Podcasts about then matthew

Listener Zach delivers a pitch for a faith based remake of "What About Bob?" (0:05). Then Matthew rants about March Madness (11:30). Then Casey takes some Girl Talk questions about being tired and books (16:45). Finally, listener Amy plays us out with some piano music

Sakamichi Brewing is located in Tachikawa, Tokyo. Each episode Daniel and Matthew pick a beer or two from the menu and talk about it a bit. This week we tried some of the excellent Wait and Hope from Nara Brewing, and the delicious Hop and Escape from West Coast Brewing. Both are breweries with a strong visual language, so we also talked a bit about our own experience of trying to establish our identity in the Japanese craft beer world. Then Matthew went on a bit of a weird rant about commodity fetishism. Also mentioned were Baird Brewing in Shizuoka, Vertere in Okutama, and Modern Times in California. Find us on Twitter at @sakamichi_beer Find us on Instagram at @sakamichibrewing Find us on Facebook at @SakamichiBrewing Music by Zen_Man from Pixabay

In this week's episode, Casey Scott and Dr. Matt Woolley are joined by Matthew Jackson, a former BYU professor, to talk about Matthew's experimentation with substances growing up in a small town, the shame he felt after his addiction became more well known, and how a spiritual awakening led him to experience recovery for the first time. Then Matthew talks about his life without substance abuse, how pursuing his Ph.D. led to a  reliance on caffeine, and his decision to begin abusing energy drinks and pain pills in order to stay focused on his goals. Matthew also talks about the "Holy Trinity" of addiction, the events that led to his rock bottom, and what his recovery looks like now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matthew Coller gives a quick reaction to the news that Dak Prescott has signed a mega contract with the Dallas Cowboys and what that might mean for Kirk Cousins's future plus a franchise tag for Brandon Scherff. Then Matthew is joined by Saints reporter Nick Underhill to talk about how the Saints' QB situation is being overlooked. And how will they get out of cap hell? And then Matthew answers questions from listeners about how the Vikings should build their roster and about how to look at a team analytically.

Matthew and Casey lead things off with FSBT Update (0:05). Then Matthew remembers Carman (12:00). Casey then hosts a quick installment of Girl Talk (24:00) and answers a question about bras. Finally, Casey live-edits another chapter of Matthew's upcoming book Evangelical Thought Leader (35:00)

Robert begins by sharing the story of how he and Matthew met at the Inaugural Chantilly Concours and shared a deeper appreciation for art and luxury (1:05). Then Matthew shares his unconventional path to a men's style expert through photography (4:15), the founding of the William Brown Project (5:50), and the origins of his latest book, "A Man & His Car" (7:07). Then Matthew shares how and why watches and cars have so much overlap in those people who appreciate design and craftsmanship (10:47), before explaining why some innocuous cars are important because of the stories around them (13:55), and Matthew shares the behind the scenes from Alex Kraft's very unique Ferrari (16:57). After a short break, Matthew shares some of his favorite cars and stories in the book (18:30) and what made the archival portions of his book so exciting (24:30). Then he shares how to make a perfect Martini (30:10), what three cars he'd love to have in his garage (33:14), and how you can check out The William Brown Project (34:43). (Remember to use local bookstores to purchase his book!) Learn More: https://www.workman.com/products/a-man-his-car https://www.thewilliambrownproject.com/ https://www.instagram.com/wmbrownproject/ ------------------ Learn More: Cars That Matter Follow Us: Instagram | Facebook | Twitter Hosted by: Robert Ross Produced and Edited by: Chris Porter Theme Music by: Celleste and Eric Dick A CurtCo Media production   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Plant Daddies are ready to roll up their sleeves and dive into their houseplant trend predictions for 2021! Anyone surprised that Aroids and Hoyas feature heavily? They're also ready to vent about the 'It Plants' that disappointed them the most last year. Do the laws of physics apply to these plant fads? Let's just humor Stephen and say "yes." Then Matthew shares why we haven't released that Philodendron Birkin episode yet.

