Category: Uncategorized

¹⁵ “Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” ¹⁶ But Jesus said, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” ¹⁷ They said to him, “We have only five loaves here and two fish.” ¹⁸ And he said, “Bring them here to me.” ¹⁹ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. ²⁰ And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. ²¹ And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.” (Matthew 14:15–21 (ESV)

The miracle of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is one of the few miracles, besides Jesus’ resurrection, that is recorded in all four Gospels (Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15). It parallels the Lord’s providential provision of Manna in the wilderness for Israel.

When evening came, Jesus’ disciples came to Him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” Matthew recorded that there 5,000 men besides women and children in the crowd. There is the distinct possibility that the size of the crowd exceeded 20,000 people.

Contributing to the situation was there was no available food, except for what might be bought in the neighboring villages. Apparently, the disciples were not interested in taking care of such a large group of people. ¹⁶ But Jesus said, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” They said to him, “We have only five loaves here and two fish.”

“Bread and fish were basic staples of the Palestinian diet; meat was more expensive and rarely eaten except at feasts. Teachers were not normally responsible for feeding their disciples from their own means,” explains commentator Craig Keener.

“Ancient students often paid their teachers (though other teachers were self-supporting); it was honorable to invite teachers to dinner and to show them the utmost hospitality. But here Jesus, the teacher, assumes the role of host or provider. (Although disciples often viewed teachers as father figures, teachers rarely had the resources to provide for disciples out of their own means.) The ancient emphasis on hospitality included providing food as well as shelter for guests.”  

Jesus directed the people to sit down on the grass. The sat down in groups by hundreds and by fifties (Mark 6:40; Luke 9:14). Jesus then look up to heaven and said a blessing or gave thanks for the food. Jesus than began breaking the loaves, gave the broken pieces to the disciples, and the disciples began giving them to the people. Jesus also divided the fish and among them all also (Mark 6:42).

The people ate and were satisfied (χορτάζω; chartazo). The people ate until they were full. The twelve disciples, perhaps with baskets they each normally carried with them, collected the remaining bread and fish (Mark 6:42).   

The disciples only saw the impossibility of the situation. Jesus understood the opportunity to reveal Himself as God and to provide an object lesson that He alone was the Bread of Life (John 6:35-66). He alone is the only One who can fully satisfy the longing in peoples’ souls.

“This miracle provided a starting point for Jesus’ famous Bread of Life Discourse,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.  “Jesus’ willingness to provide for the needs of a crowd consisting of those who were not His dedicated disciples proves how much we can trust Him to provide for us.”

“If he took care of those who were led to him only by a sudden impulse, how would he desert us, if we seek him with a firm and steady purpose,” asks John Calvin.

Miracles were not merely to resolve a particular and problematic situation. Jesus viewed them as opportunities to reveal to people that He was, and is, the One, True God; Emmanuel.

Soli deo Gloria!

¹³ “Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns. ¹⁴ When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick.” (Matthew 14:13–14 (ESV)

The miracle of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is one of the few miracles, besides Jesus’ resurrection, that is recorded in all four Gospels (Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15). It parallels the Lord’s providential provision of Manna in the wilderness for Israel. Matthew’s account is more precise while the Gospel of John’s narrative contains more detail.   

“The miracle Matthew describes in today’s passage, the feeding of the five thousand (14:13–21), is a wonderful event in which Jesus actually provides food for as many as fifteen or twenty thousand (most of the five thousand men present would have had women and children from their families with them). From a human perspective it is remarkable that there was an occasion for this miracle to take place at all,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

What exactly is a miracle? A miracle is a divine act by which God reveals himself to people.God’s revelation of Himself involves not only His personal character but also His sovereign work. Many of the miracles of the Bible used nature rather than bypassed it (e.g., the wind that parted the Red Sea, Ex. 14:21). A miracle can also be a phenomenon that is not readily explainable and may reflect laws that scientists do not yet fully understand.

In Scripture the element of faith is crucial; a natural approach cannot prove or disprove the presence of a “miracle.” The timing and content of the process can be miraculous, even though the event may seem natural. In every case in Scripture, God performed a miracle not merely as a “wonder” to inspire awe but as a “sign” to draw people to himself.

