Podcasts about Puritans

Who is truly responsible - and deserves the credit - for America’s founding? Cynthia Scott says the answer to that question is God. Join us as she highlights key moments in U.S. history – the Pilgrims and Puritans, the Great Awakenings, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, and more – revealing God’s providence in founding and shaping our nation. Show how America’s freedom is rooted in the truths of Scripture.Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Puritans are often remembered as stern, black-clad settlers who came to America seeking religious freedom. But the real story is far richer—and far more influential—than the popular caricature.In this episode of HIStory Through the Eyes of Faith, we explore the origins of the Puritan movement in England, their desire to "purify" the Church of England, and the growing pressures that eventually pushed many of them across the Atlantic. We follow their journey from the religious conflicts of the Reformation to the shores of New England, where they sought to build a society ordered around their understanding of God's Word.The Puritans did not set out simply to find a new home; they believed they were participating in God's unfolding story. Their successes and struggles reveal what happens when people attempt to build a society shaped by faith and conviction. Join us as we discuss one of the most influential movements in the English-speaking world.Resource for this episode: Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley https://amzn.to/4xx6evc

In this episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb bring their extended series on the parables of Matthew to a powerful climax with the passage most listeners have been waiting for: the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46). Far from a checklist of works required for salvation, this text is unpacked as the master parable of Christ's entire parabolic ministry — a sovereign declaration of divine election, not a merit-based audit of individual performance. Tony and Jesse explore why this passage has been chronically misread as a call to works righteousness, why the language of inheritance and predestination is front and center, and how a Reformed reading liberates rather than burdens the conscience. Along the way, they weigh in on Herman Bavinck's prescient warning about media distraction, and Jesse recommends a Puritan gem on anxiety worth picking up immediately. Key Takeaways The Sheep and Goats is best understood as a parable, or at minimum parable-adjacent. The Greek construction in verse 31 mirrors the same comparative language Christ uses throughout his parabolic ministry, placing this text firmly within that tradition rather than outside it. The kingdom was prepared before any works were done — this is election language. The phrase "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (v. 34) is not a reward for performance; it is the language of sovereign predestination preceding all human action. The works of the sheep are diagnostic, not causative. What the righteous did reveals who they already were — sheep — rather than being the mechanism by which they became sheep. The beak doesn't make the bird. Both groups are surprised, and that surprise is the parabolic punchline. Neither the sheep nor the goats anticipated the verdict they received, which undermines any reading that frames this text as an encouragement to accumulate saving merit. This passage is a recapitulation of the wheat and tares parable. Sheep and goats co-mingled until the moment of final separation, just as wheat and tares grow together until the harvest — the judgment reveals what was always true. Any theology that requires a human contribution to activate or complete salvation misreads this text.Whether Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Mormon in flavor, every view that makes God's preparation of the kingdom contingent on foreseen human merit fundamentally inverts the logic of the passage. The scope of judgment — "all nations" (ta ethnos) — would have been scandalous to first-century Jewish ears. This language deliberately expands the kingdom beyond ethnic Israel, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant promise and confounding the assumptions of the religious elite. Key Concepts The Kingdom Prepared Before Your Works: Sovereign Election, Not Merit When the King says to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34), the theological weight of that single sentence is staggering. The kingdom was not prepared in response to anything the sheep did. It was prepared before time, before works, before choice — which means the works that follow in the passage cannot be the grounds of that inheritance. Only a Calvinistic understanding of election can sustain this logic without remainder. Arminian views require God to foresee a qualifying human response; Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views require some degree of meritorious participation; even certain Lutheran frameworks lean on non-resistance to grace. Reformed theology alone places the entire cause within God's sovereign, unconditional decree — and this passage, read plainly, says exactly that. Works as Evidence, Not Ground: The Diagnostic Function of This Parable The great pastoral error in preaching this passage is treating it as a performance rubric — a list of charitable acts that, if completed, qualify a person for eternal life. But Christ does not separate the sheep from the goats because of what they did or failed to do. He separates them, and then describes the activity that characterized each group. The works are revelatory. They surface what was already true of each person's nature, just as a bird's beak reveals its species rather than constituting it. This reframing is liberating precisely because it means assurance does not rest on tallying acts of charity. It rests on the sovereign act of a Father who prepared a kingdom and the regenerating work of the Spirit who produces, in those He has claimed, a life that looks like the one described here. "All Nations": The Scandal of an Ethnically Inclusive Kingdom The Greek phrase ta ethnē — translated "all nations" in most English Bibles — would have landed very differently on first-century Jewish ears, particularly those of the Pharisees and Sadducees who comprised a significant portion of Christ's audience throughout Matthew 24–25. To them, ta ethnē meant the Gentiles, the peoples out there, those outside the covenant. The implicit effect of Christ's language is to place every people group — including Israel — within a single undifferentiated mass standing before his throne, with no ethnic group receiving preferential standing at the bar of judgment. This is entirely consistent with the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3), the vision of Psalm 2, and the missionary thrust of the Great Commission. The scandal is not incidental — it is the point. The kingdom Christ is ushering in is not the ethnic-nationalist kingdom the religious establishment expected. Memorable Quotes The kingdom of heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did... That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you. - Tony It's not the beak that makes it the sparrow, it's the sparrow that makes it the kind of beak it is. That's the kind of classification we're talking about in this parable. - Tony The best freedom is the one that turns over all things to God and takes him at his word when he says, 'In love you were predestined to inherit this as sons and daughters of the kingdom,' so that he does all the work, because we do not want to have any of that work our own. - Jesse Full Transcript [00:01:11] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 498 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:19] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:24] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. They said it couldn't be done. They said we couldn't come back. We wouldn't come back and continue in Matthew 25. But here we are, and we're ending this chapter in this whole section about sheep and goats. Everybody was clamoring for it. Everybody wanted to know, what about the sheep and the goats? And I think the last time we all chatted together, we prefaced it by saying it's parable adjacent. Or let's just say- Yes ... we just stacked up these three other parables, lots of things going on, and then Jesus resolves this or brings all these parables to a culmination by speaking about the end times, the end of all things, and the sheep and the goats. Yeah. And so we gotta go there  [00:02:06] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I'm stoked.  [00:02:07] What Counts Parable [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: And y- you know, I, I was talking with a brother at, um, at church yesterday on the Lord's day, and he was asking how the podcast's going and what we're doing. And, you know, I was kind of thinking, like, I was talking about the parables and how we're kind of moving forward, and we were gonna do some of the I am sayings in John. And, and I was thinking, like, what is a parable anyways? And who decides what a parable is and what a parable isn't? Right. Um, some of the parables Christ calls a parable, others he doesn't. Uh, we'll probably talk a little bit about that when we get to, uh, some of the back half of Luke. But this, this episode I think is gonna be really, really the payoff and really the culmination of not just these, like, this trio of or trilogy of parables that we've talked about, but I think really, like, the payout of all of the parables in Matthew. It's really, like, the summary of all of Christ's parabolic teachings. So it's, it's a good place for us to round out Matthew, and then we'll, we'll dip into the parables in the other gospels, probably have a couple more months of, of, uh, parable talk before we move on to the next thing. But, uh, it's been great, and I'm super, super stoked for this. This is one of my favorite passages, actually, and there's so much to dig into. I, I, I'm just gonna say now, we probably won't make it through the whole thing- Right ... uh, because there's a lot there. But we'll see. We'll see how we do. Maybe Jesse and I will be super efficient tonight, uh, but we usually aren't, so. [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's never happened. We, we take it low and slow. Not only that- ... it was reminding me as you spoke about that kind of proverb generally of if you wanna go build a wall, you assess what you need, how many stones, and then you go gather those stones. Yeah. You should double it, or if you're gonna go out and fight an army, take stock of that army. That's basically what we do, but in reverse. Anytime, like, you just... I just heard you say- ... like, "It'll probably take us a couple more months," you should double that. That's probably how long- Yeah ... it's actually gonna take us.  [00:03:50] Faith Works Assurance [00:03:50] Jesse Schwamb: Even in this- Yeah ... conversation, I think we're gonna get stuck in the best way possible speaking about things like faith, works, and assurance because there's a lot of language here- Yeah that could seem on the surface to sit in this tension with justification by faith alone. And I think the key to resolving all that tension, as I hopefully think we'll see, lies in the readings of works as the evidence of living faith rather than its ground, and I think that's what- Yes ... Christ is leading us through all of these parables, actually, whether it goes back. And you should listen to all those episodes. In fact, I gotta ask. Th- I mean, this brother you were talking to, it just strikes me as that question had already be answered for him if you were listening to the podcast. So-  [00:04:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I don't think he does. No, I don't think he does- ... listen to the podcast. Uh, he knows that I do the podcast, and he's very gracious to ask me about it. Tom. And I think he's probably listened to the podcast before. Got it. Um, and he's, he's just a very kind, gracious brother who, who is concerned and wants to know what I'm doing. And, um, he has, he has his own sort of, like, production stuff that he does that he enjoys that I'm, I'm not super keyed into. But, uh, it was just nice. But, but it did get me thinking, like, I was trying to explain to him where we were in the progress of the parables, and I was like, "I can't really... I don't really know," because, like, it's hard to even understand and fully... There's no, like, full comprehensive universal list of what is a parable- Right ... and what's not. And I think what we've found as we've been going through this is sometimes, sometimes you come up against a portion of a text that is often taught sort of separate from the, the rest of it. Parables get taught discreet from other parables. But then you have these sort of, like, intervening texts, or this one's kind of a summary text, that's so integrated to what the parable means you really can't do a series on these parables without also treating this text. Which is gonna be interesting, 'cause I've never, I've never encountered somebody who really roots this teaching here of Christ in the context of the parables, despite its proximity. So it'll be fun. We're gonna figure it out in real time, and, and it'll be good.  [00:05:47] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's gonna be fun.  [00:05:48] Deny Doomscrolling Bavinck [00:05:48] Jesse Schwamb: And speaking of fun, we're so glad that you're listening, and we know that you're waiting with bated breath to hear about affirmations or denials. It's of course that part of the conversation where we either affirm with something that we think is fantastic, maybe by way of recommendation, or conversely, we deny against something that isn't that great. So Tony, as is our custom in the liturgy of the Reformed Brotherhood podcast, I ask you once again, are you affirming with or deny against? [00:06:15] Tony Arsenal: I am denying against something, and I'm gonna do that by affirming a Herman Bavinck quote. Uh, so I'm gonna read it for you. This, uh... Some of the guys in the Facebook group have put... or the Facebook group, the Telegram chat, have put together a, uh, like, a reading group to work through Bavinck's, uh, Wonderful Works of God, which is great, and I'm loving it. I haven't been able to participate in the conversation as much as I would like to, but just being part of a reading group, uh, sort of keeps you on schedule, which is great. So I've been reading through Wonderful Works of God, and on the Kindle edition, on page 34, uh, which I think is still the, I think is still the, uh, introduction, he says, quote, "The reading of daily and weekly newspapers, of magazines and brochures, devours our every blink. There's a lack of desire and opportunity for the investigation of scripture and the study of old theological works," end quote. And when I read that, it just really struck me as like- If that was true like 70 years ago, 80 years ago when Bavinck was writing this, right? And all there was was hard, hard copy media. There was no, uh, there was no digital media. There was radio, but there wasn't a lot of programming. Uh, I don't think that there was much in the way of television broadcasting. If there was, it was, it was very, very limited and very rudimentary. Um, even then he was saying the daily news cycle and all of this extra stuff that is out there is consuming our, quote, "Every blink," which I thought was a really interesting phrase. Um, it's basically like it's so ingrained in us, we're so invested and obsessed with the news cycle. Uh, or you might translate that to like to our Twitter feed or our Facebook feed or our Instagram reels or whatever it might be, and dare I say it, the podcasts we listen to.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: Um, that we don't save time for scripture and other theological works. And I think it's funny too is that the, the eternal, uh, the eternal contemporary statement of the Reformed world is like we don't read enough old theological works. Even Bavinck, who I'm reading as one of the old... I mean, not like super old, but like one of the old theological works, is saying, "Hey, we don't read enough old theological works." So I'm denying this sort of like obsession we have with the daily news cycle and with constantly being up to date and like constantly consuming all of that. Um, we've talked about how like our modern global news cycle sort of, uh, is built around the deception that we can be sort of pseudo omnipotent and know all things about everything. And, um- There's a lot of work that's been done to show that, like, the world's not really that much, not that much more of a violent place than it was 100 years ago. We just know a lot more about what's going on- Right ... in other parts of the world. And there's pros and cons to that. But I think the main con is, like, we, we feel suddenly that we have to be, you know, deeply involved in the goings on of a church on the other side of the country that we never would've even known existed otherwise. It- there's just a, there's a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence that's just not becoming for the creature that I think we try to take on. So Bavinck knew it. Uh, we've talked about it. Lots and lots of people have talked about it. This isn't new. I'm not, I'm not e- engineering anything new on this. But that quote really struck me when I was reading. I was like, "Dang, man, he, he got it right 100 years ago or, or 80 years ago, and we're still struggling with it." And I think probably, like, if you go back and you look at the, I don't know, more occasional writings of people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, um, as they're interacting with, like, people in the Reformed community or the Protestant community, I bet you would find statements like this too about how, like, we really spend a lot of time reading, like, silly things and not spending- Right our time studying the scripture or studying, um, theological works. So that's my denial. I'm sticking to it, and if that means you feel like you need to turn this podcast off and go read some John Calvin or some Herman Bavinck, then by all means. Uh, I think you're probably going to be edified by what we have to talk about. But, uh, th- the Bible's better, so if you gotta go do it, if you only got- That's true ... an hour today to study scripture or listen to this podcast, please go study scripture. Yeah. Uh, hopefully we can do a little bit of both with this podcast. But Herman Bavinck said it best. Our every blink is consumed with pamphlets and newspapers and it just is- It's true it's pretty silly.  [00:10:41] Jesse Schwamb: It's true.  [00:10:42] Meme Detour Reading Groups [00:10:42] Jesse Schwamb: I gotta take us all the way back to where you started there, and I'm going to betray, to nobody's surprise, my really strong naivete when it comes- ... to social media, and memes in particular. But this is what occurred to me, and I'm gonna try it. This is, like, what classically makes really good podcasting. Let me try to describe a meme to you that I'm not even sure I actually understand or know. So this will be great. I think, you tell me, Tony, 'cause you may have seen this. It's an old meme too, so I'm not even, like, on the cutting edge here. I think it's a meme of two panels showing, like, two pictures of Drake. In know one he's kinda, like, pushing away as if to say, like, "Get that outta here," and the other one's like, "Oh yeah, that's the stuff." Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Is that accurate?  [00:11:21] Tony Arsenal: I do. I think you're gonna use it wrong, but yeah.  [00:11:23] Jesse Schwamb: Is that Drake? Okay, all  [00:11:24] Tony Arsenal: right. Yeah, that's, that's the meme.  [00:11:25] Jesse Schwamb: Okay, okay. And usually, if I understand it correctly, it's kind of like a faux juxtaposition of two things, right? Like, okay. So like here, let me try it. Uh, uh, let me just try it on everybody. Here we go. I'm gonna describe to you how I just interpret this based on what you said, 'cause something cracked me up that you said, Tony. If I were gonna make this meme just based on how you opened that up, the first panel would be like Drake pushing away the idea or being like, "That's no good," book club. The second one would be reading group, as in like, like the reading group is like the new cool way of like just kind of... Did I use it properly? Am I close?  [00:11:59] Tony Arsenal: I think the problem with this is that there's like a, there's like an ironic way to use it, and then there's like a more direct way to use it. Mm. Yeah. The direct way would be like some- like Drake's pushing away something that's bad, and he's- Yeah ... like accepting something that's good. That'd be like the direct way. Yes. The more ironic one is where like Drake is pushing away something that's actually pretty, actually pretty good, and he's- Yeah ... accepting the one that's pretty silly. Oh, okay. Um, there's a lot of memes that have that basic format. Never mind. There's one with like Jordi LaForge. I think there's a Michael Scott one. I tried. I tried. But yeah, no, I, I think yours is valid, it's just, I think it's an older usage of the meme. That's like the, that's like the middle English version of that meme. The Shakespearean use of that meme.  [00:12:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I'll take that. It's the old English style. I love a good book club or a reading group. A, a reading group just, it does have that sound like maybe somebody in the group has a monocle, or you guys have tea. Either way- Yeah ... I absolutely love it. And yes, what are our beautiful quotes. You kind of hear that general conception recapitulated among like theologians almost in every era. But it does make you think, what would Bavinck say about, like doom scrolling on the smartphone? Like- Yeah ... he's beside himself, right? It would just be beside himself. So I'm with you. I, it, there's gonna be a condemnation in every generation. Maybe I say this with some degree of like chronological snobbery, especially in ours, when it comes to not, like you said, I think kind of like not carving out or not prioritizing time in the scriptures. Yeah. There's not gonna be any excuse of like, "Well, I just didn't have time." Right. Or, "There were too many things to read." It's just, it's not gonna cut it. So I'm with you. I think you and I have talked about this at length, even just like the news media like you and I consume, like just s- set aside social media for a second. Just like how i- how much value is there in a lot of like what we cons- used to consider to be like well-informed reporting? How valuable is that to us? Yeah. And I'm certainly not saying like that everybody should be like unconcerned and uninterested in the world, but I think it's to what degree and what fascination we have with that, and how it fits into our priority as we consume information each day. That's the thing that's tricky, and there's no really-  [00:14:02] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:14:02] Jesse Schwamb: good answer except to weigh out with the spiritual discernment- Yeah ... how we ought to consume that stuff. But certainly I think, without question, we need to be prioritizing time in prayer, time in the scriptures. I imagine if we were all doing that with a great deal of attention, that all of the other things would kind of find their way into the right place. Or let's say they would just find their way out of our lives in a significant way- Yeah ... that would remove us from distraction and anxiety, instead bring us back into the providence of God.  [00:14:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not gonna be the guy that tells you you can never s- you can never scroll Instagram or TikTok or whatever. Um, I, I think that's a decision that's between you and the Holy Spirit as far as how you spend your time. But I, I do think, um, I think you're right- We are accountable for the decisions we make and how- Right ... we choose to divide up our time. And I- God, I mean, God is the inventor of fun. He's the inventor of leisure, and he is, uh, I think he's pleased and honored when we, we make good use of our time f- for things that are restful and rejuvenating. Um, he doesn't expect us to just slavishly read scripture all day, every day, like every minute. That's not, that's not the biblical expectation. Um, and so I think it's fine if you wanna sit down and watch a fun show, or if you wanna watch some YouTube videos, or listen to a silly podcast, or listen to a serious podcast. Um, but I do, I agree. Like, we, we really need to be thoughtful. And I think where, where Bavinck's quote, uh, is strong is it's not so much about, "Don't read these things." Right. He, he's talking about these things consume our every blink. Like, m- he's treating blink... He's using the word blink as sort of a fill-in for like our, our finite resource of time and attention, and these things have consumed all of them. There's a very strong use of that word consume. Uh, and I, I think that's really the, the point that I'm trying to make is we often allow, either intentionally or unintentionally, we, we just let our time get all sucked up, uh, on things that maybe are good but are not pr- properly proportioned. Um- Like I said, it's, it's fine to spend some time on Twitter and to get into a debate once in a while, or to check in on your friends on Facebook, your old high school, college buddies or whatever, but we can definitely take it too far. So I think it's a good corrective for all of us to at least make a stop and think about how we're spending our time, and whether we are affording the appropriate amount of time to things like scripture, theological study, catechesis of our children, um, family worship, all of those good things. So we don't have to go much more into that. I think the point has been made. Uh, so Jesse, what are you affirming and/or denying tonight?  [00:16:43] Affirm Puritan Anxiety Cure [00:16:43] Jesse Schwamb: Perfect segue, because speaking of reading old things, you know me, I've always got some kind of Puritan work in the rotation, and the one I just finished is the one I'm affirming, which is called Special Providence for Anxious Souls by Obadiah Sedgwick, who I think is kinda... Like, people are sleeping on Sedgwick, you know? Mm-hmm. He's, he's kinda like, he's there in the wings, but we need to take him off the bench. And I came across this book and I thought, "Who doesn't want a title like that in their lives?" Like, we got some anxiety in all of our souls. And I'm affirming this because, uh, hi- his definitions, his writing is, are on point. But here's what I thought. I was embarrassed that I picked this up expecting one thing, and then in typical puritanical fashion, was delivered something else that was far better. And I was thinking about this title as you might see it, like, in your modern bookstore today, whether it's, like, in Barnes & Nobles or at any of the periodicals we were just kind of mentioning or implying that are out there. And I was expecting to get some kind of, I don't know, six or seven things, I mean, that's Puritan style, but six or seven things that would really help you diagnose the psychology, and then going back to the scripture in ways, all, all the ways we'd expect about how God loves us and cares for us, and all those things are true. And yet the only way I could describe how this book ministered to me is, like, how you might go to a physical therapist for some kind of ailment, which I have many as I get older, and have recently been to one. And the ailment I had was, um, basically like tarsal tunnel, which is like carpal tunnel for your foot. And so there was some nerves that were inflamed and causing some pain and some weirdness in my feet. And here's what I do know about physical therapy now that I think the Puritans also do for our souls, and that is the physical therapist gave me this full workup. They prodded me and poked me and rubbed things and made things hurt- And in the course of doing that, they clearly could figure out what was wrong with my foot. And so when he gave me the diagnosis, after, again, rubbing that part and, like, doing one of those things where he's like, you know, they tap on your hard and they're like, "Does that hurt?" I'm like, "Yes, it does hurt." And I presume that's because you know anatomy. And, you know, he's, he's ta- tapping on my ankle and it's causing my foot underneath to hurt. And after all that, you know, I run on a treadmill. He d- takes all this video, and this is what he says to me. He goes, "Yeah, so this is actually pretty straightforward." And I was like, "Great, so what are we talking about? Like exercises, uh, splints, like massage?" He's like, "You have a weak butt." And I was like- "I'm sorry, let's talk about that for a second." And this is what I've learned about physical therapy, is it's rarely about the thing that's actually bothering you or the thing that's hurt, right? It's something- Yeah ... far different. It's something almost seemingly, like, disjointed or removed or divorced from the very thing, maybe even non-contiguous, if only in our minds, maybe even logically. And so what I love about this is the first half of the book is just speaking about the province of God before it even gets into this idea of anxiety. And then the treatment on anxiety and worry is, he goes through, like, six or seven things in particular, are just absolutely glorious. So good that I want you to read it. I don't even want to talk about it. Uh, that, that's my admonishment to you, is that you should just go pick it up. So I'm affirming again that the Puritans in particular do this thing where there's, there's no cheap advice here. It's not even hide advice. It's really good advice, but it's the kind that says, "You have a weak butt" when you're concerned that your ankle- is messed up. Yeah. And that's sometimes what you need to hear. And in my case, after... Let's make this super weirdly spiritual. After doing a bunch of squats, I don't know what the spiritual equivalent is of that. After doing a bunch of squats, my ankle and my foot was so much better. And it, because I had somebody who cared enough for me to go through and actually diagnose the root of it, that was the reason that inevitably there was healing. So I've, this has given me so much to think about, this tiny little treatise. So much to put into practice. It's so rich, so good, so practical, and yet I think you'll find in many ways joyfully unexpected. So I highly affirm to everybody listening, and even those who aren't, Special Providence for Anxious Souls, Obadiah Sedgwick. You'll, you'll love it  [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:49] Physical Therapy Spiritual Practice [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: So two thoughts. Uh, one, uh, I can confirm Jesse has a weak butt, um, flat as a board. So it's probably, probably better after, after doing some squats. Wow. Uh, two- Wow. ... uh, I can say I also am in some physical therapy right now, and I've been a little bit of a slacker. And what I will contribute to the conversation is just like in physical therapy, they can give you all of the exercises- Yeah uh, that you want. If you don't do the work, you're not going to get better. Yeah. And so whether it's Jesse doing squats or me not finding time to stretch and to do some, like, arm exercises with a, with a s- uh, like a TheraBand, uh, the same holds true. And, and maybe to unify our, uh, affir- our denials/affirmations into one mega, mega recommendation, um, the same holds true in that, one, we can take a book like this from, uh, Sedgwick, and we can turn it into the same thing we do with media where we're just... it's just devouring our blinks. Right. And we're just using it as a way to sort of, like, feed our eye hole Get better. You won't improve. Um, and that's actually the same with scripture. Like y-you can- Right ... turn scripture into, uh, into a snack food that you, you don't actually use to be nutritious. Um, I think there's probably more benefit to reading scripture sort of rote and, and almost mechanically than there is to reading anything else. But, um, but at the end of the day, you can also consume your blinks with scripture and not get a lot out of it if all you're doing is passing your eyes over text. So get in there. I think that's great. I haven't read that one. I mean, I think there's... I think there are probably many, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many, many Puritan treaties that- treatises that are similar in theme and tone and have the same kind of like spiritual antidote or spiritual medicine, um, prescribed by these guys that is good and wholesome. And again, like, like you're saying, like it's not that complicated. It's not that hard. Right. It just takes- Right ... you just actually have to do the work. Um, it's funny, my physical therapy thing is my, my shoulder has been really ba- really messed up, and I went in, I expected him to give me all these, all these shoulder exercises, and he's like, "Uh Really what you need to do is you fix your neck, uh, 'cause your shoulder is, is being in- injured because you're sleeping- Okay on that side because you're trying to stay off the other side. So, like, you really gotta fix your neck so you can sleep on the other side of your body. And I was like, "So I'm just, like, sleeping wrong?" Like, it's funny, there's a joke, it's like in your 20s you can do anything you want, in your 30s, like, you gotta be a little bit careful, and in your 40s, like, you hurt yourself just sleeping. Right. Just getting out of bed is dangerous.  [00:23:46] Jesse Schwamb: It's  [00:23:46] Tony Arsenal: true.  [00:23:47] Jesse Schwamb: It's true. So. It's a tough world. But  [00:23:48] Tony Arsenal: it's true. I feel like a really old man saying that.  [00:23:51] Read Matthew 25 Aloud [00:23:51] Jesse Schwamb: You know, it strikes me that you're right, of course, that there's so much here we always have to put into practice. There's so much here that we have to trust with God. There's a faith that works. And so I think actually that is the most lovely inroad into this final passage of Matthew, because there's a lot here for us to talk about with all of those things, and to understand it in this proper context. So as you've already set us up, Tony, the best part of our podcast is the scripture, for sure, 100%. So let's go there. So we're in Matthew 25 in case you're just joining us. And for some reason I went into, like, a full radio mode, as if this, like, this is being broadcast live, and you just came into the program. We're in Matthew 25, uh, starting in verse 31, and I'm gonna read until the end of the chapter. There's so much here that of course we're not gonna get to all of it, but in the spirit of literally having the full context of the scripture in front of us, and to hear it all, I think it's important. It w- b- better yet, you should go back and read the entire chapter and then tune in right now. But let me start at verse 31. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me.  [00:25:32] Judgment Scene Read [00:25:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angers-- angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they will themselves also answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life  [00:26:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:26:49] Parable Not Fear [00:26:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's, it's, um, it's a sobering passage. And just as I think we've seen in a lot of the other parables, um These eschatological parables and these eschatological sayings of Christ, uh, as you kind of alluded to earlier, I, I think they are really, really, um... They are not prone to being misinterpreted. Right. The church has been prone to misinterpreting and misapplying these, um, in a, in a way that's used to make, make the Christian fearful and to, uh, undermine their assurance rather than to call them to action or to accountability.  [00:27:33] Why It's A Parable [00:27:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, and I think a- as I've been reading through this and I've been sort of glancing at the Greek as we're reading, I actually think I'm on... I, I stumbled on much more better ground to treat this as a parable than I even originally thought I did. You know, I, I had this whole lead-up that this isn't technically a parable, but when you read here, when it says, in verse 31, it says, "When the Son of Man comes in glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates- Right ... the sheep from the goats." If you go back to verse 14, when it says, "For it will be like a man," uh, that, that first word of verse 14 in the Greek is the same word as is used when it says, um, uh, "He separates people one from another as a shepherd." That same word is used as there, it's just translated differently because of where it comes in the, um, in the text. So Christ is still making this comparison, so it would be as though he said, um, you know, like the common, most common, at least so far, most common kind of parabolic introduction is like, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like." Um, this is the same basic language he's using here to introduce what the eschaton will be like. Right? The ga- the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them. It says people in the ESV, but will separate them one from another. You could also say the, the nations or the peoples will be gathered before him. Right. He will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep. So the parable here is the s- the shepherd separating the sheep from the goats, this whole process of the separation and this, this, um, frankly, like it's, it feels and smells like a parable, right? It does. This, this, um, figure, this shepherd in the parable or the shepherd in the saying is saying these sort of like parabolic statements. He's using this language that's kind of like shocking punchline statement. Like we've talked about how in parables there's often this sort of unexpected turn of events, or there's this unexpected kind of shocking language, and this whole like twist at the end in both, sort of both s- chunks here, where like the sheep don't really understand, like they didn't really recognize that they were doing sheepy things, and the goats didn't really understand that they were being goats. That's like the parabolic twist or the parabolic punchline here. So the, the kingdom of heaven is like, basically it's like the Son of Man will come in his glory and it will be like this. It will be like a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats. That's the parabolic connection here. Mm-hmm. So I actually think that, that linguistically we're on, we're on pretty solid ground not just to treat this as a summary of all the parables, um- I think of for sure these three parables, but it, it really is like the master parable, and I think probably the master parable that kinda governs and constrains and explains all of the parabolic ministry of Christ. So I'm, I'm stoked for us to really dig into the details a little bit, but I think linguistically we're on super good ground to, to treat this as a parable. I agree. At the very least, it's stronger than just parable adjacent.  [00:30:44] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:30:44] Tony Arsenal: It- but even if we aren't saying it's a parable proper, it's stronger than that. It still is using this kinda comparative ministry, comparative language that Christ has used throughout the parabolic, um, sayings of Christ.  [00:30:57] Jesse Schwamb: The construction seems a little bit less veiled because here we have Jesus implanting himself directly into the account.  [00:31:03] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:31:04] Shepherd Imagery Stakes [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: At the same time, though, he's drawing on all the things you just said he does, especially with this allusion to shepherding, which would've been, of course, common throughout. So it seems to me a lovely bridge to all of the overt parables he's just told, but now he's bringing them all together and placing himself clearly as, like, the interpreter, as the identifier of all the things, as the one to seal up all of the edges, as it were. So it's clear that this is about the end times. All of these were all about the end times and about Jesus' role in them. And so of course here he identifies himself as the eschatological judge just to make it clear. He's the one who sits on his glorious throne, and that's significant, and that's why I think we sometimes feel like, well, this is not a parable because he's, he's being very, like, Christologically certain and direct here. You know, throughout scripture the final judgment is God's prerogative alone, but the Father has committed all that judgment to the Son, and here's Jesus affirming that. And so again, like Reformed theology, in all our conversations we've consistently emphasized that this text is in many ways, like, proof of Christ's full deity and his role as mediatorial king, and he's exercising his office as the judge at his return in glory. And though, like you said, at the same time, here's the cool parable kind of scent or flavor is you get all these nations, every person who has ever lived, not merely Israel or merely the church. And how does Jesus describe this? He goes back into parabolic language. And we got the shepherd imagery that- Yeah is, like, similar to Ezekiel 34 where God himself is judging between the sheep of his flock. And that separation, the shockingness of it, it's immediate, it's binary. There's no third category. There's only two eternal destinies. There's no purgatory, no middle ground, no post-mortem opportunity for repentance. So all that's at stake. And then again, the beauty of the language itself or the setup of the construction of the story as it unfolds is that both groups- Get the same speech with a change in do or do not, but they both ask the same question from, like, wildly different perspectives and standings. And that's the beautiful- Yeah thing to make reconciliation over is what does all this mean then? How is all this established and how is this final judgment come to be such that there are sheep and goats if, in fact, they're both doing the same things theoretically, or they're at least both asking the same questions of, well, when did this ever actually occur? That, that's what's for us to unpack either way.  [00:33:29] All Nations Gathered [00:33:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and b- before we jump into, um, into the parable itself and start to unpack that, the other element that I think is worth, uh, and this just came to me so hopefully I'm not on too far of a, of a limb here. But the other element that I think is worth at least commenting on, um, we've, we've remarked, especially in these last three eschatological, um, parables, how much these are directed at the religious leaders, right? Right. The, the, the people are, um, the, the- the parables are told, um, in the context and sort of following up on these, this real directed, um, assault against the religious leaders who thought they were the ones, right? They're the ones that have a claim to the Kingdom of Heaven, they're the ones that, um, are the, you know, they're the ones that think they're doing the right thing, they're the ones that are ushering in God's kingdom. This little phrase here, "gathered all the nations," would also have really stuck in the craw of the religious leaders, right? Because the word for nations that's translated here is the same word that would el- elsewhere get translated as Gentiles, right? And the word people, when it says, "He will separate the people," that, that word people doesn't actually exist in the Greek. So if you translate this very literally, it'd say, "Before him will, will be gathered all nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now, I don't wanna go the route of saying, like, this is a parable about, like, which pe- people group will be brought into the kingdom and which won't, and I've read some that go that direction. I don't wanna go there. But this idea that, like, even in the final judgment, the people who are in view here are the Gentiles, right? Right. I think most Jewish, particularly the, the Pharisees and the Sadducees hearing this, would've, would've read this and would've read ta ethnos, and would not have thought nations the way we do. Certainly would not have thought of, like, modern nation states. They might have been thinking maybe, like, people groups in general, but they would be thinking more along the lines of, like, Psalm, Psalm 2, like, "Why do the nations rage?" kind of nations. Why do the Gentiles rage? Why do the peoples plot in vain? They would've been thinking th- this, this, uh, judgment almost, at least on the face of it, almost excludes the Jews entirely when you think about it this way. It's really now sort of, like, zooming out where at the very least, at the minimal least, the Jews are just another people group within this broader judgment of the people group. Right. So again, like, we've seen this theme that Christ is continually expanding the scope of what is considered to be the Kingdom of Heaven to include not just the Jewish people, um, but all nations, all people groups, all Gentiles and Jews alike. And in a very real sense, um, and I wanna be careful how I've said this, I know I've commented this in the past, there's a very real sense of anti-Semitism that is prominent in- reform, quote-unquote reformed circles right now that is just vile and disgusting and sinful, and has no place in any sort of Biblical Christianity. But there is a reality that the Jewish people, broadly speaking, um, rejected the Messiah, at least while he was here on Earth. Um, relatively speaking, very few Jewish people, especially in the Jewish elite, like the leadership class, accepted Christ for who he was while he was here. Many Jews came to faith through the ministry of Peter, uh, and, and even through the ministry of Paul, even though he was an apostle to the Gentiles. So it's not as though it remained the case, but at this point in Christ's ministry, the Jewish people were by and large were rejecting him as Messiah. And so this idea and, and sort of this like final culmination now saying like he gathered all the, all the Gentiles, all of the peoples, all of the nations. In Jewish, in Jewish language and, and when you look in the Old Testament, and even in some of the New Testament literature, the nations were those people out there. So even if we don't translate this as Gentiles, we don't, we don't take that more like restrictive sense, even then it still implies that Christ is talking about people out there, the non-Jewish nations- Right are being gathered before his throne. And so that's not to say, absolutely not to say that the Jewish people, that, that the Jewish people of his day or the, the... This is where it gets tricky too, 'cause like we think about modern Israel and we, we import our understandings of like nation states. That's not what was in view here. The, the idea of a modern nation state was not a concept that existed in the first century. Um, you might have something like city states, but even that is kind of like a little bit ethereal. The idea here is that all people groups, and maybe, maybe we conceptualize Israel now as one of these people groups, the Israeli Jewish people as one of these people groups. All of those people groups, Jews, Gentiles, Scythians, Athenians, Spartans, like, uh, Ethiopians, you know, all of these different people- Right ... groups that are mentioned in the, the New Testament, all of those peoples, all of those nations are gathered before the throne, and then he will separate them one from another in the same way that a shepherd sep- separates the goats. [00:38:35] Group Judgment Assurance [00:38:35] Tony Arsenal: And yes, I think there is an individualistic, um, judgment element, and this is where I think, um... And, and then I'll, I'll pause for a second. This is where I think we can go wrong reading this as a parable about the individual judgment of individuals in the future That's not really what the language here is supporting. This is supporting sort of a broader group-based judgment, and the grouping is there are those who are sheep and there are those who are goats. But it doesn't appear as though Christ is saying like, "I'm evaluating each individual person, and this person is a sheep, this person is a goat." It's, it's a broader picture that, yes, has some implications for individual personal judgment, but when we read too much of that individual personal judgment into this parable that doesn't seem to be there, that's where we start to, like, rob individual Christians of their assurance. We start to say, like, "Did you do enough? Did you feed enough poor people or did you not?" That's not really, not really what's at stake here, I don't think.  [00:39:40] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's definitely not. It's, it's important to remember just the beauty of, like, the consistent theological thread that runs all the way through the Old Testament, and then that we might expect, of course, to be manifest in Christ's teachings, which happen exactly here. So he is going all the way back to that covenantal promise seed through Abraham, single seed, many people groups, many ethnicities. In this way, the gospel is ethnic inclusive. And so it is, why wouldn't he say that in this way to express that this is exactly from all time what God wanted to do is gather all people groups to himself? Which means then by the time we get to the end of this chapter in verse 46, and there is this righteousness that... or the righteous that lead or go into eternal life, then of course we're led to believe here either directly or implicitly that that means that there would be some for whom the Pharisees would find it's, like, anathema to receive that kind of righteousness and eternal life are the ones in fact who are getting it. And so even that is scandalous. So the, the whole thing is very much a setup, and I think it's the confusion again of this is Jesus saying again to the Sadducees, like, "You are confused. You do not know the power of God. You, you search for it everywhere else but do not find it in front of you. It, it's he who speak to you. I am he. You think you search the scriptures, but you do not know." Everywhere it feels like he's saying that, and here also he's saying that again, but it's in the setup. And I'm with you. I think that there would've been a lot here that would've, like, just come right off his lips that would've been like, "Say what?" Uh, that would've been, like, offensive right off- Yeah ... the top.  [00:41:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:41:17] Sovereign Separation [00:41:17] Tony Arsenal: And the other, the other theme that plays out really loud and clear here, um, as we start to dig into this is, um, there's a sovereignty to this separation that is baked into, um, the king's right to decide who to keep and who to cast away. Right. So I think we, we, um, understandably read into this an assessment of the productivity or the profitability or somehow the, like, merit or worth of the sheep as contrasted to the worth of the goats. Um, and we read into it like the sheep have utility and the goats don't, so the goats get cast into the- Right outer darkness. That's not really, that's not really what's going on here, right? In a, in an agrarian society, like sheep and goats both have utility. It's not as though, like, sheep are worthless and goats aren't. There's a reason people have goats. Um, th- the, the issue here is that the king has decided that there are those on his right and there are those on his left, and the ones on his right he's gonna keep, and the ones on his left he's gonna cast away. And, and so, um, there's this sovereign election and determination that precedes the rest of this, right? It's not as though he's ... And this is where the personal, sort of personal assessment part comes in. He doesn't look at a person and go, "All right, you did a g- enough good works to qualify as a sheep, so you go ahead and go over-" Right and be a sheep. And you didn't do quite enough, so you're actually a goat, so you go over and you be a goat." He looks at, he says, "Y- sheep, goat. Goat, sheep." You know, he, he's separating them out, and then he describes what sheep do versus what goats do. And I, I, like I'm even drawing some of this language out. The sheep goats part of this is actually only, like, a verse and a half. He then flips out of this parabolic language to now go back to the sort of strictly predictive eschatological ex- like explanatory language. So this is what it's like when the Son of Man is on, on his kingdom. He separates sheep and goats. We read into, and maybe with some good reason, but we read into Uh, we read into the fact that the sheeps go to one side, the goats go to another. Then we sort of like attribute the characteristics of those who go to his right to sheep, and we attribute the characteristics... And I think we do this the wrong way. How many sermons have you heard where the whole sermon is about how sheep are obedient, and they're, they're affable, and they listen, and they, they, they are sweet and kind, and goats are stubborn, and they, they just wreck everything, and they don't listen, right? And how many s- how many sermons have you heard where they talk about, like, well, sheep and goats really look the same in the Middle Eastern context, and the only way you can tell them apart is what, by what they do? I think there's probably some, uh, benefit to thinking through those elements, but Christ does not make that point in this parable- Mm ... at least not directly, right? He said, "This is the activity. Imagine a man who has sheep and he has goats. He takes the sheep, he puts them on one side. He takes the goats on another side." That's what the separation at the end of the time, at the end of time will be like. Then he goes straight back out of the parable language into saying, "This is how the king will actually make the distinction.  [00:44:29] Predestination Before Works [00:44:29] Tony Arsenal: The ones on his left, or on his right, he will say, 'Come, you're blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'" Right? This is predestination language, not eschatological judgment language. The sheep were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Before they did anything bad or didn't do anything good, they were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Then he says, he explains to them, like the context that, as you said before, that reveals that they were sheep all along. [00:45:02] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:02] Tony Arsenal: It shows them that they were already... Man, I just, just made this connection in my head. This is the parable of the wheat and of the tares- Yep ... coming to fruition- Exactly ... at the end of time. Right. Right? The sheep and the goats were allowed to mingle until the time came when they would be separated, just as the wheat and the tares were allowed to grow up until the time when they would be reaped and separated. This is what's going on. The sheep did things that sheep do. Those on the right did the things that the people on the right would do because they were part of God's blessed kingdom all along.  [00:45:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:35] Tony Arsenal: And then he goes on to explain what the people on the left did not do, not because now they've been put on the left because they didn't do it, but they were shown to have always been a part of that, part of that population. They were always goats because of these things. This shows that they were goats all along, and they did these things or failed to do these things because they were goats all along.  [00:45:58] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:45:59] Works Righteousness Trap [00:45:59] Jesse Schwamb: Let me read another verse. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God. For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do." My guess is everybody was with me- ... sounded kind of okay until that last part. And if you had that, like, as we say, like, that theological muscle memory that just made you flex or bristle there, or you had the Spidey Sense, as you say, Tony, good, because that's from 2 Nephi 25:23 from the Book of Mormon. And here's what I wanna say that's shocking, is if we read this passage of scripture that we're talking about as if there's something there that we need to do that proves that we've done enough and that somehow God will be pleased with that, even at the end of time in some small way, some modicum, then we're actually acting way more like Mormons than we are like Christians. That's just the bottom line. Yeah. Because Mormons, if you ask about this verse, rather than try to qualify that last statement by saying, "Well, that's misunderstood," or, "It's really not after all you can do," because of course it begs the question how do you know that you've done enough? How you don't- you've done all the things and that you're, you're exhausted. Their explanation of this is to double down on it and say, "Well, the context of that verse is following verse 23 actually does emphasize salvation only coming through Christ, but it also encourages continued observance of the law of Moses in order to be reconciled to God." Because that's all they could do until Christ fulfilled the law through his atonement. Even that is nonsense. So all of this to say, we have to be careful with this because I, I think you're right. We're aligning, we're running right up on this, and that is I would submit to you that we just get distracted because we always, of course, want to bring something to the party here. The, the salvation cake. We wanna, I don't know, we wanna make it, we wanna do. But God is doing all the things on our behalf. And so as a result of that, I think this parable is actually, it's about the divine prerogative and the agency of Christ in judgment at the end which belongs to him and him alone, and not about these actions. But we get caught up in the actions and we're missing this thri- divine prerogative. I also think that Christ gives this to us to reverse it on us and to show us that he sets about all things. It is in fact his foreordination and his providence. By grace we have been saved through faith, and that in providence being predestined is an act of his great love. And so this shows the extent of that love because those whom he has chosen himself are asking in disbelief as if to say, "When did I do the good works that you required?" And he said, "Well, you didn't because you could never do them apart from me."  [00:48:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:48:38] Jesse Schwamb: And so really that's the whole point. It's just so easy for us to get it twisted and say, "Well, doesn't it make sense that there are two groups?" Well, certainly there are in this passage. And doesn't it make good sense that because he said they did things or they didn't do things, then I just need to be about doing those things. And I think that is unfortunately the adventure in missing the point in this passage.  [00:48:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I agree 100%. And it's funny 'cause you were reading that and I was like What translation of J- of First John is it? It sound, I mean, it sounds like, it sounds like something you'd read in First John It sounds okay  [00:49:09] Jesse Schwamb: until  [00:49:10] Tony Arsenal: the end. Yeah. No, I mean, like, it literally sounds like First John until- Yeah ... you get to that last part.  [00:49:14] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:49:15] Tony Arsenal: And, and I think you're right that, um, we'll, we'll explore this more next week, but what has always struck me about this passage is that the, the p- the, the people on His right, I've gotta stop saying sheep, because that's... I just made the point that that's not really what's going on. The people on His right who are called into the kingdom because it was prepared for them before the foundation, because they were elected unto that kingdom. The people on His right, they're surprised at the fact that they did these things. And it, I, I think the works righteousness way of reading this is like, "You better earn your salvation. You better get at it because if you haven't fed Jesus in disguise, then you just aren't gonna make it. At the end of the day- Mm ... He's gonna say, 'I never knew you.'" And it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, sometimes I think intentionally, it implies that we, uh, that Jesus comes to know us because we've done good works, right? When we say, "If you don't do these things, then Jesus will say, 'I never knew you,'" then what you're saying is Jesus doesn't know you apart from your good works. Right. And what the Bible says, what this passage says, just right on the face of it, is that the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, or who the Father has elected, who are blessed by the Father before the foundation of the world. Now, obviously the Father had to know those people in some sense-  [00:50:43] Jesse Schwamb: That's  [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: right ... before the foundation of the world in order for them to be blessed by Him and for Him to prepare a kingdom. So then to come back to the end of it and say, "Well, there are some of those, uh, who the Father never knew because they didn't do enough work," well, the problem is that those who did the good work, the Father knew before they did the good works. They didn't merit the good works. I mean- Right ... it's funny you, you bring up the, the Mormons, and that's certainly true, but, like, you could substitute in, at least on this regard, right? There are meaningful, important differences between the groups I'm about to say and Mormons, that would be the dividing line between those who are possibly saved and those who are y- definitely not saved, right? You could substitute Arminians, who wanna say God looks down the corridor of time, and the reason He prepared a kingdom in advance for them from the foundation of the world is 'cause He saw that they would do these things that would merit salvation, or He saw that they would make the proper decision to receive His grace, right? Or Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes in a different sense, but similarly who would say like, "Well, yeah, God knows in advance that you're gonna merit salvation, so He prepared- Right ... this kingdom anticipating your merit that you would contribute or your participation or, or whatever." I think in a certain sense, um, you could even apply this to some Lutheran theology, right? Which would say, like, "Well, God prepared this kingdom for you from the foundation of the world because he looked down the corridor of time and he understood that you were not going to resist the grace he gave," right? You were not gonna reject his grace. Um, it really truly only is Reformed theology that can say, "No, God prepared this kingdom in advance for you, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did, such that you made the wise decision to follow Christ that you did. That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you." A- and aga- again, again, like, this is dicey. It gets into, like, logical ordering, but fundamentally, a- as far as I can understand it, every competing view besides sort of a Calvinistic understanding of predestination election has to say that in some sense God prepares the kingdom for you as a response to something you have done, or chose- Right to do or chose not to do. The reality is that this passage is saying, "No To those who are on the right. He didn't separate them based on the fact that they did these things. He just said, "You are on the right, and now to those who are on the right, I say to you, come into the kingdom that is blessed. You're blessed by my Father. Come into this kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." So I think, you know, we're c

Learn about the first educational system and its Christian foundations. Examine the Christian educational philosophies and practices of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Founding Fathers. Understand how the agenda of the ed-u-crats led to a well-orchestrated takeover of our schools. Be informed on what you can do to return our American education system to its original Christian principles and values.             

