the ways Christians today try to evaluate how spiritual either they or someone else is?
Why is love considered to be more important than these other things?
How does love make these other Christian practices useful for edification in the church?
Application
Application: What are some practical ways you need to show love to others around you, as a biblical demonstration of your salvation?
For Further Study: In order to love others, we need to first learn what it means to love God by loving His house and desiring to abide in His presence. Download for free and listen to James Boice’s message on Psalm 84, “The Psalm of the Janitors.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?
Mark 8:17b-18
In this series of questions, our Lord is suggesting for them, and for us, what to do when we get the spiritual blahs. One young man came to me and said, I’m a graduate of a Bible college. I’ve been a Christian for a number of years. But I must tell you that I feel so blah, so empty. I’ve lost all interest in what God is doing, and I just don’t have any desire even to get involved in a Bible study anymore. What should I do? I had just been studying this passage, so I did what our Lord suggests in this passage without telling this young man what I was doing.
The first thing the Lord suggests is to use your mind. Do you not see or understand? Stop and think about where you are, about what is happening to you, and why it happened.
Analyze it. Read what the Bible has to say about it. That is what the mind is for. Study the revelations of God to you. Use your mind.
Second, He asks, Are your hearts hardened? That is, analyze the state of your heart. Are you dull, or do you respond? Have you forgotten truth? Because if the heart does not respond to what the mind has understood, then it is because you have not really believed it. You may have recognized mentally that it is true, but you have not acted upon it. You do not really believe God is going to do what He has said He will do. This is always revealed by a dull, unresponsive heart. Truth always moves us—when we believe it. It always grips us and excites us. And if we are not excited, it is because the mind has grasped it but the heart has not.
Jesus moves on: Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? Jesus said these words again and again to the people He taught, and each time He means the same thing. Do not just look at the events you are seeing and think that is all there is to it. It is a parallel to something deeper and more important concerning your spirit. As these men were being fed by the loaves and the fishes, He was saying to them, Don’t think of this merely as a way of getting a good, quick, free meal. Remember that I am telling you that you have a deeper need, a far more demanding need, which needs daily replenishment as well.
And finally, Don’t you remember? Hasn’t God taught you things in the past through your circumstances? Hasn’t He led you through events that have made you understand something about your life? Do you not remember the times He said things like that in the past? Remember them now, and recognize that you are in the hands of a loving Father who has put you right where you are to teach you a very needed truth.
Forgive me, Father, for the dullness of my heart. Help me to give myself every day to this One who is the bread sent down from heaven.
Life Application
We may experience times of spiritual lethargy, but we do not need to settle for that state of mind & heart. There are 4 helpful ways to combat it & be spiritually restored.
31Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.
33After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue. 34He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means, “Be opened!” ). 35At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.
36Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. 37People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”
1During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2“I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.”
4His disciples answered, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?”
5“How many loaves do you have?” Jesus asked. “Seven,” they replied.
6He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.
11The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.” 13Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.
14The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15“Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
16They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”
17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied.
20“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.”
Does God Want Me to Be Happy? Britt MooneyThe Father gives us good things to enjoy, and we should be thankful. But we must be careful not to worship happiness. We were created for a greater goal. Continue Reading →
7 Powerful Morning Prayers to Begin Your Day Jessica BrodieCoaches often advise people embarking on a lifestyle change to start their day with a positive, affirming routine that both centers and energizes them. Starting the day “right” often leads to a strong noon, and that momentum carries through until nightfall. Similarly, starting your day in prayer, by bowing heart, mind, and soul to the Lord of the universe, can propel your day from ho-hum to positively sparking with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Continue Reading →
Why Is Faith Without Works Dead? Emma DanzeyIn the same way, my plants died because I neglected them, faith without works is dead. When we accept Jesus into our lives, the Holy Spirit enters our hearts. Continue Reading →
4 Examples of Powerful Symbolism in the Book of Daniel Sophia BrickerThe symbols in Daniel have powerful meanings. They teach significant truths about the Lord’s sovereignty and plan, for He remains the ultimate Ruler despite the rise and fall of empires and earthly kings. Continue Reading →
Why Did God Flood the World? Ed JarrettIt would be easy to read this and see a God who was caught off guard by how sinful humanity had become. A God who became so angry that he decided to wipe out the whole mess and start over again. But it is hard to reconcile that with a God who is omniscient, who knows the future. A God who had chosen Christ as our atoning sacrifice before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20). And who had chosen me in Christ at the same time (Eph. 1:4). Continue Reading →
How to Live a Holy Life Lisa Loraine BakerHoliness is a hard concept for humanity to grasp because “holy” is defined as “set apartness,” “sacredness,” and “separateness.” We cannot appreciate holiness apart from God making Himself known to us, and we cannot live a holy life unless we know Jesus as our Savior and Lord. Continue Reading →
Crucial Steps to Building Biblical Literacy with Your Child Emma DanzeyThese years, especially from ages 2-7, are vital to creating a firm foundation of what the gospel is, what the Bible is, teaching Scripture verses, telling Biblical stories, and being creative through songs, art, drama, movement, and experiences that will establish God’s Word in their lives. Continue Reading →
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (18:1–4)
Scripture describes and identifies the people of God by many names. But more frequently than anything else we are called children—children of promise, children of the day, children of the light, beloved children, dear children, and children of God. As believers we can rejoice in the wonderful truth that, through Christ, we have become God’s own children, adopted through grace. Consequently, we bear the image of God’s family and are joint heirs with Jesus Christ of everything God possesses. We enjoy God’s love, care, protection, power, and other resources in abundance for all eternity. But there is another side to our being children, and in Scripture believers are also referred to as children in the sense that we are incomplete, weak, dependent, undeveloped, unskilled, vulnerable, and immature. Matthew 18 focuses on those immature, unperfected, childlike qualities that believers demonstrate as they mutually develop into conformity to the fullness of the stature of Jesus Christ. This chapter is a single discourse or sermon by our Lord on the specific theme of the childlikeness of the believer, speaking directly to the reality that we are spiritual children with all the weaknesses that childhood implies. It is also essential to see that the chapter teaches the church, as a group of spiritually unperfected children, how to get along with each other. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the single greatest discourse our Lord ever gave on life among the redeemed people in His church. Sadly, because it has been largely misinterpreted, its profound riches often have been lost. We shall attempt to recover these truths that are so vital, powerful, and needed by the church in every age and place. The first lesson in this masterful sermon is that everyone who enters the kingdom does so as a child (vv. 1–4). Jesus then teaches that all of us in the kingdom must be treated as children (vv. 5–9), cared for as children (vv. 10–14), disciplined as children (vv. 15–20), and forgiven as children (vv. 21–35). The setting for the sermon is indicated by the phrase at that time, which refers to a period soon after Jesus told Peter to go to the Sea of Galilee and retrieve the coin from the fish’s mouth (17:27). While Peter was paying the tax with the coin or, more likely, just after he returned, the rest of the disciples came to Jesus, possibly at Peter’s house in Capernaum. The two scenes are closely connected in time and in thought. On the same day the disciples received the lesson on being citizens of the world they were given a series of lessons on the issues related to being children of God. The Lord’s teaching was prompted by the disciples themselves, who asked Him a very selfish question that betrayed their sinful ambitions. We learn from Mark and Luke that the question, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? resulted from an argument the Twelve had been having among themselves “as to which of them might be the greatest” (Luke 9:46; cf. Mark 9:34). Although He omnisciently knew what had happened, Jesus asked, “What were you discussing on the way?” They were so ashamed of their attitude and conversation that “they kept silent” (Mark 9:33–34). Their embarrassed reticence shows they knew that what they had been doing was inconsistent with what their Master had been teaching on humility. But the fact that they nevertheless were arguing about their relative ranks in the kingdom shows they were making little effort to apply what they had been taught. They were as proud, self-seeking, self-sufficient, and ambitious as ever. In light of what they had been discussing and the way they phrased the question to Jesus, it is obvious they expected Him to name one of them as the greatest. Just as they had heard but not really accepted what Jesus had been teaching about humility, they also had heard but not really accepted what He had been teaching about the kingdom. Much like those to whom Isaiah was sent to preach (Isa. 6:9), the disciples listened but did not perceive and looked but did not understand. They obviously still expected Jesus soon to set up an earthly kingdom, and each of them was hoping to have a high rank in that dominion. They were especially competitive about being number one. Perhaps it was earlier that same day (see 17:22–23) that Jesus had told them (for the third time) about His impending suffering and death. Although they did not fully understand what He was saying to them (Mark 9:32), they should have sensed its gravity. And even though they were afraid to ask Jesus what He meant (v. 32b), it would seem they would have been discussing that issue rather than which of them was to be the greatest. They were so caught up in their own desire for prestige, glory, and personal aggrandizement that they were impervious to much of what Jesus said—even about His suffering, death, and resurrection. They demonstrated no concept of humility, very little compassion, and certainly no willingness to take up their own crosses and follow Christ to death as they had been taught (Matt. 10:38–39; 16:24–26). Several months after this lesson in Capernaum, their selfish ambition was still very much evident. Probably at her sons’ instigation, the mother of James and John asked Jesus, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left” (Matt. 20:20–21). The other disciples were indignant at the two brothers, but their indignation was not righteous but envious (v. 24). It must have been especially painful to Jesus that, just as on the occasion recorded in chapter 18, this self-seeking request came immediately after He had predicted His suffering and death (20:19). There is no indication of sympathy, consolation, or grief concerning what their Lord was about to endure on their behalf and on the behalf of all the world. And on the night before He died, while He was eating the Last Supper with them, they were still arguing about their own greatness (Luke 22:24). Their insensitivity and selfishness is thus demonstrated as all the more sinful because it occurred at times when Jesus was speaking of His own suffering and death. The rest of the disciples may have been jealous of Peter, knowing that he was the most intimate with Jesus and was always their chief spokesman. Peter was one of the three privileged to witness Jesus’ transfiguration, and only Peter had walked on the water or had his Temple tax miraculously provided. But it was also only Peter who had been told by Jesus, “Get behind Me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23), and perhaps the other disciples thought the number one position was not yet finalized. The teaching here is desperately needed in the church today, where selfish ambition is widespread and obligation to perform our duty to fellow children of God is routinely ignored. Like all of us, the disciples needed repeated lessons in humility, and here Jesus used a child as His illustration. And He called a child to Himself and set him before them. Paidion identifies a very young child, sometimes even an infant. This particular child was perhaps a toddler, just old enough to run to Jesus when He called him to Himself. Because the group was likely in Peter’s house, the child may have belonged to Peter’s family and already been well known to Jesus. In any case, he readily responded and allowed himself to be taken up into Jesus’ arms (Mark 9:36). Jesus loved children and they loved Him, and as He sat before the disciples holding this small child in His arms, He had a beautiful setting in which to teach them profound lessons about the childlikeness of believers. The essence of the first lesson is in verse three: Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is an absolute and far-reaching requirement of ultimate importance. Entrance into Christ’s kingdom demands childlikeness. There is no other way to receive the grace of salvation than as a child. The kingdom of heaven, a phrase Matthew uses some 32 times, is synonymous with the kingdom of God. It had become common for Jews at the end of the Old Testament era, and especially during the intertestamental period, to substitute out of reverence the word heaven for the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH), God’s covenant name (often rendered as Yahweh, or Jehovah). Used in that way, heaven was simply another way of saying God. Both phrases refer to the rule of God, kingdom of heaven emphasizing the sphere and character of His rule, and kingdom of God emphatically pointing to the ruler Himself. God rules His kingdom with heavenly principles and heavenly blessings and in heavenly power, majesty, and glory. Entering the kingdom means coming under the sovereign rule of God. Our Lord is talking directly about entering God’s kingdom by faith, through salvation that will result in future millennial blessing and eternal glory. The phrase “enter the kingdom of heaven” is used three times in the book of Matthew (see also 7:21; 19:23–24) and in each case refers to personal salvation. It is the same experience as entering into life (18:8) and entering into the joy of the Lord (25:21). The fact that a person must enter the kingdom assumes he is born outside of it under the rule of Satan and that he is not naturally a heavenly citizen under the rule of God. The purpose of the gospel is to show men how they may enter the kingdom and become its citizens, moving from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s beloved Son (Col. 1:13). It is God’s desire to have men come into His kingdom, and He does not wish “for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). The purpose of Christ’s ministry and the ministries of John the Baptist and the apostles was to call people to the kingdom. That is still the supreme task of the church. The central focus of Matthew’s gospel is to draw men and women into the kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ, and that is doubtlessly one of the reasons the Holy Spirit placed this book at the beginning of the New Testament. Throughout his gospel, Matthew carefully and systematically presents the components of genuine belief. The first component presented for entering the kingdom is repentance. The message of John the Baptist was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2), and it was with that identical message that the Lord began His own ministry (4:17). The initial call for entering the kingdom was a call for people to recognize and repent of their sin, which involves genuine desire to turn away from it. This repentance is not a human work but a divine gift that only God can grant (see 2 Tim. 2:25). A second component of the faith that grants entrance to the kingdom is the recognition of spiritual bankruptcy. That, too, is a work of God, not man, because it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin (John 16:8–11). The Beatitudes begin with a call to humility, expressed there as poverty of spirit (Matt. 5:3). The person who genuinely wants to enter God’s kingdom sees himself as utterly unworthy and undeserving. His awareness of his sin brings guilt and frustration over his inadequacy to remove it. He knows that he cannot himself cleanse his sin and that he has nothing to offer God that could merit forgiveness for it. The Greek term behind “poor in spirit” refers to a beggar who has absolutely no resources of his own. Because the repentant and bankrupt person is deeply aware of his sin, he mourns over it (v. 4); because he has no righteousness of his own, he hungers and thirsts for God’s righteousness (v. 6); and because he cannot himself cleanse his sin, he longs for the purity of heart (v. 8) that only God can provide. A third component of the faith that allows entering the kingdom is meekness, which is closely related to the sense of having nothing of value to offer God. Because of his sense of personal unworthiness, the humble and meek person neither claims nor demands anything of glory for himself. He is committed to fight for God’s causes, not his own. The one who enters God’s kingdom also will have a desire and capacity to be obedient. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,” Jesus declared, “but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Entering God’s kingdom is more than simply expressing the wish to be in it and having the conviction that Jesus is its Lord. The sovereign, saving God will produce in the soul a personal submission to Jesus as Lord and a new heart longing to obey His commands. The person who is unwilling to leave the things of the world for the things of the Lord has no genuine desire for salvation (8:19–22). Coming into the kingdom assumes by the very term that one comes under the rule of the Lord of that kingdom. When Jesus called people to follow Him, He was calling them to salvation (cf. Matt. 19:21). The new birth makes people followers of Jesus. It would be more consistent with the method of our Lord if, instead of asking people to “make a decision for Christ,” modern evangelists would call them to turn from sin to follow the Lord’s leadership and turn over to Him the rule of their lives. The one who enters God’s kingdom also is willing to make public confession of his desire to follow the Lord. “Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men,” Jesus said, “I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (10:32–33). The one who enters God’s kingdom is aware of his need to be self-denying. Jesus said, “He who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (10:38–39). Further in Matthew’s presentation of the faith that saves is the component of persistence. The Canaanite woman with the demon-possessed daughter did not give up when Jesus at first ignored her, when the disciples wanted to send her away, or even when Jesus reminded her that she was not an Israelite, one of God’s chosen people. She was willing to take even the Lord’s leftovers and would not give up until He had met her need. In response to her childlike persistence, Jesus said, “O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish” (15:28). All of these components of the faith that God grants for salvation can be summed up in the first lesson Jesus teaches-the lesson of humility. It is impossible to miss the fact that this teaching is directed at the disciples and implies they needed to hear and accept it. And from the argument among them that prompted this lesson from Jesus, it is obvious they were not living according to His standard of humility. They were manifesting pride and self-seeking. It may be that some of them were not yet in the kingdom (certainly this invitation was pertinent to the power-hungry, money-hungry Judas), and those who were in the kingdom had allowed their fallen flesh to dominate their attitudes. This makes the important statement that even though our hearts are in line with these principles of genuine saving faith at the time God graciously grants it to us, we fall often and easily to the power of sin that is still in us. As He took the young child in His arms and held him up before the disciples, the Lord gathered up all those elements of salvation: “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” The phrase are converted translates an aorist passive of strephō, which elsewhere in the New Testament is always translated with an idea of “turning” or “turning around.” It means to make an about face and go in the opposite direction. Peter used a form of the term twice in his message shortly after Pentecost, as he called his hearers to “repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away” and declared of Jesus that “God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:19, 26). The term is used repeatedly in the book of Acts to speak of conversion (11:21; 15:19; 26:18, 20). Paul used the word when speaking of the Thessalonian believers, who had turned “to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Conversion is the other half of repentance. Repentance is being sorry for sin and turning away from it; conversion is the expression of will that fully turns from sin to the Lord. Psalm 51:13 alludes to these two halves of the turning when it declares, “and sinners will be converted to Thee.” Jesus’ use here of the passive voice indicates that the disciples could not be converted from sin to righteousness by their own efforts but needed someone else to turn them around. Although the response of a person’s will is required, only God has the power to convert. To be converted requires people to become like children, Jesus explained. A little child is simple, dependent, helpless, unaffected, unpretentious, unambitious. Children are not sinless or naturally unselfish, and they display their fallen nature from the earliest age. But they are nevertheless naive and unassuming, trusting of others and without ambition for grandeur and greatness. “It is the person who humbles himself as this child,” Jesus declared, “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” The verb behind humbles is tapeinoō, which has the literal meaning of making low. In God’s eyes, the one who lowers himself is the one who is elevated; the one who genuinely considers himself to be the least is the one God considers to be the greatest. “The greatest among you shall be your servant,” Jesus told the self-righteous Pharisees. “And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:11–12). The person who is not willing to humble himself as Jesus “humbled Himself” (Phil. 2:8) will have no place in Jesus’ kingdom. For self-righteous Jews who exalted themselves so highly as to think God was pleased with them for their own goodness, this was a shattering blow. But Jesus makes clear that you rise higher in His kingdom as you go lower. The great Lutheran commentator R. C. H. Lenski has written, “He who thinks of making no claims shall have all that others claim and by claiming cannot obtain.… Only an empty vessel can God fill with his gifts. And the emptier we are of anything that is due to ourselves, the more can God pour into these vessels his eternal riches, honors, and glories” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943], 683). A little child makes no claims of worthiness or greatness. He simply submits to the care of his parents and others who love him, relying on them for all that he needs. He knows he cannot meet his own needs and has no resources to stay alive. That is the kind of humble submissiveness that results in greatness in God’s eyes and in His kingdom. A number of years ago I ministered to a group of black schools in the south. At one rural elementary school, I presented a simple message about God’s love and the unique and lovely person of Jesus Christ, who especially loved children and died as a sacrifice for them on the cross to pay the punishment for all our sins. At the end of the message I asked, “How many of you would like to have Jesus live in your heart and forgive all your sin and desire to follow such a wonderful Lord and Savior and have Him take you to heaven some day?” To my amazement, every one of the one hundred or so hands in the room immediately went up. There was no skepticism, no doubting, no hesitation, no looking around to see how their friends would react. When the invitation was asked for, the heart of each one of those children was ready to respond positively to the claims of Jesus Christ. To be sure that they understood the commitment they were making, I asked, “Now how many of you are willing to let Jesus control your life and to obey whatever He says?” Again, every hand went up. God knew the intent of their hearts and what that simple affirmation meant as a step toward Him. But what I saw was the illustration of saving faith. None of those children felt adequate in himself or so perfect as not to recognize sin and the need of forgiveness. None was reluctant to give his life to One who was so lovely and gracious and could provide all they would need in time and eternity. Nor were they reluctant to do what He asked them in obedience. That is the kind of unpretentious, nonhypocritical, humble, childlike faith Jesus was talking about. That sort of response to His Son is the greatest in God’s sight. The greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the one who is humble, unaffected, genuinely sincere, undemanding, nonself-centered, receptive to whatever God offers, and eagerly obedient to whatever He commands. The popular “gospels” that propagate self-fulfillment and personal success are the antithesis of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are a mockery of New Testament Christianity and strike at the heart of salvation and of Christian living. The Lord made no provision for the elevation of self, but rather declared unequivocally that the person who, on his own terms, “has found his life shall lose it” (Matt. 10:39). The way of self is the way of disqualification from the kingdom. Those who glorify self not only will not be great in the kingdom but will never enter it. James presents an invitation to salvation that unarguably reiterates what our Lord demands in this passage of Matthew:
But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. (James 4:6–10)
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985–1989). Matthew (Vol. 3, pp. 93–100). Moody Press.
Who Is Greatest in the Kingdom?
Matthew 18:1–9
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
What was it that Shakespeare wrote?
Be not afraid of greatness: some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Twelfth Night, act 2, scene 5
Pity the disciples! They were with true greatness in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was great as only God is great. They were not. They had not been born great. They had not achieved greatness. They had not had greatness thrust upon them. Yet they wanted so much to be great. They were thinking of an earthly kingdom that would be established by Jesus, whom they now believed to be the Messiah, and they were wondering which of them would be the greatest when Christ’s kingdom came. Luke says they were arguing about it and that Jesus knew what they were thinking (Luke 9:46–47). Mark adds that they had been on their way to Capernaum, and when they got to Capernaum, Jesus asked what they had been arguing about. They were silent, probably because they were embarrassed by their worldly thoughts (Mark 9:33–34). Matthew says they then asked Jesus directly, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matt. 18:1). This question becomes the catalyst for a new direction in Jesus’ private teaching of these men, which takes place in Matthew 18–20. This new direction has to do with what the citizens of the kingdom should be like, the fourth of six collections of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospel. Earlier collections included the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), the commissioning of the disciples (Matthew 10), and the seven parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13). The others are in Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25. Matthew 18 is a collection of teachings gathered from talks given over the course of Jesus’ ministry, as more than likely were the earlier collections.
The Disciples’ Question
In some ways, the disciples’ question was amazing. For one thing, Jesus had already taught about the type of people who would be citizens of his kingdom: “the poor in spirit,” “the meek,” “the merciful,” and so on (Matt. 5:3, 5, 7). Even more amazing is the fact that almost immediately before this Jesus had explained that he would be betrayed and killed (Matt. 17:23). Matthew says they “were filled with grief,” but their grief didn’t last long. They were convinced Jesus was the Messiah, and the Messiah was going to establish a glorious earthly kingdom. Therefore they began to anticipate who would be greatest in that kingdom and to jockey for position. The kind of kingdom they were thinking about becomes clear in Acts 1, where they ask Jesus, even after the resurrection, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v. 6). John Stott notes, “The verb restore shows that they were expecting a political and territorial kingdom; the noun Israel that they were expecting a national kingdom; and the adverbial clause at this time that they were expecting its immediate establishment.” They were wrong on all counts. The kingdom was going to be a spiritual kingdom of those who were saved from sin through faith in Jesus. It was for all people, not just the people of Israel, and it was to develop over time as God, through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, brought individuals to faith. But those were concepts the disciples would need to learn later. In this chapter Jesus is concerned about teaching what the citizens of the kingdom must be like, since at this point the minds of the disciples are still miles away from genuine Christianity.
Entering the Kingdom
What will the citizens of the kingdom be like? “They will be something like children,” Jesus explains, as he calls a little child to him and sets the child in the center of the group. Children have some characteristics that the people of God are not to copy. Children do not know very much; they lack the ability to focus on one thing for long periods of time; and they are foolish and easily deceived. We are not to be childlike in those ways. Children have positive characteristics too, such as open-mindedness and trust, though Jesus was not thinking of those here either. Jesus was thinking about humility, which he makes clear in verse 4: “Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” He stresses humility because humility is the exact opposite of the disciples’ greedy pride. D. A. Carson says, “The child is a model, in this context, not of innocence, faith, or purity, but of humility and unconcern for social status. Jesus assumed that people are not naturally like that; they must change to become like little children.” The use of a child as an illustration is striking and is typical of the teaching devices Jesus used so often and so well. But it is the words that are important, more than the illustration, and the words are more than striking. They are shocking, for two reasons.
Jesus changed the nature of the question. The disciples had been asking about greatness in the kingdom they believed Jesus would establish. They assumed that greatness was all they had to worry about. They assumed they would be in the kingdom. But instead of answering them only on that level, Jesus explains that unless they possessed a nature that was entirely different from what they were betraying by their question, they would not even enter the kingdom. Forget about who was going to be most important, Jesus said. What they needed to worry about was being there at all! This response is similar to the way Jesus answered people who asked him why God allowed some apparently innocent people to be killed by Herod’s soldiers or others to be killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them. Jesus said they were asking the wrong question. They should not ask why others had suffered but why they themselves had not, since they were sinners. The question should have been, “Why am I not in hell at this moment?” (Luke 13:1–5). Obviously, we have much to learn if we are to learn the ways of God.
Jesus insisted on the disciples’ conversion. D. A. Carson made this point in the words I quoted earlier. To enter the kingdom people must possess the humility of children, but to do so they need to be radically changed. People are not humble by nature. We are self-seeking, selfish, and driven by pride. What do we need if we are to become humble, trusting what God has done for our salvation and not what we can accomplish for ourselves? The answer is clear: We need to “turn” or “be converted,” which is God’s work. We need to pray the prayer of Jeremiah 31:18: “Turn me, and I shall be turned, for you are the LORD my God” (my translation). We “must be born again” (John 3:7). How do we know if we are converted? The evangelical bishop John Ryle said, “The surest mark of [any] true conversion is humility.” It is when we humble ourselves and trust Jesus alone to save us that we can be sure we are converted.
The Danger of Harming Others
In the first three verses of this section, Jesus uses children as examples of humility, which he demands of those who would be saved. In the next two verses, however, he seems to think of children not in terms of their humility but as those who are weak or helpless. He is not thinking of children literally, however. He is thinking of believers who, because they have become like children in their humility, have come to “believe in me” (v. 6). Jesus is concerned about and warns about harming such believing persons spiritually. Let me make that point again. When Jesus speaks of “one of these little ones who believe in me” (v. 6), he is not speaking of children literally, though he does not exclude them. He is speaking of normal believers, and he warns against placing harmful obstacles in a true believer’s way. This should be a frightening matter for a person who thinks it is somehow fun to get a Christian to sin. Such a person will provoke a Christian to anger or excessive loose talk, sometimes even to overt sinful behavior. When he succeeds in this, he is pleased and feels vindicated: “If I have been able to get this Christian to sin, what I do must be all right, or at least, he is no better than I am.” A person can feel good about that. But Jesus says that instead of feeling good, such a person should be terrified. In fact, it would have been far better for him that a large millstone had been hung around his neck and he had been thrown into the sea to drown than that he should have lived long enough to harm a new or weak believer. If you have ever mocked a Christian, tempted a Christian, or discouraged a Christian from serving Christ, you should tremble before these categorical statements by the Lord. Yet religious people can do this same harm too. We need to remember Paul’s denunciation in Romans 2:17–24. He had been arguing that everyone, not just obviously depraved people, needs the gospel, and at this point he turns to those who consider themselves religious. In Paul’s day the most religious of all people were Jews, and they made eight important claims: (1) God has given us his law, and (2) he has entered into a special relationship with us. (3) Because we have been given his law, we know his will, and thus (4) we approve only the most excellent of moral standards. Therefore, (5) we are guides for the blind, (6) light for those who are in the dark, (7) instructors for the foolish, and (8) teachers of spiritual infants (vv. 17–20). Strikingly, each of these claims was absolutely true, and Paul admits it. But knowledge of the ways of God is not enough! God judges according to truth and not according to appearances, according to what men and women actually do and not according to their mere professions. Paul then brings forth three examples of the Jew’s “superior” way: the eighth of the Ten Commandments (against stealing), the seventh of the Ten Commandments (against adultery), and a statement joining the first and second of the Ten Commandments (concerning the right worship of God). The Jews of Paul’s day considered these good examples of the superior religious way of life they followed, as opposed to the godlessness of the heathen. But what Paul tells the Jews is that God is not satisfied with knowledge of the right way only. He is concerned with deeds, exactly what Paul has told the moral pagan (Rom. 2:6–16), and by that standard a Jew is condemned exactly as a pagan is condemned. A Jew judges another, but he is judged out of his own mouth because he himself has done what he condemns. When Paul comes to the end of this paragraph, he quotes the Old Testament to show that “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (v. 24; see Isa. 52:5 and Ezek. 36:22). This is always the case when religious persons violate the upright standards they proclaim. They become a stumbling block to others. Jesus warns about this in Matthew 18, and it is as true for us today as it was in the first Christian century. “Be warned,” Jesus says. If you are living like this, it would be better for you that a large millstone had been hung around your neck and you had been drowned in the sea than that you had lived to harm one of Jesus’ little ones. That is what happens when people try to become great, of course. They put themselves ahead of others, particularly the small and the weak. They trample on them to get to the top. “What Jesus is saying in verses 1–6 is … that, instead of striving to become greatest in the kingdom of heaven (v. 1) [and] in the process of attempting this hurting others instead of guarding them (v. 6), the disciples should rather learn to forget about themselves and to focus their loving attention upon Christ’s little ones, upon the lambs of the flock and upon all those who in their humble trustfulness … resemble those lambs.”