The purpose of miracles was to divide the audience and confront it with the necessity of decision. Two camps result—those seeking understanding and those considering only the outward aspects of the miracle and condemning.

Matthew recorded the setting for this miraculous provision of food in the immediate aftermath of John the Baptist’s martyrdom (Matt. 14:1-12). Upon hearing the news of John’s death, Jesus withdrew from his hometown of Nazareth (Matt. 13:53-58), got into a boat and sailed to a desolate place to be alone.

Soon thereafter, the Galilean crowds heard that Jesus was nearby, they left their towns and began following Him on foot. When Jesus arrived on shore, He saw the great crowd. Crowd (ὄχλος; achios) refers to a multitude. Rather than an unruly mob, this was a large, peaceful gathering of many people.

When He saw the multitude of people, He had compassion on them. To have compassion (σπλαγχνίζομαι; splanchnizomai) means to have pity. One of the reasons for Jesus to have pity on the people, and one of the reasons the people sought out Jesus, was because many of them were sick. Jesus revealed Himself to be God by healing the sick.

The stage was set for a miraculous moment. Have a blessed day as you consider how God is revealing Himself to you today through the Scriptures, along with the providential circumstances of life.

Soli deo Gloria!  

⁵ “And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet. ⁶ But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company and pleased Herod, ⁷ so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. ⁸ Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” ⁹ And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. ¹⁰ He sent and had John beheaded in the prison, ¹¹ and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. ¹² And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus.” (Matthew 14:5–12 (ESV)

Herod Antipas was a shrewd politician, as most successful politicians are. He wanted to execute John the Baptist for publically confronting him regarding his adulterous relationship with Herodias, his brother Phillip’s wife. He wanted to put John to death. Herod had the authority from the Roman government to do so. But why didn’t he?

Today’s text tells us that Herod’s hesitation in executing John was because he was afraid of how the people would react. The Jews looked upon John as a prophet of God. They viewed him as an inspired, and inspiring, preacher.  Herod gauged the public’s support for John and knew that to kill him would adversely impact his fragile popularity as king. However, unfolding circumstances have a way of changing a politician’s, or in this case a king’s, mind.  

Herod’s birthday was comping up. That meant that there would be a birthday party on his behalf.

“Jewish people did not normally celebrate birthdays in this period (Josephus declares celebrating birthdays forbidden). But though most Jews considered birthday celebrations a Gentile custom, the aristocracy evinced considerable Greek influence,” explains Craig Keener.

At his party, Herodias’ daughter danced before Herod and all his guests. The Jewish historian Josephus identified her as Salome. Her performance pleased Herod so much that he publicly promised, with a solemn oath, that she could have whatever she asked for as an honorarium.

Prompted by her mother, Salome said, ““Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” Such a request provides us with an understanding of Herodias’ and Salome’s morality; or lack thereof.

Herod was not happy. He was caught in a no-win situation. To fail to fulfill his public oath to Salome would mean embarrassment and humiliation before all his guests. To comply with her request would result in a negative reaction by the citizenry. Ultimately, Herod decided his status with his friends was important that doing what was right before God and the people.

Therefore, Herod had John beheaded. John’s head was brought to the girl. She in turn brought it to her mother. John’s disciples then came and took and buried John’s body.

The likelihood is that John never married and had no sons to be in charge of his burial. Therefore, John’s disciples stepped in to take care of this responsibility.

Luke 17:7-10 reminds us that even when we face trials, and perhaps martyrdom, for serving the Lord Jesus Christ, we are only doing our duty. John did not die a failure. Rather, he fulfilled the responsibilities God providentially planned for him. God will also fulfill His purposeful and sovereign plans in your life.

Soli deo Gloria!

“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus, ² and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead; that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” ³ For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, ⁴ because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”  (Matthew 14:1–3 ESV)

Returning to our study of the Gospel of Matthew, the apostle reminds believers in Christ about the cost of following the Lord. Sometimes we may find ourselves suffering persecution because of our faith. This is a recurring theme in the Scriptures (Dan. 1; 3; Matt. 5:10-12). This truth is illustrated in the life of John the Baptist.

