The Judgment of Rejecting the Gospel

In my most recent sermon on Matthew 10:5ff, I came to the verse in which Jesus says the following:

15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

This is part of the instructions that Jesus is giving the 12 disciples before He sends them out to preach to the House of Israel. He has already indicated that they will encounter two types of people in their mission work: those who are worthy, and those who are unworthy.

The worthy will open their doors to the disciples, invite them in, and listen to their preaching about the Kingdom of Heaven.  The message will be a blessing to them.

But the other group will refuse to listen to the message. For those in cities and households who refuse to listen, the disciples are not to stay with them. They are to leave, and to shake the dust off their shoes as they leave. This indicates that their wickedness is so pervasive, that it even infects the dust around them. Therefore, the disciples are to make sure and not spread that dust elsewhere.

It is after Jesus tell them this, that He gives the warning quoted above. The sin of rejecting the gospel is far worse than the sin committed in Sodom and Gomorrah.

This is not to say the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is to be taken lightly. Sodom and Gomorrah stand as an open testimony to the world about the wickedness that was committed there. The men of those cities were at the height of depravity and abominations. You can’t get much worse.

But, according to Jesus, there is something that is worse than the heinous sins committed in Sodom and Gomorrah: it is the rejection of the gospel, of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of the King Himself. This sin is far worse than that of S&G, and will receive much greater judgment than those who actually died in those fires of brimstone.

Why is this?

To be given the message of the gospel, of Christ, of the risen Savior, is the greatest act of God’s mercy and grace a person can receive. In the gospel, we are seeing the richest aspect of God’s love, grace, and kindness toward humanity that exists. There is no greater demonstration of God’s love than this.

Therefore, to reject the greatest act of love in history, is to basically say to God: your gift is worthless and I want nothing to do with it. This sin is far worse than that of S&G. While the sin of S&G was against God’s image, and a personal assault upon His nature and character, the sin of rejecting the gospel is against God’s mercy and His Son. This makes it far worse than what those in S&G did. They were acting in ignorance of His grace and mercy. This does not excuse them, but it is worth noting.

The people who hear the gospel are being given a true blessing in hearing of God’s mercy and His Son. Therefore, the responsibility to believe is far greater. The rejection of the greater gift, ends in greater judgment.

You can hear the rest of the sermon HERE.

 

Asking for Sign Gifts Is to Doubt in God’s Goodness

In my most recent sermon, I was preaching through Matthew 10:7ff, in which Jesus is giving instructions to the 12 disciples before sending them out to the House of Israel.

At one point, He tells them to: 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

One might ask: how come our preachers do not do this today? It’s a good question.

Matthew Henry answers the question by stating that the sign gifts were given to help authenticate the message being preached in order to lay the foundation of the Kingdom. Now that the canon of Scripture is closed, giving us all we need for faith and practice, there is no longer a need to lay the foundation again.

In fact, Henry says to ask for such signs, is an attempt to re-lay the foundation of the church that is already laid, and worse, tempting God.

We tempt God when we doubt in the provisions He has blessed us with. We are, in effect, saying that the preaching of God’s word is not sufficient when we ask for miracles, or even add to the worship, things not prescribed.

We need to trust in the means of grace that He has given to us: the preaching of His word, the sacraments, and prayer. These are the tools given by the Holy Spirit. Let us use them by faith to extend His Kingdom.

You can listen to the full sermon HERE.

The House of Israel

Why does Jesus send the disciples to the House of Israel and not the Samaritans and Gentiles? It seems like Jesus is playing favorites. However, when you look into Israel’s history, how they came about, and the reasons God chose them as His people, we see there is no room for boasting at all. They were raised up as God’s nation by His grace, and grace alone. The people of Israel have no reason to boast.

Hear the full sermon preached at Waco Reformed Church here.

Sermon Texts: Deuteronomy 7:1-11, Matthew 10:5-18

 

Grok Analyzes Garwood’s Tactics

After publishing the previous article on head coverings refuting Garwood’s position, my wife asked me to ask Grok the following question about Garwood’s article. Here is the question:

Pertaining to Garwood’s article, what kind of side-stepping or smoke screens does he put up in order to confuse the reader?
Here is Grok’s reply:
Garwood’s article does not contain outright falsehoods or deliberate deception, but it does employ several rhetorical and structural tactics that function as sidesteps or “smoke screens.” These shift focus away from the strongest counter-arguments (grammatical flow, patristic consensus, and lack of explicit quotation markers) toward emotional framing, selective emphasis, and complexity that can leave readers feeling the traditional view has been dismissed without full engagement. Here are the main ones, drawn directly from the article’s text and structure:

1. Motive Attribution / Ad Hominem Framing (Cultural Backlash as the Real Driver)

Garwood repeatedly psychologizes pro-head-covering advocates rather than letting their exegetical case stand or fall on its own:

  • “To suggest that the passage is ‘obviously pro-head covering’ is dishonest. It may be obvious to you because your righteous anger at our culture overfloweth and you’re looking for a fight.”
  • He links the “recent uptick” to pastors “frustrated with feminism” who see coverings as “an increasingly exciting option for those wishing to establish patriarchalism in the home and church.”

This sidesteps the actual textual arguments traditional interpreters make (creation order, headship, v. 10 as symbol of authority/submission, nature/custom). By framing the opposing view as a culture-war overreaction, he emotionally primes readers to see the quotation theory as the “objective” exegetical rescue rather than one interpretive option among others. It confuses the issue by making disagreement feel like defensiveness instead of honest exegesis.

