Podcasts about Sadducees

Join us as we dig deeper into last Sunday's sermon from Pastor Marcus Lane "The Gospel on Trial" and hear from Amy Duncan and Nate Zuellig on "Cornerstone". Digging Deeper Questions: How does the notion that "the word does the work" shift how you approach the calling to take part in God's mission?   Have you ever encountered the accusation or felt like Christianity is exclusive? How does the nature of grace help address this concern?   How might the life of the early church challenge you to grow in generosity? Scripture Reading: Acts 4:1-22, 32-37 1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.   5 On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, "By what power or by what name did you do this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."   13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, "What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name." 18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." 21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.   32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. Intro/Outro Song: "Only One" Nate Zuellig ULC Artist In Residence    "Cornerstone" Hillsong CCLI Song # 6158927   CCLI License # 11254293

Friends of the Rosary,In today's Gospel (Matthew 5:43–48), as part of the message of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, "that you may be children of your heavenly Father.""Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."On Holy Thursday, before expiring on the Cross, the Lord said, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.” Love is willing the good of the other as the other.This also took place on the cross of Jesus. Jews, Romans, Pharisees, Sadducees, his own disciples—everyone betrayed him, ran from him, denied him, actively arranged for his death. And yet these are the very people that he loves and brings peace, the very people for whom he gives his life.Ave Maria!Come, Holy Spirit, come!To Jesus through Mary!Here I am, Lord; I come to do your will.Please give us the grace to respond with joy!+ Mikel Amigot w/ María Blanca | RosaryNetwork.com, New YorkEnhance your faith with the new Holy Rosary University app:Apple iOS | New! Android Google Play• ⁠June 16, 2026, Today's Rosary on YouTube | Daily broadcast at 7:30 pm ET

Questions for Jesus (Part 1)- The Pharisees and Sadducees brought some questions to Jesus, but their intentions were not to gain more knowledge. Thinking they were going to trip Jesus up, the Pharisees and Sadducees came away marveling at the wisdom with which Jesus responded.

Lesson 13 - The King is TestedMatthew 21:23 — 22:46. The interrogators lined up like advancing troops — Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, experts in the Law — firing their trick questions and “gotcha” scenarios to trap Jesus in His words and have Him arrested. His answers astounded everyone in their clarity and their authority. No one could offer a word of refutation; and at the end of the day, no one dared ask any more questions. The examination was over. He was who He said He was. The Passover Lamb had been found faultless and was ready to be offered.To learn more about Michele or to support this international ministry please visit https://intheword.com

Praying with Biblical Characters 

Saturday, 13 June 2026   But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Matthew 20:25   “The ‘also Jesus having summoned them', He said, ‘You have known that the ‘rulers, the nations' they subjugate them, and the greats, they dominate them.'” (CG)   In the previous verse, it said that when the ten heard what was requested by James and John, the other ten were displeased with them. In response to this tiff, Matthew records, “The ‘also Jesus having summoned them'.”   He called all of them toward Himself. This wasn't just an inappropriate request that needed to be corrected. Rather, the attitude of the ten was not right as well. They were upset that James and John had tried to get an early start on what one of them might have been entitled to. Thus, pride in position filled them all. Therefore, “He said, ‘You have known that the ‘rulers, the nations' they subjugate them.'”   A new word is seen here, katakurieuo, to lord against. Hence, it signifies control, subjugation, and the exercising of dominion over others. It is a stern word, the intent of which is seen in Acts 19:16 –   “Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered [katakurieuo] them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”   Of this clause, the majority of versions translate the word ethnos as “Gentiles.” As if there is a distinction between Israel and the surrounding nations. This is incorrect. Israel is one of the nations of the world, and it was ruled by those who subjugated it. This was true from the first king onward.   It was something these disciples would be keenly aware of as they followed Jesus, knowing that Herod had already had John the Immerser beheaded. John pointed the way to Jesus, so they would be on their guard concerning their own situation.   The people of Israel were even warned by the Lord, right from the mouth of Samuel in 1 Samuel 8:10-17, what treatment they could expect from a king. Along with that, Jesus continues, saying, “and the greats, they dominate them.”   Another new word is seen, katexousiazó, to have (wield) full privilege over. It will only be seen again in the parallel passage found in Mark 10:42. This is something the people of Israel were keenly aware of in their own society. The “greats” included the Herodians, Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.   They wielded authority over the people without a care about their value, something testified to in the gospels. Jesus will speak of this later in Matthew –   “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Matthew 23:2-4   Life application: The Pulpit Commentary, in line with other commentaries, says the following concerning this verse –   “Exercise dominion over them; i.e. over the Gentiles. Κατακυριεύουσιν [katakurieuousin], lord it over - significant of an absolute and oppressive domination. Exercise authority upon them; i.e. over the Gentiles (κατεξουσιάξουσιν) [katexousiaxousin]; use authority harshly and severely. The heathen, when they are raised to pre-eminence, employ their power cruelly and in order to gain their own ends and purposes, and aspire to superiority only with such objects in view.”   There is a problem when evaluating the Scripture from an Israeli/Gentile view, something that happens throughout biblical commentaries. Israel was a nation filled with power-hungry, sinful people. At times, the Bible uses the Hebrew term goy (Gentile/nation) to describe them –   “Alas, sinful nation [goy], A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the Lord, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.” Isaiah 1:4   The only thing that makes Israel holy is the Lord. Without the Lord's sanctifying them, they are no better than the other nations. In the church, the only thing that makes us holy is Jesus. When we are sanctified by the blood of Christ, we are set apart as holy. However, we can, like Israel, be filled with sinful thoughts, words, and deeds.   Thus, our position of holiness is something we should strive to live out. But in our attempts at doing so, we need to realize that even under the very best conditions (in regard to our conduct), we will always fall short of the true holiness of God.   Let us be careful not to elevate Israel as a people, or ourselves as the church, to a status that doesn't actually exist. This is the reason the instructions for the Lord's Supper are given –   “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-29   Let us remember our lowly state before God. There is no merit on our part because we are His people. Our relationship with Him is one of God's infinite grace, having been poured out on us.   Lord God, may our lives be an acceptable offering to You. Our lives are often filled with sinful desires, bad thoughts towards others, enmity, strife, greed, and so on. We may not have all of these, but each of us is driven by some at one point or another. Thank You for Your grace that has accepted us as we are. Help us to live lives worthy of that calling. Amen.

On today's episode, we discuss an “Open Line Wednesday” Bible study where the regular crew explores John 11 and the story of Lazarus alongside the Old Testament account of Jonah. The hosts dig into Jesus' delay in coming to Bethany, the symbolism of Lazarus being dead for three days, and how this miracle serves as a precursor and teaching tool for understanding Jesus' own resurrection. They also unpack the dialogue between Jesus, Martha, and Mary, wrestling with statements like “I am the resurrection and the life” and what it means to “live even though they die,” using both layperson analogies and pastoral insight. From there, the conversation widens to the roles of Pharisees and Sadducees, the development of resurrection doctrine, and how interactions with traditions like Zoroastrianism may have pushed Jewish thinkers to clarify beliefs about the afterlife. Throughout, the tone is conversational and sometimes humorous, but the core aim is helping listeners connect biblical texts, historical context, and theology in a more coherent, practical way. Don't miss it!

God Can Use You To Help Bring Spiritual Healing To One Who Sees Jesus In You Acts 5:16-18 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed. The Apostles Persecuted 17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.

As we read about Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, Fr. Mike breaks down Jesus' interactions with his disciples and the Sadducees and his reaction to the widow's offering. We learn that a life rooted in Jesus is a life that bears good fruit. Today we read Mark 11-12 and Psalm 67. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/bibleinayear. Please note: The Bible contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

St. Matthew introduces John the Baptist, moving the account of Jesus' life forward to the cusp of His preaching ministry. John's appearance in the wilderness fulfills God's promise of the forerunner of the Christ, foretold by the prophet Isaiah. John's clothing marks him as the Elijah who is to come, and his preaching and baptizing of repentant sinners prepares the way for Jesus' ministry. John meets the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees with a strong warning that they must not place their trust in their heritage or self-righteousness. The Lord wants true repentance and faith, and the matter is urgent, for the Christ is coming with judgment quickly after John.  Rev. Phillip Fischaber, pastor at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Walnut, IL, joins host Rev. Timothy Appel to study Matthew 3:1-12.  To learn more about Holy Trinity Lutheran, visit htlcwalnut.org. “The Reign of Heaven Stands Near” is a series on Sharper Iron that studies the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The first evangelist proclaims that God has fulfilled His Old Testament promises by sending Jesus to bring the reign of the heavens among us. As the Son of David, Jesus is the gracious King we need, and as the Son of Abraham, Jesus is the blessing to all the families of the earth.  Sharper Iron, hosted by Rev. Timothy Appel, looks at the text of Holy Scripture both in its broad context and its narrow detail, all for the sake of proclaiming Christ crucified and risen for sinners. Two pastors engage with God's Word to sharpen not only their own faith and knowledge, but the faith and knowledge of all who listen. Pastor Appel serves at Faith Lutheran Church in Godfrey, IL. Learn more at flcgodfrey.org. Submit comments or questions to: listener@kfuo.org

What's Pulling Your Eyes Off Jesus? Luke 9:62 “But Jesus said to him, ‘No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” The leader of the Watchman Prayer group sent out an email yesterday entitled, “Don't Look Back.” In it, she put two scripture verses. The first one was today's verse. I did not really understand today's verse. It seems kind of harsh to me. I know that not everyone will go to heaven. But that doesn't mean I like reading about it. Some things I understand. I get why some things are so awful. If we don't repent, then we won't be fit for the kingdom of God. However, “No one, having put his hand ot the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” I didn't understand this. So, I went to the Enduring Word commentary, which is where I go when I want to understand things a bit better. I am fully aware that there is so much I don't know about the Bible and what it means. I could study it my whole life and still not understand everything. However, there are people who have studied it their whole lives, and we are so lucky because they have shared their wisdom with us. If you go to enduringword.com, you will find a tab for his commentary. Click it, enter any book and chapter you want, and learn so much. I want to provide a bit of context for everyone who might not know why Jesus said this. I know when I hear a verse I don't understand, I like to go back and see the verses around it and see if I can get more context just by reading those other verses. At the very end of Luke 9, there is a section titled The Cost of Discipleship. The scripture verses are Luke 9:57-62. “Now it happened as they journeyed on the road, that someone said to Him, “Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Then He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”  Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.” And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”  But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Reading this did not give me much more context. I still didn't understand why someone wouldn't be fit for the kingdom of God just because they wanted to go and say goodbye to their loved ones. It seemed kind of harsh to me. However, reading the Enduring Word Commentary, I get it now. It makes sense. The commentary explains that when we are so excited about Jesus, want to follow him, and go tell our families, they are not always that excited for us. Charles Spurgeon, an influential British preacher, said it like this, “O young man, when you are thinking of leaving the world, be afraid of these farewells! They have been the ruin of hundreds of hopeful people. They have been almost persuaded, but they have gone to their old companions just to give them the last kiss, and the last shake of the hand, and we have not seen anything more of them.” As soon as I read that, it all made sense. I love God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I love being Catholic. I love my religion. However, I do not feel I am over the top, I don't think I am super strict, and I try very hard not to judge people or force my beliefs on others. However, my kids would probably tell you the opposite. They try to talk me out of my religion all the time. This is something people have been doing the whole time my husband was in the military. Protestants would try to convince me that my religion was wrong. I went to a retreat once where people were telling me I didn't have to be Catholic. I understand how difficult it might be to stay strong and follow Jesus back in the day. Jesus's teachings were new, and some were very difficult. Jesus's way was contrary to the way so many people thought. Especially when he would say things that seemed to contradict what the Pharisees and Sadducees were saying. I could see how people would hear Jesus give a sermon, be so on fire, run home, and tell their family members. Then, when their family members start asking questions, and they don't have all the answers, they may start to get afraid. When we are surrounded by people who don't understand what we are feeling or how important it is to us, they may try to persuade us by listing only the negatives. What if  He is not the Messaiah? How are you going to make money while you follow Him around? How will you eat? What if you get caught up in some fight between Him and the Pharisees and Sadducees, or Him and the Roman army? They could have some valid questions, and yet, that is not what matters. What matters is that you are giving all for Jesus, and He will take care of you. However, once they get you to stop and think about these things, you might get cold feet. Once we take our focus off Jesus, it is easy to lose our focus. Jesus often used phrases and parables that would have made so much sense to the people he was talking to. However, to us, they don't always make a lot of sense. I am not a farmer, and so I didn't really understand the phrase, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Once I read the enduring word commentary this line made so much sense. Here is what I read: (again you can find this on enduringword.com) Jesus stressed to this man the commitment necessary to follow Him. One must have a similar determination as a farmer plowing a field, who must do it with all his strength and always looking forward. “In plowing a field back in that day, a farmer kept the rows straight by focusing on an object in front and in the distance (such as a tree). If the farmer started to plow and kept looking behind, he would never make straight rows and do a good job of plowing. In following Jesus, we are to keep our eyes on Jesus and never take our eyes off Him. “No plowman ever plowed a straight furrow looking back over his shoulder.” (From: William Barclay was a Scottish theologian and author known for his influential Bible commentaries.) Plowmen also do something else of great importance: they hold on. A plowman who lets go is no plowman at all. “Plowmen are not usually learned persons, nor are they often poets in disguise. But there is one virtue they possess preeminently, and that is the virtue of quietly holding to it.” (From: George Morrison, a Scottish Congregational minister who served at Wellington Church, Glasgow, for over 20 years.) More than anyone else, Jesus lived this; He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). Doesn't that verse make so much more sense now? It makes sense that if we take our eyes off Jesus to look back at those we are leaving behind, we may no longer want to go. It makes sense that if we want to follow Jesus, it might cost us something. That is something we might know, but we don't want to think about. Jesus is not being harsh or unkind by saying we can't say goodbye to our loved ones. He is actually being loving and kind because He knows they could convince us to pull away from our true destiny, which is to be right by His side for all of eternity! This week, I will do a few more scripture verses about not looking back because I think so many of us are tormented by our past. So many people look back with regret, sadness, and anger. We might even look back with a longing. We might long for the days when our kids were little or when we seemed happier. God does not want us looking back. So much heartache can come from looking back. We must have a singular focus, Jesus. If we keep looking ahead to Him, life becomes better because we know that no matter how bad things get, our time with Jesus is ahead. Today, I invite you to ask yourself, “Where am I letting other people distract my gaze from Jesus?” Dear Heavenly Father, I love you so much! I ask you to bless all those listening to this episode today. I thank you for leading me to this scripture and to the commentary that helped me understand it. Lord, we ask that you speak to each one of our hearts today. Lord, show us where we are allowing others to take our eyes off of you. Show us how we can keep our focus on you more? Show us where our focus is drifting. We love you, and we want to always be focused on you. Help us, Lord! We ask all of this in accordance with your will and in Jesus's holy name, Amen! Thank you so much for joining me on this journey to walk boldly with Jesus. One reason people may hesitate to join mentoring is the thought, “I'm not holy enough.” Mentoring is not for people who already have it all together; it is for anyone who wants encouragement, support, prayer, and a safe place to grow closer to Jesus. CLICK HERE for more information. I look forward to meeting you here again tomorrow. Remember, Jesus loves you, just as I am, and so do I! Have a blessed day! Today's Word from the Lord was received in October 2025 by a member of my Catholic Charismatic Prayer Group. If you have any questions about the prayer group, these words, or how to join us for a meeting, please email CatholicCharismaticPrayerGroup@gmail.com. Today's Word from the Lord is, “Wrestling with the flesh is a challenge in mankind's lives. It is something that everyone struggles against and with. The saints struggled but claimed victory over it, but not without me. I am a necessary component and the key to your lives. All can and will be conquered and made with me.” www.findingtruenorthcoaching.comCLICK HERE TO DONATECLICK HERE to sign up for Mentoring CLICK HERE to sign up for Daily "Word from the Lord" emailsCLICK HERE to sign up for my newsletter & receive a free audio training about inviting Jesus into your daily lifeCLICK HERE to buy my book Total Trust in God's Safe Embrace

In this message from Matthew 15:29–16:4, Pastor Karl examines two very different groups of people who come to Jesus — and what their approach reveals about how we receive grace.The first group comes from the Decapolis, a Gentile region with no religious standing or covenant claim. They bring broken bodies, unspoken needs, and nothing to offer — and Jesus meets them with compassion, healing, and even provision they didn't know to ask for. The second group, the Pharisees and Sadducees, arrives with suspicion and a demand for proof — and Jesus refuses to perform for them.The contrast surfaces a powerful truth: Jesus has endless compassion for those who come to him needy, but no obligation to satisfy those who come feeling entitled. Unworthiness isn't a disqualification for grace — it's the prerequisite for it.Pastor Karl unpacks why the disciples hesitated to feed the 4,000 (it wasn't that they forgot what Jesus could do — it was that they questioned who he'd do it for), what it really means to "fall from grace," and why the cross is the only reliable lens through which to interpret God's love. When we bring our "not enough" to Jesus, we find that inadequacy is exactly the raw material he's looking for.Watch all our sermons on our youtube channel "Flipside Christian Church"Join us in person 8:00am, 9:30am & 11:00am every Sunday morning.37193 Ave 12 #3h, Madera, CA 93636For more visit us at flipside.churchFor more podcasts visit flipsidepodcasts.transistor.fm

The story in chapter 3 continues in chapter 4.    Pastor reminds us of the story from last week and the miraculous healing of the lame man. After the healing the people, the healed man and Peter and John, they all gathered in Solomon's Colonnade - an area inside the Temple walls.   Chapter 4 As Peter and John were talking to the multitude teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus' name the resurrection of the dead, the priests, the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees come and they are greatly disturbed by what Peter and John are preaching. So they seize Peter and John and put them in jail until the next day. Yet many who had heard their message believed and the number of believers grows. The message of Jesus is spreading quickly.   Prophecy  Then: using the prophetic scripture they tell people the gospel message quoting Genesis and Isaiah showing them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the scriptures. God's prophecies of a Savior were fulfilled in their lifetimes. In Luke 12:11-12 Jesus' prophetic word to His disciples were not to worry when brought to authorities because the Holy Spirit would teach them what to say. In verses 5-9 we see Peter and John brought before authorities and "then Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus had predicted. Now:  Today in our lifetimes we've not only seen these same prophecies fulfilled in the scriptures by Jesus, but also we see those things spoken by Jesus coming to fulfillment.  And like Peter we too are filled with the Spirit as Jesus prophesied would happen. Power Then: Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and accomplished God's divine purposes through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now: We too are filled with the Holy Spirit and are to keep on being filled with the Holy Spirit's power. We are to allow the Holy Spirit to have control of our lives because that is how we accomplish divine purposes through the Holy Spirit's power. Proclamation Then: Peter proclaims to the authorities and the people that it is by the name of Jesus Christ, whom they crucified (but God raised from the dead), that the man was healed. He tells them that they have rejected the Cornerstone (Jesus). Peter ends with, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 Peter shares the gospel message. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice who saves us. Peter proclaims the Name of Jesus and the gospel message: Death, Deity and Resurrection. Pastor does a dive into "the Name" used in the chapters 2-4 of Acts. There is power in the name of Jesus and no name above the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11) Now: We are to proclaim the gospel today.  Have we received the proclamation in our own lives? Because everyone who calls on Jesus' name will be saved.  Is that proclamation guiding and controlling and directing our attitude and speech? Is it how we deal with others?  Jesus' name is a powerful name that brings healing and forgiveness and gives certain and sure hope for all eternity. We are called to respond to the proclamation - the gospel message. The gospel message always demands a response.    The Dilemma Acts 4:13-18 - what could the authorities do with Peter and John? They decide to warn them not to speak to anyone any further in "the Name."    Passion Then: in Acts 4:19 Peter and John reply "Which is right in God's eyes: to listen to you or to Him… As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (They were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life on earth) Peter and John have given everything for the Lord Jesus. Now: We too are called to do the same, to yield and surrender our lives to Him. To be filled daily with the Holy Spirit and live a life of service, joy and peace even in opposition.   In the end the authorities could not decide how to punish them so they let them go, because the people were praising God for the miraculous healing of the man who had been lame for 40 years.    There's more to this chapter! There's a 5th "P" to go along with the four P's Pastor shares today. If you are wondering what the 5th "P"is check out our Bible Class Dig Deeper playlist for the title: "Together in Prayer"  https://www.awakeusnow.com/dig-deeper   This week's READING ASSIGNMENT:   Acts chapter 3-4 (read and reflect on these two chapters together)     Now What? Learn about God at https://www.awakeusnow.com EVERYTHING we offer is FREE.   Check out this video series from our website: https://www.awakeusnow.com/god-acts-then-now   Or watch from our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@AwakeUsNow/streams   Join us Sundays live or on demand from our website  https://www.awakeusnow.com/sunday-service

Then Jesus was approached by some Sadducees—religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. They posed this question: “Teacher, Moses gave us a law that if a man dies, leaving a wife without children, his brother should marry the widow and have a child who will carry on the brother's name. Well, suppose there were seven brothers. The oldest one married and then died without children. So the second brother married the widow, but he also died without children. Then the third brother married her. This continued with all seven of them, and still there were no children. Last of all, the woman also died. So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? For all seven were married to her.” — Mark 12:18–23 NLT Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God. v. 24 For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven. v. 25 “But now, as to whether the dead will be raised—haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush? Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error.”vv. 26-27 I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. v. 26b So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error.” vv. 27 The resurrection gives us hope for tomorrow and power for today. I pray that your hearts will be flooded with light so that you can understand the confident hope he has given to those he called—his holy people who are his rich and glorious inheritance. — Ephesians 1:18 NLT I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God's power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power that raised Christ from the dead… — Ephesians 1:19–20a NLT …when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. — Ephesians 1:13 NLT “The point of the resurrection … is that the present bodily life is not valueless just because it will die. God will raise it to new life. What you do with your body in the present matters because God has a great future in store for it.” “What you do in the present—by painting, preaching, singing, sewing, praying, teaching, building hospitals, digging wells, campaigning for justice, writing poems, caring for the needy, loving your neighbor as yourself—will last into God's future.” The resurrection gives us hope for tomorrow and power for today.

