His Word Today

“In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” – J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism is a relatively short book. My Kindle edition is only 94 pages. Machen concisely presented his support of orthodox Christianity in just six chapters, along with an introduction. The chapter titles include the following: (1) Doctrine; (2) God and Man; (3) The Bible; (4) Christ; (5) Salvation; and (6) The Church. Today, we examine Machen’s introductory thoughts.

From the outset. Machen sought to be conciliatory but not compromising with those with whom he disagreed. He stated that, “Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it always benefits in the end.”  He understood that he would be praised, and persecuted, for what he wrote. Ultimately, his focus was on the ultimate goal of defending orthodox Christianity. It was a worthy goal. It still is.

Machen did not ignore the changes that had occurred in civilization and society. He acknowledged that modern inventions and industrialism created a new world. To isolate and ignore this was unthinkable.

With the rise of the modern scientific age, Machen understood that the past would be scrutinized and subjected to what he called a searching criticism. He sensed that with the embracing of the present, this coincided with a rejection of the past. He knew that the church would face such an examination and searching criticism for “no institution has based itself more squarely upon the authority of a bygone age,” wrote Machen.

“We are not now inquiring whether such policy is wise or historically justifiable; in any case the fact itself is plain that Christianity during many centuries has consistently appealed for the truth of its claims not merely and not even primarily to current experience, but to certain ancient books the most recent of which was written some nineteen hundred years ago. Inevitably, the question arises whether first century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-century science.”   

This was the problem facing the modern church in Machen’s day in the twentieth century. It remains the problem facing the modern church in our twenty-first century day and time.

Machen’s overall thesis in Christianity and Liberalism was the relation between Christianity and modern culture and whether Christianity could be maintained in a scientific age. Machen understood that this was what modern liberalism sought to answer. However, Machen believed that by abandoning the truth of biblical doctrine, modern liberals had given themselves over to the enemy and that there could be no compromise with those who had done so.  

“Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no peace without victory; one side or the other must win,” stated Machen.

Machen criticized modern liberalism in two areas. First, on the grounds that what they were doing and teaching was unchristian or un-doctrinal. Second, that what they were doing and teaching was equally unscientific. Machen’s primary concern and emphasis concerned the former issue and not the latter. He was fully persuaded that the true church was more than capable of warding off what he called the assaults of modern unbelief.

“In showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all. On the contrary, it may appear incidentally, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding off the assaults of modern unbelief,” explained Machen.

Machen wondered that in the midst of all the achievements of modern life, had mankind lost its soul? Was there some lost secret that would restore to mankind the glories of the past? Machen knew there was.

“Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not the religion of the modern, liberal church, but a message of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth once more in God’s good time, in a new Reformation, and bring light and freedom to mankind,”

“By showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.”

Soli deo Gloria!  

“In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here, as in many other departments of life, it appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be the hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending.” – J. Gresham Machen

The 1922-1923 academic year was a busy one for J. Gresham Machen. Along with his teaching responsibilities, he was also involved in various speaking engagements, Bible studies and writing projects. His publications included two books: New Testament Greek for Beginners and Christianity and Liberalism. Both works remain in print.

The content of Machen’s various addresses included such topics as What is Christianity, The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and Is Christianity True. These messages would comprise the foundation of his seminal work.

“With Warfield’s passing, and others in the fundamentalist camp consumed with issues of eschatology or revivalism or cultural issues such as Prohibition, it fell to Machen to offer the scholarly defense of Christianity,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The theological liberals of Machen’s day argued that Christianity needed to adapt to modern times or it would find itself out of step. In other words, the Gospel would not be in conformity with the prevailing worldview of life and living. Things have not changed much in a hundred years.

One such liberal, Professor Shailer Matthews in his book The Faith of Modernism, wrote that the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the God-Man must no longer be believed. Other biblical doctrines that were to be rejected included the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

While there were many other individuals and institutions opposed to biblical Christianity at this time, none was as prominent as Pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). Born in Buffalo, New York, Fosdick graduated from Colgate University in 1900 and from Union Theological Seminary in 1904. He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1903 at Madison Avenue Baptist Church in New York City. He served in several churches and ministries until he became the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Manhattan in 1918. Fosdick was not only a charismatic personality, but he also had the support of America’s richest man, John D. Rockefeller.

