Sermon Video: The Threefold Office of the Messiah: King - Jeremiah 23:5-6

In addition to the unexpected roles of prophet and priest, the long-awaited Messiah would also be what the people hoped for: An heir to David's throne.  At the time this prophecy was given, however, the people of Israel were facing the greatest crisis of their nation's history with the impending doom of God's judgment in the form of Babylon's invading armies close to hand.  Yet even while the prophet Jeremiah was sent to warn them of this coming destruction, God also shared with Jeremiah this promise of hope in the coming of the Messiah.

But, what about the promised kingdom, how can Jesus be the Messiah without ruling on David's throne?  Indeed, Jesus was not concerned during his sojourn among us about establishing a physical kingdom in defiance of Rome, rather he wholly invested his time (and ultimately his very life) in establishing a spiritual kingdom.  However, when Jesus returns it will be to rule, to establish the righteous and just kingdom that Jeremiah promised, those promises stand and will be fulfilled.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #2: 2 Chronicles 19:7

2 Chronicles 19:7

Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”

Among the ways in which 'Christian' Nationalism damages the Church is by compromising its moral authority.  When the Church (or segments of it) ally themselves with worldly (political) power, it creates an incentive to criticize 'them' for moral failings and a disincentive to criticize 'our team' for those same moral failings.  In our own setting, we have seen this play out time and time again since the rise of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.  In addition to giving 'our' politicians and pundits a free pass while lambasting those of the opposition, 'Christian' Nationalism also encourages the defending of organizations and institutions (See: Clergy Sex Scandal, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) because they are part of that same team effort and if their moral failings were made known, if a reckoning and justice were to be pursued, it would be seen as a win for the other side.  When the nation or world is divided in this way into two camps competing for worldly power (as opposed to Paul's theology of worldly vs. spiritual), moral authority diminishes to a tactic, a cudgel, for the bashing of one's enemies, justice is denied, and the Church becomes complicit, at the least, in it.

How do we know God doesn't operate in this fashion?  The case of King David is illustrative.  Despite being the man hand-picked by God to rule Israel, and having been given the title, "a man after God's own heart", God didn't hesitate to send the Prophet Nathan to excoriate David and pronounce a hard judgment against him (2 Samuel 11-12).  God didn't look the other way, and he didn't engage in the repugnant 'what about' moral equivalency that seems to be the go-to response anytime a member/institution on 'our team' commits moral evil (hint: we'd call it a sin if they did it).  That King David was on his own side didn't pervert God's justice, let alone stop it.

How does this use of morality, as a tool for our own power rather than a standard to live by, affect our Gospel presentation?  How does perverting Justice advance the Kingdom of God?  These are questions that 'Christian' Nationalism has no answer for, and as God's Word makes clear, that's a problem.  

Scripture Abuse: 2 Chronicles 7:14, idolatry, nationalism, and antisemitism

Note: I know a number of committed Christians, people whom I love and respect, who have been known to use 2 Chronicles 7:14 as a promise to America.  While I feel that a proper grammatical/contextual/historical interpretation of this passage precludes such an interpretation and application (see below), I am not questioning their faith, only offering them a warning about the danger of misplaced/misunderstood patriotism.

I saw this image shared on Facebook this week.  As someone who has previously highlighted various verses in my Bible, I don't take issue with the desire to make it easier to find a passage in the future, or to remember what one thought about a passage with a note in the margin.  This is not that.  To draw an American Flag on top of the words of Scripture raises serious questions, to put it here at 2 Chronicles 7:14 points us in the direction of why someone might do this.

2 Chronicles 7:14  New International Version

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Why is this interpretation/application of 2 Chronicles 7:14 both erroneous and dangerous?

1. It ignores the context

1 & 2 Chronicles are, as the name suggest, a chronicle of the of the Kingdom of Israel (after the schism, Judah), from the reign of King Saul to the Exile to Babylon.  It was written after the Exile as a history for the people who had returned to the Promised Land, offering them understanding as to why things had happened in their past, and hope for the future.  The specific context of 7:14 is that the LORD is speaking to King Solomon after the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem.  In that conversation, God promises to Solomon that when the Israelites fail to obey the Covenant, there will be a chance for them to return to God through repentance.  Why?  Because God has promised them in his Covenant both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and God is faithful to his word, if they repent he will heal them.