In the Name of the Messiah Acts 3 by William Klock So what happens after Pentecost?  In the church's calendar we spend the first half of the year walking through the life of Jesus—maybe we think of that as the “gospel story”—and that closes with Pentecost.  And in the second half of the year we focus on the life of the church as it lives out Pentecost.  But the way the lectionary does that tends to present the life of the church in the abstract.  That's not necessarily bad.  But the book of Acts gives us an opportunity to see it in real life, in history.  And Acts is important because it makes sure we understand that the life of the church isn't some application of abstract theological principles.  Acts shows us the life of the church as very much the continuation of the story of Jesus, of that gospel narrative.  It doesn't end with the Ascension.  It doesn't end with Pentecost.  Pentecost simply begins a new chapter.  As Luke said at the beginning, in the gospel he wrote he laid out what Jesus began to do and to teach.  In Acts we see Jesus continuing to do and to teach, but now it's through his church, through his people. So last week we saw this amazing move of the Spirit.  That's how I think we mostly think of it: a move of the Spirit.  But if we've been following the story through Easter and the ascension it ought to be clear that Pentecost is, first and foremost, a move of Jesus the Messiah.  Having taken his heavenly throne to reign as king until he has put all his enemies under his feet, Jesus has sent the Spirit to enact, to make real the truth of his reign through the church.  The spirit enables the apostles, the rest of the disciples, enables us to put off the old, lie-based, rebellious way of being human and to put on the new humanity brought by Jesus' resurrection from the dead.  The Spirit makes us the working model of God's new creation in the midst of the old.  The Spirit, living within us, make us God's new temple: full of his presence, his wisdom, his gospel.  And as we fulfil his original command to are fruitful and multiply, we grow and spread that temple until God's glory fills the earth. So Pentecost doesn't stand alone.  It's not just a stage in our personal spiritual growth.  It's not even for our own benefit.  It's to carry the reign of Jesus as Lord to the world.  So, again, what happens after Pentecost?  Look at Acts, Chapter 3. [Page 1082 in the pew Bibles.]  Luke tells us, “Peter and John were going up to the temple at three o'clock in the afternoon, the time for prayer.” I think it's worth a pause there.  Peter and John and the rest of the church had become the new temple.  The very thing that was missing from old, bricks-and-mortar temple, the presence of God, had come to dwell in them.  But they still went to the old bricks-and-mortar temple.  It highlights the fact that they didn't think of Jesus, the Spirit, the new covenant, being the new Israel as being some kind of new religion.  This new thing was simply how to be a faithful Jew in light of God's promises to Israel being fulfilled in Jesus.  And so these first Christians continued to observe torah, they worshipped with their fellow Jews in the synagogues, and they went with their fellow Jews to pray in the temple.  They didn't leave Judaism for something called Christianity.  But here's the thing: You and I don't do any of those things.  We don't live according to torah, we're not circumcised, we don't observe the Jewish feasts, we don't go the temple—we can't, because God judged and destroyed it long ago—but we are part of that same family of Jesus people, that same new Israel, that same church.  Because the new Israel isn't about torah, or circumcision, or diet, or Sabbath, or biological descent from Abraham.  It's about faith in, allegiance to Jesus, Israel's Messiah, and his kingdom, and the law of love written in our hearts by his Spirit.  What marks us out is our baptism into Jesus and the law of the Spirit that overflows from within us. Now, Luke goes on: “There was a man being carried in who had been lame from his mother's womb.  People used to bring him every day to the temple gate called “Beautiful”, so that he could ask for alms from those entering the temple.  When he saw Peter and John going into the temple, he asked them to give him some money. So every day, probably for many years, this man's friends would carry him to the gate of the main temple court and leave him there to beg.  He was a fixture of the temple.  Few people probably “knew” him, but everyone was familiar with him.  Peter and John weren't from Jerusalem, but they'd probably seen the man when they visited the temple.  Maybe they'd given him money before.  But this time they have no money.  They'd left their jobs as fisherman in Galilee.  The church in Jerusalem has been surviving by living as family, pooling their resources.  Luke goes on: “Peter, with John, looked hard at him.  ‘Look at us,' he said.  The man stared at them, expecting to get something from them.  ‘I haven't got any silver or gold,' Peter said, ‘but I'll give you what I have got.  In the name of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, get up and walk!'  He grabbed the man by his right hand and lifted him up.  At once his feet and ankles became strong, and he leaped to his feet and began to walk.  He went in with them into the temple, walking and jumping up and down and praising God.  All the people saw him walking and praising God, and they recognised him as the man who had been sitting begging for alms by the Beautiful Gate of the temple.  They were filled with amazement and astonishment at what had happened to him.” He got more than he bargained for and what Peter and John give this man is right in keeping with what we read at the end of Chapter 2.  Money had ceased to have any importance for the disciples.  Something far better had come along.  Money is one of those things you need to get along in the old age where things are scarce and people are greedy.  The kingdom of God is about his new creation generosity and abundance.  This is why they lived like a family and shared what God gave with each other.  It was a practical way to live out new creation in way that confronted the scarcity and greed of the old age.  They knew there was something more important, a new power, a new kind of life—something far more important than silver and gold and so they gave it to this man.  The man didn't even ask to be healed.  He'd probably given up on that idea years and years ago.  But Peter gave this man new creation in the name of Jesus. Maybe this is why Peter insisted that the man look at them.  Picture Peter looking hard into the lame man's eyes and the lame man staring back.  Maybe Peter had seen Jesus do that: looking intently into the eyes of hurting people, seeing desperation, seeing hopelessness in some and faith in others.  Making a connection.  Sharing the compassion of God for the victims of the corrupt principalities and powers of the present age.  It seems like Peter saw something there.  Maybe hope.  Maybe faith.  Maybe the man knew who Peter was.  Maybe he'd heard about what happened at Pentecost.  Peter saw something.  And he didn't just tell the man to get up and walk.  That's what Jesus would have done and Peter wasn't Jesus.  Peter had no power of his own to do anything.  Instead, Peter made it clear where the power lies: “In the name of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, get up and walk.” The name is as good as the person.  Peter and John were acting as Jesus' representatives and in that capacity—so long as they were faithful to Jesus' will, his desire, his agenda, his rule and kingdom—they could act with power and authority and faith on his behalf—in his name.  And so can we.  Sometimes we forget that.  On the one hand, we pray and we add something like “through Jesus our Lord” or “in the name of Jesus” at the end of our prayers without even thinking about what it means or, on the other hand, we use Jesus' name as if it were a talisman to give our prayers legitimacy or as if just mentioning the name of Jesus will bring our will into reality.  I once prayed and when I was done, a guy came up to me afterward and said, “You didn't say ‘in Jesus' name' so your prayer won't come true.”  No.  Brothers and Sisters, saying a prayer isn't like making a wish and adding Jesus' name doesn't validate our prayers.  Whether we mention him or not, every true Christian prayer is offered to the Father through the mediation of Jesus the son.  It is through him that we have access to God.  And God answers our prayer not because we add a name, but because our whole prayer is a cry for his new creation to become reality, for it to be on earth as it is heaven.  Too often our prayers are veiled appeals to our old idols, appeals to the principalities and powers, appeals still subject to the fears and anxieties of the present evil age, outgrowths of the flesh rather than the Spirit.  And to those prayers, God answers “No”.  Brothers and Sisters, to pray in Jesus' name is to submit ourselves to the goodness and faithfulness of God; it is to pray with faithfulness and single-hearted loyalty to him as Lord, and to ask not for our will to be done, but his; to ask not for the fulfilment of our vision of the good, but his; to ask not for our kingdom to be made real, but his kingdom.  It is to understand that heaven is the storehouse of the goodness of God's kingdom, like the turkey in the refrigerator and the presents stored up under Mom and Dad's bed, all to be brought out when Christmas comes.  God's kingdom will come in all its fulness when the church, when we have made God's gospel known throughout the earth and when the knowledge of his glory covers creation as the sea.  Prayer is to ask God to give us glimpse of that final day when the presents are under the tree, ready to be opened, and the turkey is on the table and the great feast is ready.  Prayer is, to quote Karl Barth, “the beginning of an uprising against the disorder the world.”  It is to ask in hope for God's justice, God's righteousness, God's goodness, God's faithfulness, God's future to be known—even if only in a small way—right here and right now. And that's what Peter did.  And suddenly the man was jumping and dancing his way into the temple full of heaven on earth.  And everyone noticed.  Verse 11: “All the people ran together in astonishment towards Peter and John and the man was clinging to them.  They were in the part of the temple known as ‘Solomon's Porch'.  Peter saw them all and began to speak. ‘Men of Israel,' he said, ‘why are you amazed at this?  Why are you staring at us as though it was our own power or piety that made this man walk?  “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob—the God of our fathers”—he has glorified his servant Jesus, the one you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate, although he had decided to let him go.'” Let's pause there.  When Peter says “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob—the God of our fathers” he's taking a line from Exodus 3.  This is how the God of Israel introduced himself to Moses at the burning bush before sending him back to Egypt to demand that Pharoah let the Israelites go.  Jesus had just done this in his dispute with the Sadducees and now Peter does the same and his point is to highlight that just as with Moses and the Exodus from Egypt, the God of Israel is at work here and not just as work, but at work to bring his promises to Israel to pass.  Peter's announcing that it's happening again.  In Jesus and the Spirit; in Good Friday and Easter and Ascension and Pentecost, the God of Israel was acting once again to deliver his people from bondage, to lead them in a new exodus, to renew his covenant. We'll see this throughout Acts.  Confronted by Jesus and his mighty deeds, those early believers would go back to Exodus.  That was when God fulfilled his promises to deliver his people.  That was when they sacrificed the Passover lambs.  That was when he led them through the sea and gave them his law.  That was when he led them into the promised land and gave them an inheritance.  And when those first Christians saw Jesus and the Spirit at work it was like Moses at the burning bush seeing something amazing that he couldn't explain, and with that scene in mind, we ought to be expecting that God is still keeping his promises and is doing something extraordinary again. Peter goes on: “You denied the holy one, the just one, and requested instead to have a murderer given to you; and so you killed the Prince of Life.  But God raised him from the dead, and we are witnesses to the fact.  And it is his name, working through faith in his name, that has given strength to this man, whom you see and know.  It is faith which comes through him that has given him this new complete wholeness in front of all of you.” So Peter starts explaining Jesus by pulling images from the Jewish scriptures.  We might miss it because we don't know the Bible as well as we should; the people there that day definitely would not have.  First, Peter calls Jesus the servant of God.  Second, he stresses the innocence of Jesus.  He wasn't deserving of death, but the people of Jerusalem handed him over to Pilate.  Even Pilate, Peter says, knew Jesus was innocent.  But they demanded Pilate release Barabbas and that Jesus be crucified.  These images together draw on Isaiah's prophecy, especially Isaiah 53, the passage about the suffering servant, an innocent, who would one day, go to the slaughter like a lamb for the sins of the people.  When Peter calls him the holy one, this too brings up images of the suffering servant and of the spotless lamb.  If the people want to understand what's happened to the lame man, how he's been healed, Peter is saying that they need to think about the Exodus and they need to be thinking about Isaiah's suffering servant and understand that Jesus is standing at the centre of both of these images from Israel's story and God's promises. And this is why he calls Jesus the “Prince of Life”.  The archegos, not just prince, but also the author, the origin, the source of life.  Jesus is the sovereign one, the Lord, who brings life.  It fits with John's image of the word, who was in the beginning and through whom, as God spoke him out, was the source of everything.  Through him all things were created and now, through the word, God speaks life into the world again.  He came into the midst of corruption and sickness and death and has brought life.  And wherever he goes be brings life and in that life he announces his lordship, his sovereignty, his kingdom.  Wherever he brings life he announces his victory over sin and death, over the present evil age.  Wherever he brings life, he announces the hope of God's promises fulfilled and a world set to rights: no more death, no more sorrow, no more tears.  Ironically, his own people rejected and killed him, but God raised him from the dead to prove that Jesus is the life of the world and because of that we know, we have confidence that his life will continue to go out into the world. Peter does here what he did at Pentecost.  God did something mighty and amazing, and Peter—steeped in scripture and full of the Spirit—explains what's going on in light of the story of Israel and her God and, most importantly, showing how what's now happening is the fulfilment of what God had promised to his people.  That's the biggest thing here.  This is no faith healer, doing theatrics and putting the spotlight on himself.  Peter has absolutely no interest in that.  He makes it clear: this is all about Jesus.  The prophets had said that the world would be set to rights when the knowledge of the glory of God has covered it as the sea.  Not the knowledge of Peter.  Not the knowledge of celebrity apostles. The knowledge of the glory of God.  And so Peter's Spirit-filled purpose is to proclaim the glory of God—to make sure everyone knows not just that God is mighty and powerful, but that God is above all faithful to his promises and worthy of our trust, worthy of our allegiance, worthy of our faith.  And that's the next thing.  After announcing how this is healing is evidence of God's faithfulness, Peter issues a call to faith.  Look at verse 17: “Now, Brothers,” Peter continued, “I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did.  But this is how God has fulfilled what he promised through the mouth of all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer.  So now repent, and turn back, so that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshment may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he will send you Jesus, the one he chose and appointed to be his Messiah.  He must be received in heaven, you see, until the time which God spoke about through the mouth of the holy prophets from ancient days, the time when God will restore all things.  Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me, one from among your own brothers; whatever he says to you, you must pay attention to him.  And everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be cut off from the people.'  All the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors, spoke about these days too.  You are the children of the prophets, the children of the covenant which God established with your ancestors when he said to Abraham, ‘In your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'  When God raised up his servant he sent him to you first, to bless you by turning each of you away from your wicked deeds.” Over and over Peter stresses that what the people are seeing is the fulfilment of God's promises going all the way back to Abraham: His promise to renew fallen Israel, his promise to reach out to the nations with this glory through this renewed people.  Peter points forward to this hope of creation set to rights that we see from this point on throughout Acts and the New Testament, said in various ways.  God will “sum up all things in the Messiah,” as we heard Paul say in Ephesians 1:10.  Through the Messiah he will “reconcile all things to himself, making peace by his blood, shed on the cross” (Colossians 1:20).  He will make “new heavens and new earth, in which justice will dwell” (Revelation 21:1).  He will overcome every power which destroys and corrupts his good creation, so that eventually God will be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).  The whole creation will be “set free from its slavery to decay, to share the liberty of the glory of God's children” (Romans 8:21).  Brothers and Sisters, it began at the cross and the empty tomb, the ascension was a sign it was all true, and Pentecost show us that we're not only a part of how these promises will be fulfilled, but we can watch as heaven invades earth with the glory of God.  We don't have to wait for some distant day to see God revealed.  We see his glory at work each day: in ourselves as his word and Spirt renew us and in the world as we live and proclaim the good news about Jesus and see faith born in others and their hearts and minds renewed by Jesus and the Spirit.  We see God's glory revealed as the weight of sin and guilt is lifted.  Notice that's part of Peter's message.  It's not just a call to repent.  It's also assurance of forgiveness.  God, through the blood of Jesus, was ready to forgive even the rejection, the hardness of heart, the rebellion of Israel when they crucified Jesus.  That's the whole point of all of this: God's great final restoration of all things is for us, for sinners, for rebels, for God-haters, right here and right now.  The gospel brings God's future into the present, because God longs to show his mercy and his grace to sinners.  As God longs for his good world that we've corrupted with our sin to be set to rights, even more he longs to set us to rights that we might once again be the stewards, the priests of his temple that he created us to be. God will, as Peter says echoing Isaiah 43:25, God will blot out the sins of those who repent.  And if his grace was big enough and Jesus' blood strong enough to blot out the sins of those who crucified him, and his Spirit powerful enough to renew their hearts and to fill them with love, Brothers and Sisters, the blood of Jesus and the renewing power of his Spirit is enough to bring God's new creation to us.  Repent and believe in the name of Jesus.  Be forgiven.  Be made whole.  Be made new.  Be refreshed.  Be God's future here and now.  Be made a witness to your family, to your friends, to everyone around you of the saving power of Jesus the Messiah. Let's pray: O God, the strength of all who put their trust in you: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because in our weakness we can do nothing good without you, give us the help of your grace, that in keeping your commandments we may please you both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

Preaching Point: : Jesus' rebuke must warn us against rejecting biblical truth through faulty reasoning and encourage us to trust God's power and God's Word, even when confronted with difficult doctrines.Text: Matthew 22:23–33 (ESV) 23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.' 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” 29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

The font is where Nicodemus's question died. Where the Sadducees' question died. You went into that water still carrying the old premise — still asking what resurrection could possibly mean, still uncertain whether the age to come is anything more than this age with the dying removed. And you came out having been given something you did not generate, extra nos, outside yourself, from the One whose Name was spoken over you. The Holy Spirit begot you. The old Adam did not survive. You are already a son of the resurrection before you have died — not because of what you brought to the water, but because of whose Name is on you.

Read OnlineOne of the scribes came to Jesus and asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” Mark 12:28We continue to read about Jesus' various interactions, teachings, and prophetic actions in the Temple area during Passover, just days before He would be arrested and killed. During the week, Jesus cleansed the Temple of moneychangers and merchants and was confronted with hostility by various religious and political factions.First, a group of chief priests, scribes, and elders challenged His authority to cleanse the Temple and then unsuccessfully conspired with some Pharisees and Herodians to trap Him in a legal dilemma. Next, some Sadducees confronted Him, but Jesus' answer exposed their misunderstanding of the Scriptures and the power of God. In today's Gospel, after witnessing that exchange, a scribe—impressed by Jesus' answer—came forward. Rather than trying to trap Him, he asks a sincere question: “Which is the first of all the commandments?”At that time, the scribe's question reflected a common rabbinical discussion about the hierarchy of the Law. Perhaps because of the widespread disagreements among the various religious factions—priests, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees—scholars often sought to determine a guiding principle for what had been identified in Jewish tradition as 613 commandments within the Torah. Some commandments, like the prohibition of idolatry, seemed weightier, while others, like dietary laws, were considered less important.Jesus' response does not simply rank the commandments; it reveals their true purpose by uniting them in a way that fulfills the entire Law. Instead of engaging in legalistic debates, He elevates the discussion by going directly to the heart of the Law with a twofold summary: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30–31). By doing so, Jesus shows that love—of God first and of neighbor as an extension of that law—is the foundation and fulfillment of every commandment.The scribe's response—“Well said, teacher”—demonstrates both humility and wisdom, and Jesus affirms his understanding: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” This interaction contrasts with the previous confrontations between Jesus and the religious leaders. Rather than trying to trap or discredit Jesus, the scribe listens attentively and responds with sincerity, and “No one dared to ask him any more questions” (Mark 12:32, 34).Many in the crowd had likely been following Jesus' encounters with the various religious and political factions throughout the week. At first, they may have been uneasy, seeing the repeated attempts to discredit Him. But as Jesus responded with authority and truth, they witnessed the growing contrast between those who sought to manipulate the Law for their own purposes and those who, like this scribe, genuinely desired to understand it.Our own lives are sometimes burdened with controversy and division. Whether in politics, religion, academics, or daily life, disagreements arise that can easily lead to contention. When unchecked, these conflicts can foster division, hostility, and even obsessions that steal our peace. Jesus' interaction with this scribe offers us a path forward: the way of humble inquiry, sincere dialogue, and the pursuit of Truth grounded in love. When we approach discussions with a heart open to God rather than with a desire to win an argument, we draw closer to His Kingdom. Reflect today on the witness of this scribe. Though Jesus' teaching on love of God and neighbor is of paramount importance, so is the example this scribe set in pursuit of the Truth. Consider your own approach to God's Truth by examining your daily interactions with others. Do you struggle with being combative, resort to trickery, or obsess over being right and getting your way? Or do you seek the Truth that brings understanding and unity? Seek to imitate this scribe in humility and sincerity, and you, too, will not be far from the Kingdom of God.Lord of Perfect Love, the fulfillment of Your Law is found in the pure and holy love of charity. Help me to love You above all things, and from that love, to see and treat others as You do. May my love for You transform me into an instrument of Your divine charity, that through me, Your love may bring healing, unity, and peace. Jesus, I trust in You.  Image: The Scribe Stood to Tempt Jesus By James TissotSource: Free RSS feed from catholic-daily-reflections.com — Copyright © 2026 My Catholic Life! Inc. All rights reserved. This content is provided solely for personal, non-commercial use. Redistribution, republication, or commercial use — including use within apps with advertising — is strictly prohibited without written permission.

Original Post Date: June 5, 2024 === Gospel Mark 12:18-27 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and put this question to him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, If someone's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants. So the second brother married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise. And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died. At the resurrection when they arise whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her." Jesus said to them, "Are you not misled because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven. As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled.” Reflection The audience in this story is different than those that we've just reflected upon. The Sadducees were a group of Jews who simply did not believe that there was such a thing as life after death. What I think is interesting about Jesus response to them is that he's simply saying, you know you're greatly misled. You have been taught poorly and you don't understand. There's a gentleness in the way he treats them compared to the way he treated the scribes and Pharisees. He is more compassionate and understanding. That's what he does whenever we don't understand. He gently says, you were misled and let me lead you. Let me show you the truth, and I will do that for you. Closing Prayer Father, give us the courage to look at the things that we don't fully understand, and turn to you and ask you to explain. You long to lead us into a place of truth and life. Let us never hesitate to admit that we do not understand. But we long to understand. And when we ask, you will answer our needs. And we ask this in Jesus' name, Amen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Friends of the Rosary,Today, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and Companions, Martyrs, we read in the Gospel (Mark 12:18-27) how Jesus answers the Sadducees' trap about the resurrection by pointing them back to Scripture and to the living power of God: “He is not God of the dead but of the living.”Christian hope is not vague optimism. It is confidence that God's life is stronger than death.And the resurrection is not an abstract doctrine; it is the truth that lets a Christian stand upright, love clearly, and suffer without being owned by suffering.That fits beautifully with Saint Charles Lwanga and his martyred companions, the saints of today. Their martyrdom witnesses that faith is not merely an idea to defend, but a life entrusted to God even when earthly power threatens everything. They could face death because they believed Christ's words. Their witness reaffirmed that trust that the body can be killed, but the life God gives cannot be taken away.Ave Maria!Come, Holy Spirit, come!To Jesus through Mary!Here I am, Lord; I come to do your will.Please give us the grace to respond with joy!+ Mikel Amigot w/ María Blanca | RosaryNetwork.com, New YorkEnhance your faith with the new Holy Rosary University app:Apple iOS | New! Android Google Play• ⁠June 3, 2026, Today's Rosary on YouTube | Daily broadcast at 7:30 pm ET

Read OnlineSome Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and put this question to him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers…” Mark 12:18–20The Sadducees were a Jewish sect composed mainly of the Temple leaders, including many priests. They held theological and political views that differed significantly from those of the Pharisees. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) as authoritative, whereas the Pharisees recognized the entire Hebrew Scriptures, including the Prophets, historical books, and Wisdom literature, and upheld a highly developed oral tradition based on centuries of rabbinic interpretation. This led to tension and theological disagreements.The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of angels—all of which were central to Pharisaic belief—because they believed those truths were not found in the Torah. They believed that God's blessings were given for this life and that when one died, the soul perished with the body.Despite their theological disputes with the Pharisees, both groups found common ground in opposing Jesus. Today's Gospel illustrates the Sadducees' failed attempt to trap Jesus in a legalistic theological dilemma, using the law of Levirate marriage (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5–10) to challenge the doctrine of the resurrection.The Sadducees took their turn to trap Jesus not only to prove Jesus wrong but also to justify their beliefs before the Pharisees. They pose an extreme hypothetical scenario, in which seven brothers successively marry the same woman, each dying childless and ask: “At the resurrection when they arise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her” (Mark 12:23). Their intent is not to seek truth, but to mock the very idea of life after death.Jesus responds, not with complicated legal reasoning, but with divine wisdom that lifts their minds beyond earthly concerns. He begins by rebuking their limited understanding: “You do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Mark 12:24). Then, He offers a twofold response (cf. Mark 12:24–27).First, Jesus addresses the question of marriage after the resurrection: “When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.” After the resurrection of the dead, human existence will be radically transformed. Earthly institutions such as marriage—good and holy as they are—belong to this world, not the next. In the life to come, every soul will find its perfect fulfillment in the Beatific Vision. Second, Jesus refutes their denial of the resurrection of the dead using the Torah: “As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead but of the living.”Though the Sadducees had built their entire theology on the Torah, they failed to recognize the implication of God's words to Moses. If God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” then these patriarchs must still be alive in His presence. God did not say, “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but “I AM.” With this statement, Jesus shatters their disbelief and unveils the reality of eternal life. Perhaps even the Pharisees enjoyed His answer. Reflect today on the central truth Jesus revealed to the Sadducees: The soul is immortal, and those who die in God's grace will rise again to live eternally in His presence, in perfect communion with all the angels and saints. This truth must always be our focal point in life. Too often, we live as the Sadducees did—as if this life is an end in itself. By turning our eyes toward eternity, we not only better our lives here and now, but we also live in the hope of Heaven, knowing that all we do now must be for the sake of eternal treasure in the life to come.My eternal Lord, I believe in the promise of Heaven and the coming of the New Heavens and Earth, when all souls will rise and receive their eternal reward or judgment. As I journey through this life, keep my eyes fixed on eternity, and let my hope be firmly rooted in the resurrection to come. Jesus, I trust in You.Image: The Sermon on the Mount By Guillaume FouaceSource: Free RSS feed from catholic-daily-reflections.com — Copyright © 2026 My Catholic Life! Inc. All rights reserved. This content is provided solely for personal, non-commercial use. Redistribution, republication, or commercial use — including use within apps with advertising — is strictly prohibited without written permission.

