Responding to “Hot Takes”

Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And [Jesus] answered and said unto them, “Think ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they have suffered these things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:1-5).

These days it feels as if we are being consumed by the “hot take.”

Between 24/7 cable news stations and the Internet we feel awash with information and news. Information about events is distributed in real time; confusion often spreads before anyone can make any sense of what is transpiring. Since so many have access to both information and the means by which to respond to it, we are often made to feel as if we must respond so that people know we are aware and where we may stand on any given issue. So much seems to happen, and we get overwhelmed very quickly. We yearn for a more wise and reflective view of current events. And yet, most of the time, whatever might be the big news story today is often forgotten about by tomorrow. We are chasing the next big story; those who have to suffer the consequences of the last big story have to sort their lives out as everyone else has moved on.

We might imagine that such things are new to us in our hyper-connected digital age, but “hot takes” and responses to them are as old as humanity. Jesus Himself was confronted with a “hot take” in Luke 13:1, a fresh Roman outrage against the Jewish people: Pilate, procurator of Judea, evidently ordered some Galilean Jewish people to be slaughtered, and their blood mingled with that of the sacrifices offered on their behalf. The Jewish people already did not like Roman rule and felt that the Romans, like the Greeks before them, would attempt to suppress their ability to practice their faith without hindrance. And here is the Roman procurator killing Jewish people offering sacrifices! Was the time not coming when YHWH would deliver His people from these oppressive pagans? Was it not being claimed that Jesus was the Messiah of God? What would He have to say about such things? Surely He would take the opportunity to condemn the Romans for what they had done. Surely He would identify with His people against those who oppressed them!

Yet Jesus is not taken in by the “hot take.” It is not as if He is unaware of what happened, nor is He unaware of His audience’s expectation. In fact, He referenced another recent “hot take,” news involving the death of eighteen people when a tower fell on them in Siloam (Luke 13:4). He does not take the opportunity to condemn the Romans; instead, He spoke to the very basic and primal response to such “hot takes” and news. He asked if these people who have suffered in this way, be it from Pilate’s men or from a terrible accident, were any worse sinners than others. He wanted to make it clear that unless those to whom He spoke repented, they would likewise perish (Luke 13:2-5).

What does that have to do with these events? While we often speak of the Jewish people who live in the time of Christ in different ways than those who lived in Old Testament times, they are all being shaped by often consistent cultural expectations. One such expectation, seen frequently in wisdom literature, is that people get what they deserve. The righteous and industrious are wealthy and blessed; the wicked and lazy are poor and suffer indignity. Sometimes this happens; as we can see in Job and Ecclesiastes, however, sometimes the wicked obtain wealth, and the righteous suffer indignities. Even so, it seems that the Jewish people easily defaulted to the view that people get what they deserve: thus, it must have been that God willed for those Galileans to be killed because they were sinners, and God allowed that tower to fall on those eighteen because they were sinful. It also provides a nice comfortable cushion and barrier between the observer and the observed: since these things did not happen to me, but it happened to them, I must be in a better situation than they are. They must have been worse off; they must have deserved it; I do not, and therefore I will not have to suffer such indignity.

Jesus knew they thought these things, and so Jesus corrected them. In so doing Jesus opened up the very terrifying prospect to them that is all too real: bad things happen to people, and many times it has nothing to do with the type of person they are. Sometimes the righteous suffer and die; sometimes the wicked prosper. People become victims of random violence, the oppression of the state, or calamitous events. It was easier to believe, and hope, that such things happen to other people, and not to “us,” because we do not deserve it, and thus somehow they do. No, Jesus says; they are no worse than you. They did not deserve to have such things happen to them. They suffered tragically; nothing stops us from suffering as tragically.

It has always been almost comically easy to learn of “hot takes” and news about other people and remain entirely disconnected. Such terrible things happen over there to people like them. Such things would not happen here or to people like us. We have to find some reason to explain why they must suffer so and yet we should not; it is very comforting that way. And yet Jesus still says no. They are no worse than us. They did not deserve to have such things happen to them. They suffered tragically, and we could as well. We may live our lives watching bad things happen to “them,” and think it will never happen to us, until that day when “we” become “them.”

Thus we do well to learn Jesus’ lesson: we do better to identify with those who suffer than to try to find internal reasons to keep them at arm’s length. We are not guaranteed to go through life without suffering tragedy or becoming the next “hot take.” What happens to the other today may happen to us tomorrow. Our trust must not be in our righteousness or good fortune but in God in Christ. May we all change our hearts and minds to align our will to God’s so they we may not perish but obtain eternal life in the resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Responding to “Hot Takes”

David’s Sinfulness

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5).

Few verses have engendered more controversy than Psalm 51:5. People argue about its meaning. Translations of the Bible are frequently judged by how they render the verse in English.

Psalm 51:5 is “ground zero” for discussions regarding “original sin” and “total depravity.” When taken out of context, the text certainly seems to lend credence to the suggestion that everyone is sinful from birth. Such a suggestion, however, does not sit well with many other passages in Scripture. In order to make sense of the verse in light of these other passages, many seek to blunt its force, suggesting it does not really mean what it seems to mean. The controversy has raged for 1500 years; it will likely continue until the Lord returns.

Such controversy is lamentable and certainly was not David’s intent when writing Psalm 51. If we wish to come to a good understanding of the verse, we do well to consider what David is writing and why he does so.