Determinism and Free Will
It is difficult to know whether verse 7 belongs with what comes immediately before or with what comes after because it applies to both passages. It is a standout verse that deals with the matters of sin, determinism, human responsibility, and free will. It is not difficult to understand why Jesus said this or why Matthew added it to his collection of Jesus’ teachings at this point. Sinful people want to excuse their behavior by saying that they just can’t help what they are doing. In our day this usually takes a materialistic form. I do bad things because of my genetic makeup, or because of the bad neighborhood in which I grew up, or because I wasn’t properly loved and cared for by my parents. In religious circles it sometimes takes a theological form. I sin because God has ordained it; it isn’t my fault. In Paul’s day some people used this argument to approve of increased sinning. God has willed to bring good from it, so “let us do evil that good may result” (Rom. 3:8). Interestingly enough, Jesus does not deny the determinism, though that is not the best word to describe the Bible’s teaching in this area. He acknowledges that this is an evil world and that “the things that cause people to sin … must come” (v. 7, emphasis added). We can even rightly say that God has determined that it should be so, at least passively, since God is not the originating cause of sin. Yet at the same time Jesus is equally insistent that the person who sins or causes others to sin is responsible. It is impossible in this fallen evil world to avoid enticements to sin, but woe to the one through whom the enticements come. That is the point. The judgment of such a person will be just, and the judgment will be most severe if the enticement causes one of Jesus’ own followers to stumble. Remember that when you look into your heart and examine your actions. Woe to such a person, Jesus says. Woe is the word the Bible uses to lament the terrible end of a person who is judged by God in “eternal fire” or “the fire of hell” for his or her sins (vv. 8–9).
The Need for Self-Discipline
This is not only a warning about harming another believer, however. We can also harm ourselves, and it is to this point that Jesus turns in verses 8 and 9: “If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” These verses are an almost exact repetition of Matthew 5:29–30, from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was talking about adultery in the Sermon on the Mount, and he was teaching that adultery or any other sin should be taken seriously. Sin is so serious that any inclination toward it must be dealt with radically. What should be done? Many people know that because of these verses the early church father Origen had himself castrated in order to avoid sexual temptation. But this is not exactly what Jesus means, since here, in Matthew 18:8–9, Jesus explains his reference to hands and feet (v. 9 adds “eyes”) by speaking of “things that cause people to sin” (v. 7). He means, get rid of whatever is tempting you to sin: suggestive movies, especially the kind you can rent at video stores and bring home to watch privately; the daily talk shows that wallow in depravity almost endlessly; books that urge you to get ahead by stepping on others; or talk that promotes racial bias. Get rid of the poison. Protect your mind from the defilement. Of course, in the final analysis the answer to any problem is not merely to run away, especially since it is so difficult to avoid temptations in our culture. The real answer is a love for God and the transformed mind and heart that flow from it.
Did They Get It?
“Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus answered the question, and we have been trying to understand Jesus’ answer. But here I want to follow up by asking, Did the disciples get it? Were they actually turned and changed to become like little children? We know they didn’t get it right away, because they are still fighting for the top position two chapters later. On that occasion the mother of James and John came to Jesus asking that one of her sons be chosen to sit at his right hand and the other son be chosen to sit at his left hand when he came into his kingdom (Matt. 20:21). They had probably put her up to it. So when the other disciples heard what she had asked Jesus, “they were indignant with the two brothers” (v. 24). They wanted those positions themselves. What did Jesus do? He got them together and went through it all again. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (vv. 25–28). As long as Jesus was with them, they didn’t get it. But when he died, they did, for they understood at last that he had given himself for them and had bought their salvation at the cost of his own life. And they really were changed. It is beautiful to see. The disciples were all guilty of this self-advancing spirit, according to the Gospel. But among the many who were guilty, James and John stand out as the most guilty because of their compliance with the efforts of their mother to get them the first places. Yet think what happened to them! At one time Jesus called them “Sons of Thunder,” no doubt because of their arrogant, boisterous attitudes (Mark 3:17). On another occasion they wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy a village of the Samaritans that did not receive them (Luke 9:54). They were changed when they finally got their minds off themselves and onto Jesus. We are not told much about James, but he must have changed. We do not hear of him struggling for prominence after the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord, and he eventually died for Jesus, being executed by King Herod (Acts 12:1–2). John lived to be a venerable old man, known at last as the “apostle of love.” He spoke humbly when he said, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). If Jesus can turn a “son of thunder” into an “apostle of love,” he can conquer your pride and teach you humility so that you can become like one of Jesus’ “little children.” He needs to, if you are to belong to his kingdom.
Boice, J. M. (2001). The Gospel of Matthew (pp. 375–381). Baker Books.
Ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water. (Exodus 23:25)
What a promise is this! To serve God is in itself a high delight. But what an added privilege to have the blessing of the Lord resting upon us in all things! Our commonest things become blessed when we ourselves are consecrated to the Lord. Our Lord Jesus took bread and blessed it; behold, we also eat of blessed bread. Jesus blessed water and made it wine: the water which we drink is far better to us than any of the wine with which men make merry; every drop has a benediction in it. The divine blessing is on the man of God in everything, and it shall abide with him at every time.
What if we have only bread and water! Yet it is blessed bread and water. Bread and water we shall have. That is implied, for it must be there for God to bless it. “Thy bread shall be given thee, and thy waters shall be sure.” With God at our table, we not only ask a blessing, but we have one. It is not only at the altar but at the table that He blesses us. He serves those well who serve Him well. This table blessing is not of debt but of grace. Indeed, there is a trebled grace; He grants us grace to serve Him, by His grace feeds us with bread, and then in His grace blesses it.
Verses 1–10 of Ephesians 2 offer a classic Pauline statement of the movement from sin to salvation. Verses 1–3 state the problem; verses 4–7 display God’s solution; and verses 8–10 sum up the result.
Ephesians 2:1–7 actually form a single sentence in the Greek, with the opening phrase hanging in the air (you were dead in sins) until the main verb in verse 5 (God made us alive).
Now, of course, Paul can tell the story of sin and salvation in many different ways. We shouldn’t press individual passages for a total theory. Here, he chooses to foreground, not the intricate meaning of Jesus’ saving death, but the life-giving power of Jesus’ resurrection. As throughout Ephesians, he is emphasizing who and what the church now is: in this case, a community of people brought from death to new life through the grace of God in the gospel.
So the upshot of verses 1–7 is to say: he made you alive when you were dead! The main verb finally comes, explosively, in verse 5: synezōopoiēsen tō Christō — he made you alive with the Messiah! For those who are en Christō, who belong to the Messiah’s people, what happened to him happens to them with him, syn Christō.
Here, Paul is stressing not the mechanism of God’s rescue, how God did it, but rather the new status of all God’s people, who you now are: you were dead, and you are now alive. This, of course, goes very closely with what he had said in the prayer in the preceding chapter, when he described how the power which had raised the Messiah from the dead was now at work in all the faithful (Eph. 1:19–20).
What Did the Resurrection Do?
It is, after all, quite difficult to state a Christian doctrine of salvation that gives full balance to Jesus’ death and resurrection. For many preachers and teachers, the crucifixion has, as it were, “done it all,” with the resurrection simply being a happy ending assuring us of ‘life after death’ for ourselves. For others — I think for instance of some Greek Orthodox theologians — the resurrection takes absolute center stage, so that the only real purpose of Jesus’ shameful death was to be the prelude to this wonderful truth of new creation.
For Paul in this passage, the emphasis comes increasingly on grace itself, as in verses 5, 7 and 8, summing up the message of “mercy” and “love” in verse 4; and the grace in question is displayed in God’s bringing dead people not just to life but to sharing the heavenly life of Jesus himself. Paul can speak later in the letter (Eph. 5:2) of the Messiah giving himself for us as a sacrificial offering.
He could have said many other things if he’d been constructing a full “doctrine of salvation” or of “atonement.” But, as always, he is highlighting one aspect of the vast, extraordinary truth of the central gospel events. In this case, he chooses to focus on the merciful, loving grace-gift of resurrection, bestowing new life both in the present time and in the age to come.
Ephesians 2:1–3 — How Sin and Death are Linked
The description of “being dead” in verses 1–2 is detailed, but not load-bearing for the larger argument of the chapter. We quickly realize that the “you” in question refers to “Gentile believers,” since he then moves on in verse 3 to talk of “we too,” which with some commentators (though not all) I take to refer to Judaean people. You were dead, he says, in offences and sins, not randomly but because you Gentiles were being led along by various larger forces (verse 2).
That link of sin and death takes us back, of course, to Genesis where, if we have our wits about us, we recognize that this isn’t a question of the creator setting up arbitrary regulations and then killing off people who fail to measure up. Sin in general, and “offences” in particular, are what happens when image-bearing humans fail to worship their maker and so to reflect the true God into the world. And the death which results is not an arbitrary punishment. It is the necessary and inevitable result of that turning away from the source of life.
The Three Powers That Produce Human Wickedness
When humans look away from the true God, though, they don’t look simply into a void. Instead, they follow other forces, other powers. Paul here, in verse 2, names three. These are not, I think, different powers as such; he is gesturing towards the whole dark phenomenon of supra-human wickedness, which by its very nature resists precise categorization.
The Present Age: First, “keeping in step with this world’s ‘present age’” (my own translation) is a way of referring to the Judaean idea of “the present age” as opposed to “the age to come.” “The present age” generates its own worldview which people absorb unthinkingly, assuming that this is just “the way things are” so that there’s no point in resisting, no chance of a “new age” in which things might be significantly different.
The Ruler of the Power of the Air: But behind the “present age,” with its insidious suggestion of “normality,” there is, second, a quasi-personal power, operating, as we say, in the air that we breathe. “The ruler of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2, NRSVUE) may have been as much a metaphor for Paul as it is for us, but it’s a way of identifying an apparently all-pervasive force.
The Spirit Now at Work: Third, Paul then identifies this power as a “spirit,” operating right now among people whose lives consist of disobeying God. As we discover in chapter 6, these forces are still active. Those whom the gospel liberates, like soldiers who were conscripted into a wicked army but were then released, have to change sides and join in the ongoing messianic battle.
These three forces work together and produce human idolatry and wickedness. This would be simply a standard Judaean analysis of the non-Judaean world, except for the fact that in verse 3 Paul declares that the Judaean people were in the same category. Just as in Romans 2 and 3 he turns his critique of Gentiles onto the Judaean people, so here: at one level they may have been observing torah, the God-given law, but at another level the desires of flesh and mind were producing the same result as the Gentiles were facing, namely the wrath of God, exactly as in Romans 1- 3.
Ephesians 2:4–7 — ‘But God’
All that is contained in the single sentence of the opening verses. We are nearly ready for the main verb itself, but we should first note the momentous transitional phrase in verse 4, ho de theos, “But God.”
Like the ‘But now’ in Romans 3:21, or indeed in Ephesians 2:13, this marks the decisive moment, the most vital moment in world history. I have known of Christians who have written out the words “But God” in large letters on a sheet of paper and pinned it to the wall. As in the version of Psalm 46 used in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer: “The heathen make much ado, and the kingdoms are moved; but God hath shewed his voice, and the earth shall melt away” (emphasis mine).
But God.
Hang on to that phrase. As the song says, there is no work too hard for him.
The Results of Lavish Grace
With that the whole mood changes: from the darkness of rebellion and wrath to mercy, love, life, salvation, grace, heavenly session, and kindness. Each one is worth full comment, but we need to say this in particular. In the ancient world of the Greeks and the Romans, people believed many things about the gods, whether the great ones — Zeus, Poseidon, Mercury, Ares, and the rest — or the local ones such as Athene or Artemis. But nobody ever imagined that any of these gods loved them.
The gods played their own games. They sometimes showed favor to this or that human for their own ends, or because the person concerned had offered a pleasing sacrifice or said the right magic words. But nobody would have said of Zeus what Paul says of the true God in verses 4 and 7: that he is rich when it comes to mercy, that he had great love for us, that his grace is unbelievably rich, and that he has shown us kindness.
People today — good Christian people — still lapse into thinking of the true God as transactional, operating a strict system of paying people back according to their behavior. Kindness, grace, love, and mercy tell a different story.
The result of this lavish divine grace is that what has happened to the Messiah has happened to his people. Paul here summarizes what he says more fully in places such as Romans 6, but now with the surprise element, applying to the church not only the resurrection — you are already alive in the Messiah — but also the ascension: he made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Messiah Jesus.
If Jesus is already in heaven, and if we are “in the Messiah,” then we are there with him. I suspect that came as just as much of a shock to many of Paul’s first hearers as it does to many people today.
What It Means to Be ‘in Heaven’
At this point, however, the normal understanding of “heaven” can lead us astray. If you think that the point of the gospel is “to go to heaven when we die,” you will simply see this claim as an anticipation of that final state: “we are there already” (in some sense or other). But the point of Jesus’ already being “in heaven” is that he is now the one in whom heaven and earth are summed up. He is the heaven-and-earth human being. He is not “in heaven” in the sense that he is absent from earth, leaving this world to its own devices. That would be a large step towards Deism. No: Jesus is the temple in person, the cosmos in miniature.
But, to our astonishment, we are called to share that status. As Paul explains later in the chapter, we are now to be that temple, where God dwells by the spirit. This isn’t about being snatched away from the earth. Sharing Jesus’ heavenly status is anything but escapist. The point is, rather, as Paul says, so that the world may now see what the heaven-and-earth combination looks like, and particularly how it displays the extraordinary riches of God’s grace and kindness (verse 7).
Conclusion: Your Assignment
Throughout these opening chapters, the point of the church is to demonstrate to the watching world who God is. It’s almost as though Paul is expounding what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “you must shine your light in front of people,” so that “they will see what wonderful things you do, and they’ll give glory to your father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, my translation).
Jesus’ followers are to display God’s gracious new creation to the world. They’re not just to talk about it. They’re to display it.
In The Vision of Ephesians, well-known New Testament scholar N.T. Wright offers an accessible introduction that opens the text in a way that helps what may seem dense and allusive become clear, fresh, challenging, and encouraging. Wright works through the letter in nine sections, exploring both apocalyptic insights and bracing challenges for the church, whether in the first century or the twenty-first.
The following can only sketch some of the multiple revelations in a work highly recommended for anyone who cares about religion in America.
And what if you don’t particularly care? Burge insists that when thousands of churches might be shutting down in the coming decades, much is at stake for the entire nation. (That “vanish” in the title is hyperbolic but sorta truthy).
Accumulating research shows the societal, psychological, economic and even medical benefits from a healthy faith culture.
One study found that churches are the most important places where people find positive personal connections, “not neighborhoods, schools, or workplaces.” Local churches’ social programs and quiet help to individuals are immeasurably vast, with no conceivable replacement.
In his latest book, Burge moves beyond scholarly objectivity to express alarm summarized in the subtitle: “How the Hollowing Out of Moderate Congregations Is Hurting Democracy, Faith and Us.” He champions old-fashioned churches that are “moderate, sensible, pragmatic, and unifying.”
The distorted and polarized political situation gets far more press. Consider Gallup polling data that in 2004, 31% of Americans identified as Independents, spurning the establishment’s two major parties. The latest survey, reported this week, shows Independents are an impressive 45%, alongside a historically abysmal 27% for both Democrats and Republicans.