2. Vague Dismissal of Church History (“No Uniform Position”)

Garwood writes: “to suggest that ‘all of human history did this’ and ‘basically every theologian taught that a woman should cover her head’ is equally dishonest… there is no uniform position of adherence to head coverings throughout church history. An appeal to history just doesn’t work.”He acknowledges early church and Reformation support but never names or engages the dissenters he claims existed. This is a classic smoke screen: it neutralizes the weight of patristic evidence (Tertullian, Clement, etc., who read the passage as requiring coverings) with a broad-brush “not everyone agreed” without citations or analysis. Readers are left thinking history is inconclusive when the dominant trajectory is actually the opposite.

3. Practical Absurdity / Endless Practical QuestionsHe asks a barrage of rhetorical questions:

  • “Are wives to wear head coverings on the Lord’s Day… or should they wear them all the time? In the home? In the marketplace? What about daughters? … A doily? A shawl? … What color, shape, size, and material?”

Then cites James B. Jordan approvingly: “Since we don’t know what kinds of head coverings are in view, we cannot make a rule for church life today.”This diverts attention from the principle (a symbol of order/submission in worship) to modern logistics Paul never detailed. Traditional views rarely demand a specific modern garment; they see a simple head covering or hair style as sufficient in context. The tactic makes the command sound impossibly vague and burdensome, confusing readers into thinking the text itself must be non-prescriptive.

4. Imposed Chiasm + Long Unmarked Quotation as “Obvious” Solution

Garwood presents a detailed chiasm (adapted from Thomas P. Shoemaker) with v. 10 (“the woman ought to have authority over her head”) as the absolute center, then labels vv. 4–9 as the Corinthian view Paul is quoting. He concedes the quotation is long and unmarked but waves it away: Paul does this elsewhere (short slogans), chiasms allow non-linear thinking, and tensions “only make sense” this way.Critics note this is circular: the chiasm is imposed to create the quotation block, and the theory still requires assuming an unusually long, seamless Corinthian position without any “you say” signal (unlike 6:12 or 7:1). By calling the chiasm an “extremely useful interpretative tool” early on, he front-loads the structure as neutral fact rather than one possible lens, making the quotation theory feel like the elegant solution instead of a recent scholarly workaround.

5. Pastoral “Besieged Consciences” Appeal + Selective Eisegesis Warning

The stated goal is “to provide a healthy framework… that will hopefully alleviate besieged consciences.” This emotionally positions his view as merciful relief for guilt-ridden readers rather than a contested interpretation.Simultaneously, he warns against “anachronistic, etymological fallacy” and feminism-driven eisegesis—yet his own reading relies on modern scholars (Peppiatt-style quotation theory, Shoemaker’s chiasm, Bailey’s cultural studies) to resolve tensions that most historic interpreters did not see as contradictions. It creates a subtle double standard: their view is culturally reactive; his is pure exegesis.

Overall Effect

These tactics do not “prove” the article wrong, but they can confuse or disarm readers by:

  • Making the traditional reading feel motivated by culture-war anger rather than the text.
  • Sidestepping the clearest grammatical reading (the passage flows as Paul’s unified teaching) behind layers of structure, history dismissal, and practicality questions.
  • Framing the quotation theory as the only way to “resolve contradictions” without fully wrestling with why Paul would quote such a long, coherent block without signaling it.

The article is pastoral and readable, aimed at relieving anxiety in a post-feminist age. But to a skeptical eye, the smoke screens serve to make the minority quotation view (recently popularized) appear more exegetically compelling and historically neutral than it actually is. No widespread scholarly takedowns of this specific pieceexist (it’s niche), but the patterns mirror standard critiques of the underlying quotation/refutation approach.

Hath Paul Indeed Said: The Head Covering Battle Rages

I have a friend on Facebook who posted some comments about Jason M. Garwood’s book on head covering, Paul & Head Covering: A Biblical Reassessment.

Garwood splashed on the scene back in 2024, with an article on Kuyperian. You can read the article here. I’m sure the book is nothing more than his expansion of the article, which was nothing more than an elaborate way of saying: “Has God indeed said?”

This is how those who oppose head coverings always handle 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. They find creative ways of saying the section does not say what it says. For Garwood, his creative way out is to say that the first portion (verses 4-9), is actually a quote that the “contumacious Corinthian men” were saying, and that he is coming along to help us see that Paul wasn’t actually saying this. His only support for this solution is that Paul makes other quotes elsewhere, so why can’t verses 4-9 be a quote?

Hardly proof.

There is nothing in the text that sets these verses apart as a quote. There are no clear grammatical, rhetorical, or transitional signals (like “you say” or obvious shifts). This makes the boundaries arbitrary and the theory “contrived” or “overly complex.”

Garwood even admits this, saying this is “one simple line of thinking.” The problem with that is that if Garwood is wrong, and he is, then he is leading women to believe that they are under their own authority (see below), and can make up their own minds about head coverings (unless they are in favor of wearing them). He is basically allowing women to sin against Christ’s word, through his “one simple line of thinking.” That is the problem with those who take this position. They have no real clear evidence that their position is correct. Garwood couches many of the things he says in phrases like “it seems” or “I believe,” never focusing on what the text actually says.

Again, this is what people do when they don’t like to accept what a text actually says. They go to great lengths to show just how complicated the text is, asking all kinds of questions, giving all kinds of irrelevant opinions, all in the hopes of making it look like they are the only ones that can make sense of the passage. And of course, the only sense they can make of the passage is that it is not saying that women should wear head coverings in worship or while praying, even though that is what the text is saying.

You never see those of us who advocate for head coverings in worship, looking to the culture of the Greco-Roman world, or the culture of Corinth, or the culture of the Jews. This is because we know that the surrounding culture is irrelevant. While head coverings for men were prescribed in the Old Testament, as Garwood notes, Paul isn’t writing to those under the Old Covenant. He is writing to those under the New Covenant. Things have changed.