The psalm’s inscription points the way. We are told in 1 Samuel 13:14 that David is a man after God’s own heart, and most of the time he exemplifies trust in God. Yet in 2 Samuel 11:1-27 we learn of David’s heinous sins with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite: he lusts for her, lays with her, attempts to set up a situation by which Uriah will think the child is his, and, failing that, conspires to have Uriah die in battle. When it is accomplished, he takes Bathsheba as wife. He may have been able to deceive his fellow Israelites, but he could not deceive God. God sends Nathan the prophet to David to expose his sins of lust, adultery, deceit, and murder, and David confesses his sin (2 Samuel 12:1-14). Nathan then pronounces God’s judgment: David will not die, but the child of the union will; David will experience trials, tribulation, and upheaval within his family. Most of the rest of 2 Samuel describes how these difficulties came about (2 Samuel 12:15-23, 13:1-20:26).

According to the inscription of Psalm 51, often made part of Psalm 51:1, David wrote Psalm 51 immediately after Nathan made evident his sin to him. The message of the psalm perfectly fits this context: it represents a penitent heart begging for God’s mercy and forgiveness. David has been forced to come face-to-face with his sin and the enormity of the wrong which he has done, and through the psalm he expresses not just the intellectual and rational understanding of the problem but the raw emotions and pain as well. Throughout Psalm 51 David does not merely recognize his sin: he experiences a range of emotions on account of his sin and turns to God wholeheartedly.

It is worth noting how we humans tend to get rather hyperbolic at emotionally charged moments in our lives. We tend to think and talk in extremes if we are quite happy or sad, suffering or relieved, relaxed or frustrated. We talk in terms of “always,” “never,” “forever,” and the like, even though we know intellectually that such language is extreme.

So it is with David in Psalm 51. When confronted with his sin and its terrible consequences, David feels extreme anguish and pain, a pain so real that we can feel it through the psalm. At such a time, when he considers himself, it would be quite easy to get a bit hyperbolic and go to extremes. He saw his sin for what it was, and because of it, he felt as if he was brought forth in iniquity. He felt as if he was even conceived in sin!

Feelings do not necessarily correspond with reality; just because David felt that he was sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity does not make it true in fact. With more sober thinking Ezekiel makes it clear that parents and children do not suffer for the sins of others but for their own sin alone (Ezekiel 18:1-24). Jesus will consider small children as representative of those in the Kingdom of God and will go so far as to declare that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matthew 18:1-4, 19:14, Mark 9:33-37). Such declarations are not consistent with the idea that children actually inherit sin and are in danger of hellfire the moment they leave the womb (or perhaps even earlier!). We must remember that David is writing poetry and expressing the great anguish and pain he is experiencing on account of his sin. He expresses that anguish with hyperbole, and it remains inspired by the Holy Spirit to give voice to others who will come afterward who will feel and experience similar anguish. But the statement is not true in fact, any more than we should believe that God was asleep because the sons of Korah demanded He wake up from sleep in Psalm 44:23. These are figures of speech expressing powerful emotion, and while the emotion is quite real, its expression should not be taken in such a way as to contradict what is known about God and His truth as revealed in the Scriptures. We do well to remember that the sum of God’s word is truth (Psalm 119:160).

Nevertheless, while the statement that David was brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin is hyperbole and not true in fact, we do not do well if we try to minimize or lessen the emotional expression behind the statement. David said what he did because he was confronted with the magnitude, horror, and terror of his sin and its consequences. He felt it so acutely and thoroughly that he felt as if he was sinful from the very beginning. That is a very real experience of the depth of the problem of sin; have we ever gone through a period of time like David did? Just because we did not actively sin as children does not mean that we have escaped from the snares of sin; we stand as guilty before God of sin as David did. When confronted with his sin, David experienced great and terrible anguish, felt the problem of sin to the extreme, and in so doing turned back to God in full repentance. What would have happened if David attempted to blunt the force of his sin problem, seeking to rationalize or justify what he had done? What if he did not fully experience the anguish of feeling separated from God and in danger of losing the most precious relationship he had? Would he have expressed true contrition? Would he have remained a man after God’s own heart?

David was not, in reality, brought forth in iniquity, or conceived in sin. But he had sinned, and he felt as if he had been. He remained a man after God’s own heart, recognizing the difficulties and misery of sin not just intellectually but emotionally and viscerally as well. In so doing he gives us a voice when we are confronted with our sin and its serious consequences. Have we ever felt anything like what David felt? Are we willing to come to grips with the true depth of our sin problem and its terrible consequences, and endure that pain not just intellectually but emotionally as well, so that we can fully turn to God with a penitent and repentant heart and receive forgiveness? Let us, like David, be people after God’s own heart, recognize our sin problem, repent of it, and find salvation in God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

David’s Sinfulness

The Betrayer, Betrayed

Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood.”
But they said, “What is that to us? See thou to it.”
And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.”
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me” (Matthew 27:3-10).

Judas Iscariot is a good reminder to us that people tend to be more complicated than we often imagine. As the betrayer of Jesus (Matthew 26:14-16), and a greedy man who was known for stealing (cf. John 12:6), it would be easy to just write Judas off as purely evil. It would be easy to have no compassion on him whatsoever; it would be easy, as Dante did, to relegate him to the complete bottom of hell, as one of the most evil people to ever walk the earth.

Yet Judas is not a psychopath. He is not pure evil. Yes, he does terrible and sinful things; yes, he is rightly deemed an adversary, or devil, by Jesus (cf. John 6:70). But when the realization came upon him that Jesus was not getting away this time, that he really had just betrayed an innocent man, Judas acutely felt his guilt. He was deeply sorrowful for his actions (Matthew 27:3). He tried to return the thirty pieces of silver he was given to betray Jesus; to us, this may not seem like a significant act of repentance, considering what he has done, but let us remember that he is known for being covetous and a thief. After being spurned by the religious authorities, he went off and took his own life (Matthew 27:4-5). He perceived what he had done: he had betrayed the Christ of God into the hands of the men who would kill Him. The weight of guilt and pain proved too much for him.