Simultaneously, “the growing polarization of American religion has left us lonelier, angrier, sicker, and more divided (both economically and politically) than ever before.” Burge is a well-known analyst of “nones” who tell pollsters they have no religious affiliation or identity. They’ve grown to 28% of Americans in the 21st Century, up from a mere 6% in 1990.
Millions of moderates who are not “nones” are also uncomfortable with the form of evangelical or “born again” religiosity that now dominates Protestantism. Evangelicals achieved a high of 30% identification among Americans in 1993 but slipped to their more typical 17% by 2020. That number seems to be holding steady, defying a secularization trend, even as the Trumpite conservatism of a vocal and politicized segment alienates many from religious involvement.
The centrist option that Burge considers necessary for a wholesome religious mix was long provided by more flexible and sometimes outright liberal “mainline” Protestant denominations, such as those that belong to the ecumenical National Council of Churches. Burge confesses personal angst from his years as the part-time pastor of just such a congregation in the American Baptist denomination that recently disbanded.
Burge came to conclude that “the mainline was dying, and rapidly.” If current trends and aging memberships persist, he expects that in 20 or 30 years “the mainline tradition will largely be extinct across many parts of the United States.”
This is the most dramatic of the patterns Burge documents. Historian James Hudnut-Beumler figures in the late 1950s, more than half of all Americans were associated with this type of church. By 1982, they slipped to 29% of Americans, then plummeted to 10% by 2016. No comparable calamity had ever occurred in the U.S.
Though solid, Burge’s treatment downplays the impact of controversies over mainline political activism and, far more vital, the fuzziness when belief liberalizes. The Christianity Today review by Michael Wear, who led faith outreach for Barack Obama’s 2012 victory, observes that “while the church should have room for people who struggle with doubt, churches should not be organized to affirm and encourage doubt.” Mainline churches also developed a degree of intolerance toward their once-thriving evangelical factions, whose eventual shrinkage is a key trend that needs more attention.
An especially crucial chapter deals with Roman Catholics. Unlike the vanishing mainline, those baptized and identifying as Catholics were 28% of the population in 1970 and currently hold on at 21% thanks to Hispanic immigration. But those same years saw an “absolute collapse in Mass attendance” that was once observed by most.
As of 2022, 23% of those who considered themselves Catholics attended worship on a weekly basis, half the rate of 50 years earlier. This abandonment occurred before the notorious clergy sexual predation scandals hit hard. Burge also recounts white lay Catholics’ significant shift from Democratic to Republican loyalty and the more recent conservative trend among priests in both religion and politics.
Yet another trend is Burge’s “Big Church Sort,” in which religious involvement is becoming more of a specialty for relatively well-off, well-educated and successful Americans, leaving behind those with less money, dimmer prospects and often lacking stable marriages.
Burge’s analysis is largely based upon numbers from the General Social Survey, Cooperative Election Study, and Nationscape more than churches’ own statistical reports. He bypasses the independent 2020 tabulations by the Religion Census.
The book pays scant attention to the all-important “historically Black” Protestant denominations. In the final edition of the “Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches” in 2012, the eight main Black church groups reported memberships that totaled 22,447,387. The Religion Census counts only 7,031,055 members. This anomaly should be next on Burge’s agenda.
As before, this writer must note one more huge change. While longstanding denominations like the large Southern Baptist Convention decline, non-denominational independent congregations, almost all of them similarly evangelical in substance, now number 44,319 and encompass 21 million adherents, by far the largest constituency in U.S. Protestantism — and the most energetic and disruptive.
Richard N. Ostling was a longtime religion writer with The Associated Press and with Time magazine, where he produced 23 cover stories, as well as a Time senior correspondent providing field reportage for dozens of major articles. He is a recipient of the Religion News Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award. He has interviewed such personalities as Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI); ranking rabbis and Muslim leaders; and authorities on other faiths; as well as numerous ordinary believers. He writes a bi-weekly column for Religion Unplugged.
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
Should Bible believing private schools allow non-Christian families to enroll?
It’s a great question, and I think the answer could rightly be yes or no depending on the school, its purpose, and those leading it.
Many, many moons ago in the 1980’s, I attended and graduated from a Christian school. (It was a pre-K through 12 school. I attended 9th-11th grade there, and graduated at the end of my 11th grade year.) My mother was also a science and math teacher there, so I was privy to some of the administrative goings on.
I taught kindergarten for a couple of years at a private Christian school.
Three of my children attended private Christian schools at various times during their middle and high school years. I served on the board of one of them since it was a ministry of our church.
What my experience as a Christian school student, teacher, parent, and board member has taught me is that there are typically two main types of students whose parents enroll them in a Christian school:
Christian parents who want to protect their children from the ungodliness and violence of the public school system and give them a Christ-centered education
Non-Christian parents with a child whose behavior problems are so bad that either a) the child has been expelled from other schools and the Christian school is the only one that will take him, or b) the child is on the road to expulsion, and the parents see a Christian school as a way to straighten him out.
All of the schools I mentioned above sought to provide a quality, Christ-centered education and environment to students, and all were a mixture of those two main types of students.
So long as the “type 2” students outwardly conformed to the rules and the environment, things went well. But that rarely happened for long, and serious and disruptive discipline problems often arose. (Imagine what your church would be like if, say, unrepentant criminals were forced by their probation officers to attend and participate, and it will give you some idea of the conflict-laden environment.)
I would be interested to see what it would look like for a Christian school to “specialize” in only “type 1” or “type 2” students. Personally, I think that would work better, but there are people with far more expertise and professional experience in the field of Christian education than I who could give better insight and wisdom than I can.
I love fitness and recently have been thinking about getting more involved in volleyball, but I’m concerned about whether it’s okay for women to be involved in sports – and then concerned about its appropriateness whether a woman is playing against other women or other men (or a mixed group of people).
Well, we are really traveling back down memory lane in The Mailbag today, because, while I was a student at the aforementioned Christian school, I was also on the volleyball team! I am not athletically inclined, and it’s the only sport I ever enjoyed or was marginally any good at. But anyway…
I can’t think of anything in Scripture that would prohibit or even discourage women from being involved in recreational-level sports, especially if the purpose for doing so is exercise and fitness. While we’re not to focus on strengthening our bodies to the exclusion of strengthening ourselves spiritually, God’s Word is clear that our bodies are a gift from God and that we’re to steward them well because they house the Holy Spirit and are the means by which we’re able to physically serve Him and others.
To that end, many churches offer sports or exercise classes. When I was growing up, my local Baptist association of churches had a softball league among all the churches with children’s, youth, men’s, and women’s teams. It can be a lot of fun to fellowship together while getting some exercise!
But I don’t think co-ed sports are wise. We’ve seen enough of the pitfalls of men inserting themselves into women’s sports in news story after news story. Women get injured because men are stronger, bigger, and more powerful (or men have to hold themselves back and be extremely careful not to injure women). Healthy competition comes to a standstill because men usually win. Many women’s sports uniforms are immodest. There are just too many issues that arise, especially for Christians, when sports aren’t sex-segregated.
If you’re married, discuss it with your husband. If you’re not (or you need further input), bounce it off 😀 a godly older woman in your church or set (but not bump or spike!) up an appointment with your pastor for counsel.
The following question deals with sexual intercourse in marriage. It was asked in an appropriate, non-detailed way, and I’ve answered it in the same way, but if you think there may be any potential for temptation of your imagination, please skip this question and answer.
I would like to ask you what specific intimate acts in the marriage bed are sinful and if either spouse has the authority to demand it and withhold intimacy all together if the demand isn’t met regardless of how long said act has been practiced in their relationship.
If one spouse grows in Christ and becomes uncomfortable with this certain act commonly practiced and over time convicted that it is sin for them to continue to engage in and the other spouse feels unfairly treated (cheated) due to this conviction and desire to stop doing it and this specific issue is seriously threatening the marriage. The person feeling cheated has stopped attending worship and stopped engaging in family worship, and is not willing to seek elder/church or any counsel although claims to be in Christ and convinced they are right.
Please address respecting the conscience of the other person if a specific act is not clearly forbidden in scripture but can be indirectly defended by scripture by stressing the natural function of the woman vs unnatural.
I apologize for being a little vague. I know it is a topic the church shys away from and I believe many couples struggle in the area of intimacy and are afraid to go to their church about it due to embarrassment of one or both spouses.
How would you counsel both spouses in this situation? Specifically the spouse who is no longer comfortable with the act and is seeking help. Or who (other than the local church) would you direct them to for help.
Should the conscience be violated for the sake of saving the marriage and “being submissive to each other”?
Wow. There’s a lot going on here, and I’m afraid I can’t be of much specific help without more specific details (which I do not want; please don’t send them), but I’ll do my best.
I would like to ask you what specific intimate acts in the marriage bed are sinful…
I’m sorry, but there’s no way I can – or will – answer that. Even if it were appropriate for this venue (it’s not), my knowledge of what I can only imagine to be hundreds of possible acts of intimacy is – praise God for His mercy and protection – extremely limited.
You and your husband should not be participating in any acts which:
the Bible specifically prohibits (lust {for other people; sexual desire for your spouse is biblical and not properly termed “lust”}, pornography, bestiality, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, or anything that would fall under the category of sexual immorality), or fantasizing about or pretending to do any of these things
are illegal
involve other sins or things the Bible prohibits (e.g. drunkenness)
intentionally harm, humiliate, or injure yourself or your spouse (the entire posture of Scripture is that we’re to steward our own bodies for God’s glory and we’re to love, care for, and protect others, laying aside our own desires)
…if either spouse has the authority to demand it and withhold intimacy all together if the demand isn’t met…
Spouses should not be “demanding” anything – sexual or not – from one another. Marriage, and the Christian life itself, are about dying to self, loving others, and laying your life down for them. That’s what Jesus did for us.
It is also unbiblical to deny your spouse sex (except temporarily, for the purpose of prayer, and then, only by agreement). God is crystal clear about that in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5:
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
If one spouse grows in Christ and becomes uncomfortable with this certain act…and…convicted that it is sin for them to continue to engage in and the other spouse feels unfairly treated (cheated) due to this conviction…
It’s understandable that the spouse who does not feel convicted about this particular act you’ve been doing for years would feel cheated when it’s suddenly taken away. S/he might even feel a bit judged, too.
I would encourage the spouse with the conviction about the act to do two things:
First, your convictions must be informed by rightly handled Scripture. By way of example: some people have a strong conviction that alcohol is sinful. But that is not a biblical conviction, because Scripture does not teach that alcohol is sinful. It teaches that drunkenness is sinful. I would urge you to search the Scriptures and consider the bullet point list I gave above, and make sure your conviction is based on rightly handled Scripture.
Second, think creatively (yet still biblically), and see if there’s some sort of compromise you can reach with your non-convicted spouse. Perhaps there’s a part of the act you’re not convicted is wrong that you could still do, or you could adjust the act in some sort of way you both agree on that you would not be convicted about.
Do whatever you can, biblically, and in good conscience, to deny your spouse as little as possible.
The person feeling cheated has stopped attending worship and stopped engaging in family worship, and is not willing to seek elder/church or any counsel although claims to be in Christ and convinced they are right.
I’m sorry, but this is not the fruit of someone who has been genuinely regenerated. Punishing your spouse, or lashing out against God, by sinning (disobeying God’s commands to gather with the church and properly lead or participate in worship in the family setting) because you’ve been denied a sex act is the fruit of a lost person, not a saved person. At a minimum, this spouse should be under church discipline for his/her failure to gather, and if it gets to step 3 (bringing it before the church), the reason for failing to gather is going to come out to the pastor and elders whether s/he likes it or not.
Please address respecting the conscience of the other person if a specific act is not clearly forbidden in Scripture…
Scripture is clear that we are not to sin against our own consciences. It is, therefore, sinful to force, pressure, or manipulate someone else – let alone your spouse! – to sin against his/her conscience.
but can be indirectly defended by scripture by stressing the natural function of the woman vs. unnatural.
I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means the way you’ve worded it, and I don’t think it would be wise for me to try to figure it out.
All I can advise you – touching back to the issue of making sure your conscience is informed by rightly handled Scripture – is that this phraseology comes from Romans 1:26-27, which is specifically about homosexuality. If you’re applying the phrase, “the natural function of woman” to anything other than homosexuality, like, “I’m post-menopausal. The natural function of sex for women is to have babies. Therefore, I don’t want to have sex any more because sex for post-menopausal women is not the natural function,” you would be using that passage out of context, your conscience would not be biblically informed, and you’d be violating 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. (I know it’s not the greatest example, but, hopefully, you get what I’m saying.)
I believe many couples struggle in the area of intimacy and are afraid to go to their church about it due to embarrassment of one or both spouses.
Yeah. Everybody’s got to get over that. My husband used to be a pastor. I’ve had dozens of pastors as friends over the years. Trust me, in most cases, whatever you need to disclose to your pastor about your sex life, he’s heard it before and your situation probably isn’t the weirdest or most embarrassing situation he’s heard before. Get over your embarrassment – that’s just Satan’s little tool to keep you in bondage.
How would you counsel both spouses in this situation? Specifically the spouse who is no longer comfortable with the act and is seeking help. Or who (other than the local church) would you direct them to for help.
I would advise the couple to immediately set up an appointment with their pastor for counsel. If one of the spouses refuses to go, the other should go without him/her. Briefly explain the issue to your pastor. He may then decide to counsel the two of you himself (probably along with his wife), or he may have a godly older woman in the church counsel the wife and he or a godly older man in the church may counsel the husband, or he may suggest a certified biblical counselor. (Please read the info at the link if you’re not familiar. This is not the same as “Christian counseling,” which I would not recommend.)
Should the conscience be violated for the sake of saving the marriage and “being submissive to each other”?
No, if you conscience is informed by rightly handled Scripture, you should not violate it.
Scripture does not teach that husbands and wives are to be “submissive to each other”. It teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands. Husbands are not instructed to submit to their wives. Read Ephesians 5 in its entirety. When you do, it’s easy to see that verses 1-21 are addressed to the church. “Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ,” (verse 21) is the final instruction in the section to the church. Verses 22-33 are specifically about marriage, and verse 22 kicks that section off by saying, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands…”.
I’m so sorry this is an issue in your marriage, and I wish I could be of more help. This is just one more reason why God’s plan for Christians is the pastor and the local church. We certainly need them in situations like this.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Nearly 25 years ago, the ARP church sponsored a minister’s retreat at Bonclarken. Dr. Harry Reeder was brought in to speak, and he drew on the lives of great Christian soldiers, such as Thomas Jackson and Joshua Chamberlain. He made an important statement that has stuck with me through the years. He said, “Make sure that your heroes are dead, that way they will not disappoint you.” His point was to make sure that these men and women had finished the race and done so well. Of course, even then, new historical research could expose some previously unknown issues.