2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise from God to Israel.  It is a promise derived from, and inherently connected to, the Covenant that began with Abraham and was expounded further upon to Moses, David, and now Solomon.  It was not a promise for any surrounding tribe or nation at that time, nor any other nation later in history.  In fact, as Genesis unfolds Abraham learns that Isaac, and Isaac alone, is the Child of Promise.  In the next generation, God specifically chooses Jacob over Esau, once against showing that it is God's sovereign will that matters.

Romans 9:10-15  New International Version

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

2. It ignores the grammar

America is not 'my people', they are not 'called by my name'.  I know that millions of Christians believe that we are, but there is no legitimate way that how these terms are used by God when he spoke to Solomon could be stretched to now include the United States.  Why?  The descendants of Abraham were specifically called by God, set apart by God, and made into a tribe and nation by God.  They were 'my people' in every possible way.  Where is the parallel to America?  At what point, and in what way, were the people who inhabit this land called by God to be here?  The Israelites bore the name of God, wherever they went they represented God to the world around them, their distinctive practices in the Law of Moses setting them apart.  Where is the parallel to America?  In what way, historically or in the present, are the American people distinctive culturally in a way that marks us out as God's people?  When considering American distinctives, are ANY of them marks of a people who belong to God?

Numbers 6:27  New International Version

“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”

In addition, 'their land' is a reference to the Promised Land.  It can be no other land in the context of God's conversation with Solomon.  It didn't mean any other geographic place on earth.  To say that God's promise also applies to England, Spain, Australia, South Korea, or America is to ignore what the text originally intended and decide, on our own, that it can be extended globally.  

For a longer treatment of this issue steeped in scriptural analysis see: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response

3. It replaces the Church with America in the hearts and minds of Christians

The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is an Old Covenant promise, not a New Covenant promise.  That alone should give us pause as to why it would be applied by Christians to their own circumstances.  Beyond that, the promise is made to God's people, not to a nation state.  When American Christians (or Christians in any other nation) utilize this verse to talk about their country, they're blurring the line of belonging between the Kingdom of God / Family of God to which they belong as followers of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of this World to which they belong as earthly citizens.  

Even if the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 were applicable to the New Covenant people, it would apply to the Church not any nation.  Why?  When God instituted the New Covenant through the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost he did so with peoples called out from every tribe, language, and nation.  The wonder at Pentecost of hearing the Gospel in their own languages by Jerusalem's diverse pilgrim crowd illustrated this new emphasis.  

Galatians 3:26-28  New International Version

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Revelation 7:9  New International Version

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

It is unfortunate that after the favor placed upon Christianity by Constantine that the idea of Christendom developed.  Many of the evils that Christians were involved in from that point on involved protecting Christendom, a 'Christian nation' or collection of Christian nations, from worldly threats.  Christendom as a concept opened up Christians to the embrace of the idea of winning converts with the sword, of utilizing evil 'that good may result' because of supposed political necessity, of conquering 'in Jesus' name' and shouting 'God wills it!' as they slaughtered infidels.

Whether one loves America or not, America is NOT the Church.  It never was, it cannot be.  We blur the lines of allegiance, obligations, and fidelity at our peril.

4. It raises America in our hearts and minds toward a place of idolatry. 

I love this country, and count it a great blessing to have been born in this land and have its citizenship, but that blessing cannot compare to having been called by the Spirit of God to become of follower of Jesus Christ, joining the Family of God and becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven.  In every way, our faith requires that our allegiance to God come first.  If my nation, tribe, community, family choose to abandon God, sin against God, or ignore his call to live righteously in this world, I must choose what faith require over those bonds.  Have Christians done this consistently and properly throughout history?  Sadly no.  They have too often thought of themselves as Dutchmen, Englishmen, Russians, or Americans first, and only secondarily as Christians.  This is, to not mince words, idolatry.  Whenever devotion to any other unit (family, community, tribe, nation) rises in importance and obligation above the total commitment to the Cross and the Gospel that God demands of those whom he has redeemed, it is sinful idolatry.  We may not want to hear this, but we must.