In May 1922, Fosdick preached the sermon Shall the Fundamentalists Win in which he supported the theological liberal modernist position. He rejected the virgin birth of Christ as truth and consequently the deity of Christ. He rejected the orthodox and biblical Gospel. He did not believe the Bible to be the literal Word of God.

“He saw the history of Christianity as one of development, progress, and gradual change. Fundamentalists regarded this as rank apostasy, and the battle-lines were drawn,” writes one historian.

Fosdick’s Christianity is best summarized by Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962). In his book The Kingdom of God in America (1937) Niebuhr criticized the liberal social gospel. He described its message as “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Machen loved biblical doctrine. He loved the truth of God’s Word and the biblical God of truth. He could not sit idly by while apostasy was proclaimed. He summarized his orthodox thoughts in Christianity and Liberalism. A survey examination of Machen’s book will be our focus in the articles to follow.

Soli deo Gloria!

“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.” – J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen may not have been looking for a theological fight with the religious progressives in the 1920’s. However, a fight came and Machen was ready to lead in the battle. 

 “The promise of a new century fostered a progressive spirit and an unfettered belief in the goodness and potential accomplishment of man. World War I offered a massive setback, especially in Europe. America, however, being an ocean away and untouched by war directly, ran headlong into the 1920s. “The Roaring Twenties,” they would call it. The description for this greater period is modernism. The rejection of God and the dismissal of religion sit atop the list of modernism’s endeavors. This cultural bomb landed hard on the American church,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The scientific progress of the Twentieth Century resulted in many individuals leaving the church and leaving God behind. Church leaders began to rethink and attack biblical doctrine and theological convictions. They wanted to be in sync with the culture. Many church leaders today are committing the same error in judgment. They seek to be cool or “rock star” pastors. What a tragedy.

In spite of the publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915), religious modernism began to take hold of Protestant churches, seminaries, and entire denominations. Religious progressives subtly attacked biblical doctrines. They denied the inerrancy of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

During this time, Machen and his mentor and colleague B.B. Warfield remained close comrades in holding fast to biblical truth. The aging Warfield exhorted his younger colleague to continue the work that he was doing at Princeton. He encouraged him to hold firmly to your biblical course and convictions.

When Warfield died in 1921, Machen deeply mourned his passing. In writing to his mother, Machen wrote, “Princeton will seem an insipid place without him. There is no one living in the church capable of occupying one quarter of his place. To me, he was an incalculable help and supporter ion a hundred different ways.”

When Machen recalled the removal of Warfield’s casket following his memorial service, he wrote, “It seems to me that the Old Princeton – a great institution it was – died when Dr. Warfield was carried out.”

The leadership mantle of preaching truth and attacking error fell upon Machen. He began publishing scholarly works, such as The Origin of Paul’s Religion.

“Robust, rigorous and responsible scholarship would mark all of his efforts in defending the faith. A better successor to Warfield could not be found,” states Dr. Nichols.

The church needed the right man for this moment in its history. The Lord raised up the right man for the appropriate moment.

Soli deo Gloria!

“In the sphere of religions, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology.” – J. Gresham Machen.

What Machen wrote in 1923 remains true today. We often hear, “Deeds not creeds.” Yet that statement is a creed or doctrine. Machen understood, as should all believers in Christ, that the Scriptures teach both (Eph. 2:8-10; James 2:14-26). An understanding of biblical doctrine impacts biblical behavior. Biblical behavior displays an understanding of biblical doctrine.

“The head or the heart? The mind or the emotions? The will or the affections? Often, we’re tempted to think of them as opposite ends of the spectrum. We can either be filled with information or be ‘filled with the Spirit’ (understood here in the emotional sense),” explains biblical apologist Gregory Koukl. “Both head and heart are important.”

As a young Princeton professor, Machen struggled in understanding this necessary biblical balance. Machen did not desire a biblical intellectualism without faith. Neither did he desire a faith devoid of intellect. He pursued a rigorous scholarship and a vital piety.

 “He (Machen) longed for piety and intellect fused into one, an intellectually informed and compelling faith,” writes Dr. Stephen J. Nichols. “He had forgotten the vital piety he had seen in his home, and for that matter, at Princeton. But he also needed to hear that the vital piety was founded on intellectual merit. The faith that Machen would be defending in the years to come would be no blind faith.”