I think, in general, we must be careful when looking to people as examples and heroes of the faith. I wonder how many lives have been shipwrecked because they focused on a theologian, pastor, leader, or friend as their great example of a Christian, only to see that person fall into grievous sin. The Bible is clear that we are not to put our hope in men. Isaiah 2:22 states: “Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he? In Jeremiah 17, the prophet says that the man who trusts in man is cursed, but the man who trusts in the Lord is blessed.
In recent years, we have seen many prominent men fall into great and public sin. Most recently, Phillip Yancy, a popular Christian writer, admitted to an 8-year affair. But it is not just the popular and famous. In the church of my youth, there was a man who was held up as an example of a fine Christian, but it was discovered that he had been having an affair for years and had left his sick wife for his mistress.
For me, this reminds me that the anchor of our faith must not be rooted in our heroes, our mentors, or friends in the faith. It should not be based on men, even if they are historical or contemporary figures of significance. No, we should always be looking to Christ. Here is the one person who will never fail you or betray you.
In our world of rock-and-roll theologians, the church has developed a culture of fame that can mirror the world’s culture too closely. I think about how disappointed I have been with the people I have watched and followed in the world, from politicians to cooking show personalities. Even in the church, we have seen too many famous and not-so-famous men fall into sexual sin. We have seen men abandon their vows and embrace schism to protect predators. Sometimes it is even the inaction of some in the face of sin. This is why it is important that we keep our focus on Jesus. Knowing that even great men can and too often do fail us, but that Jesus never will. Jesus is faithful even when many men stumble and fall. So do not be surprised when people fall, pray for your leaders who are out front in the faith that they will not fall. But know that the one man who is perfectly faithful is Jesus, keep your eyes upon Him and do not let any man have the place He should have in your life.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (1:1–2)
Archē (beginning) can mean “source,” or “origin” (cf. Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14);or “rule,” “authority,” “ruler,” or “one in authority” (cf. Luke 12:11; 20:20; Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1). Both of those connotations are true of Christ, who is both the Creator of the universe (v. 3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) and its ruler (Col. 2:10; Eph. 1:20–22; Phil. 2:9–11). But archē refers here to the beginning of the universe depicted in Genesis 1:1. Jesus Christ was already in existence when the heavens and the earth were created; thus, He is not a created being, but existed from all eternity. (Since time began with the creation of the physical universe, whatever existed before that creation is eternal.) “The Logos [Word] did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be, He already was. In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal.” (Marcus Dods, “John” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositors’ Bible Commentary [Reprint; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002], 1:683. Emphasis in original.). That truth provides definitive proof of Christ’s deity, for only God is eternal. The imperfect tense of the verb eimi (was), describing continuing action in the past, further reinforces the eternal preexistence of the Word. It indicates that He was continuously in existence before the beginning. But even more significant is the use of eimi instead of ginomai (“became”). The latter term refers to things that come into existence (cf. 1:3, 10, 12, 14). Had John used ginomai, he would have implied that the Word came into existence at the beginning along with the rest of creation. But eimi stresses that the Word always existed; there was never a point when He came into being. The concept of the Word (logos) is one imbued with meaning for both Jews and Greeks. To the Greek philosophers, the logos was the impersonal, abstract principle of reason and order in the universe. It was in some sense a creative force, and also the source of wisdom. The average Greek may not have fully understood all the nuances of meaning with which the philosophers invested the term logos. Yet even to laymen the term would have signified one of the most important principles in the universe. To the Greeks, then, John presented Jesus as the personification and embodiment of the logos. Unlike the Greek concept, however, Jesus was not an impersonal source, force, principle, or emanation. In Him, the true logos who was God became a man—a concept foreign to Greek thought. But logos was not just a Greek concept. The word of the Lord was also a significant Old Testament theme, well-known to the Jews. The word of the Lord was the expression of divine power and wisdom. By His word God introduced the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 15:1), gave Israel the Ten Commandments (Ex. 24:3–4; Deut. 5:5; cf. Ex. 34:28; Deut. 9:10), attended the building of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:11–13), revealed God to Samuel (1 Sam. 3:21), pronounced judgment on the house of Eli (1 Kings 2:27), counseled Elijah (1 Kings 19:9ff.), directed Israel through God’s spokesmen (cf. 1 Sam. 15:10ff.; 2 Sam. 7:4ff.; 24:11ff.; 1 Kings 16:1–4; 17:2–4., 8ff.; 18:1; 21:17–19; 2 Chron. 11:2–4), was the agent of creation (Ps. 33:6), and revealed Scripture to the prophets (Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 1:3; Dan. 9:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 1:1; Mal. 1:1). John presented Jesus to his Jewish readers as the incarnation of divine power and revelation. He initiated the new covenant (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15; 12:24), instructs believers (John 10:27), unites them into a spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21), revealed God to man (John 1:18; 14:7–9), judges those who reject Him (John 3:18; 5:22), directs the church through those whom He has raised up to lead it (Eph. 4:11–12; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1–3), was the agent of creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and inspired the Scripture penned by the New Testament writers (John 14:26) through the Holy Spirit whom He sent (John 15:26). As the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ is God’s final word to mankind: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1–2). Then John took his argument a step further. In His eternal preexistence the Word was with God. The English translation does not bring out the full richness of the Greek expression (pros ton theon). That phrase means far more than merely that the Word existed with God; it “[gives] the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in intelligent discourse” (W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John [Chicago: Moody, 1979], 49). From all eternity Jesus, as the second person of the trinity, was “with the Father [pros ton patera]” (1 John 1:2) in deep, intimate fellowship. Perhaps pros ton theon could best be rendered “face-to-face.” The Word is a person, not an attribute of God or an emanation from Him. And He is of the same essence as the Father. Yet in an act of infinite condescension, Jesus left the glory of heaven and the privilege of face-to-face communion with His Father (cf. John 17:5). He willingly “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.… He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7–8). Charles Wesley captured some of the wonder of that marvelous truth in the familiar hymn “And Can It Be That I Should Gain?”:
He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace!
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
John’s description of the Word reached its pinnacle in the third clause of this opening verse. Not only did the Word exist from all eternity, and have face-to-face fellowship with God the Father, but also the Word was God. That simple statement, only four words in both English and Greek (theos ēn ho logos), is perhaps the clearest and most direct declaration of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ to be found anywhere in Scripture. But despite their clarity, heretical groups almost from the moment John penned these words have twisted their meaning to support their false doctrines concerning the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. Noting that theos (God) is anarthrous (not preceded by the definite article), some argue that it is an indefinite noun and mistranslate the phrase, “the Word was divine” (i.e., merely possessing some of the qualities of God) or, even more appalling, “the Word was a god.” The absence of the article before theos, however, does not make it indefinite. Logos (Word) has the definite article to show that it is the subject of the sentence (since it is in the same case as theos). Thus the rendering “God was the Word” is invalid, because “the Word,” not “God,” is the subject. It would also be theologically incorrect, because it would equate the Father (“God” whom the Word was with in the preceding clause) with the Word, thus denying that the two are separate persons. The predicate nominative (God) describes the nature of the Word, showing that He is of the same essence as the Father (cf. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [Toronto: MacMillan, 1957], 139–40; A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament [Reprint: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978], 67–68). According to the rules of Greek grammar, when the predicate nominative (God in this clause) precedes the verb, it cannot be considered indefinite (and thus translated “a god” instead of God) merely because it does not have the article. That the term God is definite and refers to the true God is obvious for several reasons. First, theos appears without the definite article four other times in the immediate context (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18; cf. 3:2, 21; 9:16; Matt. 5:9). Not even the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ distorted translation of the Bible renders the anarthrous theos “a god” in those verses. Second, if John’s meaning was that the Word was divine, or a god, there were ways he could have phrased it to make that unmistakably clear. For example, if he meant to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine, he could have used the adjective theios (cf. 2 Peter 1:4). It must be remembered that, as Robert L. Reymond notes, “No standard Greek lexicon offers ‘divine’ as one of the meanings of theos, nor does the noun become an adjective when it ‘sheds’ its article” (Jesus, Divine Messiah [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presb. & Ref., 1990], 303). Or if he had wanted to say that the Word was a god, he could have written ho logos ēn theos. If John had written ho theos ēn ho logos, the two nouns (theos and logos) would be interchangeable, and God and the Word would be identical. That would have meant that the Father was the Word, which, as noted above, would deny the Trinity. But as Leon Morris asks rhetorically, “How else [other than theos ēn ho logos] in Greek would one say, ‘the Word was God’?” (The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 77 n. 15). Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John chose the precise wording that accurately conveys the true nature of the Word, Jesus Christ. “By theos without the article, John neither indicates, on the one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that of God Himself” (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John [Reprint; Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha, 1979], 48). Underscoring their significance, John restated the profound truths of verse 1 in verse 2. He emphasized again the eternity of the Word; He already was in existence in the beginning when everything else was created. As it did in verse 1, the imperfect tense of the verb eimi (was) describes the Word’s continuous existence before the beginning. And as John also noted in verse 1, that existence was one of intimate fellowship with God the Father. The truth of Jesus Christ’s deity and full equality with the Father is a nonnegotiable element of the Christian faith. In 2 John 10 John warned, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [the biblical teaching concerning Christ; cf. vv. 7, 9], do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting.” Believers are not to aid heretical false teachers in any way, including giving those who have blasphemed Christ food and lodging, since the one who does so “participates in [their] evil deeds” (v. 11). Such seemingly uncharitable behavior is perfectly justified toward false teachers who deny the deity of our Lord and the gospel, since they are under God’s curse:
There are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal. 1:7–9)
Emphasizing their deadly danger, both Paul (Acts 20:29) and Jesus (Matt. 7:15) described false teachers as wolves in disguise. They are not to be welcomed into the sheepfold, but guarded against and avoided. Confusion about the deity of Christ is inexcusable, because the biblical teaching regarding it is clear and unmistakable. Jesus Christ is the eternally preexistent Word, who enjoys full face-to-face communion and divine life with the Father, and is Himself God.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). John 1–11 (pp. 15–20). Moody Press.
Introducing John’s Gospel
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Gospel of John has blessed the hearts of God’s people through the centuries. It has been called “God’s love letter to the world.” Luther wrote of it, “This is the unique, tender, genuine chief Gospel.… Should a tyrant succeed in destroying the Holy Scriptures and only a single copy of the Epistle to the Romans and the Gospel according to John escape him, Christianity would be saved.” Luther must have especially loved the Gospel because he preached on it for many years from the pulpit of the parish church of Wittenberg. Some of the most widely known and best-loved texts in the Word of God are from this Gospel—John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”; John 6:35: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty”; John 10:11: “I am the good shepherd”; John 11:25: “I am the resurrection and the life”; John 15:1: “I am the true vine.” There is the beloved fourteenth chapter: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back, and take you to be with me that you may also be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.… I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:1–4, 6). Because of these and other passages, it is not surprising that the Gospel of John has been a source of blessing to untold generations of God’s people. It has probably been the means by which more persons have come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord than any other single portion of Scripture.
A Unique Gospel
But the Gospel of John is merely one of four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—all of which tell of the life of Jesus Christ on earth. So we need to ask: What makes this Gospel unique? What makes John different? As one begins to read it, he soon notices some very obvious differences. Because of their similarities, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic Gospels; the three look at the life of Christ from similar viewpoints and employ similar and, at times, even identical language. John stands apart. In the first place, John omits many things that either one or more than one of the synoptic Gospels include. John gives no account of Christ’s birth. There is no mention of his baptism, although John clearly presupposes a knowledge of Christ’s baptism on the part of his readers. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is not included. There is no ascension. What is perhaps most striking of all, there are no parables, those pithy sayings of Jesus that occupy such a prominent place in the other accounts of Christ’s teachings. At the same time John shows a detailed knowledge of things that the other Gospels omit. For instance, John reports on an early ministry of Jesus in Judea. He indicates that the duration of Christ’s ministry was close to three years, not one year, which is the impression one gets from reading the synoptic Gospels. John alone speaks of the changing of the water into wine at Cana. He alone tells of Nicodemus, of the woman of Samaria, of the raising of Lazarus. Only in John do we find the great discourses spoken by Jesus to his own disciples during the final week in Jerusalem.
Johannine Scholarship
It is probably because John is so different (and so spiritual) that some scholars have attacked this book strongly. Otherwise, it seems strange that this Gospel, which has been such a blessing to Christian people, should become the outstanding example among the New Testament books of what a section of God’s Word can suffer at the hands of the higher critics of the Scriptures. One would have thought that the historical accuracy and apostolic authorship of John would have been defended stoutly. But this has not been the case until recently. Instead there had been a generation of scholarship (not so many years ago) that thought that John was not at all reliable. In this period all but the most conservative scholars said that the Gospel must have been written at least 150 or even 200 years after Christ’s death. Many placed it in a literary category of its own as being something very much like theological fiction. Today this is no longer true. There has been a remarkable change in the scholarly climate surrounding John’s Gospel, with the result that it is becoming increasingly inadequate to deny the Johannine authorship. A new claim is even being made for the reliability of the Gospel as history. Moreover, this claim has come about, not because the scholarly world itself is becoming more conservative but because the evidence for the reliability of John has simply overshadowed the most destructive of the academic theories. Thus today men of such academic stature as Oscar Cullmann of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and John A. T. Robinson of England argue that the Gospel may well embody the testimony of a genuine eyewitness, as it claims. And some, like the late Near Eastern archaeologist William F. Albright, are willing to date the book in the A.D. 60s, that is, within thirty or forty years of Christ’s death and resurrection. At this point someone may say, “What has produced such a turnabout in the ways these men view the Gospel?” It is a good question. The answers to it are significant. First, many ancient manuscripts and parchments of John or parts of John have been discovered, and these have pushed back the dating of the book. For a long time, before the great harvest of archaeological discoveries in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the earliest copies of the fourth Gospel were from the fourth century, about A.D. 325 to 340. While this was much more impressive than any manuscript evidence for other ancient writings—for instance, the earliest manuscripts of Homer’s verses were written about 2,000 years after his death—nevertheless, it gave scholars liberty enough to date John so late that it could not have been written by anyone who knew Jesus or even by anyone who could have known those who had known him. The discovery of more ancient manuscripts has changed this. One ancient scrap of papyrus, which was originally found in Egypt as part of the wrapping of a mummy and is now part of the papyrus collection at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, alone destroys these theories. This piece of papyrus contains just a few verses of John 18 (vv. 31–34, 37, 38). But it dates from the first quarter of the second century—in other words, less than one hundred years after Christ—and thus shows that John’s Gospel had been written early enough to have had a copy pass to Egypt to be used there and then to be discarded by the year A.D. 125. This is conclusive evidence for a fairly early dating of the Gospel.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The second major factor in a reassessment of the dating and historical accuracy of John’s Gospel has been the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were uncovered in 1947 and the years immediately following, but the impact of their discovery is continuing even now as the scrolls are being unrolled, assembled, translated, and published. Before the scrolls were discovered, scholars evaluated the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels in a way that was highly unfavorable to John. For instance, they noticed the unique language of John’s Gospel, with its contrasts between light and darkness, life and death, the world below and the world above, and so on. They noticed that the contrasts were generally lacking in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. “Well,” they said, “it is obvious that the first three Gospels are Jewish and reflect a Jewish setting. But it is also obvious that John’s work is not. John’s Gospel must come from a Greek setting. Therefore, we must seek the origin of these unique terms not in the actual speech of Jesus of Nazareth but in Greek thought and particularly in Hellenistic Gnosticism.” Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These revealed a whole world of nonconformist Judaism that had simply not been known to scholars previously. The home of the scrolls was Qumran, not far from Jerusalem, in the very area where John placed the earliest events of Christ’s ministry. And what was most significant, the literature revealed the same use of the so-called Greek terms (logos, light, darkness, life, death) that are found in John’s Gospel and actually provided a far closer parallel to them. One scholar, A. M. Hunter of Aberdeen University in Scotland, writes of these discoveries: “The dualism which pervades the Johannine writings is of precisely the same kind as we discover in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” John A. T. Robinson writes: “I detect a growing readiness to recognize that this [the historical background of John’s gospel] is not to be sought at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, in Ephesus or Alexandria, among the Gnostics or the Greeks. Rather, there is no compelling need to let our gaze wander very far, either in space or time, beyond a fairly limited area of southern Palestine in the fairly limited interval between the crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem.” He adds that the Dead Sea Scrolls “may really represent an actual background, and not merely a possible environment, for the distinctive categories of the Gospel.”
