For another edifying audio sermon from the Rev. Kyle Wallace of the Church of the Good Shepherd in North Carolina, try his message titled Suffering in Accordance with God’s Will. This sermon is based on John 17:1-11; see what you think.
From the Rev. Charlie Camlin of Holy Trinity REC in Virginia, we have a great sermon on Psalm 110:1, titled David’s Lord. This psalm, as Fr. Camlin notes, is quoted by our Lord in three of four Gospels, and it is very clear that He regarded it as being written by David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that He also regarded it as being about the Messiah of Israel, and thus about Him:
This discussion is recorded in 3 of the 4 gospels. St. Matthew records the event this way: “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”‘ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.” [Matt 22:41-46] Christ is obviously basing His argument on those first few words in our psalm, “The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Jesus begins His probe with a pretty easy question which they all agree upon. “What do you think about the Messiah/Christ? Whose son is he?” The Pharisees quick and proper reply is, “The son of David.” But in order to get them to see that the Messiah is more than just David’s son, Jesus goes on to ask, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”‘ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” Notice that Jesus brings in the added element that David was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This was something else in which they were all in agreement. Our Lord is setting the boundaries for His argument which is irrefutable. That is why at the end we are told that “no one dared to ask Him any more questions.”
But why is Jesus doing this? Is He saying that the Messiah is not David’s son? I think that it is clear that this is not what He is doing. There were numerous Old Testament prophecies that pointed out clearly that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David. The New Testament picks up on this and makes it crystal clear that Jesus was a direct descendant of David. This is important because David was promised by God in II Samuel 7, “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” [2 Sam 7:12-13] The promise given here is that a descendant would rule on David’s throne after him and that His rule would be extended forever. It is obvious that Solomon did not fulfill that prophecy.
In the New Testament, the writers connect Jesus with His father David. In the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke, His lineage is traced to David. When He rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the crowds cried out to Him, “Hosanna to the Son of David.” And St. Paul says at the beginning of Romans that he has become a witness to the gospel of God “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” [Rom 1:3] So it is clear that Jesus was the “Son of David.”
Fr. Camlin further goes on to talk about why Jesus had this discussion with the Pharisees, and what all this has to do with us today–as always, this is a message well worth reading.
From the Rev. Dr. Curtis Crenshaw of St. Francis’ REC in Texas, here are two audio sermons on Psalm 23:
Psalm 23: Part 1, I Shall Not Want
April 6, 2008, Psalm 23:1-3Psalm 23: Part 2, I Will Fear No Evil
April 13, 2008, Psalm 23:4-6
Dr. Crenshaw, as one might expect, truly does justice to this most beloved of Psalms in these sermons–see what you think.
From the Rev. Dr. Robert Bowman of St. Luke’s REC in California, we have the sermon Seated at the Right Hand of the Father, based on Matthew 22:41-46. This is an excellent sermon for the Sunday after Ascension Day, for Dr. Bowman sums up very well what our Lord is doing on our behalf as He reigns on high:
His present activity is on our behalf.
Acts 2 & 4. Bestowing His Holy Spirit.
Acts 2. Adding disciples to His Church.
Acts 9. Making converts.
Acts 3. Healing the lame.
Romans 8 & Hebrews 8. Making intercession for His People.
Hebrews 2 & 4. Aiding & sympathizing with His People.
Hebrews 7, 8, 10. Doing the work of our great High Priest.
Hebrews 9. Appearing before the presence of God for us.
I John 2:1. Acting as our Advocate.
He aids, comforts, upholds, sympathizes with His People in the midst of life’s trials and difficulties. He reigns in our hearts, if we are committed to Him. Through this, we realize that He is in charge and has not forgotten those who are His.
Truly, we have so much for which to give thanks to Him; give this sermon a listen as it is an excellent reminder of all these things.
I came across a short book titled The Authority of the Bible by J. Stafford Wright, M.A. which has some fairly good thoughts, and is posted on the site of the Biblical Studies.org of the UK. This portion on the inspiration of the Scriptures is not bad at all:
We have seen that from the beginning the Christian church accepted the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God, and rapidly realized that the Holy Spirit was inspiring a new group of writings to stand alongside of the old. No official definition of Inspiration was ever issued by the church. It is not mentioned in the Creeds, because most of the clauses in the Creeds concern points of the Christian faith that had been disputed in the church, and the inspiration of the Bible never was disputed. Everyone believed it. Various explanations have been given of the way in which God inspired the Bible. Some have believed that every writer of the Bible was like a typewriter ‘operated’ by the Holy Spirit. Others have believed no more than that the writers had a general enlightenment from God.