Today’s text states that John was dead. This occurred when Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great (Matt. 2) was tetrarch in Galliee and Perea. He was one of four rulers following the death of his father. A tetrarch (τετραάρχης; tetraaarches) was a ruler with a rank and authority lower than that of a king and one who ruled only with the approval of Roman authorities.

 “Antipas appears in the New Testament more frequently than any other member of the Herodian dynasty—his rule coincided with the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. The gospel writers refer to Antipas only as “Herod”—Antipas adopted this name in ad 6,” explains the Lexham Bible Dictionary.

Herod heard what was being said about Jesus. He said to his servants, ““This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead; that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” Perhaps there is a tone of fear in Herod’s exclamation to his attendants. This was because Herod had seized John, bound him and put him in prison. The reason for Herod’s behavior toward John was because John spoke out against Herod because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife.

Philip the Tetrarch was also a son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Along with his brother, he too ruled over a portion of his father’s former kingdom Phillip was married to Herodias but began an affair with her brother-in-law Herod Antipas.

“Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, another son of Herod the Great; so when she married Philip, she was marrying her own father’s nephew. What precipitated the arrest of John the Baptist was that Herod Antipas (another of Herodias’s cousins) talked Herodias into leaving her husband (his brother) in order to marry him (Mark 6:17)—thus compounding the incest, as well as violating Lev. 18:16. John was outraged that a ruler in Israel would commit such a sin openly, so he rebuked Herod severely (Matt. 14:4). For this, he was imprisoned and later killed (Mark 6:14–29),” explains Dr. John MacArthur.

Rebuking sin (Luke 17:3-4) is not to be taken lightly. It may result in retaliation by the one you rebuke. However, humbly confronting sin is the Lord’s will, in spite of the consequences.

Soli deo Gloria!  

We conclude this brief biography with the following and enduring quotations by J. Gresham Machen.   

“Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the gospel” ~ John Gresham Machen

“Again, men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end … It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of the truth” ~ John Gresham Machen

“Let us not fear the opposition of men; every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted scensoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt will cause disputing; and if does not cause disputing and arrouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed.” ~ John Gresham Machen

“Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.” ~ John Gresham Machen

“Christianity is not engrossed by this transitory world, but measures all things by the thought of eternity.” ~ John Gresham Machen

“A Christian boy or girl can learn mathematics, for example, from a teacher who is not a Christian; and truth is truth however learned. But while truth is truth however learned, the bearing of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian; and that is why a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part but all, of the curriculum of the school.” ~ John Gresham Machen

“Christ died”–that is history; “Christ died for our sins”–that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.” ~ John Gresham Machen

If you’re interested in knowing more about J. Gresham Machen, I recommend you access the following books and resources.

• Monergism.com. This is a wonderful resource for Reformed Theology and contains numerous articles and sermons by Machen. Also available are several eBooks that are a free download.   
• What is Faith? Machen addresses one of the most fundamental questions about the Christian gospel. In his graceful style he expounds the biblical teaching on faith.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ. Machen’s magnum opus.
• The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Machen’s lectures that are presented in this book were given at a time when Biblical criticism that rejected supernaturalism, Bible inspiration, and Biblical historicity.
• The Person of Jesus. Transcripts from radio messages Machen gave on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Soli deo Gloria!

“And what does one find? Alas, too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of meditation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin. Such is the sermon. And then perhaps the service is closed by one of those hymns breathing out the angry passions of 1861, which are to be found in the back part of the hymnals. Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God, And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace.” – J. Gresham Machen

What was the immediate result of J. Gresham Machen’s definitive stand against the modern, liberal movement in the church that prompted him to write Christianity and Liberalism? Was he lauded by his colleagues and the administration of Princeton? Did the Presbyterian Church USA praise him for his insightful and prophetic work? Unfortunately, no.

“Machen’s book was hated by theological liberals and scathed by them in reviews. Curiously enough, the intellectual moderns, such as Walter Lippmann and H.L. Mencken, respected the book and recognized the validity of Machen’s arguments. For fundamentalists, the book added steel to their spine as they continued the fight for the faith,’ explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

What happened to Machen after his book? Providentially, Machen was scorned and rejected. Personally and professionally he lost much, but the Lord caused all these things he experienced to work together for good.