Hosts Pastor Robert Baltodano and Pastor Lloyd Pulley Question Timestamps: John, email (1:44) - Why did Saul come from the Tribe of Benjamin, when they were punished at the end of the book of Judges? How did the history of the civil war in Judges affect how people perceived Saul as king? Ed, NJ (6:01) - Am I sinning for taking communion at a Catholic Church? Susan, NJ (10:35) - Does God have dominion over the affairs of men, or do we have free will? Can we die prematurely, at an unintended time? Fredrick, NJ (18:33) - What do I tell people when they ask about whether good people will go to hell? David, Facebook (23:08) - Are we considered sinless now that we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ? Richard, NY (25:51) - How long were Adam and Eve in the garden? Luigi, NY (35:37) - Will priests and cardinals be held to the same account that the Pharisees and Sadducees were? Gracie, SC (40:38) - Were Jesus's parents Jews? Was Jesus Jewish? How can people hate the Jews, when that is the way to get to heaven? Michael, Facebook (47:19) - Is the use of alcohol morally wrong as a Christian? Carrie, YouTube (49:26) - Does Zechariah 14 verse 12 describe a nuclear weapon or a plague? Juana, NY (51:58) - Does the devil speak in tongues? Why are the Israelites the most holy people? Camille, NJ (54:40) - Our neighbors asked us to go to their daughter's lesbian wedding. Should we go? Ask Your Questions: Call: 888-712-7434 Email: Answers@bbtlive.org

In this recorded reflection on St. Mark's Gospel, I encourage listeners to use their intellectual reasoning to deepen their understanding of religious faith. The homily analyzes a scriptural debate between Jesus and the Sadducees, who used a hypothetical scenario about a widow with seven husbands to argue against the resurrection. I explain that Jesus corrected their misunderstanding by revealing that life in heaven transcends earthly marriage and that God is the God of the living. By examining the divine and human natures of Christ, the commentary illustrates how a “healthy amount of doubt” and inquiry can lead to greater clarity. Ultimately, I  emphasize that spiritual existence continues after death through an incorruptible soul that will one day be reunited with a glorified body.

Delivered by Christine Gunawan from the Parish of Saint Joseph Cathedral in the Archdiocese of Pontianak, Indonesia. 2 Timothy 1: 1-3.6-12; Rs psalm 123: 1-2a.2bcd; Mark 12: 18-27.WHEN THERE IS MISUNDERSTANDING Our meditation today has the theme: When There IsMisunderstanding. A young man was falling is love to a girl he had known forseveral months. The girl was ten years younger than him. The young man alwaystook every single opportunity to meet the girl he so loved. At one point he directlydeclared his love to her.  The young man said: "I am in love with you. Canyou accept me, given our age difference is 10 years. All this time I have beenworried about speaking with you directly because of this age difference."The girl replied: "It's okay. I accept it. The important thing is that onecondition must be met." "What is the condition?" asked the youngman. "The condition is, you just wait until I'm of same age as you." As long as we as humans in this world we willexperience many misunderstandings. The above story is one of the many examples.Misunderstandings generally occur because there is no common understanding orthought among us. If we don't make an effort to address it, it will potentiallybecome a conflict and trigger a split between us. We should avoid the examplesof misunderstanding we find in the scriptures.  The story of Tobit shown in the Old Testamentillustrates people's misconceptions about suffering of believers. Suffering forJesus' sake should not be considered a curse and a very shameful fate. Instead,suffering is an opportunity to gain God's grace and blessing. The secondmisunderstanding is the view that goodness and sacred calling are obtainedsolely because of human deeds. God is seen as having no role at all.Supposedly, this is because of the intention and love of the Lord God Himselfwho chooses and gives us highest dignity among all creatures.   The Sadducees misunderstood that later in eternal lifethe biological husband and wife would resume their marriage there. They thoughtthat humans will only change their home address when they enter the afterlife.Jesus affirmed that they were really misunderstanding and that led them to thewrong direction of life.  If there is a misunderstanding, what should we do? Letus realize that God is the One from whom we get light, counsel and a way toturn to the right understanding. We should also remind each other so thatmisunderstandings do not continue and have the opportunity to become great.Conflict is ready to strike if a misunderstanding is allowed to become bigger. Letus pray. In the name of the Father... O Lord Jesus Christ, teach and strengthenus always to be on the right path and understanding according to Your wisdom.Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit ... In the name ofthe Father ...

Have you ever been protected from a danger you never even knew existed? In this episode of Words From The Word, Pastor Roderick Webster of Good News Baptist Church in Sint Maarten walks us through Acts chapters 22 and 23 in the KJV, continuing the powerful testimony of Paul the prisoner.You might be asking: Why did simply mentioning the Gentiles cause a riot? How did Paul's Roman citizenship protect him from an illegal beating? What do we do when people plot against us behind our backs? And how does God use the people closest to us to keep us safe?Key points from this devotion:- Paul's testimony sparked a riot the moment he mentioned God sending him to the Gentiles- His Roman citizenship stopped an unlawful scourging and showed how God uses every detail of our background- Paul used God-given wisdom to divide the Sadducees and Pharisees, buying himself time- A conspiracy of more than 40 men vowed not to eat until they killed Paul — and God exposed it through one young nephew- God personally encouraged Paul, saying he would testify in Rome — the mission was not overGod's protection often works in ways we never see. Be encouraged today.Like, comment, and share this devotion. Subscribe so you never miss a Word From The Word.#WordsFromTheWord #KJV #BibleDevotion #ChristianLiving #GoodNewsBaptistChurchStay connected with GNBC:

Pastor John Ryan Cantu brings this week's message, “The Greatest.” Matthew 22:34-38 ESV: "But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.” If you enjoyed the podcast, please subscribe and share it with your friends on social media. For more information about PNEUMA Church, visit our website at mypneumachurch.org.Connect with Us: Instagram: https://instagram.com/mypneumachurch YouTube: https://youtube.com/mypneumachurch Facebook: https://facebook.com/mypneumachurch Time Stamps: 00:00 - Introduction 00:30 - Welcome 00:43 - Matthew 22:34-38 ESV 01:49 - The Greatest

Read OnlineJesus and his disciples returned once more to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple area, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders approached him and said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you this authority to do them?” Mark 11:27–28Jesus and His disciples were in Jerusalem for Passover, which would culminate in His death. In the preceding months, Jesus prepared His disciples for this final journey, telling them three times that He would be handed over in Jerusalem, suffer, die, and rise again. Each time, the disciples failed to grasp the full meaning of His words.The week began with Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The next day, Jesus drove the money changers, merchants, and others out of the Temple. As the week progressed, hostilities grew. Today, Jesus is confronted by the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Later in the week, He will face opposition from the Herodians, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Each of these groups held significant civil and religious authority within the Jewish community.The chief priests oversaw Temple worship. The scribes were experts in Jewish Law. The elders were respected lay leaders within the community. The Herodians were politically motivated supporters of Herod and Roman rule. The Pharisees focused on strict observance of the Law and oral traditions. The Sadducees denied beliefs, such as the resurrection and angels, and cooperated with Roman authorities to protect their positions.While Roman authorities governed Jerusalem civilly, the religious leaders held significant influence over the Temple and the enforcement of Jewish laws, matters that were of little concern to the Romans. The religious leaders could arrest people, but they lacked the authority to execute anyone—an authority they ultimately sought to use against Jesus. Tragically, they became icons of hostility and evil as they persecuted the Son of God.In today's Gospel, the chief priests, scribes, and elders confronted Jesus: “By what authority are You doing these things?” This challenge was likely in response to Jesus' actions the previous day when He cleansed the Temple. The tension and hostility were palpable. The disciples were fearful, and those observing took sides—some angry at Jesus, others concerned for what might happen to Him.Jesus' disposition and response to these icons of hostility and evil offer insight into how we must confront every diabolical attack and temptation in our own lives. Jesus was calm, firm, and fearless. He revealed their dishonesty, trickery, and evil intent when He said to them, “I shall ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was John's baptism of heavenly or human origin? Answer me.”The religious leaders didn't know what to say. Any answer they gave would have revealed their malice and dishonesty, so they said, “We do not know.” Jesus responded, “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mark 11:33). Jesus was not intimidated and exposed their dishonesty.Evil is always irrational and hostile. When we encounter the wrath of others or witness it from a distance, we often find ourselves thinking, “This doesn't make sense!” And indeed, it doesn't. Jesus unmasked this irrationality and refused to be oppressed by it. Though it led to further persecution, He faced it without fear. His witness serves as the ideal model for us whenever we encounter irrational anger, persecution, or hostility.Reflect today on any hostility you might encounter. If it seems senseless and leaves you feeling oppressed or fearful, turn to Jesus as your guide. Hostile irrationality can arise from many sources, even those close to us. We must resist the temptation to return hostility with hostility, but neither should we give in to fear. Our response must be rational, calm, and firm, just as Jesus demonstrated. Our Lord's witness should not only result in our admiration and praise, but also in our imitation, relying on His grace to confront evil as He did.Most courageous Lord, You never allowed the anger and deception of others to oppress You or fill You with fear. You faced every evil with confidence and wisdom, unmasking its irrationality. Grant me Your courage and wisdom as I confront the evils in my life, so that I may live with confidence and security in Your grace. Jesus, I trust in You.Image: You cling to human traditions... by Lawrence OP, license CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.Source: Free RSS feed from catholic-daily-reflections.com — Copyright © 2026 My Catholic Life! Inc. All rights reserved. This content is provided solely for personal, non-commercial use. Redistribution, republication, or commercial use — including use within apps with advertising — is strictly prohibited without written permission.

Welcome to the Grace in Focus podcast. Today, Bob Wilkin and Sam Marr are answering a question in connection with what Jesus told some Sadducees about resurrection and marriage. They […]

20:1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, 20:2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? 20:3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: 20:4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 20:5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 20:6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. 20:7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. 20:8 And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. 20:10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. 20:11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. 20:12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. 20:26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. 20:27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, 20:28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20:29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 20:30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 20:31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 20:32 Last of all the woman died also. 20:33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto t...

Be Bold For The Lord And Be Willing To Share Acts 4:1-4 1The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

The sermon centers on the reality of the resurrection, defending it through Christ's confrontation with the Sadducees, who denied both the resurrection and the supernatural. It emphasizes that a biblical worldview—grounded in the authority of Scripture, the power of God, and the living nature of God's relationship with His people—is essential for faith and life. Christ responds to the Sadducees' absurd hypothetical by exposing their ignorance of both Scripture and God's power, affirming that in the resurrection, people will be like angels, neither marrying nor dying, and proving the ongoing life of the patriarchs through God's declaration, 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' which implies they are alive. The message calls believers to move beyond superficial familiarity with the Bible to deep, obedient engagement with Scripture, rejecting humanistic assumptions and embracing the transformative truth of Christ's resurrection as the foundation of Christian hope and a living faith.