Casey talks about getting hit on by Tom Arnold and has some fun with it (4:30). Then Matthew introduces a new mega-batch of Christian Tweets (15:30). Finally, Matthew and Casey play a round of Rant Swaps that predictably goes off the rails (47:30)

Listener-submitted bad Christmas takes! (0:05) Then Matthew imitates various celebrities flirting with Beth Moore, before Casey shares some thoughts about Beth's Trumpism thread that got everyone talking (4:30). Casey gets attacked by a ghost? (26:00) Finally, Matthew and Casey goof off with their own bad Christmas takes (36:00)

Host J.D. Reager is joined by one of his all-time favorite songwriters, Matthew Caws of Nada Surf. They talk about the election results and how Matthew found inspiration in America's deep political divide, meeting and recording with Ric Ocasek, the band's relationship to their breakthrough hit "Popular," how the album Let Go brought them back after a career setback and his solo collaborations with Telekinesis and Juliana Hatfield. Then Matthew performs the Nada Surf song "Just Wait." --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Matthew and Casey begin with an absolutely incredible rap sent in by listener Sean (2:00). Then Matthew unveils the Build Your Own Thanksgiving segment (11:30). Finally, Casey brings a round of CCM Name That Tune and all listeners are invited to try to beat Matthew's (very troubling!) score of 40. link to Cobra Kai's pod: https://open.spotify.com/show/3wUU1Nh9qEu9mSZZV1WKYo?si=75kjCTcHRYiybHNsoB0Uww

Casey brings another round of conversation starters in Shoot the Shoot (0:05) including movie snacks, chores, and zombies. Then Matthew fields a dating question from Bekah (17:00). Then Casey runs another intimacy article-based mad lib (20:15) before Matthew brings out his teenage writing for a game of finish the prompt (30:00)

Join us as we discuss parts 5 and 6 of Shadow of Night by Deborah Harkness.  A jousting game goes awry and we debate relationship boundaries.  Diana gets some unexpected fatherly advice.  The rules of time travel get confusing.  Then Matthew and Diana go back to the future.

Casey talks about her ongoing quest to get to 1k Twitter followers, it's fine, it's no big deal (0:10). Then we bring out a stunning new batch of Christian Tweets (13:30). Then Matthew gets weird about orange juice (34:45) Finally, we play a marathon game of FSBT Would You Rather (37:45)

Intern Cobra Kai checks in from his professor's basement with a plan to wear a FSBT shirt at his Christian college without getting suspended (0:10). Then Matthew rebuts Casey's dumb Bible men segment with a dumb Bible women segment (16:00). Finally, Casey brings out some real or fake headlines (32:30)

Matthew Socey speaks with broadcaster, author and cook Simon Majumdar about fourth season of Simon's podcast Eat My Globe (which launched last week), cooking and film watching while at home. Then Matthew reads what parts of the Facebook and Twitter universes have watched in the past week. Grab a pencil.

Matthew Socey speaks with broadcaster, author and cook Simon Majumdar about fourth season of Simon's podcast Eat My Globe (which launched last week), cooking and film watching while at home. Then Matthew reads what parts of the Facebook and Twitter universes have watched in the past week. Grab a pencil.