So why did he do it? The text never says. Certain possibilities come to mind. He is most likely called Judas Iscariot because he hails from Kerioth, a village in Judea (Joshua 15:25). Jesus’ Galilean disciples were ready for Jesus to go to Jerusalem, defeat the Romans, and restore Israel’s political fortunes; how much more so would Judas, a native of Judea itself? Perhaps Judas thought that by betraying Jesus he would spur the Lord and Messiah into finally standing up to His adversaries and to establish that Kingdom about which He kept talking. Perhaps he was hurt by Jesus’ rebuke regarding Judas’ criticism of the waste of Mary’s ointment (cf. John 12:1-8), and he wanted to get a little even. Perhaps the money was the motivation: he wanted to know how much the chief priests would give him in order to hand Jesus over (Matthew 26:15), and perhaps he just saw an opportunity to make a quick buck. Perhaps it was just the voice of Satan tempting him and he proved unable to resist (Luke 22:3-6). Or perhaps, as with the rest of Judas’ character issues, it is a mixture of some of all of these reasons.

Regardless of why Judas did it, based on his reaction, it does not seem that Judas really thought that it would lead to Jesus’ death. Judas was there to see Jesus escape from the crowd in Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30) and in Jerusalem (John 10:31-39). At least one of these events involved miraculous action. Judas most likely surmised that Jesus would either escape His enemies or defeat them outright. Judas believed, after all, that Jesus was the Christ; he saw the power Jesus manifested; he knew that the soldiers coming to get Jesus were really no match for Him.

But Judas did not know that Jesus was submitting to the plan of God, and that he was the catalyst, however willingly, of the terrible sufferings that Jesus would experience. When that realization came upon him, he saw the horror of what he had done.

Matthew has set up two very intentional parallels regarding Judas in his account of these events. The first is with Simon Peter. In Matthew 26:69-75, Matthew describes how Peter denies Jesus three times. Peter feels immense guilt for doing so; he goes off and wept bitterly. He had let Jesus down. And then, a few verses later, in Matthew 27:3-10, Matthew relates how Judas felt guilt for what he had done. Both Peter and Judas felt guilt. Both proved repentant at their actions– they were both very sorrowful. But Peter’s repentance led him to turn back to Jesus, receive forgiveness, and to change from a denier of the Lord to a full confessor and witness of Jesus before the Jews and the nations (cf. John 21:15-19, Acts 2:14-36, 3:11-4:22). We have little doubt that Peter, despite having denied Jesus, entered into His glory. Judas, however, did not turn to Jesus. He did not wait to see what would happen, to beg for forgiveness before the Risen Lord. Had he done so, is there any doubt that Jesus would have forgiven him if he was truly repentant? Instead, his guilt led him to seek atonement from the very ones who gave him the money, those who also had Jesus’ blood on their hands, and was spurned even by them. Drowning in guilt, Judas kills himself. Despite repenting of what he had done, Judas did not turn back to God in Christ for forgiveness. Crushed by worldly guilt, he takes his own life, and what hope can we have for him in eternity on account of it? Thus Paul will later teach the Corinthians that there are two forms of guilt– worldly guilt that leads to death, and godly guilt that leads to true repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10).

Yet it is the second parallel that Matthew is making that is often missed if we are only focusing on Judas and his character. Judas is not the only actor here; we also have the example of the chief priests and elders.

We have declared that Judas feels great sorrow for what he has done. This sorrow is very deep because he knows who Jesus is and therefore the enormity of the transgression he has committed. He wants to make good in some small way, and so he takes the money back to the Temple (Matthew 27:3). He desperately seeks atonement for what he has done.

One would think that he has done wisely in heading to the Temple. After all, according to the covenant between God and Israel, the Temple is where God dwells and where sacrifices are to be offered for sin (cf. Leviticus). Atonement and forgiveness of sins are to be found by bringing one’s sacrifice to the Temple and having it offered before God. One of the most important reason for the Temple’s existence is to facilitate this atonement, and the chief priests are the very ones who have been given this task (cf. Leviticus 16).

Yet Judas does not receive any such comfort. Judas confesses to them that he has sinned by betraying innocent blood (Matthew 27:4). What do they tell him? “What is that to us? See thou to it” (Matthew 27:4). The very priests who are to minister to God on behalf of the people, offering the sacrifices brought by contrite Israelites, show complete disinterest in Judas’ problem. They declare that he has to see to his own atonement himself.

As it relates to Judas himself, we see that the betrayer is now betrayed. Jesus put trust in Judas, allowing him to maintain the money bag even though he pilfered from it, establishing him as one of the select Twelve, and Judas betrayed him. Now, the religious authorities to whom Judas entrusted himself, getting their money for handing Jesus over, whose “day job” it is to facilitate atonement for sin, refuse to do anything for him. They do not deny his claim; they “piously” refuse to put the money back into the treasury, for they know it is the price of blood, and that is why they buy a field with it (Matthew 27:6-10). If Judas’ claim of betraying innocent blood is true, than their guilt is not much less than his own. But they are content– regardless of Jesus’ conduct, He was a threat to the “system,” and that threat was being removed. The show would go on. The chief priests and elders maintained their authority and stature among the people.

Yet, in reality, they have just sold themselves out. As this relates to Jesus and the office of the Temple, Matthew is making it clear that the Temple and its authorities are being superseded. The chief priests and elders are more right than they imagine when they cast Judas off, for in reality, their sacrifices and their attempts toward atonement now prove insufficient. Salvation and forgiveness are coming through Jesus who is being crucified; the sad irony is that the cost of Judas’ atonement was being paid for as he was going through these actions. The Temple system, with its corrupted chief priests, was morally bankrupt. Within forty years, the Romans put an end to the whole pretense. Matthew is showing that God’s sentence against them was just.