In this profound exploration of Matthew 21:40-46, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb unpack the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and its devastating indictment of Israel's religious leadership. The hosts navigate the complex theological terrain of kingdom transfer, covenant faithfulness, and the identity of God's people across redemptive history. With careful attention to the text's original context and its implications for the church today, they examine how Christ presents himself as the rejected cornerstone—the one upon whom people either fall in repentance or are crushed in judgment. This episode offers rich insights into supersessionism, the remnant theology of Romans 11, and the practical call for Christians to examine whether they're submitting to Christ as the true cornerstone or attempting to usurp his rightful place. Key Takeaways The Self-Condemning Verdict: The chief priests and Pharisees unknowingly pronounce judgment upon themselves when they declare the wicked tenants deserve destruction, demonstrating how the natural conscience can discern God's justice even when blind to personal complicity. Kingdom Transfer as Covenant Transition: The "taking away" of the kingdom represents not the abandonment of God's elect remnant but the historical-redemptive transition from the typological Old Covenant administration to the New Covenant church gathered from all nations. The Cornerstone's Double Judgment: Christ as the cornerstone presents two modes of encounter—those who fall upon him in repentance are broken but healed; those upon whom he falls in final judgment are ground to powder with no remedy. Visible vs. Invisible Church Distinction: The visible identification of God's people shifted from the geopolitical nation of Israel to the universal church, while the invisible elect have always been saved by grace through faith in the coming Messiah. Fear of Man vs. Fear of God: The Pharisees' restraint from seizing Jesus due to fear of the crowds (rather than fear of God) exemplifies how the wicked are dominated by human opinion rather than divine accountability. Infant Baptism and Covenant Community: The joyful inclusion of children in the visible covenant community through baptism reflects God's gracious promise sealed to those who contribute nothing to their own covenant status. Fruit-Bearing as Evidence: The "new tenants" are characterized not by works-righteousness but by evidential fruit—the genuine works that flow from "true and lively faith" worked by the Holy Spirit. Key Concepts The Irony of Self-Condemnation The theological and pastoral power of this parable reaches its climax when the religious leaders, failing to perceive themselves as the wicked tenants in Jesus's story, pronounce harsh judgment upon the hypothetical villains: "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end." This moment mirrors Nathan's confrontation of David after the Bathsheba affair, yet with a tragic difference—these leaders never experience David's repentance. Calvin observes that the natural conscience, even when blind to personal guilt, retains an "hidden impulse to identify with justice." The Pharisees demonstrate total depravity in high definition: they possess enough moral clarity to recognize egregious covenant-breaking in the abstract, yet remain entirely blind to their own embodiment of that very wickedness. This irony serves as both judgment and warning—we all possess an uncanny ability to see sin clearly everywhere except in the mirror. Kingdom Transfer: Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity The phrase "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit" requires careful theological handling to avoid both replacement theology (in its pejorative sense) and dispensational fragmentation. The Reformed understanding maintains covenant continuity: there has always been one people of God, defined not ethnically but by faith in the Messiah. What changes is the visible administration of the covenant. Under the Old Covenant, the visible church was largely coterminous with ethnic Israel—a geopolitical reality with boundaries, a zip code, and national identity. Under the New Covenant, the visible church explodes these ethnic and geographic boundaries, fulfilling God's promise to Abraham that "in your seed all nations will be blessed." This is not Plan B; it's the eschatological unveiling of what was always intended. The "breaking off of natural branches" (Romans 11) refers to covenant unfaithfulness resulting in exclusion from visible covenant privileges, while the faithful Jewish remnant—the apostles, early believers, and the ongoing elect from Israel—remain fully incorporated into the church. The vineyard hasn't been abandoned; it's been opened to "other tenants" who will render the proper fruit: Gentiles grafted in alongside believing Jews into the one olive tree of God's redemptive purposes. The Cornerstone: Salvation or Destruction Christ's invocation of Psalm 118:22—"the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone"—followed by his dual judgment ("whoever falls on this stone will be broken...on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust") presents two exhaustive options for relating to Jesus. The cornerstone in ancient construction was the foundational stone by which all other stones found their proper alignment and orientation. To fall upon this stone willingly—in repentance, faith, and self-abandonment—is painful. It shatters pride, self-righteousness, and autonomy. But this breaking leads to healing, to being properly "squared" and aligned with reality as God has constructed it. The alternative is catastrophic: to have the cornerstone fall upon you in final eschatological judgment is to experience irreversible, total destruction—being "ground to powder" with no possibility of remedy. The practical application is urgent: we must examine ourselves continually to ensure we're not attempting to be our own cornerstone, measuring righteousness by our own standards, aligning the universe to ourselves rather than submitting to Christ as the measure of all things. Memorable Quotes "There's never a time where that righteousness is removed or unapplied, but we are constantly faced with a choice as to whether we want to be the kind of people who render our fruit unto the Lord, as the faithful tenants when the unfaithful tenants are replaced. Or do we wanna be the people that reap wicked fruit and keep for ourselves?" — Tony Arsenal "The vineyard of God is still let out, the fruit is still demanded, the cornerstone is still laid. Blessed are they who receive him—and also get those babies into church." — Jesse Schwamb "This is not a wall you're gonna run through. Like you're gonna smash into this wall and it's gonna crush you. And if you are not properly assigning the cornerstone its place... the whole thing is gonna crush you." — Tony Arsenal Full Episode Transcript [00:01:05] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 492 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:14] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.  [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother.  [00:01:19] Parable Recap [00:01:19] Jesse Schwamb: Well, the time has finally come for us to close out our discussion in Matthew 21. This is the Parable of the Vine growers, and everybody should just go back and list everything we said so far, but I think here's how we could sum it up. Jesus's authority gets challenged and he sets a trap so beautiful that we should put it into a museum. He tells basically the religious bigwigs, this whole story where tenants speed up servants, they kill the air. They generally behave like it's an HOA literally run by the devil. And then he asks them this question, so what should the owner of the vineyard do And the chief priest. Chest puffed up. Basically shout out the answers to their own indictment. Smoke 'em. Give the vineyard to somebody who isn't garbage. Listen fellas, you just preached your own funeral. So in this we get to see this total depravity in 4K. Sovereign grace skips the credential gatekeepers and it lands on the tax collectors and the gentiles. They elect the vineyard, the self-righteous, get the rock. And we're gonna close out what all of that means, including probably not a small amount of talk about the kingdom being transferred, whatever that means, and maybe a little engrafting. Aah, Romans 11 style. It's all there for us. And that is what is coming up. [00:02:34] Affirmations Setup [00:02:34] Jesse Schwamb: Of course before we can do any of that, we can't even get there. Tony, before we do affirmations, denials, you and I both know it's our contractual obligation. It's what the people want all over the world. If we skip this, there will be some kind of riot revolt. So we gotta start there. Let's not get too excited yet. So I'm curious as always, are you affirming with something or you not against something for this episode?  [00:02:58] Tony Arsenal: I am, I'm affirming, uh, this is gonna be like people are gonna grow and roll their eyes a little bit.  [00:03:04] Infant Baptism Joy [00:03:04] Tony Arsenal: I'm affirming infant baptism today. We had a lovely infant baptism at church, um, and a couple recently had a child. Um, there's been, this was a kind of a particularly, um, poignant baptism. Um, the, the mother was in the hospital for several weeks before the baby was born, um, with some medical challenges, so was in. In the hospital. In the hospital for like, I want to say probably four weeks, which is a long time. Um, they have several other children, which makes it even harder. Um, and then, uh, then the baby was in the hospital for quite some time. He came a little early and then had some other issues. Um, and so this family was out of church for quite some time dealing with these health issues, and we, we all miss them very much. So it was a very sweet moment. Um, and it's just a, a good reminder, right? And, and the way our church does it is, you know, the pastor, the family comes up, they do vows, they do the baptism, but he calls all the children forward and the children come and sit, uh, right in the front row and they watch this all happen. Um. Which is, is very sweet. And you know, I, I went up there with Augie, and Augie was sitting on my lap and he was very, he was like super locked into this, this whole thing, which is, uh, which was nice to see. So I'm affirming infant baptism. It's a beautiful, beautiful picture of the gospel. Um, it's, it's God's promise being sealed to someone who contributes nothing to, um, to that promise contributes nothing to, uh, their own, um, position in the church or status in the church. They contribute nothing. Um, in most cases they're not even aware of what's going on. So I know not all of our listeners are, uh, are covenant infant Baptists, uh, type people. Um, so yes, I get it. You disagree, but there is something just sweet and beautiful, uh, even I think even for people who aren't quite sold on infant baptism. Um, and I think even sometimes for people who are kind of opposed to infant baptism, I think we've commented in the PA past that there's kind of this impulse that I think all Christian parents have that their children should be. Treated in a certain way that's different than how a non-Christian family treats their children. Right. Um, so there is kind of this instinct that the, there's, whether it's a formal status or just sort of a, a way of thinking about things, there is this impulse that the children of believers are somehow set apart in different, and of course, the, the Presbyterian Covenant Baptist, um, position would, would formalize that through the rite of baptism, uh, at least in part. So I'm affirming infant baptism, both theologically, but also just experimentally today. Like it was just, it was just a balm to my soul to see this, um. And like I said, the congregation has been praying for a long time for the health, uh, and the, the welfare of this family, um, and been, you know, doing meal trains and all the stuff that churches do. But it was, it was a very sweet moment, um, to see the pastor scoop this little baby up in his arms and be able to sort of introduce him to the church as the newest covenant member of the congregation. Uh, it was just a very nice moment. [00:05:59] Baptism Dedication Common Ground [00:05:59] Jesse Schwamb: I think you're right. We can all agree that there's something really beautiful about God growing his church, at least the visible church, through just the multiplicative effect of. People having children, there's something beautiful about that, and then welcoming them in an official way into your congregation, into your midst. Interestingly, in my church, there was a baby dedication today and I was also equally moved though like I would say the promises that were invoked during that time, the equipment's made are very different than what you might hear during kind of pedo infant baptism. You're right in that the spirit of this that is like a representation kind of bringing forward of the child to say he or she is part of us and we're making a commitment to raise them in admonition of the Lord is a really lovely thing. It's like a public recognition that God is providing a manifest blessing in our midst, and that he is growing and working out his church and he's doing it by just bringing new people into it who are being, who are the subjects of procreation. Creation itself, but procreation and how can you not be like, just excited about that. And, and also a little bit like it's also, and I'm not trying to denigrate any practice here, but also just on the face also super adorable. Like when you, when you see a pastor scoop up, like you said, a little child, whether that's to pray with them and dedication or to baptize them. Either way, it's super just like lovely and just pulls in your heartstrings. Yeah. In like this very spiritual way, not just in kind of an emotional kind of way.  [00:07:26] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And I, you know, I don't, I think, um, when I think back, you know, Augie's, obviously you know this, but Augie was dedicated, um, Addie was not. Um, but when I think back to the vows we took, when we dedicated Augie, there are some differences, but there's also a lot that's not different like the sure close to like, raise up your child in the church and to like, pray for them and set a good example. And then, and then the sort of reciprocal vows that the congregation typically takes, that the congregation will do what they can to support the family as they, they raise this child and the Lord. Um, you know, even in, even in a lot of contexts, like in the Presbyterian church, I'm in like prayers that this, this child would come to know Jesus and would, would come to confess the faith for themselves and become a full, you know, full communicate member of the church. Like, those things are all present. So as much as I think, um. As much as I wanna acknowledge that infant baptism or, or covenant, I, I say covenant baptism versus, um, sort of like baptist theology writ, large credo Baptist theology, which is covenantal, but differently covenantal in most cases. Right. Um, even though that is a dividing line, and I think like it's a real dividing line. There's a real division that exists and that there's good theological historical reasons why those divisions exist. There still is so much that is the same. Um, in terms of how Baptists and, and Presbyterians or however formed, you know, PR Christians, um, re reflect on and think about their children. There's some differences, but in terms of like. We all want our children to come to know Jesus. We all want their first memory to be worshiping in the church and loving the Lord. We, we don't want them to ever remember a time where the name of Christ was not on their lips as their savior. Um, all those things are the same and even the, the way we promise before God and, and primarily before God, but before others, even the way we promise to nourish them in, in right doctrine and nourish them in good teaching and bring them into the church and, and set a faithful example. All of those things are the same. So I I I, I never want to diminish the fact that there are differences 'cause there are real differences and there are important differences. But I also think we often sort of like. I think because we've talked about this before, like Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are so close that we have to bicker over the things that are different. It's like you're, it's like when you fight with your brother on whose side of the room it's on. Like you're so close that you have to find the little things to really bicker about and then you really, really bicker about them. And I think that kind of like describes the, the Presbyterian Baptist divide in a lot of ways. I know there's a lot of people that would say like, Lutherans are closer to Presbyterians and those people are just, I dunno, they're just wrong. Um, on, on, maybe on baptism, they're, they're not wrong. But in terms of general theological principles, like, you know, Westminster Confession, London Baptists, confession, like, it, it's 95% the same content. Sure. Um, and 95% like the same confession, not just the same like words, but the same meaning of the words. And, um, so yeah. Anyway, that's my affirmation. Infant baptism. It was a joy. I was happy to see it. Um, uh, we have a ton of little, little babies in the, the church. It's funny 'cause another, another, um. A couple announced today that they were expecting, and we've, we've had basically pregnant women in the church for, you know, obviously like at least nine months if someone is still pregnant. But like we've had, we've had this like rotation of, of women delivering babies for like, at least, probably, at least 16, 18 months of, of constantly having people who are, are expecting, which is really a great joy to see. So I, I love it. I love the church. I love the Presbyterian church. Um, and this was just another great example of, of the beauty of, uh, a robust confessionalism and a robust presbyterianism. [00:11:08] Jesse Schwamb: The way in which you said that made it sound like you're about to make like a grand historical statement. Like, we've had pregnant people in the church since the first century.  [00:11:18] Tony Arsenal: Well, I mean that's probably true, but  [00:11:19] Jesse Schwamb: yeah, it definitely  [00:11:20] Tony Arsenal: true. Not, not our church. Our church has only been around, our particular church has only been around for like 10 years, so I'm sure there have been times during that period where there were not pregnant people  [00:11:29] Jesse Schwamb: pregnant. It just sounded like we were going all the way back as if like to, again emphasize and maybe this isn't, this is as fair statement, like how faithful God has been like from the beginning. There's always been. Pregnant lady Church. Look, look at how faithful God is.  [00:11:42] Mic Grabbing Babies [00:11:42] Jesse Schwamb: And, and this is true, I like to play this game when there is a baby dedication. I'm not sure what the sound system is like in your church, but often our, our pastors wear like the tiny little like Backstreet Boys style. It's probably outdated reference, but microphone that comes over the ear and to the mouth and it's very discreet. But the game I like to play is like once, once he takes the child for a time of dedication or specifically prayer, the, the goal is to see like how long before that baby goes for the mic. Because as soon as like a baby sees a mic right there, it's like, oh yeah, this is the best thing that's happened to me in my tiny little life.  [00:12:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's like an angler fish is really what it is. Yes. It's like that glowing bulb that just sits in front of its face and it's, the baby's just gotta grab it. [00:12:27] Jesse Schwamb: It's just too tempting. It's just too tempting. And I, and I love, you can tell like our pastors are really adept at being able to keep the prayer going and like discreetly maneuver the child, keep the child happy. It's, it's really an amazing thing. So altogether, I'm totally with you on so many levels. It's so good to see that happen in the church. And I'm with you on that. We gotta take joy in that For sure.  [00:12:48] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse, what do you got for us tonight?  [00:12:50] Book Breath Pick [00:12:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, something that's entirely unlike everything you just said. Certainly. Well, maybe, I guess there is a large spiritual component to this, but it's, I would say, for me, totally unexpected book recommendation and I came across this 'cause it was recommended to me and a while back, the keen or the listener who's been with us for a really long time, or a member that we talked about the book or why we sleep, this book became for me, like the equivalent of that in a totally different kind of topic or genre. It's called breath. The New Signs of a Lost Art by James Nestor and it explores how the way that humans breathe profoundly affects our health, our performance, our longevity. It's a book that is filled with both science and pseudoscience, which the author is really good at distinguishing and calling you to think about those things. But it's really totally changed how I understand like this little pattern in Habits of breathing. And it's a really interesting book of course. Like he draws from a lot of like religious influences, including of course the Judeo-Christian one. And I think that it even drew me back to understanding how God created us. And he did in a very specific way that text's giving some great description to the breadth that he gives us and how he gives us that breath. So if you're looking, I guess, for a little bit of a read, so that might surprise you about something that you might thought was automatic and simple in life and also that might. Be able to bring you some recommendations on how to better your health. Again, we're not doctors, but we are routinely considered among the top 50 healthcare podcasts. Then I would say this would be an interesting book for you to check out.  [00:14:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I haven't read it, but it's been recommended to me and one of the, one of the takeaways, actually, I think it might have been my doctor, my my PCP who mentioned this to me is like, if you wanna improve your health drastically, like just make it a practice of breathing through your nose. Yes. Like something that simple and straightforward has pretty significant health impacts of like. Like the way that your brain processes breath when it comes through your nose, the way that like, there's more filtering that happens with breath, so the air that gets to your lungs is cleaner. There's just a lot of, um, I haven't read it. I've, I think I actually have it somewhere, but I have not read it yet. Um, I, I should, I should take a look at it. I, I've heard good things about it.  [00:15:01] Jesse Schwamb: At the very least, if you're a Christian, it'll cause you to marvel again. That's how beautifully complex God has made the human body and how it seems entirely impossible that anyone could even logically reasonably conclude that somehow we are just time plus matter, plus chance, and that all these things got worked out. I don't wanna spoil some of the punchline. A part of the book is about this. Breathe through your nose, which you might think was just kind of an innocuous decision. Breathe through your nose, breathe your mouth. How, how different could it be? They actually do an experiment where they plug their noses, the author and somebody else for, uh, several, like 10 days straight. And do all these these things under medical supervision to see what the impact is. And I'll leave you to read it so you can hear that. There's also something fascinating, absolutely fascinating about carbon dioxide and a study that's done where they actually have people inhale a little bit of carbon dioxide and what it does to the body. In other words, like the system that God has put into play to ensure that the body gets the kind of right amount of oxygen that it needs and how it functions when it's given the warning side of carbon dioxide, even when. Your lung capacity and your oxygen, your blood doesn't change. There's a fascinating section on that. So I didn't expect to be this interested in the book and generally I take a little time before I recommend a book. I finished this a couple weeks ago and I'm still thinking about it. So, and I'm trying to put some things into practice, including I try to do some running and for the longest time I just thought, well, when you run, like even at any like moderate speed, like you have to breathe through your mouth, this book challenges some of that. So lo and behold, I went out and started to try just a little bit to see if I could just breathe through my nose. It turns out it's totally possible, like all this time I just thought that was impossible, like God didn't make us that way, and it's actually improving how I feel when I run and the running that I'm able to do. So I am surprised, I, I'm shocked by all this, and it's just as simple as understanding breath. Who would've guessed.  [00:16:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. I mean, I've heard it's a great book. I, I, I. It never ceases to amaze that the, the more we look at the human body, the more we look at God's creation, the more we see the fingerprints of our creators. So not, not  [00:17:07] Jesse Schwamb: right.  [00:17:07] Tony Arsenal: Sounds like a great book. I can't recommend it from personal experience, uh, although I've heard very good things.  [00:17:12] Reading Matthew 21 [00:17:12] Tony Arsenal: So, Jesse, I think we should probably just get into it because this is now week three of, uh, one week episode and, uh, we want to wanna dig in and we wanna wrap it up so we can move on to the next best thing out there, which is of course, the parables of Christ. [00:17:26] Jesse Schwamb: Let's get some. So I'm gonna read for us starting in verse 40 because if you've been tracking then you've already been with us through the first part of this parable, and it's notoriously or variously called parable the vine growers, or I kinda like the husband men, just because that's fun to say, and you don't get to drop husband men like very often. But vine dressers, vine growers, vine workers, it's all the same. But here's starting in verse 40. This is after Jesus has already explained the parable. He set it up for them and he's gonna bring for the indictment. So Jesus says, and therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these vine growers? They said to him, he will bring those wretches to a wretched end and he 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 never read in the scriptures the stone, which the builders rejected? This has become the chief cornerstone. This came about from the Lord in his, 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 on this 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 were guarding him to be a prophet.  [00:18:48] Irony Blind Leaders [00:18:48] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, that, that last little section here is just such, it's like dripping with such irony,  [00:18:53] Jesse Schwamb: so good  [00:18:54] Tony Arsenal: that like they, they are so blinded by their own, um, I dunno, ambition isn't, maybe isn't even the right word, but something in that, that neighborhood, they're so blinded by their desire to. Maintain their own status quo, their own uh, their own status. That they fear the crowds because the crowds hold them to be a prophet,  [00:19:15] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:19:16] Tony Arsenal: When in reality, like there is a prophet in their midst and much more than a prophet, uh, and they can't see it because of their own blindness. So I'm stoked to get into it. This is such, like we said, this is such a, like on the nose, paril, it's crazy. This is so much like, you know, Nathan's, you are the man kind of parable. Like yes, that's right, except there never is a, you are the man moment for them. They never get it, which is. Stunning. Like I, I, it just sort of is like, I don't even know what to make of that. [00:19:41] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. There is like a wild blindness. I've been thinking about that a lot in our past conversations, but it culminates here. These chief priests and elders, I would say strangely, but I think that this is probably true of all of us, and maybe especially me, perhaps not yet, like perceiving themselves to be the vine growers here in view, they render this verdict of severe justice. It seems like you, you wanna say to them? Like, guys, guys, pull up, hold up a second. Yeah. Take a step back before you overreact here, because you're about to condemn yourselves and in the Greek here, this expression like, miserably destroy these wicked men. Or it gets like this double wretched in our translations. Mostly he will bring those wretches to a wretched end. It's this rhetorical intensification. It's incredible. And I, I think there's at least like two truths here. That come to my mind. One is, we've talked about before, but is in line with what you're saying, that the natural conscience, when not even aware of its own complicity, can still discern the justice of God's judgments. So here are these men who are so prone almost, I think what Calvin says elsewhere, like that we have this hidden impulse to identify with justice. Even when we can't see that we are the ones perpetrating something of injustice, still we can't help but cry out. We can't even help but identify it. And here they. Accurately identify it. And even though they're putting themselves exactly in the cross here, they cannot help but basically cry out that how egregious this behavior is of these vine growers that Jesus has basically, you know, created in this hypothetical environment, even still there, they're filled with rage and the rage gets turned on them. So the Pharisees here, of course, function as this unwitting witness to the righteousness of God's wrath against covenant breakers, even though they, they don't see it.  [00:21:29] Kingdom Transfer Talk [00:21:29] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, the second thing I think that comes to my mind, and maybe this is like more to the point, is that. The verse foreshadows this transfer of the kingdom from the Jewish nation to a new people that would bring forth its fruits, which I realize if I bring that up right now, that we've just committed to like six episodes just on that topic probably. But yeah, but like, we're gonna have to come to it because there's so much here. And the phrase of this, like, let out his vineyard unto other vine growers or husbandman, it does to me like anticipate this calling of the Gentiles and the formation of the Christian Church and in, in this way. It's not to me. The abandonment of the elect, remnant of Israel, but it is like the breaking off of the natural branches and then this engrafting of the wild olive shoots that come through like Allah, Romans 11. So it's, it's not like from one nation to another simply, but from like the carnal seed to a spiritual seed gathered out of all the nations, that that's wild. Right? I, I think that's all in view here. And it's like a kind of a crazy thing to say. It's certainly like a wild thing to say, no pun intended. And I imagine like, unexpected thing to say.  [00:22:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:22:40] Supersessionism Clarified [00:22:40] Tony Arsenal: Let's think about that a little bit because I think too, there's, there's almost an element of, um. Man, I'm gonna get a lot of flack for saying this. You're, there's almost like a legitimate replacement theology here, right? Like replacement theology. I got covenant theology, you know, reformed, um, reformed theology often gets slandered as, you know, supersessionism or replacement theology, uh, with this idea that like, it's, it's interest. Uh, you have to have dispensational presuppositions for that phrase to even make sense because like the reformed paradigm is that there is one people of God full stop. And yes, like the identity of the one people of God seems to sort of like morph from the Jewish national people to now like Jews and Gentiles and actually predominantly Gentiles in the scope of like the whole history of the church. But what I mean by this is like, there's a visible church in the Old Testament, in the old, under the old Covenant, and the visible church under the old covenant is the national people of, of Israel. Right. By and large. Right. Um, and there are, there are sort of like Gentile, um, Clingons, not like the Star Trek people, but like gentile, like attachments to that throughout the history of, of Old Testament, um, theology. Um. That visible, that visible identification of this is the people of God being the Jewish people. Uh, these are the people that are the vineyard, the, they're the, the owner or the tenants of the vineyard or the, the visible Jewish people of the geopolitical nation of Israel under the old covenant that does sort of like get superseded by the church in the church age, in the new covenant,  right?  [00:24:24] Tony Arsenal: But where, where Supersessionism or the accusation of Supersessionism goes wrong is that there is this distinction between the visible and invisible church. And that distinction is what prevents us from being like, sort of like true replacement theologians in the way that the, the dispensationalist wanna paint us. So I, I think you're right that there is a lot to say here about the fact that, um, and, and this is where it gets, um. We have to be careful systematically. Right. God, God doesn't have to pivot. He doesn't have like a plan B. It's not like the Gentiles are the plan B, but there is a sense in almost in which the way that this is presented, the way that it appears in the scriptures is actually, yeah, there is almost like this plan B, like there is the geopolitical ethnic people of, of Israel, the Jewish people under the old covenant. And, and they don't do what they're supposed to do. They don't follow the terms of their covenant. They don't accept the kingdom that is bequeathed to them under the terms of the old covenant. And they, they reject that kingdom because of a disobedience. And, and I think what Christ here is narrowing in on is it's not just disobedience, right? It's not sort of like, um, accidental ancillary disobedience. It's not generalized disobedience. It is this sort of like usurpation of God's rightful status as the ruler and king of the nation. That's right. The the people, the, the Pharisees. And the chief priests and the scribes and the Sadducees, they want to be the rulers of the nation. They want to, they, they seem to wanna take the place of God, at least as far as Christ is presenting it. In this, they wanna usurp the kingdom. They want to take the heirs, uh, rightful inheritance, and they want to claim it for themselves. That is not a generalized disobedience, it's a special t type of covenant unfaithfulness that causes God to causes and kind of air quotes that causes God to hand over the kingdom to another people. Right. Partially, I think, uh, we don't need to get into Romans, the Romans 11 stuff, but partially I think because that's actually the way that he's going to ultimately save the Jewish people, right, is by sort of making, making them jealous of the Gentiles. Like there's a, there's a real element of that, that the salvation of the Gentiles is actually for, in some sense is for or unto the salvation of the Jewish people or the, the faithful Jewish remnant that's all here. And, and you can't really get past that in this parable. Um, this is why I think a, a lot of dispensationalist, um, uh, some of the classic dispensational sources would actually see like this, this is not for the Jewish church. This, this is for the Gentiles. This is actually part of the parentheses, um. You know, and, and again, dispensationalist divide all that stuff up differently, but this is a really interesting section for us to talk about that we can't, we can't just gloss over that. [00:27:11] Jesse Schwamb: I certainly don't mean to imply that it's wild because it's unexpected. I think it's wild because interestingly, the Pharisees, the teachers here, they challenge Jesus authority and his response to that is to challenge their covenant faithfulness.  [00:27:24] Tony Arsenal: Right?  [00:27:25] Jesse Schwamb: So it's not just if he turns it around, he uses this opportunity to explain what's going to happen to them as those who are, like you said, were supposed to be representative. And I think critically like the qualifying phrase. That that's using the text here, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. That's like really important because these new vine growers are characterized by their fruitfulness. So this is not like a doctrine of works righteousness, but it's evidential fruit. And that's why, and I had to look this up and the Westminster Confession confession, chapter 16, good works are quote the fruits and evidences of true and lively faith, which I love. I was trying to find that language true and lively faith. So the visible church under that new administration is identified by the fruits of repentance, faith, and obedience worked out by the Holy Spirit. Again, I think that's all that is in view here, that that's a lot to say. But you know, famously, like you've kind of intimated, when we go back to the Old Testament, even we find when the Israelites leave triumphantly from Egypt, that they're accompanied by those outside of Israel. We find that other characters like Grh who continually want to identify with a Yahweh whom God is saving and drawing onto himself and here is kind. Him, Jesus, at least representing as the son of God. That kind of cli climactic view. Speaking from the prophet register again saying, this is what I was saying to Abraham. I said, like from your seed, all these nations in this spiritual sense will be gathered out. So there'll be a single nation as it were in Christ. And even now, I'm telling you, I'm breaking down those boundaries. But I think to your point, importantly Tony, in part because you have failed in the covenant promises and you who were to represent and to heed and to lead, have fallen down. And so now you're gonna trip over this stone and it's going to crush you. And as a result of that, the vine, the vine growers will be, or the vineyard itself will be turned over to those who bear this true and lively fruit.  [00:29:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:29:23] Israel Failure Remnant [00:29:23] Tony Arsenal: There's an interesting, um. There's an interesting dynamic here that actually strikes me as kind of similar. It's a little bit more opaque, but similar to, uh, like Joseph in, uh, in Egypt, right when his brothers come and he says, you meant this for evil, but God meant it for good. Mm-hmm. There's a, there's an element of here, we've talked about the parables. That's sort of like systematic theology in story form. Um, there's a reality here that it's both true, that God always intended for the kingdom to be expansive and, and to expand beyond the nation of Israel. To be this universal, global lowercase c Catholic, universal church universal in the sense that it's not bound by any particular nation, by any particular geopolitical reality. Um. That's true, but it's also true that the reason, uh, on a sort of like horizontal level that that's true is that Israel failed. Right? It so God always intended for Israel to fail, yet Israel is responsible for the fact that they failed. Yes, that's right. Um, and, and, and again, we, we, we sort of commented on this before, like there are some in our broader reformed circles that turn this into a sort of antisemitism, like a sort of hatred for the Jewish people. And I don't think, I don't think that there's any warrant in scripture for that. In fact, I think scripture speaks strongly against that. Is that, um. Not necessarily because there's any particular unique special affection that God has for Israel, like, like the modern Jewish people, but, but that, like racism in general is prohibited by the Bible. But I think where we do need to be clear though, is that there is a real failure. It's a true, genuine failure on the part of the first century Jewish. Leaders and people, um, with a faithful remnant. Right? There was, um, we're, we're getting, you know, we're in the springtime and we've already had, uh, we've already had discussions about this. We've already done Easter, but like there is always conversations around Palm Sunday of like, are the crowds that are following Jesus into, into town screaming, you know, yelling, Hosanna? Is that the same crowds that are yelling crucify him a couple days later? Um, I tend to think like, no, like actually, like the people who are saying crucified, crucify Christ are probably like the Jews who live in Jerusalem or like the, primarily the religious leaders. There's a whole host of Jewish believers and kind of the hoy pallo, the, the people out in the country that absolutely follow Jesus. Like they follow him as the Messiah. They, they confess him in many cases. They convince him to be, um, they confess him to be God, to to be the savior, to be the, the figure from Daniel seven, the son of man. Um. There's a reality in which the Jewish remnant absolutely recognize Christ and they persist in the church, right? The earliest Christians were all Jews, and you know, there was a few Gentiles along the way, you know, and maybe not even Gentiles like Samaritans. I don't even know if you would call them gentiles. They're kind of this midway point, but in Jewish gentil. But there are people throughout Christ's ministry, right? Cornelius or not Cornelius, the Centurion recognizes that this is the son of God. Like there are people, the s Phoenician woman, there are people who are not part of Israel proper, who even in the, in the midst of Christ's ministry are recognizing him as God and as Messiah and as the savior of the world. But, but by and large, the earliest Christian movement was Jewish people. It was the faithful remnant of, of Israel who recognized that their Messiah had come. That is true. And at the same time. The, probably the majority, and especially the rulers and the leaders of the Israel, you know, the Jewish faith in the first century absolutely rejected him. And this is what I, this is what I think is wild, is I think sometimes we think that, um, the prophecies and the understanding of Christ and what the messiah, who the Messiah was to be and what to expect, we think of those as like super obscured and super hidden until Christ comes and then all of a sudden they're really obvious. Christ doesn't seem to treat them that way. Right? Right. He tells this parable and they rightly identify that, and this is a, this is such a thinly veiled parable. Like this is like, you killed the prophets. You're going to kill me. And there's going to be consequences. Like he practically says that outright. Um. He treats that as like they should obviously know this, right? The, have you never read in the scriptures, the stone, the builder rejected has become the cornerstone, right? This was the lord's doing. It is, and it is marvelous in their eyes that have you never read?  [00:34:06] Decree in Rejection [00:34:06] Tony Arsenal: That is a, that's a rhetorical question with the implied answer of, of course, you've read exactly like he's not, he's not teaching them something that he anticipated is new to them. He maybe is teaching them something that he anticipated they maybe you didn't recognize. But actually I think probably like, uh, there probably were many among them that were like, oh yeah, we are doing this. But then almost like we're powerless to stop themselves from moving forward in that.  [00:34:32] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:34:32] Tony Arsenal: Sort of like wicked plan. [00:34:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Yeah. And I think we could extend that as well to say that this rejection of Christ by this Jewish leadership, which of course was a incredible failure, like you're saying, it wasn't an accident, it wasn't an unforeseen tragedy. So just like interestingly in Acts four in his sermon where Peter quotes from the same Old Testament passage about Christ being the cornerstone, you know, it was prophesied long before. And so the doctrine of God's eternal decree, I think finds v vivid illustration even here. This is all the Lord's doing. Yeah. And even the wicked rejection of the Messiah is serving this purpose, this sovereign purpose of God's great exaltation. And so it's fascinating, and we should marvel at the fact that, again, like God means what he says when he says like He uses what is weak to overcome that which is strong, or to embarrass the strong, he uses that which seems foolish. To make the wise themselves, the ones who are actually foolish in the same way.  [00:35:29] Cornerstone Unites Church [00:35:29] Jesse Schwamb: This very stone, which men in their malice cast aside on that day. God is in his wisdom setting as this chief cornerstone. And I love like that idea of this phrase, this head of the corner denoting that amazing preeminence of Christ, that Christ is not merely included in the building of the new Covenant church. He is its chief and constituent stone that joining together both like the Jew and the Gentile, finally into one structure. And that's really, I think to your point, that's the great mystery of the hidden ages from the past. That that's the thing which Christ is bringing to like this grand display, like out on the stage in the open, in front of everybody. He's drawing it up, he's calling it to account. And so in that way, the same Jesus that was rejected by men is in God's account of inestimable value. And that should be like, I think, familiar to most of us because like there a form tradition has always insisted that. The true theology always issues in doxology and the cross and exaltation of Christ are not merely these facts, which we give these intellectual ascent, but we, we confess them as mysteries which provoke us to adoration of who God is. It's the excellency of Christ expounding at length, like the wondrous conjunction of Christ's humiliation and his exaltation, which finds its pattern here, rejected by men, glorified by God.  [00:36:50] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:36:52] Works Covenant Failures [00:36:52] Tony Arsenal: And, and this is, um, we, we commented in our first, uh, episode on this par ball. This is not isolated to just the rulers of Israel at the time of Christ, right? This is in reality, kind of like a reflection of every failure of the covenant of works. In some sense, every failure to hold the covenant of works boils down to an attempt to make oneself, God. Right. This was Adam's failure in the garden. Um, Eve, Eve was the first person to eat the fruit, but Adam, Adam was responsible for that and he, he also ate the fruit and they, they did so in part because they thought it was useful to make them like God and, and in an illegitimate fashion. And they knew it was an illegitimate fashion. It's not as though Adam and Eve suddenly were like, maybe we can eat the fruit. Maybe like we actually are fine to do it. Like they knew it was still forbidden. Right. They did it anyways. And the Pharisees here, um, are in a real attempt. Um, they are trying to take the role of Messiah for the people. They're trying to be the savior of the people in sort of shepherding and guiding them into this like. Ultra legalistic Puritan, like puritanical in the worst sense, um, kind of approach to the law. Um, this is the, the story of Old Testament Israel, right? What is the first thing that the Israelites do? Um, at Mount Sinai? The first thing they do is try to fashion gods so that they have a tame God that they can control and that they can actually be God's over. So I think this is really key and, and this is where it becomes practical for us, is that. I think we always are faced with a choice, right? There's, there's obviously those who are Christ, who the son is set free. He's set free indeed, and they will never not be his people. Like you never become not justified. If you were justified, you always forever more are justified. Justified is a final. It's, it's the future judgment of God's people dragged and dropped into the present and applied. It's the righteousness of Christ applied. So there, there's never a time where that righteousness is like removed or unapplied, but we are constantly faced with a choice as to whether we want to be the kind of people who render our fruit unto the Lord, uh, as the faithful, the sort of the implied faithful tenants that are going to be brought forward when the, the unfaithful tenants are replaced. Or do we wanna be the people that reap wicked fruit and keep for ourselves? And I think that's, that's really the thing. Like we're either gonna rep. Fruit of wickedness, or we're gonna reap fruit of righteousness. And the only thing to do with fruit of righteousness is surrender it to the Lord. But we often are faced with that choice, like, are we gonna reap our own wicked fruit and keep it all to ourselves right, uh, to our own detriment? Or are we gonna go ahead and be the faithful tenants that give the Lord what he deserves?  [00:39:46] Kingdom Transfer Explained [00:39:46] Jesse Schwamb: We're seeing so much of the simplicity of God here that like you and I have said so many times before that his loving kindness, his long suffering ness is his righteousness, is his justice, is his wrath. And so I think it's helpful, again, to remind ourselves that we're, we are talking, or he specifically is speaking of the kingdom of God here. And again referring to this visible administration of the covenant of grace, not to the inward and invisible kingdom of saving grace, which as you just said, can never be lost from those who possess it, which by the way is a really important distinctive of reform theology. There are many that would disagree with that statement, and I think really much to their harm in, in disagreement with the scriptures themselves, this one in particular, but it is this external administration, the privileges, the ordinances, the oracles of God. That is being transferred from the Jewish nation as a corporate body to a new and broader people of God. And because I know that sounds very extreme, I did look up Calvin and his commentary on this and let me read what he says because this is interesting. I think even this could possibly mis be misunderstood. But here's Calvin who can say it better than I. He says, quote by these words, he means that God would deprive the Jews of the honor and the privilege of being his peculiar people and would call the Gentiles that out of them he might form a church end quote. And going back to what you said earlier, I'm with you. I, I. I mean, this is not, I think as some have wrongly concluded, like replacement theology in like a wooden sense. I, I see this still as like this historical redemptive transition from the typological administration of the old covenant to the eschatological fulfillment of the new. And the elect remnant of Israel is not cast off, but the national like typological privileges are being transferred to the Catholic church, gathered from all nations. And in that, I really do see this wonderful confluence of God's loving kindness, his, his fidelity to the promises that he's made and his wrath being manifested all at once. And somehow Jesus, of course, in complete perfection, can bring that all to bear in this tiny little story.  [00:41:51] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And and isn't it just like the master teacher to like, put all of this baked into this? I mean, that's right. We think of this as like a long parable, like I think,  [00:42:02] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:42:02] Tony Arsenal: I think like it's, it's amazing how we think of parables as, you know, like this is a short one. A short one is a couple sentences, a long one is like a half a dozen sentences. Like, and of course like Christ is teaching broader than this. He's teaching more than this. Just, this is what's recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is what Matthews preserved for us.  [00:42:22] Stone Breaks or Crushes [00:42:22] Tony Arsenal: But you're right, there's so much baked into this little parable and I think, um, there's something to be said about this idea of like. Not only do those who smash against the, the rock, the, the cornerstone, those who smash against the rock, like those who who fall on the rock are broken to pieces, but also the rock falls on others and smashes them to pieces. Right? And, and there's something to be said about the fact that, and I'm not exactly sure how I wanna articulate this, but it's only those who like recognize the proper place of the rock and don't either let it fall on them or don't smash themselves against it. You know, we always joke about like running through a wall. Like this is not a wall you're gonna run through. Like you're gonna smash into this wall and it's gonna crush you. And if you are, if you're not properly assigning the cornerstone it's placed, right? The cornerstone is, is the stone that's placed in the foundation of a building that all the other stones find their orientation and their proper alignment based on. [00:43:26] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:43:26] Tony Arsenal: You might think of this sometimes. I've heard this articulated as like the, the arch stone. I think it's a little bit different than that. Um, but it, the, the idea is the same, right? Like there's a stone in an arch. If you think of like a classic Roman arch, you have these piles of stones until you put the final arch stone in. That, in that stone is what makes the arch stable. Until that point, either side can fall, but if you don't properly set that arch stone where it's supposed to be, then the whole thing is gonna crush you. It's gonna fall down on top of you at some point. I think this is a little different. This is the cornerstone of a, this is more like the cornerstone of a building. This is the stone that the rest of the building, building is oriented against and is aligned with. If you get that wrong, then you have a, you have like a crooked wall, a wall that's not set, that's not straight. It's not stable. What this is saying and what this, this prophecy right from, from Psalm one 10, I think I should probably look it up, but I haven't yet. But this prophecy that Christ is referring to this, this prophetic statement in the Psalms that he's assuming the audience is familiar with, right? I think that's a really important point. Like he's not only assuming that they're familiar with it, there's rhetorical force of kind of like, of course you understand this principle that there is a cornerstone coming. There is something or someone who is coming that all other things will be measured against. And if you're either in alignment with this, with this person who is coming or you're out of alignment with reality, this thing is understood by them. It just is so critical and I think like the, the, a lot of the parables don't have explanations built into them. Some of them do. We've talked about some of them. A lot of them don't, this one does, but it's kind of like a really surprising way to explain it. And there's so much, um, the more that I look at this, the more we talk about it, this really is so similar to David and Nathan, right? Right. When with the, the affair with Bathsheba, he is saying to the Pharisees, look, you're the man. Like, you're the one here. You're the guy. You guys are the wicked tenants that are gonna, you've killed the prophets. Right? Um, I'm losing my, my timeline a little bit, but John the Baptist either had been executed or would be executed shortly at this point, right? So like the, the most recent prophet either was already killed or, or Christ knew of course he was going to be killed. Um, he's saying, look, you guys are the ones that are doing this and you're going to kill me. Right. And this is obviously what the prophecy is, that you think you're going to come against the cornerstone, but in reality you're going to shatter yourself upon me. You think you're gonna come against me, I'm going to crush you. And rather than say, you know, as ba, you know, as David does, where he repents, he, he fasts and he, he refuses to eat. He's, he's in mourning over both the loss of his infant, but, but more so over his own sin, I think is the picture the text gives us. Um, he's mourning trying to uh, sort of like reverse God's decision, but there's a genuine repentance to it, right? That's where we get Psalm 51, like creating, clean me a clean heart, oh God, renew a right spirit in me. There's none of that for the Pharisees, there's none of that for the sadist of the chief priests. They just continue to smash themselves against this rock, not recognizing that it's actually the rock that is crushing them. [00:47:05] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it's, it's a bit like, I'm gonna speak like a little maybe beyond my depth here, but there's a little bit of like that Nathan, like Strategem, and then this is where I'm outside my own experience. And then a little bit like maybe like WWE the rock in terms of like. If you want some come and get some, right? It's a little of both. And of course the passage ends very tragically, well ends humorously by them, you know, saying that at some point they were like, they understood in these parables, again, this is one of three of the same kind of topic of variety, but that Jesus was referring to them, which is funny. You wanna be like, yeah, it took a, took a long enough, I guess, guys, but you finally got it. But then that last sentence of like, they still sought to kill him. So to your point, even after all of this, there wasn't repentance. And we do get these, I think, two very distinct judgements that are depicted here, which you've already kinda led us into this first, like, whoever shall fall on the stone shall be broken. You know, to me, I think that's invoking this idea that in this life, there we are, we can be brought to brokenness through the gospel and to fall upon Christ. And repentance. And faith is to be broken in self, in pride and self-righteous. It's a breaking that does lead to healing. But this second judgment, you know the one, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder, grind him to dust, I mean. Man, think about what a vivid image that is. I mean, that's like the more terrible of the two. That that's like the, yeah. Final Es logical judgment of those who persist in unbelief and it, it admits there's like no remedy. So there are only two ways to relate to Christ. You either fall upon him willingly in faith and repentance, which is painful, but it is saving, you know, to have him fall upon us in judgment is final in damning, and so that's what Christ presents here. [00:48:48] Psalm 118 in Context [00:48:48] Jesse Schwamb: It's, it's both of these things and you're right, it is brilliant that he goes to Psalm one 18 even that as a setup, because as you've kind of already said, I love to think, of course that's, can you manner the tone in which this was said to these scribes and Pharisees? Because of course the, the secondary indictment here is like, listen, you guys who like your great pride is that, you know, the scriptures really well. Have you read this part is familiar to you. Yeah. Can you tell me where that is? So like, we, we should go there just, just quickly. This is Psalm one 18 because I think that here again is, as I'm hearing it in context. There are some verses surrounding this that I think we might be surprised that they come right on the heels of this idea of the stone. So just a couple verses. In Psalm one 18 being in verse 22, the stone, which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone. This is from Yahweh. It is marvelous in our eyes. Here's the verses that we might not recognize. Come right after it. This is the day which Yahweh has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Oh, Yahweh, save. Oh, Yahweh, succeed. Blessed is the one who comes in the name of Yahweh. We have blessed you from the house of Yahweh. Yahweh is God, and he has given us light by the festival sacrifice with corns to the horns of the altar. You are my God, and I give thanks to you. You are my God, and I exalt you. Give thanks to Yahweh for his good, for his loving kindness endures forever. And so this idea that there's rejoicing in which day, I mean, usually we kinda say that it's like, well, it's a beautiful day out. It's the Lord's day. This is the day that Yahweh is like that. That's true. But also here in particular, it is this blessed day of Yahweh giving the stone, which the builders reject and which has become the chief cornerstone. And that stone is some will run headlong into and shipwreck their lives and others will be crushed underneath it. And guess what? This is the day which Yahweh has made and we're gonna rejoice and be glad in that.  [00:50:41] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:50:43] Mark's Angle on Fear [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: The other thing I think, you know, we. Should, um, maybe not spend any time on, 'cause we're at like, out, like minute 50 of a 60 minute podcast. But just going to, to Mark's version of this parable real quick. Um, starting in verse, uh, this is chapter 12, verse 12. It says, and they were seeking to arrest him, but feared the people for, they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away. And the, the main difference here, the reason I'm reading this is Mark chooses a d. Concerning them. The verb is, or the preposition is Perry. So it's kind of like this idea that he was, he was sort of speaking around them. He was talking about them. Mark uses the, the preposition, proce, which is not, um, not against, in like the same, uh, direct sense. We might use the word against. That would be something like Kada. Um, but he's, he's speaking this parable towards them or to them, um, against them. He's, he's directing the parable at them. And this is, this is, we, we commented on this a little bit in the, the first episode here. Um, he is speaking to the crowds. But he's telling the parable about or against or concerning the Pharisees and the scribes, and they perceive this, right. The, the gospels here don't say that the crowds perceive this. Right. And I think that's key. Like the Pharisees basically look at this and say, uh, we better get this under control because he's talking about us. Right, right. Like, I'm just picturing Paul Washer's. I'm not trying to say Paul Washer is a Pharisee, although some people would probably make that connection. But like I'm, I'm just hearing Paul Washer's voice saying like, I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you. He's speaking to the Pharisees here. And it's interesting because Matthew associates the, the, uh, Pharisees. Cowardice in acting against Christ, uh, because they fear the crowds and because the crowds believe Christ is a parable or is a prophet Mark associates. And again, both of these things are true, right? This is holy scripture. This is inspired, these are not contradictory accounts. This is facets of the same diamond. Mark associates this with, they fear the crowds. Um, because they had taken him. They, they understood that the parable was being spoken against them, right? So there's this element that the Pharisees are not only understanding that the, the parable is about them, they feared them because the crowds believe that Christ is a prophet and that prophet is speaking this parable against them, right? So like they're, they're recognizing full on that it's only a matter of time before the, the general population, the general people that are listening to Christ recognize that he's overturning. Not only the Pharisees, the entire geopolitical nation of Israel, he's overturning the ethnic based reality, the geopolitical based reality, that God's people have a zip code and that zip code is Jerusalem. That zip code is this little si, this little tract of land the size of like Vermont and New Hampshire in the Mediterranean, like off the Mediterranean Sea. He's overturning that. And the, the Pharisees, the educated people, the, the Sadducees, the chief priests, the rulers, they recognize it's only a matter of time before the people understand what Christ is doing. They, they follow him as a prophet and this is what he's prophesying. And

Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees fiercely disagree about the resurrection, and why is the resurrection so central to Catholic belief? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Catholic Answers apologists explain the theological importance of bodily resurrection before tackling questions about the Protestant and Jewish biblical canons, including why Maccabees is missing despite its connection to Hanukkah. The discussion also explores common misunderstandings about Catholic teaching on salvation, including accusations of “works-based salvation,” how justification can grow even while Christians still commit venial sins, and the connection between the Bread of Life discourse and Christ's Passion. The episode concludes with pastoral advice for someone in OCIA facing family conflict about becoming Catholic and attending Mass. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 04:22 – Why was there a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees on resurrection, and why is it so central to Catholic teaching?  11:14 – Is the protestant bible based off of the Jewish translation of the bible? Why doesn’t the Jewish bible have  Maccabees, since those books contain the origin of Hanukkah?  20:10 – How would we respond to someone who pushes back when we say don't believe in a works-based salvation? They say that we would claim someone loses their salvation if they miss Mass.  30:20 – How do we reconcile a justification that progresses and still commit venial sin?  37:01 – How close in time was the bread of life discourse to the Passion of Christ?  51:30 – I'm in OCIA and my husband doesn’t agree with my decision. If I were to become Catholic and I can’t make it to mass because of issues at home, will I be in mortal sin? 

Love to hear from you; “Send us a Text Message”Your desires are not random, and they are not meant to be medicated into silence or fed with whatever the culture is selling. We slow down and take a hard, hopeful look at what the heart is really reaching for, using Acts Six of the Claymore Battle Plan and Jesus' blunt words to the Sadducees about the resurrection. When you see the story in “three panels” creation, fall, and fulfillment you start to understand why marriage, sexuality, and longing can't be explained in flat, two-dimensional terms. We also get personal and pastoral. After a talk, a young man shares his anxiety about attraction and whether he is still welcome in the Church. We answer with clarity and compassion: your deepest identity is not your temptations, your labels, or your fears, but beloved child of God. From there we widen the lens through Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body, where marriage is a real gift and a real sign, ordered toward something eternal rather than trapped in the temporary. Everything comes to a head in the Eucharist, the supreme spousal sign of Christ's self-gift: “This is my body given for you.” We talk about wounded desire after the fall, the courage to seek truth, and the concrete “knees before phone” Claymore 10-minute morning ritual from the Claymore Battle Plan Outline, and the simple practice of reading an ACT a day from the Claymore Battle Plan Handbook and sharing it with a friend. If you've been stuck trying to fill infinite desire with finite fixes, this is your invitation to start living in 3D. Subscribe, share this with someone who needs it, and leave a review telling us what desire you're learning to trust.Email Jack with questions and comments to answer and discuss on future episodes! jack@ClaymoreMilitesChristi.com. Visit https://claymoremiliteschristi.com/Support the show

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

Peter and John, along with the apostles and early church members, boldly proclaim of what they have seen and heard. Even in the opposition of the Sadducees, they speak the truth of the resurrection of Christ. Christians today are to proclaim with the same boldness, not just be believers in private or comfortable situations. 

Honoring Leadership Authority (2) (audio) David Eells, 5/6/26 Precious Father, we thank You so much for opening our understanding so that we can cooperate with You in these days to come. Lord, put a sense of Your sovereignty in us that we might know that You are in control of all these things, and that history repeats because there's only One mind in control, and that is Yours, and that we can put our trust totally in You. You are teaching us not to lean upon the arm of the flesh, or the strength of man, but to lean on You in faith, to trust in You as our Savior in all things. And we thank You, Father. Lord, this teaching of honoring leadership authority certainly puts us in a position of weakness, where we need to trust in You to be our defender. And we thank You, Lord, that You are omnipotent, You are all-powerful to take care of Your people, to defend them, and provide for them. And we thank You, Lord. We can trust You. We thank You, Lord. Hallelujah! Amen.  In thinking on Revelation 13, how in verse 7 that the beast is making war on the saints, He commands the saints that if any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed. The Lord has put us in a position of weakness. Here, the beast is making a physical war on the saints, but they can't do any physical warfare. They need to fight using the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and trust God as Savior.  And it wasn't any different with Jesus. He said to Peter and the disciples, Mat.26:52 Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. In the next verse, He said He could call down twelve legions of angels, if he really wanted to fight. He trusted Himself to God as Savior. We just looked at quite a few promises to the people who will not go out and fight with the beast. And on the other hand, God made quite a few very ominous threats to those who do. There's a revelation in Ezekiel 17, which I'll just touch on. Here's a parable that the Lord gave to me through the word of knowledge, which helped me to understand what was being said. Israel in this story was between two great eagles. One of them was Babylon, and the other was Egypt. Except that the Father pointed out to me that these two eagles represented the same country. And that Egypt here represents a bondage that God's people were to forsake. He forbade them from ever going back to Egypt. And what He meant was Egypt represented the old man in their baptism in the Red Sea. The old man died, and He never wanted them to go back to being in bondage to the old man, or to trust in the strength of Egypt, as He said in Isaiah 30. So you can understand that the beast kingdom, the Great Eagle that was ruling over the nations, at that time was literally Babylon. It was the head of the nations, just like America is today, as the Great Eagle. The Lord showed me in Ezekiel 17 that a civil war would come in which the Great Eagle would be pitted against the Great Eagle. And that's the story here in Ezekiel 17, and many people have never actually seen that, but once it's pointed out to you, it's very clear. Babylon was bringing God's people under dominion. It was taking authority over them, taking their freedom from them. They had their own country, they were free, but now they were coming under the dominion of Babylon. Much like Christianity has been in freedom. But increasingly, we see that it has come under the dominion of the beast, and many laws are taking away Christian freedoms. And that's the parable here. So when He speaks about making a covenant with Israel, He's talking about the end time covenant. Ezekiel represented the Man-child of Revelation 12. Ezekiel was caught up to the throne of God. He saw God. He was ordained of the Lord there, and he received an anointing there in Ezekiel 2, verse 1. When this happened, he immediately began to be called the Son of Man, like Jesus, Who was also the Man-child. Throughout the whole Book of Ezekiel, he's called the Son of Man. The ministry of the Man-child is going to be opposed by the apostate church. The Jews wanted Jesus to fight with Rome, but He would have nothing of it. His battle was always with the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He didn't want any battle with Rome whatsoever. Rome had been given authority over Israel because Israel was rebellious, and Jesus wasn't going to go against His Father. It's the same situation with Ezekiel. He was trying to tell them not to fight with the king of Babylon. Like Jesus and Jeremiah, his battle was with the apostate leadership of God's people.    Let's start in Eze.17:11 Moreover the word of Jehovah came unto me, (he's warning the people) saying, 12 Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and took the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and brought them to him to Babylon. (Well, this literally was Jehoiachin, who was the king when Babylon came, and took him, took the princes, and thousands of God's people away to Babylon. But then he did something else.) 13 And he took of the seed royal, and made a covenant with him; he also brought him under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land;  So here's the word ‘covenant', and the Lord showed me in previous revelations that this person was Zedekiah. His administration was the one that the king of Babylon set up. He took of the seed royal, and he made him a ruler over Israel, and He made a covenant with him. Now, I believe that this first part of Jeconiah and that whole leadership being taken into bondage has already happened. I believe where we're headed now is the covenant, and the covenant was made with the Zedekiah administration.  A bondage of the world beast of seven heads and ten horns is coming. I'm going to share a portion of what this ‘taking into bondage' represents, which will be a time in our day. The name of the article is Baiting the False Prophet. Ecc.3:15 That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away. Our modern-day revival of the Roman Empire, the U.S. over the Alliance of Nations, is doing exactly what Constantine did to unite the earth. Those false prophets sat at Constantine's table, and a modern-day false prophet leadership will sit over the Alliance of Nations. A modern equivalent or type has happened. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, was the leader of the Unification Church. And he claimed that Christ failed in His mission, that he himself was the new Messiah who had come to finish the job and to unite the world through uniting religious forces. Almost all of the well-known evangelical Christian leaders and their organizations were beholden to this man. It was not by accident, it's was by design. He took his work very seriously. As a billionaire, he targeted these influential leaders with the hook and bait of bailouts and grants and political power and prestige, and so on. I couldn't believe how these men showered admiration for this lost man. He brought them what they lusted for while unifying them through his related organizations: the Council of National Policy, the Coalition for Religious Freedom, the Council of 56 of the Religious Roundtable, and others. It is here that he associates them with the leadership of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Freemasonry, all closely tied to the Bilderbergers. Do you think this couldn't happen again on a larger scale?This shadow government was joining the leaders of apostate religions together as a false prophet of unity to the masses of Christians who don't know that they, as a harlot, were being sold into bondage to the beast. History repeats as the apostate leaders were set at Constantine's Round Table to build an end-time Catholic or Universal Church. In like manner, Babylon took the leadership of God's people captive and made a covenant with them. I give these verses Eze.17:12 Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and took the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and brought them to him to Babylon. (and that was Jehoiachin or Jeconiah; His name has been used in those two different ways. That's just a different version of the same name.) But then, in verse 13, where we just read, he raised up one of the royal lineages and made a covenant with him. Before I read that, I want to read this. An assortment of other ecumenical movements has worked on the whole religious world to bring this unity to pass. In other words, we see in the United States that this has been an effort for many years but not only that, it's happened around the world. The United Religions Initiative was putting together a UN of all religions worldwide called United Religions in their hope of bringing peace And Dominion. Like Constantine formed to make peace between the religions to bring peace to the world. George Bush, along with influential people like billionaire George Soros, the Dalai Lama, and Reverend Moon, threw their weight behind the UR. And all of this was in preparation for a US/UN/UR type Roman Empire. So they are lusting for a one-world religion, and they are capturing, through devious means, these people who have found themselves in trouble, money-wise. As we have seen “the things that have been shall be.  Reverend Moon, who's actually acting for this shadow religious beast government, under the tutelage of the CIA got the leaders out of trouble. So that makes them beholden unto him. All of these historic examples and more have come as a type for the future. Thank God their efforts failed for the time was not yet. This second part is yet to come, and that is verse 13 And he took of the seed royal, and made a covenant with him (that was Zedekiah); he also brought him under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land. And so, when I reached this point, the Lord asked me a question when I got to verse 13, and He said, “In how many verses is the word covenant mentioned?” So I started in verse 13, and as I read, I counted and discovered that it was seven verses. And He pointed out to me that that represented the seven years of the covenant. The word covenant is used in seven verses here. And then He asked me, “How many verses until the covenant is broken?” And I counted, and it was about three and a half, in the middle of the sixteenth verse, where he says, Covenant he brake. And then He asked me, “How many times ‘covenant' is spoken in those seven verses?” And it was spoken six times, the number six is the number of the beast and the number of the covenant. Well, I think it's pretty neat. Reading on, He speaks about the covenant, and also about this puppet of the seed royal that the king of Babylon made the covenant with, that he's the one who broke the covenant and rebelled to fight against the great eagle king of Babylon. And not only that, he went to the great eagle of Egypt to seek help, strength, horses, and so on, to fight with the king of Babylon. Well, that was a very bad thing to do, because Babylon was already conquering Egypt at the time. So there really wasn't going to be any help from Egypt. They put themselves in a very bad position, because now the king of Babylon was making war upon them. And he tells them that they won't escape. You can read it for yourself when you get time.  But he also said in Eze.17:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, I will even bring it upon his own head. The Lord is saying that these people who fought against the king of Babylon were breaking His covenant. Now, He wasn't talking about the beast covenant being His covenant. He's talking about this being His covenant, the Word of God, and His commands. They had been commanded to submit to the king of Babylon (for chastening) and not to fight with him, and they broke their covenant with God.  And he went on to say that these people who fight against the king of Babylon are just like those who will fight against America, in verse 20 And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will enter into judgment with him there for his trespass that he hath trespassed against me. 21 And all his fugitives in all his bands shall fall by the sword, and they that remain shall be scattered toward every wind: and ye shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken it. Meaning that those who fight against Babylon, this is the promise that God makes to them. This is a type and a shadow. “That which hath been is that which shall be” … (Ecc.1:9) This is a type and a shadow for our day and the seven-year covenant and what's about to happen when God's people rise up to fight, trusting in the arm of the flesh, because of the mark of the beast. Many other “Christians” will just take the mark to hold on to their standard of living. As we saw, submit does not mean to take the mark. This will cause a civil war in the midst of the Great Eagle kingdom and the Christians will lose as our text proves. The mark is to separate the wheat from the tares for the end approaches. Those without faith in God will take the mark. But a new leadership is being raised up to give last minute understanding to many rebels. 22 Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it upon a high and lofty mountain: That's talking about the Man-child ministry; it was Jesus in His day, and then Jesus in the Man-child ministry in our day as history repeats on a larger scale. The mountain is spiritual Mount Zion. Rev 14:1  And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand (man-child), having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. (the mark of God)… 4  These are they that were not defiled with women (False sects of Christianity.); for they are virgins (Having not received the seed or word of man). These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, to be the first fruits unto God and unto the Lamb.  So, going back to this Jehoiachin administration and the administration that was taken out of that, the Zedekiah administration, and we go to 2 Kings chapter 24, we can see the whole story. And it shows there are two different people: those who rebel and those who don't. He makes promises to those who don't, and He makes judgments upon those who rebel. This is a type and a shadow for our day and what's about to happen. 2Ki.24:10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And verse 14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and the smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. (This was in the time of Jehoiakim, when they were taken captive, and when Babylon invaded.) 15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the chief men of the land, carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the smiths a thousand, all of them strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's father's brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. (which means, ‘Yah is might'. This guy felt like he needed to exercise his might against the king of Babylon. They were the people of God, and they thought they didn't deserve this. But Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the writer of Kings here believed that they did deserve what was happening because it was because of their rebellion. This caused God to deliver them over to the king of Babylon. They felt like they should fight to deliver themselves. In other words, to trust in the arm of the flesh, to go back down to the eagle of Egypt, and let the old man rule.) 18 Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem… And verse 20 For through the anger of Jehovah did it come to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence. And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. So this is the same place we were in Ezekiel when the covenant was made. He made a covenant with Zedekiah and the people of Israel. They broke it, and rebelled, and they fought. And Jeconiah or Jehoiachin (the same king), and his followers were taken into bondage.  And I want to tell you that the leadership of Christianity will repeat history. They will be taken into bondage except for the righteous. And we're coming to the time of this covenant and this civil war that's about to happen during the time of the Great Eagles. And Zedekiah here represents that apostate ministry. It was said of both Jehoiachin and Zedekiah that they did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. These were evil kings who rebelled against the Lord. And it's the same today. The leadership of God's people is evil as it was in Jesus' time. They have departed from the word of the Lord and done their own thing. And 2Ki.25:2 So the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. 3 On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land. In their rebellion, God did not defend them, He wasn't preserving them, or feeding them, and He wasn't taking care of them because they had rebelled. He had given them the order to submit, which they hadn't done.  And it reminded me of the apostates who had rebelled against him in Isa.65:12 I will destine you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but ye did that which was evil in mine eyes, and chose that wherein I delighted not. (Listen to this now.) 13 Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be put to shame; 14 behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall wail for vexation of spirit. See, this is the exact same thing he says about those who rebel against the king of Babylon and those who don't. He threatens those who rebel with starvation, hunger, and so on. And they eventually flee their land into the nations, and they don't escape even then. This war is going to be totally lost by those who call themselves Christians who stand up to fight will lose this war badly. They're going to be scattered among the nations. And verse 4 Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king's garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about); (the Babylonians, the Great Eagle.) and the king went by the way of the Arabah. 5 But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him. 6 Then they took the king, and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. 7 And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Now, the ultimate end of this situation was that these people were the harlot. I'm sure they considered themselves the people of God, but you remember in Revelation 17, at the end of the tribulation, the beast burned the harlot with fire. And it is the same thing here. 8 Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem. (apostate Jerusalem) 9 And he burnt the house of Jehovah, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, burnt he with fire. 10 And all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. We see the same story in Jeremiah 24. First, a couple of verses in chapter 23, he said, Jer.23:39 … and I will cast you off, and the city that I gave unto you and to your fathers, away from my presence: Now, why is it in some of the beast attack types, like Assyria, do the people of God escape? Let me read this to you: 2Ch.32:22 Thus Jehovah saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side. 23 And many brought gifts unto Jehovah to Jerusalem, and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah; so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from thenceforth. Now, there's the seven-headed beast. Well, Assyria was one of the heads, and Babylon was one of the heads. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome, and revived Rome. It's a seven-headed beast. So all of those kingdoms were types and shadows of this end time corporate beast. So how come we see that the time of the Assyrian beast, Jerusalem, and their king were righteous, and they're the only ones that are preserved. Whereas in the time of the Babylonian beast Jerusalem and their king were taken captive? Because we're talking about two different leaderships. God is saying that the backslidden leadership of apostate Jerusalem is going into judgment. And everybody who follows them will follow them into judgment. At the same time, there is a good leadership over the people of God. There is a real Jerusalem, which is the heavenly Jerusalem. So, these people are going to be defended by God; the others are not. That's the difference. There's one unregenerate Jerusalem, as the leadership of God's people, and there's a regenerate. Each one of those beast empires has a type and a shadow for the end time that fits into it. So in Jeremiah chapter 23, He says he's going to cast those apostates off, out of His presence. And Jeremiah, here, represents the Man-child ministry; he's speaking against the rebels, like Ezekiel was doing. What was Jesus doing? Speaking against the rebels like Barabas. Resist not him that is evil, love your enemy, do good to those who despitefully use you, etc. Now, Jer.24:1 Jehovah showed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs set before the temple of Jehovah, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, with the craftsmen and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon. 2 One basket had very good figs, like the figs that are first-ripe; and the other basket had very bad figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad. 3 Then said Jehovah unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, that cannot be eaten, they are so bad. 4 And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, 5 Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so will I regard the captives of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans, for good. The whole government of America is going to take more authority over Christianity in general. Have you seen that the Christians have lost their rights in the UK while the invaders have rights while Starmer kisses Muslim leaders? The rights that Christians have had to speak to other people, and to raise their children the way they want, and on and on. The rapists are set free. Some are going to fight and try to take the country back but prayer, faith, and spiritual warfare, is the method. Some are not going to fight. But He said that this bondage is coming for good to the good figs, but not so for the bad figs.  He said in verse, 6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: (He's talking about New Jerusalem Paul said we were to come to. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed apostate Jerusalem? So what land and what city were they coming back to? The New Jerusalem and the new land.) … I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. 7 And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am Jehovah: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.  Now these are the people who do not rebel against the king of Babylon. And then He starts to speak about Zedekiah and the people who do rebel. 8 And as the bad figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad, surely thus saith Jehovah, So will I give up Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: (who trust in Egypt for strength). 9 I will even give them up to be tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth for evil; (That's a terrible threat! I think a large portion of Christianity in America will rise up and fight. The more liberal, the more authority used over them, and when their rights have been taken away, the more the corrupt UN demands its rights, the more treaties are made that give the UN authority in the United States. Very leftist treaties  are just waiting for more liberal leadership to come in and loose them or agree with them. But God says that these people who rebel are going to be tossed to and fro among the kingdoms of the earth for evil. They're going to be scattered all over the world, and they're not going to be free there  …to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them. 10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers. And why? Because they are rebelling against the word of the Lord. God says, ‘Go to your cross,' and they say, ‘I'm not going.' Jesus went to His cross. The Lord is not necessarily demanding a physical death for His people in this cross. But the ones who rebel will definitely find a physical death. That's what He's saying here. They will repent or be destroyed from the face of the Earth. And the next chapter is all about Babylon conquering the nations of the Middle East. The first one is Israel, which represents the church spiritually. Jeremiah the prophet was the one speaking this judgment upon not only the church but the rest of the world. He was the one speaking this judgment and releasing it through the words that he spoke in verse 2 and all of it was because he said, from verses 4 - 6, that they had not hearkened unto the Lord; they were paying no attention whatsoever to what God said in His word. That's why He said this was coming. Listen, there's a judgment coming very fast upon the people of God. The whole world is going to turn, and the head of the United States, too, is going to turn against Christianity for the sake of peace. You're going to see  judgment upon what we loosely call Christianity.  Now go to Jer.27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim (some of your Bibles say Zedekiah there; it's supposed to be Zedekiah, not Jehoiakim, because he'd already spoken about Jehoiakim back in verse 26. Now he was coming down to Zedekiah. My Bible says properly, Zedekiah. The Amplified version used Zedekiah here instead of Jehoiakim, because Jehoiakim doesn't fit here at all; somebody made a mistake here.) Jer.27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word unto Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying, 2 Thus saith Jehovah to me: Make thee bonds and bars, and put them upon thy neck; 3 and send them to the king of Edom, and to the king of Moab, and to the king of the children of Ammon, and to the king of Tyre, and to the king of Sidon, by the hand of the messengers that come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah; 4 and give them a charge unto their masters, saying, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, Thus shall ye say unto your masters: 5 I have made the earth, the men and the beasts that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me. (We know through reading scriptures that God has given the Earth over into the hand of beast kingdoms that persecuted God's people unto repentance. In every case, they had been rebellious, they had ignored His word, it was not important to them to obey, and so He had given them over into the hand of these beast kingdoms, and now it was Nebuchadnezzar's turn.) 6 And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon (The Great Eagle in Ezekiel 17. In this case, Jeremiah is the one speaking the word against the people of God, as Jesus did and Ezekiel did, and Jeremiah here represents the Man-child. He preached against the rebels, the bad figs.), my servant (That doesn't mean he was a Christian. But he was serving God in the creation of His people. And since they were rebelling, He was going to bring them a necessary chastening.); and the beasts of the field also have I given him to serve him. The beasts of the field or the beasts of the world. The field is the world, and the beasts here represent the other kingdoms of the world. Babylon was the head of the nations. It was the head of the U.N. in its day. That's exactly like America is today. Jer.27:7 And all the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the time of his own land come: and then many nations and great kings shall make him their bondman. 8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith Jehovah, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand. He's talking here about the bad figs, because that's the exact same wording he used about the bad figs, who were the people who rebelled against the king of Babylon. See, when God sends you a chastening, you don't want to rebel against Him. You want to humbly submit to your cross. And that's what's going on here; these people were rebels, and self-willed and wanted it their way. They had taken control over the kingdom of God, and God was sending a chastening, and He said, ‘Submit.' 9 But as for you, hearken ye not to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreams, nor to your soothsayers, nor to your sorcerers, that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:(Let me tell you something, we've been hearing from them for some time, that the church is not going under the authority of the beast. “We're out of here. We're flying away.” But that's not going to happen. This is exactly what they were prophesying then.) And even after it happened that the beast, at the end of chapter 28, it says, Jer.28:11 And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith Jehovah: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon within two full years from off the neck of all the nations. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way. (So he said, “Okay, okay, so we did come under the bondage of the kingdom, but we're out of here in two years.” And Jeremiah says, “No, you're not. You're going to be here 70 years. You're not going to be out of here until the Lord visits you.”) For instance, in Jer.29:8 For thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Let not your prophets that are in the midst of you, and your diviners, deceive you; neither hearken ye to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith Jehovah. 10 For thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, (That's the coming of the Lord. Babylon, in the Book of Revelation, was seven years after this happened. God said He was going to shorten the time. And this is how he shortened it. Seventy years was the type, and it was shortened to seven.) …After seventy (seven) years are accomplished for Babylon, (In other words, your bondage in Babylon, after seven years.) I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. Notice, he only said that about the good figs, who were going to return to that place. We just read that. The rebels were not returning. Now, there will be people who are going to rebel, and they're going to repent, and switch sides because they will gain understanding and submit to God. God's going to be with them; He will be their Savior. He's going to forgive them. But there are going to be people who will not repent, and they're going to be what the Bible calls, “the bad figs, very bad they can't be eaten.” He said in Jer.27:10 for they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land, and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish. 11 But the nation that shall bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, that nation will I let remain in their own land, saith Jehovah; and they shall till it, and dwell therein. 12 And I spake to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. 13 Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as Jehovah hath spoken concerning the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? 14 And hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, (We're going to hear a rash of this stuff, how this is not going to continue, that it's all going to be turned around. We've already heard these false prosperity prophets speaking lies about the things that are coming. All the peace and the prosperity and the blessings. I believe the blessings will be gone after NESARA provides to get the Gospel out. And yet, these are the same people who will rebel.) saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon; for they prophesy a lie unto you. 15 For I have not sent them, saith Jehovah, but they prophesy falsely in my name; that I may drive you out, and that ye may perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you. Those who rebel are going to receive this judgment. But God said that He was going to bless and preserve, and He was going to give a heart to the people who did not rebel to know Him - the good figs. He called Hezekiah, his leadership, and Zedekiah's people the bad figs. They were going to be swept from nation to nation under the judgment of God until they perished from off the face of the earth. When God's people get stubborn and rebellious against His Word, He raises up a beast to chasten them, to bring them to humility, to turn them back to the Lord, and when He's through doing His sanctifying work on them, then He turns on that beast and destroys it. God separates the harlot from the true church through persecution. When He's through doing that, then He destroys the harlot by the beast. They think, “We're God's people. God's on our side. We'll fly away.” Well, no, He wasn't, because they were rebelling. How many apostate religious people do you know who sincerely believe that they're the people of God, but ignore the Word of God to trust a preacher who doesn't agree with the full Gospel? You can share the Word of God with them, and they will still ignore it, because they're self-willed. God knows what He's doing. If He tells us to submit, and to turn the other cheek, to love your enemy, to do good to them that spitefully use you, then we have to obey Him. That's what our cross is all about. Some people are not willing to give up their carnal life to gain their Godly life, which Jesus commanded us.

Resurrection isn't a sentimental idea for funerals, it's a claim about reality that reshapes everything. We start in Luke 20 where Jesus answers the Sadducees and anchors our hope in a living God who keeps His promises. If God is truly the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then death doesn't get the final word and neither should fear, cynicism, or moral drift.From there, we bring that hope down to street level with Titus 2: what older men and women should model, how younger families should be mentored, and why biblical marriage is less about comfort and more about credibility. We also sit with Jesus' warnings about religious leaders who crave status, use big words, and harm the vulnerable, then echo Psalm 89's reminder that God's throne rests on righteousness and justice. Proverbs 14 adds a practical edge: correction can heal, but refusing it leads to ruin.We also talk about patriotism and memory through a piece on Paul Revere's ride and America's 250th anniversary, asking what happens when we stop teaching Scripture and our national story. Along the way, we wrestle with hard questions about public safety, cultural cohesion, and what it means to love your neighbors while still telling the truth about the direction of your country. If you care about Luke 20, Christian worldview, biblical marriage, and faith in public life, this one is for you.Subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show. What part of this conversation challenged you most?#ChristianNation#AmericanPatriot#FoundingFathers Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribeCountryside Book Serieshttps://www.amazon.com/Countryside-Book-J-T-Cope-IV-ebook/dp/B00MPIXOB2 

What is required to permit having a Jew who eats non-kosher meat perform kosher slaughter? • When is the slaughter of a Samaritan kosher? • Is the slaughter of a Jewish idolator permitted? • Why does the Rambam prohibit the slaughter of those who deny the authenticity of the Torah, yet permit the slaughter of Sadducees and others who don't accept the oral tradition? • Rav Yosef Karo's shocking interpretation of the Rambam: Biblically recognized kosher slaughter of a non-Jew or ape

Rabbi Vann

“If Jesus was Jewish, why are we Christian?” This question opens a discussion on the roots of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism. The episode also addresses the necessity of seeking truth in a diverse worldview, the implications of practicing yoga or transcendental meditation for Catholics, and the annulment process for converts. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 02:20 – If Jesus was Jewish, why are we Christian? 12:50 – What is a succinct way to argue for the necessity of finding the truest thing? I see some non-Catholic friends happy that I've found a cohesive worldview, but they don't see any reason why they should investigate such a thing. 20:30 – Is it objective grave matter for Catholics to practice yoga or transcendental meditation? 33:30 – Why do converts seeking annulments from marriages before their conversion have to go through that process? It seems like a barrier to evangelization — “Hey, you should be Catholic. But you might never be able to receive communion if you aren't granted an annulment from a marriage you had before you were even Catholic.” 44:55 – Do you think the story about the woman with seven husbands that the Sadducees questioned Jesus about is the story of Tobit? 50:12 – I am theologically not committed. I see that Christianity seems evidence based, but I don't feel drawn to it. Any thoughts?

“These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.” (1 John 2:19 NLT) In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus delivered some sobering words to the people who followed Him: “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter” (Matthew 7:21 NLT). Many people in the audience that day believed that upholding the Law of Moses—that is, being “good enough”—was the ticket to the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus helped them see that changing their entire outlook was necessary. They needed to repent. Four chapters earlier, He said to the Pharisees and Sadducees—the people whose entire lives were dedicated to upholding the Law of Moses—“Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God” (Matthew 3:8 NLT). The proof of a changed life is found in a person’s response to sin. Those whose faith is genuine will be profoundly affected when they give in to sin. They will repent and restore their relationship with the Lord. Look at David’s words after he committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for her husband to be killed. “Have mercy on me, O God, because of your unfailing love. Because of your great compassion, blot out the stain of my sins. Wash me clean from my guilt. Purify me from my sin. For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night” (Psalm 51:1–3 NLT). Look at the apostle Peter’s reaction after he denied being a follower of Jesus three separate times: “And Peter left the courtyard, weeping bitterly” (Luke 22:62 NLT). The cost was too great for us to take sin lightly. Isaiah 53:5–6 says, “But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all” (NLT). First Peter 2:24 says, “He personally carried our sins in his body on the cross so that we can be dead to sin and live for what is right. By his wounds you are healed” (NLT). People who claim to be believers, but then fall away and never come back, were not, in fact, believers. That’s the point John makes in 1 John 2:19: “These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us” (NLT). True believers will be miserable in sin and eventually will beat a path back to the cross of Calvary. True believers will repent and receive God’s forgiveness. Reflection question: What does genuine repentance look like in your life? Discuss Today's Devo in Harvest Discipleship! — The audio production of the podcast "Greg Laurie: Daily Devotions" utilizes Generative AI technology. This allows us to deliver consistent, high-quality content while preserving Harvest's mission to "know God and make Him known." All devotional content is written and owned by Pastor Greg Laurie. Listen to the Greg Laurie Podcast Become a Harvest PartnerSupport the show: https://harvest.org/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Can we have absolute assurance of salvation?” This question opens a discussion on the nature of faith and security in salvation. Other topics include responding to Southern Baptist views on the parable of Lazarus, the concerns of a Protestant considering OCIA, and strategies for evangelizing Muslims. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 02:50 – Can We Have Absolute Assurance of Salvation? 12:38 – How do you respond to a Southern Baptist that denies the story of the Lazarus and rich man establishes the immediate judgement? 20:13 – I'm protestant and considering OCIA but I hesitate on the rules that change in Catholics. How do we know rules won’t change in the future like attending Sunday mass, women veiling, etc.? 32:37 – Is it correct to say the Sadducees and Pharisees had a similar relationship as Catholics and Protestants. Is this true? 43:16 – How do we effectively evangelize Muslims especially when they come across as arrogant and even resort to using foul language? 50:30 – How do I better explain apologetics to a crowd that is not religious at work?

Questions about why the Sadducees and Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus and why God doesn't say anything when we pray to him.   Why did the Sadducees and Pharisees want to kill Jesus? Why doesn't God say anything when we pray to him?

Matthew highlights another conflict between Jesus and Pharisees/Sadducees where Jesus puts them in their place and foreshadows His resurrection at the same time. Jesus cautions his disciples against the harmful teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This Sunday we'll be reading through a string of confrontations Jesus experiences in Matthew 22:15-46 as we continue our study in that Gospel. It's delightful to me how Jesus is able, not only to gracefully answer his accusers, but to weave clues into his answers that reveal an overview of what God is up to.The section we'll be covering breaks down into four sections – v15-22, where Jesus is asked if it's lawful to pay a poll tax to Rome. It was an extremely loaded (even dangerous) question. His answer reveals that Jesus wasn't a political crusader – he was loyal to only One. In what way do you think we bear the image of God the way a coin bore the image of Caesar?In v23-33 Jesus is approached by the Sadducees who rejected the notion of a resurrection at the end of the age (we'll go into why on Sunday). They pose a riddle meant, in their minds, to highlight the absurdity of resurrection. V 32 sums up Jesus' unassailable response. What do you think his point is, that God is the God of the living, not the dead?The famous confrontation about the greatest commandment is found in v33-40. Why do you think Jesus said that the entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on the two commandments to love God and our neighbor as ourself? How would love be the main component of all that the law of Moses required?Finally, Jesus turns the tables and asks them a question in v41-46, about the existential nature of the Messiah. We'll go into what Jesus was getting at, and we'll see how it actually brackets the whole section by subtly pointing back to the image of Caesar on the coin.I think this will be an encouraging section to dig into. I hope you can join us this Sunday as we do!Click here for a pdf of the teaching slideshow.

There are aspects of tension, excitement, and confusion as Jesus continues to teach in Jerusalem following his triumphal entry. The Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and other experts of the law have already tested him with their inquisitions, but he didn't fumble with answers in the slightest. On the contrary, his answers left the crowd in awe and wonder at his wisdom and judgment. Today, Jesus returns the favor by declaring seven woes upon the hypocrites who elevate themselves but weigh down others. Later, the disciples have questions about the future, and Jesus calls them to faithfulness and expectancy while waiting for His return. Matthew 23 – 1:12 .  Matthew 24 – 8:14 .  Matthew 25 – 15:48 .  Psalm 69 – 23:16 . :::Christian Standard Bible translation.All music written and produced by John Burgess Ross.Co-produced by Bobby Brown, Katelyn Pridgen, Eric Williamson & the Christian Standard Biblefacebook.com/commuterbibleinstagram.com/commuter_bibletwitter.com/CommuterPodpatreon.com/commuterbibleadmin@commuterbible.org

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse return to their parable series with an in-depth examination of the Laborers in the Vineyard from Matthew 20:1-16. This often-misunderstood parable confronts our natural inclination toward merit-based thinking and exposes the scandal of God's grace. The hosts unpack the covenantal language embedded in the text, particularly the workers' "grumbling"—a loaded term echoing Israel's wilderness rebellion. Through careful exegesis and theological reflection, they demonstrate how this parable dismantles religious entitlement while celebrating God's sovereign freedom to bestow mercy according to His purposes, not our calculations. The discussion offers fresh insights into grace, election, and the radical generosity that defines God's kingdom economy. Key Takeaways The parable operates on covenant logic, not economic fairness: The landowner's dealings with his workers reflect covenantal promise-keeping rather than marketplace transactions, establishing that God's relationship with His people is fundamentally gracious. "Grumbling" carries profound theological weight: The Greek word used for the workers' complaint is the same term in the Septuagint for Israel's wilderness rebellion—not mere dissatisfaction, but a covenantal accusation against God's faithfulness. Two types of workers represent two approaches to God: The first-hired workers who contracted for specific wages represent those relating to God through legal obligation and merit, while later workers who trusted the owner's promise represent faith-based relationship. The reversal of payment order is narratively essential: By paying the last workers first, the landowner deliberately exposes the merit-based assumptions of the first workers, forcing them to confront their entitlement. Grace doesn't negate justice—it transcends it: The landowner fulfills every contractual obligation while simultaneously exercising sovereign generosity beyond what is owed, demonstrating that mercy and justice coexist in God's character. The parable addresses the present kingdom, not just heaven: Because it includes grumbling and complaint, this parable describes life in God's kingdom now—the "already but not yet"—rather than the consummated state. Divine sovereignty in salvation is the theological climax: The landowner's declaration "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?" directly addresses God's freedom in election and the scandal of unmerited grace. Key Ideas The Covenantal Nature of the Landowner's Dealings The parable's opening establishes a formal agreement between the landowner and the first workers: one denarius for a day's labor. This contractual arrangement is crucial for understanding what follows. Unlike marketplace haggling, this represents a covenant—the landowner binds himself to provide what he has promised. Tony emphasizes that even this initial contract is an act of condescension and grace, as the master had no obligation to employ anyone at all. As the day progresses, subsequent workers are hired with increasingly less formal agreements. By the third hour, the landowner promises only "whatever is right," and by the eleventh hour, no wage is even mentioned. These later workers enter the vineyard based entirely on the landowner's character and trustworthiness. This progression mirrors the movement from law to gospel—from contractual obligation to trusting promise. The theological implication is profound: those who relate to God based on His gracious word rather than calculated merit are actually in a more secure position than those who attempt to earn their standing through works. The Wilderness Echo: Grumbling as Covenant Violation The hosts make a critical exegetical observation about the Greek word for "grumbling" (γογγύζω) used in verse 11. This is not casual complaining but the identical term used throughout the Septuagint to describe Israel's covenant rebellion in the wilderness. When the workers grumble "upon receiving" their wages, they're not merely expressing disappointment about pay inequality—they're filing a covenant lawsuit against the master, accusing him of unfaithfulness. This connection to Numbers 16 and Exodus 16-17 is devastating. The Israelites' wilderness grumbling wasn't about logistics or comfort; it was fundamentally about doubting God's covenant fidelity. By employing this loaded terminology, Matthew signals that the first workers' complaint is nothing less than accusing God of covenant violation. The landowner's response ("Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?") is a covenant defense—he has fulfilled his obligations precisely. The workers' real offense is not miscalculation but begrudging God's freedom to show mercy beyond what is contractually required. The "Evil Eye" and Begrudging God's Grace The final rhetorical question—"Or do you begrudge my generosity?"—contains another Jewish idiom often lost in translation. The Greek literally reads, "Is your eye evil because I am good?" This "evil eye" imagery appears throughout Scripture as a metaphor for envy, stinginess, and resentment toward another's blessing. The landowner's question cuts to the heart: are you cursing me for being generous? This directly parallels Jonah's response to Nineveh's salvation. Jonah had just experienced miraculous deliverance through the great fish, yet when God showed identical mercy to the Ninevites, Jonah's response was essentially, "I knew you were gracious—that's why I ran!" The parable exposes the same perverse logic: those who have received covenant mercy begrudging that same mercy extended to others. For the Pharisees listening to Jesus, this was an indictment of their resentment toward tax collectors and sinners receiving the kingdom. For Christians today, it challenges any sense of spiritual superiority based on how long we've been in the kingdom or how much we've sacrificed. Memorable Quotes Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? That 'or' is a logical connector—either I'm not allowed to do what I want with my belongings, which is ridiculous, or if I am allowed, then you must be mad at me for being generous. Those are the only options. — Tony Arsenal The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation. These workers aren't just complaining about not getting what they thought they would—they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made. — Tony Arsenal Most of us are this eleventh-hour call. It's much better to be in the place of that younger brother who comes in and repents than to be the older brother who is stubborn and finds some reason to come before God with self-righteous grievances. — Jesse Schwamb Full Episode Transcript [00:01:05] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 488 of the Reformer Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:13] Tony Arsenal: and I am still Tony, and this is the podcast where Tony comes back. Hey brother.  [00:01:19] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. The band is back together again, man. It's reunited and boy, do you feel it? It feels good, doesn't  [00:01:26] Tony Arsenal: it? I do, I do. I'm excited to come back. It was nice to take a break. [00:01:29] Jesse Schwamb: Good.  [00:01:29] Tony Arsenal: I, uh, I've been, you know, texted with you a couple times. Just it was, I did my best to sort of not think about the podcast because that's sort of defeats the purpose of taking a break from something if you spend a lot of time thinking about it. Um, so I'm back. I'm refreshed. I'm ready to go.  [00:01:44] Break and Work Chaos [00:01:44] Tony Arsenal: I appreciate the listeners' patience. Uh, it's been sort of a weird, crazy busy time at work. Uh, there's a lot going on. I, I lost like. 60% of my staff in the course of like three weeks. And, um, I'm still kind of in the thick of it, but we're coming out of it. So took a little bit of time to just make sure that I was having a, an appropriate space to de-stress from that and take care of my family and attend to worship. And, um, it was really a, a blessing to have that. Uh, sort of sabbatical. Ironically, the sabbatical wars were going on at the same time on Twitter, and Jesse is blissfully unaware of that 'cause he's not involved in in the Twitter. That's true. Um, but yeah, just took a little break and it's kinda like overblown it, to call it a sabbatical. Like this is a podcast, it's a hobby, but, but it was nice to have, uh, a little bit of extra time, you know, couple hours extra week, uh, uh, each week of extra time to just decompress and, uh, play with the kids and spend time with my wife and clean the house a little bit, which was good.  [00:02:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it is always good to have a clean house. You look great. You seem refreshed. The voice sounds good, and I'm like, I don't know, in year seven or eight of my Twitter sabbatical, it's going great so far. I feel like I haven't missed a whole lot. The world still seems wild and I'm sure, or X, right? We gotta go X on this. It's  [00:02:53] Tony Arsenal: always Twitter. It's always gonna be Twitter. I don't care what Elon Musk  says.  [00:02:56] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I'm listen. I'm totally fine with that.  [00:02:58] Back to Parables [00:02:58] Jesse Schwamb: And I teased this in the last episode, but we can't be stopped. I mean, people should know this by now, we have an inexorable march through the parables of Jesus's true. That will not be stopped. We're always gonna come back until there are no more. And on this episode, we're gonna be hanging out in Matthew 20, talking about laborers in the Kingdom of Heaven.  [00:03:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I'm stoked. I'm, I'm, I'm excited to get back into it. I'm excited to get back into the word together with everybody. I'm excited to clear whatever that was on in my throat out  [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: emotion,  [00:03:27] Tony Arsenal: live on the air. Uh, but yeah, it'll be good. I'm, I'm stoked. I mean, I love this stuff and it's good to be back.  [00:03:32] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, you had the rest. Now let's talk about labor. So speaking of labor, it's, it's time for you to work up here, Tony. Are you affirming with or denying against on this episode?  [00:03:42] Tony Arsenal: Uh, I'm affirming something and I'm hopeful, uh, that just a little behind the scenes activity here. Jesse recorded episode 487, like an hour and a half ago. I have not yet listened to it, so I don't know if you did an affirmation and I I did. If you did. I hope it's not the same one.  [00:03:58] Jesse Schwamb: I did not. You're  [00:03:59] Tony Arsenal: safe. Uh, good. So I'm safe.  [00:04:01] Artemis II Hype [00:04:01] Tony Arsenal: So, um, I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um, oh, nice. Have you been, I mean, I know you're not on Twitter, but I'm sure there's news elsewhere. Uh, this amazing mission around the moon, um, for astronaut, for astronauts, I think, um, the furthest man space travel, um, since the Apollo program. Um. Pretty intense, pretty amazing pictures, right? The camera technologies amazing. Increased exponentially, uh, since we were there last. Um, this is ostensibly in preparation for an actual moon landing, which who knows when that will be? Um, but as far as I've seen, the mission was a resounding success. There was no right. I think they had, they ran into a few little hiccups early on with some technical things, but nothing crazy. I have not heard. Um, I know they did touch down and they did reentry. Um, I've not heard anything one way or another, but I'm assuming since I have not heard terrible, tragic news that they made it through, did they do the reentry? I'm really, apparently I'm not actually paying as much attention to this as I thought I was. I saw a lot of information about reentry, but I guess, I don't know for sure when that happened or is happening.  [00:05:05] Jesse Schwamb: I mean, by this point, when people listen to it, it'll be old news anyway, right? So  [00:05:09] Tony Arsenal: For sure. Yeah. And either, either it went terribly wrong and I'm gonna feel awful, or it went fine and I'm gonna feel a little silly for. Throwing a caveat that it went terribly wrong out there. But, um, it's cool. It's, it's amazing. I mean, I, I commented to my wife the other day and she's kinda like, yeah, maybe we should like, spend that money on people who are on the planet. I was like, okay, I can, I can buy that wisdom. But, um, there's something very cool and very Genesis, uh, one, ask Genesis one and two, ask about flying out into space and taking dominion over Yeah, for sure. Over a, a little ball of rock, uh, you know, uh, 25,000 miles away or whatever it is. Um. And, you know, I'm like an engineering nerd. I, I don't know anything about engineering, but I love watching YouTube videos that explain stuff like this. And  [00:05:52] Jesse Schwamb: me  [00:05:52] Tony Arsenal: too, all of the videos that have cropped up now about free return and how, like they're able to basically like do minimal burn on the thrusters to get into the right trajectory and then just like meet the moon in the place it's gonna be. And then the, you know, the moon's gravity captures it and whips it back around and then shoots it back towards Earth. And for the most part, they're able to do all of that with relatively minor, um, relatively minor energy output because they're just utilizing physics and gravity and math, um, to fly to the moon and come back. Yes. It's pretty crazy amazing. So, yeah. Amazing. And the photos of like the, the sort of like new versions of the Earthrise photos are really, really phenomenal. Um, they're crisp, they're clean, they're obviously like the best, the best actual pho photographic images we've had of the lunar surface. Um. And the, the far side of the lunar surface, which we get all sorts of like telescopic photos and things of this side of the lunar surface because it's tightly locked and is facing us at all times. We don't get a ton of really great photography of the far side of the moon, which is a big part of what this mission was, so,  [00:06:56] Jesse Schwamb: right.  [00:06:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. If you haven't seen the photos, I mean, they're out there, they're amazing. There will be even more available once we get back. You know, they, they're transmitting only the most stellar, amazing ones. Um, and, but they're taking, I'm sure thousands and thousands of photos and, um, so yeah, it's pretty cool. I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um. It's just amazing what, what people can do with common grace, you know? That's right. In insight into nature. Um, I don't know anything about the astronauts. I don't know anything about their religious faith or their spiritual life or anything like that. But, um, the people who design this, the people who fly it, they're just tapping into the truth that's present in God's creation. So good on them. Uh, either I'm glad they got home, wish they have a safe home coming, or something along those lines, I guess. I don't know.  [00:07:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, you'll be happy to know that NASA is reporting that the four astronauts are an excellent condition after they landed in the Pacific Ocean. So  [00:07:47] Tony Arsenal: good.  [00:07:47] Jesse Schwamb: All, all appears to be well. And it says they have a giant SD card of pictures that's they've been taking. Yeah. And saving. I'm sure. They were just, they were just too big to send to over wifi.  [00:07:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Like massive wideness. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they have a ton that they didn't send because you know Right. Data rates to the moon are pretty high. Yeah.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Ex. Yeah.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: This economy is crazy. So  [00:08:07] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly. In this economy. Really In this economy. Yeah, exactly.  [00:08:11] Cosmic Worship Reflections [00:08:11] Jesse Schwamb: I think you're right. This is good. I haven't talked about this at all. It's hard not to get just stoked, even in the amateur way about the science, the technology, the physics of all this stuff, and then even the astronauts just being overwhelmed by what they're seeing. [00:08:24] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:08:25] Jesse Schwamb: It's hard not to get pulled into that and think about the universe that God has created and find that there is something transcendent just, uh, by observing all of these things. Yeah. Like even casually, which I think shows, again, this is literally the, the heavens and the earth crying out for God, showing his immeasurable power and, you know, immortal nature. It's incredible that we can even see and be a part of some of these things. Just wild.  [00:08:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's crazy that they can get signals to the moon. I mean, I drive home from Dartmouth College and I go through half of the spot there, and I don't have a cell signal, but we can get images from the moon. Um, so yeah, it's great. It's great. Check it out if you haven't seen it. If you haven't heard about it, I don't know what you're doing. Uh, this is probably the largest major scientific advancement in our generation. Um, in terms of like big scale scientific enterprise projects. There's been a lot of really amazing technology that's been developed. But this is like the first big. Almost like risky kind of scientific,  [00:09:30] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:09:30] Tony Arsenal: I dunno. Gambit or I dunno, gamble that we've done in a long time. Big deal. I mean, big a lot. Deal of things. Deal. Nothing went wrong. Nothing ma major went wrong. Praise God that they all got back to the planet safely. Right. But, um, a lot of things could have gone wrong, uh, and they didn't. So check out the photos, check out the scientific data they're gonna get. I mean, I'm sure they've got all sorts of information about the way the, the, the space ship moved, all of that stuff. It's gonna be really interesting to see kind of how this all comes about.  [00:09:56] Jesse Schwamb: Get some worship on, right? Yeah. I mean this is what a one, a thing to be reminded about how big and how glorious God is. [00:10:01] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:10:01] Jesse Schwamb: And, and to realize, like you said, the risks of this exploration. And this is God again, creating all of this outta nothing. Why? Yeah. Just absolutely wild. Incredible.  [00:10:12] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, for  [00:10:12] Jesse Schwamb: sure. Blown away.  [00:10:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. What about you, Jesse? What do you have for us?  [00:10:15] Bayes and Predictability [00:10:15] Jesse Schwamb: I got affirmation. It's equally nerdy, and actually this is as is always the case. This is why one of many reasons I miss you is it, it dovetails so nicely, so I'm affirming with a book. It's called Everything Is Predictable, how Esy and Statistics Explains the World. It's by a guy named Tom Chivers. I know this sounds super nerdy, but hear me out on this because Thomas Bayes, if you don't know this guy is first kind of like a wild and interesting guy, but this whole theory he put forward is super interesting. And this book is not like a mathematics book. It's like reads almost like a statistical thriller, which as it came outta my mouth, realized it was not maybe more ingratiating. I could have chosen better words than statistical thriller. But Thomas Bayes was alive in the 17 hundreds. And what's interesting to me at least about him, is he was an English statistician, who was a Presbyterian minister actually. He was a non-conformist and his, this whole theorem that he developed was actually published after his death. And the non-conformist part is super interesting. It's all in this book, even some of his different theological ideas. But because he was non-conformist, it basically meant like he couldn't learn. He was kicked out of all the English universities. He had to go to Scotland. Even all of that shaped how he came up with this particular theorem. But the gist of it is. Rather than treating like probabilities, as we think about it as this fixed frequency, you know, how many times does this thing occur? He argued and realized that it should represent a degree of belief and then you would update that belief rationally as new evidence comes in. And I know that sounds super quaint, but this is like what machine learning is based on medical diagnosis. A lot of like space travel is based on this in terms of understanding uncertainty and systems spam, all of that stuff. Here's an example, I think Tony, because we are, we have to carry forward with the top 50 medical podcast thing, right? We've got going on here. Lemme just give everybody an example of why you need this and why you automatically think this way. So. Statistics is really important, especially in medical testing. This was really prevalent in during COVID. So there's two ways that you can describe how a medical test performs you. You know this already, Tony, you're an expert. So one would be like sensitivity. So like how AIG  [00:12:19] Tony Arsenal: not an expert.  [00:12:20] Jesse Schwamb: Oh, you're definitely an expert in testing. Here we go. So one would be like sensitivity. How good is the test at catching people who are sick? So if you're sick, you, you want the test to identify that, that you're sick. That's sensitivity. So a test with a 99% sensitivity is gonna correctly identify 99 out of a hundred people who are truly sick. It always gonna miss one person. It's a false negative. The other half of that coin is something called specificity. So if sensitivity is all about catching the people who are sick, specificity is gonna say, how good is the test at clearing people who are not sick? And so a test with 99% specificity, you might have correctly guessed, is gonna identify or clear 99 out of a hundred healthy people. Now if you have a test. Both of those 99% sensitive and 99% specific, you might be thinking, that is the dream. That's exactly what I want. That that test is gonna be so precise and accurate. How could my intuition fail me? But this is the thing. It actually fails all the time, and here's why. Let's say that. You go out and you screen a group of people, a general population for a rare disease that affects one in a thousand people. One in a thousand people, rare disease. So if you screen 10,000 people from the general population, that means that truly only 10 of them are going to have the actual disease. I'm not gonna do all the math 'cause it'll, oh, this is already making for amazing podcasting. But here's the bottom line. That test, which sounds so good on the face, is going to identify 109 people as truly sick or truly having disease. But the problem is that only 10 of them actually have it. That means that only there's, it only has a success rate of 9%. There's only 9% chance you actually have the disease, but it's falsely identified. The short end of this is Bayes corrects that problem. He fixes it with his theorem so that we get to the right number of people. That's what's called like a base fallacy rate. It's not taking into account that really only 10 people should have this particular disease or this sickness. So I know that's sounds super nerdy, but so much of our lives are based on this. We have a prior belief or a prior set of things that we understand about the world. And then as evidence comes in, we refine that. That sounds so normal and normative, but it's revolutionary in this book actually. Bayes versus what's called like frequentist or frequent, um, probability is like hotly debated. People actually throw down over this theorem. So it's a really fun read. Go check out. Everything is predictable. Al Bayesian statistics explains our world. It really is for everybody. And then you can impress your friends with all the statistical pross you're gonna have when you're done reading it.  [00:14:56] Tony Arsenal: Like the medical administrator hat that I can't always take off is like, why would we screen 10,000 people? Are, are they all symptomatic? Are none of them symptomatic? But suppose it doesn't really  [00:15:08] Jesse Schwamb: matter for the example. That's a great, so generally what happens here is, let's say it's like some kind of rare form of cancer, unless you use Bayesian statistics, what you'll find is you'll get these false positive rates. So these tests do use Bayesian statistics. It corrects, in other words, for this problem. So there might be a lot of people that are gonna screen for this because if you, you wanna know if you have it, but you don't wanna get it wrong and say that you do. So this ensures his approach ensures that you get it. Right. It's wild. Fascinating stuff.  [00:15:34] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and I would think actually, you know, there's probably, there's other mechanisms as well where they would, where they would sort of screen out. People that shouldn't be tested or help identify false negatives, false positives. Um, but yeah, that's, that's interesting. I probably won't read that book, but it sounds like an interesting read. I just don't have a lot of room on my A TBR shelf.  [00:15:55] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, listen. That, that's fair.  [00:15:57] Goodreads DNF Update [00:15:57] Jesse Schwamb: By the way, here's like a, a side affirmation. I think you and I both share speaking like books and cataloging books. If you use Good Reads, good Reads. Right. Finally adding a list of the Do Not Did Not Finish book. That's fantastic. This, this might be an example for some people, so pick it up and even if you don't have a place for it, guess where you can put it on the did not finish list. Yeah. Good Reads.  [00:16:16] Tony Arsenal: That's finally, that's one of those like, like why didn't they add that 15 years ago? Kind of an updates and you get the email and they're like, we're so excited to introduce the did Not Finish thing. And we're like, yeah. Like of course. Like, duh. It's likes, like, we're proud to introduce that. Your keypad now has a zero on it.  [00:16:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right. So  [00:16:37] Tony Arsenal: yeah. I'm, I'm excited about the DNR, um, the DNF, um, I'm so excited. I can't even remember what it's called. Yeah. The shelf. But, uh, very, very useful. The DNR list  [00:16:47] Jesse Schwamb: is a diff it is a different list. Speaking of medical things, it's a different  [00:16:50] Tony Arsenal: list. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely a different thing. Usually it's not a list. It's a list of one in most cases.  [00:16:56] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly,  [00:16:57] Tony Arsenal: yeah. You can't put other people on your  [00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: DNR  [00:17:00] Tony Arsenal: This,  [00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: I suppose. Yeah, I should clarify that. You can really, you can only really put yourself, or I suppose somebody for whom you have that kind of authority over on that list, but I was thinking that more from like a medical perspective, that somewhere there would be a database in which there might be a list of DNR. I don't know.  [00:17:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I'm not sure. Probably there was at some point, but I think with medical chart technology now, that's probably like a. A moot point. Yeah. They don't need to be able to like cross reference a master list anymore. They just look in the patient's electronic record. We're really like in the weeds here. You can tell it's been a while since I've, I've podcasted. I don't really remember how to do this.  [00:17:35] Jesse Schwamb: This is great.  [00:17:36] Segue to Matthew 20 [00:17:36] Jesse Schwamb: I think at this point we try to make some kind of awkward segue that is mildly successful. Again, probably has statistically like a 20 to 27% chance of being successful and really hitting the mark. Yeah. So do you have anything that's gonna move us into this?  [00:17:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I mean, I feel like you've been podcasting for the last several weeks without me and I've been working hard and now I'm kind of coming in as Johnny come lately and we're gonna get paid the same amount so. Even though you've worked harder for longer and I'm coming in late to the game here. [00:18:03] Jesse Schwamb: Oh man. Ple loved ones. Please tell me you got that. Please tell me you got all of that. That's, that's what you show up for here. Yeah, that was  [00:18:10] Tony Arsenal: a deep cut.  [00:18:11] Jesse Schwamb: That, that was beautiful. And I think leads us right into Matthew 20. So I think we've got at least 16 verses to get through here. Maybe again, if we're gonna keep a statistical theme here, something about engineering and math, all that stuff, we'll let everybody else pick the over under and whether or not we're gonna get through this and how many verses that's going to be. But at this point, we might as well begin.  [00:18:32] Tony Arsenal: Yes. Yeah.  [00:18:33] Read the Parable [00:18:33] Tony Arsenal: I'll start by reading. Uh, we're here in Matthew chapter 20, the first 16 versus this is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard and it reads. For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborer laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into the vineyard and going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace. He said to them, you go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right, I will give you. So they went, going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the 11th hour, he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, because no one has hired us. And he said to them, you go into the vineyard too. And when the evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, call the laborers and pay them with their wages, beginning with the last up to the first. And when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now, when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house saying, these last worked only one hour and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. And he replied to one of them, friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me? For a denarius, take what belongs to you and go, I choose to give the last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you beg, do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first and the first will be last. Now I just wanna head this off. I did bite my tongue earlier and I probably am lisping and this is like a running gag. We thought that we'd resolved it. Uh, so if you hear me stumble over my words a little bit, it's just, it's just the struggle bus today.  [00:20:24] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, this is the, these are like the real things we have to deal with when the podcasting, like the real threats, the real injuries. I appreciate you like working through it. Like you just get back up and you walk it off with your tongue.  [00:20:35] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, my, my, uh, my podcasting hiatus was actually just a recovery of the last time I bit my tongue. I just needed a couple weeks to, no, I'm just kidding.  [00:20:43] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, we didn't wanna say.  [00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:44] Kingdom Fairness and Grumbling [00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: So, Jesse, this is a, this is a parable that follows right on the heels, um, of kind of everything we've been talking about. And I think as we go through these parables and we look at them and we, we sort of pick them up and we look at the different facets of them, we sort of compare them to each other. We kind of, we kind of place them in their context really. They all have basically the same theme, right? Like they're all kind of circulating around these same topics. In this parable, it's circulating around this idea that, um, the, the owner of the vineyard, the master of the vineyard, is allowed to pay the people he employs whatever he wants. And as long as the payment that is due to an individual is received by that individual, then what other people receive and how they receive it and how hard they've worked and how hard they didn't work. That's really not germane to whether or not the, the laborer received a fair wage, uh, in the first place. Right. So we're, we're circling around themes of kind of fairness of, uh, of sort of resentment, I think for resentment at the master's generosity, which has been a big theme in previous ones. So this will be good for us to expand on. There's always little nuggets and kernels of things that are different from other parables, and then it's interesting to always see the ways that they kind of line up and, and tell us similar things.  [00:21:57] Jesse Schwamb: And this parable is unique to Matthew. Yeah. And it does function as this exposition or expansion of what Jesus says in chapter 19 where it says, but many who are first will be last. And the last first, which is repeated with this lovely like inverted emphasis in, at the end of this as you just read. So it belongs to this like interesting cluster of teacher teachings on discipleship and reward nature of the kingdom of God. And we've, we've spoken a lot about that. I think I was just reminded of this as you were, you were. Reading this, I feel like I remember this from some teaching, like this parable is kind of like a unique chiasm that's anchored on the landowner, sovereign generosity, which you brought up. And then there's the complaints of the first hired, which is mirrored by the late comers vulnerability. And then the landowners, two speeches which divide everything, kind of provide sandwich and the like, the theological climax. It does start in that really familiar way, which we've gotten accustomed to thinking about that introductory formula of the kingdom of heaven is like, and it signals of course that what follows is not gonna be a lesson in economics, but it's gonna use all this economic language as theological disclosure for how God's kingdom operates. And it starts again, like you said, with this master of the house, which to me seems. Pretty clearly like a, a God figure himself. Yeah. It's, that's kind of like a reoccurring mathian image. I think. So we've got this vineyard, which of course has all this symbolism, steeply rooted in Israel's covenant imagination and evokes God's people and his redemptive labor among them. So, man, now that I'm saying this all loud, is this thing like super pregnant with all kinds of like imagery and meaning?  [00:23:27] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, it's, it's always good to remember, although parables have kind of some parables, most parables have sort of distinct discreet, symbolic elements where like, this represents that this represents that almost in an allegorical form. And, and in some cases, like purely in allegorical form, where it's like pilgrim's progress where each, each individual, each entity, each location each represents some sort of symbolic value. But we have to remember that when, when it says the parable of the kingdom of heaven is like the master of the house, it's not just like the master of the house. Yes. Right. It's like this whole scenario. Yes. It's, it's like. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's like everything that follows, it's like the entire, um, the entire paree here. That's what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. And one of the things that I think is striking about this is the kingdom of heaven is like some people complaining, like the people complaining about, some people are getting the same wage for less work. Um, that is part of what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. So I think we sometimes think of, of. The kingdom of heaven in, um, in the parables, we think of it as though God is just saying, this is what heaven is like. Right? Jesus Just saying like, this is what heaven is like, but the kingdom of heaven, that language is broader than what we normally would say, uh, is. We're thinking of heaven, like in the, the spiritual abode where God lives and the angels live. Um, where, where the departed saints are waiting for the resurrection, the kingdom of heaven is, is also inclusive of the, the sort of like. Time now between the victory of Christ on the cross and the consummation of the kingdom and the last day, the kingdom of heaven is inclusive of that time period too. And so this parable sort of situates us. I think it situates us in that pre consummated state where we're talking about what it's like to be a part of the kingdom of heaven here and now in our fallen state, but still solidly in the kingdom of heaven. 'cause there's not gonna be any complaining or grumbling about God's justice in God's fairness once we're in the final resurrected state. Right? Sure. Nobody's gonna be looking back and be like, yeah, you were way too gracious for that guy. Nobody's gonna be playing the Jonah part when we're all resurrected and we're worshiping for, for all time going forward. So this parable, because there are elements of. Dissatisfaction or elements of grumbling or complaining similar to like the, the parable of the prodigal son. There's this sun figure, the, the older sun figure who like is just a bonehead and doesn't get it. Well, that can't be talking about the people who are in the resurrection kingdom in the final kingdom. It's gotta be talking about people who are still awaiting the resurrection of the body and who are still not yet. Uh, and even in, in that parable, the, the older son doesn't even seem to be a figure who's, who's regener. Maybe he does become regener at some point in the future, but he doesn't seem to be. In, even in God's kingdom, he doesn't seem to be, even among God's people, he's consistently placed outside of the field. You don't even know he exists until Nick halfway through the parable. This is similar in that there are these workers, they're receiving their wages and some of them are, are outwardly dissatisfied and grumbling against the master of the house. Um, so I think if we think about parables as describing heaven rather than the kingdom of heaven, we can lose sight of, of what's actually being said in a lot of them. [00:26:50] Contracts Versus Grace [00:26:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's really good stuff because it strikes me that there are like, strangely, two groups here mentioned, I, I find this really kind of fascinating. We, I think we should talk about this, like the first group has like the most formal agreement, it's almost a legal contract, right? Various was like a standard day laborers wage sufficient mostly for subsistence. And so that detail seems theologically loaded to me. These workers relate to the landowner on the basis of a contract and what is owed. And so their claim at the end of the day will be exactly that. They're owed something and they know it, and that sets up Then this contrast with a second group, which is mostly all about grace because by the time we get to that third hour, like. Approximately like 9:00 AM then we're beginning this pattern repeated at the sixth and the ninth hours. And crucially, for those workers who go out, go out and get recruited, there's no wage that's specified for them. Only the promise of like whatever is right. And so they enter the vineyard, not on the basis of a contract, but on the basis of like the owner's word and character. And that seems to be like more of a picture of trust and not, not calculation. Yeah. Separate than like the first group. And that marketplace, idleness, as I read this, doesn't imply like laziness because verse seven clarifies like they just had not been hired. Right? They were overworked, they were unemployed. They were marginalized. So it does set up, like you said, everything you just talked about, about the kind of this, I like that. Like the Jonah, the Jonah whiners or whatever, like yeah, they want to complain about this, right? There are, and there are two, two separate groups that have kind of been brought into the fold, not under different terms or pretenses, but differently. [00:28:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I think too, bear's saying, um. Although there are elements of parables that are very, very directly applicable. Mm. We shouldn't read this as though every, every specific thing in the parable is not a parable. Right. Right. I think we can look at this and we can go, you know, you can read this in a way where, oh yeah, there's some people actually earn their, earn their wage, they earn ary. Right. It's a fair contract. And they work all day and he says, well, I'm gonna give you what's right, what you, what I owe you.  [00:28:45] God Owes Nothing [00:28:45] Tony Arsenal: The reality is God doesn't owe any of us anything. Right? Right. He owes us wrath and judgment and destruction. And so even, even the people who are the hard workers in the kingdom of God don't merit and never could merit, um, to, in a certain sense, in a strict sense and stick with me before you send your, your angry emails in a real strict sense. Even Adam couldn't merit. What was, well, it was guaranteed to him, according to the Covenant of Works, God had to condescend to make the covenant of works in order for Adam to have any sort of fruition of his blessedness. So there there's no natural obligation, strict obligation that God has to reward the work of his creatures because nothing they could do could ever be sufficient enough to obligate him. So the, the obligation of himself, and that's, this is where I do think this is strong, the fact that he obligates himself to these workers to give them their denarius after a hard day's work  [00:29:37] Jesse Schwamb: exactly  [00:29:37] Tony Arsenal: is itself. A covenantal, um, contractual, yes. But I actually read this as sort of a covenantal thing and the, the strange part is that the people don't recognize the sort of semi gracious covenantal nature of this. Yes.  [00:29:50] Grace In The Hiring [00:29:50] Tony Arsenal: I think, um, you know, there have been times when I, where I've been unemployed, um, not for very long. Now, I know some people face unemployment for a lot longer than I ever have, but I know there was times where I was, I was looking for work and someone would say to me like, Hey, you know, my, my, my lawn needs to be mowed. Could you come over and I'll, I'll give you 25 bucks to mow my lawn. It's a small lawn. Um. That's a gracious act in most cases. Right, right. Um, yes, I'm performing a task. Yes, they're paying me, but they didn't have to offer me that work. They didn't have to offer me that job, especially when it's something that like they could have accomplished themselves. They could have just done it themselves. Um, so I think there's an element of that here, that there's, there's a condescension of the master to these workers, to these laborers who are not part of his household. These are not, they're not slaves. These are not people who are part of his household, who are regular employees. These are people that he goes out into the market to, to find and to hire. And as we see some of, some of these mark, like the difference between the ones that are hired and the ones that are not hired until later in the day, the parable's not super clear about what it is. Just that they're not hired, it doesn't say the lazy ones were left there. The ones were exactly, that were ugly or had like limp legs or like just couldn't cut it. It just says like there was some that didn't get hired. Um, so there's a gracious element of this, and that makes the recognition at the end or the lack of recognition at the end by these full day laborers, the, the sort of like recognition, this, this entitled ness, um, that actually makes it all the worst. It's like the people who are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace. Um, I know all the Baptists in our, our group, their heads just exploded, but like are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace, um, who wanna somehow complain about like the graciousness of the covenant of grace that they're outwardly attached to it. It's just sort of like a form of, of theological and temporary insanity, I think. And that's what we see on full display here.  [00:31:40] Jesse Schwamb: It's definitely all grace. You're right that nobody's gonna get injustice right in this parable. And I think that's definitely exemplified the further out you go in this hiring order. [00:31:49] Eleventh Hour Mercy [00:31:49] Jesse Schwamb: So by the time you get to 5:00 PM which is pretty extraordinary, right? Only really like one hour remains before sense, right? It's the end of the working day.  [00:31:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:31:56] Jesse Schwamb: You can imagine like these guys who are being hired at the hour probably can contribute very little in the last hour of the day, right? But this owner goes out and hires them and no agreement is stated whatsoever. It's just pure grace. The landowner's question, why do you stand here idle all day? I think to your point, underlies their vulnerability. They were not idle by choice, presumably. And so I think we rightly here in this, like a foreshadowing of those who are called the late in redemptive history, Gentile sinners, the seemingly least qualified for kingdom membership. All of that I think is at play and it's all, it's getting this lovely setup of all these groups to help us understand what that kingdom is actually like.  [00:32:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:32:35] Reverse Payroll Setup [00:32:35] Tony Arsenal: And then we have this, um, this is where the sort of dramatic tension turns, right? The end of the day comes and, uh, the master calls the, the people that he brought last, right? He calls the people who'd only been there for an hour and he starts to go down the list of the people who, the people who were last, and the people who came in next. And the people who came in next, right? And the workers who had contracted at the beginning of the day. Um, they're watching this happen and they're kind of going, oh, this is gonna be good. Like, that guy's only been here for an hour and he got a denarius. You know, the logic is probably like, I'm gonna get 12 denarius, like I'm gonna go 12 days worth of work. Um, because I think there's an assumption on their part, um, that the master's fair that he is, he's providing an equitable wage. Um, of course the master is fair, but he's providing an equitable wage that's commensurate with the work delivered. A delivered, delivered, right? And that, that's the key to this parable.  [00:33:26] Merit Mindset Exposed [00:33:26] Tony Arsenal: I think the expectation that God. Helps those who help themselves. Right? God rewards those who put in the hard work. God. God provides blessing or salvation according to the merit provided by the one who's being saved. That perspective is what's on full display here. Yes. By the people who are, uh, the ones who contracted for the full day. They're not thinking about the covenant that they have with this person or the contract they have with this person. They're not thinking about the fact that they agreed to work for the day in order to earn a day's wage. They're thinking about how this actually is gonna work out great in their favor. They're looking at this as a strictly merit-based kind of a, a thing. And you would think that like when the, the one hour people come in, they get a denarius, and then the three hour people come in and they get a denarius. You'd think they would pick up on it at some point, but then in the course of the payroll, it doesn't seem that they do. They still get to the bottom of the list and think they're gonna get more compared to the other people who all got the same.  [00:34:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that display piece is critical to this. It is like complete setup. Like you can imagine he, the landowner calling everybody together at the end of the day and they're all standing around. Some of them are exhausted because they've again born all their work in the heat of the day on their backs. They're tired, they're dirty, maybe they're exhausted. And he starts in this reverse order. And by the way, we should note that there is something here that's beautiful in that the law, the landowner is law abiding because right evening payment is mandated in the Torah. So we see all this taking place as to fulfill the law in some ways. But the reversal of the order that last of first is like such deliberative and good narrative storytelling and staging, isn't it? 'cause it ensures that the first hired workers are going to witness the payment of those who work the least. And if without that order, if you just did it the other way around, the more a crisis of the parable disc like completely goes away.  [00:35:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:35:10] Jesse Schwamb: So this execution of the payment at the owner's will, it just shows that he has. He's completely independent. His sovereignty belong. The sovereignty belongs to the master alone. And so this 11th hour workers receiving a full day's wage for one hour of work, that's like an act of sheer generosity. It's not proportional justice. And I think as reform, people, maybe all of us at some point have had this conversation about predestination and justice and mercy. And again, really I think putting a crowbar between this idea that nobody is receiving injustice, but some are receiving mercy and grace. And here these first hired workers seeing this form, like you said, this expectation that they're gonna receive more, like you said, where that came from. Yeah, it's just them, right? It's purely manufactured in their own reasoning. It's not anchored in the covenantal promise and certainly not witnessed in the grace that they should be receive, like perceiving as the payments get doled out, like sequentially moving in their reverse order toward those who have worked the longest. But their expectation reveals that they have fundamentally misread like the landowner's character. They're still operating in the register of a contract and not grace.  [00:36:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And you know, I think to sort of lock this covenant covenantal frame and sort of like lack of recognition of the covenant into place too, when you look at the language of this parable, um, and especially kind of what it's following up on, it's coming on the heels of this interaction with this rich, rich young ruler who comes in and he thinks that he's gonna earn eternal life by keeping the commandments. Um, and, and he, he has this outward sense or this outward display of pty. He's calling Jesus good. He's saying he, you know, he keeps the commandments, Jesus doesn't even disagree with him actually, that he has connect. Yes. You know, I think it's implied that, well, of course you haven't, but he, he still is graciously trying to like, convince this guy, no, you actually need to abandon your self righteousness and, and pursue and follow me. Um. But this is a parable where like other people are listening, right? There's other witnesses. This isn't like the rich young ruler came to him in the middle of the night, like Nicodemus. This is something that's happened on PO on in the public. So we can anticipate that the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and the lawyers were all aware of this. They may have been there, but they were at least aware of this happening. And I think there's some language in here that is actually directed at those people.  [00:37:30] Grumbling As Accusation [00:37:30] Tony Arsenal: And, and here's where it comes in, is you get to verse, um, we'll start reading again at verse nine. It says, when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now, when those hired first came, so we're referring to the people who are hired at the beginning of the day. Now, when those who were hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius and on receiving it, right? So this is as, this is, um, uh, just unbelievable as they're receiving the denarius on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house. Now, just the way that I read that and said the word grumbled tells you that that word is really important here. Yes. If you look at this Greek word. And you compare it to the, the word, the usage of this word in the, the, um, Sept. Yes. Which of course is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This word most commonly appears in the wilderness wandering accounts. [00:38:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:38:23] Tony Arsenal: Right. And the, the primary sin of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering was grumbling against the Lord. And this grumbling against the Lord in that context is not just a general complaining, right. It's not just like a, a sort of like a, a general dissatisfaction or like murmuring. This isn't like water cooler frustration about your boss. The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation, right. So this is tied to the, the accounts where Moses first is told to strike the rock, and he does so when the water comes out, and then second is told to speak to the rock, but he strikes it. I won't go into all the details, but the scene that's being, being displayed there is the people come, they accuse the Lord of abandoning them into the wilderness. And this scene where Moses is set up on the rock and he strikes the rock, that scene is a judicial scene. The people have filed a covenant accusation against the Lord, and in reality, it's the people who have been unfaithful. But the Lord standing in the place of the rock is the one who is struck, right? Jesus was the rock in the wilderness from which the water came. Paul says that in First Corinthians, right? So this language of grumbling in this is not just, they're not just complaining about the fact that they didn't get what they thought they were going to, they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made. So they're, they're still locked into this merit-based. This merit-based idea even more than it seemed at first, right? There's a logic to the idea that like, oh, if the, the master is actually paying a wage of one denarius for per hour, like there's a logic to that. But it's not just that they're saying, and this is, this explains the response of the master. It's not just that they're saying like, Hey, wait a second, like the wage rate that you're paying is not right. They're saying you have violated the terms of our covenant in the way that you have paid us. 'cause it's upon receiving it that they complain or they grumble and the master says more or less like, Hey. You agreed with me for one Denarius, I'm giving you what you've earned. I'm giving you what you agreed on. Why don't you take it and go. So the answer is not to try to justify why he is free to pay these other people more, or why he's free to pay these people a perceived less. The answer is, again, they're complaining against the covenant. He is bringing it back to the covenant saying, well, here's what the covenant relationship was. You work for the day. I give you Denarius. We're square here, we're on the same page. We've fulfilled our covenant obligations, and you've received your reward for that. So I, I think that's another thing we have to lock in here is this is not just a general idea of like unfairness that's being presented. This is not just a general idea that people are saying the master of the house is unfair. They're saying he's covenantal. Unfaithful. Right? That's a pretty big accusation.  [00:41:09] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that is, thank you by the way, for completely stealing the whole tugen thing from me. Like I was just going hot to Tugen to find that reference. And now all I can do is add to it. So that is from at least one of those occasions, a number 16, and I just wanna read the verse. This is 16 six. So Moses and Aaron said to all the sons of Israel at evening, you will know that Yahweh has brought you outta the land of Egypt. And in the morning you will see the glory of Yahweh for he hears your grumblings against Yahweh. And what we are that you grumble against us. So I'm totally with you. This is not subtle. The workers first complaint here, the first workers' complaint is like theologically serious. Uh, I think that's what you're hitting us on. Like it charges the owner with injustice. Right. And as I read it, the grievance has like two layers or two parts, I would say. One is this comparative part, which is basically saying, you made us equal to them. Right? And the second be like a meritorious part, they have worked harder and in worse conditions. And that's why they say things like, it's, it's all inflammatory language, isn't it? Like the scorching heat emphasizes like the real bodily cost and their complaint. I think if we're honest, it's not irrational, but it's spiritually revealing at least because Right, they believe their greater effort, mayors greater reward and they resent that grace shown to others. So like you said, they're bringing forward a very serious grievance and it's, it's not just like, Hey, we think maybe could you give us a bonus? Right. But that is a matter of faithfulness. And in fact, like as I'm looking at this tugen here, shout out to logos Bible software. And I'm saying that that verb that we're talking about in Exodus 16 is in the imperfect tense. So this is, they kept on grumbling and it is like an an echo of Israel's murmuring in the wilderness, which I presume like Matthew certainly had intentionally used there or had that view in part casting these workers as the same types of those who relate to God through entitlement rather than gratitude. So it's like insults upon insult here, but it is to emphasize this fact that it's no small accusation, it's not subtle, it's meant to be in your face. They're coming in hot with this and they're making a big deal about it.  [00:43:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and again, I think like underscoring the covenantal nature of this is so key. And I think, you know, when we look at this, we really have to land that this is not just saying. Your wage structure is not right. 'cause and, and we gotta remember, they weren't there when the master went and made this bargain, or, you know, brought these other workers into the vineyard. They weren't there to hear what covenant or contract he did or didn't make. And as we've commented, they didn't, he didn't even make a covenant with them. He basically just said, I'm gonna put you to work and I'll pay you what's fair. I'll pay you what's right. Um, and they went, okay, you need the work and thank you. Like, I think, I think that's kind of like the, the scene here is they're standing there. They recognize they're not gonna get a wage for the day, especially these ones that he's coming in at the 11th hour, they're not gonna get a wage for the day. And as you said, these are subsistence workers. Right. These are people that if you don't get a wage, and this is the, the grounding of the Old Testament, um, the Old Testament command of, of paying at the end of the day is that if they don't get their wage, they're not gonna eat. They're not gonna have food, they're not gonna have the money they need to survive. Um, so he comes in and he basically says like. You don't have a job that's not gonna be good for you. I'll take care of you. I'll, I'll give you a job and I'll take care of you. And the ones who are complaining and grumbling, they have no line of sight to that process. That, that's right. They make a lot of assumptions about the, and this is, goes back to, um. The parable of the talents, which we haven't really talked about yet. The, the, there's a lot of assumptions about the nature of this master that the, the contracted or covenanted day laborers are making that don't turn out to be accurate. Right. They, they assume that he's working, as you've said, that he's working on this one-to-one, you know, quid pro quo. You do this, I do that kind of a, a methodology and he's actually operating on a basis of a much more. Basic, uh, grace principle. Uh, and again, even, even the principle of hiring these original workers and covenanting with them is gracious in the sense that he didn't have to hire them. Right. So, so all along the way they're, they're, it's like the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth.  [00:45:24] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:45:24] Tony Arsenal: They've been hired, and so yes, it is right for them to expect their, um, to expect their wage, whatever that wage might be. But they, they are misinterpreting the idea of what the wages are and how the wages are to be delivered. They're, they're applying, this is actually a lot like job's, friends, right? Their, their logic is not actually all that bad, but they have, they have missing parts of the picture that makes the logic. Apply differently in this particular situation. They think that this, this master works on a strict merit-based. You do X amount of work, you receive X amount of money. And this master is actually more functioning on this covenantal principle of, I'm gonna pay you what's right, regardless of what, what work you've done, which, what work is actually owed to you. And the master makes these, this agreement with these other workers to just say, go into the vineyard and then when the evening comes, I'll pay you. Right. Well, he intended to pay them what they needed to survive, regardless of how much work they provided. Right? So they're all, even though there's a formal contract to say these, this group works for the whole day and this group, you know, and, and they receive one day's labor, at the end of the day, he's graciously providing another day of survival for all of these people, for the work that they're, they're putting forward regardless of how much they actually contribute to his bottom line. [00:46:41] Owner Defends The Covenant [00:46:41] Jesse Schwamb: And we see that in verse 13, where the landowner gives his defense, you know, it says. He and he replied, friends, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for Denarius? Now the address, because now I'm deep in the Greek Tony. Here we go. So the address I'm seeing in, uh, again, shout out to Locus Bible software, it, this use of friend is not like the warm fellows, but like a more formal or distance term of address. It's used elsewhere in Matthew. But I think the point here is that the owner's first line of defense is this contractual point, which you're saying. I have not wronged you. He's kept his agreement precisely. No injustice has been done. And that's crucial. The owner doesn't re appreciate justice. He actually fulfills it. He obligates himself and he fulfills that obligation. And what the worker receives is exactly what was promised and exactly what is due. And so by the time he gets to verse 14 where he says, take what belongs to you, and go, I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you here. I think this is like the theological beating hide of this whole bad boy. Yeah.  [00:47:37] Jesse Schwamb: The landowner explicitly invokes his will, his sovereign freedom to do and to give as he pleases, which is exactly how God behaves. It's not a negation of justice, but this declaration of something beyond justice, it is grace. He exercises his freedom and generosity to those who had no claim, and the command, take what belongs to you and go is, is kind of like a world dismissal, like, like you were saying. Yeah. We're in the courtroom. He's like, I, I've ruled on this already. Like, bring Brian, bring your grievance. Here's my ruling. Take what you have and go. Their grumbling has revealed that they're not celebrating the kingdom. They're actually grieving it. So yeah, you know, I think original invocation of like Jonah is right on the money. It's basically like, are are you mad enough? Yeah, I'm mad enough to die. Like, how dare you give me, give me this great shade and then take it away from me. Yeah. And in some ways this is even worse because what they have been given has been that were promised to them, was given to them, and they get to retain and God says, go, or the landowner as God says, go now and take what is yours. Take what I've given to you graciously. But your point that like what supersedes that, the antecedent to all of that is still God's covenant keeping, covenant making promise, making, right? That sets the whole thing up. But I love this idea that, you know, I will choose, it's my desire, it's language of divine volition. And of course the reform theology, this single verb resonates with the entire doctrine of election. It's God's free, sovereign, and gracious will to bestow blessing without reference to merit, like praise his name.  [00:49:00] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And then we come to kind of the close of this parable, right? And this is, this reall