Understanding our current food system, where it came from and especially where it might go is much easier if one understands history. Our field needs historians, thoughtful scholars who can do deep exploration of what has preceded the snapshot in time that represents what we're experiencing today. This is why an exciting development was the recent publication of a book entitled Food Fights edited by two historians at North Carolina State University, Charles Ludington and Matthew Booker. We're joined today by both of the editors. About Charles Ludington and Matthew Booker Charles Ludington is teaching associate professor in the department of history at North Carolina State University. He has taught and written about food history including the book entitled The Politics of Wine In Britain, The New Cultural History. Matthew Booker is associate professor of environmental history at North Carolina State university. He has written about oyster growers and oyster pirates, that would be interesting to talk about. This current book explores the rise and fall of aquaculture in American industrial cities.   Interview Summary Guys, thanks very much for joining us. And let's begin with the following question. Food Fights, your book, is described as a book that looks at food and food related debates through a historical lens. What does that mean, looking at things through a historical lens? The basic idea is that we think that looking at the past of the current debates that we're having, the origins of these debates, that helps us to understand a little more why we are here in the first place. For example, why it is we have the Farm Bill. So, looking at the past and the origins of the Farm Bill helps us to, I think, take some heat off the pressure of the debate and people blaming each other for this and that and neither side seeing things in wholly black and white terms. The idea is to take a variety of debates that we think are prominent in society, today and looking at their origins in order to understand why we're here and hopefully by doing that we can move forward. Yeah, just to pile on, I think Chad has really explained the point of the thing, which is that as historians, we always feel that there are roots and often invisible roots to the questions we debate in the present. Many of our current problems today are actually the results of solutions of yesteryear. Chad mentioned the Farm Bill, the origins of food subsidies in the United States. Food subsidies today are very unpopular on the extreme right and on the left of American politics, but those subsidies exist because in the 1930s the United States faced a real crisis for agriculture for farmers. So, there are good historical reasons why we have those subsidies. They may no longer serve exactly the purposes they were originally intended for, but there are good historical reasons why they exist. So Matthew, there are a lot of things historians could choose to look at. Why have folks decided to look at food as a way of looking at the history and vice versa? We both, I think I'm speaking for Chad here, we both feel that food as something that occupies every human being on a daily level is an absolutely perfect way to get through and into the deepest questions we ask as people. In other words, food is a kind of repository for all of the hopes and dreams and fears of modern society. If you're interested in policy for example of any kind, you can find some of our most interesting policy debates in the questions we ask about what shall we eat? Who should produce it? And under what conditions? If you're interested in the role of gender and class and race as we are as historians, all of those things are inherent in the way that we produce and consume food. And then of course, our questions of the way we relate to the world around us, the environmental questions they're all caught up in our food system, which is a major contributor to climate change and is also perhaps a path to a less carbon dense future. Why did you decide to set the book up as a series of debates between leading scholars and food and agriculture? That's an excellent question. We wanted to do that because first of all, the book itself stems from a conference that we had at NC State that Matthew and I organized at NC State. And in taking all these ideas, we realized we had a number of divergent opinions and that the best way to present these might be a series of debates in which the authors actually speak to each other, hopefully thereby providing an example of civil discourse. Not that scholars generally have a problem with that, but I would say in broader society that's becoming more and more difficult. By having these debates showing that there are multiple valid sides to these arguments, that it's not necessarily black and white. In fact, it's almost never black and white, we thought this format would be both engaging for the reader and also educational in as much as people would understand that these ideas are held very passionately by historians who spend a lot of time studying these issues and that we're not going to simply solve the problem by declaring one side the Victor and the other side evil. We have to move forward with these debates. So, let's go ahead and have a book that actually sets out these debates, not necessarily attacking each other's points, but certainly pointing out strengths and weaknesses. And hopefully that way we can, over time, begin to build a consensus about how we might move forward. Can you give us some examples of some of the topics covered in the book? A woman named Margaret Mellon who is both a scientist and a lawyer by training, she writes about genetic modification or genetic engineering, as she prefers to call it, and suggests that it's not delivered on almost all the promises that it made back in the 70s and 80s when it was really emerging as a field. At the same time, she doesn't condemn it also, but says that there's a place for genetically engineered food, but it's not nearly as great as many in the food industry might claim that, nor is there an evil. We move onto, from there, Peter Coclanis, a professor at UNC, goes on to defend a big ag, as it's called, saying that big ag has done wonders for the American economy. It's a huge success story and that in the 19th century we envisioned a world in which agriculture was run as it is today. And we now produce huge amounts of food and the American family spends, broadly speaking, around 10% of their income on food, which is historically speaking a very, very low figure. And he suggests our system might not be perfect, but in many ways it's done exactly what we as a society in the 19th century and the early 20th century wanted it to do and we should be very proud of that fact, despite the imperfections. And then Steve Striffler (University of Massachussets-Boston) who says, "Well wait a minute though, all of these things overlook workers. Our food system has the biggest problem and the fact that labor is so often overlooked." So, that section on producing food really takes on some major, major arguments. Especially Steve's argument is particularly interesting in my mind because he tackles the very food movement of which the book itself was a product, but he tackled it from the left basically saying that the big problem is the capitalist system itself and the way it treats workers. And none of the attempts at organic food, the organic food movement and food co-ops and all of this, none of these things will actually address the major problems, which is the way that the workers are treated, the way the animals are treated. Because most of our food movements are all consumer-based and we need to move away from that to worker-based or producer-based food movement. So, right away we get into some very contentious debates. Choosing food, has number of articles about taste and taste and social class and nutrition and the way that nutrition changes very often. And Charlotte Biltekoff (University of California-Davis) argues there is that nutrition, in many ways, follows both the desires and the values of elites in society. And that's why it