The betrayer is betrayed; in the process, the whole system proves its own condemnation. At that moment it was hard to imagine that their machinations were really leading to the opportunity for all men to receive salvation through the redemption for which Jesus was paying with His life. The great tragedy is that, as far as we can tell, none of them proved willing to receive true forgiveness. Judas was repentant but directed it wrongly; he took his own life. The chief priests and elders, as a whole, never seemed to humble themselves, and the Romans would do it for them. Let us learn from their examples. Let us repent with godly grief, turning to the Lord, seeking His forgiveness, and changing our ways for the better!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Betrayer, Betrayed

Him Whom They Have Pierced

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born (Zechariah 12:10).

One of the continual themes of the prophets features God’s desire for Israel to come to some real understanding of what they have done. God has great confidence that when Israel does so, they will deeply mourn and lament all that they have done against Him. In many ways, that is what God wants most from Israel: an understanding of past sins so that they can now serve God again.

Zechariah imagines a day when God will again protect Jerusalem from any and all nations that come against her (Zechariah 12:1-9). On that day, when the inhabitants of Jerusalem understand that God has delivered them yet again, they will have the type of realization that eluded their ancestors in the days of Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 1:1-9): they will perceive all the sins they have committed and how they have pierced God with them. They will mourn deeply for their transgression.

One could perhaps identify some moments in history when something of this sort took place– perhaps in the days of the Maccabees– but Zechariah’s image finds its final, thorough fulfillment in the events that surrounded the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.
For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, “A bone of him shall not be broken.”
And again another scripture saith, “They shall look on him whom they pierced” (John 19:31-37).

We can easily overlay much of what Zechariah has said over this event. The enemies of Israel– indeed, all of mankind– have surrounded Jerusalem as Jesus, the Lamb of God, drinks the full cup of evil and suffering (cf. Ephesians 6:12, Matthew 26:39). Jesus destroys the power of sin and death through suffering His death and, ultimately, obtaining the glory of the resurrection (Romans 8:1-4). On that day, to testify to His death, a Roman soldier pierced Jesus– the Immanuel, God the Son, God in the flesh– with his spear. The soldiers, the women, and the Apostle John looked upon Jesus who was pierced.

Yet where is the outpouring of grace and supplication? While it may be true that some of the women lamented, where is the city wide lament? And how is it that “they” have pierced Jesus when it was really the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus?

The beauty and the power of Zechariah’s image comes from its complete spiritual understanding. It is not just about that one moment and what the Roman soldier does. We do well to ask ourselves– why exactly is Jesus on that cross? Is it really because of the Romans? As it is written:

But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

[Jesus], who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:24).

Jesus is on the cross because of our sin. Jesus was wounded because of our transgressions. We may not have physically pierced His flesh on Golgotha on that April day so long ago, but on account of our sins, we, as Israel, have pierced God.

God has poured out upon mankind grace and supplication through Jesus (cf. Romans 5:6-11) to the end that we mourn for our sins and the cost that they demanded– God being pierced on an object of torture and execution. And we are to look upon Him.

For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

We can be the new Jerusalem; we have the opportunity weekly to look with eyes of faith upon Him whom we have pierced by our sin, and it is appropriate for us to mourn, lament, and experience the bitterness that comes from understanding the pain and suffering our sin caused our Lord. In so doing, we are able to do, as the new Israel, what God always wanted out of Israel according to the flesh: an understanding of just what we have done to Him by our sin so that we can turn from them and serve Him according to His will.

It may have taken place physically almost 2000 years ago, but we are still called upon to look at our Savior with eyes of faith and look upon Him whom we have pierced for our sin. Let us do so in lamentation, turning again to life through the Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Him Whom They Have Pierced

The Good Soil

“…and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty…and he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:8, 23).

Finally, after speaking about the unbelievers, those who were not firmly grounded, and those who allow the cares of the world to choke out the faith, Jesus comes to the good soil in the Parable of the Sower.

Soil is good by virtue of the climactic conditions in which it exists along with the nutrients present within it. So it is with people and the message of the Gospel– the good soil are those people who have good and honest hearts, who hear the Word, understand it, believe it, and consequently bear fruit with patience (Matthew 13:23, Mark 4:20, Luke 8:15). All of these conditions must exist for the soil to be good.

The condition of the heart is critical. As we saw with the “road soil,” an unreceptive heart will not accept the message of the Gospel. A person must have a good and honest heart for the Gospel to do them any good. They must be willing to question themselves and the way they have conducted themselves. They must be willing to accept that they were wrong and acted wrongly and must change. They must be willing to accept truth as truth and to not justify error or rationalize their improper conduct in any way. In short, they must be willing to humble themselves so as to learn from Christ (Matthew 20:25-28).

The Gospel is preached, and those who are of the “good soil” hear it, understand it, and believe it (cf. Romans 10:9-17). Yet such was also the case for the “rocky soil” and the “thorny soil.” But the “good soil” has greater depth than the “rocky soil” and lacks the weeds of the “thorny soil.” Because conditions are more optimal, the seed bears fruit in the “good soil.” So it is that believers are to be known by their fruit– by how their faith operates in their lives (cf. James 2:14-20, 1 John 3:16-18). Most everyone wants to be the “good soil,” just like everyone is a good person, a good driver, and feels pretty well. Yet, as we have seen, this is not the case with everyone or even of most. Most will prove to be the road soil, the rocky soil, or the thorny soil. “Good soil” is not something we declare ourselves to be by our words; instead, we are manifest as good soil (or, for that matter, less than ideal soil) by how what we profess changes our lives, our attitudes, our thoughts, and our deeds (Matthew 5:13-16, Romans 6:1-11, 8:29, Galatians 5:17-24). And, as Luke adds, this requires patience (cf. Luke 8:15). As fruit and grain take time to grow and ripen, spiritual transformation demands time and effort (cf. Romans 12:2); patience with others is also manifest as fruit of spiritual maturity (Galatians 5:22-24). Growth may take time, but it must be something for which we consistently seek and toward which we endeavor.