“In 1929, Princeton Theological Seminary reorganized the board and took a turn directly toward liberalism, effectively forcing Machen out. He crossed the Delaware River and opened Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia,” states Nichols.

“When Machen organized a new mission board because the denomination’s mission board had shifted the focus from gospel proclamation to social transformation, he was defrocked. In 1936, he led in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”

By the end of 1936, Machen was an exhausted man. He colleagues at Westminster urged him to take a well-earned rest. Machen, with no wife or other mentors, refused to do so. He traveled to North Dakota to speak at a church that was part of the fledging denomination. While there, Machen became ill and hospitalized with pneumonia. On January 1, 1937, Machen died.  

His last written communication was to his Westminster colleague John Murray. Machen wrote, “I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”  

Why is it important for the evangelical church to remember the life and ministry of J. Gresham Machen? Why is Christianity and Liberalism as relevant today as it was when first published?

It is because the battle with the modernist, liberal movement within the church in the early part of the 20^th century is the same battle being fought in the early part of the 21^st century. The postmodern culture is presently seeking to persuade churches, and para-church ministries such as Christian colleges and theological seminaries, to strategically change and adapt their biblical vision and mission of ministry in order to remain culturally relevant and financially solvent. It is this spirit of fear of being out of touch with the times that ironically resulted, and will result, in evangelicalism losing its churches and academic institutions they misguidedly seek to keep. As Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian Church USA died, so will other academic institutions, denominations and churches that follow this same path.

How may we fight this growing trend today? We must do what Machen did and what the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to do.

²⁴ “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, ²⁵ correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, ²⁶ and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24–26 ESV)

Secondly, instead of solely focusing on strategic planning, let’s resolve to strategically pray. Pray that the Lord will keep us faithful to His Word (2 Timothy 4:1-5). Pray that evangelicals will not conform to this world and the culture (Romans 12:1-2). Pray that that we will not be weak and fearful, but rather be strong and courageous (Joshua 1:1-9). Finally, pray that we heed the example and wisdom of a valiant 20^th century warrior who fulfilled the words of 2 Timothy 4:6-8.

“Is there no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation from nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.” – J. Gresham Machen

Soli deo Gloria!

“It has just been observed that Christianity, as well as liberalism, is interested in social institutions. But the most important institution has not yet been mentioned– it is the institution of the Church. When, according to Christian belief, lost souls are saved, the saved ones become united in the Christian Church. true Christians must everywhere be united in the brotherhood of the Christian Church.” – J. Gresham Machen

Christianity has never been about the individual believer doing his/her own thing without any concern for other believers in Christ. The common adage that “I don’t need the church. I can individually worship God wherever I am” is foreign to the New Testament Scriptures. On the contrary, not only is each believer joined to the universal church at conversion but also joined to the local church by a biblical vision and mission. One of the best New Testament Epistles on this subject is Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.

Machen held a high view of the church. This means that he not only strongly believed in the church’s importance in each believer’s life, but also that the church was indispensable. The church was not just an organization like any other social and civic group. Rather, it was/is a spiritual organism. In short, the church was/is the New Testament temple of the living God (Romans 8:9-11; I Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20; Ephesians 2:19-22; I Peter 2:4-5).

The liberal concept of the universal brotherhood of man was superseded, in Machen’s perspective, by the biblical doctrine of the brotherhood of the redeemed. It is the communication and embracing of the Gospel that will solely, and ultimately, change a society for the better.

“It is upon this brotherhood of twice-born sinners, this brotherhood of the redeemed, that the Christian founds the hope of society. He finds no solid hope in the improvement of earthly conditions, or the molding of human institutions under the influence of the Golden Rule. These things indeed are to be welcomed. They may so palliate the symptoms of sin that there may be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produce conditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospel message; they are even valuable for their own sake. But in themselves their value, to the Christian, is certainly small. A solid building cannot be constructed when all the materials are faulty; a blessed society cannot be formed out of men who are still under the curse of sin. Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed,” explained Machen.

Machen believed the greatest threat to the church’s vision and mission was not from forces outside of the church, but rather from those within its fellowship. Much like the Apostle Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28-31) and the warnings from the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Jude (Jude 3-4), Machen sounded a warning because of what he observed in the Presbyterian church of his own day.