often changes. Matthew's chapter is on food safety. My wife Sarah Ludington has written on food subsidies. And then section four is gendering food, babies and baby food and also on who cooks at home. And then finally cooking and eating food. Is it important to cook? The Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman on the one side as represented by Ken Albala (University of the Pacific) in his essay. And then Rachel Laudan (University of Texas-Austin) chimes in with a response saying, "Yeah, that's a very romantic notion of the kitchen and of food and we need to move beyond that." So, Matthew, let me ask you this question. What are some of the key ideas in the book that address the issue of how we think of a healthy meal? Throughout the book there's a basic assumption and it's inherent in the title that there are reasonable and thoughtful positions on most of the major debates. We wanted to present the best arguments for, for example, cheap processed food and the best arguments against cheap processed food. We wanted those to be there so that readers whom we imagine as undergraduates, as well as the broad public, could make up their own minds and have evidence to do it. So that they're not operating from a set of opinions or just one side on the issue. To get back to your question about the home cooked meal or about what is a good meal, our final essays are this wonderful back and forth between two extremely strong voices on the topic of the home cooked meal. The first is by Ken Abala, who is a food study scholar, widely published, a really interesting thoughtful person. His is called A Plea For Culinary Luddism and so he's arguing that cooking food at home and cooking for others, in particular, gives us joy. It really is a way of connecting with other people. It's an act of love and that we should all do it as much of it as we can. And that's kind of his argument. But it's followed by Rachel Laudan, who's a quite well known food studies scholar in her own right. She's rewritten her famous essay actually in food studies. She's retitled it A Plea For Culinary Modernism, Why We Should Love Fast Modern Processed Food. And Rachel Laudan points out that it is beautiful and wonderful to cook for others, but that much of the time that cooking is done by people who are overworked, who are underpaid and who are working a second shift or sometimes a third shift. And in other words, women. And that the modern fast processed food system has given American workers and American working class people and women in particular, this enormous gift of time. Sometimes time to be with their families. So, what does a good meal turns out to be a fairly rich question and one that is not simple. It's not as simple as, we should all cook more at home. A woman named Margo Finn at Michigan argues that it's social class more than anything else that determines taste and that tastes changes over time precisely because when something becomes popular, say sushi, which might be a mark of distinction 15 years ago because it's foreign, so it gives you social cachet. You travel, as it were, when you eat sushi. There was a time when sushi was consumed largely by wealthy Americans, but that as it's become popularized, the elite move on to some other type of food in order to stay ahead of the game and she sees most of tastes as being a product of that. She also argues that taste and what we eat is something that helps to position us in society and at a time in American society when there's ever greater disparity in incomes, tastes and eating and food is something that has relatively low entry cost for consumers. So that those people with a great deal of cultural capital but not a great deal of financial capital can nevertheless place themselves fairly high up in society by eating organic foods and going to the farmer's market and doing things that give them, again, a certain cultural cache. I come along in my essay and say that class is very much a part of taste and what determines what we think is best. But it's not simply that food is gendered and so often make decisions based on how we want to define ourselves as men, as women or as non-binary. Because food itself has a gender that we give it. I talk about authenticity in the way that we often eat in order to be perceived as authentic and to think of ourselves as authentic. I write about taste for beer in America and on the one hand you have people who drink craft beer. Well, they might like craft beer, but part of it too is to say that, "I'm drinking a beer that has a history, this is the way beer used to be made. And so therefore, I myself am more authentic when I drink this craft beer." Well, of course, others come along and say, "I actually drink Bud Light because that's a real beer. It's none of this hoity-toity stuff. This is what gives me authenticity, is by drinking, Bud Light." Authenticity, gender, social class, ethnicity. All of these things come into play and help to determine what forms our taste. It's quite complex, but it's an ever moving target also because, as you know, what we're eating today probably won't be what we're eating five, 10 years from now. I'd like to end with asking you each the following question. Then Matthew, why don't we hear from you first. What were your favorite anecdotes or stories in the book or things that surprised you the most? I especially loved essays by Sarah Ludington and Peter Coclanis, but those two especially appealed to me. And in Peter's case, it's the humor that he brought with him to the topic. He's defending industrial agriculture, which is not frequently done, it isn't. And if it is done in American popular writing or in academic writing for that matter, Peter's case is very different. He's defending industrial agriculture as an economist and historian. But his larger point is that this is a field, this is an industry, our first national industry, agriculture, that has driven almost all of our other industries. That innovation, for example, much of American innovation comes out of agriculture. And so, if you look at the patent office postings filings from the 19th century, what you see is thousands and thousands of different innovations, patents for agricultural implements, but also bread slicers and apple corers. And so I think that's the anecdote that sticks with me. I'm a big fan of my wife's essay, not simply because she is my wife, but because it's a really wonderful history that hasn't been written before. It's a very straightforward history of the Farm Bill and food subsidies. And it really simplifies the story so that people can understand why the Farm Bill emerged, what it does today, and I think that that's going to be a very important essay. As Matthew pointed out earlier, both on the right and left, there's a lot of critiques of the Farm Bill and of food subsidies because, of course, the Farm Bill is not only about subsidizing farmers, roughly 80%. It's about the SNAP program, what we used to call food stamps. That essay I think is really going to be very important the way that it just takes this issue on without a political agenda and helps to explain both sides. I also really like Rachel Laudan's postscript, because the essay that she wrote for is a reprint of a very famous essay that she wrote, I think, first back in 2001. This new postscript helps to describe what she thinks are the four different ways in which people think about food. She calls one the aristocratic, was the old European way of looking at it. Then there's the Republican philosophy of food, which she says is broadly speaking, a lowercase R Republican. It is the American way of looking at food, which is food should be plentiful, that we should share it together, et cetera, et cetera. And then she goes on to talk about the romantic conception of food and the socialist conception of food. And in many ways, she's absolutely right. When we think about ourselves as individuals and how we imagine cooking and eating and producing food, we almost all fall into one of these four categories. And so it really helps us get broader picture about both the past, but also the present.