Learn about the first educational system and its Christian foundations. Examine the Christian educational philosophies and practices of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Founding Fathers. Understand how the agenda of the ed-u-crats led to a well-orchestrated takeover of our schools. Be informed on what you can do to return our American education system to its original Christian principles and values.                

"Welcome to the program. If you walked into a Christian bookstore seventy years ago, the profound, soul-stirring writings of the Puritans were virtually lost to history—rotting in forgotten English attics and locked away in academic vaults. Today, we're sharing the remarkable story of a quiet literary rescue mission: a global, providential relay race run not by famous celebrities, but by a colorful band of printers, pastors, and tireless book-distributors. From Martyn Lloyd-Jones launching a modest magazine in post-war London, to remote bookrooms in Choteau, Montana, a devastating warehouse flood in Pennsylvania, and a hard-charging contractor who bought books by the pallet just to give them away, join us as we trace how a handful of dedicated pioneers brought the forgotten giants of the faith back to life—and forever changed the modern pulpit."

It's Mailbag Friday! You've got questions, we've got answers. Segment 1 • Eric asks: Can even the most notorious false teachers truly repent and be forgiven? • Anonymous asks: What should a husband do when his wife suddenly wants to leave their longtime church? Segment 2 • Should you stay and work through concerns with your church, or is it time to leave? (Continued from Segment 1) Segment 3 • David asks: Whatever happened to Too Wretched for Radio? • Marion asks: Which Puritan authors are worth reading, and where should you start? • Merry asks: Which promises in the Bible actually belong to Christians today? Segment 4 • More on the Puritans. • Anonymous asks: How should Christians help someone struggling with psychosis? ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

To introduce a modern audience to the classic theme of spiritual warfare, this bibliography traces a robust, historically rich trajectory that spans over three centuries—beginning with the massive, foundational strategy manuals of 17th-century Puritans like John Downame and William Gurnall, mapping the deep psychological and pastoral care found in the soul-diagnosing "cases of conscience" by Pike and Hayward, and culminating in the vivid, fiercely practical 19th- and 20th-century expositions of Charles Spurgeon and Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Far from being a relic of abstract, archaic mysticism, this enduring body of literature functions as a brilliant, clinical handbook for the human soul. By masterfully distinguishing between the internal vulnerabilities of our own hearts and the external, highly adaptive "wiles" of a defeated but persistent adversary, these authors provide contemporary readers with a timeless blueprint for vigilance, mental resilience, and an unwavering reliance on the all-sufficient triumph of Jesus Christ.

It's been said that you can spot an American from a mile away. Travelers to Europe are advised to adjust their attire to blend in with locals and avoid looking so … casual. The French think Americans are loud and rude, and Europe has a long tradition of sneering at how classless we all are, even before Trump.I spent a month in Italy, and it's a beautiful place. The slow living, the long naps when all the stores shut down for hours during the day, the tiny cars, the laundry drying on the balconies, the fresh food at the Farmer's Market. I feel lucky that when I came back from Italy, I was pregnant and having my baby is the single greatest thing that has ever happened to me. But I'm also glad she grew up in America.I used to travel to France to cover the Cannes Film Festival, and again, I admired their way of life, the food especially. But every time I stayed too long, I began to miss my home in America. There is something thrilling about living in a free country that I've never felt anywhere else.It seems to me that if you are born here, you make up your life as it goes along. It is not planned out for you, necessarily, although in some cases, I guess it probably is. In my case, it wasn't. I knew I could invent myself any way I wanted. And if I didn't like that version, I could reinvent myself. We're like our country, a work in progress. It's always there for the taking, that promise of opportunity.Donald Trump is all of America's freedoms wrapped up in one imperfect man. He broke through the thick layer of oppressive thought and speech and showed the world that here, you really can say anything you want - as long as some crazed totalitarian doesn't try to shoot you. That's the country I want to live in. It isn't that the greatest writing or art has come from a place like America. Plenty of great works have come from places that don't center freedom as their main objective. But once you've tasted it, you can't give it up.In his speech last night, Trump said:The American founding represents the best ideas and traditions in history by the best people, like you. You can be loyal to Karl Marx or you can be loyal to America. You can be a communist or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both. As for those who peddle Marxist lies about our heritage, tell our children that we live on stolen land or that our heroes were oppressors, they're doing something much worse than slandering our past. They are slandering and attacking our future. Not going to let that happen.They're trying to tear down the great American character to destroy the people who declared independence, who crossed the Delaware, who settled the West and conquered the skies. You know who those people are. But we will never let that happen.In America now, two stories are competing to claim the right to rule the future. Trump is telling the better story, the one America was founded on and the one we've all believed, at least up until recently, when a new wave of progressives decided that the better story paints America as a corrupt, rotten, white supremacist empire that has to be torn down to the studs and rebuilt.They must be terrified about the 2030 Census because they've decided to die on the hill of illegal immigration, which is fast becoming their most important issue. That, alongside Democratic Socialism, is a recipe for disaster.This was Bill Clinton's bummer message on the Fourth:I always thought Bill Clinton was a good president, but reading that just now makes me think he wasn't. All he's ever been able to do is point the finger at the other side and never offer any real solutions. He's not the man in the arena. He's the man on the sidelines.What I love about Trump and his supporters is how much they love America. They love it so much that they plant flags all over their homes. They admire the Founding Fathers. They call themselves Patriots. We didn't have that kind of pride on the Left when I was growing up.And even now, so many see the American flag and the love of country as dangerous, racist, bigoted, fascist. Whoever told those people that is what MAGA is about lied. They're protective of America's laws and its border. That is out of love for the country. The Left has taken almost everything from them. They've locked them out of culture, forbidden them from participating in any of their major events, dehumanized, demonized, and disenfranchised them. But the one thing they couldn't take was their citizenship. They hit the jackpot just by being born in America. To think it would be so easy for people all over the world to come here illegally and claim that prize or to come here and attempt to remake America into something it was never meant to be devalues the one thing they treasure most of all. I've always been a proud American. I've always preferred this country over any other, but only in the last few years have I understood what it means to be a Patriot, to be ready to fight for the country I love. And that is because of the people I've gotten to know on the Right.This country is worth fighting for. I might not agree with all of the policies on the Right, or even Trump himself, all of the time, but I'd rather have the future of this country in the hands of people who love it the way Trump does than people who hate it, the way so many on the Left do, just because their candidates are weak and their policies are toxic. I wanted to write 250 things I love about America, but it got too long, so this will have to do. Here are just some of the things I love:I love the interstates as part of the great legacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower.I love the Pacific Ocean because it stretches along the state. I love Catalina Island off the California Coast, where I spent many a summer with my best friend.I love seeing our history in the many cultures that came here, like Chinatown, Little Italy, Mexican food in LA, soul food in the South, Irish bars and pubs in the middle of nowhere. And yes, you can appreciate a nation of immigrants while still policing our borders now. I love how nice people are in some places, like California, Ohio, and Iowa, where they smile at you on the street.I love the weather extremes, from the dusty plains to the snowy mountains to hurricanes by the sea.I love the historic monuments from the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.I love the town squares that you can still see if you drive through the middle of America. Even though many are abandoned, they still look like hope to me.I love how each town square has a church, a post office, and a school.I love the many farmlands that blanket the Midwest.I love the small mom-and-pop coffee drive-throughs, and even the convenience of a Starbucks in nearly every town.I love Route 66 and how people still drive it and visit the forgotten places.I love the absurdity of Las Vegas, how it sprouts up impossibly in the middle of the desert.I love the American writers who helped shape our country's sense of itself - Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Flannery O'Connor, Richard Ford, Maya Angelou. I love the musical traditions that started here: Jazz and the Blues. And became Rock n' Roll. I love the Legend of Sleepy Hollow and the town that still remembers it.I love diners and dive bars.I love Gone with the Wind and how it's still the highest-grossing film of all time when adjusted for inflation. I love The Twilight Zone and find it timeless, as relevant today as it was in the 1950s.I love the footprints at the (Grauman's) Chinese Theater in Hollywood.I love the US military and its devotion to the country. I love the wildflowers that bloom in California every year.I love soft-serve ice cream at the DQ.I love Levi's.I love New York pizza.I love Solvang in California.I love driving up the Oregon coast. I love the songs of Bob Dylan.I love the tap dancing of Fred Astaire.I love how anyone can be a star on YouTube, no matter where they come from, but YouTube couldn't have been invented anywhere but America.I love how I could build a business as a single mom in a one-room guesthouse in Van Nuys, and that business would, five years later, become profitable because I worked hard and had a good idea. And then, when my career went up in flames in 2024 because I voted for Trump, I could build another career on Substack because that is what America is all about - inventing and reinventing yourself.I love the innovative spirit that built America in real life and online.I love reading about the early settlers, the Puritans, and the homesteaders, how much they sacrificed to help make America a home. And I love the history of the Native Americans, too, even if so much of it remains a tragedy now. I love high-speed internet and Wi-Fi that are available almost everywhere, and if they're not, I have a hotspot.I love the old American cars that were not just exceptional but beautiful.I love the tradition of baseball.I love that people faithfully watch football, even if I don't.I love the tradition of sourdough bread all over social media.I love that the best basketball players in the world are from here.I love that every state is different from one to the next.I love Harper's Ferry, how it's frozen in time.I love that we found a way to move on from the trauma of our past with slavery and how we fought a bloody Civil War to end it. I love that we were the good guys in World War II. We did the right thing in entering the war and helping the Allies win. I love that you can be anything here. The door is always open. It's up to you to walk through it.I love that America is a Christian nation, and you can see that if you drive across it. But it's also a country that stands for freedom of religion, too.I love the American comedians: Groucho Marx, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, and Johnny Carson.I love that the best films from the 1970s were American movies, like The Godfather, The French Connection, Taxi Driver, and Network. But I also love more modern masterpieces by American filmmakers, like No Country for Old Men and Sideways.I love that people play the lottery, thinking one day they will hit the jackpot. They never will, but they can still dream.I love Thanksgiving and the way we celebrate it in America, which is to say, all together as one big dysfunctional family.I love the tradition of Halloween and how every October, the pumpkins and costumes come out. I love the way the weather changes. I love the Declaration of Independence and those who dared to build this wild, untamed, optimistic work in progress. I love that America is always looking to the future to find a better version of itself and its people. I love that so many Americans still believe in the American Dream.I love watching the movie Jaws on the 4th of July.I love that people watch fireworks, even if I never do, because they traumatize my dogs.I love that we have a holiday just to celebrate the day we became a country, a ragtag group of deplorable revolutionaries who set out to build a brand new country. Oh, the audacity of it. I love living here and would not want to live anywhere else. Happy 250th Birthday, my beloved country.Happy 4th to you, dear readers. Thanks for everything. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sashastone.com/subscribe

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comHow did Christianity become so deeply woven into the American story? Matthew Avery Sutton, professor of history at Washington State University and author of Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity, joins Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram to explain why American Christianity and American history cannot be told as separate stories. Sutton traces Christianity's influence from Columbus, Spanish Catholic missions, Jamestown, Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, enslaved Muslims, Indigenous nations, and the First Amendment to revivalism, slavery, abolition, apocalyptic evangelicalism, and Christian nationalism. He argues that disestablishment did not remove religion from public life. Instead, it created a competitive religious marketplace where churches had to persuade, organize, innovate, and grow. The conversation also challenges both oversimplified “Christian nation” claims and overly clean secular founding myths. This episode helps listeners see America's 250th as a moment for humility, honesty, and a fuller reckoning with the faiths that shaped the country.Guest BioMatthew Avery Sutton is a historian of American religion and politics at Washington State University. His work examines how Christianity, evangelicalism, revivalism, missions, apocalyptic belief, and political power have shaped American public life. He is the author of Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity, American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism, Double Crossed: The Missionaries Who Spied for the United States During the Second World War, and Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America. In this conversation, Sutton helps frame the Church and State 250 series by showing how Christianity has been both a force for power and reform throughout American history.Book MentionedChosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity by Matthew Avery SuttonBookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9781541646339American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism by Matthew Avery SuttonBookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9780674975439Relevant Links & ResourcesMatthew Avery Sutton Faculty ProfileURL: https://history.wsu.edu/faculty/wsu-profile/sutton/ Support Sarah Stankorb's work and preorder Damned If She Does: Why Women Quit Church and What It Means for the Future of Religion, Releases September 15, 2026.  Bookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9798889837091Website: https://www.sarahstankorb.com/Support the showKeep the conversation going.Want to learn more about Faithful Politics, suggest a future guest, or connect with us directly?Visit our website:faithfulpoliticspodcast.comBrowse our bookstore, featuring books from many of our guests:faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/bookstoreSupport the show and help us keep these conversations going:patreon.com/cw/FaithfulPoliticsSubscribe for behind-the-scenes content, reflections, and updates:faithfulpolitics.substack.comContact the hosts:Josh Burtram, Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpolitics.comWill Wright, Political Host: Will@faithfulpolitics.comFollow Faithful Politics:Instagram: faithful_politicsFacebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast

CheckoutThe God Centered Concept Academy Training Community to learn what growth in Christ ishttps://api.tuvu.com/redirectGroup/6a2ac0e2c9f728027338244cCheck out this link to view Kingdom Cross Roads on TV.https://jesussaid.tv/?affiliate=tswright_gccTo get a copy of our new book "Embracing the Truth" or to have TS Wright speak at your event or conference or if you simply want spiritual or life coaching or just a consultation visit:www.tswrightspeaks.comVisit our website to learn more about The God Centered Concept. The God Centered Concept is designed to bring real discipleship and spreading the Gospel to help spark the Great Harvest, a revival in this generation.www.godcenteredconcept.comKingdom Cross Roads Podcast is a part of The God Centered Concept.In this episode of Kingdom Crossroads, TS Wright welcomes filmmaker Andrew Linn for a timely conversation on America's Judeo-Christian foundations, religious liberty, and the often-misunderstood phrase “separation of church and state.”Andrew shares his personal faith journey as a half-Jewish believer in Jesus, his background in documentary filmmaking, and the heart behind his new film on Roger Williams, Church and State, and the founding of freedom of religion in America. The discussion explores how early American colonies often had state-supported denominations, why Baptists and other dissenters pushed for true liberty of conscience, and how Roger Williams helped shape a vision of religious freedom rooted in Scripture rather than secularism.TS and Andrew also discuss the difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, the influence of biblical morality on America's founding, and why Christians should understand and engage the public square without advocating for a theocracy.Topics CoveredAndrew Linn's background, faith journey, and documentary work.Roger Williams and the founding of Rhode Island.The true historical meaning of separation of church and state.The Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson's famous letter.Why religious liberty was meant to protect faith, not remove it from public life.The Puritans, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and early colonial theocracy.Freedom of conscience, soul liberty, and biblical arguments for religious freedom.America as a republic rooted in law, liberty, and Judeo-Christian moral foundations.Why Christians should understand history as America approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.Featured GuestAndrew Linn is a filmmaker and documentary producer whose work includes Fearless Freddy, a documentary about a World War II submariner, and a new documentary exploring Roger Williams, church and state, and the founding of religious liberty in America. In the episode, Andrew describes himself as a half-Jewish believer in Jesus who came to faith in his early twenties and later pursued documentary filmmaking.Resources MentionedChurch and State Documentary Visit: churchandstate.comClosing ThoughtReligious liberty was not established to drive God out of public life. It was established to keep the state from controlling the conscience, coercing worship, or dictating doctrine. As America reflects on its founding, this episode calls believers to recover the historical and biblical foundations of freedom.

In this episode of Christ the Center, Camden Bucey welcomes Stephen Yuille, director of Puritan publishing at Reformation Heritage Books, for a conversation on Puritan spirituality and the devotional series 90 Days with the Puritans. Yuille reflects on his work with Puritan writings, the relationship between the mind and the affections, and the way the Puritans seek to move biblical truth from mere cognition into doxology, repentance, obedience, and perseverance.The discussion centers on five “lively truths” that recur throughout the Puritan tradition: the majesty of God, the beauty of Christ, the severity of sin, the mystery of providence, and the hope of glory. Along the way, Camden and Stephen consider biblical meditation, Thomas Manton, holiness as divine beauty, beholding Christ through Scripture rather than mysticism, affliction as fatherly discipline, and the believer's blessed hope in the face of death and suffering.Chapters0:00 Introduction0:33 Stephen Yuille and Reformation Heritage Books2:24 Stephen Yuille's ministry and Puritan publishing work8:46 What gave rise to 90 Days with the Puritans11:15 Five lively truths in Puritan spirituality15:51 Biblical meditation and the Puritans22:42 Thomas Manton as a guide to meditation25:20 Holiness as beauty, not divine scowling31:07 Beholding Christ without mysticism36:10 Sin, holiness, and the doctrines of grace39:12 Christ altogether lovely45:53 Providence, affliction, and fatherly discipline51:24 Death, glory, and the blessed hope57:45 Closing thoughts and resourcesParticipantsCamden BuceyStephen YuilleResources mentionedReformation Heritage BooksThomas Manton, Holy MeditationStephen Yuille, The Sight of ChristStephen Yuille, The Heart Taken UpStephen Yuille, The Fullness of GraceMentioned in this episode:Join Us In Person: Four Upcoming Reformed Forum EventsBefore today's episode, Camden Bucey shares four opportunities to gather with Reformed Forum in person over the coming months: Apologetics and Evangelism Seminar — August 4–5, 2026, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC. Camden Bucey and Carlton Wynne lecture on apologetics and evangelism for the pastor at the GPTS Summer Seminar. Details: https://reformedforum.org/event/apologetics-and-evangelism-seminar-greenville-sc/ Discovering Christ in All of Scripture — August 28–29, 2026, Cahaba Park Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, AL. A Friday evening and Saturday morning seminar exploring how every part of Scripture reveals God's redemptive plan in Jesus Christ. Details: https://reformedforum.org/event/birmingham-alabama-seminar/ 2026 Annual Theology Conference — September 25–26, 2026, Lakeland Church, Gurnee, IL. The Covenant of Grace: One Savior, One People, One Purpose, featuring Dr. G. K. Beale. Early-bird pricing ends August 31. Register: https://rf26.reformedforum.org/ Christ the Center 1000th Episode Celebration — February 19–20, 2027, Hilton Austin, Austin, TX. A live recording of episode 1,000, a shared dinner, and conversations with longtime friends of the ministry. Details: https://reformedforum.org/event/christ-the-center-1000th-episode-celebration/ Seats are limited — register today at https://reformedforum.org/events

In this episode of Christ the Center, Camden Bucey welcomes Stephen Yuille, director of Puritan publishing at Reformation Heritage Books, for a conversation on Puritan spirituality and the devotional series […]

Contentment is one of the distinguishing marks of the Christian life—but it is also one of the most difficult graces to cultivate. Why is it so hard to gain and so easy to lose? In the third episode of our A Life of Joy series, Justin Miller and Dr. John Snyder examine five of the greatest obstacles to Christian contentment: worldliness, busyness, bitterness, grief, and opposition. Drawing from Scripture, the Puritans, and personal experience, they show how these common struggles pull our hearts away from Christ and how God uses even painful providences to deepen our joy in Him. Rather than settling for shallow happiness or stoic resignation, believers are called to find lasting satisfaction in Christ alone. Show Notes Kingdom Life: Studies in the Sermon on the Mount: https://shop.mediagratiae.org/collections/kingdom-life The Life of Samuel Rutherford by Andrew Thomson: https://www.amazon.com/Samuel-Rutherford-Andrew-Thomson/dp/1164013874 Samuel Rutherford and His Friends by Faith Cook: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/ebooks/samuel-rutherford-and-his-friends/ Letters of Samuel Rutherford: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/letters/letters-of-samuel-rutherford/ Want to listen to The Whole Counsel on the go? Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcast app: https://www.mediagratiae.org/podcasts You can get The Whole Counsel a day early on the Media Gratiae App: https://subsplash.com/mediagratiae/app

This 1665 outbreak was the last major widespread epidemic of the bubonic plague in England, killing an estimated 100,000 people—roughly a quarter of London's population at the time—before tapering off in the winter of 1666, a decline accelerated by the Great Fire of London.