“The greatest menace to the Christian Church today,” he wrote, “comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.” Consequently, “a separation between the two parties in the church is the crying need of the hour.” Machen’s “straightforward” and “above board” appeal earned him the respect of “friendly neutrals” (as the secular journalist H.L. Mencken described himself as he followed the debate closely),” states John R. Muether, professor of church history and dean of libraries at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla.

The doctrinal divide that fractured the church a hundred years ago is occurring a hundred years later. Personal experience has replaced biblical exposition. Personal preferences have replaced personal commitment to the Scriptures. Tolerance of unbiblical opinions and fellowship have replaced faithfulness to objective, biblical doctrine.

“Countervailing appeals to preserve the unity of the church obscured the issues that Machen laid out, and such ecclesiastical pacifism provided neither lasting peace nor unity,” states Muether.  

“Nothing engenders strife so much as a forced unity, within the same organization, of those who disagree fundamentally in aim.” Tolerance of doctrinal deviation is “simple dishonesty,” wrote Machen.

What impact did Christianity and Liberalism have on the church and upon Machen himself? This is what we will begin to examine when next we meet.

Soli deo Gloria1

“It has been observed thus far that liberalism differs from Christianity with regard to the presuppositions of the gospel (the view of God and the view of man), with regard to the Book in which the gospel is contained, and with regard to the Person whose work the gospel sets forth. It is not surprising then that it differs from Christianity in its account of the gospel itself; it is not surprising that it presents an entirely different account of the way of salvation. Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak at all of “salvation”) in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God.” – J. Gresham Machen

An individual’s view of doctrine, God and man, the Bible, and Jesus Christ will correspondingly impact their view of salvation. It is simple cause and effect. One’s view of the former will directly impact their view of the latter.

The doctrine of salvation is God delivering the sinner from the penalty, power and eventual presence of their sin by sovereign grace alone, through God-given faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The good news, or the Gospel, of salvation heralds four basic truths: (1) God Exists; (2) Sin Exists; (3) Salvation Exists; and (4) One Savior Exists; Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18).

A main opponent of the biblical Gospel, birthed by the 18^th century Enlightenment and 19^th century Higher Criticism, is known by various names: the modernist liberal movement, the social gospel or social justice. It is an effort to usher in the kingdom of God through human sourced social action.

“World War I (1914-1918) turned Europe on its head, brought crashing down the optimism of the Enlightenment, and ushered in post-Enlightenment Europe. In America, however, young people undeterred by the war set about attempting to bring to earth the kingdom of God through social action. They called their message “the social gospel,” and its principal preacher was Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), who endeavored to address the poverty he found in Hell’s Kitchen (in New York) by preaching a “gospel” of social improvement and working toward bringing about the kingdom of God on the earth through social action. This was their definition of salvation,” explains Dr. R. Scott Clark, professor of history at Westminster Seminary, CA.

Many 20^th century American social programs sought to do the same. These included The New Deal, The Great Society, the War on Poverty, Welfare, Occupy Wall Street, Wokeism, and Black Lives Matter.

Machen understood that salvation of and by man, socially or spiritually, cannot accomplish its goals. It reduces the plight of mankind by trying to eliminate materialistic poverty. True deliverance from sin, and its residual impact, must come solely from God.

The rejection of the Gospel by the fallen world culture is nothing new. The Apostle Paul encountered opposition to the good news of salvation by the Greek/Roman culture of his day.

1 Corinthians 1:18–31 (ESV) says, “¹⁸ For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

²⁰ “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. ²² For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

²⁶ “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. ²⁷ But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; ²⁸ God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ²⁹ so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. ³⁰ And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹ so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

“It is true that the Christian gospel is an account, not of something that happened yesterday, but of something that happened long ago; but the important thing is that it really happened. If it really happened, then it makes little difference when it happened. No matter when it happened, whether yesterday or in the first century, it remains a real gospel, a real piece of news,” explains Machen. “The happening of long ago, moreover, is in this case confirmed by present experience. The Christian man receives first the account which the New Testament gives of the atoning death of Christ. That account is history. But if true it has effects in the present, and it can be tested by its effects. The Christian man makes trial of the Christian message, and making trial of it he finds it to be true. Experience does not provide a substitute for the documentary evidence, but it does confirm that evidence. The word of the Cross no longer seems to the Christian to be merely a far-off thing, merely a matter to be disputed about by trained theologians. On the contrary, it is received into the Christian’s inmost soul, and every day and hour of the Christian’s life brings new confirmation of its truth.”