I hope that America has a long and glorious future, but I have no idea if this will be.  God has made no such promises to this nation or any other outside of ancient Israel.  I have no idea if America will be a force for good in our world, if it will embrace its potential and reject its flaws.  I do know, with certainty, that the Church will endure until the Day of Judgment.  I do know that God's Spirit will continue to work in its people, globally, because he has indeed promised that he will do so, that his Church will triumph and bring glory to his name.  As flawed as it can be, and as often as its people have failed to live up to their calling, the Church's future is secure.

Matthew 16:18New International Version

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

5. Reading America into Old Covenant texts is a form of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is the darkest stain on the dress of the Bride of Christ.  That it is an inexcusable evil goes without saying.  There is a long standing tendency for Christians to disregard the Covenantal promises made by God to Abraham's descendants and to appropriate them as their own.  Does this fly in the face of Paul's impassioned argumentation in Romans?  Yes, but it has happened anyway.  

To read America into 2 Chronicles 7:14 is to lessen the uniqueness of God's call to Israel.  It downplays God's choice of this people, and decides to replace it with another people of our choosing.  We, the Church, cannot replace Israel in God's plans, to go beyond that false theology and think that America can stand beside Israel and claim the same promises (conveniently ignoring the curses), or worse yet replace Israel as the sole recipient of those promises, is folly, arrogance, and antisemitism. 

Conclusion

Patriotism can be a good thing, but it also potentially very dangerous, especially to Christians.  Love of country can be a good thing, but it is also potentially very dangerous when it skews our thinking.  America is not the Church and America is not Israel, and 2 Chronicles 7:14 does not belong to either of one of them.  

Would God 'heal this land' if repentance swept the nation?  Yes, but not in the same way that 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises (good harvests, freedom from illnesses, rest from enemies), and not because we are 'his people' or 'called by his name'.  Repentance would lead to a form of healing because the very nature of existence reflects the nature of God, thus always making evil a dead end path and righteousness a blessing.  This dynamic is true for every individual and every grouping of people, whether they know God or not.  To invoke 2 Chronicles 7:14, and claim its promise as our own, goes beyond this, leading to both false hope in promises God has not made to us, and distortions of the necessary boundaries between our Heavenly and Earthly citizenships.

2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics - by Russell Moore

Further writings from me on related topics:

Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas, and the blasphemy of thinking God is on your side.

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

Sermon Video: The Absurdity of Conspiring Against God - Psalm 2

The universe is not a dualism, there are not equally opposing forces. There is God, and there is nothing. To oppose the will of God is not, as the lie would have it, a path of freedom or autonomy, but one of addiction to sin. It is vanity to reject God, and yet individuals and even nations have done so and continue to do so. In the end, Jesus Christ will assert his lordship over all things, will conquer all resistance, and will reconcile the world to himself. Our choice is simple, submit and know the love, grace, and hope of God, or fight a battle without hope.

Sermon Video: The Messiah: David's son and Lord, Mark 12:35-37

While in the Temple courts, Jesus takes the opportunity to set forth a riddle concerning the Messiah, one that his own Virgin Birth is the answer to. In Psalm 110, David calls his son "Lord". Jesus asks how a son can be the superior of a father (or ancestor), a mystery culturally in the Ancient World. We know the answer. Jesus is David's son genealogically, but also his superior because he is the Son of God in addition to being the Son of Man. While David was a hero (flawed yes, but still a hero), Jesus is far more: a sinless savior.

God and Politics: Greater than, less than, or equal to?

 I often speak and write about the danger of a too cozy relationship between the Church and political power, but this warning also begs a further question: What is the proper relationship between God and Politics?  The various answers will fall on a continuum from one end of the spectrum that places the Church above earthly power feuds all the way to the other extreme which subjugates the Church to the dominion of temporal power structures.  Some will respond to the 80's sitcom question, "Who's the Boss?" by emphasizing God's sovereignty (an idealist and/or Rationalist position) and others by accepting the limitations of life as we know it (a pragmatic and/or Empiricist position).  Truth be told, when studying philosophy, I always preferred the logic based approach of Descartes or Kant to the observational style of Hume or Locke.  I will focus upon three primary points on this continuum, feel free to carve out a place for others in between or at the ends of the spectrum, the goal is to spur discussion and contemplation, not to squelch it.