Machen proved to be a popular professor with the students at Princeton. He interacted with students within, and outside of, the classroom. In spite of other teaching offers, he chose to remain at Princeton.

However, the threats of theological liberalism appeared on the horizon. This looming danger was met with the publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915). It was a series of combined articles defending biblical Christianity. Contributing authors included C. I. Scofield and Princeton’s B.B. Warfield. 

With the outbreak of World War I, Machen applied his biblical intellectualism and vital piety into practice by serving overseas in the humanitarian efforts of the YMCA. He often led Bible studies among the soldiers, Machen served on the front lines often in the midst of gunfire, bombs, and the noise of airplanes. He encountered destroyed villages and the remains of countless dead. He served among both French and American soldiers.

Following the end of the war in 1918, Machen returned to Princeton. He returned, as did others, a changed man. He was no longer the same quiet professor enjoying the hallowed halls of academia. He would soon face another battlefront, just as important and devastating as the one he encountered in Europe.

“With World War I over, the battle for the faith was only beginning. Through the first two decades of the twentieth century, Machen had been engaged only in the periphery, and most of the time he was not sure that he wanted to be engaged even at that level. In the next decade, all of that would change. As the “Roaring Twenties” came in full force, Machen emerged as the premier defender of the faith,” explains Dr. Nichols.  

Soli deo Gloria!

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: ² preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. ³ For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, ⁴ and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:1–4 ESV)

“I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” – J. Gresham Machen, January 1, 1937.

2023 marks the 100^th anniversary of the publication of the book Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. It will be advantageous to examine the content and the enduring legacy of Machen’s life and classic work. Let’s begin by identifying the individual and ministry of J. Gresham Machen. Who was this man and why are his writings significant today?

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was an American Presbyterian New Testament scholar and educator in the early 20th century. He was the Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary between 1906 and 1929.

Machen eventually led a movement against the Modernist Theology at Princeton and formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (1929). As the Northern Presbyterian Church continued to embrace modern theological liberalism, Machen also led a small group of conservative pastors and leaders out of the denomination to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936). 

John Gresham Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 28, 1881, to Arthur Webster Machen and Mary Jones Gresham. Arthur was a successful Baltimore attorney. While Arthur was an Episcopalian, Mary was a Presbyterian. She taught her three sons, Arthur Jr., Thomas and middle son John Gresham the Westminster Shorter Catechism from an early age. The family attended Franklin Street Presbyterian Church.

Even as a child, evidenced by his report cards that his mother kept, Machen was an intelligent young man and destined to be a scholar. He excelled in geometry, algebra, Latin, Greek, French, natural science and English by age fourteen. The question was not if he would attend college, but where?  

Following graduation from high school, Machen attended John Hopkins University where he also excelled. Following graduation, Machen took an extended trip to Europe. He visited many cities and museums. However, what captivated him most were the mountains. Mountain climbing became his favorite recreational activity.

Upon returning from Europe, Machen remained uncertain as to his career. He began graduate studies at John Hopkins, and also spent a summer studying international law and banking at the University of Chicago. Machen eventually decided to enroll at Princeton Theological Seminary. He did not consider a call to the pastorate. However, he became a professor and Princeton would remain his home from 1902 -1929.

Machen loved Princeton. Although he was an avid scholar, his activities were not solely academic. He enjoyed Princeton football. “The football at Princeton is a continual delight to me,” he wrote. He also enjoyed Philadelphia baseball.

Machen would serve alongside fellow professor Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, known as the “Lion of Old Princeton.” However, it would be William Park Armstrong who taught Machen the New Testament. Armstrong recognized Machen’s potential and following Machen’s professorship, he would become the young scholar’s beloved mentor.

However, theological storms were on the horizon; not only at Princeton but also in Machen’s personal life. He entered into a dark night of the soul. It was this personal and professional period of crisis that we will examine when next we meet.

Soli deo Gloria!  