What I will call the ‘Typewriter View’ has been widely held in the past and is still held today by some. The chief difficulty about it is that it fails to account for the difference between the style of one writer and that of another. If I type this book first on a Corona and then on a Remington, the result will be precisely the same so far as the style is concerned. But each writer of the Bible has his own definite style, which makes it rather unlikely that the Holy Spirit used the writers like machines.
On the other hand the ‘General Enlightment View’ is even more unsatisfactory, for it robs the Bible of much of its authority. The idea here is that, in the Bible, we have the record of man’s search after God,
[p.12]
with some help from God Himself. In his search man makes many mistakes, and wrongly imagines things to be God’s will when they are not God’s will at all. Even the New Testament writers are in the same position, and some people would go so far as to say that Christ Himself made mistakes. The result is that, in effect, we have a very fragmentary revelation in the Bible. It is not itself the Word of God, though it may contain the Word of God. We must pick and choose what seems to us to be helpful, and discard things that do not appeal to us, even though they may have been helpful to other generations of Christians. In other words, my mind and my experience must be the supreme authority, and the teachings of the Bible fall into a secondary place.
Now many careful students of the Bible today believe that the truth lies in neither of these extremes, though it comes very much closer to the first than to the second. If the Bible is the Word of God, it is God’s revelation to man, rather than man’s thoughts about God. But the revelation is made through human agents, who show differences of style and outlook. This is what might naturally be expected of men living in different ages and under differing circumstances. But God chose His men. We can say either that He arranged, or that He knew, the circumstances and upbringing of each of those whom He chose to write a part of His Bible. Amongst the qualities that God would need in each case would be such things as accuracy of observation and a first class memory. When these two faculties were still further helped by the Holy Spirit, God had a man whom He could use for this special task.
[p.13]
In addition it is clear that the inspiration given to the prophets was of a special kind. The prophets themselves, both in the Old Testament and in the New, were conscious that their messages were not the carefully thought out reasonings of their own mind, but came directly from God, though they themselves had to set down in their own words what God revealed in the depths of their spirit. Those who were in contact with prophets knew that there was a difference between them and ordinary teachers. Compilers of history and of proverbs also needed a natural sense of discrimination, in addition to such divine guidance as God gave, to enable them to choose the true and reject the false.
In other words, it is held that God made use of a succession of writers and fitted them by natural gifts and training, as well as by direct spiritual influence, to set down accurately whatever He wished to record in His Bible. This means that, although the style of the Books may vary, there is nothing included in them which God did not will to be there, and nothing omitted which God did will to be there.
This is a sensible view of Inspiration, since it takes full account of the natural abilities of the writers, but at the same time makes it clear that the supernatural power of God was needed to guide their minds and, where necessary, to reveal what they could not otherwise have known.
Here let us dispose of a difficulty, which is not serious, but which some people find rather alarming. If we hold this view of inspiration, are we not saying that a genealogy is as inspired as St. John’s Gospel? Undoubtedly we are. But when we say ‘inspired,’ we
[p.14]
do not necessarily mean ‘inspiring,’ for we certainly do not hold that a genealogy is as inspiring as St. John’s Gospel. The Bible is not all inspired for the same purpose, and, although there are many helpful thoughts for Christian devotion to be drawn from Bible genealogies, the main purpose of including genealogies in the Bible is not for devotional use. They have an historical value, a value which the Bible student can often appreciate today, but which was even more important to the Jews in Old Testament times. After all, the Bible was not given only for Englishmen of the 20th century! At the same time there is probably not a verse in the Bible which God has not at some time used to bring a spiritual message to a Christian and through which He may not speak to you as you read it. But, if you find that reading through the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles does not give you the same thrill as reading the first nine chapters of St. John’s Gospel, there is no need to say that the former chapters are less ‘inspired.’ Later on you may come to do some special studies on Jewish history, and be very thankful for the genealogies that God has caused to be included. All that is recorded plays its part in the wonderful story of God’s influence over human history so that, in spite of all man’s failures and sins, world events may finally lead on to the coming of the Kingdom of God.
If you have time to read the rest of this short book, it would be worthwhile, I think–he gives one a lot to think about.
From the Rev. Johann Vanderbijl of the Anglican Church of St. George the Martyr in South Carolina, here is an audio Sermon for the Sunday after Ascension, based on 1 Peter 4:7 and 2 Chronicles 20. I think this sermon is well worth listening to–please give it a try.
I suppose it may date me to quote these stanzas from the old hymn “To the Work” by Fanny J. Crosby:
To the work! To the work! We are servants of God; Let us follow the path that our Master has trod;
With the balm of His counsel our strength to renew, Let us do with our might what our hands find to do.
Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on),
Let us hope (and trust), Let us watch (and pray), And labor till the Master comes.
To the work! To the work! Let the hungry be fed; To the fountain of life let the weary be led;
In the cross and its banner our glory shall be, While we herald the tidings, “Salvation is free!”
Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on), Toiling on (toiling on),
Let us hope (and trust), Let us watch (and pray), And labor till the Master comes.
But in a sense these words come to mind as I read the sermon Waiting Expectantly by the Rev. William Klock of Living Word Episcopal Church in British Columbia. Fr. Bill has, I think, given us a much needed reminder that “waiting expectantly” for our Lord’s return does not mean just sitting around waiting for that to happen; he says that very well in this excerpt:
People who are looking for one Lord need to draw closer together, encouraging one another, as the writer of Hebrews says,
Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25)
I find this really interesting. If it were up to me, I’d be saying, “The end is at hand. Get busy sharing the Gospel with the world out there.” But Peter says, “The end is at hand. Get busy loving one another. Show each other what grace is all about. Don’t be afraid to give of yourself to help others.” But you see, before we can go out into the world, the Church needs to be what it is called to be in and of herself. I think this is what St. John gets at in his First Epistle: “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
If you think about it, it makes perfect sense, especially after what St. James told us last week about being doers, not just hearers. It’s love and light that gather in the outcasts. It’s love and light that keeps the flock from straying away. It’s love and light that feeds the sheep and tends the lambs. It’s love and light that are important to the Good Shepherd. If you think about this from the perspective of our Epistle last week, when our Good Shepherd returns he won’t come looking for his Church based on our right belief. No, he’ll come looking for us and will find us by seeing the evidence of our faith and belief worked out in practise. He’ll be saying well done, good and faithful servant based on our having shown hospitality, based on how we’ve treated each other, and based on the love we’ve shown. A master doesn’t reward his servant for knowing what he was supposed to do in the master’s absence. He rewards the servant for actually having done it. It’s just so for us when our Lord and master returns.
That is so true, and we truly do need to “labor till the Master comes” by serving Him through serving others and witnessing to the truth of the Gospel. If you want to listen to this sermon, the podcast can be found here.
From the Rev. David Holloway of Jesmond Parish Church in the United Kingdom, here is a sermon based on Acts 4, Everything in Common, which I think does an excellent job of explaining Acts 4:32-35. This passage has been often misunderstood, and has been used to justify quite a range of economic and social views. This is Rev. Holloway’s take on this passage, and I think it is faithful to the Scriptures:
Look at verses 34-35:
“There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”
Many people misunderstand what was happening. This was not a primitive form of communism. You see, the tenses here in the original are not straight past tenses but continuous past tenses – literally they “were selling, they were bringing money, they were putting it at the apostles’ feet.” So when you repented and were baptized, you didn’t sell up everything and bring the proceeds and all your savings to the church treasurer, for good and all. No! You kept control of your own property and released it when necessary. That is crystal clear from the next chapter and the case of Ananias and Sapphira. There Peter says to Ananias, referring to his property (chapter 5 verse 4):
“Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
So you see how things worked. The believers believed that they were only stewards of their money and possessions. They believed their money and possessions were ultimately God’s and should be used according to his will, not according to their own selfish interests and instincts. As a result of these beliefs they were then meeting needs. Their hearts and minds were right first. Then their cheque books (in modern terms) followed their hearts and minds.
This is where the modern world has got it so wrong. Following on from Marx there is a belief - now held by political parties in the non-Marxist world - that what is foundational to the good of human societies are not beliefs but simply economic arrangements. But the Bible says, “No!”. It sees healthy economies coming from right attitudes and beliefs. Where those attitudes and beliefs are wrong, you will not get a healthy society – economically or in other ways. Economic arrangements are important. But you will only get the economics right when you get the hearts and minds of men and women right. The problems with society are not fundamentally because either it has a more capitalist system or a more centralist system. The problems come from the human heart. It is from the human heart, says Jesus, that come …
“… sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” (Mark 7.21-22).
So to address external economic problems and changing economic systems without addressing the problems of the human heart is like trying to mend a puncture by washing the wheel. These early believers, however, got their hearts and minds right. That then led to economic needs being met. I read a social survey this week that showed that:
“the most religious [and these were mostly Christians] were more likely to feel a sense of dedication to their work (97% v 66%); and find their work contributes to society (91% v 53%); and more likely to find their work interesting and rewarding (92% v 68%); and more likely to believe financial security can be obtained by hard work (88% v 70%); and much more likely to say they would reconcile marital problems at all costs rather than seek divorce (60% v 33%).”