1. God < Politics  = Principles are expendable 

One option would be to merge Christian belief and practice INTO the current political goals of a party or system.  This option would be much worse if the system were itself overtly evil, like the German Lutheran Church's acquiescence to Nazi rule, but it still contains pitfalls even if the political philosophy one merges into is not outwardly immoral.  Why is that?  If one's commitment to political goals/methods is greater than one's commitment to God, it will only be a matter of time until that political system goes astray from the principles of faith and requires one to abandon them.  An example that might illuminate this type of arrangement is the 'deal' that Lando makes with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.  Lando believes he has no choice, that a harsh reality requires him to compromise 'for the greater good', but soon realizes that his 'deal' can be altered at any point because he is subservient.  If you prefer a more classical example, the deal that Dr. Faustus makes with the Devil is a parallel, it too trades temporary benefits for long-term destruction.  While we might typically think of this choice as relevant to Christians living under oppressive regimes that try to force obedience upon them, for examples the Early Church when facing Rome, or Christians in China today, the real danger comes not from an aggressive and antagonistic power structure, but a welcoming one.  The promise of wealth and power are far more dangerous to the Church than the threat of oppression.  If power is more important than principle, where is the basis for criticism of the power structure?  What is the role of the prophet when the Church has handed over authority to political masters?

2. God = Politics = Principles are negotiable 

Option #1 only happens most clearly when dealing with a corrupt political leadership as when Henry VIII removed the Church of England from its relationship with Rome in order to allow himself to obtain a divorce.  An arrangement more likely to occur in 'ordinary' times would be one in which the Church considers Politics to be a partnership, simply a means to an end that can be managed (after all, how often are we really dealing with a Vader?).  In this case, Christian belief and practices are not merged INTO the system, but rather emphasized or minimized in accordance with the current political goals of the party (or a particular leader) that one chooses to partner with.  Criticism isn't excluded, as in #1, but simply muted for the sake of Realpolitik.  Principles and morality are not expendable, but they are negotiable, becoming a part of the game that must be played.  The time will come when the Word of God is weighed against a bargain that must be made (to get legislation passed, or to win an election), and tossed aside.  This arrangement it typified by the actions of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, whose study of the power of Sauron convinces him that the best course of action is not to oppose him (for he sees no hope in victory), but to work with him.  Gandalf, realizing that Saruman has traded morality for power, continues to fight on, even against hopeless odds.  If the Church allows its principles to be dictated to it by popularity (for what is politics but a popularity contest?  Even dictatorships require popularity among the ruling clique), it will forever shift with the needs of the moment.  Most of Church History reflects this middle of the road, pragmatic, view.  There will be times when this partnership seems to be beneficial to the Church, when it yields results, and may even advance worthy causes, but these victories will inevitably give way to setbacks and compromises.

3. God > Politics = Principles are foundational

But what if the Church chose to proclaim Christian belief and practice APART FROM the current political goals of any party?  Such a Church would be beholden to none, would compromise its beliefs for no promise of power.  The Church could then criticize whatever policies and proposals it saw as unjust or immoral, it could support those that align with biblical principles, supporting ideas that it judged to be moral, not politicians or parties.  It could cooperate when politicians chose to align with the Church's goals, engage on its own terms, and do so for God's purpose.  Is such a stance naive?  Impossible in the 'real world'?  Or have too many of the Church's leaders lacked the courage to stand their ground?  The example that comes to mind here is the decision of Steve Rogers, Captain America, to refuse to sign the Sakovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War because he believed that giving up the ability to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong was a dangerous path.  (Yeah, I'm Team Cap when watching that movie.)  There are actually numerous biblical precedents for this stance: When the Prophet Nathan saw that King David had chosen an immoral path, he opposed that path and called the king to question.  When the Prophet Elijah saw that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel had embraced the idolatry of Baal worship, he took it upon himself to oppose the prophets of Baal, earning himself a death sentence from the king and queen in the process.  Likewise, John the Baptist did not consider Herod's role as king to make him exempt from the Law of God and rebuked him for his unlawful marriage (this opposition cost him his life).  Fast forward to the situation described in option #1, that of the German Lutheran Church succumbing to Nazi control, and you see in opposition to this betrayal the faithful work of the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who also lost his life because of this stand).  The Church fulfills its relationship with earthly power most faithfully when it maintains its prophetic ministry of speaking Truth to the powerful, of opposing immorality wherever it originates.  