The Jewish authorities challenged Jesus about His own authority. His response merely revealed their hypocrisy. Then Matthew records a parable he told about hypocrisy and repentance. In it we find a vital principle for our lives today.

Join us as we geek out about propagation, from aroids to succulents, where we'll try to take you a level or two deeper than just *how* to do it. Why does propagation from leaf cuttings work for some plants but not others? And why didn't that heart-shaped Hoya kerrii turn into a full plant? Then Matthew tries to move some of his plants into Stephen's windows. Stephen says NO.

That quote comes from St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa. So what do we do about gay pride and straight pride? Should we really be proud? Or should we be humble? Then: Matthew looks back on the political happenings in NC for the month of August: Trump calls out Gov, Roy Cooper, North Carolina's get a tax refund, and Lt. Gov. Dan Forest announces his bid for Gov. Final Thoughts: Doctors in South Africa don't want to perform abortions and it is angering pro-abortion advocates in the region. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lastweek/message

Matthew, Casey and Danny play a sex-ed board game sent in by a listener (3:00). Then Matthew goes into hot take mode on the Tom Hanks Mr. Rogers movie (28:00). Finally, things go completely off the rails when we discuss Mr. Rogers and intimacy, which is completely inappropriate, do not listen to this segment (37:45)

Casey tries to make Matthew uncomfortable with an extended CCM playlist of inappropriate-sounding songs (1:30). Then Matthew talks about FSBT topics that will never make it onto the show (9:00). Casey leads a discussion on dad bods (16:00) before a round of listener comments (25:00). Then Matthew pays Casey five dollars to perform an Ann Voskamp facebook post (44:30). Also: staplers (50:00)