The veil in the temple was torn, meaning that men who belong to Christ do not have to wear coverings on their heads as those under the Old Covenant did. Through Christ’s blood, we are admitted into the holy of holies. As the glory of Christ, men are not to cover so that Christ’s glory shines forth. Women do cover so that their glory does not compete with God’s in worship (see Bnonn Tennant’s article here).

Now, here is Garwood’s main point. Using a chiastic structure, he shows that verse 10 is the focus of the text, which reads: Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

He makes the case that the word “a symbol” is not in the Greek. (It is not, and I’m in favor of leaving them out of the translation). But then goes on to say that the Greek phrase that means “authority on her head” is like a king who wears a crown. His authority is on his head, and therefore, her authority is on her head.

Basically, Garwood is saying that the woman has her own authority and can make up her own mind about head coverings (unless she chooses to wear one, then she is sinning — see Uri Brito, who doesn’t go as far as to say the woman is sinning, but makes it clear, head covering is not welcome in his church).

The problem with Garwood’s position of the authority on a woman’s head as her own is that this isn’t possible given the context. We are already given the order of authority before we get to verse 10. It is what Paul expressly says he wants us to understand… in other words, this is Paul’s main point: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

This headship is one of authority, yet Garwood fails to see it:

Pro-head coverers who are partial to patriarchalism[18] assume that the issue in the text is primarily about authority and submission, whereas I have pointed out, the only mention of authority is in verse 10.[19] Scholars have long debated what kephalē(“head”) means. I cannot exhaust that discussion here. Sometimes the word means the literal part of the body[20] that contains the brain, sometimes it can mean “ruler,” other times it can refer to higher rank. Sometimes it can refer to “source of life.”

He does what these men always do: he points out the debate around the meaning of “head” which is nothing but a red herring. It is kind of obvious given the structure of the sentence. But more on that below.

Then he quotes egalitarian Gordon Fee:

“Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life,” or origin. This seems to be corroborated by the two explanatory sentences in the next paragraph (vv. 8–9), the only place where one of these relationships is picked up further in Paul’s argument.”

The problem with this explanation is that if “head” means source of life, as they claim verses 8-9 indicate, then how does that apply to Christ and God? Is God the source of life for the Second Person of the Trinity? Because if that is true, then Jesus was given His source of life from God, showing that He is a created being.

Garwood can’t just muddy the waters on this and keep going. This is irresponsible on his part. Yes, God is the head of Christ, in the economy of the God-man. But the two are still of the same essence and authority.

Christ is the head of man. He is also the source of man, and the source of the new man. This means the man in Christ is a new creation, with Christ as the sovereign King over him. The King actually has authority over man as the head of man.

Man also has authority over the woman. While he was the source of woman, in the Garden, he is now her authority, just as Christ is his authority. Matthew Henry puts it this way:

“…as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the two sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s place.”

It seems to me that the egalitarian Garwood is turning this principle on its head by claiming that the authority on the woman is that of her own. This plays right into the feminist mindset of the day and is one reason such papers like Garwood’s are so popular.

They are also easy. Men are basically cowards, playing Adam in the garden by remaining quiet on what the text in 1 Corinthians 11 says. They don’t want to know what it says. Life is so much easier by not saying what it says. Yet, this is not being  a man. We are called to wield the sword, and the sword we must wield even when it is unpopular.

The issue of head coverings is important. Many want to discount it as a little thing, but Jesus made it clear, he who is faithful in the small things will be blessed in the large things as well. Yet, I don’t think this is a little thing because it muddies the waters of the distinction between men and women. It opens the door for women to take on the appearance of men and is part of the reason there is so much gender confusion in the culture. The church is to be the pillar of truth in society, and when men like Garwood come along with his errant “line of thinking,” it weakens the church.

Women should rejoice at wearing head coverings because in doing so, they are honoring their head, and Christ. Yet, men like Garwood and Brito want to make them ashamed of their humility before the LORD. The shame should be on men like these, and not women for seeking to please Christ.

(For an analysis of Garwood’s tactics in his article by Grok, go here.

Will Spencer on the Manosphere, Neo-Nazis, Stone Choir, and the Wickedness that is Invading the Church

I’m not real sure what to cover or bring out when it comes to Will Spencer’s article, The Dangerous Secret Your Young Men are Keeping: Neo-Nazi Thought Has Entered the Church. It really does cover the entire Neo-Nazi movement that undergirds people like Candace Owen, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and others. But the article doesn’t really deal with those three. It shows the origins of their poison, and gives us a good indication of how bad it is in some sectors of the right.

The reason I’m sharing Spencer’s article is that if you have read my previous posts on Nick Fuentes, or the Post-War Consensus, you know that I’ve been trying to understand where all this foolishness comes from. Spencer nails it down with an elephantine bit more precision than I have been able to do. Those articles included: World War II and Hitler,  Hitler, True Evil and Post-War Consensus, and Nick Fuentes vs. William L. Shirer.

What helps Spencer is that he was running in the circles of the manosphere, the Neo-Nazi’s and others for a while, without realizing how wicked the entire movement really was. It took a pastor coming along side him and showing him the truth about groups like Stone Choir in order to see their wickedness. Spencer has since become one of the best experts on the subject.

You can listen to his podcast here.

 

The Gospels were written much sooner than we’ve been told.

When Were the Gospels Written?

When were the gospels written? Decades after the ascension of Christ, later, or actually, earlier?

Let’s walk through this together.

First thing to understand concerning the dates of the Gospels is that it is all speculation and consensus, depending on where you stand. From the liberal camp, they will say that the gospels were written after 70 AD because Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple, which took place in 70 AD. For them, Jesus could only speak of something like that if it had already happened. So their decision is based upon unbelief. They don’t believe that Jesus was a prophet, or knew the future. For them, He was just a good man.