⁵⁷ “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” ⁵⁸ And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:57–58 ESV)

“You can’t go back home to your family, back home to your childhood, back home to romantic love, back home to a young man’s dreams of glory and of fame, back home to exile, to escape to Europe and some foreign land, back home to lyricism, to singing just for singing’s sake, back home to aestheticism, to one’s youthful idea of ‘the artist’ and the all-sufficiency of ‘art’ and ‘beauty’ and ‘love,’ back home to the ivory tower, back home to places in the country, to the cottage in Bermuda, away from all the strife and conflict of the world, back home to the father you have lost and have been looking for, back home to someone who can help you, save you, ease the burden for you, back home to the old forms and systems of things which once seemed everlasting but which are changing all the time–back home to the escapes of Time and Memory.” ― Thomas Wolfe

The people of Jesus’ childhood home took offense at Him. To take offense (σκανδαλίζω; skandalizo) means to cause one to experience anger or shock. Jesus’ striking instruction resulted in the people becoming angry at Him. This was the second time such a reaction occurred towards Jesus when He taught in the Nazareth synagogue. In Luke’s account (Luke 4:16-30), the people sought to kill Jesus (Luke 4:29). Matthew and Mark (Mark 6:1-6) recorded no such intention by the people at this second incident.

Why were the people so incensed at Jesus? Why were they angry at Him? Jesus provided in the answer which Matthew records.

First, the Nazarenes’ response to Jesus fulfilled Scripture. Jesus quoted from the Prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 11:1-2). Sinful people do not respond well to biblical truth. However, the prophets, and in this case Jesus, were not audience driven but rather obedience driven. Their obedience was to the Word of God and the God of the Word. The same remains true today for pastor/teachers (2 Tim. 4:1`-5).

Second, the people of Nazareth were unbelievers. They did not understand the Word of God neither did they desire it. This evidenced their fallen, spiritual condition (I Cor. 2:14). Matthew wrote that this is why Jesus ceased to do many works in the area. The people wanted miracles but they did not want biblical truth. This was the case with members of Jesus’ own family.

“Like the Pharisees before them (12:22–32), the citizens of Nazareth acknowledge the good work that Jesus is doing and yet fail to discern the source of His authority. For them, familiarity has bred contempt, and they will do whatever they can to deny the obvious,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“It is not mere ignorance that hinders men, but that, of their own accord, they search after grounds of offense, to prevent them from following the path to which God invites,” states John Calvin.

Whatever people thought they knew about Jesus when He was growing up in Nazareth needed to change because of who He truly was; God in the flesh. They were unwilling and unable to do this because of their unbelief. What about you?

“Western society is blessed to be steeped in the teaching of Scripture and the person and work of Christ. However, we must take care that this blessing of familiarity does not motivate contempt in us for the things of God. Even if we do not consciously disregard the Lord, failing to marvel at the Father’s grace — because we hear of it every week — is a subtle and powerful form of contempt. Take time to meditate on the greatness of our God and His love for us,” concludes Dr. Sproul.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁵³ “And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, ⁵⁴ and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? ⁵⁵ Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” (Matt. 13:53-56 ESV).

Today’s passage parallels Mark 6:1-6. Jesus left Capernaum and travelled to His hometown, Nazareth (Matt. 2:19-23; Luke 2:39-40; John 1:43-46). It was while He was there that He taught in their synagogue. Neither Matthew nor Mark reveal from what biblical text Jesus taught. However, both disclose the peoples’ response to Jesus’ teaching.

The attendees in the synagogue were astonished. To be astonished (ἐκπλήσσω; ekplesso) is a present, passive infinitive verb. It literally means to strike. Jesus, and His teaching, struck the people with great amazement. They were filled with wonder.

The congregation’s seven recorded, rhetorical questions evidence their astonishment. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? ⁵⁶ And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

“The one place we might expect Jesus to receive a warm welcome is in Nazareth, the town in which He was raised (Matt. 2:19–23). The people of Nazareth (Jesus’ “hometown,” 13:54) are amazed at the wisdom and power of the carpenter’s son. This is due to their familiarity with Jesus and His upbringing. They know His family well, and apparently no one in His clan is all that remarkable,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

“Lacking a formal education, Jesus should not be able to teach with the authority that He conveys. Yet Mary’s son is unafraid to instruct with boldness (vv. 55–56). We would therefore expect the people in Nazareth to experience awe when in the presence of Jesus, whose teaching demonstrates that He is the Holy One of God.”

Another observation from today’s text is that Mary had other children besides Jesus. These sons and daughters were Mary and Joseph’s naturally born children. Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters since the noun is in the plural form. The Bible clearly rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The people’s initial astonishment will become offense. Why? The answer will be forthcoming when next we meet.