But if it's from God… Acts 5 by William Klock There was a package slip from Canada Post below the mail slot when I got here last Friday.  I was kind of annoyed, because not only did I have no idea where the package was from, for some reason I had to go all the way over to the post office in Comox to pick it up.  And when they handed it to me I was perplexed.  The sender was just some distribution company.  The box was large and heavy.  A mystery.  And when I got it home and opened it up, it was still a mystery.  A boxed set of about fifteen books from a ministry called Be United in Christ.  Nice looking hardcovers.  The set looks expensive.  A few of them were reprints of books by Jonathan Edwards, Jeremiah Burroughs, and Charles Spurgeon, but frustratingly none of the others say a word about their authors and I couldn't find much online about the ministry itself or who's behind it.  The books are a generous gift.  But do I just put them out for you all to take home and read?  Edwards, Burroughs, Spurgeon are okay.  Puritans, not Anglicans, but still part of the same general theological tradition—for the most part.  But are they there just to get me to trust the other anonymous books?  I don't know.  This is the shepherd's dilemma.  I don't have time to read them or really even to meaningfully skim them.  The problem would be solved if I knew something about who sent them. And I think that illustrates well what St. Luke is getting at in our text today.  We'll be looking at Acts 5.  [Page 1084 in the pew Bibles.]  And at first Acts 5 might seem like a series stories or events that are related only because they happened in the order Luke presents them, but are kind of otherwise “random”.  But the more I thought about the Chapter, the more a common theme started to take shape.  So far, Luke has shown us the birth of the church through the preaching of Peter and the work of the Spirit.  And then he's shown us the church taking shape, not just as some new religion—which I think is how we're often (wrongly!) prone to seeing it—but as the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel.  Luke shows us the church as the new temple.  God has returned to his people as he promised, but not to the bricks-and-mortar temple on the mountaintop above Jerusalem. Instead, he's come to indwell the people whom Jesus has purified with his blood.  This is a human temple meant to one day fill the whole earth and with it God's presence.  And Luke has shown us the church not just as a family, but as the family that Israel was always supposed to be, but failed to be; the family in which God is fulfilling his promises through Jesus and the Spirit; the family in which his kingdom, his new creation, his renewed humanity is being born.  It's a community meant to take up the vocation of Jesus and to be prophets, priests and kings, proclaiming the good news about the lordship of Jesus to Jerusalem and Judah—and eventually to the whole world. But as we've seen, it's not just the proclamation.  It's not just the preaching.  That's absolutely necessary.  But it's the lived community—the “family-ness”—of the church that backs up the message and says that this is the real deal.  Because Israel had been talking the talk for a thousand years.  But Israel ended up in exile in Babylon because she failed over and over to walk the walk.  You can't preach light while living in darkness.  You can't claim to be God's people while you worship idols.  You can't proclaim new creation while living like the old.  That's why, at the end of Chapter 4, which we saw last week, Luke talked for a second time about the way the church in Jerusalem became a family and took care of those in need.  They were actively living out the bounty and generosity of God and his new creation.  As the new Israel, they were a little land of milk and honey.  And Luke held up Jospeh the Levite as particularly exemplary, because he unselfishly sold some land and brought the proceeds to the apostles to help their ministry. It wasn't a requirement for church membership.  It sounds like Joseph was wealthy and so he used his wealth to build up the church and it was his way of living out new creation.  And it was obviously unique—not something everyone did—because they nicknamed him Barnabas, which means “son of encouragement”.  And that leads straight into Acts 5 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  This couple wanted the same sort of attention Barnabas was getting.  Luke writes, “There was, however, a man named Ananias with his wife, Sapphira.  He sold some property and, with his wife's knowledge, kept back part of the price.  He brought the rest and laid it at the apostle's feet.  ‘Ananias!' said Peter.  ‘Why did the Satan fill your heart to make you tell a lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land?  While it was still yours, it belonged to you, didn't it?  And, when you sold it, it was still in your power.  Why did you get such an idea in your heart?  It isn't men that you've lied to; it's God!'  When Ananias heard these words he fell down and died.  Everyone who heard about it was scared out of their wits.  The young men got up, took him away, wrapped up his body and buried him.  After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.  Peter spoke to her.  ‘Tell me,' he said, ‘did you sell the land for this much?'  ‘Yes,” she replied, ‘that was the price.'  ‘So why,' Peter answered, ‘did you agree together to put the Holy Spirit to the test?  Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door and they will carry you out too!'  At once she fell down at his feet and died.  The young men were just coming in and they found her dead, so they took her out and buried her beside her husband.  Great fear came upon the whole gathering and on all who heard about these things.” Great fear!  No kidding.  Now, growing up—and for years afterward—I thought this was a story about “tithing”.  In Sunday school we would sing a song about how Ananias and Sapphira got together to conspire a plot to cheat the church and get ahead.  They knew God's power but did not fear it, tried to cheat the Holy Spirit.  Peter prophesied it and they both dropped dead. Uh!  (That “Uh!” was the good part—one of the few times you could be rowdy in church.) And the chorus of the song went on to sing about how God loves a cheerful giver, give him all you've got.  It had me terrified as a kid.  I didn't have any income, but I knew that someday when I did, I'd better give God his due or I might drop dead.  No one ever talked about the part where they lied about what they were giving.  And no one ever paid attention to the context of the story. It is a terrifying story.  Even the people in the church who saw it and heard about, Luke writes, were pretty terrified.  But the way we usually hear about Ananias and Sapphira, I think, gets us worried about the wrong thing.  Because, Brothers and Sisters, this is isn't a story about tithing; it's a story about the need for holiness.  It's a story that reminds us that if we're going to be God's temple, if we're going to be the place where he dwells in the person of his Spirit, if we're going to be the place where the world meets God, we need to take holiness seriously. The first thing that ought to tip us off here is the way these first chapters of Acts are all centred on the temple.  More specifically, they're focused on how the church has become the new temple and how it—particularly through Peter and John spending their days in the old temple—how the church is confronting and challenging the old: the old temple, the old Israel, and the priests and elders associated with both.  The second thing that ought to tip us off is the nature of the story.  It's not a common thing, even in the Bible, for God to just suddenly strike someone dead.  But the few times we do see that happen, what's it associated with?  Think Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, playing around with the holy things of God and offering “strange fire” on the altar.  Zap.  Dead.  Instantly.  And poor Uzzah when David's men were rescuing the ark of the covenant from the Philistines.  They didn't carry it the way God had told them to.  Instead, they put it on a cart.  And the cart started to tip and Uzzah—well meaning, but horribly wrong—reached out to steady it.  And zap!  Uzzah was struck dead on the spot.  I can think of a few other slightly less dramatic.  There was Achan who, in the ruins of Jericho, stole some of the treasure that belonged to the Lord.  His sin had consequences for the whole community of Israel in their next battle, but maybe most importantly, it was the Lord who revealed the guilty to Joshua.  And Achan and his family died.  Or King Uzziah who arrogantly entered the temple to burn incense and was immediately struck with leprosy. The point is this, Brothers and Sisters, if you're going to walk with God, holiness is not an option.  The wages of sin is death.  For the vast majority of us, living and then dying is just so normal that sometimes we need a reminder that life is God's gift, that sin separates us from God, and that we die because of that separation.  Sometimes the reminders are instantaneous, dramatic, and terrifying.  Other times they play out over generations.  Like Israel herself: generation after generation of faithlessness and idolatry that eventually led, for the northern kingdom, to annihilation—national death—and for the southern kingdom exile.  St. Paul warns the Corinthians that some of them are sick and dying because they've abused the Lord's Supper.  In John's revelation, Jesus warns the churches that if they aren't faithful, if they fail to properly represent him and his kingdom, he will take away their lampstands.  They will, as churches, die.  God requires holiness of his people and holiness is serious business.  The church is God's means of making the good news of Jesus known.  The church is God's means of making his new creation visible and real in the world.  And if we undermine the credibility of the gospel through unholiness—well, God is patient—most of the time—but if we refuse to repent, he will make us witnesses to his power and sovereignty through his discipline rather than his blessing. Ananias and Sapphira lied because they wanted a reputation they hadn't earned.  How do we misrepresent the gospel and the kingdom and Jesus?  In what way do we or does the church compromise our witness?  What idols have we set up alongside the cross?  What things do we do that bring public shame on Jesus and the Spirit?  What compromises our holiness?  And do our compromises and our idolatries and our hypocrisies run so deep or are they so common that maybe we no longer even see them.  But people out there do.  And God does.  Brothers and Sisters, that's what the story of Ananias and Sapphira is about. But Acts 5 is more than a terrifying warning to holiness.  It's also an exhortation.  Look at verse 12: “Many signs and wonders were performed by the apostles amongst the people.  They were all together in Solomon's Porch, while none of the others dared join them, though the people spoke highly of them.  But more people, a crowd both of men and women, believed in the Lord and were added to their number.  They used to bring the sick into the streets and place them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on them as he went by.  Crowds gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing people who were sick or infested with unclean spirits.  All of them were cured.” God struck down the people who were compromising the church's gospel witness, but he blessed the ministry of Peter.  As Luke notes, after the confrontation with the Jewish authorities, no one dared to join him, but when Peter went out with boldness to proclaim the good news, God made him a walking pocket of new creation.  It makes me think of the dead temporarily raised on Good Friday, as if the shockwave of life was so powerful it had an almost undiscriminating effect as it went out from the cross.  The same sort of thing happens with Peter. I think when we read this, our modern democratic mindset has us wondering why we don't see this happening today.  Why doesn't this happen when my shadow falls on people when I'm walking around.  And again, I have to come back to the biblical witness itself.  The point of miracles is that they don't happen every day.  And when they do happen, even in the Bible, they cluster around those times and places where God is doing something new.  They clustered around Jesus and now we see them clustering around the apostles, validating them in the same way they validated Jesus.  And they're happening right at the gate of the temple—God's not so subtle way to announce that, yes, he's come back to dwell with his people just as he promised, but he's not dwelling in the holy of holies in the bricks-and-mortal temple; he's come to dwell in this people purified and made even holier than the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus.  Think of it like a rocket launch.  There's a blast of almost uncomprehensible power that launches a rocket off the ground and into orbit.  Once it's up there, it just needs a little nudge from time to time to keep it there.  This was God's way of launching the gospel. Now, verse 17: “Then the high priest got up and all who were with him, namely the group called the Sadducees.  They were filled with zeal [think “righteous indignation”] and seized the apostles and put them in the public jail.  But an angel of the Lord came in the night, opened the prison doors, and brought them out.  ‘Go and take your stand in the temple,' he said, ‘and speak all the words of this life to the people.'  When they heard this, they went in at early morning and began to teach.  When the high priest arrived with his entourage, they called the official assembly and all the elders of the sons of Israel, and they sent to the prison to have the apostles brought in.  But when the attendants went they didn't find them in the prison.  So they came and reported back.  ‘We found the jail shut up with maximum security,' they said, ‘and the guards were standing in front of the doors.  But when we opened up we found no one inside.'  When they heard these words, the commander of the temple police and the chief priests were at a loss about them, with no idea what had happened.  But then someone came with a message for them.  ‘Look!' he said.  ‘The men you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.'  Then the commander went with his attendants and brought them.  They didn't use force, though, because they were afraid that the people might stone them.” Luke has a sense of humour.  So does God.  The high priest is full of zeal.  This idea of “zeal” characterised what the Jews of those days thought of as faithfulness.  Their heroes were men like Phinehas, who speared a law-breaking idolater to the ground; like Judas Maccabbeus, who led a revolt against the pagan Geek rulers of Israel.  They were zealous for God and for his law and they burned with anger at anyone who compromised it.  And that's how they felt about the apostles.  Peter and John, just like Jesus, were challenging the temple.  The temple leaders wanted them dead, but they also feared the people.  Everyone else could see new creation and the power of God—life—bursting into the world, but all these guys could see was a threat to the status quo.  And so they throw the apostles into jail.  And God sends an angel to set them free and not just that, but to send them straight back to the temple, to the place where they were arrested.  And there's an urgency to the angel's words.  “Go back the temple.  Take your stand.  Speak the words of this life to the people.” The miracles were wonderful.  The miracles said that God was doing something, that new creation life was breaking in.  That there was something about the apostles.  But Brothers and Sisters, miracles without preaching lead to superstition.  Good works without preaching leave people applauding the people doing the good works.  It's our proclamation, our preaching, our announcement of the good news about Jesus, crucified and risen and lord, that makes sense of the miracles and the good works.  It's the preaching that points people to Jesus—not just in a generic sense to “God”, but specifically to Jesus.  It's the preaching that makes clear that in the Messiah, God has provided a sacrifice that purifies us from the stain of sin to make us fit to be his temple, filled with his own Spirit, to bring his grace and his mercy and his love and his holiness and his new creation to the world.  It's our life as God's working model of new creation that attracts people, but it's our preaching that calls them specifically to Jesus in repentance and faith. This whole chapter is a reminder that preaching alone without holiness and without living out new creation is not enough, but that it's also not enough to live out that new creation, to be a heaven on earth people, even to work miracles.  It has to be accompanied by the proclamation of the good news about Jesus.  Otherwise we're like the mystery box of books.  Who's this from?  Should I trust it?  So the angel sends them back to preach.  And there they are preaching in the temple just as the priests assemble to hold court.  And they send for the accused and no one can find them, until someone runs in and shouts: “They're back preaching right under your noses!” “So,” Luke goes on in verse 27, “they brough them and stood them in the assembly.  The high priest questioned them.  ‘We gave you strict orders, didn't we?' he demanded.  ‘We told you not to teach in this name, but look what you're doing.  You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you're trying to bring this man's blood on us.'  ‘We must obey God, not men!' responded Peter and the apostles.  ‘The God of our fathers raised Jesus after you had laid violent hands on him and hanged him on a tree.  God exalted him to his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit, which God gave to those who obey him.'  When they heard this, they were infuriated and wanted to kill them.  But then a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel stood up in the assembly.  He was a law-teacher, highly respected by all the people.  He ordered the men to be put outside for a short while.  ‘Men of Israel,' he said to the gathering, ‘be careful what you do to these men.  Before these times Theudas rose up, claiming to be someone special and about four hundred men went off to join him.  But he was killed and all the people who trusted him were dispersed.  The movement came to nothing.  After that Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew a crowd after himself.  But he was killed and all those who trusted him were scattered.  So my advice to you now is this.  Leave off from these men; let them be.  You see, if this plan or work is merely human in origin, it will come to ruin.  But if it's from God—well, you won't be able to stop them.  You might even be found to be fighting against God.'  They were persuaded by him and called the apostles back in.  They beat them and told them not to speak in the name of Jesus.  Then they let them go.  They, however, went out from the presence of the assembly celebrating, because they had been reckoned worthy to suffer disgrace for the name.  And all day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the Messiah.” The assembly has the apostles beaten, but they know the scriptures.  They've seen how Jesus suffered and died as part of his ministry to fulfil those scriptures.  So Peter and John and the others take this opposition as confirmation.  And Luke goes into these details here, because this is going to be a pattern throughout the book of Acts.  Suffering for the name of Jesus is a privilege.  But he also highlights the importance of the church's integrity to its—to our—witness.  Again, we are God's temple.  He's returned as he promised, not to the stone building that once sat over Jerusalem, but by filling us—the people purified and made holy by the blood of Jesus.  The beauty of a human temple is that it can grow and grow and grow until it fills the earth with God's presence, with his wisdom, with his gospel life.  But it's also important that the temple remain pure.  Jesus has purified it.  The Holy Spirit has sanctified it.  But we're still human.  We're not perfect—not yet.  Brothers and Sisters, this is why, as Paul puts it, we need to put on the Messiah.  To put off the old, corrupt, sinful and selfish way of being human and put on Jesus and the new life of the gospel, the new life of the Spirit.  To be the holy people Jesus and the Spirit have made us.  To walk in integrity: in our personal affairs, in our relationships, in our marriages, in our business, in our politics, in our finances, in our life together as the church, as the temple.  We really do need to be the new humanity and God's new creation.  We need to be—so much as Jesus and the Spirit make it possible—to be God's future right here in the present.  And we need to take our stand and proclaim the name of Jesus so that when people notice our holiness and our integrity, they'll also know that it's not just us, but that it's all about this Jesus who died and rose again—for us, for them, for the sake of all creation—to forgive, to purify, to heal, and to set to rights.  I can't say exactly what it's supposed to look like.  Acts was unique.  The rocket ship was launching.  Now it's in orbit.  Our shadows are highly unlikely to heal anyone, and yet Peter's shadow and Peter's preaching really do represent the ministry of the faithful church to bring healing to the world, to wipe away tears, to announce what Jesus has done and what Jesus is doing and what Jesus will, finally, one day finish as we bring hope to the world.  Do it with integrity, Brothers and Sisters.  And do it in holiness. Let us pray: O God, the protector of all who trust in you, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us your mercy; that, with you as our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we lose not our hold on things eternal; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

Feel free to FORWARD these gems to others who may be encouraged or profited by them. We highly suggest that you READ the TEXT at the link below, as you listen to the audio above. https://gracegems.org/2026/puritans_on_heaven_and_hell.htm Feel free to FORWARD this gem to others!

In the first episode of this series, Justin Miller helped us understand what Christian contentment is and why it differs from both complacency and stoicism. But if contentment is not something we naturally possess, how do we learn it? In this episode, Dr. John Snyder and Justin Miller explore Paul's statement in Philippians 4:11, “I have learned to be content.” Together they consider how God uses trials, hardships, disappointments, and even unanswered prayers to teach His people that Christ is sufficient. Drawing from Scripture, the Puritans, and the lives of believers who have walked this path before us, they discuss why contentment is learned in the school of providence. They also examine the truths that fuel Christian contentment: God's sovereignty, God's goodness, His commitment to work all things for the good of His people, and His wise use of affliction to wean us from the world and teach us to treasure Christ above all else. Show Notes A Life of Joy: Learning Christian Contentment by Justin Miller - https://freegracepress.com/collections/coming-soon/products/a-life-of-joy The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs - Free from Chapel Library: https://www.chapellibrary.org/book/rjoc/rare-jewel-of-christian-contentment-the-burroughsjeremiah Banner of Truth edition: https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/christian-living/the-rare-jewel-of-christian-contentment/ Want to listen to The Whole Counsel on the go? Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcast app: https://www.mediagratiae.org/podcasts You can get The Whole Counsel a day early on the Media Gratiae App: https://subsplash.com/mediagratiae/app

Most readers skip the opening pages of a book—the dedication, preface, and introductory material—in order to get to the "real" content. We begin exploring the Dedicatory Epistle of William Gurnall's The Christian in Complete Armour.

In this interview, Spencer Dalke sits down with theologian Kyle Strobel to explore the often confusing experience of spiritual dryness and seasons when God feels absent. Drawing from his own story and the wisdom of the Puritans and figures like Jonathan Edwards, Strobel explains how these periods—often described as “spiritual desertion”—are not signs of failure or abandonment, but part of God's work in deepening faith, exposing hidden sin, and teaching humility. He challenges the common assumption that spiritual maturity is measured by emotional highs, instead pointing listeners toward a life of steady faith, honest prayer, and dependence on God even when feelings fade. The conversation offers a pastoral vision of spiritual formation that centers on abiding in Christ in weakness, learning to bring one's true self before God, and discovering that even in the desert, God is at work drawing believers into deeper love and trust.  God's consolation—and desolation! —as gifts to us.  Responding humbly to God's gifts.  How to carry on in seasons of God's desolation.  “At a certain point, the Lord leads us into the desert to show us what's in our hearts. If you think all spiritual formation is you doing spiritual practices, that's going to reveal that you're trying to live the Christian life in your own strength.”  “In all of these different experiences, the answer is the same: Draw near to Jesus. It's never trying to get somewhere; it's always saying, ‘If this is where you have me, Lord, I am yours here.'”  Featured work: When God Seems Distant: Surprising Ways God Deepens Our Faith and Draws Us Near  Connect with Kyle Strobel on Substack.  For more faith-filled, Gospel-centered content, download the Pilgrim Radio app today on Google Play and Apple, or stream at PilgrimRadio.com. 

King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where a new English version of the Bible was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans, an orthodox faction of the Church of England. One cannot underestimate the spiritual, cultural, political, and literary importance and influence of the Authorized Version's preeminence in the English-speaking world. E216. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/OAsU9HzL2vM which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. Hampton Court Palace books available at https://amzn.to/3ND5Q8I Hampton Court Palace souvenirs at https://amzn.to/4fdL5w1 King James Version (KJV) Bibles available at https://amzn.to/3jOQna7 ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVine Mark's History of North America podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 X (twitter): https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credits: The Story of the King James Bible with James Naughtie (BBC Radio 4). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join us for a conversation with Stephen Yuille, pastor and author of numerous books, including 'The Heart Taken Up: 90 Days with the Puritans', and 'The Sight of Christ: 90 Days with the Puritans.'   Reformation Press Puritan Treasures for Today: https://heritagebooks.org/PuritanTreasures?srsltid=AfmBOooe1-Ob6RfSnJ4J63sNEUbK4aFjaSnNRfyFFsEiJSu8FH87xIyM A Perfect Redeemer by William Perkins: https://heritagebooks.org/products/a-perfect-redeemer-perkins.html?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21619799276&gbraid=0AAAAAClRuhuynS8PRY0jViRNZn6dUXGwE&gclid=Cj0KCQjwio_RBhDMARIsAJPveNNLs-b98ML5c_Qpv3tu19oteT0_bqW7WYjGBA_peuS8lIhqLcW4-R0aArPWEALw_wcB The Heart Taken Up: 90 Days with the Puritans: https://heritagebooks.org/products/the-heart-taken-up-volume-1-yuille.html

June 8, 2026KYLE KEARBEY,one of four pastors of Grace Fellow-ship Church of Browns, IL, & Founder& Director of the Christian HeritageCenter, who will address: “The PURITANS: A MODELFOR GODLINESS TODAY” Subscribe: iTunes TuneIn Android RSS Feed Listen:

Pastors Justin Alexander and Eric Williamson continue their series called, “1776 And The Gospel Thread.” This series will explore how the gospel was weaving through the foundation of our nation. This episode was recorded live during the Wednesday Night Bible Study at FBC Hendersonville, NC, on June 3, 2025.

