Christos Kurios vs. Caesar Kurios

Last week we considered the Providence of God so that we might be patient in adversity and thankful in prosperity. A large thrust in that message was to continue to trust our Triune God when living in the midst of difficulties, trials, hardship and persecution.

This week we want to emphasize that confidence in God’s providence does not translate into be a people who do not contend for the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in every area of life. In other words we can’t use God’s providence as an excuse to not endure hardship, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ., as Paul puts in II Timothy 2:3.

So, we embrace God’s providence but we embrace it in such a way that it gives us confidence to be always abounding in the work of the Lord.

Nowhere do we see this combination of trust in God’s providence with the resolve to not use that belief in providence as an excuse to not continue to work resolutely for heralding the Kingdom of God than we find in the book of Acts.

The Book of Acts chronicles the expansion of the early Church. Most people don’t realize it but Acts really is kind of a cultural war manual that tells the story about how it is that a fledgling religion/faith challenges and conquers the existing religions of it’s time with the consequence that the known world is at sixes and sevens over the twin preaching emphasis in the book of Acts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.

Paul in taking the Gospel forward is even accused in Acts 17 of “acting against Caesar’s decrees by claiming there is “another king, Jesus.” The passage is describing the unrest caused by their message.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

That Christ and faith in Jesus Christ was a message of conquest that threatened the existing cultural norms is seen very early in the book of Acts. At the beginning of Acts we read the Ascension of Christ, the coming of the Spirit for the empowering of the Church and then of the growth of the church in the context of persecution. A persecution, as we will see, born of the fact that faith in a resurrected and ruling Savior has the impact of threatening the previous cultural status quo.

In Acts 4:12 we read that the Apostles themselves understood that they and their message was a threat to the existing political-social-cultural order of their day. There we find Peter saying,

10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

It is interesting to note here that Peter ties the resurrection to Christ’s Kingship when he uses that phrase, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

This phraseology would have been familiar to Peter’s listeners and it would have been understood as a challenge to the existing Roman order of the time. In the 1st century the Roman Empire was a military machine conquering the known world. When a people were conquered by Rome they would come under what is known as the Pax Romana which means “Rome makes the Peace.” Rome making the peace meant that the conquered people lived under the terms of conquest that Rome issued.

When a people were subjugated by Rome, Rome would nail their “euangelion” (good news) announcement to a post in a very public spot for all to read. There you would read,

“There is no other name under Heaven by which you can be saved, save for Augustus Caesar.” Receiving salvation in the Roman world was inclusive of embracing the idea that “Caesar is Lord.”

Now what really makes this contrast interesting between the Apostolic proclamation that it is only the name of Jesus under Heaven by which you can be saved and the Roman proclamation that the only name under heaven by which you can be saved is Caesar Augustus is that Rome also claimed for Caesar what the Apostles counter-claimed for Jesus … each claimed that their leader was God’s son.

Caesar Augustus was called the “divi filus.” This was a a name in reference to Augustus’ adoption under Julius Caesar who was then believed to be a god.  Caesar Augustus the adopted son of Julius Caesar was the divi filius. Caesar Augustus…the son of god.

So, note the contrast.

In the face of the belief that Caesar Augustus was the son of God, comes Jesus Christ the Son of God. Both Caesar and Christos insist that there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved except their names. Both require their followers to say on one hand “Caesar is Lord” (kurios kaiseros) or on the other hand “Christ is Lord (kurios Christos).

The Christian confession “Christ is Lord” (kurios Christos) presented a direct and radical alternative. Proclaiming Jesus as Lord did not simply state a private belief; it displaced the imperial claim to ultimate authority and divinity. In the eyes of Roman authorities and many contemporaries, this confession of Kurios Christos – Christ is Lord – could be interpreted as a subversive political statement that undermined the social, cultural, and religious foundations of imperial loyalty. In the Apostolic preaching there was found treason.

What they were saying when they said, “There is no other name under heaven by which ye must be saved,” in that ancient culture is akin to a Muslim today trumpeting their Shahada in a synagogue in Jerusalem today,

“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

When the Apostles came with that message they were announcing different Lords, who create different customs and cultures and ways of living.. Different salvations create different cultures. Different Lords meant different centers of public identity, cultural expression, civic loyalty, and divine honor.

So, what I want us to see here is that the Christian faith that was being heralded in that ancient world was not some mere private commitment that could be adopted by individuals. No, the Christian message of the Lordship of Christ and the Christian faith that was based on that was a matter of throwing down the gauntlet against the political and cultural powers of the time. To take up Christ was political and cultural subversion. It was treason. It was a mockery of the heathen gods.

Look, Rome was serious about this Caesar is Lord title. Rome minted coins where one could read of the salvation, peace, and security which were found in Caesar Augustus. Now comes this little band of Apostles pressing the claims that Christ is Lord and that it is not the name of Augustus Caesar but rather the name of Jesus Christ which is the only name under heaven by which men must be saved.

Remember, all of public policy, all of social interaction, all of cultural identity is built upon and is reflective of who is Lord. What do you think the reaction is going to be to this message that the Apostles are bringing that there is a new Lord… a new name under heaven by which men must be saved?

In 1st century Rome salvation being provided by Caesar was often associated with political peace and prosperity. The salvation offered by the Apostolic message was offered based on the conviction that the present wicked age was overcome by the Resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Kingdom of God. Paul gets at this in Colossians when he says, “You have been translated from the Kingdom of Darkness, to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, whom He loves.” Salvation meant being a citizen in the age to come.

Salvation, in this earliest sense, was not primarily then about escaping the world after death, although it did include that, but salvation was primarily about participating in the renewal of creation already underway. The language of salvation was therefore communal, cosmic, and future oriented as much as it was individual.

The earliest stratum of Christian preaching, reflected in speeches in Acts and early creedal fragments, presents salvation as deliverance within history. God had acted to rescue Israel and, through Israel, the world. Jesus was understood as the Messiah who inaugurated the long awaited kingdom of God. To be saved was to be brought into this kingdom, to belong to the restored people of God, and to live under God’s reign.

Frankly, this is where the modern church has dropped the ball. The modern church wants to make salvation individual and primarily about being delivered from hellfire, but all through the NT and in the book of Acts w/ its constant returning to preaching the Kingdom of God we see a salvation wherein God is recreating the cosmos by the ingathering of a people who are living under the authority of their ascended Liege-Lord Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the Libs understand this better than those considered conservative. They understand that the Christian faith is supposed to reshape culture. Their problem is that the Christian faith they embrace is anti-Christ.

Well, let’s move along. What was the reaction to this message of the Apostles, that we find in the book of Acts? The reaction is what we might expect. People are invested in their gods and being invested in the gods they don’t want to see those gods overthrown by the Christians preaching sedition and treason against their gods who are currently in the saddle.

Discover how we see this in the book of Acts. Paul is Christ’s spokesman in Acts and His twin messages in Acts are the Resurrection of Christ and the Kingdom of God.  As Paul brings this message he is resisted and persecuted by those who are adherents to Caesar or adherents to god of the Talmudic Pharisees.

Now, we are going to do a overview of Paul’s persecutions in order to demonstrate the resistance Paul dealt with in his ministry in proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord. However, in order to sustain my premise that the conflict in Acts while spiritual at its base did indeed have political and cultural implications. Returning to Acts 17 we read,

20 And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city; 21 and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe.”

6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too. 7 Jason has [c]harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus.”

Note the accusations here …. Paul and company in preaching Christ are accused of “teaching customs which are not lawful for us.” If you read all of Acts 17 you see there is a riot going on due to the preaching of Christ with the implications that brings. The Christian message is resisted. The Christians are persecuted. Some are treated quite roughly.

This is the reaction of the gods and their adherents when Christianity comes to challenge the gods of this age.

We see this resistance all the way through the book of Acts. The reason I am going to trace this out is so you can see what to expect in 2026 you champion Christ, in a culture that is increasingly resembling the 1st century Roman world,

So how were they received in Acts for challenging the gods of this present wicked age?

  • “For I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Jesus in Acts 9:16

    9:23-25 – 1st Plot to kill Paul – lowered through a wall in basket in Damascus.

    9:29-30 – 2nd Plot to kill Paul – sent to Caesarea from Jerusalem.
    13:45 – Paul is contradicted/maligned in Pisidian Antioch.
    13:50 – Paul and Barnabas were persecuted and drove out by Jews in Pisidian Antioch
    14:2; 5 – The Jews embitter minds of Gentiles against Paul and attempted to stone Paul in Iconium.
    14:19 – Paul is stoned and left for dead in Lystra.
    16:16-24 – Paul and Silas were beaten with many blows and thrown into the inner prison in Philippi.
    17:5-10 – Paul is forced out of Thessalonica.
    17:13-14 – Paul is forced out of Berea
    18:12 – Paul is brought before the judgment seat by Jews in Corinth but charges dismissed.
    19:23-41 – No small disturbance arises concerning the Way in Ephesus when Christianity began to cause job loss for idol makers of Artemis.
    21:27-40 – Paul is beat with the intent to murder in Jerusalem.
    21:33-36 – Paul is seized by the Romans in Jerusalem. Paul remains under arrest for the remainder of the book of Acts.
    23:2 – Paul is struck in the mouth as commanded by the High Priest – Jerusalem.
    23:12-22 – A plot is formed by forty Jews to conspire with the Jewish leadership to assassinate Paul – Jerusalem. To avoid this attempt on Paul’s life, Paul was moved to Caesarea.
    25:1-5 – There’s an attempt by the Jews to have Paul brought back to Jerusalem in order to ambush and kill him.
    27:42 – The Roman Soldiers plan to kill the prisoners from the ship that was run aground, including Paul, but the centurion prevents it. Paul, with 275 persons is ship-wrecked on Malta on their way to Rome.
    Now why all this persecution?
    It is because Paul’s message was a threat to the pagan culture of the day.
    In Acts 17:18, Epicurean and Stoic philosophers listened to Paul. They said, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods,”
    In Acts 19 they complained,

    “they all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.”

    Like it or not the Gospel which proclaims Jesus as BOTH Lord and Savior creates havoc in cultures who are a reflection and extension of false gods they serve.

    Our culture is increasingly a 1st century polytheistic pagan culture. If we preach like Paul and the Apostles I cannot see how it will not be the case that the heathen culture is going to snarl, bite, and claw at Christians preaching up Christ and His Kingdom.

    Are we willing to embrace a Christianity that invades the territory of the gods of this present evil age? Are we willing to proclaim the kind of Christianity that threatens the sycophants of false gods? Are we willing to suffer for the sake of the Gospel?

    You want to make Hell spew anger? Invade what it believes is its territory with the claims of Christ and just see how angry the denizens of hell become.

    ___

    This dynamic I’ve set forth here explains all the conflict that we are seeing recently. This is a contest of who is Lord? It is a contest as to which name under heaven we will be saved by. This context explains why ministers are stripped of their position and cast out of churches for attacking Feminism by being Biblical. It explains why young men are being put through struggle sessions because they no longer accept the gods of the post-war consensus. It explains why there is so much animosity by the R2K and Baptist types over the idea that all nations should be ruled in light of Christ’s Kingship. We are living in a time once again, as it was the case in the 1st century, where there is a battle royale going on between the established and accepted heathen gods and the God of the Bible. Those who say Christos Kurios are going to face the same persecution that Paul faced because he was working in against a world that embraced Caesar Kurios.

    And in that battle we can rest in God’s providence and because of God’s providence we can enter the battle.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Poker Rules in The Lindsey Clancy Case

In our culture one has to be aware of how the DEI poker rules work. For example one has to keep in mind that in any conflict or contest that a black male trumps a white male, and that a black female trumps both a black male and a white male and a white female. However, a white disabled lesbian female trumps a straight black female. Any combination is feasible and sometimes the rules shift depending upon the situation. However, one thing is certain about these rules is that a straight white Christian is the equivalent of holding a pair of twos. The straight white male in DEI poker always loses.

We recently, are seeing DEI poker being played again in our culture. The Lindsey Clancy case has brought up some interesting combinations for our DEI poker rules. On the one hand you have a black male juror who refused to vote with the other predominantly white female jurors who were obviously strong lib-tards. Which way would DEI poker rules go on this one?

Well, we are learning what the DEI poker rules instruct us in this case. The News media and the Defense Attorney and his wife are full on attacking the juror who did not vote w/ the rest of the jury on the Clancy case.

We’ve been told he was,

1.) A Black man (a real advantage in DEI poker)
2.) His landlord is currently trying to evict this Black man
3.) The Black male juror in question may have lied on his juror questionnaire
4.) The Black male juror we are being told by the media has a history of domestic violence

All this indicates that in DEI poker a psychotic white female murderer of her own children trumps a black male who exhibits all too often typical black behavior.

Now, any other time this too often typical Black behavior would be excused by the media and the cultural gatekeepers and all of it would be blamed on white people for being oppressive. As such, it would be considered bad form to even bring it up. However, DEI poker has some shifty rules that one has to be aware. DEI poker is kind of like playing “Calvin-Ball.” (This for those who were Calvin & Hobbes fans.)

BUT NOW, because the all too often typical Black man has the chutzpah to disregard the cultural zeitgeist DEI poker rules by voting against a psychopathic white female the left media machine is melting down about behavior they would only melt down over if somebody dared to commit the sin of noticing.

So… we learn here that in DEI poker, a psychotic white woman who viciously murders her three children trumps a black man who only,

1.) Can’t pay his rent
2.) May have had domestic abuse problems in the past
3.) May have lied on his juror questionnaire in order to get on jury

Now, these DEI poker rules are important to keep in mind. I wonder which way this would have tilted if Lindsey Clancy had the dropped the N bomb on the Black juror like Shiloh Hendrix did in Minnesota?

Would even doing that be enough to find her holding a weaker hand in DEI poker? I suspect that a psychotic white woman viciously murdering her three children due to post-partum blues would still trump a black juror even after dropping an N bomb on him… though it might be close for DEI poker rules.

Pay attention to these DEI poker rules and be careful out there. You don’t want to be holding a losing hand when playing DEI poker.

From the Mailbag … What’s the Difference Between Capitalism and Corporatism?

“I felt it my duty to take, and to inflict upon the reader, considerable trouble in order to lead up effectively to my paradoxical conclusion: capitalism is being killed by its achievements…Capitalism, inevitably and by virtue of the very logic its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.”

Joseph Schumpeter, 1942

“Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it.”

Thomas Sowell

“‘Capitalism’ has become something different and distinct from free market ideas about exchange, private property, etc. It is an ideological enemy of traditionalists and buttresses the egalitarian acid eating away the foundations of social order.

“The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer’s dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explain its destructive impact on social institutions.”

Samuel Francis

Pastor,

Can you explain what the differences are between Capitalism and Corporatism?

Morgan

Hello Morgan,

The basic difference between the two is that Capitalism believes that the market exists and so should serve the particular people group it is in service of and not that the particular people group exists for the sake of the market. In the former people are the servants of the Corporate monetary structures while in the latter the economic structures are to serve the people. So, for example, while Capitalism would say that even though immigration might help increase the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) it still should not be embraced because immigration would and does hurt the particular people group that the market is supposed to be serving. This is what Thomas Sowell was getting at in his quote above.

Another, similar example of Corporatism vs. Capitalism is that inasmuch as Corporatism only cares about profit, it will sacrifice all other principles in the pursuit of economic gain. Corporatism only sees the bottom line of profit and loss in terms of finances whereas Capitalism, at its best, understands that it private markets must serve a larger end. So, for example, if the Corporatist can make more money by feeding women into the labor force to compete with men, therefore increasing the labor force in terms of numbers with the result that lesser wages can be paid since there are more people available to do the same amount of work, meaning that the Corporations will have a larger profit because their labor expense will be reduced that is was Corporatism will do. This is what Samuel Francis’ quotes above are getting at. Corporatism only see the bottom line in terms of profit. Capitalism at its best understands that it is not its own end or purpose.

Corporatism, unlike Capitalism, has no problem with what is called “creative destruction.” Corporatism is prone to constant change and social revolution since it is constantly asking, “What can be changed so that we, as Corporate Owners, can make even more money.” This means that Corporatism eats tradition, in pursuit of profitable innovation. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its best expression, served tradition by providing goods at just prices giving out just wages. It’s reason for existence was not the bottom line, but was the health and good of the community wherein it existed. We are living through an example of this wherein we are being told that for the sake of profit the State will give out a universal basic income as the Corporations rake in their Billions of dollars.

Another distinction between Corporatism and Capitalism is that in Corporatism you have an alliance between Government, Big Labor, Big Banks, and Big Business with the purpose of controlling how the financial machine of the social order works. In older parlance they are “in cahoots” (or in bed) with one another. The person left out of this arrangement is the small business owner, the small craftsmen, and the private entrepreneur – these people make up a substantial number of the population.

So, you see Morgan, that Capitalism is a more decentralized economic system that promotes private innovation through local competition. Corporatism, on the other hand, is not so interested in innovation but prefers top down planning that gives an even product as dictated and controlled by the mega banking, government, labor, and business interests in a nation. Because of this difference capitalism can more easily adjust to and provide the goods for new demands. Corporatism on the other hand, because it is centralized and top down plan oriented does not adjust well to meeting unexpected changes in terms of sudden new demands in the marketplace.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Corporatism is more of a top down economic structure that seeks to control the market for the good of the profiteer (pirate?) class in the social order. Capitalism, on the other hand, is decentralized and sees the states only role as enforcing private contracts and insuring a level economic playing field wherein all can compete. Capitalism insisted that the State governs best in economics where it governs least. Corporatism insists that a nation’s economics needs the State’s guiding and involved (menacing?) hand. At the end of the day corporatism and capitalism as competing systems shape how wealth is distributed, how economic decisions are made, and consequently how social orders function.

Clearly, while at one time we may have had a Capitalist system, it has been decades (since the arrival of the Federal Reserve in 1913) since Corporatism took over our economic landscape. Big Banks (Federal Reserve – which is NOT Federal and has no Reserves), Big Business (Wall Street), Big Government (Federal Government), and Big Labor (Labor Unions) now shape our economic system. This means that we are really no longer a people conversant with Liberty.

Another thing that should be noted before signing off here Morgan is that Communism and Corporatism in history have often worked hand in glove. It is true that Communism is opposed to genuine Capitalism but it is NOT true that Communism is opposed to Corporatism. In point of fact the economic cooperation between the USSR and the USA during the Cold War is evidence of this truism. This cooperation preexist the Cold War as well as Antony Sutton’s trilogy of books reveal.

Wall Street & The Rise of Hitler
Wall Street & The Rise of FDR
Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution

Morgan, even if your great grandparents were alive they would not remember a time when Corporatism and not Capitalism was the economic structure of our nation.

Much more could be said here but this gives you a start on the differences between Corporatism and Capitalism.

What Has Happened to Our Female Population?

Until the last few weeks, I had been a holdout on the issue of women being morally worse than men, speaking in a macro general sense. I have had friends rail against women and I just marked it up to some understandable bitterness given some experience they had with a particularly bad woman. I marked it up to that because I’ve really only had to deal with one hard Feminist in the Church and a few at United Airlines when I worked their for 13 years. I could pass that off as the inevitable bad apples that one always finds in both sexes. Plus, I’ve been blessed with a wife and 3 daughters who are not crazy loons, but are flowers of God’s grace. As such, I never had reason to think that women were particularly more of a problem than men. Finally, on this score, I’ve seen a boatload of really bad men in the context of failed marriages. Men, who treated their wives in shameful ways. Because of all this, I just reasoned that the world was merely populated by fallen men and women who equally have a sin problem.

However two events have happened in the past few weeks that has found me re-evaluating my former position. One was far from me. The other I witnessed personally and was on the receiving end.

The first, of course, has been the Lindsay Clancy trial. Hearing these unhinged women support Clancy has been an eye opener. Seeing how the female population is largely but not exclusively responsible for sending Lindsey Clancy a Million Dollars has been shocking. Seeing the females line up outside courtrooms and in other places in order to protest, weep, and snarl is akin to what I saw when I worked in a half-way house for recovering addicts.

Then this past weekend at the Festival of Oddities I had the same type of experience personally. It was overwhelmingly women (though not exclusively women) who were going spastic at the fact that people were objecting to this Satanic Bacchanalia that Charlotte was hosting. It was women who were overwhelmingly the ones venting their spleens in social media about how terrible, horrid, mean, and bad the Christians were who stood against the gates of Hell in Charlotte. Sure, there were some Warlocks who complained but it was the Witches who provided the vast number of shock troops.

So… I have re-evaluated my former position and now agree that the problems we have with men in the culture, though indeed serious, pales in comparison to the problems we have with the women. Some attribute this to the cold-hardheartedness in having had an abortion that creates this current brittle and unhinged female psyche. Some would say that women were not meant to live without a male covering (and I agree w/ that) and that accounts for women no longer having a proper context in order to thrive in with the result that they become anti-female in disposition and mindset. Some would insist that because we have largely destroyed the Trustee family, that women, being the chief victims of that destruction are now becoming Succubus’. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the West has a growing “our Females are psycho lunatics” problem.

None of this is to alleviate Men from their responsibility in all this. I remain convinced that it is the lack of strong Biblical male leadership that accounts for the rise of this problem. It seems that men are either on one hand simps or cucks, or on the other hand tyrants. There is an inability to find a Biblical mean.

I suspect that none of this is going to be fixed overnight but the first step is recognizing the problem. I now admit and recognize we have, generally speaking, a large portion of 50% of the population that is absolutely certifiable.

Heidelberg Catechism Sermon – Lord’s Day 10 – Providence

This morning we return to our Catechism to take up the issue of comfort. The Catechism specifies that we find comfort in knowing our sin and misery, in knowing how we have been delivered from that sin and misery and in knowing how we can express gratitude for redemption from that sin and misery.

But I want to contend that there are places to find comfort as well in the Catechism besides the broad brush strokes that it gives and one place to find that is in Lord’s Day #10 where we are taught about God’s providence.

Of course, as Calvinists, that is to say, as Biblical Christians, we understand God’s providence to reference God’s daily control of all things from the changing of the seasons, to the conception and birth of our children. From the gainful employment we have to the pink slip unexpectedly received. From the “chance” encounter with the person we would end up marrying to the hour our unions would end because of death. In all these matters and all others as Calvinists we believe that

“God is in control
We believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
We will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him, we know
Oh, God is in control, oh God is in control”

This is what the Scriptures teach and this is what our catechism teaches w/ Q. 27.

27. What do you understand by the providence of God?

Now we should start here by observing that clearly the catechizers desired for we, as the catechumens, to know about this doctrine of God’s providence. They placed it here to explain the character of God when we confess from the Apostle’s creed, “I believe in God the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”

The Catechizers desire for us to remember what they teach and as we will se they desire for us to remember this so that we will not be shaken by seeing things that might otherwise upset us if we were not confident of this truth of God’s providence.

And so to fill us with this confidence the Catechizers, following Scripture teach that we are to understand the Providence of God as,

The almighty, everywhere-present power of God,1 whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven and earth with all creatures,2 and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink,3 health and sickness,4 riches and poverty,5 indeed, all things come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.

[1] Acts 17:25–26. [2] Heb. 1:3. [3] Jer. 5:24; *Acts 14:17. [4] Jn. 9:3. [5] Prov. 22:2; *Ps. 103:19; Rom. 5:3–5a.

Let us break this down. They start with talking about the “almighty, everywhere present power of God.” In theological language this speaks of God’s omnipotent power being omnipresent. God’s power is without limit and it is never absent from the Christian. Of course, when we speak of God’s almighty, everywhere present power we are not abstracting God Himself for where God’s almighty, everywhere present power is so is God Himself.

The Scripture teaches this almighty everywhere present power of God when Jonah went into the bowels of the sea (Jon. 1:3), after foolishly thinking he could flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.

Ps. 23 speaks of this almighty everywhere present power of God when we learn that

“Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For Thou art with me;
Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.”

Because of His confidence in the almighty and everywhere present power of God the Psalmist could write 

27:3 Though an army besiege me,
my heart will not fear;
though war break out against me,
    even then I will be confident.

Of course you see the comfort that this provides and the confidence that we can swell with when we believe and embrace the reality of the almighty and everywhere present power of the God who exercises that almighty and everywhere present power in the governance of His people’s lives.

But the Catechizers do not stop there. They make sure we know that this providence of God … this almighty and everywhere present power of God is personal. They do so, by using the phrase,

as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven and earth with all creatures,2

The God we serve is not an abstraction. He is not impersonal. He personally involved in His creation in its day to day sustaining and governance. Listen to God’s Word from Psalm 104 testifying how intimate God is involved w/ His creation… as by His hand, he still upholds heaven and earth w/ all creatures,

He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
    it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
    the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the sky nest by the waters;
    they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
    the land is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
    and plants for people to cultivate—
    bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens human hearts,
    oil to make their faces shine,
    and bread that sustains their hearts.
16 The trees of the Lord are well watered,
    the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 There the birds make their nests;
    the stork has its home in the junipers.
18 The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
    the crags are a refuge for the hyrax.

19 He made the moon to mark the seasons,
    and the sun knows when to go down.
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
    and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
    and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
    they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then people go out to their work,
    to their labor until evening.

It was the Enlightenment that locked God out of His planet … who made God remote. The rise of reason and godless science as King, emptied the world where the hand of God upholds all of His creation. Some folks today write of how the world we live in has been de-mythologized. What some of them mean is that it has lost all its wonder and marvel because the personal hand of a personal God has been removed from our thinking.

From this hand of the personal God who is intimately sustaining all things for His creatures we learn that God’s providence means that God remains the governor. This is yet another term, along with “uphold” that bespeaks of God’s intimate personal involvement w/ His creation.

Our Fathers … these Catechizers lived in a world that was riven with the presence of God. They understood all of life in terms of God’s upholding and governing their lives. All that came into their lives they understood as not coming into their lives by secondary causes or by the non-existent thing called “chance.” They believed that God was upholding and governing their lives.

And they understood this upholding and governing to cover all things … and they list some of those things,

that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink,3 health and sickness,4 riches and poverty,5 indeed, all things come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.

See how totalistic they understood God’s providence to be. Notice also they speak all of it as coming to God’s people by His fatherly hand. This Lord’s Day is being especially applied to the people of God. We know this because those who are not God’s people only know the hand of God’s judgment and know nothing of God’s fatherly hand.

It all comes to us by God’s fatherly hand. If we believe this then we receive all as coming from God’s fatherly hand. We accept living in the context of a faithless church as coming from His fatherly hand. We accept the joy of the presence of the remnant around us as from His fatherly hand. We accept the insanity of juries not convicting murdering mothers as from His fatherly hand, we accept justice being done when it is done from His fatherly hand. We accept communities celebrating the aberrant as from His fatherly hand, and we accept the glad news that God is still calling redeeming His people.

That is the thrust of this confession of God’s upholding and governing all things. This is God’s World  and though the wrong is oft so strong God is the ruler yet. We sing heralding this Providence of God,

His purposes will ripen fast,
  Unfolding every hour:
The bud may have a bitter taste,
  But sweet will be the flower.
 
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
  And scan His work in vain;
God is His own Interpreter,
  And He will make it plain.


The thrust of this is that this is not a random world full of chance events. The thrust of this is to make us confident that even when we don’t understand God’s providence we can trust that God does understand God’s providence and that there is purpose in what we see as madness. We can find our equilibrium … our stability in all this cultural and ecclesiastical madness by embracing and owning this truth about God’s providence.

The Catechizers get at this when they ask and answer,

28. What does it profit us to know that God created, and by His providence upholds, all things?

That we may be patient in adversity, 1 thankful in prosperity, 2 and for what is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that no creature shall separate us from His love, 3 since all creatures are so in His hand, that without His will they cannot so much as move.4

[1] Rom. 5:3; Jas. 1:3; Job 1:21. [2] Deut. 8:10; 1 Th ess. 5:18. [3] Rom. 8:35, 38–39. [4] Job 1:12; Acts 17:25–28; Prov. 21:1; *Ps. 71:7; *2 Cor. 1:10.

I preached this sermon this morning because, I am myself working on being “patient in adversity.” I am reminded of our Fathers and how patient they were in adversity. Father Job with all the scrouges visited upon Him. Father Joseph with the years in the dankest of dungeons. Father Daniel keeping time with ravenous beasts. Fathers Chrysostom, Augustine, Justin Martyr who were patient in adversity when contending against the Jews. Fathers Luther, Calvin, Knox, Ridley who knew a good deal about adversity.

They and we learn through adversity that the testing of our faith produces [a]patience as James teaches and as Paul teaches suffering produces perseverance.

Look at the adversity we are living in.

The Maine Supreme Court unanimously upheld a custody order on Monday giving a father veto power over a mother’s decisions to take their daughter to church or read her the Bible, largely barring the child’s religious upbringing.

Our allegedly conservative churches are hounding the most honorable and Christian men from their posts. Further, they are denouncing the idea of Christian Nationalism as if the idea has never been embraced by the Church historical.

A friend wrote me this week w/ another example,

My wife’s 92 year old great great Aunt passed away and she asked that Jenny’s brother Jonah do her funeral service.

He has credentials and has been a associate pastor off and on while bivocational since college.

The FEMALE “pastor” of the Methodist church that the great great Aunt used to attend and where the services will be held demanded to see Jonah’s credentials because the female Pastorette didn’t want someone who wasn’t qualified to do the service.

Now these are just three examples of the cultural adversity we are facing. This does not mention the personal adversities. The point in all of this though is that God is not absent. God is putting us in the refiners fire in order to make the best of steel, and God will use these hard times to create strong men who will rise up and put to flight the enemy.

And so the encouragement this morning is found in the Catechism in four ways,

 I.) For what is future we can have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love

They have explained God’s rule. They have told us, following Scripture, that God is our Father. The future belongs to the God who loves us for the sake of Jesus Christ. Of all people, despite the opposition we should the people characterized as having good confidence.

They cite Romans 8 here which teaches us that nothing can separate us from the Love of God. NOTHING. No adversity that God sends. No opposition from God’s enemies. No sorrow that enters our lives.

Here we are covered with the righteousness of Jesus. We can no more be touched by the enemy without God’s assignment than Christ can be touched at God’s right hand. We are impervious to any hostility or adversity that isn’t assigned by a triune God who loves us and hates those who hate His people.

Be of good cheer little flock. The future is bright and so your confidence should be brimming.

II.) all creatures are so in His hand, that without His will they cannot so much as move.4

The wicked plot against God’s people but the Psalmist says,

6They spread a net for my feet; my soul was despondent. They dug a pit before me, but they themselves have fallen into it!

Let us end though on a note about where our mind should go in light of God’s providence. If we believe in this kind of providence than we can be blistering in our championing God’s cause. We can speak the unvarnished truth not worrying about what man can do to us.

In the words of Rev. Joe Morecraft,

“And if a man believes that the overruling providence of God is operative in his life, he doesn’t care what man does to him. He will be courageous. No matter what the cost is to himself. So you see, when a man has these three components in his life, faith that God is present in his life. Faith that he is involved in a righteous cause, faith that the overruling providence of God is operative in his life, that person will do courageous things.”

God is personally concerned with your life. He is involved and His almighty and ever present power is right now upholding and governing your life. Your concerns are not strange to Him. He has not forgotten your trials but has introduced them in order to conform you increasingly to His lovely and resolute character.

Thank God now for the prosperity he has given to you by making you Biblical Christians who believe, unlike most other Christians, in God’s providence.