Category: Uncategorized

¹² Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” ¹³ He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. ¹⁴ Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:12–14 (ESV)

Another familiar aphorism people frequently use is “the blind leading the blind.” This phrase describes “a situation where a person who knows nothing is getting advice and help from another person who knows almost nothing,” explains the Cambridge Dictionary. It makes for a potentially embarrassing if not devastating situation. An example would be an economic advisor to an elected government official providing economic advice to the official when the advisor knows next to nothing about economics.

Jesus compared the Pharisees and the scribes within the context of today’s text of being religiously blind leaders who are leading religiously blind people. Both people groups are heading for a fall. What the people need are biblical guides who possess spiritual eyesight (John 9).

However, the disciples had a different perspective. They were concerned that the Jewish religious leaders may have been offended by Jesus’ previous remarks ((see Matt. 15:1-11).

“It is implied that in the hearing of the disciples the Pharisees had given vent to their hot displeasure. Had the disciples become somewhat afraid? Were they shaken with a measure of awe for these men who by many were regarded as venerable leaders? Were they perhaps fearful of the possible consequences of the sharp rebuke their Master had administered,” asks Dr. William Hendriksen.

“The disciples, having taken into cognizance this bitter resentment on the part of the leaders, want Jesus to know about it so that in His future words and actions He may figure with it. As if the Lord needed their advice!”

Jesus responded by saying that the reason the Pharisees and scribes took offense to His words was that they were not God’s elect. Jesus, using another metaphor, said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.” The religious leaders revealed their true heart of not being a part of God’s vineyard by their antagonism towards Jesus because He condemned them and their legalistic lifestyle. In other words, they were weeds and chaff that bore no spiritual fruit (Psalm 1; Isaiah 5; John 15).

“The concern with outward acts and not the intent of God’s law manifested these particular Pharisees’ blindness to the ultimate source of impurity. Jesus therefore reminded them that the heart is the true source of corruption, not the hands, a truth to which the Torah points (Matt. 15:10–20). We manifest a legalistic heart every time we are critical of others for not observing that which we love even though they are indifferent matters as far as the Bible is concerned,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Wise words to consider. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

¹⁰ “And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: ¹¹ it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10–11 (ESV)

Mark 7:14-23 parallels today’s text from Matthew’s Gospel. Both accounts address the subject of spiritual defilement. What does defilement mean? How does an individual become defiled in the sight of God?

To be defiled (κοινόω; Koinoo) refers to a present, active condition of spiritual uncleanliness. It means to be unclean and out of fellowship with God. The root word for defilement is the word koinonia from which we derive the word fellowship. Defilement involves being out of communion and fellowship with the Lord.

How does this happen? How can a believer in Christ become defiled? Many in the church would say defilement occurs when a Christian does something they should not do. Or, defilement may occur when the same believer does not do something they ought to do. Like the Pharisees and the scribes within the biblical context (Matt. 7:1-9), defilement happens when a person behaves inappropriately according to some biblical, or manmade standard that may not be biblical.

Traditional views of defilement include, but are not limited to, the following: men having a lengthy hair style; going to movies; missing a church activity; women wearing makeup; women wearing slacks; reading and having a biblical translation other than the King James or Authorized Version; listening to contemporary Christian music; shopping on a Sunday; playing sports on a Sunday; working on a Sunday; voting a certain way; not agreeing with someone on any of these previous examples; and the list goes on and on. There are always people who pride themselves as being the self-appointed enforcers of these rules and regulations regardless of age or gender.  

As we have seen, the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem believed Jesus’ disciples defiled themselves by eating with unwashed hands. They cared more about the outward appearance rather the inner condition of the soul.

This is what Jesus focused upon regarding true biblical defilement. He commanded the people in attendance to hear and understand what He was going to say. He did want not anyone, especially His disciples, to miss this lesson. Jesus taught that what truly defiled a person was what proceeded out of their soul rather than what went into their stomach. He said, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

Mark’s Gospel account provides further information.

¹⁴ “And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: ¹⁵ There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” ¹⁷ And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. ¹⁸ And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹ since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) ²⁰ And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. ²¹ For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²² coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. ²³ All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:14-23 ESV).