Jesus ends His discussion of the “good soil” with what may seem to be a puzzling addendum– the harvest is not necessarily the same with every patch of the good soil. Some bear thirtyfold, others sixtyfold, and some even a hundredfold (Matthew 13:8, Mark 14:8)! Was not “good” soil really “good” soil?

We go back to the source of Jesus’ story: farming. Farmers know that one can grow the same crop in different soils and get different yields based upon the soil quality and conditions. “Good soil” in one place may yield, say, 200 bushels an acre, while “good soil” somewhere else might yield 300 bushels an acre. They are both good, but based upon conditions, one may get more from some than others.

So it is spiritually. The “good soil” is that which is open and receptive to the Gospel, working to bear fruit for God. Yet God has not made us all the same. We are different, and different people not only have different abilities but also different levels of ability. In our egalitarian society it might not be politically correct to say as much, yet it is affirmed by the Gospel (Romans 12:3-8). Consider the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30: three people are entrusted with different amounts of money. The five talent man who made five more talents is rewarded equally as the two talent man who made two more talents. It is not important for us to try to compete with one another and try to boast about how many gifts or talents we may have; instead, we must ascertain what God has given us so that we can serve Him and one another in accordance and in proportion to what we have received (1 Peter 4:10-11, etc.). One bearing a hundredfold and one bearing thirtyfold are both “good soil,” and one is not inherently better than the other. “Good soil” that could bear a hundredfold but gets a big head or does not work up to his potential is worse off than “good soil” actually bearing thirtyfold. Likewise, “good soil” that bears sixtyfold does better than “good soil” that could bear thirtyfold but does nothing because they are not equipped to bear a hundredfold. The emphasis is on the fruit borne, not a spirit of competition.

Few people who understand the Parable of the Sower would define themselves as road soil, rocky soil, or thorny soil. We all aspire to be the “good soil.” That is a good and noble aspiration, but it is meaningless if we do not prove to be the “good soil” by our works. Let us strive, then, to have that open and honest heart, seeking after and trusting in God our Creator and Savior, and devoting our lives to bearing fruit for His cause, be it thirtyfold, sixtyfold, or a hundredfold. Does the Lord know that we are His by our works? Let us serve Him and prove to be good soil!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Good Soil

Sinners and Hypocrites

But when [Jesus] saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd (Matthew 9:36).

“Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall [the Pharisees and scribes] escape the judgment of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)

Much is made of how Jesus responds and reacts to people. It is interesting to see how people will go out and treat people in entirely different ways and base it all upon Jesus!

We have all seen the stereotypical “street preacher.” He has taken it upon himself to let everyone in his community know that they are sinning and sinful people. He is often found on street corners or in public places on university campuses and in similar places, and he does well at yelling at people about fornication, drunkenness, worldliness, perhaps consumerism and materialism, and so on and so forth. No one really listens, of course, but the street preacher goes home, justified in his own mind. He told those nasty sinners about their sin, just as Jesus condemned sin– or so he thinks.

There is also the universalist or the politically correct “tolerant” person of our day. If there is condemnation for anyone, it is because they are intolerant. Most everything and anything is acceptable, unless it harms another person, but then again, those who harm others were probably harmed somehow themselves, and so even then God will understand. This person also feels justified, for after all, Jesus Himself had compassion on people– or so he thinks.

These are both extreme positions– and they are extremely misguided. Nevertheless, we can discern from Jesus’ ministry a way forward when it comes to working with different people in our midst.

The first thing we should notice is that sinners sin. This statement should not be too terribly surprising or earth-shattering, since everyone is sinful (Romans 3:23), and sinners are known to sin, but it has been forgotten by many who profess Jesus. Too many have bought into the idea that America is somehow like a “new Israel,” and therefore we need to have “prophets” running around condemning the people for their sins. The New Testament teaches that the church is the new Israel (Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3, 1 Peter 2:4-9). There are times when someone does need to take up a “prophetic” style role and warn Christians about complacency and sin (2 Timothy 4:2), but we do not see Jesus or the Apostles out castigating worldly people for their sin in their faces. Quite the contrary– Jesus has compassion toward the multitude of people, those worldly, nasty sinners, even those among God’s chosen people, Israel (Matthew 9:36)! He was lectured by the religious authorities because of His association with the “sinful” of society (Matthew 9:9-13). Jesus our High Priest associated with the sinful!

While this might seem scandalous, we must understand what Jesus is attempting to do. He does not associate with the sinful to promote or justify sin. Even though He does not condemn the woman caught in adultery, He does send her off with the warning to “sin no more” (John 8:11). We never see Him participating in sin or approving of sin (Hebrews 4:15, 5:7-9). Instead, Jesus knows that the sinners know that they have sinned and are sinning, and they know that they need redemption (Matthew 21:28-32). They follow Jesus en masse because He is willing to sympathize with them and point the way out of their sinful misery. This is the message of the gospel that leads to the redemption of sinners to this very day (Romans 1:16)!

Therefore, we should not be surprised when sinners sin. While Christians are to abhor sin (Romans 12:9), they are not to abhor sinners, for they themselves have sinned but have been redeemed (cf. Titus 3:3-8, etc.). Pointing fingers at sinners and declaring to them what they already know is counterproductive: it pushes the sinner away and leaves a very bad taste in his mouth. It makes it that much more difficult to show such a one the way of Christ.