For the conservatives, they always seem to claim that the gospels were written at the earliest, in the 50s or late 60s. Their reason for this is actually the opposite of the liberals. They actually believe that Jesus was and is a Prophet. This is why Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple in the future tense. And since the gospel, book of Acts, or the rest of the NT speak of the temple actually being destroyed, they hold that all were written before 70 A.D.

I completely agree with this assessment. Jesus was THE Prophet. He foretold of His death, resurrection, and ascension. Foretelling the future of the Temple was child’s play. If He was right on the former, which He was, then the prophesies of the temple’s destruction were nothing for Him. He did ascend to the right hand of the Father. He also came again in judgment in 70 A.D. to carry out what He said would happen.

(Obviously, I’ve gone to preaching.)

Back to the date of Matthew, which is my main goal.

I hope you have seen that we have placed the Synoptic Gospels before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. But why do we claim that the gospels were written in the 50s or 60s?

This is what I was told while in seminary. The reasoning given was that it takes a while to gather the money to buy the paper, which was rare and expensive. The paper that could be had, was only used on the most important things in the world, like… grocery lists, love notes, and reminders to wash chariot, taxes, court records, contracts, leases, wills, and other such things.

We know all those things were written down in the days of Christ because of the great treasure trove of papyri found in Egypt in the late 1800s, and early 1900s. That discovery was a gift that showed us the life of the average Greco-Roman citizen.

This destroys the false notion that paper was hard to come by and so expensive that the disciples had to save their pennies in order to get enough paper before they started writing.

This is where the faith of the conservatives falls flat. They are trying so hard to be acceptable, scholarly, and responsible in their discussions of such a topic, that they  rule out the possibility that our King already had a plan on how the gospels would be written, who would write them, and where the money would come from to do so. It is almost as if they think that the King of kings, the omniscient Second Person of the Trinity was sort of winging it, and only thought to have the guys start writing all that happened down during the 40-day stretch between the resurrection and His ascension.

The truth is that Jesus knew that the events of His ministry needed to be written down, and would have had His disciples doing just that during His ministry. We know this, because the same Person of the Trinity was having the prophets write things down before His incarnation. Every time YHWH moved in the lives of His covenantal people, He would raise up a prophet to write those things down.

For example, YHWH told Moses to write things down, Exodus 24:4. Moses writes down all the words of YHWH, so that he can read them back to the Israelites all that they had agreed to do.

In Exodus 34:27, YHWH instructs Moses to write down the covenant He just made with the Israelites after the golden calf incident.

YHWH Himself, actually writes the Ten Commandments: Exodus 31:18, 32:16, 34:1, 34:28.

This would continue with Joshua and the Prophets. It was done during the period of Joshua, Judges, and Kings. Even David had access to paper and was in the habit of writing things down to record the Psalms.

All this shows us that God established a pattern of writing down what He was doing in history. God always ensures that there is someone to record these events when He begins to move, forf covenant people. YHWH actually wants us to know about how He has moved in history. He wants us to remember, so that we declare His magnificent works to the nations.

So why is it, that we think that Jesus, as the incarnate YHWH, would not do the same?

Peter Leithart

Now please understand where all this begins. I confess that it is not from me. It was a short article by Peter Leithart that opened my mind to this truth. Blame him. Yet, what he writes, has a ring of truth to it. I never liked the idea that the gospel writers sat around for decades before putting pen to paper. This makes no sense. See his article here, where he writes:

Late dating of the gospels is historically preposterous. Even the most “conservative” dating assumes that Jewish Christians, who believed that the long-awaited salvation had finally occurred in Jesus, would wait over a decade before putting an ordered account on paper. On the contrary: The very first thing a Jew would do if convinced that Jesus was Messiah would be to pick up a quill and papyrus and start writing. Matthew, who wrote the book cleverly called “Matthew,” was a literate tax collectors who in all likelihood jotted down sermon notes as he followed Jesus around Galilee and Judea. Whyever would he keep those hidden for a decade before writing his gospel?

Why would he? We don’t. When something happens of significance, we write it down. This is because we know the importance of something that is written down. This was true of the Bible as well. Especially given… that the Messiah, whom the Jews had waiting for thousands of years, finally showed up.

Our scholars seem to think the gospel writers waited like modern historians do, waiting to get the full picture, which takes a few decades. For example, William Shirer, who wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, was heavily criticized by academia because he put his book out so quickly after World War II. But why? Shirer was a witness to many of the events. He knew many of the people who lived under the Third Reich. He was writing down the events of history as they unfolded. And because of this, his book is one of the premier books on Hitler and the war.

I point this out to show it’s part of human nature to record great events in history. We should expect the same when the long-awaited Messiah shows up.

The Chosen Recorder

As for Matthew, I believe Jesus chooses him specifically to write down the things that Jesus is doing. Why is this? In general, we know that that all the disciples were chosen by Jesus for a specific reason. We may not know those reasons, but Christ does.

The best example of this is Paul. Jesus called him while he was on the Road to Damascus for the purpose of taking the gospel to the Gentiles, and to suffer many things for Christ. But Paul was also chosen because he was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He was trained in the Old Testament. He would go on to write much of the New Testament in his letters to the churches explaining the Christian life (I include Hebrews among his letters). But he wasn’t just writing them simple letters. Paul was writing to the explaining the Old Testament in light of the New Covenant, and Christ. His background as a Pharisee helped him explain life as a Christian.

Jesus choosing of Matthew was no less specific.  Matthew was chosen because he was a man who paid attention to details. He was a tax collector and was educated. He knew how to write. He also knew how to get paper. It was a part of the trade to keep records of the work he did as a tax collector. So the need to wait 10, 15, 20 years before writing what Jesus did, was not necessary.