Are there other options?  The Amish have decided that they'd rather not be involved at all, withdrawing from society, as have the Jehovah's Witnesses (somewhat less dramatically).  While this removal from the questions of power and politics removes the temptation to compromise, it also abdicates the responsibility given to the Church to stand for justice and protect the oppressed.

Isaiah 1:17    New International Version

Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Leviticus 19:15    New International Version

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Psalm 82:3    New International Version

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

While it is true that the Church is not Israel, and we do not live (nor should we seek to) in a theocracy, the Church still has a role to play in upholding and advocating for morality in the societies and power structures that it finds itself a part of.  What the Church has at times forgotten, especially when offered earthly power, is that God does not accept that the pathway to good can be paved with evil. (Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.)  

When I was eighteen I strongly considered majoring in political science and seeking to serve my country in the realm of politics.  In the end, I rejected that path for two primary reasons: (1) I hated the idea of constantly asking for money, (2) I knew that I would be forced to choose between proclaiming what was True and Right and thus ending my career at some point when those things were opposed by the needs of the party, or muzzling my beliefs (or worse yet changing them) in order to move ahead.  I don't doubt that thousands of Christian politicians from the local to the federal level struggle with what their faith demands of them, with the demand to compromise principles for the sake of politics.  What if the Church supported them by not playing the political game?  What if the Church offered these politicians an example of moral fortitude that might inspire them to stand for justice even when it wasn't convenient?  

We've never truly seen what the Church could become if it took all of Jesus' teachings to heart.  What would our world look like if Christ's followers really 'turned the other cheek' and 'repaid evil with good'?  We fall short, we repent, we lean upon the Spirit and seek to imitate Christ-likeness better the next time.  Imagine also if the Church truly believed the words of Paul, Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is already sovereign, what if the Church started acting like it knew that to be true?

Philippians 4:8  New International Version

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

  

Time-bound particulars or Timeless principles? David's sin with Bathsheba

When considering the interpretation and application of a passage of Scripture, it is necessary to evaluate it regarding whether it is an example of time-bound particulars or timeless principles.  An example debated within the Bible itself as recorded in the book of Acts is whether or not new Gentile Christians ought to obey the commands in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) regarding circumcision.  In the end, first Paul, and then the Jerusalem council agree that while the command of circumcision is normative for the descendants of Abraham (Jews) for all time, the time-bound particulars of it do not apply in the same way to Gentile converts operating under the New Covenant.  While the principle of being a sacred people, called by God to be holy, still applies to the Church (and its new initiation rite, baptism), the expression of that principle given to God for Israel did not apply to the Church.
Consider the case of David's lustful adultery with Bathsheba which is recorded in 2 Samuel 11.  On the one hand, the time-bound particulars of the situation might seem vastly different than any modern situational equivalent: David was a Jew (Law of Moses), living in ancient Israel, where he was a king, and his society still tolerated (wrongly) polygamy.  Where is the connection to your average Christian married man of Gentile background (Law of Grace), living in modern America, where he is an average citizen of no real power/wealth?  And yet, one need not find superficial connections between David's circumstances and those of a modern married Christian man because the timeless principles upon which David's actions are judged are not bound by his circumstances.  When David saw Bathsheba, lusted after her, sought her ought, had sex with her, and then conspired to have her husband killed so that he could keep her for himself, he violated the 6th and 7th commandments, "You shall not murder", "You shall not commit adultery", as well as the 10th, "You shall not covet your neighbor's...wife" {Exodus 20: 13,14,17 the numbering of the commandments varies by tradition}  If a modern married Christian man were to meet a woman, lust after her, have sex with her, and then conspire to have his own wife and her husband killed so they could be together, he too would be violating these same commandments.  While David was King of Israel, his actions were the same as thousands of other men (and women) who have befouled the sacred marital bed by allowing lust to lead to adultery.  While the circumstances surrounding a modern day affair (far too polite a word for actions that both anger God and tear families apart) bear little resemblance to David's palace intrigue, one need not struggle to apply the moral lesson given by the prophet Nathan to David when he rebuked him, "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?" (1 Samuel 12:9)  Times may have changed, but lust is still lust, marital infidelity is still marital infidelity, and conspiracy to rid oneself of a rival is still murder. 
In the end, there are certain passages of Scripture, commands and rituals, which either no longer apply in the New Covenant to the Church, or no longer apply in a modern world with free democratic citizens; at least not in the same way that they applied to our ancestors in the faith.  On these occasions we must seek out the timeless principles upon which these passages rest and then consider how to apply those principles to our situation; a more difficult task.  However, this may not be necessary as often as we think, for human nature has not changed in the past few thousand years, God's nature, in particular his justice, holiness, and righteousness, have never changed.  The people of the Bible were people just like us, facing the same temptations and trials (even if in different packaging), and needing, just as we do, the grace of God to overcome them.