The real challenge came less from those who knew that they were sinful and more from those who thought that they were not. The religious authorities of Jesus’ day thought that they were holy and blameless, and sought to be separate from the “sinners” of the land (cf. John 9:34). They would bring down pronouncements to the dirty masses, but refused to get dirty themselves (Matthew 23:1-4). For such people, Jesus’ message was completely offensive: all of their great pretenses of holiness and sanctity were in vain, their great knowledge and study was being debased, and their authority was being completely undermined. They already had everything figured out; since Jesus’ message did not fit what they already knew, He was the blasphemer (cf. John 7:45-52, 9:24-29). Jesus spoke of them rightly: they were already “healthy.” They had no need of a physician in their haughtiness (cf. Matthew 9:12-13). They were righteous– just ask them (Luke 18:9-14)!

Such people received little compassion from Jesus’ words. His strongest denunciations– even a declaration of condemnation– were poured out against these religious authorities (cf. Matthew 23:1-36). Jesus treated them this way not out of hate or envy but out of love and a desire for them to wake up regarding their true spiritual condition. Jesus did make prophetic denunciations, but it was not to the worldly sinners of His day, but to the religious professionals who had compromised God’s purposes in order to advance themselves and their own agendas!

While many such people exist in churches today, there are some in the world who justify themselves and their conduct. Notice how Jesus did not comfort such people in such delusions. Such attitudes must be rebuked out of loving concern for the soul of someone who thinks they are healthy when they are not, righteous when they are sinful, sanctimonious as opposed to humble (cf. Galatians 6:1-2, 1 Peter 3:15-16).

Jesus’ interaction with people in His own day should be our model for how we work with people today (cf. 1 John 2:6). Yet let us notice how Jesus treated sinners one way and hypocrites in quite a different way. Woe to us if we treat the “sinners” like the “hypocrites,” and the “hypocrites” like the “sinners”! Instead, let us recognize that sinners sin, and we need to help show them that the way of Christ is life and the way of sin is death with all compassion and mercy (Romans 6:23, Titus 3:3-8). Nevertheless, we must oppose those who would justify themselves in their sins or sanctimoniously declare their righteousness apart from the truth of the gospel of Christ. Let us strive to conform to the image of Jesus the Son and point people to Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Sinners and Hypocrites

Felix

But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, “Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me” (Acts 24:24-25).

His name, in Latin, meant “happy” or “fortunate.” Yet, as procurator of Judea, Marcus Antonius Felix did not have the luckiest or most fortunate job.

But he was a “fortunate” freedman, having been given a position of power thanks to his connections to the Emperor Claudius’ house. Historians attest to Felix’s cruel, licentious, and greedy behavior (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.7, Tacitus, Annals, 12.54). That he expected some money as a bribe to release Paul is not terribly surprising (Acts 24:26); he was known for taking bribes, leading to no little crime in Judea, and upon his dismissal, was accused of plundering the city of Caesarea.

He also apparently had a thing for women named Drusilla. His first wife was Drusilla of Mauretania, descended from Mauretanian royalty and a second cousin to Claudius himself. But then, in Judea, he saw the Drusilla mentioned in Acts 24:24, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, former king of Judea (cf. Acts 12:20-23), and fell madly in love with her on account of her beauty (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.7.2; Histories, 5.9). She was married to the King of Emesa, but Felix hired a man to persuade her to leave her husband and to marry Felix. Thus Felix divorced the first Drusilla for the second, and Drusilla the Jewess likewise divorced her husband.

This is the Felix to whom Paul is entrusted as a prisoner after his life was threatened in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 23). Felix, for his part, had a “more exact knowledge” concerning Christianity, and wanting neither to offend the Jews nor to act overly unjustly to Paul, chose rather to defer the case rather than to make a decision during the “trial” (Acts 24:1-22). Nevertheless, Felix treated Paul well, giving order to the centurion in charge of him to allow him some liberty and to allow his friends to come and minister to him (Acts 24:23).

Furthermore, despite his sinful ways, Felix is interested in learning more about Christianity– “the faith in Christ Jesus.” He and Drusilla listen to Paul. And then Paul starts talking about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:24-25). Felix is terrified by this, and rightly so. He is known as an extortioner, cruel, and adulterous in his behavior. His conduct in life does not conform to the standard of righteousness, he does not exhibit much self-control, and an impending day of judgment would not be pretty for him.

In reality, such is the terror that each and every person should feel when they first learn about the Gospel message. When people see that their conduct is not consistent with God’s holy standard, and that a day of judgment awaits, there is good reason to be afraid (Matthew 10:28, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, 1 Peter 1:17)! That fear should lead to repentance– to renounce the life that led to such a terrible condition, to humbly accept the great grace and mercy of God manifest through Christ, and to serve Him (cf. Ephesians 2:1-18, Titus 3:3-8).

Yet in Felix and Drusilla this terror did not lead to repentance. It was easier to push off the message and the messenger, and so they did, telling Paul that he would call upon him at a more convenient time (Acts 24:25).

As far as we can tell, that moment never really came. Yes, Felix often called for Paul and spoke with him, but more to find a way to get money out of the situation than to really learn of righteousness (Acts 24:26). Two years later, in 58, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus as procurator (Acts 24:27). Despite having an excellent opportunity to pardon Paul, he did not do so– as a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison, “passing the buck” to Festus (Acts 24:27).

Drusilla and her son with Felix are reported to have died in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79; Felix is reported to have married his third wife afterward. We otherwise know nothing about them but have little confidence that they ever became obedient to the message they heard from Paul.