Are you continually astonished by the Lord’s salvation of your soul by grace alone, through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone? May who Jesus is and what Jesus did continue to astonish each of us. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁵¹ “Have you understood all these things?” They said to him, “Yes.” ⁵² And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” (Matthew 13:51–52 ESV)

When Jesus concluded His parabolic teaching, He asked the disciples if they understood all the things that He had said. To understand (συνίημι; syniemi) means to intelligently comprehend. It is to realize to the point of insight. They responded that they did understand and comprehend. One wonders if this was true.

“Before His final kingdom parable, Jesus asks His disciples if they have understood all that He has said (v. 51). They answer yes, which is an overestimation of their insight since the disciples later have no clue about the nature of the kingdom and the suffering it entails. For example, Peter will object to the Lord’s crucifixion (Matt.16:21–23) and all the disciples flee upon Christ’s arrest in Gethsemane (26:47–56). Still, the Twelve are not wholly wrong to say that they have understood our Savior’s teaching, for He has explained His parables to them (13:18–23, 36–43, 47–50). Their comprehension is not mature, but it is not absent altogether,” states R. C. Sproul.

“Their yes did not actually mean that they understood all that Jesus was teaching, only that they believed all that they did understand and were prepared to act on it,” explains Dr. James M. Boice.

Jesus then said, ““Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” What did Jesus mean by this cryptic statement?

Discipleship precedes understanding. God converts and then consecrates sinners. By the act of conversion, followed by the process of consecration or sanctification, the believer progresses from a rudimentary understanding of theology to an increasing knowledge of God; His person and His work. This involves an understanding of the Old Testament revelation and how it applies to the New Testament.

“The special revelation of Jesus allows His people to see in the Old Testament kingdom truths that have been there since the foundation of the world, but which have largely gone unnoticed (vv. 34–35). These new truths are the key to the right appropriation of Scripture, but they are not in opposition to the old truths evident apart from the parables of Jesus,” continues Dr. Sproul.

“The disciples are not to spurn the old for the sake of the new. Rather, they are to understand the new insights gleaned from Jesus’ parables in light of the old truths, and vice versa,” concludes Dr. John MacArthur.

Recently, well-known pastors have suggested that the Old Testament is no longer necessary for the church. A study of the New Testament is all that matters. Jesus’ words from today’s text belies that postmodern perspective.

Soli deo Gloria!

⁴⁷ “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. ⁴⁸ When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. ⁴⁹ So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous ⁵⁰ and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:47–50 ESV)

“The parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43) is probably not first and foremost about the presence of people who profess the Christian faith falsely in the institutional church. However, this does not mean that Jesus has nothing to say on the subject. The parable of the net apparently deals with the fact that those who do not really know Christ will “worship” beside true believers in the visible covenant community,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.

Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to a fishing net. This net was thrown into the sea. This resulted in a gathering of various fish. As with the previous parables, Jesus used the object lesson of fishing to explain a spiritual truth. Fishing, along with farming and shepherding, was a familiar way of life for the Jew. They could relate to the plot, setting and characters of the story. The question would be if they would understand the biblical truth.

Jesus continued by saying that when the net was full, the fisherman drew it ashore, sat down and sorted the fish. They placed the good fish into containers and threw away the bad. How many fishermen in Jesus’ audience that day had not done the same thing (Matt. 13:1-2)? It was a common practice.

Jesus then explained the point of his parable. The gathering of fish illustrated the gathering of humanity at the end of the age and before the judgment seat of God. Jesus said that, “The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous ⁵⁰ and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Our Lord’s contemporaries are again familiar with the imagery in this parable. Those who had worked on the seas knew well the task of sorting out the edible fish from those not fit for consumption (13:48), which is likened to the angelic separation of the righteous from the unrighteous when the kingdom is consummated (vv. 49–50),” continues Dr. Sproul.

“Like a net catching fish, the church will bring in many kinds of people. Yet just as not all fish are fit for eating, so too are not all members of the visible church fit for heaven. The church we can see is a mixed body until the Savior returns. All those whom we see professing Christ (the visible church) do not necessarily have faith; some join the church for motives other than serving Jesus. These false professors are mixed with true believers in the visible church, but not forever. For on Judgment Day those who never possessed saving trust in Christ will find eternal punishment (vv. 49–50).”

What kind of fish are you? He who has ears to hear, let them hear.

Soli deo Gloria!