As Leithart suggests, Matthew probably started writing down things the moment of his calling, and may have even wrote things down before he was called. We don’t know with any certainty, but Matthew may have been part of the multitudes who actually heard the Sermon on the Mount, or witnessed the miracles of Christ. He may have known the Centurion, or others, who experienced the mercy and power of Christ.

I don’t believe for a moment that when Jesus said, “Follow Me,” that this was the first time Matthew had seen Jesus. But then again, I don’t want to take away from the possibility that it was the first time Matthew saw Jesus. Jesus could command as much. His calling on a man is effectual whether the man has seen Jesus or not.

What we do know is Matthew did follow Jesus, and immediately threw a banquet for his friends, the other tax collectors and sinners. Luke’s gospel gives us more details than Matthew’s does.

And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them (Luke 5:29).

This lack of the term banquet in Matthew’s gospel may be a testimony to his humility. He didn’t want to boast in being able to throw a banquet. Yet, he did just that. As a tax collector, he had the money to throw a banquet.

Why?

He threw the banquet so his friends could meet Jesus as he had done. He wanted them to know Jesus as He knew Jesus.

It is interesting how little we know of Matthew. His name is mentioned about five times in the Gospels and Acts, and his other name, Levi, three times. His name is found in the accounts of his calling, and in the list of the disciples. But no where else.

There are no recorded words between Matthew and Jesus. He never asks any questions that we know of. He is, silent…

But we do know he wants people to know Christ. The banquet shows us this. He invites everyone he knows to the banquet… and he writes. He records, and writes, so that people will know about Christ.

And it is after the Day of Pentecost, that Matthew sees the real need for all that he has written. There are all these Jews who have just come to know Christ who need to be informed. The Spirit has moved in them, but they need instruction. And Matthew is ready. He takes all his notes, put them in book form, and starts sharing so those who have come to know Jesus through the preaching of the word, can read the gospel for themselves. Matthew fulfills the purpose for his calling.

Conclusion

What I’m hoping you see, is that there would be absolutely no reason at all to wait a decade or two in order to put down on paper the events of the long-awaited Messiah. There was an immediate need for the gospel of Matthew. And Matthew filled that need for his countrymen. He was the first because he was on the scene for many of the events. He was THE eyewitness for the job. It was exactly why Jesus called Him.

If you like, you can listen to the sermon I preached on the calling of Matthew here. This post was the background work for that sermon.

“Do Not Sound a Trumpet”

Preparation for Worship: Ephesians 2:8-10

Call to worship: Psalm 15

Reading of the Law: Proverbs 11:29 (The wicked hardens his own heart. He doesn’t tremble when he commits iniquity. He is bold in his sin, and unrepentant. He will seek his own way. He is captain of his soul… but only for a time. The righteous, on the other hand, do not direct their own paths. He relies on the Father to do so, and submits to His providence.)

AOPG: Psalm 116:5-9

Confession of Faith: The Apostles’ Creed.

Old Covenant Reading :  Deuteronomy 15:1-11

New Covenant Reading: Matthew 6:1-18

In the following sermon, we see Jesus expanding upon how the Pharisees twisted God’s Law for their own gain, when it came to their acts of piety. Jesus will address three areas in chapter 6, charitable acts, prayer, and fasting. In all three, the hypocrites turned these acts of piety into performance before men. Their goal was to make themselves see pious and holy. But because they were seeking the pleasure of men, and not God, their acts were considered abominable to God and rejected by Him.
This is not to say, we are not to do good works, especially charity, prayer, and fasting. Jesus expects us to do just that. But we are to do it with an attitude towards our Father in heaven, not man.
The Law is supposed to show us God’s perfect character—His holiness, His righteousness—and act like guardrails to keep us on track in living holy lives. It’s not about earning salvation; it’s about growing in sanctification, reflecting God’s light through our actions. Leithart calls this “redemptive righteousness”—good works that point others to God, not to us.
Then He zeros in on three acts of piety: giving, praying, and fasting. The problem wasn’t the acts themselves—those are good and expected—but the heart behind them. The Pharisees were doing them for the applause of the crowd, not for God. Jesus calls them out as hypocrites, saying don’t be like that. Don’t give to the poor to get a pat on the back. Instead, give quietly, secretly, for God’s eyes only.
He assumes we’ll be charitable, and the Old Testament backs this up, like in Deuteronomy where the Jews were told to care for the poor generously, but with discernment—not just handing out cash to the lazy, but helping those genuinely in need while preserving their dignity. It’s not about showing off; it’s about righteousness flowing from a heart that fears God and loves His commands, like Psalm 112 says.
When Jesus warns against “sounding a trumpet” to announce your giving, it’s like He’s calling out our tendency to crave recognition. I feel that—wanting people to notice when I do something good. But Jesus says that’s a dead-end reward, just fleeting praise from people. Instead, give in secret, and God, who sees it all, will reward you in His way. That’s the kind of righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees’—a heart focused on God, not the spotlight. It’s a challenge, but it’s how we store up treasures in heaven, not just chase vanity here on earth.
Listen to the sermon below…

“Take Courage, Son.”

The following is an excerpt from the Sermon: “Take Courage, Son,” in which Jesus heals the paralytic after declaring the man’s sins forgiven. 

Forgiven Sins

“Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.”

The second monumental statement is one the paralytic did not expect… But it is what the paralytic needed the most: his sins were forgiven.

Do you see that? We want the miracles, the relief from suffering, the healings. Yet, what we need most is the forgiveness that Jesus gives us. We need the atonement. We need the cleansing.

And so often, we forget this truth. We need the forgiveness Jesus brings, more than temporal success. We need forgiveness more that temporal peace.

While the temporal healings, peace, and provisions, are helpful to us in the here and now, the forgiveness found in Christ is the eternal blessing that we need the most.

You can listen to the full sermon here.