“People might defile themselves ceremonially (under the Old Covenant) by eating something unclean, but they would defile themselves morally by saying something sinful (cf. James 3:6). Here Jesus clearly distinguished between the law’s ceremonial requirements and its inviolable moral standard. Ceremonial defilement could be dealt with through ceremonial means. But moral defilement corrupts a person’s soul,” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

There will always be individuals who will accuse us of being ceremonially unclean by some manmade or traditional standard. What truly matters is the condition of the individual’s soul in relationship to the Word of God. Violation of God’s Word is what causes true defilement. The solution is consistent confession and repentance of one’s sins before God (I John 1:8-10). He promises true cleansing from our true defilement. Praise the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁷ You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ⁸ “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; ⁹ in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:7–9 (ESV)

An aphorism is a proverb, motto, or a concise word of wisdom. Common aphorisms include the following.

• “Actions speak louder than words.”

• “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
• “Do or do not, there is no try.” (Yoda from Star Wars).
• “Give a man an inch and he’ll take a mile.”
• “You can kill a man but you can’t kill an idea.”
• “Eat to live; don’t live to eat.”

Perhaps another aphorism, or slang expression at least, may include phrase “lip service.” It means to verbally support someone or something but that support is not shown in that individual’s actions. For example, “The governor gave/offered lip service to blue-collar workers, but she did nothing to help them.”

Jesus was well aware of people, specifically religious leaders, who simply gave lip service; not only to other people but also before God. The religious leaders said one thing but did just the opposite. They did not walk their talk.

Jesus confronted them by calling them hypocrites (ὑποκριτής; hypokrites). In the ancient world, a hypocrite was as stage actor. In other words, they were individuals who pretended to be someone, or something, they were not in reality. Therefore, Jesus was stating that the Pharisees and scribes pretended to be godly and holy. In reality, they were nothing of the kind.

The Lord quoted Isaiah 29:13 to support His evaluation. The text says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; ⁹ in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

“Matthew could not have meant that Isaiah in writing Isaiah 29:13 was thinking of these Pharisees and scribes. He meant that what the prophet wrote concerning the people of his own day was still very relevant, for both then and now those condemned were honoring God with their lips while their hearts were far removed from Him,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

“As has been well said, the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Not the blood pumping vessel that is the concern of your cardiologist, but the seat of your personality that is the concern of the Gospel,” states Pastor Tom Ascol

“Jesus teaches us that there is something far more fundamental to our sinfulness than the actual sins we commit. Our sins do not make us sinful. Rather, we commit sins because, at the very center of our lives, we are sinful. Sin has invaded the inner recesses of our personalities.” 

May each of us take Jesus’ words to heart and be what we say we are. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁵ “But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” ⁶ he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:5–6 (ESV)

What does it mean to make something null and void? Null and void means that something is canceled, invalid, or of no legal validity, force, or effect.  The term is often used in contract law to mean that the contract was never valid and has no legal effect. The phrase is actually redundant, since null means “void,” that is, “ineffective”.

Jesus addressed an ironic situation. The religious leaders were quick to criticize and condemn Him and the disciples. They believed that Jesus and His followers were constantly breaking the Old Testament Law. On the contrary, what Jesus violated was the religious traditions of His day that were neither authoritative or binding.

However, what is ironic is that Jesus confronted the same religious leaders regarding their hypocrisy. They did not obey the Ten Commandments they claimed to love and cherish. Jesus’ example was their unwillingness to honor their parents. By doing so, they rendered the Old Testament covenant law null and void for the sake of their religion. 

“The Pharisees and scribes were telling the children that there was a way to get around the heavy burden of having to bestow honor upon their parents by supporting them. If either father or mother, noticing that a son has something which was needed by the parent, asked for it, all that was necessary was for the son to say “It’s and offering,” explains Dr. William Hendriksen.

“The son would be saying that whatever it is by which I might benefit you, whether now or in the future, I here and now declare that it is to be considered an offering. It was a wicked device to deprive parents of the honor due to them.”

Additionally, what was offered to God was often kept by the offeror. Often, the offering, withheld from the parents and supposedly given to God, was not given to either. The Pharisees and the scribes let go the commandment of God for the tradition of men. But they took issue with Jesus and His disciples not washing their hands before eating.

I wonder how often we are guilty of the same sin. Let each of us resolve that we will never render the Word of God null and void in our lives.

Soli deo Gloria!

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ² “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” ³ He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴ For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ (Matthew 15:1–4 (ESV)

The Pharisees and scribes, two people groups who were adamant about outward obedience to the Law of God and their oral tradition, questioned Jesus as to why His disciples did not wash their hands when the ate. It is apparent that these Jewish religious leaders were watching the disciples for an opportunity to accuse them or render a moral judgment upon them.