Felix’s example serves as a warning for people throughout time. If there were someone whom we would imagine as hard-hearted, it would likely be Felix, but such was not really so. Despite being covetous, licentious, and cruel, he listened to what Paul had to say. He knew, deep inside, that what he was doing was wrong, and the prospect of being called into account for it by God on the Judgment day was a strong enough possibility in his mind that it led to terror. But that feeling of terror was not sufficient to lead to repentance. Perhaps Felix was concerned about how conversion to Christianity would sit with either his fellow Romans or with the Jews or both. He likely did not want to imagine himself without Drusilla #2 or again with Drusilla #1, if that remained possible. Perhaps he just did not want to give up his lifestyle. Regardless, in that critical moment of decision, Felix did not repent; he ran. He sent Paul away, figuratively attempting to escape from the truth and power of the message. Maybe he imagined that there would be a “more convenient day” to hear Paul and to change his ways. Yet it is just as likely that he never imagined that there would be such a day coming– it was just a way of ending the conversation without having to change.

There are likely some people who have so blinded themselves to the truth and have been so hardened by their sins that they do not think that they are doing anything wrong and who truly repudiate everything about the message of Christ. Yet such people are in the minority. Most people who sin know, if nothing else deep down, that they are doing things they should not be doing. The message of righteousness and self-control inherent in the Gospel exposes this shame to the light, and the confirmation of the day of Judgment, made certain by the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Acts 17:30-31), guarantees that justice will be served. Internal terror, the correct and visceral response to these truths, manifests itself.

Our future destiny is entirely dependent on how we respond to that internal terror. If, on seeing our condition, we know that we must change our ways and serve the Risen Lord Jesus, we have the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:3-8). But if we make any other decision– to assault the integrity of the message or messenger in an attempt to rationalize our behavior, to excuse our behavior in some other way, or simply to find a way to physically and/or spiritually “get away” from the message and the messenger, and refuse to repent, then our condition will be very grave– separated eternally from the Creator in torment (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9).

Felix chose the latter. The vainly imagined “more convenient day” never came, as it never comes for the majority of people who are so minded. We can push men off, but the standards of righteousness, self-control, and the imminence of the day of Judgment are fixed and certain. Let us resolve to serve God and not to run away!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Felix

The Pharisee and the Publican

And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought:
“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, ‘God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.’
I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14).

There is a lot of danger in believing that one is “righteous.” Jesus spent much of His time in His ministry exhorting people to repent and to serve God but yet never to trust in their own righteousness (cf. Matthew 4:23). Jesus provides such a contrast with the Pharisee and the publican, or tax collector, in Luke 18:9-14.

The Pharisee, in this parable, stands and “prays with himself.” There is no real petition to God in his comments– instead, it is a self-congratulatory note devoid of any compassion or mercy. It exudes arrogance and judgmentalism. All he can do is boast in the little he does accomplish and that he is not like others. The Pharisee represents the extreme example of the self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-assured, superficial religious person. Unfortunately, both the church and society have never lacked such persons.

While the example is extreme it is not without merit. The Pharisees to whom the man born blind testifies dare to declare to him that he was “born in sins,” and then ask if he teaches them (John 9:34). Such a question is only asked of people who believe, in some way or another, that they are above sin, or that their “righteousness” is unquestionable. Tragically, they are self-deceived, and will receive the due reward for their deception (cf. Galatians 6:1-4, Matthew 7:21-23).

Then we have the publican, or tax-collector, in the eyes of society the “chiefest of sinners.” They are Jews collaborating with the pagan oppressing power, quite often extorting the people and committing injustice upon injustice. Yet, in this instance, such a man is aware of his utter sinfulness. He is too ashamed to even raise his eyes to God, imploring God to have mercy upon him. He confesses that he is a sinner. And so we have the ultimate contrast with the self-righteous Pharisee: the thoroughly repentant tax collector, chiefest of sinners.

The conclusion to the matter, evident perhaps to us, is astounding in its scope. The “good person,” the “righteous” Pharisee goes home without justification. Instead, the publican, chiefest of sinners, despised by all, goes home justified. This is because God is not swayed by appearances. The exterior of righteousness and sanctimony is never sufficient. Even in the old covenant it was necessary to walk humbly before God, utterly dependent on Him, having nothing in which to glory according to the flesh (cf. Micah 6:8)!

It is easy for us to read this story and believe ourselves to be the “publican,” willing to admit our sin and to change our ways, and thus we should be (James 4:10, 1 John 1:9). We must examine ourselves, however, because there are times in which we play the role of the Pharisee– we get puffed up by our knowledge, our attempt to live the Christian life, or our supposed maturity beyond our brethren and others (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:1, Hebrews 5:14, 1 Peter 1:15-16). We get into the mode where we feel superior to others and almost smug in our relationship with God. We must banish these impulses and attitudes from within us!

We have all come across street “preachers” proudly berating audiences and making a mockery of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, and they may remind us of this passage. It is lamentable that the message of our most merciful and compassionate Lord gets thrown around so casually by the arrogant and sanctimonious. But let us keep in mind that it is easy for ourselves to fall into the same trap, in thought if not in word and deed (Galatians 6:2-4). We must always remember that at one point we all resembled the publican, and we must make it our goal to repent and to serve God in His Kingdom while keeping in mind the way we were, what God needed to do in order to secure our redemption, and therefore our need to relate to our fellow man and point him also to the salvation that comes in Jesus Christ (Titus 3:3-8). This is a tall order indeed, but let us remember that those who humble themselves are the ones who will receive the final exaltation, and seek holiness while maintaining the heart of the publican in Luke 18!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Pharisee and the Publican

God, Us, and Evangelism

What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him. I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor (1 Corinthians 3:5-8).

It was evident that there were many problems within the church in Corinth. Rivalries, immorality, and strife seemed to prevail there.

Paul understood the nature of the challenges. The difficulties were not just the “surface issues,” but the attitudes underneath. One such attitude was the carnality, or worldliness, in the thinking of the Corinthians. They were focusing on the earthly and, in so doing, missing the spiritual reality!

Some of the Corinthians had taken their eyes away from God in Christ and focused them on the men around them– Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (or Peter). They ended up creating different factions in the church, each faction highlighting their “champion” (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:4).

Paul will hear none of this. In the Kingdom, Paul and Apollos and Peter, as Paul, Apollos, and Peter, do not really matter. What really matters is God in Christ and the work that God is doing. Paul, Apollos, Peter, and others are simply servants!

This lesson is as important for us today as it was for the Corinthians in the first century. It is easy to start thinking about the church and evangelism in worldly, carnal terms, and focus on personalities and results. People will line up behind their favorite preacher and/or elder. Many will place emphasis on conversions. These are very easy and natural tendencies!

But such is the way the world works, and we are supposed to turn from that (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1-16). Jesus Christ is Lord, not us, and He is in control. It was not given to Paul or Apollos to provide the increase– if they were not able to provide the increase, how well shall we fare?

Paul uses the image of agriculture, just as Jesus did in Mark 4:26-29. In agriculture, farmers must plant the seeds and provide the best possible environment– nutrients in the soil and water. Then the natural process can take over, for good or ill: either the conditions will go well and the crops will grow, or there will be poor conditions and the crops will fail.

So it is in spiritual matters. As those entrusted with the Gospel of life (1 Corinthians 4:1-2), we must promote the message. That means that we must go out and preach the message to all men (Matthew 13:1-8, Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:18-20). After we have “planted” the “seed,” we can strive to “water” the seed by encouraging people in the message of righteousness and truth (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1-2).

Yet it is not within our power to convert anyone. That power has been vested in God’s Word (Hebrews 4:12). We are to reflect that Word in our lives and point people toward it (Matthew 5:13-16). The power of conversion rests in God’s message of salvation and the willingness of the soul to repent– not in anything regarding the preacher or fellow-servant of God.

This way of thinking is not natural for us, but it is a necessity if we will engage in the work of proclaiming the Gospel as we ought. In fact, when properly understood, this perspective is liberating. We should not focus on conversion but on proclamation– we need to get the message out and to encourage people to consider it, and leave the rest up to God. If no conversions are taking place, we would do well to consider our prayer life, our example, and the effectiveness of our presentation. But we must not conclude that our work is a complete and utter failure if no one converts, because conversion itself is out of our hands. We have done what we should have done, and it was not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58).

The farmer who plants his crops and does his best to fertilize and water the soil has done what he can, and if his crops fail, he cannot be held responsible. But it is the farmer who is too afraid to plant a crop or has given up planting crops who is responsible and culpable for failure. So it is with us. If we proclaim the message of God and reflect it in our lives, we have done what we should, and if no one turns to God, we are not responsible. But if we are too afraid to proclaim the message, or have given up proclaiming the message, then we do bear some responsibility (cf. Romans 1:16)!

We have our hands full with the proclamation and encouragement of the Gospel message. Let us trust in God that if we plant and water, He will provide the increase. Let us keep our focus on the spiritual reality and not get caught up in worldly perspectives on the promotion of the Gospel!

Ethan R. Longhenry

God, Us, and Evangelism

The Two Sons

“But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work to-day in the vineyard.’ And he answered and said, ‘I will not:’ but afterward he repented himself, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir:’ and went not. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They say, “The first.”
Jesus saith unto them, “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves afterward, that ye might believe him” (Matthew 21:28-32).

Jesus’ parable of the two sons is a rather uncomfortable parable. We find ourselves reflected in at least one of the sons.

The first son begins as the rebellious one. He dares to refuse to do the will of his father, but then realizes his mistake, and turns and does what his father desires. We can see that this son does, eventually, do the will of his father, as it is said in Matthew 21:31.

The first son demonstrates the importance of repentance and the hope that exists for those who have rebelled against God. He is very much like the “prodigal son” in Luke 15:11-32. At some point, each and every one of us refused the call of our Father and went our own way (Romans 3:23), but thanks to His love and grace, we can be reconciled back to God in Christ (Titus 3:3-7). And then we must get to work, just as the first son did (Titus 3:8)!

Yet it is the second son that is the focus of this parable. In context, it is a condemnation of the religious authorities who certainly professed belief in God and yet rejected John His prophet and Jesus His Son (Matthew 21:23-27, 21:33-46). They were willing, as the second son, to tell the Father “yes,” and yet they did not do what He told them to do!

Jesus’ conclusion is sharp and biting, just as it was intended. The people whom everyone recognized were great sinners were going to enter the Kingdom before the “holiest” and most respected religious authorities! Tax collectors and prostitutes were willing to humble themselves, listen to John and Jesus, and change their ways (cf. Luke 7:36-50, 19:1-9). The religious authorities refused!

It is better that we find ourselves to be like the first son. God is more concerned with our action than our profession– it does not do us any good to claim that we are followers of Jesus if we are not actually doing what Jesus says to do (Matthew 7:21-23, James 1:22-25)! We must never allow ourselves to become like the religious authorities and become self-righteous, for repentant sinners always get further than self-righteous hypocrites before God (Matthew 9:11-13, Luke 18:10-14)!

In the end, we cannot tell God “yes” and yet do nothing. If we tell God “yes,” that we believe in Him and that He is our Lord, and yet we do not preach the Gospel to our fellow man (Romans 1:16), or we do not show him mercy and kindness in his time of need (Galatians 6:10), or we do not encourage fellow Christians (Hebrews 10:24-25), or we do not show love and compassion as His Son did (Colossians 3:12-14), what do you think will happen to us (Matthew 7:21-23)? How can we expect to receive God’s blessings if we do not do what He tells us to do?

Who are we? Are we the first son who once refused God but have learned better and now do His will? Or are we as the second son, always willing to say yes, but in the end do nothing? Let us be as the first son, do the will of the Father, and be saved!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Two Sons