In this episode of Counsel the Word Pastor Keith Palmer talks with Dr. Stephen Yuille about two books: Special Providence for Anxious Souls by Obadiah Sedgwick and The Site of Christ: 90 Day with the Puritans by Stephen Yuille

Audio Transcript How are we this morning? Excellent. All right. It's my privilege to bring the word to you this morning, so let's get into it. Recently I read a story about a young man who never wanted to be a soldier. He had no visions of fame or ambitions of glory. When his father announced that he'd secured him an appointment to West Point, the boy protested. He wanted to be a farmer or perhaps work the river trade. But his father was not a man to be argued with, and so the 17 year old boarded a coach east. Sick with dread, he got off to a rough start. Through a clerical error, his name was copied incorrectly and it would stick permanently. He hated the academy. He finished 21st of 39 cadets, distinguished only in horsemanship and mathematics. The Mexican War found him a reluctant quartermaster, competent, but unnoticed afterward posted to lonely garrisons on the Pacific coast. Far from his wife Julia and the children he barely knew, he began to drink. In 1854, facing either court martial or resignation over his drinking, he resigned his commission in disgrace and went home with empty pockets. What followed were the worst years of his life. He tried farming on land his father in law gave him outside St. Louis, and the crops failed. He hauled firewood through the city streets in a worn army overcoat, occasionally passing former West Point classmates who looked away embarrassment. He pawned his gold watch one Christmas to buy presents for his children. He tried bill collecting and was terrible at it. He tried real estate and failed at that, too. By 1860, at 38 years old, he was working at a clerk in his younger brother's leather goods store in Galena, Illinois, earning $800 a year. He was a man whose life, by every visible measure, had failed. Then Fort Sumter fell. The quiet clerk who couldn't sell harnesses turned out to understand something that most West Point polished generals did not. The war was not about elegant maneuvers or reputation, but about pressing forward relentlessly, accepting losses and refusing to stop. Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Appomattox. The failures had taught him things that successful men never learned. What it was to be underestimated, to be written off, to keep moving even when the odds looked long. The boy who didn't want to be a soldier, the the lieutenant who resigned in shame, the farmer who failed, and his brother's store. Hiram Ulysses Grant, or as the West Point Clerk mistakenly wrote, U.S. grant, ended the war as General of the armies, the man who had saved the Union and later President of the United States. It turned out that the long road had been the training. Weeks before his death, Grant wrote the preface to his personal memoirs, saying, man proposes and God disposes. There are but few important events in the affairs of men brought about by their own choice. Most of us at some point will know what it is to be in our own wilderness. We will know what it is to wait, to wait through years that seem to lead nowhere, to feel forgotten by God, to look out at a landscape that gives no sign that he is at work. And we will be tempted in those years to conclude that nothing is happening, that God has misplaced us, that our life is being spent in vain. This morning, as we come to a passage in the Book of Exodus that speaks directly into that experience. It is the story of 40 silent years in the life of Moses and 400 silent years in the life of Israel. It is the story of a God who appears to all human eyes to be doing nothing. And it is the story of how, beneath that silence, he was doing everything. So if you would with me open your Bibles, please, to the Book of Exodus. And this morning we're going to finish chapter two, verses 11 to 25. One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people. He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. When he went out the next day, behold, two Hebrews were struggling together. And he said to the man in the wrong, why do you strike your companion? He answered, who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian? Then Moses was afraid and thought, surely the thing is known. When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian. And he sat down by a well. Now, the priest of Midian had seven daughters. And they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. The shepherds came and drove them away. But Moses stood up and saved them and watered their flock. When he came home to their father, Reuel, he said, how is it that you have come home so soon today? They said, an Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and even drew water for us and watered the flock. He said to his daughters, then where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man. And he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah. She gave birth to a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he Said I have been a sojourner in a foreign land. During those many days. The king of Egypt died and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God, and God heard their groaning. And God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel and God knew. Let's pray. Father. May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts this morning be acceptable in your presence. Lord, I pray, after my words are long forgotten, that your word would be remembered. Jesus name. Amen. Exodus is an epic of God's love and redemption of his people. Every scene reads like an action novel. The baby in the basket, the burning bush, the plagues, the angel of death. The parting of the Red Sea, the thunder and lightning around Mount Sinai, the covenant with the Almighty. Before we dive into our text, we must read Exodus rightly. We have to read it Christologically, that is, in relation to Jesus Christ, who is our perfect sacrifice, who saved us out of our bondage to sin and delivered us into a right relationship with God. When Jesus appeared to his disciples on the road to emmaus in Luke 24:27 Records beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. If Jesus started with Moses when describing himself, perhaps we can also we also read it historically. Scholars debate whether the Exodus took place around 1446 BC or around 1260. Good evidence exists for both dates and ancient Israel did not work with an absolute calendar the way we do. But what matters for us this morning is not the precise year, but the fact that it is history, not myth. The renowned Old Testament scholar Nahum Sarna observed that no nation would invent for itself and then faithfully transmit for thousands of years an inglorious origin story of slavery, grumbling and and idolatry. Israel did not flatter itself into existence. This happened. Exodus 2:11 to 25 sits at 1 of the great hinge moments of redemptive history. The book opens with the sons of Jacob settling in Egypt under the protection of Joseph. But there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. What begins as refuge becomes bonding. Hebrews multiplied, and Pharaoh, fearing them, enslaved them and decreed that every male child be cast into the Nile. Into that decree Moses is born. Wes laid out for us last week that Moses mother hides him, his sister watches over him, and then Pharaoh's daughter draws him out of the water. He grows up in the palace, Stephen tells us in Acts 7:22 that he was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in his words and deeds. And that is where our passage begins. The structure that we will use this morning breaks down into four movements. Verses 11 to 14 Moses takes matters into his own hands. Verses 15 to 17 Moses flees and is shaped at a well. 18:22 Moses is welcomed and becomes a sojourner. 23 To 25 While Moses tends sheep, Israel groans and God acts. Start with 11 to 14. Moses has grown. Now the infant in the basket has become a man in Pharaoh's court, raised as Egyptian royalty. How much did he know about his true background growing up? Wes mentioned last week that Moses mother was allowed to nurse him. So did they still have a relationship? Certainly possible. There are so many unanswered questions. Did he live with a divided heart for years? Did he spend endless nights pleading with Pharaoh? Was he embarrassed by his background and didn't want to believe it? We have no idea. What we do know is that he was raised to be a prince of Egypt. But by the time he was 40, he knew exactly who he was and who his brothers and sisters truly were. Were. One day he goes out to his brothers, the Hebrews, and he looks on their burdens. And what he sees he cannot unsee. An Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own. He looks this way and that, and when he sees no one watching, he strikes. Strikes the Egyptian down and buries him in the sand. Now this raises a nagging question for me. If Moses was a member of Pharaoh's household in the royal family, so to speak, why would he have feared killing someone? Wouldn't a royal be able to kill a lowly Egyptian taskmaster with little to no reprisal? This goes into the historical context at the time. Exodus 1:8 says, now there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. Commentators note that this likely indicates a dynastic change. A new royal house with no political or familial loyalty to the previous regime. In fact, during either time period, you believe royal houses at that time were very politically unstable, with different factions having different claims to the crown. The princess who had adopted him was almost certainly aging or dead. And the reigning pharaoh would have viewed an adopted Hebrew with suspicion, not affection. And the man Moses killed was not a slave. He was an Egyptian official, a representative of Pharaoh's economic and political authority. This is crucial. In ancient Egypt, killing a Hebrew slave was something an Egyptian could do with little consequence. But a member of the royal household killing one of Pharaoh's taskmasters. This probably would not have looked so much like murder. It would have looked like the potential beginning of an insurrection. The next day, Moses goes out and this time he finds two Hebrews fighting each other. He steps in to make peace, and the man in the wrong rounds on him with words that must have cut deeply. Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill us as you killed the Egyptian? And Moses is afraid. The secret is out. Beneath these interactions is something deeper that the New Testament helps us understand. The writer of Hebrews tells us this whole episode began in faith. By faith. Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the Reward. That's Hebrews 11:24-26. When Moses walked out of the palace, he was not slumming, he was choosing. He looked at the gold of Egypt on the one hand and the suffering of God's people in the other. And he chose the suffering. That is faith. So what went wrong? Well, it can be summed up in the next phrase. He looked this way. That a long line of preachers have lingered over those words and noticed what was missing. As Chuck Swindoll says, he looked east, he looked west, he looked over his shoulder, but he didn't look up, did he? He looked in both directions horizontally, but he left the vertical completely out of it. Moses was a man with a true call, but a glance still fixed on the ground. Here is the heart of the problem. Moses tried to bring about by his own hand what God had promised to bring about by his covenant. The deliverer was right, the cause was right, the method was wrong, and the time was not yet. And the proof is what he is in what he does next. He hides the body in the sand, as if sand could keep a secret from God. Within a day, the rumor was loose. Within a week, Pharaoh wants him dead. Three things to take from these opening verses. First, a true call from God does not exempt a man from from the discipline of God's timing. Moses had the right cause and the right collar. But he ran ahead. And it will take 40 years in the desert to refine him. Second, hidden sin is a poor investment. Sand is a thin grave. What God means to expose, no man can keep buried. Third, there is mercy for those with juvenile or immature faith. John Calvin's pastoral word on this passage is really helpful. Even the obedience of the saints, stained as it is by sin, is still sometimes acceptable to God through his mercy. So Moses runs, but God was not finished with him. He was only beginning verses 15 through 17. Verse 15 begins with collapse. However noble Moses motives may have been, when he took matters into his own hands, he was outside the will of God. And yet God still had a plan for him. This is one of the great promises of Scripture. God uses sinners for his glory. It's the only kind he has to work with. When you read the heroes of the faith, they read a lot more like a Alcoholics Anonymous meeting than a catalog of superheroes. I can almost see them in a church basement, sitting in a circle on folding chairs, sipping bad coffee, introducing themselves. Hi, I'm Abraham and I'm a liar who pimped out my wife. Hi, I'm Jacob. I'm a deceiver and I'm a thief. How? Hi, I'm Samson and I'm a lust addicted vow breaker. Hi, I'm David. I'm an adulterer and a murderer. Hi, I'm Jonah and I'm a racist runaway. Hi, I'm Peter and I'm a coward who denied my Savior. Hi, I'm Moses and I'm a murderer. When Janet and I lived in Atlanta, we had a pastor who was fond of saying that God doesn't look for ability, he looks for availability. God uses broken people because it's his strength, it's his wisdom, it's his power, and it's for his glory. God would be using Moses, but he had some seasoning yet to experience. Verse 15. When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian. There's no firm consensus on where exactly Midian was, but the traditional and most widely accepted location is in northwest Arabia, east of the Gulf of Agapa, in what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia. The Midianites appear to have been a semi nomadic people, so Midian may refer to an area where the tribe ranged rather than a specific location. Calvin, commenting here, sees in Moses flight not cowardice, but the sovereign hand of God, breaking a man down before he builds him up. Calvin's instinct is that the Lord put his servant through a long banishment precisely so that he would learn humility and dependence, because the work for which he was designed was greater than human strength could compass. 40 Years of palace training had to be matched by 40 years of desert undoing. Augustine, in a different connection, spoke of being in the region of unlikeness that far country, where the soul learns who it is by losing what it had. Moses, sitting by that well is in the region of unlikeness. Verse 15 ends noting that Moses, obviously exhausted, sat down by a well. One of the beauties of Scripture is the inclusion of what so often to us seems like pointless details. But wells, as it turns out, is an important location in the Bible, specifically, if you are looking for a wife. In Genesis 24, Abraham's servant meets Rebekah, Isaac's future wife, at a well. In Genesis 29, Jacob meets Rachel at a well. This time, who is Moses going to meet? Verses 16 and 17. Now, the priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. The shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up to save them and watered their flock. Moses is once again faced with injustice. Has he learned anything? A group of young women have come to the well to draw water, and a group of shepherds is going to give them a hard time. Moses, again courageously rises to their defense. Already we see clues that he is learning from his past mistakes. The text does not record that he killed the shepherds, and not only that he served the young women by watering their flock. For the first time, he was learning what it was to be a deliverer. He stands firm for what is just and begins to practice true leadership, which is born out of service. It would have been unthinkable at the time for a man to perform a menial task for women. But Moses stooped to serve. And by learning to serve, he was learning to lead. For all God's leaders are servants. He, in time, the one who is the true and better. Moses would himself kneel and wash 12 pairs of dirty feet and tell his disciples that whoever wants to be great must be a servant of all. Service is always one of the first courses in God's leadership training. Anyone who aspires to spiritual leadership, especially in the church, should begin by finding a place of humble service. If you travel to my alma mater, Wheaton College, one of the most striking little buildings on campus is the Marion E. Wade center, which houses the largest collection of C.S. Lewis writings in the world. Its namesake, Marian Wade, was an American businessman and founder of the large company Servicemaster. Wade was a man of deep faith who established a tradition called six weeks on the front lines. Every future executive at the company would spend six weeks scrubbing floors on hands and knees, doing the work of those they would later lead. Wade believed that those who refused to serve had no business leading. One of the other blessings of servant leadership is that when kids watch authentic service from their parents, it has a tendency to be passed down through the generations. The other founder of Service Master was a gentleman by the name of Ken Hanson. Ken's son, Walter Hanson, when he grew up, would move to Cleveland. He started a little church in his living room. And it grew, and it grew to about a thousand. In 10 years, the church would grow into what is now called Parkside Church. And if that name rings a bell, it would be because it's the church that Alistair Begg just retired from. It's amazing how these things pass down. Moses is being molded. Though he must feel lost and alone, God is right there, directing the most salient detail, refining his champion. God creates this dress rehearsal. The stage is a backwater. Well, the cast is seven anonymous girls, but the script is the same script that would one day be played out at the Red Sea. This is how God so often works. CS Lewis, in his collected letters, wrote that the great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one's own or real life. The truth is, of course, that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one's real life, the life God is sending one day by day, Moses thought his real life had ended at the border of Egypt. In fact, his real life was just beginning in Midian. There are seasons of our lives where it seems to have been derailed, where the calling we thought we had has collapsed and we find ourselves sitting by a well in some unfamiliar place. The temptation is to read those seasons as God's absence. But this text invites us to read them as God's curriculum. The God who is going to deliver Israel is at this very moment teaching his deliverer how to stand up for seven helpless women at a watering trough. Nothing in your wilderness is wasted. Turn to verses 18 to 22. The daughters return home and their father called Ruel here or Jethro elsewhere, most likely the same man. So don't get confused. Very common at the time for there to be multiple names for somebody. And he asked why they're early, and they say, an Egyptian delivered us. It's a quietly ironic line. Moses has gone out to deliver Hebrews and was rejected as a meddling Egyptian. He flees to Midian and is received as a generous Egyptian. The man cannot escape his identity, and yet his identity is not what God will make of it. Ruel rebukes his daughters for leaving the man unhosted. Call him that. He may eat bread and Moses is brought in. Verse 21 simply says Moses was content to dwell with the man. The Hebrew verb here ya all carries the sense of consenting, of being willing, even of resigning oneself. Moses is not striving anymore. He has come to the end of his striving. He sits down and he stays. The Book of Acts tells us that 40 years passed between Moses flight to Midian and his encounter with God at the burning bush. D.L. Moody is often quoted as saying Moses spent 40 years in Egypt learning to be something. 40 Years in the desert learning to be nothing. And 40 years in the wilderness proving God to be everything. Philip Reichen notes that whenever we are tempted to grow impatient with God's timetable for our lives, we should remember Moses, who spent two years of preparation for every year of ministry. Zipporah is given to Moses as a wife and a son is born. Moses names him Gershom new meaning I have become an alien in a foreign land. The name comes from the Hebrew verb garash, which means to drive out or expel. It may refer to Moses own experience of being driven out of Egypt. It also sounds like the Hebrew words ger and sham, which is a pun that means an alien there. Every time Moses speaks his son's name, he confesses that he does not belong. Midian is not home. Egypt is not home. He is a man between worlds. The Puritans loved this theme of sojourning. John Owen described the believer as a stranger and a pilgrim traveling through a country not his own, with his heart fixed on a city whose builder and maker is God. Jonathan Edwards preached a famous sermon called the Christian Pilgrim, in which he said that the true Christian travels on through this world as a wayfaring man and looks not upon any of the enjoyments of this world as his own. GK Chesterton, with his usual paradox, put it this way. How can we contrive to be at once astonished at the world and and yet at home in it? The answer of Scripture is that we cannot. Not fully, not yet. We are pilgrims. Gershom is the name of every saint. But notice Moses, sojourning is not a punishment, it is a preparation. RC Sproul emphasized that the entire 40 year sojourn in Midian was God's way of thinking. Moses for leadership, a man trained only in Pharaoh's court could not lead Israel through Pharaoh's wilderness. But a man who had himself become a shepherd of sheep in that very wilderness could one day shepherd God's people through it. The geography of Midian is the geography of the Exodus. Route. The skills Moses learned watering Reuel's flock are the skills he would use leading Israel's flock. God was not killing time. God was forging an instrument. And Moses doesn't know he names his son after his displacement. He doesn't name him soon to be deliverer or heir of promise. He names him Sojourner. The man cannot see what God is doing. Alistair Begg has spoken movingly of how God's people are very often in the dark about the brightness of God's plan for them. Moses is in the dark, but the brightness is gathering. If you are a Christian, you are a Gershom. You are a sojourner in a foreign land. The disquiet you feel, the restlessness, the sense that this world is not home is not a defect of your discipleship. It is a feature of it. CS Lewis spoke of this often when he talked about the pilgrim longing in Mere Christianity. He wrote, if we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world. The long ordinary years in which it seems nothing of eternal weight is happening to you are very likely the years in which God is doing his deepest work. Verses 23 and 20 through 25. And now the camera pulls back, just like in a movie. We get a break from the action in Midian and the screen flashes. Meanwhile, back in Egypt. Verse 23. During those many days, the king of Egypt died and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. 40 Years have passed. A Pharaoh has died, another has come. Nothing has changed for Israel. They are still in chains. Bricks still must be made, whips still fall. And from those brick fields raises a sound. The text uses the strongest words in Hebrew for it. A groaning, a crying, a shrieking that goes up out of the dust. Where does the cry go? To all human eyes, the cry goes nowhere. Pharaoh doesn't hear it. The Egyptians don't hear it. Moses doesn't hear it. And then come four of the most precious verbs in the Old Testament. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God, and God heard their groaning. And God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel, and God knew. God heard. God remembered. God saw. God knew. John Piper has called these four verbs the Gospel before the Gospel, the announcement hundreds of years before Bethlehem that the God of heaven is not a deistic clock maker, but a covenant father who hears the groaning of his enslaved children. Each verb carries a war world. God heard, not merely overheard, the Hebrew implies attentive, responsive, hearing the cry that no human ear answered, the cry that seemed to die in the air over the Egyptian sky. The cry arrived at the throne of heaven. The silence of God is never the deafness of God. When his people cry, he hears with the ears of a father. God remembered. This does not mean that God had forgotten and now recalled. To remember in the covenantal sense is to act upon a prior commitment. When Scripture says God remembered Noah, the next thing is that the waters subside. When it says he remembered Hannah, the next thing is that she conceives. When it says he remembered his covenant with Abraham, the next thing is the Exodus. God's remembrance is the prelude to his deliverance, the covenant he made 400 years before. I will be a God to you and to your offspring after you has not faded. He was about to honor it. God saw. The verb is the same verb used in Genesis 1. And God saw that it was good. It is the verb of attentive, evaluating, sight. He saw the bruises, he saw the broken backs. He saw the widows, the unburied babies. There is no suffering of his people that is hidden from him. The Scottish divine Samuel Rutherford, writing from his imprisonment in Aberdeen, often returned to the image of God as the watchman over Israel, who never slumbers, whose people's tears are gathered in heaven long before they fall to the ground. God sees and God knew. Interestingly, the verb stands alone in the Hebrew. There is no object God knew. Some translations may supply one. God knew their condition, but the Hebrew leaves it bare. Why? Perhaps because what God knows here is larger than any object can contain. He knows their pain, he knows their bondage, he knows their names, and he knows what he is about to do. Jonathan Edwards taught that every act of God in history is the unfolding of a purpose conceived before time began. God knew. While Moses sits in Midian thinking he had been forgotten, and while Israel cries in Egypt, thinking that they have been forgotten, neither has been forgotten. God is doing two things at once. In Midian, he is shaping his deliverer. In Egypt, he is hearing their cries. The two threads are converging towards a burning bush in the next chapter. But neither Moses nor Israel can see it. Yet Augustine in his Confessions, wrote this sentence. Thou, O Lord, wert more inward to me than my most inward part and higher than my highest. That is the God of Exodus 2. He is closer to Israel's groaning than the chains on their wrists. He is closer to Moses weariness than the dust on his sandals. He is not far off. He is not distracted, he is at work. Four thoughts to close. First, be still and know that he is God. What we are very often is people who run ahead of God. Moses is not alone in this. Abraham had the promise of a son and and couldn't wait until he took Hagar. And the household of faith has lived with the consequences ever since. Jacob had the blessing already promised to him, but couldn't wait, and so he stole it with a goatskin and a lie. Peter had a lord he loved and couldn't bear to see him arrested. So he drew a sword in Gethsemane and cut off a man's ear. The pattern is older than Moses, and it is as new as this morning. The right cause can be pursued in the wrong way and the wrong time. Bradley Gray puts it bluntly. Nothing good happens when you get ahead of God and take matters into your own hands. Second, the silence of God is not the absence of God. 40 Years passed in Midian and 400 years in Egypt before God spoke from the bush. But not one of those years was empty. God was hearing, he was remembering. He was seeing, he was knowing. If your life feels like a wilderness right now, if you have been sitting by your own well in Midian waiting for a word from heaven that just doesn't come, take this passage and press it to your heart. The silence is not absence. The God who shaped Moses in obscurity is shaping you now. In his 1967 book Spiritual Leadership, J. Oswald Sanders quoted this anonymous poem. When God wants to drill a man and thrill a man, and skill a man. When God wants to mold a man to play the noblest part, when he yearns with all his heart to create so great and bold a man that all the world shall be amazed. Watch his methods, watch his ways, how he ruthlessly perfects whom he royally elects. How his hammer he hammers him and hurts him and with mighty blows converts him into trial shapes of clay which only God understands. While his tortured heart is crying and he lifts beseeching hands, how he bends but never breaks when his good he undertakes, how he uses whom he chooses and with every purpose him by every act induces him to try his splendor out. God knows what he's about. Third, your sojourning has a destination. Moses named his son Gershom because he felt the foreignness of his life. But the foreignness was not the end of the story. It was the prelude to a calling. The writer of Hebrews tells us that all the saints acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. They desired a better country. That is a heavenly one. Your pilgrimage is not a pointless one wandering. It is a movement towards a country God has prepared for you. Fourth, and most importantly, the God who heard Israel has heard you in a fuller way still. The end of Exodus 2 is a foreshadowing. The four verbs heard, remembered, saw new, find their final fulfillment not at Sinai, but at Calvary. There the Father heard the cries of his people. There he remembered the covenant he had made before the foundations of the world. There he saw his Son lifted up between heaven and earth, bearing the groaning of every enslaved soul in his own body. And there he knew in a way only the triune God could know the cost of redeeming a people for himself. If God heard Israel groaning under Pharaoh and he sent Moses, how much more has he heard your groaning and sent his son? The exodus from Egypt is the shadow. The exodus from sin and death is the substance. And the same four verbs hover over the cross. Today God hears your cries that come up from the dust of this fallen world. God remembers his covenant with you. God sees you right now in this room, in your struggle, in your brokenness. And God knows exactly what he's doing. Let's pray. Father, thank you for this text. Father, thank you for your covenant with us. That you know us, that you love us, that you see us, that no prayer goes unheard, no silence is a waste. And that wherever we are in our life, whatever burdens we are carrying, that you're right here. That you are molding us and you are creating us in just the way that you had planned for us before the creation of the world. Thank you for who you are. In Jesus name, amen. The post Moses Flees to Midian – Exodus 2: 11-25 appeared first on Red Village Church.