The Apostles Creed: The Quick and the Dead

I know that there are times when we need to update the language of our faith. However, so often, the updates don’t bring greater clarity or deeper understanding. This is why so many modern translations are so vanilla. The translators tend to soften as much as possible, thereby keeping the Bible from saying what needs to be said.

The same is true with the Apostles’ Creed and the earlier translations (yes, our Apostles’ Creed is translated from Latin into English.) And yes, one part of the newer version of the Apostles’ Creed bothers me. It is when they translate or modernize “the quick and the dead” into “the living and the dead.”

Now, I need to admit that I have been mistaken about the idea of the meaning of the word “quick.” I took it for the idea of made alive, or born again, which is found in the KJV’s translation of Ephesians 2:5.

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)… Ephesians 2:5.

My mistake was thinking that “quickened” in Ephesians was the same as in the Apostles’ Creed. But it’s not. Here is Strong’s on the word used in Ephesians:

συζωοποιέω syzōopoiéō, sood-zo-op-oy-eh’-o; from G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively):—quicken together with.

This word is very unique to the Christian faith. It only belongs to those who are born again, made alive in Christ. The key is “in Christ.” The word is only used in one other place in the New Testament: Colossians 2:13.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Quick and The Dead is Focused on Judgment

The two times the Greek word for being made alive in Christ, are both in the context of who the believer is in Christ. Yet, this is not what is being spoken of in the Apostles’ Creed.

The Creed is speaking of judgment when it uses the phrase “the quick and the dead.” Here is the context:

He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

This is drawn from Acts 10:42.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

It seems like this would be a slam dunk for my earlier position. But the Greek word for “quick” in this instances is not the same Greek word that Paul is speaking of. It is actually the word for “alive” or “animated.” Here is Strong’s:

ζάω záō, dzah’-o; a primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively):—life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick.

We have two different Greek words, and two different contexts. In Paul’s writing, he is speaking directly to Christians, those in Christ. In Acts, Peter is stating what is to come through the risen Savior. He is to judge both the living, all those who are animaled with life, and those who are already dead. His focus is on the final coming of Christ, when the seas will give up their dead, and the graves will give up their dead, and all those who are living at that time, will stand before the great throne room of Judgment.

I’m Keeping It

Does this mean, that I prefer the new version of the Apostles’ Creed? Absolutely not. The newer version is far too vanilla.

I like the poetic nature of the older version. Yes, it is archaic, but it does remind us that “quick” once gave us the idea of vitality… not just among the breathing… as “living” can do.

And all those who are among the quick, will be judged by the same One who judges the dead. The phrase then, is eschatological in nature, not soteriological in nature, as I assumed.

All this to say that I was wrong about my assumptions, but I still prefer the older translation.

The Apostles’ Creed

We believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
We believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Go!

My latest sermon is based on the incident in which the demons Legion confront Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. It not only deals with the spiritual warfare that is taking place between Jesus and the Legion, but also ties together the sin of the sons of God in Genesis 6, along with 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2. Both those Petrine passages deal with the demons in Sheol. In the first, Peter preaches to them. In the second, we see that they are bound.

Legion wants nothing to do with Christ because they fear He will send them into the confinement of Sheol, with the other fallen angels of Genesis 6. You can access the sermon here.

A Voice of Reason

As I was working my way through the steps to get ready for LORD’s Day worship, I came across the following Proverb.

He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed (13:20).

I think this is the battle of the age at the moment. As you look at a previous post, you can see that in conservative circles there is a lot of confusion about whom we should follow. In many sectors of the far right, the answer is Nick Fuentes. I don’t get it at all. The man is nothing but a spectacle, who appeals to the base nature of a man’s flesh in the worst of ways.

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he warns the pastor about those “who give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in the faith.” Fuentes does this in our modern context, and shows a real lack of godly wisdom.

Fortunately, there are those who do put forth a voice of reason.

Victor Davis Hansen is a voice of reason, at least when it comes to political conservatism. In the video below,  he nails it on the issue of anti-semitism, and actually goes through an explanation of why we want Israel as an ally. It has been a while since I’ve heard anyone put forth the reasons why we have always been behind and allied with Israel. I know many try to tack on a religious component, claiming them as God’s special people and all, but that is not the reason. Israel is strategic. Israel is an ally.

 

Hansen also points out that what many in our society are given over to are the voices of those who are revisionist historians. They are not historians at all, but simply put forth history as truth without any basis. (This is what Fuentes does concerning the number of deaths in the Holocaust, offering no real evidence, put forth as evidence, without actual evidence. In other words, all he does is offer questions and more questions without any truth to his arguments).

Now what Hansen misses in the discussion, is not just that that men like Fuentes are antisemites, but that they are not Christian at all. This is my biggest concern, since so many young men in the church are listening to Fuentes. I’ve heard enough of him to know he is not a Christian. He does nothing to build up the body of Christ. He does nothing to further the cause of Christ. His entire MO is destruction and the fruit he is putting forth is not Biblical.

Not some might say I don’t have the right to declare that about Fuentes. But Jesus made it clear: you can tell a tree by its fruit. This is why I put forth that he does nothing to build up the body of Christ.

I was also thinking: what is the best way to understand Fuentes? Let us ask a few questions of our own.

Would you want Fuentes dating your daughter, given his unstable, hateful nature? Would you want this man to be a part of your family, this man who has no regard for authority (thereby breaking the fullness of the 5th Commandment)? Would you want him in your church, bringing division, casting dispersion, seeking the destruction of others?

As men of the church, is this who we want to follow? Is this who we want to emulate? It doesn’t matter that he has a large following or not: Hitler had a large following. Large followings mean nothing. After all, Jesus said and says, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destuction, and there are many who go in by it, because narrow is the gate and difficult which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Fuentes is the voice of a fool. Let us be those who saturate ourselves into the way of Christ (see Psalm 1), and not sit in the counsel of the wicked.