That last point is hugely significant as the breakdown of the married family is correlated with negative economic consequences and so, on average, leads to poverty rather than riches. I remember the head of Christian Community Services in the, then, Diocese of Mount Kenya East – a remarkable organization with health care and agricultural projects (and all the things the world likes to see happening in terms of Aid) – I remember him saying of the area of Kenya we support at JPC, “you know, what this area really needs is a good dose of Christian morality to solve its social problems.” That is why preaching the Gospel is so vital – the gospel of forgiveness for sin and power for new life.
If you want to help the poor, yes, you must give money; yes, you must work for the right economic arrangements. But in the context of doing that, make sure that, like the Apostles, you “continue to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus”.
“The social gospel” can never be the cure for social problems-only the Gospel which we have been commanded to preach to all nations can alleviate these problems. This is a good sermon indeed; if you want to listen to it, you can do so here.
For a great sermon for Ascension Day, try Our Great High Priest by the Rev. Charlie Camlin of Holy Trinity REC in Virginia. This sermon is based on Hebrews 4:14-16, and Fr. Camlin helps us understand the significance of Christ’s ascension to heaven as referenced in verse 14:
Notice the connection with the ascension in verse 14 when it says that Jesus “passed through the heavens.” That is a reference to His ascension. With the language of Him being our “Great High Priest,” there is an allusion to an important Old Testament event. When the Tabernacle was constructed, God appointed one day out of the year (called the Day of Atonement or in Hebrew, Yom Kippur), on which the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies. The ritual is described in great detail on Leviticus 16 but on that day, the high priest would sacrifice a goat on behalf of the people and then take the blood into the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the sins of the people. The whole ritual was a reminder that God is holy and that they had broken His covenant and therefore needed to be reconciled.
Every year, the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies to offer this sacrifice of atonement at the mercy seat on the top of the Ark of the Covenant. The Book of Hebrews goes on to talk about this in depth but the point being made is that Jesus, as our Great High Priest, entered not into the earthly tabernacle or temple, but into the true tabernacle of heaven. He entered into the throne room of God—not with the blood of a goat but with His own precious blood. The ascension teaches us that God accepted the sacrifice of Christ for our atonement. But unlike the earthly priests, Jesus only offered one sacrifice. And when He offered His own precious blood, He sat down at the Father’s right hand. An earthly priest would never sit down because his work was never done. He would have to offer more sacrifices. But the sacrifice of Christ was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
How was Jesus Christ able to accomplish this? Well, verse 14 reminds us that He is the Son of God. Since He is the eternal Son of God, He was able to become a perfect High Priest. But not only was He the Son of God, He had also become fully man. Verse 15 says, “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” The Old Testament priests had to offer sacrifices for themselves before they could offer a sacrifice on behalf of the people. But Jesus Christ was a perfect human being. He was truly tempted but He never gave into any temptations. He was perfectly sinless and therefore, He was a spotless sacrifice and a perfectly holy high priest. Jesus Christ has reconciled humanity to God through His sacrificial death, His resurrection and His glorious ascension.
What does all of this mean for us? It means that the Church now has perfect access to the Father through Jesus Christ our Great High Priest. A priest is one who brings others to God. Jesus Christ has brought us to God. Because of this, we now have access to God. His Father is our Father. Look at verse 16 once again: “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” When Jesus died on the cross that Friday, there was something important that happened which symbolizes the truth of what this verse is teaching. When He cried out, “It is finished,” the veil in the temple, which separated the Holy of Holies, was torn in two from top to bottom. He opened the way for us to return to the Father. His sacrifice atoned for our sins and we are reconciled to the father through Him. As we talked about this past Sunday, we now have a new access to God in prayer. We can be assured that our prayers are lifted before the throne of God through our Mediator. We can now come boldly to the throne of grace to find help in our time of need.
In his commentary on the Book of Hebrews, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, a fine Anglican scholar of the last century, wrote this concerning this passage: “The passage of their great high priest through the heavens has opened the way for them to enter into the presence of God himself. Christ’s perfect sacrifice on their behalf has been accepted; their sins have been cancelled; united to Him by faith they now have free access with Him into the presence-chamber of God. And while it is still the throne of God’s majestic sovereignty that they approach, yet it is now, on the basis of the reconciliation achieved by God in Christ, the throne of grace.” (Hughes, The Book of Hebrews, 174)
As Fr. Camlin says elsewhere in this sermon, we should be encouraged in having this access to such a great High Priest–reason indeed to celebrate His ascension.
You may find this video of an interview between Dr. R.C. Sproul and Ben Stein to be interesting; it was done in February 2008 before “Expelled” was released. Note the video is close to 28 minutes long.