This is what is known as Tacit Norms, or unspoken expectations. This occurs when people observe what you do, or don’t do, and without speaking to you render a favorable, or unfavorable, judgment about you. It can happen anywhere, but often in a church environment. It may concern where you sit during a worship service, how expressive you are in singing, or if you use a Bible app on your phone instead of a print Bible. Judgments concerning outward behavior, good or bad, occur all the time.

On one occasion, a pastor was officiating a graveside memorial service. As the people began to leave after the service was over, a member of the deceased family approached the pastor and specifically praised the pastor for his freshly washed car. The pastor’s funeral message seemed to pale in comparison to the cleanliness of his car. One wonders what the man in question would have thought of the pastor if he had arrived in an unwashed vehicle.

What was Jesus’ response to the religious leaders question and observation?  He said, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴ For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.”

Traditions may not necessarily be bad. However, obedience to man’s traditions must never supplant obedience to the Word of God. Breaking God’s commandments in order to remain committed to human tradition is sin. Why did Jesus specifically mention the fourth commandment?

“Hand-washing was intended to protect the dietary laws (Lev. 11); eating without washed hands was not evil in itself. The problem was that such traditions were put above the weightier matters of the Law (Matt. 23:23). It is no surprise, then, that Jesus correctly condemns the scribes and Pharisees for insisting upon the observance of oral traditions (Matt. 15:3–9),” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“They have been content to keep their money and property for themselves according to an oral law that allows them to will these things to the Creator after their death even if an impoverished parent needs support before then. Yet in exalting this tradition, these scholars actually violate Exodus 20:12, which orders them to honor their fathers and mothers. They hypocritically accuse Jesus’ disciples of sin for not obeying a tradition with no divine authorization while they themselves break the very Word of God for the sake of their man-made commandments.”

Disobedience to this particular commandment resulted in the death penalty for ancient Jews. See Exodus 21:15-17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Proverbs 30:17.

While we may unwittingly break human traditions, may we resolve to seek to always obey the commandments of God because we are children of God. Have a God honoring day.

Soli deo Gloria!

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ² “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” (Matthew 15:1–2 (ESV)

It was after the events Matthew recorded in chapter 14 that the events of chapter 15 occurred. The word “then” (τότε; tote) is an adverb meaning at that time, at the time in question or afterward.

“Herod Antipas is not the only Palestinian whose curiosity is piqued when he hears of Christ’s ministry (Matt. 14:1–2). Some of the religious authorities in Jerusalem also want to investigate the carpenter’s son from Nazareth. Pharisees and scribes from the capital city confront our Lord in today’s passage (15:1). These men are likely official representatives of the Pharisaic and scribal movements, both of which the common folk hold in high esteem,” explains one commentator.

Apparently Jesus was still in the Galilean region because the Pharisees and scribes came to that area from Jerusalem. As previously noted, the Pharisees were one of four particular religious or political groups in Israel during the first century. The remaining three were the Sadducees, the Zealots and the Essenes.

The Pharisees (Φαρισαῖος; Pharisaios) were the religious traditionalists. They equated their ceremonial customs as equal to, or as even greater than, the Old Testament Scriptures. The scribes (γραμματεύς; grammateus) were the expert teachers of the Old Testament Law. They were closely associated with the Pharisees.

An undetermined amount of time occurred when the Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus. They initiated the contact and the conversation with the Savior. They had a persistent question for Jesus? “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”

First, the question was confrontational. The Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus’ disciples of both a sin of commission and omission. The leaders criticized the disciples of breaking oral tradition by failing to wash their hands when they ate.

Second, the accusation was based on oral tradition and not the Mosaic Law. The religious leaders did not accuse the disciples of breaking the Old Testament Law, but only the tradition solely originating from the elders. The word tradition (παράδοσις; paradosis) refers to teachings that are over and above the authority of Scripture. They are extra-biblical.  

Who exactly were the elders? The word elders (πρεσβύτερος; presbyteros) may refer to both a physically elderly man (Acts 2:17) or to religious and community leaders ((Matt 15:2; Ac 11:30; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17, 19; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). In this context, the latter meaning is preferred. “

“The Law of Moses required washing for cleansing from various types of ceremonial defilement, especially of priests serving at the sanctuary (Ex. 30:18-21; Lev. 22:1-7). But it did not demand washing before every meal,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“The Pharisees regarded the oral law conveyed as tradition by the elders, as having equal authority with the written law. These traditions were later complied as the Mishnah in the second century.”  