Sermon Video: The Virgin and the throne of David - Luke 1:26-33

The classics are worth another look, whether its your favorite book or movie, quality is worth repeating.  When it comes to the Nativity narrative in the Gospel of Luke, the same holds true, even if you've heard the story dozens of times, there are still deep and profound truths worth reinforcing and exploring. 

The arrival of the angel Gabriel at Nazareth to speak to Mary marks the beginning of the centerpiece of God's vast plan of redemption for humanity.  In accordance with his plan, God chooses a young woman pledged to be married to a man with a claim as a descendant of David, a morally upright couple, through whom the grace of God will work as the mother and adopted father of the Son of the Most High.  The surprise visit is only the beginning, for God is working to establish a kingdom that will endure forever, quite a lot for a virgin teen to take in.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The real Happily Ever After - Isaiah 9:7a

Many a tale, particularly those aimed at children, ends with some variation of, "and they all lived happily ever after".  Real life isn't like that, it doesn't suddenly become devoid of problems, nothing in our experience can approximate the fairy tale's claim of "happily ever after".  Are they any real happy endings that won't end?  Only one story, thankfully a factual one, will have an ending that will be glory and joy everlasting, that of the Chosen One of God, the Messiah.
The prophet Isaiah described who the Messiah would be in Isaiah 9:6, here in 9:7, the prophet speaks about what the Messiah will do.  The promise that he will reign on the throne of David with an unending government of justice and righteousness remains a future prediction, for the throne of David in Jerusalem remains vacant nearly 2,700 years after the last king of Judah.  We can, however, have confidence that this kingdom will be established, for the LORD's promise to send a Messiah was fulfilled when Jesus came as Immanuel, God in the flesh.  Jesus came first to serve and to save, he will return in power to reign.  What will that kingdom look like?  It will be unlike anything we can imagine, for no human government has ever been established upon justice and righteousness.

As Advent approaches, remember that God not only promised to send a Messiah, but to establish and everlasting kingdom among men as well, and while we will never know the day of its arrival, it is always closer with each new day.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: A baby whose origins are from of old - Micah 5:2

The prophet Micah predicted that the future king in the line of David would be "from of old"; yet how could this be?  How could a future king be from the past?  The mystery of this prophecy was solved at Bethlehem when Jesus Christ, the God-Man, became flesh and he who had created the world entered into time.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Consequences of Forsaking the LORD - 2 Chronicles 24:17-25

The second half of the life of King Joash of Judah raises difficult to answer questions.  In the first half of chapter 24 of 2 Chronicles, Joash was the driving force behind the restoration of the temple of the LORD, but after the death of his mentor and father-figure, the priest Jehoida, everything begins to fall apart.  After listening to bad advice from flatterers, Joash abandons the temple of the LORD that he had so recently been dedicated to and instead embraces idol worship.  For Joash, and the people of Judah, this isn’t simply a choice they’re making to worship as they see fit, it is a betrayal of the covenantal promises made by God and Abraham, expanded upon by God and Moses, and recommitted to under Jehoida’s leadership only a few years previously.  That covenant is very specific in its requirements for complete fidelity on the part of the people of God, any flirtation with other gods is considered to be a form of adultery, the false god being akin to a harlot. \

God doesn’t take such betrayal lightly, and in this case he responds by sending prophets, who are ignored, and then ups the ante by calling upon Zechariah, the grandson of Jehoida, to deliver a message of judgment against Joash and the people.  Instead of repenting following Zechariah’s words, the people conspire, with the consent of the king, to murder Zechariah by stoning him to death within the courtyard of the temple.  This monumental act of ingratitude by Joash toward the kin of Jehoida who had risked his life to protect Joash as a child and restore him to the throne of David, is hard to fathom.  What could have gone so wrong in Joash’s mind that he fell so far from grace?