Other Factors
The historical trustworthiness of John’s Gospel is also supported by John’s accurate knowledge of the geography of Palestine. This has been vindicated increasingly by archaeological discoveries. To be sure, John mentions many places that are also mentioned by the synoptic Gospels, so critics could say that these were only known secondhand from their writings. For instance, John could hardly tell the story of Jesus without mentioning Bethsaida (1:44; 12:21), the praetorium (18:28, 33; 19:9), Bethany (11:18), and so on. But John also speaks accurately of Ephraim (11:54), Sychar (4:5, which is probably to be identified with Shechem at Tell Balatah), Solomon’s Porch (10:23), the brook Kidron, which Jesus crossed to reach Gethsemane (18:1), and Bethany beyond Jordan, which John carefully distinguished from the other Bethany near Jerusalem (1:28). All of these places are now known, and John himself has again and again been demonstrated to be accurate. Two archaeological discoveries are particularly interesting. In 5:2, John mentions a pool called Bethesda that, he says, had five porches. For years no one had even heard of this pool. What is more, since John’s description made it sound like a pentagon, and since there had never been any pentagon-shaped pools in antiquity, the existence of this pool was thought by many New Testament scholars to be doubtful. Now, however, approximately fifty to seventy-five feet below the present level of the city of Jerusalem, archaeologists have uncovered a large rectangular pool surrounded by four covered colonnades and having an additional colonnade crossing it in the middle somewhat like a bridge. In other words, there was a pool with five porches, as John said. It is conclusive evidence of John’s accurate knowledge of the city of Jerusalem as it was before its destruction by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70. The second archaeological discovery involves the probable identification of Aenon near Salim, which John mentions in 3:23, as having “plenty of water” in the Jordan valley. It was obviously the place where John the Baptist found adequate water for his baptizing. These three lines of evidence—the evidence of the manuscripts, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the knowledge of ancient geography—are also supported by other lines of discoveries. There has been an attempt to show that the author of the fourth Gospel (whoever he may have been) must have spoken in Aramaic because, according to those who are experts in this field, Aramaic idiom underlies John’s Gospel. Careful study of the text has convinced other scholars that the material preserved by John may be as old as Pauline theology or the traditions preserved by the Synoptics. Thus, a better knowledge of the author of the fourth Gospel and his times has succeeded in pushing scholars away from the critical postures they once held, and has caused them to admit not only the possibility of apostolic authorship but to speak even more surely of an early and very reliable tradition that underlies and is in fact preserved in the writing of the Gospel.
John’s Purpose
What does this have to do with a study of what is obviously a spiritual Gospel? Just this: John himself insists upon the reliability of the things about which he writes. Take 1 John 1:1, 3 as an example. There John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.… We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” In other words, John says that he is writing to them about a person whom he has heard, seen, and touched. Hence, he is writing about something objectively true that will bear the brunt of historical investigation. John sounds the same note in the Gospel: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30–31). There are always people who will say that faith is something that must be entirely divorced from evidence. But that is not stated in the Bible. Faith is believing in something or someone on the basis of evidence and then acting upon it. In this case, John has provided evidence for the full deity of Jesus so that readers, whether in his age or ours, might believe it and commit their lives to Jesus as their Savior. In John’s Gospel we have an accurate record of things that were said and done in Palestine almost 2,000 years ago by a Jew named Jesus of Nazareth and that are presented to us as evidence for his extraordinary claims. If one will believe this and approach the record honestly with an open mind, God will use it to bring that person to fullness of faith in the Lord Jesus as God’s Son and his Savior. This was John’s purpose in writing his Gospel. It is my primary purpose in writing these studies. What will happen in your case? It all depends on whether or not you open your mind to John’s teaching. Sometime ago I was talking to a young man who was very critical of Christianity. “Have you investigated the evidence?” I asked him. “What do you mean? How does one do that?” he asked. “Go home this week and begin to read John’s Gospel,” I answered. “But before you begin, take a moment to pray something like this: ‘God, I do not know if you exist or, if you do, whether you hear me. But if you exist and if you hear me, I want you to know that I am an honest seeker after truth. If this Book of John can really speak to me and show me that Jesus is the Son of God and is God, I ask you to prove that to me while I read it. And if you prove it, then I will believe in him and serve him forever.’ ” I told him that if he did that, God would speak to him and that he would be convinced that all the things that are written about Jesus of Nazareth in this book are true and that he is the Son of God and our Savior. The young man went home. I saw him a week later, and I asked, “Did you read the book?” He answered, “Well, I have to admit that there are other things to which I give a higher priority.” Here is another case. A Christian at the University of Pennsylvania entered into a series of Bible studies in John’s Gospel with a young woman who was not a Christian. The two young women went through several chapters where Jesus is declared many times to be God, but none of it clicked with the non-Christian. Suddenly, in the midst of a study of the third chapter of John, and after many weeks of study, the inquiring non-Christian exclaimed, “Why, I see it! Jesus Christ is God! He is God.” That was the turning point, and several weeks later she became a Christian. That is what we are looking for in the following studies of John’s Gospel. Moreover, as that happens, we will also look for a strengthening and encouraging of believers in the service of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and our Lord.
Jesus Christ Is God
John 1:1–2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
What do you think of Jesus Christ? Who is he? According to Christianity this is the most important question you or anyone else will ever have to face. It is important because it is inescapable—you will have to answer it sooner or later, in this world or in the world to come—and because the quality of your life here and your eternal destiny depend upon your answer. Who is Jesus Christ? If he was only a man, then you can safely forget him. If he is God, as he claimed to be, and as all Christians believe, then you should yield your life to him. You should worship and serve him faithfully.
Four Gospels
If you are one who has never answered this question personally or if you have assumed (perhaps without much investigation) that Jesus was only a man, then the Gospel of John was written particularly for you. It was written for those who do not yet believe that Jesus Christ is God, to lead them to that conclusion. I do not know which literary critic once said, “A novel without a purpose is like a life without a career. In order to be a story it must have something to say.” But, whoever the author may have been, the statement itself is a correct one. What is more, it is as correct for biblical literature as it is for works by purely human authors. In one sense the Gospel of John has the same purpose as each of the other three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That is, John wishes to present to the reader the earthly life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew who was born under the reign of Herod the Great and who died when Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator in Judea. In another sense, however, John has a purpose that is distinctly his own. That purpose is to show that Jesus Christ is God. That is his thesis. To some extent, Matthew’s Gospel portrays the Lord Jesus primarily as the Jewish Messiah. In fact, it is possible to argue that everything that goes into his account of Christ’s life supports that theme. Mark’s purpose is to reveal Jesus Christ as God’s servant. Luke deals with Christ’s humanity. John, however, reveals Jesus as the eternal, preexisting Son of God who became man in order to reveal the Father and to bring men access into eternal life through his historical death and literal resurrection. How do we know that? We know it because John says so. He writes, “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30–31). Arthur W. Pink, one of the great students of this Gospel, has written, “In this book we are shown that the one who was heralded by the angels to the Bethlehem shepherds, who walked this earth for thirty-three years, who was crucified at Calvary, who rose in triumph from the grave, and who forty days later departed from these scenes, was none other than the Lord of Glory. The evidence for this is overwhelming, the proofs almost without number, and the effect of contemplating them must be to bow our hearts in worship before ‘the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13).”
John’s Thesis
It is not surprising, therefore, when we turn from the end of John’s Gospel to the beginning, that we find John presenting there the thesis that Jesus Christ is God. I think that John would have done very well in one of our universities today. When you write a paper in a university the best way to do it—although you can be more subtle than this—is to say in your opening paragraph what it is that you are setting out to prove, then prove it, and when you get to the end, sum it all up and say, “See, I did it. It’s just what I said I would do at the beginning.” That is exactly what John does. He starts out in the first two verses stating that Jesus Christ is God. He proves it in twenty-one chapters. Then, when he gets to the end he says that the things written in his book were written so that you and I, his readers, might know that Jesus Christ is God and that we might believe on him. At the beginning he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning” (John 1:1, 2). We know from verse 14 that the Word is Jesus, for in that verse John says that “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” Thus, we find John to be saying that Jesus existed from the beginning, that he was with God in the beginning, and that he was God. In other words, the opening verses of the Gospel contain a full statement of Christ’s divinity. These verses teach three things about the divinity of Jesus Christ. The first statement is that Jesus existed “in the beginning.” In other words, Jesus was preexistent. He was “before” all things. There are several ways in which the phrase “in the beginning” is used in the Bible. In 1 John it is used of the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry. John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). In the first verse of the Book of Genesis the phrase is used of the beginning of creation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The use of the phrase in John’s Gospel goes beyond even that, however, for John says that when you begin to talk about Jesus Christ you can do so properly only when you go back beyond his earthly life—back beyond the beginnings of creation—into eternity. That is where Jesus Christ was. Moreover, this is found wherever the Bible speaks in detail about Christ’s person. The author of the Book of Hebrews looks back to the beginning when he says, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Heb. 1:1–2). The Book of Revelation reveals Jesus to be the “Alpha and Omega … the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:8, 17). Paul writes that before Jesus became man he was “in very nature God” and had “equality with God” (Phil. 2:6). These statements all point to the preexistence of Jesus as one important aspect of his divinity. The second statement is that Jesus Christ was with God. This is an affirmation of Christ’s separate personality, and it is a very subtle statement. John wishes to say, and indeed he does say, that Jesus is fully God. He reports Jesus as saying, “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). But John is aware also that the Trinity is involved here, that there is a diversity within the Godhead. Thus he also expresses this truth in his statement. The final phrase is a declaration that Jesus is fully divine, for John says, “and the Word was God,” or literally, “and God was the Word.” This means that everything that can be said about God the Father can be said about God the Son. In Jesus dwells all the wisdom, glory, power, love, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth of the Father. In him, God the Father is known. John then sums up his teaching by saying, “He was with God in the beginning” (v. 2). With these words the highly emphatic and unequivocal statement of the full divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ is ended.
Knowledge of God
At this point we need some practical applications. What does it matter to say that Jesus Christ is God? First, to say that Jesus Christ is God is to say that we can now know the truth about God. We can know what he is like. The counterpart to this statement is that apart from Jesus Christ we really cannot know him. Is God the god of Plato’s imagination? We do not know. Is he the god of Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher? Is he the god of other philosophers? Is he the god of the mystics? The answer is that apart from Jesus Christ we do not know what God is like. But if Jesus Christ is God, then we do know, because to know the Lord Jesus Christ is to know God. There is no knowledge of God apart from a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and there is no knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ apart from a knowledge of the Bible. One of the saddest stories in the Word of God concerns this theme. It is in John’s Gospel. Toward the end of his ministry, Jesus explained carefully that he was going away from the disciples but that he was going to prepare a place for them and would one day return. The disciples were depressed at the thought of his leaving them. He went on to say that if they had really known him, they would have known the Father. At this point Philip, who was one of the disciples asked him, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us” (John 14:8). In other words, Philip was saying, “If I could just see God, I would be satisfied.” How sad! The disciples had been with Jesus for almost three years and now were nearing the end of his ministry. Still they had not fully recognized that Jesus is God and that they were coming to know God through him. Jesus then had to answer by saying, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (v. 9). If you want to know what God is like, study the life of Jesus Christ. Read the Bible! The things recorded there of Jesus Christ are true. What is more, if you read them, you will find that the Holy Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of truth, will interpret and explain them to you.
Always Like Jesus
The second practical application of the truth that Jesus Christ is God is that God was always like Jesus. William Barclay, who knew this truth, writes, “If the Word was with God before time began, if God’s Word is part of the eternal scheme of things, it means that God was always like Jesus. Sometimes we tend to think of God as just and holy and stern and avenging; and we tend to think that something that Jesus did changed God’s anger into love, and altered God’s attitude to men. The New Testament knows nothing of that idea. The whole New Testament tells us, and this passage of John especially tells us, that God has always been like Jesus.” Does Jesus Christ hate sin? Yes! So God has always hated sin also. Does Jesus Christ love the sinner? Yes! Therefore, God loves him also. Barclay says, “What Jesus did was to open a window in time that we might see the eternal and unchanging love of God.” In fact, God so hates sin and so loves the sinner that in eternity he planned the way in which he would redeem the race. We read the Old Testament and we find God saying, “There must be an atonement for sin.” We read the accounts of Christ’s life and death, and we find God saying, “There is the atonement for sin.” We come to our time and as the Word of God is preached we find God speaking to our hearts and saying, “That was the atonement for sin. Believe it and be saved.” God has always been like Jesus.
An Acceptable Sacrifice
Third, the truth that Jesus Christ is God means that his death on the cross was significant. It means that in this way he himself became the one sufficient and acceptable sacrifice for man’s sin. If you or I were to be so foolish as to make a statement that we would die for another man’s sins and then were somehow to lose our lives, in terms of sin our death would mean nothing. We are sinners. If we were to die for sin, or pretend to do it, the only sin we could die for would be our own. But Jesus had no sin. Being God, he is sinless. Hence, when he died, he died for the sins of others, in their place; he removed forever the burden of sin from those who believe on him. Finally, because Jesus Christ is God, it means that he is able to satisfy all the needs of your heart. God is infinite. Jesus is also infinite. Therefore he is able to satisfy you out of that inexhaustible immensity. There is a story that illustrates this truth. Do you remember the verses in Ephesians in which Paul prays that the Christians to whom he is writing might “have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:18–19)? These verses speak of the four dimensions of God’s love—breadth, length, depth, and height—and they say that out of that fullness God is able to satisfy the one who comes to him. During the Napoleonic period in Europe some of the emperor’s soldiers opened a prison that had been used by the Spanish Inquisition. There were many dungeons in the prison, but in one of them the soldiers found something particularly interesting. They found the remains of a prisoner, the flesh and clothing all long since gone and only an ankle bone in a chain to tell his story. On the wall, however, carved into the stone with some sharp piece of metal, there was a crude cross. And around the cross were the Spanish words for the four dimensions of Ephesians 3:18–19. Above was the word “height.” Below was the word “depth.” On one side there was the word “breadth.” On the other there was the word “length.” Clearly, as this poor, persecuted soul was lying in chains and was dying, he comforted himself with the thought that God who in himself contains the breadth, length, depth, and height of all things was able to satisfy him fully. He is able to satisfy you fully whatever your need or your longing.
“Who Is This?”
This is John’s thesis. We are going to see the evidence for it as we go on in these studies. But even here we must raise the question with which we began and which is above all questions: What do you think of Jesus Christ? Who is he? This was the question that was raised all through Christ’s earthly ministry. When Jesus rode into the city of Jerusalem on a donkey on what we call Palm Sunday the people turned to one another and asked, “Who is this?” (Matt. 21:10). The disciples asked the question after Jesus had stilled the storm on the Lake of Galilee: “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” (Mark 4:41). Herod asked, “I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” (Luke 9:9). When Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic, the scribes and Pharisees asked themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21). This is the question. Is Jesus only a man? If he is, you can afford to forget him. Or is he God? If he is God, then he demands your belief and your total allegiance. Do you believe that Jesus is God? You should be able to say with doubting Thomas, in the story that is really the spiritual climax of the fourth Gospel, “My Lord and my God.” To draw back from making that confession is to perish. To believe it is to enter into eternal life.
Boice, J. M. (2005). The Gospel of John: an expositional commentary (pp. 13–25). Baker Books.
“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.” —George Washington (1789)
Inflation holds steady: According to this morning’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, December’s 2.7% annualized inflation rate matched expectations, buoying hopes that the Federal Reserve’s long-targeted 2% annual inflation rate may be within reach. Core inflation, excluding volatile food and energy, rose at 2.6% annually. One of the leading elements of inflation — shelter costs — rose by 0.4% in December, the largest increase in three months. Food prices also rose, increasing 0.7% on the month. Recreational costs increased by 1.2%, the largest monthly gain ever recorded dating back to 1993. The issue of housing affordability has yet to diminish. In short, the report is a mixed bag as the inflation Democrats created in 2021 persists.
Credit card interest cap? The current average interest rate on a credit card, according to one study, is 19.65%. President Donald Trump is encouraging credit companies to cap their rates at just 10% for one year, starting on January 20, 2026. The idea has bipartisan congressional support in both the House and Senate, but it’s not without its critics. Advocates point to the massive credit card debt Americans hold, which topped $1.2 trillion in the third quarter of 2025, and to companies’ ability to turn a profit even with lower rates. Critics argue that a rate cut will likely reduce credit availability, especially for risky borrowers and those with credit scores below 600. Government attempts to dictate free-market policies almost never work, yet our credit-based economy has led the average American household to amass over $10,000 in credit card debt.
Minnesota sues feds: If anyone was still wondering if The Gopher State was complicit in the massive fraud schemes that may exceed $9 billion in stolen taxpayer funds, the fact that the state is now suing to stop the deployment of federal law enforcement may clear up the matter. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison argued that his state was being targeted by a surge of law enforcement for its “diversity,” “democracy,” and “differences of opinion.” No, Mr. Ellison, it’s because of the fraud. The suit names the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul as plaintiffs, with DHS, ICE, and Customs and Border Protection officials named as defendants. As a White House spokesman noted, “This pathetic stunt only proves that Democrats will put illegal criminals over hardworking Americans every time.”
Renee Good’s family cashes in: Renee Good’s determination to obstruct law enforcement and striking an ICE officer with her car tragically ended in her death. But for Good’s lesbian “wife,” Becca, the story didn’t end there. Moments before Good’s death, Becca can be heard on video screaming, “Drive, baby, drive,” encouraging Renee in the illegal act that led to her death. Now, Becca and Good’s family have received $1.5 million from a GoFundMe fundraiser. A similar fundraiser for ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who acted in self-defense after being struck by Good’s car, has raised only $175,000. The Good family fundraiser triples that of one set up for the family of Iryna Zarutska, who was slain by a homicidal train passenger for no reason at all while she minded her own business.
Fraud consumes a lot of money: With welfare fraud exposed as a major problem in Minnesota, journalist Christopher Rufo wondered about the cost of fraud to the federal government in a recent interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The government estimates that between $300 billion and $600 billion annually is lost to fraud. “That’s not my number, that’s the General Accounting Office,” Bessent noted. “So, it’s about 10% of the federal budget, 1 to 2% of GDP.” He added, “If we can narrow that number, President Trump asks for a $500 billion increase in the defense budget to fortify the 10, 20 years of neglect. … If we can get rid of this fraud, waste, and abuse, we can finance a safer, sounder U.S. without taking on more debt.” President Trump has made cracking down on fraud a primary focus of his administration.
Democrats finally take a stand against Hamas: When it still seemed possible that Hamas might survive if only Joe Biden could pressure Israel out of fighting back, Democrat denouncements of the terror organization often seemed half-hearted. Now that it’s a moot issue and Hamas is headed the way of the dodo, Democrats have started to sound almost reasonable. “Saying ‘We support Hamas’ is a disgusting and antisemitic thing to do,” said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend, and she was far from alone. Last week, protesters in Queens chanted their support for Hamas, and Kirsten Gillibrand, Letitia James, Kathy Hochul, and Zohran Mamdani were among the chorus that strongly denounced the protesters. If only these folks had found their voices during the disgusting pro-Hamas protests on New York campuses when their denouncements might have meant something.
DOJ charges illegal alien shot in Portland: One of the illegal aliens who was shot in Portland, Oregon, by Border Patrol last week has been charged by the DOJ with assaulting a federal officer. The two illegal aliens, who are both associated with the Tren de Aragua terrorist-designated Venezuelan gang, were in a pickup truck repeatedly ramming a government vehicle when they were shot. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, “Anyone who crosses the red line of assaulting law enforcement will be met with the full force of this Justice Department.” She noted that these illegal aliens should not have been in the U.S. in the first place. According to the FBI, no body cam footage of the event in question was captured.
Dem states want to tax driving: Under the guise of combating climate change, a number of Democrat-led states are advancing plans to monitor residents’ vehicle usage, with the eventual goal of limiting the mileage allowed. In Massachusetts, State Sen. Cynthia Creem has sponsored legislation to track a vehicle’s emissions and miles traveled to develop “a reasonable pathway” to a restricted-mileage system. Colorado and Minnesota have passed similar legislation. Minnesota is currently piloting a program that would charge fees or a tax on the number of miles a driver puts on their vehicle. Other states are exploring a similar mileage-driven tax to offset revenue lost from the gas tax as EVs increase on the road. As a Massachusetts resident observed, “This is just a money grab. Massachusetts politicians need a way to fill their and their friends’ pockets.”
Oregon to remove 800k inactive voters from rolls: Thanks to multiple lawsuits against Oregon in the last few months over the state’s mismanagement of its voter rolls, Democrat Secretary of State Tobias Read announced that the state will “restart” the “routine cleanup of outdated, inactive voter registration records.” That’s 800,000 inactive voters, or 20% of Oregon’s voter rolls. Although Read claims that “none of the individuals associated with these records will receive ballots, and these inactive records have no impact on Oregon elections,” there’s plenty of reason for skepticism. Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, argued that when states don’t keep up with constant changes, such as deaths and out-of-state moves, voter rolls become bloated and outdated, increasing the risk of errors and abuse. When voter rolls aren’t cleaned, it’s more likely that ballots will be automatically mailed to ineligible voters.
Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams dies after long battle with prostate cancer: Scott Adams, the creator of the long-running Dilbert cartoon, died this morning just before his daily “Real Coffee with Scott Adams” morning video. Adams had been very public about his ongoing battle with prostate cancer after revealing his diagnosis in May 2025. Adams had warned his followers on X that all the news about his illness was bad and that “January will probably be a month of transition.” He had made political comments for years but became much more present in the discourse following an attempted cancellation in 2023. In recent days, Adams had thanked his followers who were encouraging him to find Jesus and announced his intention to convert. We pray that, like the thief on the cross, Adams is even now with his Savior in paradise.
Headlines
Sen. Kelly sues Hegseth over military pension cuts (Fox News)
California wealth tax proposal hemorrhages $1 trillion as billionaires flee (Fox Business)
ACLU unveils ad campaign in support of gender-confused athletes (Washington Times)
Walz admin ordered fraud unit to stand down early in his term, whistleblowers say (Daily Signal)
Keir Starmer and NHS promoting first cousin marriages for Muslims (Hot Air)
Humor: Protesters protest for higher protesting wage (Babylon Bee)
The Executive News Summary is compiled daily by Jordan Candler, Thomas Gallatin, Sterling Henry, and Sophie Starkova. For the archive, click here.
When Renee Good made her fatal mistake of not following the orders of the ICE agents who told her to step out of her car, Democrats and the Leftmedia portrayed her as an innocent bystander. It wasn’t until later that we all found out she was a trained “legal observer” for ICE Watch, a shadowy group dedicated to impeding the progress of immigration enforcement, such as they were doing in the Twin Cities area in the wake of the Somali daycare scandal.
Surprisingly, we learned about the Goods’ involvement with the ICE Watch cause early on, thanks to reporting from the New York Post, which noted that Renee and Rebecca Good learned of the group through the school their child attended. Southside Family Charter School was described as “unabashedly dedicated to social justice education,” according to its founder.
But to hear CNN tell it, ICE Watch is just a group of concerned citizens. “‘I mean, gosh, we’re like, moms in Toyota Corollas,’ said one Minneapolis-area activist who participates in anti-ICE patrols and declined to give her name because she feared retribution from the administration.”
If it were a court case, though, this could be construed as obstruction, as their job isn’t simply to observe but to interfere. “The group aims to do one or both of two things: Make illegal alien roundups harder and provoke headline-grabbing confrontations that ‘discredit’ law enforcement,” said our Nate Jackson on Monday. “And it’s pushing for more recruits after Good’s death.”
Jill Garvey, a trainer for virtual “ICE Watch and Community Defense” programs, insists that they “emphasize documenting ICE’s actions, supporting those being targeted and deescalating to mitigate violence.”
“It’s also not about interference,” she adds. “We’re pretty explicit that we don’t recommend interference. We don’t recommend putting your body between an ICE agent and their target. And certainly, don’t put your hands on any federal agent — that’s incredibly dangerous.” Garvey also conceded that “most people in these situations panic.”
The Minneapolis incident has resulted in a surge of interest in ICE resistance, with training classes reportedly “at capacity,” but that claim about the training not being about interference falls on its face, according to Sarah Bedford of the Washington Examiner. “Immigration authorities have struggled with the spread of ICE Watch networks across the country, some of which used phone apps to track the movement of officers,” wrote Bedford. “Apple and Google removed the most widely used ICE tracking app in October, but crowdsourced networks, such as the one in Minneapolis, continue to complicate immigration enforcement.”
National Review’s Haley Strack also tells us, “The [MN Ice Watch] Instagram account also recently promoted the ‘Stop ICE Plate Tracker,’ just one of many ICE-tracker services that ‘catalogues vehicles identified in public spaces used in raids.’ Although last year the Trump administration pressured Apple to remove from its App Store some of the most popular ICE-tracker apps, many are still available. A cursory search of tracking services after the ICE shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday shows how activists are using them to monitor officers.”
This understandably frustrates the administration. ”The use of apps to monitor the routines, locations, and happenings of DHS law enforcement strongly resemble obstruction of justice,“ said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “This type of garbage is contributing to our officers facing a more than 1,300% increase in assaults and a more than 8,000% increase in death threats against them as they arrest the worst of the worst offenders, including murderers, sexual predators, terrorists, and gang members.”
Funding has also become a concern. CNN reported that a Bluesky appeal by activist Nick Benson raised enough to fund over 400 dash cams for ICE Watch and others to record encounters. But as columnist Gary Bauer points out, that’s small potatoes. “ICE Watch is part of the vast left-wing network we reported on last week. This network thrives in Democrat-run cities. It is funded largely by communist Chinese operatives, and its purpose is to drive radical socialists, Marxists, and anarchists into the streets in open rebellion against the United States.”
The far-left astroturf group Indivisible is one source of funding for the protests, but other groups considered more mainstream have joined in, at least locally. “A major protest, billed as ‘ICE out of Minnesota,’ in late December was organized by local arms of the national AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, as well as the Minneapolis Federation of Educators, a teachers’ union in the state. Thousands of people joined the protest,” said Bedford. “Unidos MN, which has in recent years taken funding from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a prominent liberal dark money group, and from a massive progressive advocacy group called the All Hands on Deck Network, was also listed as a sponsor of the protest.”
As written elsewhere, the unrest in Minneapolis spread across the country last weekend, as numerous protests were held around the nation, attempting to create the impression that public opinion is turning against ICE in particular and law enforcement in general. It’s a shame because protesters used to cooperate to some degree with law enforcement, said former Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead to Fox News, but it appears these radical groups are no longer interested in helping out by keeping their protests peaceful.
Given our current trajectory of left-wing opposition to enforcing our immigration law and the money being donated to the cause, it’s only a matter of time before the Left gets its next martyr.
Nate Jackson: Fraud? Newsom Tells Walz to Hold His Beer — California has nearly seven times the population of Minnesota, so it’s not surprising that there’s more fraud, but still — $33 billion is a lot of money.
Emmy Griffin: The World Holds Its Breath on Iran — The Iranian regime is orchestrating a massacre, crossing President Trump’s red line. The world now waits to see what he will do in response.
Jack DeVine: Stop the Bleeding! — In the wake of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, perhaps it’s time to face the reality that political violence is not just a talking point.
Douglas Andrews: The Deep Disgrace of Jack Smith — Even the Trump-deranged enemies of our 47th president now realize that the special prosecutor’s case against him was utterly without merit.
Michael Smith: The Credentialed and the Clueless — Research shows intelligence makes it easier to defend false beliefs, not correct them.
Gary Bauer: History Is Repeating — Left-wing Democrat governors and mayors are once again defying federal law, the Supreme Court, and our constitutional order.
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.
Stop Making Excuses for Renee Good — The excuse-making for this woman is worse than George Floyd. She tried to hit a cop with her car, and people are acting like she’s the victim.
Reality Star Enters the LA Mayoral Race — Spencer Pratt has officially announced his run for mayor, exactly one year after losing his home in the Palisades fire and spending the year exposing government failures and stalled rebuilding.
“We are not short on good ideas. … Free buses, freeze the rent, and deliver no-cost childcare.” —Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Yellow Journalism
“Minnesota shooting solidifies the anxieties of people who track ICE.” —CNN headline
The BIG Lies
“[Renee Good was] not involved in protest activity or anything. Seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” —Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
“We have someone dead, in their car, for no reason whatsoever.” —Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz
“You had a person that was definitively trying to just get out of there.” —Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
“I remember when Charlie Kirk got killed. … Our response wasn’t to sit there and pretend like it was okay.” —Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX)
Re: The Left
“[Renee] Good was shot while interfering with federal law enforcement. [Charlie] Kirk was shot because he dared to defend conservative views on a college campus. But the Left expects the whole country to stop everything and get on our knees over Good, while Kirk ‘deserved it’ because he was ‘right-wing.’” —Gary Bauer
“What Democrats are doing today is no different than what Democrats like George Wallace did resisting integration.” —Gary Bauer
False Equivalence
“From Tehran to my birthplace of Minneapolis, people are rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability. In Iran, brave protestors confront a far-right theocratic regime that crushes dissent and denies basic freedoms. Here at home, tens of thousands are marching after the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good — demanding justice, transparency, and an end to an unchecked federal force that takes lives and tears families apart.” —DNC Chairman Ken Martin
For the Record
“Thousands of innocent Iranians have been murdered by the despotic rulers of Iran, yet not one American college or university has had a single protest on behalf of the brave people of Iran. Fascinating, isn’t it?” —Clay Travis
“The leaders of Iran called. They want to negotiate. I think they’re tired of being beat up by the United States. … A meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting.” —President Donald Trump
Plain and Simple
“If you are wiring money out of the country, one of two things must be true: You’re either getting too much money and your benefits should be cut, or you’re part of this [fraud] conspiracy.” —Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
The Monroe Doctrine
“There haven’t been many [drug] boats sunk recently because we can’t find boats to sink because no one wants to get in a narco-boat, which is the whole point.” —Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
Upright
“For more than 20 years I put my hands up in celebration on the gridiron. Now, I put my hands up to the One that gave me all my talents and abilities — the King of my life, Jesus Christ. I’ve never claimed to be perfect, but my aim is for the direction of my life to honor Christ and I pray my faith increases.” —NFL legend Brett Favre
ON THIS DAY in 1794, President George Washington approved adding two stars and two stripes to the U.S. flag to represent Vermont and Kentucky, which became states in 1791 and 1792, respectively. The two additional stripes were removed in 1818, returning to 13, but the practice of a star for every state continued.
Iranians engaged in what they believe is the final battle against the Islamic government in Israel; Iranian-American journalist Karmel Melamed tells CBN News it’s a “full-on war by the people against the regime,” and he says that war is escalating as the protests have gotten more intense the last four days, with mosques becoming flashpoints; the Iranian protesters are calling out for help from the West, especially from President Trump, as the Iranian regime is fighting back, with Melamed saying he’s hearing “it’s a slaughterhouse. There are rivers of blood;” the US State Department issues a travel advisory, saying “Do not travel to Iran for any reason. U.S. citizens in Iran should leave immediately;” Chris Mitchell talks about the estimates of how many the Iranian government has killed, the potential targets for a U.S. strike, the importance of the Internet blackout, what Iranians who are phoning out of the country are saying, and the calls for prayer for Iran; a look at how the chaplains at Arlington National Cemetery convey the nation’s gratitude and guide families through their grief; and Matt Obert, author of “Beyond Trauma Care,” talks with CBN’s Healthy Living about the Christ-centered program Chaddock, which helps kids who are struggling with trauma.
Bill Clinton now is facing the possibility of being cited by Congress for contempt after he refused to appear to testify about his friend, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as required by a subpoena.
Reports confirm that Clinton gave Epstein as many as 17 White House visits while he was president, and often flew on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” jet.
He was summoned by the House Oversight Committee which is investigating the Epstein scandals.
“Everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up, and I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee,” committee chief James Comer, R-Ky., said Tuesday.
Just In: Bill and Hillary Clinton Refuse To Testify in Front of House Oversight Committee, Daring Chairman Comer To Hold Them in Contempt of Congress https://t.co/7RUpYka5FW
According to the Washington Examiner, “For the process to be seen through, members would have to vote the citation out of committee to refer it to a full vote in the lower chamber, needing a simple majority to pass. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would then have to certify the contempt citation to the federal attorney for the District of Columbia, where the attorney would then present the case to a grand jury to decide if the person held in contempt should be indicted.”
Both Bill and twice-failed Democrat White House hopeful Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed regarding their knowledge of Epstein.
Bill Clinton was to testify Tuesday; Hillary Clinton Wednesday.
“One reason I think most Americans want President Clinton to answer some questions is because he visited the White House,” Comer said. “Jeffrey Epstein visited White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president.”
Comer said as of now there are no accusations against Bill Clinton, but committee members do have questions.
WorldNetDaily has reported the depositions were to happen last year, but were delayed.
Breaking: Comer postpones Clinton depositions in Epstein case until January https://t.co/ISJhhcjSnA
Comer’s letter to the Clintons explains, “The Committee has chosen the date of January 13, 2026, for the deposition of President Clinton and January 14, 2026, for the deposition of Secretary Clinton. If your clients do not comply with these new dates, the Committee will move immediately to contempt proceedings.”
The Clintons are just two of many government officials called to deliver testimony about Epstein.
So far former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr and former Trump administration Labor Secretary Alex Acosta have appeared. Others have delivered written statements, or have rescheduled.
Comer, in fact, told the Clinton’s lawyer, “Your correspondence with the Committee continues to ignore the Committee’s arguments, misstates relevant facts, and seeks information about the Committee’s investigation to which neither you nor your clients are entitled.
“As the Committee stated clearly in its November 21, 2025, letter to you, the Committee’s decision to forego in-person depositions for certain other individuals was because those individuals ‘lacked any relevant information to the Committee’s investigation or otherwise had serious health issues that prevented their testimony.'”
And he confirmed, “Unlike these other individuals, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton had a personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”
Clinton lawyers are claiming that the subpoena for Bill Clinton is “legally unenforceable.”
BREAKING: Former President Bill Clinton, under federal subpoena, did not show up for his deposition with the House Oversight Committee today.
Clinton attorneys say subpoena is “legally unenforceable.” @timburchett reacts: “I hope there might be some charges over at [DOJ].
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Minnesotans Tuesday to “fear not” because a “day of reckoning and retribution is coming” for the Land of 10,000 Lakes as his administration pursues a sweeping anti-illegal immigration and benefits fraud crackdown.
President of the United States Donald Trump speaking with attendees at the 2023 Turning Point Action Conference at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr)
President Trump has fired back in a big way with a major warning after Minnesota Democrats announced they were suing his administration to kick out ICE agents in the state.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, crooked Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her have jointly sued the Trump administration over DHS agents enforcing immigration law in the Twin Cities.
The lawsuit filed by the trio seeks to completely end the so-called “unprecedented surge” of more than 2,000 federal agents deployed by the DHS.
The filing also alleges that the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by removing Minnesota’s “right to police itself.”
“The deployment of thousands of armed, masked DHS agents to Minnesota has done our state serious harm,” Ellison said during a press conference announcing the lawsuit. “This is essentially a federal invasion of Minnesota and the Twin Cities, and it must stop.”
On Tuesday morning, Trump exploded. He started by asking the people of Minnesota whether they really wanted to have some of the worst scumbags in America polluting their streets.
“Do the people of Minnesota really want to live in a community in which there are thousands of already convicted murderers, drug dealers and addicts, rapists, violent released and escaped prisoners, dangerous people from foreign mental institutions and insane asylums, and other deadly criminals too dangerous to even mention?” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The president next explained that ICE is merely performing their duties, removing these thugs, many of whom entered America under the Biden regime. Trump then explained that every time ICE agents have gone into a community, crime has decreased.
“All the patriots of ICE want to do is remove them from your neighborhood and send them back to the prisons and mental institutions from where they came, most in foreign Countries who illegally entered the USA through Sleepy Joe Biden’s HORRIBLE Open Borders Policy. Every place we go, crime comes down.”
Trump next used Chicago as an example of such success before going on to accuse the Democrats of loving the crime and professional agitators who are tearing the state to shreds.
“In Chicago, despite a weak and incompetent Governor and Mayor fighting us all the way, a big improvement was made. Thousands of Criminals were removed! Minnesota Democrats love the unrest that anarchists and professional agitators are causing because it gets the spotlight off of the 19 Billion Dollars that was stolen by really bad and deranged people.”
Trump then fired a warning that should send chills down the spines of Ellison, Frey, and every Democrat in Minnesota.
“FEAR NOT, GREAT PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA, THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING!”
One can guess what kind of consequences Trump may have in store for the likes of Ellison and Frey. After all, Ellison and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have already been criminally referred to the DOJ for investigation and prosecution over the Somali fraud scandal.
Many of Trump’s supporters will expect perp walks for these Democrats in the near future.
Minneapolis Protesters after the killing of Renee Nicole Good on Thursday. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Renee Nicole Good, the activist shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis last week after the vehicle she was operating made contact with the agent, appears to have been following aggressive tactics promoted by the leftist-funded organizing group Defend the 612.
Good, 37, had joined ICE Watch, a loose network of activists tracking and aiming to disrupt ICE activities, after discovering the network through her son’s charter school, The New York Post reported.
“MN ICE Watch,” an Instagram page, shared screenshots from a “de-arrest” primer, which gives agitators advice on how to prevent law enforcement officers from taking someone into custody.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
The primer also appears on a list of “MN Community Response Resources” published by Defend the 612, a group that organizes “ICE Watch” activities. The resources page also recommends a tactic of “following ICE vehicles while honking and blowing on whistles when they are sighted,” aiming to create “traffic jams and slowdowns.”
While the ICE Watch groups appear to be loosely organized, some of the Left’s dark money nonprofits appear to have bankrolled a nonprofit that has organized a fundraiser for Defend the 612.
“Interfering with federal law enforcement is a crime,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Daily Signal in a statement Monday. “Anyone who interferes with law enforcement—thus committing a crime—will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, described Good as an agitator and claimed that new evidence shows her “STALKING and IMPEDING a law enforcement operation over the course of the morning” of her death.
“This footage corroborates what DHS has stated all along—that this individual was impeding law enforcement and weaponized her vehicle in an attempt to kill or cause bodily harm to federal law enforcement,” McLaughlin told The Daily Signal. “The officer was in fear of his own life, the lives of his fellow officers and acted in self-defense. The American people can watch this video with their own eyes and ears and judge for themselves.”
She warned that “if you weaponize a vehicle, a deadly weapon, to kill or cause bodily harm to a federal law enforcement officer that is an act of domestic terrorism and will be prosecuted as such.”
McLaughlin added that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi “Noem has been clear: Any rioter who obstructs, impedes, or assaults law enforcement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
De-Arrest Primer
The “de-arrest” primer’s aggressive tactics have gained attention online.
“A de-arrest, aka an unarrest, is the act of freeing someone who has been seized by Law Enforcement Officers,” the primer states. “A de-arrest can look like physically removing an arrestee from LEOs’ grips, opening the door of a car, or pressuring LEOs to release and arrestee.”
The primer recommends hugging an arrestee with a secure grip; “pulling and pushing an officer off of an arrestee;” opening a car door to let the arrestee go free; and pressuring law enforcement to release arrestees by “totally surrounding the officers who have the arrestee or otherwise blocking them and/or their vehicle.”
The document celebrates a “de-arrest” as “a ‘shaking off’ which is to say each one is a micro-intifada which can spread and inspire others until we may finally shake off this noxious ruling order all together.”
“Intifada” refers to the violent resistance of Arabs living in Israel against the Jewish state, particularly during the periods 1987-1993 and 2000-2005. Anti-Israel protesters chant the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” which critics call an incitement to violence and antisemitism against Jews worldwide.
Look at the training “MN Ice Watch” (which Renee Good belonged to) gives:
They train activists to assault law enforcement, to swarm, pressure, and open their car doors.
And they say each “de-arrest” is a “micro-intifada.” Do with that what you will.
Defend the 612 appears to take contributions under another name, Cooperation Cannon River. The website Give Butter allows users to contribute to Defend the 612 in a fundraising campaign “organized by Cooperation Cannon River,” a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with the employer identification number 82-0852275.
Various left-wing nonprofits have contributed to Cooperation Cannon River.
MN350, a climate activist group, gave the group $75,050 in 2021 for “Camp Migizi and Land Back Project,” according to federal tax records.
The organization’s spokeswoman, Elli Anderson, told The Daily Signal in a statement Monday that the funding was for land stewardship and environmental work and was not law enforcement-related.
“MN350 is a climate justice organization focused on advancing policies and community-led solutions that address climate pollution, environmental harm, and the disproportionate impacts on communities across Minnesota,” Anderson said. “We do not organize, direct, or coordinate law enforcement–related actions, nor do we develop or distribute materials related to arrest tactics.”
“In 2021, MN350 made a grant to Cooperation Cannon River for a specific project focused on Indigenous land stewardship and community-led climate work,” Anderson added. “That support was limited to that project and does not represent oversight of, or endorsement of, the activities or materials of other organizations.”
When asked to shed light on Defend the 612 or Cooperation Cannon River, she said, “We are not able to comment on the tactics, language, or materials of organizations outside our own.”
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, a left-leaning grantmaker that gave $410 million in grants in 2023, gave the group $15,517 in 2023 for “general” expenses.
Amalgamated Charitable, the foundation of the union-aligned Amalgamated Bank, gave Cooperation Cannon River $10,000 for “Project Support” in 2022.
The Tides Foundation, a pass-through funder that has received millions from Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, gave $10,000 to the organization for “Sustainable Environment,” according to IRS records.
The Proteus Fund, another left-leaning pass-through funder, gave the group $10,000 for “Rights & Justice” in 2021.
The Daily Signal has no evidence these funders intended to bankroll anti-ICE activity. However, money is fungible, and while Defend the 612’s anti-ICE activity is visible online, Cooperation Cannon River’s environmental activities are more opaque.
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Amalgamated Charitable, Tides Foundation, and Proteus Fund all contributed to the left-leaning activist groups that shaped policy in President Joe Biden’s administration. None of them responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time.
Defend the 612 did not respond to a request for comment, and The Daily Signal’s calls to the phone numbers for Cooperation Cannon River listed on the IRS forms were not answered.
?Why is the Biden-Harris administration so woke? Didn’t Biden campaign as a moderate??
This chart explains what happened. Bear with me: I know it looks like a conspiracy theory, but I have the receipts.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 