The issue at hand was whether outward behavior outweighs the intentions of the heart that are in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes, churches have stipulated rules and regulations for its membership that have no basis from the Word of God. In doing so, they become legalistic in a perhaps well-intentioned effort to protect the outward purity of the church’s reputation.

How did Jesus respond? More to come when next we meet.

Soli deo Gloria!

The following narrative is taken from the recording Glory to the Holy One.

ONE HAMMER in the hand of an obscure Augustinian monk changed the world forever. Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany calling his fellow professors to examine issues of supreme theological importance. Thus began the Reformation through which the light of God’s Word was brought out of the darkness to shine with clarity once more.

One of the central cries of the Protestant Reformation was this: “The just shall live by faith.” Luther’s development of the doctrine of justification by faith alone recovered the gospel that had been hidden during the Middle Ages.

And at the center of that gospel is the affirmation that the righteousness by which we are declared just before a holy God is not our own. It’s a foreign righteousness, an alien righteousness, a righteousness that Luther said is extra nos—apart from us. Namely, it’s the righteousness of Jesus Christ—that righteousness that’s imputed or counted for all who put their trust in Him.

Because of that affirmation Luther was involved in serious controversies—controversies that culminated in his being brought to trial before the princes of the church and even before the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles the V. And there at the Diet of Worms, summoned in Germany, Luther was called upon to recant his views. He answered his interlocutors by saying, “Revoco? You want me to say revoco? That I recant? I will not recant unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason. I cannot recant for my conscience is held captive by the Word of God. And to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

In every generation the gospel must be published anew with the same boldness, and the same clarity, and the same urgency that came forth in the 16th century Reformation. The church has always done this in both the spoken word and in song—producing hymns that tell us of the great salvation that has been wrought by God alone through Christ alone.

Soli deo Gloria!

Is the Protestant Reformation over? Some would say that it is. Recent overtures resulting in theological agreements between Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics would seem to support this idea that little is left of the theological disagreements which occurred in the 16^th century.

On October 31, 2016, Pope Francis said that after five hundred years, Protestants and Catholics “have the opportunity to mend a critical moment of our history by moving beyond the controversies and disagreements that have often prevented us from understanding one another.” In light of the pope’s statement, one evangelical professor of theology commented, “From that, it sounds as if the Reformation was an unfortunate and unnecessary squabble over trifles, a childish outburst that we can all put behind us now that we have grown up.”

Tell that to John Wycliffe who the Catholic Church persecuted for translating the Bible into English. Tell that to Jon Huss who was burned at the stake for speaking against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. Tell that to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin and others who were hounded, hunted and hurt by the Catholic Church who refused, and continues to refuse, to acknowledge its errors. People have asked me is the Protestant Reformation over? I say no!

The Latin phrase Semper Reformanda applies here. Rather than mean that churches should always be changing in order to conform to the ever-changing culture, instead it means “always being reformed” or “The church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God.” God’s Word should always be reforming God’s people, and for that matter God’s churches. Each and every generation must return to God’s Word each and every day so that the Scriptures would continue reforming our lives, and keeping us from heresy.

The impasse which occurred between the Reformers of the 16^th Century and the Roman Catholic Church remain in full force today. These issues are as critical now as they were then. What key takeaways from the Reformation would we be wise to apply to the context of Christianity in the 21st Century?

The first would be that the sole authority for the Christian is to be the Scriptures: Sola Scriptura. Then, and now, the Roman Catholic Church views Scripture as deferring to the church’s authority and traditions. This was not the view of Luther Calvin, or the other Reformers. This was the foundational issue in the Protestant Reformation.

Secondly, the commitment to objective truth instead of subjective experience is another lasting benefit from the Reformation. Martin Luther went from one religious experience to another; not only as a child, but also as a young adult. He constantly sought relief from his guilt over his sin by pursuing a religious experience. Whether it was promising to become a monk during a violent thunderstorm, constantly confessing his sins in the monastery, or traveling to Rome and climbing so-called sacred stairs on his knees while reciting the rosary, his life prior to conversion was a search for the right experience where he would find peace with God. However, his peace with God eventually came not from an emotional experience, but rather through the truth of the God’s Word specifically contained in Romans 1:16-17. On the basis of biblical truth, God credited Martin Luther with Christ’s righteousness, which resulted in Martin’s positional, personal and emotional peace with God.