In the end, Joash dies at the hands of his own household officials and is refused burial in the tombs of the kings of Judah alongside David, even though Jehoida had been given that honor.  The choices of Joash to worship false gods had consequences, his refusal to repent compounded by his murder of God’s messenger, brought disaster on himself and his people.  He could have followed David’s example of repentance, even after Zechariah’s words, but he chose to follow the path of destruction to the bitter end.  Don’t let the same pattern of sin and judgment continue in your life, or the life of those you love, sin will always have consequences, it is inevitable, but while life lasts, falling upon our knees in repentance before the mercy of God is always an option.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

Sermon Video: The Priests' Revolution - 2 Chronicles 23

The courageous hiding of the child Joash by his aunt Jehosheba from the murderous intentions of Queen Athaliah was but the beginning of the efforts to resist her tyrannical and idolatrous rule.  For the next seven years, Joash was hidden in the temple by the priest Jehoida, Jehosheba’s husband, until Jehoida had been able to secretly build up enough support among the military, priests and Levites, and elders of Judah to attempt to overthrow the queen.

                The efforts of Jehoida, fraught with danger as they were should they be discovered prematurely, ultimately came off without a hitch as the conspiracy unfolded according to plan and the city of Jerusalem was quickly under the control of those who had proclaimed Joash, now seven years old, as the rightful king as the only surviving direct descendant of David.  The rebels had risked much in going against a queen willing to murder her own family to maintain power, but they had chosen to make that risk on the side of that which if right in fulfillment of God’s promise to protect the throne of David.

                The people of Jerusalem, upon hearing the proclamation that Joash is the new king, rather than hiding indoors and waiting to see who prevails between the queen and the rebels, instead throng into the streets to celebrate their liberation.  Athaliah, rejected by her subjects and bereft of supporters, makes a dramatic entrance into the temple courts shouting, “Treason!”, but to no avail.  Jehoida orders her taken back to the palace where she is put to death, fittingly in the building she was willing to kill in order to control.

                It was an unlikely revolution, centered around a dispossessed child-king, led by a priest, and yet it succeeded with very little bloodshed.  Those involved in the conspiracy had been ready to spend their lives for the sake of that which is right, because of the promise of the word of God and the support of the people of Jerusalem, they didn’t have to.

                What does this mean for us?  We are unlikely to find ourselves in the midst of a revolution against a tyrant, but we will still have opportunities for acts of courage in defense of the weak, acts of purity in defiance of corruption.  Jehoida and those who followed him risked death to do the right thing, we can certainly risk far less to do likewise.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

Sermon Video: The Genealogy of Jesus, Part 2 - Matthew 1:6-17

In this 2nd message on Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, there are two more women, an obvious reference to sexual scandal, and the destruction of the kingdom of Judah.  The list begins with "King David", the only person on the list given the title of king, even though the rest of his descendants until the exile were kings.  David received powerful promises from God that his descendant would one day sit upon a throne that would last forever.  Immediately following this triumphant mention of David as King comes the lowest point in the entire genealogy: the adultery and murder associated with "Uriah's wife".  Matthew didn't have to mention Solomon's mother at all, but when he did he called her "Uriah's wife" instead of Bathsheba.  This usage only shines the spotlight even more upon the deadly road of sin that David walked down from his lust to have Bathsheba, to his adultery with her, to his attempted cover-up, and eventually to his willingness to conspire to kill one of his most loyal and faithful soldiers, Uriah.
The rest of the kings in the list until the exile are a mixture of the good and the bad.  Some followed after God, others led the people astray toward wickedness and idolatry.  Overall, the trend of decline continued for the kingdom as God's people drifted further and further away from their Covenant promises.  Just before the exile in the list is the name Josiah.  Josiah became king of Judah at eight years of age when his father was assassinated; both is father and his grand-father were exceedingly wicked, what hope is there that this boy-king could save a nation headed for destruction?  Josiah's efforts at restoration had no chance of success until his high priest found a copy of the Law.  The actual words of Moses, the Covenant between God and the people of Israel had been lost!  Despite Josiah's efforts, the wrath of God at the broken promises of his people could not be assuaged.
The throne of David came to an end in 586 BC with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  All of the names from the exile until Joseph are unknown to history, but we do know that David's throne is vacant, no fulfillment of God's promise seems possible.  And then, at the end of the list, we have something odd.  Matthew calls Joseph the "husband" of Mary instead of the father of Jesus as he had every other name in the list.  He also tells us that it is Mary "of whom" Jesus is born (the Greek makes it clear, the pronoun is singular and feminine and cannot apply to Joseph or to both Joseph and Mary).
It is at this point, with this list of ancestors, some great and some exceedingly wicked, with gentile blood in his veins (especially through the women Matthew highlighted), that Jesus is born of Mary.  Josiah was unable to save his people from their sins as he sat on the throne of David, how can a child born in far humbler circumstances hope to do better, he will have to be no ordinary child, he will have to be the Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video, The Genealogy of Jesus Part1 - Matthew 1:1-5

I know what you're thinking, there can't be anything worth learning about a list of names.  The Genealogy of Jesus is just a list of names isn't it?  For Matthew, the inclusion of a genealogy at the start of his biography isn't unusual for the world he lived in, but a simple list of names this isn't.  Matthew tells a story through his list of names by including five women in the list.  It was unusual in such list to include any mothers, let alone five, but what strikes us as we look at the list is which mothers Matthew chose to highlight.  It wasn't the most respectable of the ancestors of the Messiah, but rather a trio (in the first half of this 2 part message) of women with foreign roots, two of whom had a checkered past.
The first woman listed in Matthew's account is Tamar.  Tamar isn't very familiar to us because her story is left out of every Sunday School material packet on Genesis.  Tamar was married to a dishonorable man, taken advantage of sexually by a greedy brother-in-law, and backed into a corner where she resorted to prostitution at the hands of a lustful father-in-law.  The twins boys who resulted from this union were included in the line of David, and hence the Messiah, rather than any of the other sons of Judah.
The second woman in the list is the prostitute and Canaanite, Rahab.  Now, Rahab is included in our telling of the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho, although her profession prior to the arrival of the spies is often left out.  How did this woman, renowned for her faith in a God she didn't know about (see Hebrews chapter 11) end up marrying into the line of Judah after the Israelites entered into the Promised Land?
The last woman in the list is actually one that we have no problems with but that would have been considered suspect in her day because of being a Moabite.  Ruth is remembered for her loyalty and faith, and for finding a good and faithful man in Boaz, but she would have been an unlikely grandmother for Israel's greatest king had not God provided for her in response to her faith.
In the end, Matthew didn't have to include any of these women, but he chose to, that means something.  Is he trying to tell us that the Messiah came from an imperfect line as we all did, but was perfect himself?  Is he trying to tell us to judge these women with fresh eyes and see their true value by including these three in particular?  Regardless of what conclusion we come to about Matthew purpose, it seems clear that this isn't just a list of names.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video: "I will sing in the shadow of your wings"- Psalm 63

In this psalm David expresses his joy and confidence which come from the love and protection of the Lord.  Despite wandering around in the desert, David knew that God was with him in the no matter what.  If the doubts came in the night, God was there.  That absolute confidence in God's Word allowed David to proclaim his ability to sing out in the shadow of God's protective wings in defiance of his enemies.  We too, with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit can rejoice in our confidence in the promises of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video: "The LORD is my refuge" - Psalm 11

David is confronted with two conflicting things that he knows to be true.  The wicked assault the righteous (as Saul did to him), and God is in control of this world.  The solution to that dilema is two-fold; to become part of the process of giving refuge to those in need (i.e. being a part of God's refuge) and accepting by faith that God will in the end judge the world, that those who are martyred in the cause of Christ are victorious.  For David, he still had to hide in caves from Saul, but he refused to raise his hand against the LORD's annointed; instead, he placed the outcome in God's hand; the LORD was his refuge.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video