Today on AOTA Shorts: Gov. Ron Desantis is at it again, ensuring his state continues to lead the way on the most draconian and fascist education policies on the books. Florida has now unleashed its new suite of accelerated courses known as FACT - Florida Advanced Courses and Tests. The US History course aspires to challenge the College Board's AP US History course, by pushing a decidedly biased curriculum, rooted in fundamental lies and mythology about America. American exceptionalism, seeing things like slavery and indigenous genocide and displacement as “aberrations from an otherwise admirable story,” and advocating students read the bible to understand the Christian roots of the Puritans are the tip of the iceberg. We've reached this point in the descent of American public education, where they're creating their own advanced courses for white supremacist, christian nationalist, patriachal, imperialist propaganda. Yikes. Manuel and Jeff discuss!MAXIMUM WOKENESS ALERT -- get your All of the Above swag, including your own “Teach the Truth” shirt! In this moment of relentless attacks on teaching truth in the classroom, we got you covered. https://all-of-the-above-store.creator-spring.com Watch, listen and subscribe to make sure you don't miss our latest content!Listen on Apple Podcast and Spotify Website: https://AOTAshow.com

Most Americans trace "separation of church and state" to Thomas Jefferson. The real origin is 150 years earlier — a devout Puritan named Roger Williams who argued from scripture that the church needed protection from the state, not the other way around.Filmmaker Andrew Linn joins Doug Stuart to discuss his documentary Church and State: Roger Williams and the Founding of Freedom of Religion. They cover:Why the Puritans fled religious persecution and then replicated it in MassachusettsWilliams's two-table reading of the Ten Commandments and what it limits government from enforcingHis "garden and wilderness" metaphor: how state-church fusion corrupts the churchWhy religious liberty is a Christian idea — and why Christians should be its loudest defendersWhat Christian nationalism gets wrong, and what Williams already said about itAndrew Linn's documentary is free on Faith Channel, Fawesome TV, YouTube, and RedeemTV.com. churchandstatedoc.com Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com Use code LCI50 for 50% off your first order at Podsworth.com to clean up your voice recordings and also support LCI!Full Podsworth Ad Read BEFORE & AFTER processing:https://youtu.be/vbsOEODpQGs  ★ Support this podcast ★

Support the show

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones continues his historical review of the relationship between church and state. Building on his previous sermon, he presses the listener to consider church history in this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (3).” It is important, he argues, because there is no neutral ground. It is all relevant to the life of Christ's followers and how they live out those lives. Claiming disinterest and avoidance is a great sin. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the lives of the Puritans and Separatists (both groups had deep-rooted interest in this topic), he reminds that these two were completely different in their approach towards church and state. Though the Puritans went to America to find relief from religious tyranny, they themselves became the religious and ecclesial tyrants who were intolerant. At the same time the Separatists argued for complete freedom between church and state, wanting the religious freedom to worship as they chose. As these groups are considered, Dr. Lloyd-Jones cautions refraining from severe judgment because they were outworking new ideas and beliefs in a difficult political atmosphere. Listen to his compelling review on church history and be encouraged to think anew on one's own responsibilities regarding religious freedom.

This is session 1 of our Spring 2026 Conference on the English Puritans. Dr. Yuille answers the question: "Who are the Puritans?"

The following session was delivered by Dr. Joel Beeke at the 2026 Covenant Conference in Louisville, KY. Consider giving to CBTS to help us train the next generation of gospel ministers. CBTSeminary.org/give Apply to CBTS today to be sharpened for a lifetime of faithful ministry. CBTSeminary.org/apply

The following session was delivered by Dr. Joel Beeke at the 2026 Covenant Conference in Louisville, KY. Consider giving to CBTS to help us train the next generation of gospel ministers. CBTSeminary.org/give Apply to CBTS today to be sharpened for a lifetime of faithful ministry. CBTSeminary.org/apply

Thomas Massie, Ken Paxton, Karoline Leavitt, Canada's euthanasia laws, and Marco Rubio headline today's A.M. Update. Trump scores another primary scalp as Ed Gallrein defeats Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky's 4th district — the most expensive House primary on record — while Trump simultaneously endorses Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in next week's Texas Senate runoff, leaving Senate Majority Leader John Thune visibly rattled. JD Vance steps in for Karoline Leavitt at the White House briefing and defends Trump's "I don't think about Americans' finances" comment for over an hour, and the NAACP calls for a student athlete boycott of Southern state universities over redistricting. A resurfaced comment from a Quebec College of Physicians member proposing euthanasia for disabled infants up to one year old prompts Aaron's broader warning about Canada's medically assisted dying laws and the slippery slope from allowance to coercion. Aaron closes with Marco Rubio's Rededicate 250 address tracing America's Christian foundation from the Puritans to the moon landing, and a sharp response to various voices crying about an ungovernable Senate: all you had to do was pass the SAVE Act.    

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones continues his historical review of the relationship between church and state. Building on his previous sermon, he presses the listener to consider church history in this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (3).” It is important, he argues, because there is no neutral ground. It is all relevant to the life of Christ's followers and how they live out those lives. Claiming disinterest and avoidance is a great sin. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the lives of the Puritans and Separatists (both groups had deep-rooted interest in this topic), he reminds that these two were completely different in their approach towards church and state. Though the Puritans went to America to find relief from religious tyranny, they themselves became the religious and ecclesial tyrants who were intolerant. At the same time the Separatists argued for complete freedom between church and state, wanting the religious freedom to worship as they chose. As these groups are considered, Dr. Lloyd-Jones cautions refraining from severe judgment because they were outworking new ideas and beliefs in a difficult political atmosphere. Listen to his compelling review on church history and be encouraged to think anew on one's own responsibilities regarding religious freedom. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones continues his historical review of the relationship between church and state. Building on his previous sermon, he presses the listener to consider church history in this sermon on Romans 13:1–7 titled “Church and the State (3).” It is important, he argues, because there is no neutral ground. It is all relevant to the life of Christ's followers and how they live out those lives. Claiming disinterest and avoidance is a great sin. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones expounds on the lives of the Puritans and Separatists (both groups had deep-rooted interest in this topic), he reminds that these two were completely different in their approach towards church and state. Though the Puritans went to America to find relief from religious tyranny, they themselves became the religious and ecclesial tyrants who were intolerant. At the same time the Separatists argued for complete freedom between church and state, wanting the religious freedom to worship as they chose. As these groups are considered, Dr. Lloyd-Jones cautions refraining from severe judgment because they were outworking new ideas and beliefs in a difficult political atmosphere. Listen to his compelling review on church history and be encouraged to think anew on one's own responsibilities regarding religious freedom. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/603/29?v=20251111

I've tried—and failed—to teach The Christian in Complete Armour more than once. This time, instead of reading through the entire work, we begin by examining 12 popular quotes attributed to William Gurnall—testing whether they actually reflect what he said.