Thirdly, there is the commitment to the doctrine of sola fide or faith alone. This is a short-handed slogan which summarizes the doctrines of grace alone and Christ alone within the specific context of the biblical gospel of salvation. For more churches than I would care to estimate, the gospel has become a self-help movement focused on personal peace and financial affluence. Your best life now, so to speak. It may be summarized by one church which has as its slogan, “Join us! Where it’s okay to not be okay.”

The Reformation is far from over. It continues on and is as critical today as it was in Martin Luther’s day when biblical truth was at stake regarding how a sinner becomes righteous before God.

There are those who teach and believe that Scripture plus the church is the believer’s authority. That grace plus human merit saves. That faith plus works is necessary to be made righteous. That Christ’s righteousness along with one’s own is indispensable for salvation. That the glory of salvation is to be shared between God and man.

Today’s children of the Protestant Reformation hold that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone based upon the teachings and truth of the Scriptures alone.

May we continue to hold to these truths as tenaciously as did Martin Luther. It won’t be easy, but “Here we stand; we can do none other. God help us!”

Soli deo Gloria!

What impact did the Protestant Reformation have upon Martin Luther personally? Did he ever marry? Did he have children? Did he die a natural death, or like many other Reformers, did his enemies eventually execute him?

Martin never expected to marry. As a monk, he took a vow of celibacy. However, upon his excommunication by the Roman Catholic Church because of his writings and teachings against the church, his vow of celibacy was no longer in force.

Yet, Martin was still hesitant to marry. He was a fugitive from the church and expected to be arrested and executed at a moment’s notice. He believed it would be unfair for a woman to commit to a marriage under those conditions. But true love has a way of changing a man’s mind.

Martin wasn’t the only monk, or nun for that matter, to leave the Catholic Church and to eventually commit to marriage. Many men and women, who respectively left the monasteries and cloisters, were getting married and establishing their own homes. So Martin became involved in helping former nuns find husbands or homes. One such woman was Katherine von Bora.

While it was not love at first sight, they became increasingly committed to each other. Luther’s parents encouraged him to marry Katie. They became betrothed, or engaged, on June 13, 1525. On June 27, fourteen days later, they had a public ceremony. Martin and Katie believed that their marriage and family would provide a model for other couples in ministry. Theirs was a union of mutual respect and blessing. They were together for twenty-one years.

While Martin served the Lord in preaching and teaching, Katie ran the home. She took care of the family finances along with looking after her husband and his frequent bouts with gout, insomnia, hemorrhoids, constipation, dizziness and ringing in the ears. She brewed her own beer, which she gave to Martin to help him sleep.

The Luther’s home was open to university students and friends who would stop by for dinner and a drink. Conversations would eventually turn to theology. The records of these discussions are available today as Table Talk, or The Table Talk of Martin Luther, among other similar titles.

The Luther’s were blessed with six children. These included eldest son, Hans, along with Elizabeth, Magdalena, Martin, Paul, and Margaretha. Two of their daughters died in infancy. They also raised four orphaned children along with providing shelter for numerous others. It was Magdalena’s death, at the age of fourteen that resulted in one of Martin’s greatest sorrows. She died in his arms. His grief over her death was more than compensated by the knowledge she was with Jesus Christ, her Savior.

Martin Luther would preach his last sermon in his hometown of Eisleben on February 15, 1546. His text was Matthew 11:25-26, “²⁵ At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; ²⁶ yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.”

Following his thirty-five minute sermon, Martin remarked that he was too weak to continue. He walked across the street to his room, where he became sick and died three days later.

His funeral in Wittenberg was held with crowds lining the streets along the funeral procession. He was buried in the Castle Church, the same church where he had nailed his Ninety-Five Thesis twenty-nine years earlier. Luther’s tombstone reads as follows: “Here is buried the body of the Doctor of Sacred Theology, Martin Luther, who died in the year of Christ 1546, on February 18^th, in his hometown Eisleben.” Katie would die four years later in 1550.

Pastor Erwin Lutzer writes, “Martin and Katie taught us not only how to live and love but also how to die. In the end, both humbly bowed to accept God’s will in all things, including the inevitability of death. Even today their example of love and hard-won partnership is an inspiration to us all.”

Soli deo Gloria!