 

 

All Are Guilty: Including King Charles

On Good Friday, I was perusing through the newsfeeds and two things caught my eye. Both of them were news stories that make you immediately say: “That’s not right.”

The First Offense

The first story came from The King of England, Charles. AS the King of England, he was supposed to give a message to all the Christians in his realm about Good Friday and Easter. He is, according to their government, the head of the church of England. Therefore, you would think he would understand the obligation to encourage those who were members of the Church of England.

But King Chuck refused to do so. His excuse was that he thought it might be offensives to the Muslims in his country, so he remained silent.

I had to remind myself that this lack of declaration should not surprise anyone. Remember who Charles is? He is the royal adulterer. Not only was he in an adulterous relationship with Camila before his marriage to Princes Diana, but also afterwards. The man’s full depravity has been on display for decades. He even made it known long before he became king that he would be the head, not only of the Church of England, but also all religions in the realm.

Apparently, after his non-declaration declaration, he is no longer the King of the Christians in the realm… just the Muslims.

The last thing that King Charles would ever want to do, is affirm the true King of kings, who condemns Charles and his adultery.  Charles refuses to Kiss the Son… He is in rebellion against the true King.

This is what refusal to bend the knee looks like.

The Second Offense

The second offense comes a little closer to home, by the way of Houston City Hall. They were in the habit of giving a proclamation about Good Friday and Easter, but also decided not to do so because it would offend the Islamic population of the city.

They gave no proclamation all.

Again, this should not surprise us. The Houston City Hall has been the center of depravity for years. The people of the city had no problem with a lesbian mayor, who served a number of years ago. For those of you who remember, at one point, she tried to demand that all the pastors of the city, submit copies of their sermons to see if they included hate speech against the Sodomites in the city.

We must understand that this is what we should expect from those who are outside of Christ. The resurrection condemns them. They hate Christ and His followers.

Why is this?

The simple answer: They love the darkness, rather than the Light of the World.

John 3:19-20

9 And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light lest his deeds be exposed. 

Why would we expect anything more of the Houston City Council, or the adulterous King of England? They have done nothing but emulate the depravity and darkness for the last 50 years. Yes, they made their proclamations at times, but Christ rejects their proclamations.

As Jesus said:

Matthew 15:7-19

7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:

8 ‘This people honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
9 But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.’”

The beauty about the King of England and the Houston City Council is that they are no longer hypocrites. They are being honest about who they are. Their darkness is complete. They can try all they want to silence the good news. But it shall not work.

Nothing New

Realize that the attempt to silence the news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ has been going on since His death on the cross. The Pharisees tried the best they could to silence the possibility of the resurrection and then reality of the resurrection.

Matthew 27:62-66 shows their attempt to seal the tomb, thereby keeping Christ inside for good.

62 Now on the next day, the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ 64 Therefore, order for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

The seal they placed and the guards who were there failed in their charge. The tomb was opened, and Jesus rose from the grave.

Once that happened, then they tried to silence the reality of the resurrection. Turn to Matthew 28:11-15.

11 Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and took counsel together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this is heard before the governor, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” 15 And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

They chose a lie instead of the truth.

King Charles and the Houston City Council are attempting the same thing. They are attempting to silence the reality of the resurrection, and if necessary, lie about it as well.

But what they are also doing, is joining hands with Pilot and Herod in the death of Christ. They become partakers as the ones who put Him to death.

Representative God

What do I mean by the fact that they join hands with those who put Jesus to death? Let’s back up a bit so that we understand how God deals with mankind.

First, we need to understand that He deals with us through representatives. This is often referred to in theological circles as federal headship. It is the driving principle in which our government was formed upon by the founding fathers of this country.

What it means is that throughout history, YHWH has used federal heads in place of all mankind, to represent all mankind. The first instance of this is with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

As the first man, Adam is our representative, so that when he willfully and knowingly fell into sin, the rest of mankind fell into sin as well (see Romans 5:12-21).

Most of us know that. WHAT I’M TRYING TO SHOW you now, is that this federal representation is also true when it comes to Christ’s death.

The question is: who is responsible for the death of Christ on the cross?

Peter gives us the foundational truth about where the responsibility of Christ’s death is found. in Acts 4.

Acts 4:26-28

26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Just as Adam was our representative in the Garden of Eden, so too, were Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews, representatives of the world in bringing about the death of Christ.

  • King Herod represented the Jewish leadership in putting Christ to death.
  • Pontius Pilate represented the Gentiles, the city halls, the adulterous kings, in putting Christ to death.
  • The Gentiles who were involved, the Roman soldiers, were our representative in putting Christ to death.
  • The Jews that were there, were the people of Israel’s representatives in putting Christ to death.

What this shows us is that fundamentally, we are all guilty of Christ’s death. Had we been there on that day, we too, would have shouted “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!”

But please notice that when Peter makes this statement, His major focus is with the kings of the earth. He is dealing with those who are set up to govern the people. He is addressing the King of England. He is addressing Houston City Hall.

Peter’s message is an all-inclusive message of federal headship. Listen to his quote of Acts 2.

26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

Peter changes Psalm 2, where it says “anointed” to the Greek version of that: “Christos.” He is making it clear that the governments of the world should Kiss the Son, and that Son is Jesus Christ.

Psalm 2:12

Kiss the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

This is why those in leadership want nothing to do with Good Friday or Resurrection Sunday. They don’t want to acknowledge what took place and will seek to do whatever they can to silence the message of the empty tomb.