Soli deo Gloria!

We confess the mystery and wonder
of God made flesh
and rejoice in our great salvation
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

With the Father and the Holy Spirit,
the Son created all things,
sustains all things,
and makes all things new.
Truly God,
He became truly man,
two natures in one person.

He was born of the Virgin Mary
and lived among us.
Crucified, dead, and buried,
He rose on the third day,
ascended to heaven,
and will come again
in glory and judgment.

For us,
He kept the Law,
atoned for sin,
and satisfied God’s wrath.
He took our filthy rags
and gave us
His righteous robe.

He is our Prophet, Priest, and King,
building His church,
interceding for us,
and reigning over all things.

Jesus Christ is Lord;
we praise His holy Name forever.

Amen.

The Word Made Flesh is the 137 word Ligonier Statement on Christology. It contains twenty-five articles concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. Why is such a statement necessary in the 21^st century when you consider the church creeds from previous centuries?  

“Our post-Christian era is an era of confusion. It is also an era of the rise of Islam on the one hand and the rise of the “nones” on the other—the nones being those who are entirely religiously unaffiliated. It is an era of pluralism, of many voices that affirm many truths; some may pretend not to care about truth at all. This confusion can be found both outside and inside of the church,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The status of the church today parallels the church in J. Gresham Machen’s lifetime. It was a period of modernist liberalism; found both outside and inside the church. Truth was becoming subjective with many abandoning objective, propositional and biblical truth. This conflict was certainly joined regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ.

“Three points of difference between liberalism and Christianity have been noticed so far. The two religions are different with regard to the presuppositions of the Christian message, the view of God and the view of man; and they are also different with regard to their estimate of the Book in which the message is contained. It is not surprising, then, that they differ fundamentally with regard to the message itself. But before the message is considered, we must consider the Person upon whom the message is based. The Person is Jesus. And in their attitude toward Jesus, liberalism and Christianity are sharply opposed,” explained Machen.

The main point of contention between liberalism and Christianity was whether believers in Christ were to solely focus on the example of Christ or to have faith in Christ as justifier, redeemer and the reconciler of sinners to God the Father (Rom. 3:21-26).

“The truth is, the witness of the New Testament, with regard to Jesus as the object of faith, is an absolutely unitary witness,” stated Machen.

“The Jesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher of righteousness, no mere pioneer in a new type of religious life, but One who was regarded, and regarded Himself, as the Savior whom men could trust.”

“But by modern liberalism, He (Jesus) is regarded in a totally different way. Christians stand in a religious relation to Jesus; liberals do not stand in a religious relation to Jesus– what difference could be more profound than that? “The modern liberal preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith. The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus,” continued Machen.

Machen contended that the liberal view of Jesus was not historical or biblical. Jesus was not just a man who had a Messiah complex, but rather was the incarnate God/Man who truly was Messiah.

Second, Machen also stated that the liberal view was faulty regarding problem of sin. The moral example of Jesus does not solve the problem of man’s sinful condition or how Jesus was able to provide sinners salvation from the penalty, power and eventual presence of sin.

“The benefits of that saving work of Christ, according to the primitive Church, were to be received by faith; even if the classic formulation of this conviction should prove to be due to Paul, the conviction itself clearly goes back to the very beginning. The primitive Christians felt themselves in need of salvation. How, they asked, should the load of sin be removed? Their answer is perfectly plain. They simply trusted Jesus to remove it. In other words they had “faith” in Him,” stated Machen.

“Here again we are brought face to face with the significant fact which was noticed at the beginning of this chapter; the early Christians regarded Jesus not merely as an example for faith but primarily as the object of faith. Christianity from the beginning was a means of getting rid of sin by trust in Jesus of Nazareth.”

We must correctly understand who Jesus Christ is. It is a matter of life and death.

Soli deo Gloria!