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse dive deep into Matthew 21:33-46, examining Jesus's parable of the wicked tenants. The hosts unpack how Christ masterfully draws the Pharisees into pronouncing their own condemnation, revealing not merely theological error but intentional usurpation of God's authority. Through careful exegesis, they explore the shocking setup of the parable—where the landowner does all the work while the tenants contribute nothing—and how this mirrors God's sovereign initiative in salvation. The discussion touches on confession, the value of full-time ministry, and the scandal of rejecting the Messiah despite recognizing His authority. This episode challenges listeners to examine whether they, like the Pharisees, attempt to claim God's work as their own. Key Takeaways God Does All the Verbs: The parable emphasizes that the landowner planted, built, protected, and prepared everything—the tenants contributed nothing yet claimed ownership of the fruit. Self-Pronounced Condemnation: Jesus draws the Pharisees into declaring their own judgment, demonstrating that even the unregenerate conscience bears witness to divine justice (Romans 2). Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error: The Pharisees weren't well-intentioned but misguided; they recognized Christ's authority as the heir and deliberately murdered Him to seize His inheritance. The Scandal of Grace: The parable's shocking element is that the landowner prepared everything before leasing the land—far exceeding normal agricultural arrangements and illustrating God's unmerited favor. Ecclesial Support for Ministry: The OPC presbytery's decision to fund a full-time call demonstrates how church structure can honor the ministry of Word and sacrament by freeing ministers from worldly distractions. Particular Repentance Matters: Westminster Confession 15.5 teaches that believers should not content themselves with general repentance but "endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly." The Stone Rejected Becomes Chief: Christ's citation of Psalm 118 reveals that the very rejection by the builders (religious leaders) was God's plan to establish the cornerstone of salvation. Key Concepts God Does All the Verbs The concentration of action verbs attributed solely to the landowner in Matthew 21:33 is theologically significant. The landowner plants, builds, digs, and rents—creating a fully functional, productive vineyard before the tenants ever arrive. This arrangement differs radically from typical first-century agricultural practices, where tenants would lease raw land and develop it themselves, sharing profits with the landowner. Jesus deliberately presents an extraordinary scenario where the tenants receive everything prepared and ready, requiring only stewardship of what already exists. This parallels God's sovereign initiative in election and salvation: believers contribute nothing to their standing before God, receiving instead a fully accomplished redemption. The Pharisees' rebellion wasn't against burdensome requirements but against simply acknowledging God's rightful ownership of what He alone created. Intentional Usurpation, Not Mere Error The hosts challenge the common sympathetic reading of the Pharisees as well-intentioned legalists who simply got sidetracked. Instead, verse 38 reveals the tenants explicitly recognize the son as heir and plot to murder him to "seize his inheritance." This isn't accidental rejection but calculated rebellion. The Pharisees weren't confused about Jesus's identity or authority—they understood precisely who He claimed to be and deliberately chose to destroy Him rather than submit. This interpretation carries significant weight for understanding the nature of unbelief: it's not primarily intellectual confusion but volitional rebellion. The religious leaders didn't need more evidence or clearer teaching; they needed transformed hearts. This same dynamic appears whenever humans recognize divine truth yet choose self-sovereignty over submission to God's rightful claim on their lives. The Scandal of Grace The parable begins with a scandalous premise that would have startled Jesus's original audience. Unlike normal tenant farming arrangements where landowners simply provided land in exchange for a share of whatever the tenants produced through their own labor, this landowner invests everything. He doesn't just own the property—he plants the vineyard, constructs the protective wall, digs the wine press for production, and builds the watchtower for defense. The tenants receive a turnkey operation requiring minimal effort. This extravagant preparation mirrors God's unmerited favor toward Israel and, by extension, the church. God didn't merely create humanity and wait to see what we would produce; He established covenants, sent prophets, preserved His Word, and ultimately sent His Son—all before requiring any response. The only "payment" demanded is acknowledging His ownership of what He created. The parable thus exposes the absurdity and ingratitude of claiming God's work as our own achievement. Memorable Quotes God does all the verbs. All of the verbs are done by the landowner. There is nothing expected of these tenants—they really add nothing to the landowner's land. Christ is not painting the Pharisees as well-intentioned but ultimately wrong. He's painting them as usurpers who recognize the proper authority and rather than submitting to it, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly. (Westminster Confession 15.5) Transcript Welcome to episode 491 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:12] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:17] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Parable of Tenants [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: So picture this, Tony, your landlord. You've built the perfect vineyard. We're talking wall watchtower, wine, press, the works like what everybody says. Everybody knows you need all those things. You've got it all set up, and then you hand the keys to some tenants. You take a long trip, you go enjoy yourself. And when the harvest rolls around, you send your servants to collect the rent. And shockingly, your tenants, they beat. Stone. Another, the kill a third. So naturally you think, you know what? I'll fix this. Lemme just send more people. That's obviously the problem. There's some kind of just profound misunderstanding about what's going on here and about our relationship in this business. And then when that doesn't work, you send your son now loved ones. If this were a business strategy, we would already be calling hr. But of course it's not a business strategy, it's a parable. And Jesus is telling it to the very people about to prove the parable true. So welcome back to the Reformed Brotherhood because we're in Matthew Chapter 21 and we're gonna be actually getting all the way into the parable of the Vine growers where the patience of God looks, I would say, to almost anybody else, to humanize at least almost reckless until you realize that's exactly the point. So yeah, grab your beverage of choice, grab your Bible, pull the car over, will you? Because this is gonna get real and we're going to reason together. But before we do all of that, let's do a little affirming with or denying against, what do you got?  [00:02:41] Inside Baseball Affirmation [00:02:41] Tony Arsenal: So this is a sort of inside baseball, uh, affirmation. Um, I'm not sharing anything, although it may feel like I'm sharing something that is private and like, uh, like confidential. It's not No, this is good. Um, so I had the opportunity to visit. Um, my presbytery, um, for those who are listeners of the show or people who like, have been with us a long time, um, I was part of a Baptist church. Uh, I've always kind of been a Presbyterian at heart, but, um, our church closed, uh, a little over a year and a half ago now. And, um, uh, I've joined an OPC congregation in membership now. We've been members there for about a year. And, um, so I've been visiting Presbytery, which is the, the meeting of all of the leadership of all of the churches. So we won't do a polity breakdown here, but basically like, it's, it's the regional meeting. It's the regional business meeting or church meeting for a group of churches in the OPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And so a lot of the meetings, you know, have the normal kind of business type stuff. You have reports from different committee committees and stuff. Um.  [00:03:48] Presbytery Call Debate [00:03:48] Tony Arsenal: Where this is affirmation is coming in here is at this most recent presbytery meeting, um, was pretty heavy on, um, licensing or, or, uh, not licensing on approving men who had received a call to formal ministry within the presbytery. And so in the OPC, and I would imagine that other Presbyterian bodies are not like super different, although I'm sure there's some variation in the OPC. Um, when a church intends to extend a call to a pastor, to a teaching elder, um, to a minister, they must have the call, which is. Is both theological but is also eminently practical. Like the call is a physical piece of paper that details, you know, what the pay is, how much vacation time. So it's kind of a combination between like a theological call and also a contract. Um, the presbytery has to approve that call. And so at this most recent one, there was a couple calls that were more or less uncontroversial. There was no question about them, and they were approved pretty quickly. But there was one call, um, one call to ministry that took, I, I, I didn't time it, but it was probably like four or five hours of debate and discussion in various fashion in order to get to a point where the presbytery could approve the call. So this was a call to a minister who is being called part-time, which is unusual in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, the OPC uh, acknowledges the fact that bivocational tent making ministry is sometimes a necessity, but really views the ministry of the word in sacrament as something that should not have. Distractions. And actually our book of church order talks about, doesn't use the word distraction, I think, but it talks about a, a properly ordered call to a full-time minister includes phrasing that the congregation promises to compensate them in a way that allows them to be free of worldly burdens and cares. And I might have not, not have gotten that wording exactly right. But that's the idea. And so this call was. Explicitly, um, not a full-time call it, they actually took the language out of promising to pay him in a way that he's able to ignore or to not be distracted by worldly care. And that was intentional, but there was a lot of question in discussion at presbytery level about the fact that the call did not include the phrase or the wording of part-time or bivocational. So the conversation started out of like, can this call be modified to include that? So it's explicitly known in this man's call that his calling is part-time, which is both theological, to make sure that the call is properly formatted, but also like very practical that the congregation should acknowledge explicitly that they recognize that this person is not, not going to be putting, you know, 40 hours a week or 50 hours a week towards this position. [00:06:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:06:34] Tony Arsenal: Um. What I'm affirming is where it got to, right? So there was lots of discussion about that. There was some finagling about the retirement package. The OPC recommends that a, a minister be given a retirement contribution of no less than 5% a year of his salaried package. Um, which there's a couple line items that go into that, but 5%, and this was a little bit less than that. And this is what I'm affirming and this, I, I don't know that this is a super widespread thing that would happen all across the, um, the OPC, but it happened in the presbytery of New York and New England this past week, and it's just amazing. And I just, I just want to lay it out there and then I want to hear your reaction. [00:07:13] Funding Full Time Ministry [00:07:13] Tony Arsenal: And I, I wanna hear your reaction as the son of a minister who labored his entire adult, more or less, his entire adult career in ministry, working two or three additional jobs on top of his ministry, the presbytery decided. That because it did not like the idea of a part-time minister. They didn't think that was appropriate. They didn't think that that was good or that that was really the right goal. The presbytery allocated, I'm not gonna say the figures 'cause they're not super germane, but allocated a significant amount of money to be dis to be dispersed to the church for the next three years in order to take what was a part-time call and enable it to become a full-time call. [00:07:54] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.  [00:07:54] Tony Arsenal: And so there are a lot of, there are a lot of church bodies that would say, yeah, we don't love the idea of bi-vocational ministry. You know, we really think it's ideal that a minister could be full-time. Um, they may even put some, some theological freight behind that. Um, I have never encountered a body, um. That was willing to put a sizable amount of money towards essentially supplementing a part-time call to make it full-time. Um, this was just amazing to me, and the candidate was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to him, but I would love to talk to him about what he felt. I, I can just imagine the phone call to his wife who was not, not at presbytery, but to his wife, following the outcome of this to be like, you are never gonna believe what just happened. Right? This is a family who was intending to move across country. Right. He's currently a student at Westminster, California in seminary, uh, California, Westminster Seminary in California, finishing his M Div. They're planning a cross country move into a part-time position where she's probably gonna have to find a job, and then also he's gonna have to find a part-time job. He had the ability to call her on the break and be like, you're never gonna guess what just happened? You're never gonna,  [00:09:09] Jesse Schwamb: it's wild.  [00:09:09] Tony Arsenal: Uh, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. You're never going to. Believe how faithful God is in this. Right. So I'm interested to hear your reaction to that as the son of a, of a try and quad at times Quad vocational. Yeah,  [00:09:23] Jesse Schwamb: for sure.  [00:09:23] Tony Arsenal: Minister who labored his entire, more or less, his entire adult career, um, working full-time in a call as a part-time, part-time minister. You know, like that's a, that's a crazy situation. So I'm just affirming that again, I don't know how common that kind of thing is in the OPC. I don't wanna make it seem like that's the norm. Um, I actually get the sense that this is probably not the norm, but it was amazing to see and it made me in intensely like. Proud in the right way of being a part of this broader body that would, would so emphasize and so value the ministry of the word and the sacrament, and the importance of a man being able to dedicate himself to that without distraction. That they would put forward this amount of money and this kind of money. They had no reason to do so. And there's no real direct benefit to the presbytery for doing this. I mean, there's an indirect benefit of like not having a church with a part-time minister, but like there's no direct benefit to this. There's no direct return on investments that's gonna come out of this. Um, it was pretty amazing to see. It was, it was, it was super encouraging.  [00:10:28] Jesse Schwamb: That is really encouraging. I, I think it's, there's no doubt that for the called pastor, their heart is in the ministry of the word. That's what they want to be doing. They wanna be doing it all the time and as much time as they possibly can, and they wanna be able to have all of their intentional focus on it. So I. I'm excited for that guy. I mean, that's just an incredible blessing to go in hoping for funding, essentially for a part-time role and to basically be told, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not enough. We want you to be committed to this fully as we know your heart is committed. As we validated that call.  [00:11:00] Why Structure Matters [00:11:00] Jesse Schwamb: I do love being a part of churches, well, lemme say it this way. There is, I think, a benefit of being part of congregations that have like a wide resource network that has like appropriate hierarchy and structure and that can be one of them. I've seen something similar in the Christian Missionary Alliance, which is the church that I'm in, not exactly the same, but I've seen some surprising allocations of resources where they basically said, you know, this is important. Like, it even trumps we're, we're gonna. Allocate or resource something so that this can move forward because it is important in a way that was like better than the person who was bringing it before them could have hoped for. Yeah. And uh, suddenly it's as if everything aligned. And it was really in part because there was this structure to come alongside, to validate as you're saying, and then to authenticate and then again to resource assets that could be used. There's, there's something to be said for that interdependency where there is kind of this hierarchical structure in which all that's happening at a level where things are codified. And again, like there's a structure and a way in which we move through those decisions to make sure that they suit the objective of the entire movement. So I guess there's nothing I'll say, but that's a beautiful thing, isn't it?  [00:12:14] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:12:15] Generosity in Action [00:12:15] Tony Arsenal: It was, it was, it was cool because it was like this, it was like this real. Actualization of the principle of outdoing one another and showing honor. Yeah, sure. Because you know, like the initial debate was like, Hey, you know, I'm not sure we can approve this call because the, the OPCs guidelines tell us not to approve a call that has less than 5% of the retirement benefit. And there was a lot of discussion of like, well, the presbytery can't modify the call, but we don't wanna delay this guy coming in and like, we don't wanna delay his ordination, his installation. And so the initial proposal was a, a. What feels like a large amount of money to me. But after I understood more about the, the budget of what's going on in, in the presbytery was actually a very small amount of money. Started with a very tiny, very modest proposal of basically like supplementing the retirement fund to make sure that like we could, they, I say we, like, I was part of this, I was just observing, but to supplement the retirement fund in a way that allowed the church to still proceed with the call as written, but still also make sure that this person had the appropriate retirement fund. And then that just basically was like, there would be some instruction given to the church that like, you've gotta bump this up in the next budget cycle. Like you've gotta get to the 5%. That's, that's the expectation. It went from that. And like I said, I won't give you the specific numbers, but one of the presbyters and I, I'm, I, um, I, I've known this presbyter from a distance for quite a long time and, and I have an immense amount of respect for him. He stood up and he's like, well, if we're gonna give X, why don't we just give 10 times X instead? And then actually, like the discussion was like, well, is, are we sure that 10 times X is even the right amount? Why don't we have this particular group meet over the lunch break and figure out whether that's the right number and then come back after lunch and we'll vote on it. And then they came back after lunch and it was actually a number that was even greater than 10 times X. So it was like this exercise in like. This very small proposal that was still imminently generous, right? The presbytery has no obligation to do this. There's no obligation from any of the presbyters to stand up and say like, we should. We should supplement this fund. They would've been well within their right, and no one would've looked, I think. I think some people would've been frustrated by it, but I don't think anyone would've looked sideways at it or thought it was sinful. If the presbytery just said like, we can't approve this call. You guys are gonna have to come back with it and we'll vote on it at the next presbytery. Like that would've been problematic. This, this kind of poor guy who's coming outta seminary, his call and his beginning of employment would've been delayed, but like. That would've been good and orderly, but instead they were like, one, we don't want this pulpit to stay empty longer. We don't wanna disadvantage this guy who's just getting done with seminary. We want him to get started. We don't wanna discourage him. So here's a small proposal, a very modest amount of money that we can put forward for this purpose. And then it was like, let's just keep seeing how much closer to a real full-time call we can get. And they finally came back and said like, we're gonna do this. We're gonna do this in a wise fashion. They structured it. So like the first year he gets more, the second year he gets a little bit less. The third year the church gets a little bit less with the idea that like each year the church should be adjusting their budget to compensate and get this guy to that with the, the hope that like with a full-time minister, they're able to grow their congregation to the point where they can support a full-time minister. So it was just this really cool, super encouraging exercise. And what I loved about it is the only real debate that was going on was about do we need to do more? There was no one being like, wait a second, why are we, why are we putting more money to this? The whole thing was like, is this actually enough to accomplish what we think God wants to do with this person's call? Because if, if God is truly calling this man to this, this particular church, and we believe that he is. Then what do we as a, as a people of God need to do to enable that call to look like what we actually believe calls to ministry are supposed to look like, which is a full-time call to ministry that is undistracted by the cares of the world. What do we need to do? The answer in this case was like, I think we need to put a sizable amount of money to it. Um, it's a, I mean, and again. I'm not gonna say it on the air. It was not a small chunk of change. Um, it was, it was a, it was a large amount of money that was devoted to this cause and that just goes to show how much this body values the importance of a full-time minister of the word, so. [00:16:50] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:16:51] OPC Love and Recommendation [00:16:51] Tony Arsenal: That's enough about that. I, I could gush about how proud I am to be a part of this body and how encouraged I am and how amazing it was and how awesome this, this guy, how, how much this guy must be thanking God for the providence and like, this is the last thing. I'll say this, this young man younger than me, I think he's graduating seminary. I saw him across the room. He looks like he's probably in his mid twenties, right? Young guy. He's got a wife doesn't have kids yet coming into this ministry, not only is he coming into this ministry, but as a Presbyterian minister, when he's installed as the minister of this church. He will be joining this body of presbyters as the, as his brothers like. He is not a member of the local church. He's a member of the presbytery, which is the regional church. So now he's coming into this fully supported by his brothers in the presbytery that he saw go to the mat to make sure he was properly taken care of, that the congregation was not unintentionally taking advantage of his labor, but also that he knows that all of these men are willing to do what they need to do to make sure that his ministry is successful and edifies the church like that is. Uh, I don't want to gush on Presbyterianism too much, but like that is Presbyterianism at peak form, right? This is the body of elders making sure that every church in the region, even the ones they're not directly ministering in, has what it needs to succeed and to honor God and to do what needs to happen. So I'm affirming the presbytery of New York and New England and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Um, I have been so blessed by knowing many of these presbyters. I've been so blessed by being a part of the congregation that I am. There are lots of really great churches and really great denominations out there. If you are looking for a church and there is an OPC congregation in your area, absolutely go check it out. I know it feels stuffy sometimes, and I will admit, like sometimes it feels a little bit overly traditional in terms of like just the vibe of the congregation,  [00:18:52] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:18:52] Tony Arsenal: But press past that because I don't think, I don't think you will find, um. You may find lots of congregations that are as faithful. I don't think you're gonna find many that are more faithful than your average OPC congregation. So I could be wrong. I just, I just love the OPC. I just really, really love it. So that's my affirmation. What do you got for us, Jesse?  [00:19:18] Denial Catholic Confession Math [00:19:18] Jesse Schwamb: I think I got denial, which is maybe a little bit unusual for me. [00:19:21] Tony Arsenal: As long as you're not denying the OPCI think we're fine.  [00:19:23] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's, it's not, it is church related and I, I'll try to keep it short 'cause I think I can make this way longer than it, it probably should be, but lemme think how to phrase this. So, I don't know with a devil negative, I guess when I'm a denying against is maybe not enough confession by your own standard. So the, I'm gonna try to make this so brief. I, I just happened to be out with my wife this afternoon and we had to run errands. We got stuck in traffic and this gave me longer than usual to sit in front of our. Very local and very large Catholic church. So I happen to be looking at their sign. It's a very large congregation. I've been actually been in this one on a couple of occasions for funerals. So not only do I know its size and scope, but again, if you get, if you get on this road at the wrong time on the Lord's day, you're gonna be stuck for a long time because there are so many people that attend. I say that because I noticed on the sign that there were three times for mass on the Lord's Day. So that also says something about the number of people coming through. And then on the sign though, underneath it said for confessions, go to our website. Mm-hmm. So I was like, man, I gotta lick this up because I can't tell if they're telling me I can confess on the website or if it's go to the website for the times. And I said to my wife, only half jokingly, if I can confess online, I'm gonna confess something. So I went to, I went to the website and, and sure enough it was almost disappointingly. It was just the times.  [00:20:45] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:46] Jesse Schwamb: Here's what I've found interesting, which just launched me into this like deep rabbit hole. There were three times for confession. Two of those times were just a half an hour, and the third time was an hour. So, uh, what I did was I went through, actually, I think what they had on there was, was three full hours a week. It was a little bit confusing, but I think it was three full hours. Now I think about it. So I went back, I just couldn't help myself, Tony. So I started to think, alright, let's say. I think it's fair to assume  [00:21:15] Tony Arsenal: math, Jesse is kicking in right now. Yes. You're gonna calculate how many minutes per, per person is what you're doing. I'm thinking, ah,  [00:21:22] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it's something like that. So what I thought was, I don't think it's, uh, I was gonna be conservative. I wanna be fair. I wanna be fair. So, and now we should say like, I think most people realize that the Catholic understanding of confession and the Protestant one is, is very different. The Catholic sacrament of confession is the right through which Catholics are gonna confess their sins to a priest receive absolution, and it's gonna restore the relationship with God in the church. And, and they're gonna believe that the priest acts as a person of Christ and is bound by the seal of confession and an absolute kind of obligation. Uh, of course never to reveal what was disclosed during that process. So, by the way, the website that I went to, lovely instructions. I mean, I was like, wow. I was reading it to my wife who was, uh, not familiar with this at all, and she was like, they can make you do stuff. And I was like, well, yeah. I mean, obviously like there's, there's a portion of this where there's contrition or penant penance. It could be a prayer, it could be act of charity, like all kinds of stuff. So I went back and I thought. I don't think it's unreasonable that there's 350 persons that would say, let's say an average, uh, that would wanna take part of confession. Now, let's say that they did that at, at least monthly, just once a month. And, and I don't know how people's conviction is on that, but I'm gonna say conservatively once a month. Let's say that, and I don't think this is unreasonable, Tony, but you tell me. Let's say you're, you're trucking, you're moving through confession. Let's say it's five minutes a piece. So we're up to 1,750 minutes, uh, per month. That's the demand on the priest because I was, I was looking at this time and I was thinking something is strange here to me, so. That was the demand then, and I'll spare you the other math, which could be very long and un uninteresting. I'm coming up with, you'd need 2.24, two and a quarter priests, which of course you can't have a quarter priests or a quarter person for any reason. So you'd hire, you'd hire three priests, which satisfy the demand if, and the major assumptions here, that is like everybody can't show up at the same time. Obviously, I'm assuming that like everybody has their own time, they're spreading it out. So everybody gets the confession, but it's just five minutes. And I, I have no idea. I mean, if you're a Luther, that's certainly not sufficient time.  [00:23:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:23:20] Jesse Schwamb: And you would need three priests. Now here's the thing that I just kind of backed into that, besides like three being like, okay, that, that's, you would need three priests just to satisfy this congregation. If they're confessing for five minutes, once per month. Uh, by the way, if you said, well, half the congregation is going to go weekly, uh, then you, you would double the number of priests you need to 5.98 or six. But here's, here's the bottom line for me. This is why the denial comes in about maybe not enough, is. If you were just to distill that down to like, if you could have one priest cover that time, that there's a demand for like 779.4 hours, or excuse me, minutes of confession, that priest would only be allocating approximately like seven and a half percent of their working hours, their work toward handling confession. This seems like not enough confession given the standards of confession in the Catholic church. And again, I know that I'm, I'm now allocating that to one priest and I just told everybody you need three. That's true. So if you had these three now, if you hired three just to meet the demand, that would only be about like three and a half or a little under three and a half percent of their combined time. So the denial is Catholics, I think, unless I'm way off in some of my assumptions here, you might not be confessing enough by your own standards because  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, that seems like not enough time.  [00:24:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:24:39] Ritual Faithfulness Explained [00:24:39] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think, um. I don't want to be too bombastic here, but I think,  [00:24:46] Jesse Schwamb: I think I already started this on this  [00:24:48] Tony Arsenal: path. Maybe this, maybe this isn't all that bombastic. Um, because this is so much about ritual and actually I say this is gonna sound really, we, we go, but trying to think from the Roman Catholic perspective, it's actually not, and I'll I'll tell you a brief story, uh, to explain it. Um, a lot of Roman Catholics are just going through the motions. [00:25:13] Jesse Schwamb: That's true.  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: But the point, the, the, the point of contention actually is that going through the motions is valuable for the Roman Catholic, right? So I, I knew this, uh, this young woman when I was in college who was a Roman Catholic, and we had many discussions about, about the differences between Protestantism and and Roman Catholicism. And what I came to understand is that going to mass for her. Itself was an act of faith. And so for the Roman Catholic, the concept of, of faith is different than the concept that Protestants operate under. So for the Roman Catholic who, um, goes to mass, even when they feel like they're, like, when they think they're just going through the motions, going through the motions is itself the act of faith. And that's because for most of Roman Catholics, most of Roman Catholicism, faith really equals faithfulness, right? So, so doing the act is the act of faithfulness. Doing the act is faith. Where for the Protestant, like faith is about belief and trust and knowledge. Like it's, it's an. Not entirely intellectual, but it's, it's an inward thing for the Roman Catholic faith is an out is primarily an outward thing. It's what you do, it's how you act. It's faith formed in love. It's faith formed in charity.  [00:26:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:26:37] Tony Arsenal: So I think most Roman Catholics going to obligatory confession first. I think once a month is probably like, probably more frequent than most Roman Catholics go to mass or go to confession. Um, I thought I read a stat that it was like every six months is, is pretty average and I think that's what's required by the church maybe even once a year is, is required by the church. Um, I think like most Roman Catholics go into the, the confessional booth and like father forgive me for I've sinned. It's been such and such a number of days since my last confession. Right. And they may bring up a couple particular things that they've done and, and then I think the priest commonly absolves them of all of their sins. Like, almost like in an omnibus fashion and then prescribes their acts of penance, which is it, it like, honestly, it's probably things they should already be doing as a faithful Catholic saying Hail Marys and doing our fathers and acts of charity and things like that. So I think your math is probably right. [00:27:39] Protestant Repentance Particular [00:27:39] Tony Arsenal: I think your, your theory that more confession is probably like, I'm gonna read this from, uh, the Westminster confession, just to, just to say it here, is, this is chapter 15, which is titled of Repentance Under Life. And this is, uh, this is section five or paragraph five. It says, men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but is every man's duty to endeavor, to repent of his particular sins, particularly. And I think that's just such a beautifully phrased sentence like. Not only is it like potent theologically, but like, it just, it just feels good, like in terms of like the English language to repent of your particular sins, particularly. And like the idea is yes, Protestant reform, Christians affirm a general repentance from sin, right? We repent of our sin before the father, uh, as a result of our, of our coming to faith in Christ. And as part of our sanctification, we mortify our sin and we, Viv we are vivified by the spirit and repentance falls in that ongoing sanctification process. And there is this general repentance of like, I repent of the fact that I'm a sinner and that I commit sins, but there is this element in the reformed faith of like, I should be confessing to God. And I think by extension, like we should be confessing to our fellow Christians, our particular sins, our individual sins, and we should be doing that on particular occasion. And I think like. The Luther style confession of like going into the confessor and confessing like every particular sin. Particularly I think most Roman Catholic priests would, priests. Priests would probably have the same reaction Tobits did where he was like, get outta here. Like, come on dude. Like just go live your life and like deal with it. I think that's probably the reaction most Catholic priests would have. But yeah, I think you're right. Like if we're really talking about like. Five, five minutes of confession once a month and that somehow having some sort of spiritual efficacy. I'm not sure I buy that math. Like I think you're, you're probably spot on.  [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:29:47] Confession Hours Oddities [00:29:47] Jesse Schwamb: I just was curious about how many priests would be required and then the allocation of the duties. By the way, you are right. So I, because I had to check on this, the, the fourth letter in council of 1215 does say that the church requires confession of any grave or mortal sins at least once a year. But the church, yeah, strongly encourages more frequent confession as a spiritual practice, even for, of course, like the venial or the less serious sins in their eyes. So yeah, my thought here was just that. I think it's actually undervalued by way of the math. Like the, as the kids say, the math just isn't math thing for me on this one. But I was more curious about, since this is one of the seven sacraments, even if you just said like, well, it should have at least one seven of the allocation. That's like, what? Like something like 14%. And so this is, um, almost half of that. I just found it a little bit, a little bit odd and yeah, I think you'd have to be, uh, so in other words, when I looked at the, basically, here's the bottom line. When I looked at the hours for confession one, there were weird times and uh, two, I was like, that doesn't seem like enough hours. Like, it was just more like that. Like how that's like saying like, Hey, the post office is open three hours a week, and by the way, one of those hours is from seven to eight o'clock on Friday. Like they had some hours. One hour just on Friday was like, I guess that's the way you wanna start your weekend is like, let's get all of this off my chest. Yeah. And, and do it. Right. And the last thing I'll say by the way, is you're correct. When you look at the instruction they give you, and this is common of course, toward the end, when they say like, here's how you like wrap up your part. Actually everybody should go read, go to the local, local Catholic church website and read the instructions. 'cause in some ways they're just interesting and kind of, um, I don't wanna say funny 'cause I'm not making fun. I'm just saying like, they have to give you instruction if you've never done it before. And so most of us are not really probably familiar with the process and they give you explicit instruction and toward the end it's like, here's how you kinda like hang up the call with the priest. And it's like you said, you know, these are my sins and all others, would you be willing to forgive? So you're right. Right. They just kinda wrap them all up because it's sins of omission, sense of commission, it's all to be together. But I, I wonder, you gotta think there's people in there that are like. The priests are like, okay, man, just yeah. Wrap, come on, wrap, wrap it up.  [00:31:55] Confession Timing Talk [00:31:55] Jesse Schwamb: And other people that come in are just like, you know, forgive me father. And uh, lastly to your point, when they give you instruction about how you should start, of course you're always to signify how long it's been since your last confession. Right. Confession. And they say parenthetically, like, reference the days, weeks, months, or years. So you're right. There are gonna be people that probably do it very frequently and probably people who do it infrequently still, I would say I just couldn't believe for a church this large, that there was just three hours a week.  [00:32:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:21] Jesse Schwamb: For everybody else.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:32:23] Vance and Papal Authority [00:32:23] Tony Arsenal: This leads me to two very brief sub, uh, denials slash affirmations. Uh, I don't know if you saw this, um, this is not a political statement, right? I, I have lots of feelings and thoughts about the current administration and I think most of my feelings and thoughts would surprise. Everybody. But I thought it was hilarious because JD Vance, who is a Roman Catholic, uh, confessed Roman Catholic part of the Roman Catholic Church, uh, he ha I, I'm not sure if I'm affirming or denying this, there was this funny, uh, funny exchange. I think he was at doing like a, doing like a TPU, I don't know, speech. He was doing a speech at some conservative event and he said something like, I think that the Pope should be more careful when he makes theological statements. I'm wanna be like, do you understand what the pope is in your religion? That was one of my sub denials. Uh, I don't remember what the other one is, so it must not have been that important. It'll come back to me at the worst possible moment and I will try very hard not to interrupt our show for it, but I probably will fail.  [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:33:25] Reading Matthew 21 [00:33:25] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, we, we gotta get to some scripture because. We're, we're doing this old school style where we take like half the time and just talk about affirmations. It's true in house. It's true. Which is great fun. But let's, let's get back to Matthew 21. And I, I know we did this last time, but I am gonna rock through the passage 'cause of course, that's the best part of any of our discussion, is actually hearing from, from the Holy Spirit through the scripture, uh, which he's given to us. So this is, uh, Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. And you're gonna hear the, the whole thing right here. Uh, this is Jesus speaking. Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and rented it out to vine growers and went on a journey. Now, when the high risk time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit, and the vine growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent another group of slaves larger than the first, and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them saying they will respect my son. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance, and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and will rent out the vineyard to other vine growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons. Jesus said to them, did you ever read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls in the stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they understood that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds because they're regarding him to be a prophet. [00:35:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:35:30] Pharisees Condemn Themselves [00:35:30] Tony Arsenal: This is like a super heavy parable. Right. And we talked a lot last week about how like the point of this parable is not necessarily to try to instruct the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Like it's not to instruct the people who were going to reject Christ, uh, the, the builders who would reject the cornerstone. It's really a parable to teach those. Who are observing this process happening. But I think it's, I, I think it's really interesting just listening to you read this and reading through it, and I guess this is a question I haven't asked and I, I need to study a little bit more. It's crazy to me in verse 41, um, Christ seems the, the, the, um, Matthew seems to say here, and maybe I need to do a little bit more Greek study, so bear with me and, and have grace if I'm wrong here. Matthew seems to say that like Christ asks the people he's speaking to, the Pharisees he's speaking to, what is he gonna do to these people? And the Pharisees answer, he's gonna put those wretches to a miserable death.  [00:36:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right?  [00:36:37] Tony Arsenal: Like the people listening to this parable understand the outcome, like they understand the. The consequence that the, the, the vineyard owner or the vineyard tenant tenants are facing based on their lack of faithfulness to the covenant. To me, that is like a really striking part of this parable. And, and it's not even like the parable proper, but like the striking element of the context of this is that nobody listening to this parable, including the Pharisees that this parable has basically spoken against, nobody fails to see the gravity of the consequence of rejecting God's emissary, like rejecting the Messiah. That to me is like a really, I dunno, paradigmatic. Portion of this that I think we need to grapple with. This is not an unclear, an unclear outcome. This is not, this is not masked or vague or OPA opaque. Like everybody understands, the people who reject the Messiah are going to face dire and eternal consequences for that act. [00:37:48] Jesse Schwamb: That does make this really interesting, doesn't it? Because it's not just entirely like Romans one adventures or even Romans two. It's that this is what Jesus does and he does it in a profound way that's not trickery like I think kinda like you're saying like the lead up to this isn't as if he's even leading the witness. He's making it very clear, all like the parameters of the story and the characters involved and what should be the proper judgment. And it's not as if like they start saying, they're like, oh, we shouldn't say anything more like we, we plead the fifth because it's gonna condemn ourselves. He draws his audience in to producing and pronouncing like their own sentence. It's very much like, I think I mentioned this last time, the prophet Nathan and David, isn't it? It's the exact same. Yeah. And the verdict is unanswerable, like even in its own terms. These other, like these other vine growers, prefigures of course like the inclusion of the Gentiles and the apostolic office. But I like that what Jesus does here, even before he gets to that point, is he extorts from them an acknowledgement of the punishment which awaited them. And so in this way there's like, I think the Puritans use this passage a lot actually to demonstrate that the natural conscience even of like the unregenerate, still bears witness to divine justice. That's Romans two. Like they, they can't get out from underneath it and Jesus isn't using any trickery on them to get them to say this thing. They are compelled in their own way, even being unregenerate to, like you said, even as they're rejecting the Messiah to recognize that punishment is due these characters in the story, even as they perceive at the end that they are those characters. [00:39:21] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:22] Jesse Schwamb: Saying we'll receive the judgment.  [00:39:24] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:25] Usurpers Not Misguided [00:39:25] Tony Arsenal: And I think too, like, um, this is kind of one of those chicken or the egg scenarios, right? Like Christ is both recognizing the intention of their heart as well as prophesying. And, and not just prophesying, but like inception level prophesying the, the outcome of the intention of their heart. And so like, again, like we've, we spent a whole week kind of like leading into the parable and now we spent a whole week, we're gonna spend a whole week again kind of leading into the parable. This is such a deep parable, and that like Christ is not just laying bare. The fact that the, the people who were going to reject him were doing so out of this sort of like attempt and intention of usurping the kingdom of God for their own purposes. I think that brings a layer to this that we don't often appreciate in. Christ's interaction with the Pharisees. I think sometimes, and maybe this is because I just listened to an episode of where Matt Whitman on the 10 minute Bible hour talked about this. I think sometimes we actually have a tendency to sort of be sympathetic to the Pharisees where we think, you know, they were, they were just trying to obey God's law and they got a little sideways on it and you know, they were putting these boundaries in place, but they were doing it in this sort of like misguided attempt to protect the people. Christ actually here seems to contradict that in that the comparison he's making is not to a, a well-intentioned group of people who just get it wrong, but he's painting the Pharisees, the, the religious leaders, the Sadducees, the chief priests. He's painting them as these usurpers who recognize the proper authority of right. The master and his emissaries and ultimately of his son, they recognize this proper authority and rather than submitting to it and submitting to the covenant obligations that they, they already actually agreed to, instead of doing that, they're going to reject that authority and try to take it for their own right. It's not just that they do the wrong thing, it's that they recognize the heir, which is Christ. They recognize this heir and they kill him to try to take his place. That is a really heavy element of this parable. Christ is not painting. Um, the, the, the Pharisees here, the, the religious leaders. He's not painting them as um, well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong, which is I think a lot of times, and I think there's reason to do this right. I'm not being overly critical and I've done this, I've actually done this myself, and I think there's some. Space for it. Like the Pharisees were wrong, but they were wrong, kind of in the right direction sometimes. Um, Christ is not really on board with that, at least in this parable. Right. This isn't about them thinking that the heir was a threat, and so killing the threat in, you know, inadvertently this is them absolutely seeing who the hair, who the heir is, and intentionally deciding to reject that heir and to murder him and to try to take his inheritance. Mm-hmm. That's an affront to not only the heir who they murder, but an affront to the owner of the vineyard himself, which of course in this parable is figured to be God the father primarily. But God in sort of general terms, like the whole Godhead, um, with Christ as the second Adam has, as his representative, as his heir. This is a really heavy parable and I think where this comes into play for us in our own Christian life is. Are there times where we. Sort of do the same thing in refusing to, maybe it's tie into your denial a little bit. Like refusing to acknowledge our own sinfulness, refusing to acknowledge the ways that God has provided for us. Um, do we at times look at what we have and lay claim to it as though it is our own inheritance that we've taken? Um, right. Do we kind of crucify the son of God anew in, in refusing to repent of our sins particularly? I dunno. I think those are some open questions for us to kind of explore as we dig into this a bit more. [00:43:54] Jesse Schwamb: And that may relate as well to, well eventually at some point, I dunno, like 2040, get to like the parable of the talents. There's some similarity there with a little bit, right? You're saying? I think you're right.  [00:44:06] God Does All the Verbs [00:44:06] Jesse Schwamb: And where I think we can anchor some of that is in those first couple of verses. I'm really always impressed by really the number of action verbs that are packed within, like that just initial statement of Jesus explaining the situation. [00:44:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:44:19] Jesse Schwamb: So he sets it all up and he's saying there's a planting that goes on, this landowner puts up a wall, digs a wine press. Builds a tower and then RINs it. So there's all these like amazing things being done, all this action verb. And I, I think in part why he comes against the Pharisees so hard in the same way that we're looking at like the parable that, uh, the, uh, talents for instance of saying like, what did you do with that was entrusted to you was like this great treasure which Christ has entrusted or God has entrusted to his people, which is, is the gospel essentially is, is all a prophetic witness, is like the truth of who God is and his revelation of himself. And so I think. The first thing we gotta see in those verbs is that there's this emphasis that the vineyard was God's sovereign creation. You know, he plants it, he chose it, he established it. Israel didn't plant herself. She was planted. And that sovereign initiative is foundational, I think in, like you're saying, the parables indictment, because these vine growers, they don't possess anything that they did not receive. Right. You know, they did not find a vineyard already planted, but God himself made it from the wilderness that all his glory, all the glory might be his. So. I think it's helpful for us to observe that the church is always the planting of the Lord and that no congregation flourishes that is not first planted by God. And so there is a major offense here when those who are to care for it, who know, like you're saying, that they ought to care for it, who understand something about the hierarchy and the way it has been entrusted to them. Not to only break that covenant, but then seek to try to usurp the power in the roles of those whom they should be, quite frankly, in our own language, like under shepherds too. And so it starts with all, all those verbs. Like I think we could probably spend a. A lot of times just speaking about what does it mean? Why? Why is there all this explicit in particular language about the fact that there's a hedge and there's a press besides just these are part in piece mail or part and parcel of what it means to have a vineyard, apparently, but that they're all part of this narrative of God talking about how he protects and cares for his people and sets them in a place and chooses them and is particular about the construction and does so with great volition and authority and care and concern and creative ability. And then again, you have those who are meant there to do the very job that he's entrusted them with. And not only are they not doing that, and of course you're right. Jesus elsewhere, comes in, comes in hot, right, with a Pharisees saying like, listen, you set burdens on people's backs that you yourselves cannot lift. You're twice as in the hell as anybody else, and that's who you are. Yeah. It's not just hypocrisy, but you're literally setting people up to fail in this. So you can see how you're right. It's not just like, guys, I appreciate that. Like you wanted to set up some additional boundaries and maybe you took it a little bit too far. This parable is just scorched earth. It's, it's nuclear. Yeah.  [00:47:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:47:11] Scandalous Vineyard Setup [00:47:11] Tony Arsenal: And you know, I think, um, we are obviously gonna spend another week on this 'cause we still have not really addressed a single verse in this parable. I, I think like a lot of ink has been spilled on explaining sort of like the feal agricultural arrangements of this passage. What it represents. M my understanding is. A typical arrangement would be that a, a landowner would basically just lease out land and the tenants would be responsible for the planting, for the development. Right. And the, the, the landowner would essentially just collect a portion of whatever they produce. Right. This parable is actually taking this a step further. Exactly. That it's not as though the landowner just says like, all right, you can use this land. Right. And I own the land, so I get a portion of the pro, the profit. He's actually done all the work. Yes. And all that. The, all that the, the tenants need to do essentially is reap the harvest and then provide the portion of the harvest that belongs to the landowner, and so there is a greater investment. Of the landowner into this land than would be expected. We've commented in the past about how a lot of times the, the parables start on sort of a premise of shock. Like there's a, there's an element of the setup of the, of the parable where the audience would kind of like sit back and gasp or kind of be like, wait a second. Like that's not normal. Right. In the parable of the, the, um, lost son, it was the idea that like the son demanded his inheritance. And that wasn't the shocking part. The shocking part was that the father just granted it. Right. Or, um, the lost sheep, like the, there's actually a sort of a shocking element to the fact that like the, the land, the like sheep owner would just go get this other sheep. So we've, we've commented on there's kind of like. There's sort of like a scandalous setup. The scandalous setup in this is not that the land has been leased to tenants, right? It's that the land has been prepared for the tenants before it was leased out in the first place. And I think that's something we might miss if we read over this too quickly, is. The landowner has prepared everything for these, these tenants.  [00:49:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:49:31] Tony Arsenal: So the, the, at the, the punchline of the parable where they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of, um, sovereignty and maybe a lowercase s in the, in the context of the parable, they refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty and the rightful claim of the tenant or of the landowner on the, the profit of the land. And sort of like highlighter emphasized by the fact that they actually didn't do any of the work. There's a certain kind of like Amer, like American rugged individualism where we're kind of like, yeah, like if I planted all the crops, then it's kind of lame that this guy's coming in expecting to take a portion of it, right? Like, yeah, I guess he owns the land, so maybe he gets a little piece of it, but like, who does he think he is? All of that already is already short circuited. Like I. The, these tenants are not actually, um, portrayed as doing anything in this parable. That's right. Like they just lease the land. They, they, um, and leased is not really like the right. The right word, the, the Greek word is omi, which is like he gave over the land to them. Um, when we say leased, we have this idea that like the tenants pay to use the land and then like part of their contract is that whatever profits they reap, uh, off the land goes back to the, to the landowner. This is really more like the landowner graciously allowed them to live on this land, and the only payment he required was that they would eventually provide him part of the profit back. Like he's planted the land, he's put up the fence around it. He dug the wine press so that they could make a product out of it. He built the tower so it would be defended. Yes. And he gave it over to them essentially just to like live on until it was time for the harvest. And all he is asking for is basically like, alright, so this is my land. I've planted the vineyards, the profit is mine to have. And so when the time came for him to come claim that that's where they have now rejected him. Yes. That's where they've now said like, I know you did all the work and really graciously allowed us to live in this land, but we're gonna keep all of it for ourselves. That's the scandal of this. That's what I think like the original audience would've set up and like, wait a second here. Like, hold on. They didn't even plant the vineyards themselves. They didn't even build the tower themselves. That's really the force of this that I think we miss when we, when we overemphasize, trying to think through like what the original agricultural arrangements were. 'cause this is painted. Very different than what the original arrangements would've been typical for. Like this is a different scenario and I think intentionally so,  [00:52:09] Jesse Schwamb: and we need those words like rented, at least in English, to help us understand that it didn't belong to them. It wasn't a gift, right? It wasn't as if like it was just turned over in the sense that it belongs to you now do with it what you will. And it's very clear in the passage one, like you said, that the landowner does all those things. So it was a, you know, he completely set it up. I mean, this is just such a beautiful, I think, depiction of the hold of prophetic, you know, understanding of God's word here, but it's very clear that says the, he sent his slaves to the vine growers to receive his fruit. So you're right. The scandal is that they're like, well, obviously. They need to give him his fruits, like  [00:52:48] Tony Arsenal: right.  [00:52:48] Jesse Schwamb: It was all set up before he left on this long journey. He then turned it over to them to care for, and that was really all that they were supposed to do. They had no role in this. And so it does like lead us in into this weird space where it's like, well, well what, what did the Pharisees think they were trying to do themselves? What does actually Jesus commenting on, on their own, like licit on their own initiative here, is he basically saying that not only are they not respecting his sovereignty, but they were trying to claim for themselves what only rightly belongs to God that even their position right. Society in culture as their representatives, God himself, they wanted to take that over for themselves, which he does bring that condemnation upon them in other parts of the scripture. So again, this is really hot. I think it's a, it's both heat and light, but there's no doubt that there's fire to this, right? Because it's a direct indictment that God the father set all of this up. You yourselves are on rented property, but guess what? Even the property that you've rented, I'm not exacting a tax from you as if like you have put forward and grown or supplied or created some kind of profitable outcome here. And I just want a piece of that. He's not even talking about tithing in that sense. What he's basically saying is, none of this belongs to you. Like how? Right? How dare you? None of this is yours. I set all of this up and in fact, because you've done so poor poorly at this, I'm gonna take it away from you and give it to those who actually produce fruit and guess what's gonna be the Gentiles? So it's, there's a wild. Amounts of condemnation packed into a very small story.  [00:54:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It really is.  [00:54:22] Tenants Add Nothing [00:54:22] Tony Arsenal: Um, there is nothing expected of these tenants. Right. There's no contract, like there's no terms, they, they really add nothing to the, the landowner's land, except I guess maybe they're the ones harvesting these, this fruit. Right. But even that's not explicit in the parable.  [00:54:43] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.  [00:54:43] Tony Arsenal: Right. Right. He, he does all just to steal your thunder, like he does all the verbs. Yes. All of the ves are done by the landowner.  [00:54:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. Right  [00:54:51] Tony Arsenal: on. There is an implication that the, the tenants are somehow like the ones harvesting this, or they're the ones producing the wine, I guess, in the wine vat or the wine press. But at the end of the day. A normal tenant landowner agreement would be, I'm, you're, first of all, you're probably gonna pay me to use this land, right? You're paying me to use this land, and the way you pay me is you're gonna plant the, the gr the crop. You're gonna harvest it. You're gonna make the produce, and all I'm gonna do is let you live on this land. I'm gonna take the pro, like the profit, you're gonna pay me outta that profit. There is nothing asked or expected of these, th