We know this because their forefathers in darkness worked doubly hard in attempting to squelch the reality of the resurrection. The King of England follows in the footsteps Pontius Pilate. In fact, it is more than that. He is joining hands in the death of Christ. This is quite sad given his heritage and his mother. But heritages is no guarantee against apostasy. So he delights in joining hands with Herod, and with the darkness of Islam.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Saddened yes, but not surprised.

Miriam’s Sin and the Greater Punishment

In the early days of Israel’s history, during the Exodus period, there came a real challenge for Moses from what many would call his inner circle: Aaron, his brother, and Miriam, his sister. The two siblings became disgruntled with the choice Moses made for his wife. Moses didn’t marry an Israelite girl, but married a Cushite woman. Cush is in the area we know as modern Sudan. It is also a nation that is part of the table nations given after the flood.

Aaron and Miriam objected to the choice Moses made. But it wasn’t just their objection to the marriage. Their pride also arose in the situation and they boasted that they were just as important as Moses was, since they too, offered prophecy.

Numbers 12:2

…they said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And Yahweh heard it.

Miriam did indeed act as a prophetess in Exodus 15. She took a tambourine and led the women to dance in light of God’s victory over Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea.

“Sing to Yahweh,
For He has triumphed gloriously!
The horse and its rider
He has thrown into the sea!”

That’s it. She is clearly correct in singing to YHWH. She had been given a wonderful privilege to declare to the people all that YHWH had done. This is very similar to when we partake of communion. While we don’t say it, as a congregation, we are proclaiming the LORD’s death until He comes again. This is a prophetic act of the congregation. We should rejoice we have the privilege act and speak as prophets. But that is all.

Miriam would have benefited from taking the same attitude.

Yet, here she is with Aaron claiming equality with Moses, their younger brother.

AS for Aaron, the Bible never declares him to be a prophet, but to be a prophet to the prophet. He is the mouth piece of Moses (Exodus 7:1) Revelation is given to Aaron, but he is also in the presence of Moses when that occurs. It should be clear whom God’s chosen prophet is: it is Moses, as YHWH will make clear in the passage.

But notice one other thing from verse 2: the short sentence after their declaration.

And Yahweh heard it.

This is like the times when children are complaining about mom, and suddenly, they realize that dad is standing right there and heard all their gripes. The children immediately know that things are not well.

On top of that, the author puts in a parenthetical clause of explanation about Moses. He writes: (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.)

That is an important detail because it helps us understand what is going to be said next. The great humility on the part of Moses is what you would expect from someone who stands in the council and presence of God. God’s holiness has an effect upon those who spend time there.

That one verse is a parenthetical thought about Moses, showing us his humility, which is in contrast to the arrogance and pride that Aaron and Miriam are demonstrating. This is the actual focus of the section.

YHWH calls all three of them outside. He is about to make something very clear. He is about to clarify who His prophet is.

6 and He said,

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, Yahweh, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Indeed clearly, and not in riddles,
And he beholds the form of Yahweh. (The reason for his humility)
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”

9 So the anger of Yahweh burned against them, and He went away.

First, we see the relationship that Moses had with YHWH was special, above all before and after him until Christ. Moses had privileges, but he didn’t flout them. He is YHWH’s chosen prophet.

Second, we see the key point to all this: … the anger of Yahweh burned against them…

The Father found the children disrespecting the mother, and He was hot with anger.

YHWH’s Wrath Upon Miriam

10 But the cloud withdrew from over the tent, and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

Now we see God’s wrath being poured out on Miriam. She is cover with leprosy. Her skin is as white as snow, and not in the sanctification way of white snow. YHWH’s wrath had poured uncleanness upon her. She was to be an outcast.

Now, why does YHWH pour out this level of wrath upon Miriam and not Aaron?

This is the key question and most in our culture will not like the answer.

The reason He pours out His wrath upon her, is because she has stepped out of her role as a woman, taken on the role of a man, and tried to sit in judgment of God’s chosen prophet.

Moses was not acting arrogantly in taking a Cushite wife, but Miriam saw it as an opportunity to lift herself up, and praise herself, and demand equal treatment with Moses. She was doing the same thing that Eve did in the Garden of Eden with the serpent. She had placed herself in the role of the man, and wanted to be a prophet on equal status, or greater than Moses.

YWHW would have none of it. He brings the most despicable disease on her, to show her that she is completely outside of the bounds of His will and the covenant community. Leprosy wasn’t just a disease, but something that revealed spiritual depravity. This is why the one who has leprosy has to go and be declared clean or unclean by the priests, not the physician.

Yet, it is the grabbing for power, the stepping out of the divine ordained role that we need to focus upon. In all the women in the Old Testament, only Jezebel compares to what Miriam had done. God’s word had spoken, showing just how sinful it is for a woman to assume the role of the man, and all but Jezebel realized that.

Miriam is given as a sign to the people of God showing us what is not acceptable. She is held to a higher standard because she was a prophetess, and was closer to Moses than the people. Therefore, it was incumbent upon YHWH to deal with her forcefully. This is similar to the way YWHW dealt with the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu when they offered strange fire. They had more privileges as priests, and more responsibility. When they transgressed against YWHW, He brought greater judgment.

The beauty for Miriam is that Aaron appealed to Moses, who petitioned YWHW to heal her. She had to be separated from the community for seven days, but she was healed. I imagine that those seven long days, separated from the community and the blessings of YWHW, were quite painful emotionally. It gave her plenty of time to reflect upon her arrogance, and her grab for power, for she does recede from view.

The only time she is mentioned after this incident, is in Numbers when she dies, and in Deuteronomy as a memorial about the dangers of leprosy. Her rebellion is a reminder to us, that God will not be mocked.

The entire incident is a reflection of the fall, and a reminder of what happens when men and women reverse their roles. It angers God. The church would be so much better off if we could learn the lesson that those under the Old Covenant took for granted.

For more, listen to the sermon that this comes from: A Leper Came to Him