As we turn now to what the New Testament teaches about healing we will consider first the ministry of Jesus as it is revealed in the four Gospels. We will take representative examples from each. In Matthew’s Gospel I have chosen the healings recorded in Matthew 8:1-17 because: After the general statement about Jesus’ healings in Matthew 4, this is the first record of specific healings found in Matthew. The passage appears to be fairly representative of the healings of Jesus recorded in Matthew. The specific healings recorded can teach us much about Jesus’ healing ministry. The passage concludes with the controversial quote from Isaiah 53 to which we shall return when we discuss healing in relation to the atonement in Part Two of this book.   This passage records the healing of a man with leprosy (vv.1-4), the healing of a centurion’s servant (vv. 5-13), and the healing of many, including Peter’s mother-in-law (vv. 14-17). We will deal with each of these in turn.   The Man with Leprosy (vv.1-4) After the teaching Jesus gave in chapters 5-7, which is often referred to as The Sermon on the Mount, large crowds followed him as he came down from the mountainside (8:1). Then Matthew tells us that: A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean”. Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing”, he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured of his leprosy (vv. 2-3).   To appreciate the full significance of this it is important that we understand certain things about leprosy. It was a highly contagious disease which at that time was medically incurable. Consequently lepers were the outcasts of society, being forced to live apart for fear that others might catch the disease (Leviticus 13:46). The first thing to notice here is that the leper did not doubt Jesus’ ability to heal, but he was unsure if Jesus would be willing. His faith that Jesus could heal him was probably based on what he had already heard of Jesus’ miracle working ministry described briefly by Matthew in 4:23-24. It is sometimes said that to be healed we need to believe not only that God can heal us but also that he will. But the Bible nowhere states this and the leper’s healing seems to contradict such teaching. Secondly, Jesus’ reply to the leper is noteworthy. I am willing, he says. In fact, his willingness to heal is evident right through this passage as we shall see when we come to examine the other healings recorded in Matthew 8. Indeed it is evident throughout the Gospels. However, it is especially noticeable here, as the leper is the only person mentioned in the New Testament who asks the Lord to heal him if it is his will. The fact that Jesus responds in the way he does, affirming that it is his will to heal, must surely suggest that that when praying for the sick we should always assume that it is God’s will to heal, for as we have said, in the person and ministry of Jesus we have the final revelation of the nature and purpose of God. Next, it is important to notice the compassion of Jesus. He touches the leper! This was contrary to the Levitical law, but for Jesus love is the fulfilment of the law. It is difficult to imagine the emotional impact that his touch would have made upon the leper. We do not know how long he had had the disease, but ever since he contracted it few if any would have touched him. Now Jesus touches him. This may simply indicate that his power was often conveyed by a touch – cf. the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in v. 15 – but it seems also to demonstrate Jesus’ love and concern for the marginalised in society. But, of course, it is one thing to have compassion on the sick and to be willing to heal them. It is quite another to have the power to do so. As we will see in the next section, Jesus was a man under authority and his power to heal was directly related to that authority. He only acted in obedience to his Father. On one occasion, when challenged about his authority to heal, he replied: I tell you the truth. The Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father doing (John 5:19).   This was the secret of his authority and the power of his word. He lived in submission to his Father and he knew his Father’s will. So now to the leper he says, Be clean! And he is clean – immediately! One word from the Master is enough. When he commands, it is so! In fact, throughout this chapter, as we will see, Matthew is emphasising the power of the word of Jesus (cf. vv. 8, 16). Finally, Jesus commands the man: See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded as a testimony to them (v. 4).   See that you don’t tell anyone presumably means ‘Don’t tell anyone about this before you see the priest’. It cannot mean that he was never to tell anyone in the light of the words as a testimony to them later in the verse. The instruction to go to the priest was in line with the command concerning lepers given in Leviticus 14:2-32. It was the priest who would certify the cure. So, as a testimony to them probably means ‘as evidence that you have been healed and may therefore be restored to the community rather than living apart’. Jesus was not just concerned with the man’s physical condition, but with his social and spiritual needs too. His healing meant full reintegration into society and admission to the synagogue from which he had been barred as unclean. The Faith of the Centurion (vv. 5-13) In the next passage Matthew records the healing of a centurion’s servant. He says: 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help. 6 “Lord”, he said, “my servant lies at home paralysed and in terrible suffering. 7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him”.  8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go’, and he goes; and that one, ‘Come’, and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this’, and he does it” (Matthew 8:5-9).   On hearing this Jesus was amazed at the man’s faith (v.10) and told him, Go! It will be done just as you believed it would and his servant was healed at that very hour (v.13). In some ways this passage teaches us lessons similar to those learnt from the healing of the leper. We notice again: Jesus’ willingness to heal (v. 7) The power of his word (vv. 8, 13) The immediacy of the healing (v. 13) However, there are some added features in this story which are of great importance. These include: Jesus’ willingnessto heal a Gentile The secret of Jesus’ authority The role of faith. Jesus’ willingness to heal a Gentile (vv. 7-8) During his earthly life Jesus’ healing ministry was confined almost exclusively to Israel. This is clear from the record of his healings in the Gospels and from his statement in Matthew 15:24, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. However, when Gentiles came to him in faith he granted their request. When a Canaanite woman came to him asking for help for her daughter who was suffering terribly (Matthew 15:21-28), Jesus was amazed at her faith and healed her daughter, like the centurion’s servant, at a distance. In the case of the centurion, Jesus actually states that he has not found anyone in Israel with such great faith (Matthew 8:10). He goes on to say: I say to you that many will come from the east and west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside… (Matthew 8:11-12).   This wonderfully illustrates the truth, later to be so clearly stated by the apostle Paul in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, that it is not our nationality or our physical ancestry which pleases God and makes us one of his children, but our faith. The healing of the centurion’s servant, therefore, points us forward to the end of the Gospel where Jesus, having died for the sins of the world, would commission his followers to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20).     The secret of Jesus’ authority (vv. 8-9) Jesus was amazed at the centurion’s faith apparently because he believed that Jesus could not only heal, but heal at a distance (v.8)! He also seemed to understand that one word from Jesus was enough. His reason for saying this was simple. He recognised that Jesus was a man under divine authority. As a Roman centurion he had one hundred men under his command. But his authority over those men sprang from the fact that he himself was under authority (v.9). If he had rebelled against the authority of the general at the head of his legion he would have been stripped of his rank and would have lost his authority over his men. He understood that to have authority one must first be under authority. The fact that Matthew quotes the centurion in detail here shows that he intends us to understand that the centurion had accurately assessed the reason for Jesus’ authority. Jesus could do the miraculous things he did because he lived the whole of his life under the authority of his Father. Satan had tempted him to submit to his authority (Matthew 4:9) promising all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would do so, but Jesus resisted the temptation and submitted himself to God’s will, even to death on a cross. That’s why, when he had finally accomplished the Father’s purpose, he was raised from the dead and could say in Matthew 28:18, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me! The lesson is clear. If we want to have authority, we must be under God’s authority. We cannot take it. It must be given us by God. And he will only give it to those who are submitted to him. The role of faith (vv. 10, 13) The role of faith in healing is an extremely important subject and we will discuss it in more detail in Part Two of this book. For the present it will be helpful to draw a simple comparison between the healing of the leper and the healing of the centurion’s servant. In this connection, two things are noteworthy: We noticed in the story of the healing of the leper that the man’s faith was limited to the belief that Jesus could heal him. He was not sure that he would. The centurion, however, clearly believed that his servant would be healed (v. 13). In the case of the leper, it was the sick person himself who was exercising faith. In the story of the centurion’s servant the faith was exercised by the centurion, not by the sick servant. This seems to suggest that, although faith is clearly an important element in healing, it would be unwise to be dogmatic as to how much faith is necessary for healing or who needs to exercise it. Interestingly, as we shall see in a moment, in the case of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, faith is not mentioned at all! Jesus heals many (vv14-17) In the final section of the passage we are considering, Matthew records the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, followed by a summary of how, later in the day, Jesus healed all who were sick. This, he says, was to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah 53:4, He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases. As we have already mentioned, there is no mention of faith in the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. Matthew simply tells us: When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on them (vv.14-15).   In Luke’s account we are told that it was a high fever and that Jesus bent over her. He also says that Jesus rebuked the fever (Luke 4:39). Matthew’s version, however, is rather more dramatic. Jesus comes in, sees the woman, touches her hand, and she gets well. By expressing it this way Matthew is emphasising again Jesus’ total authority. His touch, like his word, is enough. The healing is immediate and complete. She gets up and begins to wait on them. In the evening, we are told, they brought many who were demon-possessed to him and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick (v. 16). Although, as we shall see later, there is sometimes a connection between demons and sickness, there is no need to assume that all sickness is caused by demons. In Matthew 4:24 a distinction is made between demon-possession and other afflictions, and here in 8:16 the natural way to read the verse is to understand that two distinct activities were taking place – demons were being cast out and the sick were being healed. Two things are significant here. First, the demons were cast out with a word. It only takes one word from the Man with authority. Out! And the demons flee. So again Matthew is emphasising the power of the word of Jesus. Secondly, he stresses that Jesus healed all who were sick. This is a common theme in Matthew (cf. 4:23-24, 9:35). It undoubtedly provides further evidence of his willingness to heal. So in two short verses Matthew repeats the theme that we have already noted – Christ’s power to heal the sick and his willingness to do so. But in verse 17 Matthew adds another reason. Jesus heals the sick in order to fulfil what was prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus is portrayed throughout Matthew as the fulfilment of all Israel’s hopes and ideals and Matthew quotes frequently from the Old Testament to show that Jesus is the One for whom they had been so long waiting. Later we will consider in more detail the significance of this quotation when we discuss whether Jesus carried our sickness on the cross. For now it should be sufficient to point out that Matthew does not quote Isaiah 53 in the context of Jesus’ atoning death, but of his healing ministry in Galilee. Conclusion In this short passage from Matthew’s Gospel we have learnt many lessons about healing. Because Jesus was always submitted to his Father’s authority, and because he came to demonstrate the love and compassion of God, he was both willing and able with a simple word of command, to heal all who came to him, whether Jew or Gentile, and where necessary to make possible their reintegration into society. In doing so he demonstrated that he truly was the Christ. More importantly, he revealed the loving heart of God for suffering humanity.

Jennifer Clark(!) joins the show to talk about seeing Chonda Pierce's new movie "Unashamed" (6:00). Then Matthew pulls Jennifer down the rabbit hole of Christian Tweets (20:00) and things quickly get random and inappropriate, with tangents about broccoli, Mike Huckabee, cuddling, and worst names for womens' Bible studies

We are back with episode 89! And this week, if we're honest, is a bit of a clusterfuck of bollocks, but that's okay because we're unashamedly unprofessional! This week, we're joined once again by Benjamin of Pencil's Ballercast, and after a bit of banter and beer talk, we finally start on some news from Geneva. Mitch then starts off the news about Pininfarina's new Battista, a 1,415kw (1,900hp) hypercar, and the 11,000RPM Aston Martin's Valkyrie which causes a panel divide. Then Joseph brings up news about the Toyota Hilux single-handedly outselling all of Holden for the month of February, and our favourite little Chinese manufacturer, MG, killing it last month, then we talk about - of all things - the Australian economy. Joseph then brings up Volvo limiting all cars, from 2020 onwards, limiting their cars to 180KPH, and then we talk about Adam LZ catching the ire of old-mate Tracey Grimshaw / A Current Affair after his recent trip to Brisbane. Joseph has even more news, this time about the new convertible version of the Mercedes AMG GT-R. Then Matthew has a story about his recent trip to Melbourne where he visited a Tesla dealership that had Tesla 3's on show, then Mitch briefly talks about the brilliant little Honda EV Concept being officially put into production, however it's NOT coming to Australia, sadly, and Joseph talks about the Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roadster. Then Ben Ben asks Mitch why he has stickers on his 86; Cars for Hope, QLD 86/BRZ Owners Club, Mishimoto, and Boosted Autos. Ben then asks whether his Mazda SP25 would lose to a Hyundai Ioniq. We then finish off Mitch's favourite game, 'How Bout Dat'. Find us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and at www.gearsandbeersmedia.com / www.unashamedlyunprofessional.com Gears and Beers Podcast is hosted by Mitchell Denham, Matthew Morwood, Joseph Riga and Joel McD. Unashamedly Unprofessional

Bethany from the No Chill Enneagram Podcast (Perk City to FSBT listeners) returns to the show to talk superheroes (2:30). Then Matthew recounts interrupting a bikini photo shoot with his family while on vacation (17:30). Then Matthew and Bethany work out the plot for a faith-based movie called BROTHER'S KEEPER (21:30)

HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by ESPN fantasy football guru Matthew Berry to talk about their fantasy origins, the rise of fantasy sports, to PPR or not to PPR, snake drafts vs. auctions, and what a game-changer daily fantasy is. Then Matthew shares some strategies for this year's draft as well as some thoughts on the upcoming fantasy football season.

We are back! Well, at least Joseph and Matthew are (featuring the Rent-A-Crowd).The first topic of 2018 is prestige cars coming out in 2018, that Joseph goes through incredibly slowly.Joeseph then goes on a whopper of a rant about electric vehicles.... Then Matthew brings up electric motorcycles, for some reason.Matthew then brings up comparisons;Volkswagen Amarok and the Ford Ranger XLT. Kia Stinger 330Si Vs. Holden SS V Commodore Redline. Volkswagen Tiguan 162TSi Highline Vs. Subaru Forest XT Premium. Ford Mustang GT Fastback Vs. Holden SS V Commodore Redline. Volkswagen Amarok Vs. Holden Colorado Vs. Isuzu DMAX Vs. Toyota Hilux Vs. Ford Ranger Vs. Mitsubishi Triton.The Rent-A-Crowd, Joel, then brings up his own topic of visiting supercar factories in Europe. Like us on Facebook! / Follow us on