Corporate prayer and national repentance have shaped history, and Scripture like Jonah 3:10 reveals how God responds when people turn to Him together. Praying as a nation isn’t symbolic—it’s a powerful, biblical practice that invites God’s mercy, guidance, and restoration. This devotional highlights how God has consistently responded to unified, humble prayer—from the city of Nineveh to moments in American history. When people come together, set aside differences, and seek God collectively, it reflects dependence on Him rather than self-sufficiency. National prayer isn’t about politics or performance—it’s about hearts aligning with God, turning from sin, and trusting Him to lead, heal, and sustain a nation. Just as individuals are called to pray, communities and countries are invited to do the same. Highlights God responds to corporate prayer and genuine repentance Biblical examples show entire cities and nations turning to God together Unity in prayer reflects humility and dependence on God National prayer invites God’s mercy, healing, and direction Spiritual battles require spiritual responses—not just physical solutions Setting aside differences for prayer strengthens collective faith Do you want to listen ad-free? When you join Crosswalk Plus, you gain access to exclusive, in-depth Bible study guides, devotionals, sound biblical advice, and daily encouragement from trusted pastors and authors—resources designed to strengthen your faith and equip you to live it out boldly. PLUS ad free podcasts! Sign Up Today! Full Transcript Below: Why Praying As a Nation Matters to God By Lynette Kittle Bible Reading: “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the destruction He had threatened.” - Jonah 3:10 As America celebrates 250 years as a nation, some ask, does it matter if our nation prays together on the National Day of Prayer? Does God even pay attention to or hear us when we pray corporately as a nation? The answer is “yes”: it matters to God, and we can be assured of this because the Bible provides plenty of evidence that He often calls us to corporate prayer for a city or a nation. Most of us are familiar with the well-known biblical passage 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says, “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” As in the story of Jonah and the wicked city of Nineveh, God called for the entire city to pray and repent, and even the animals were included in the city’s prayer, fasting, and repentance. As Jonah 3:4-8 describes, God led an entire city to repentance through corporate prayer: “Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: ‘By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from His fierce anger so that we will not perish.” In Jonah 3:10, we read of God’s gracious response to their corporate prayer: He relented rather than sending destruction. Likewise, looking back at America’s Founders, we see that they recognized the importance of corporate prayer and that establishing a nation’s future doesn’t just involve fighting a physical battle for victory, but also a spiritual one. They demonstrated this when they officially met and came together for the first time on September 7, 1774, as the Continental Congress of the United States, opening with prayer and the reading of Psalm 35 by Rev. Jacob Duché, which begins with, “Contend, Lord, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me.” This was no easy feat, either, as the outspoken members had to set aside their denominational differences to pray together, uniting members who were Congregationalists, Anglicans, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Baptists, Lutherans, Puritans, and Presbyterians, coming together to overlook their differences, joining in one accord, praying for a common goal. American Conservative radio talk-show host and writer, Dennis Prager, explains, “Ultimately, they wanted people to be free to practice their religion and relate to God in their own way. They all knew God is the source of liberty.” Providence Forum Executive Director Dr. Jerry Newcombe points out how historians find in George Washington’s writings and actions during the Revolutionary War that he relied heavily on prayer, believing that with the tremendous odds set against them, victory could only come with God’s help. As well, “The Great Awakening absolutely helped the cause of independence,” writes Newcombe. “Even before the Great Awakening, the ministers, especially the ones from New England, helped shape the thinking of the Colonists as to their God-given rights.” Christian historians believe the spread of “The Great Awakening” across the colonies greatly influenced and strengthened Patriot leaders leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, during which prayer and fasting played a critical role in helping America establish its freedom. In Miracles in American History, author, historian, and speaker William J. Federer writes about the many national calls to prayer leading up to and throughout the formation of the United States of America. Intersecting Faith & Life:Are you planning to join our nation in praying for God’s divine guidance and protection over our country? If not, consider praying with millions of believers across our land who will be praying together during this year’s 250th Anniversary, National Day of Prayer. Further Reading:A Prayer to Take Part in Our Nation’s National Day of Prayer Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

How do you move from simply reading the Bible to truly understanding its depths?In Session 2 of the Rooted Conference, Pastor Daniel Batarseh shares the "Tool Belt" of hermeneutics he uses for deeper Bible study. This session moves beyond basic reading, equipping you with practical tools to uncover the richness of God's Word—focusing on finding Christ throughout the entire Bible and effectively using outside resources.In this session, you will learn:Types and Shadows: Discover how Old Testament people, events, and symbols prophetically point to the person and work of Jesus Christ.Biblical Allusions: Learn to recognize the thousands of subtle echoes and indirect references the New Testament makes to the Hebrew Scriptures.Essential Study Tools: A guide to using commentaries (Matthew Henry, David Guzik), concordances (Strong's, Blue Letter Bible), and quality historical books (The Puritans).The Power of Community: Why sitting under faithful teaching and discussing the Word with others is essential for spiritual growth.The Emergency Tool: A powerful strategy for when you lack the motivation to read your Bible.Whether you are a new believer or a seasoned student of the Word, these insights will help you rediscover a sense of wonder in the Scriptures and fuel a personal revival of the Bible in your daily life.

What if we told you that puritans were actually sex-crazed? Well maybe not crazed but definitely not opposed to it.What if we told you that, actually, the entire mainstream belief of puritans being bound to strict moral and religious codes isn't totally true?In this episode of American History Hit, Don is joined by Lori Rogers-Stokes to answer some of the big questions. Did the Puritans really wear all black? What's the difference between a Puritan and a Pilgrim? And was anyone ever marked with a scarlet letter?Lori is an independent scholar, public historian, and contributing editor for New England's Hidden Histories. She is the author of two books on the Puritans: 'Records of Trial from Thomas Shepard's Church in Cambridge, 1638–49: Heroic Souls', and 'Gathered into a Church: Indigenous-English Congregationalism in Woodland New England'.Edited by Tim Arstall. Produced by Sophie Gee. Senior Producer was Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Preaching and Preachers, Dr. J. Stephen Yuille joins me to discuss “The Puritans and Pastoral Ministry.” Dr. Yuille serves as Professor of Church History in the School The post The Puritans and Pastoral Ministry appeared first on Preaching and Preachers Institute.

Episode 2.101Postmillennialism: Hope for Gospel VictoryIn this episode of End Times 101, Michael and Zach explore postmillennialism—a view that sees the kingdom of God expanding throughout history as the gospel transforms individuals, cultures, and nations prior to Christ's return.The discussion walks through key passages such as the Great Commission, Psalm 110, and Habakkuk 2, highlighting the expectation that Christ is already reigning and that His kingdom will grow progressively through the work of the Church. Rather than anticipating decline, this view emphasizes long-term gospel influence shaping society, leading to a period of widespread righteousness often described as a “golden age.”Listeners are guided through the basic timeline of postmillennialism, its historical development from the Puritans to modern advocates, and the practical implications of a theology that prioritizes engagement, discipleship, and cultural impact. The episode also addresses common challenges, including how this view accounts for suffering, setbacks, and uneven historical progress.The takeaway is clear: postmillennialism calls believers to active participation in God's mission, grounded in the confidence that Christ's kingdom is advancing—and that history ultimately bends toward His victory.Find our videocast here: https://youtu.be/FwDmqrXyTDkMerch here: https://take-2-podcast.printify.me/Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):⁠https://uppbeat.io/t/reakt-music/deep-stone⁠License code: 2QZOZ2YHZ5UTE7C8Find more Take 2 Theology content at http://www.take2theology.com

A storm-tossed servant nearly vanishes into the Atlantic but ends up shaping the future of the United States.  This is the dramatic saga of the Mayflower — the persecution that drove the Pilgrims from England, their nightmare crossing of the Atlantic, and the fragile pact that held their fractured community together.  You'll meet Squanto, whose astonishing journey across continents becomes the colony's lifeline, and follow the rise of the Puritans, the clash of empires, and the eruption of King Philip's War, one of the bloodiest conflicts in American history.  This unlikely story of faith and resilience traces how one tiny ship's journey forever alters a continent. GLENN'S SPONSORS: Relief Factor: If you're living with aches and pains, see how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, could help you feel better and live better. Try the three-week QuickStart for just $19.95 by visiting ⁠⁠https://ReliefFactor.com⁠⁠. American Financing: American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial 800-906-2440, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does religion still dominate American politics when so many other wealthy democracies secularized long ago? In this episode, Michael Shermer talks with historian Matthew Avery Sutton about the long relationship between Christianity and American power. From the Puritans to Lincoln, from the Scopes trial to the Religious Right, from slavery to same-sex marriage, this conversation tracks how religious belief has shaped the country, and how politics keeps reshaping religion in return. Matthew Avery Sutton is the Claudius O. and Mary Johnson Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of History at Washington State University. His new book is Chosen Land: How Christianity Made America and Americans Remade Christianity.

1. The Gunpowder Plot and the Rise of the Middling Sort Guest Author: Jonathan Healey Jonathan Healey introduces James I, who inherited a kingdom deeply divided by religion between Catholics, Puritans, and the mainstream. The 1605 Gunpowder Plot, a radical Catholic attempt to blow up Parliament, instilled a lasting "popish plot" paranoia that influenced English politics for decades. Healey emphasizes the era's social shift with the emergence of the "middling sort"—wealthy, literate peasant farmers and lawyers who began dominating Parliament. This group's sophisticated political thinking and legal training became a cornerstone of the century's revolutionary friction, as James struggled to fund the state without Parliamentary consent amid rising inflation. (1)1650 PIETER DE HOOCH

In this episode Jon Harris tackles the growing wave of distorted teachings online about the Bible, the church, and the nation of Israel. Amid rising errors like dishonest portrayals of Jewish people, rejection of Gods promises to ethnic Israel, and even questions about Jesus Jewish identity, Harris offers clear biblical and historical guidance.Drawing from the unconditional Abrahamic covenant in Genesis and echoed in Romans 9 through 11, he shows that God still has a sovereign plan for ethnic Israel including a coming ingathering and salvation. This hope held by church fathers, Reformers, Puritans and theologians like Edwards Spurgeon and Lloyd Jones strengthens Gentile believers confidence in Gods faithfulness.Harris warns against letting politics shape theology or sliding into unjustified anti Jewish rhetoric emphasizing instead the call to bless Israel through prayer and evangelism while upholding Christ as the Jewish Messiah and the unity of Scripture. A timely defense of Gods irrevocable promises.PowerPoint Download: https://www.patreon.com/posts/153863146Essay Format: https://jonharris.substack.com/post/192036690Our Sponsors:* Check out Mars Men: https://mengotomars.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Historian Molly Worthen discusses her new book Spellbound: How Charisma Shaped American History from the Puritans to Donald Trump — arguing that charisma isn't charm but a polarizing story that tells followers who the heroes are, who the villains are, and where they fit in. Also: Israel killed Ali Larijani, one of Iran's most powerful figures, and Western outlets responded by mourning a lost future negotiator. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist