Archive for May, 2010

Letting Jesus Pick And Choose

One of the joys I have as a pastor is being able to think through theological questions with the great folks here at Concordia. And the great folks here at Concordia aren’t afraid to ask. From questions about Christ’s work on the cross to questions about suffering to questions about heaven to questions about Hebrew and Greek, I’ve received plenty of terrific queries which have been a joy – and many times a challenge – for me to answer.

From time to time, I not only like to answer people’s questions in a meeting at my office, or on the phone, or in an email, but also on my blog, especially if it is a question that I commonly receive. And that is what I thought I’d do with this often asked question: “How does the Old Testament relate to the New Testament?  If both testaments are God’s inspired Word, then why do we insist on following some of the Old Testament’s laws like the Ten Commandments while at the same time disregarding its ceremonial and sacrificial stipulations?”   This is a good, and very complex, question!

It is true that, on the surface, it can almost seem like Christians sometimes pick and choose which Old Testament laws they would like to follow.  The one about honoring your father and mother (cf. Exodus 20:12)?  Yeah, we ought to keep that one around – especially if we have children.  The one about sprinkling a bird’s blood over a house after it has been cleansed from mildew (cf. Leviticus 14:33-57)?  We usually take a pass on that one.

So why do we follow some laws and not others?  Classically, a distinction has been made between those laws which are moral and those which are ceremonial.  Moral laws stand through both testaments.  Thus, honoring fathers and mothers, as a moral mandate, continues to hold sway over our thoughts, words, and deeds, as do all of the Ten Commandments.  Ceremonial laws, however, with all of their sacrifices and rituals, have been abrogated by Christ.  As the preacher of Hebrews writes:  “When [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God…And where [sins] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (Hebrews 10:12, 18).  Following Jesus’ sacrifice, no more sacrifices are needed.  Therefore, to insist on following the Old Testament sacrificial stipulations is an affront to and a debasement of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Finally, the reason we do not follow every Old Testament stipulation is because of the way we read our Bible.  We read every page, even the ones with all of the strange rules and regulations, through the lens of what Christ has taught, done, and fulfilled.  As Jesus Himself says, “These are the Scriptures that testify about Me” (John 5:39). Martin Luther echoes this sentiment when he writes:  “I have often said that whoever would study well the Bible, especially the spiritual significance of the histories, should refer everything to the Lord Christ” (What Luther Says 207).  Thus, we interpret and follow the Scriptures of the Old Testament the way that Christ follows and interprets the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  No Old Testament Scripture, then, is to be read apart from God’s revelation in Christ.

Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, has perhaps written the finest, most succinct statement as to how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament that I have found:  “Jesus, as God’s Wisdom come in person, acts with sovereign freedom when it comes to the law.  Sometimes He intensifies its demands, sometimes He sets aside its demands, sometimes He affirms its demands, sometimes He offers a new teaching that can in some cases supplement and in others supplant previous teaching” (The Indelible Image, vol.1, 32).  This is precisely right.  As Paul writes, “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4).  The Greek word for “end” is telos, meaning “goal.”  Thus, the Old Testament laws find their goal in how Christ arbitrates, abrogates, interprets, and fulfills them.  You cannot read the Old Testament correctly if you do not read it with Jesus in mind.

So why do we not offer sacrifices to God when our homes are filled with mildew?  Because Christ has offered the perfect and final sacrifice for all time.  Why do we still continue to honor our parents?  Because Christ has taught us to do so (cf. Mark 7:9-13).   We let Jesus pick and choose which laws we continue to follow and which laws have been abrogated by His work on the cross. Reading the Old Testament is as simple as listening to Jesus.

Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video resources from Pastor Tucker’s
messages or Pastor Zach’s ABC’s!

May 31, 2010 at 4:45 am Leave a comment

ABC Extra – The Power of Peer Pressure

This weekend in worship and ABC, we discussed the family fiasco of addiction.  The statistics pertaining to various addictions are startling:

  • 23% of adults consume more than five alcoholic beverages each day.
  • Each year, nearly 35 million people try to quit smoking.  Less than 7% are successful.
  • 25 million Americans visit cyber-sex sites between one and ten hours per week. Another 4.7 million spend in excess of 11 hours per week on these sites.

Clearly, we are a culture trapped by our addictive behaviors.

Sadly, these addictive behaviors often start when a person is young.  Teenagers are drawn into habits of smoking, drinking, drug use, and sexual immorality, usually because their friends pressure them to engage in such activities.  Consider these statistics:

  • The Adolescent Substance Abuse Knowledge Base reports that 30% of teens are offered drugs in middle and high school.
  • According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 74% of high school students have tried alcohol at the encouragement of their friends.
  • The Kaiser Foundation reports that 50% of teenagers feel pressured to engage in sexually promiscuous relationships.

Peer pressure is clearly alive and well among our youth.  Indeed, it is thriving.  The problem is, peer pressure coerces many of our kids straight into harmful addictions.

One of the myths about peer pressure is that it is a relatively new phenomenon.  In another survey, teens were asked whether or not peer pressure affected people 100 years ago.  46% of the respondents said that peer pressure affected teens “significantly less” than it does today while another 16% said that peer pressure didn’t affect teens at all a century ago.

In reality, peer pressure is nothing new.  In our text from this weekend, we encounter an instance of peer pressure when the Israelites “gather around Aaron and say, ‘Come, make us gods who will go before us” (Exodus 32:1).  Notably, the word for “around” – when the Israelites gather “around” Aaron – is al.  Al is a notoriously ambiguous preposition and can be translated as everything from “upon” to “beside” to “beyond” to “towards” to “against.”  In other words, it is a catchall preposition.  Many scholars believe that, in Exodus 32:1, al is best translated as “against.”  That is, the Israelites gather against Aaron to put some pressure on him to cast a false idol.  In a phrase, the Israelites place Aaron under the weight of “peer pressure.”

Tragically, Aaron caves to the Israelites’ al. He builds their false idol.  And, just as in a case of addiction, the Israelites become enslaved to this idol as they worship it even as a drug addict is enslaved to heroin or a food addict is enslaved to sweets.  And it all begins with the Israelites’ peer pressure on Aaron.

How do you respond to peer pressure that would lead you down a dead end road to sin?  Do you cave in as Aaron did, or do you take a stand even when people are against you?  Another famed biblical character, King David, knew well the heartache of having people against him.  He cries out to God, “O LORD, how many are my foes!  How many rise up against me” (Psalm 3:1).  But unlike Aaron, David does not cave to peer pressure.  For David knows, “You, O LORD, are a shield around me” (Psalm 3:3).  David remains steadfast, even in the face of the menacing al of his foes.  My prayer for you this week is that when the world would come against you with its addictions, you would stand steadfast in Christ’s righteousness.

Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!

May 24, 2010 at 4:45 am 2 comments

ABC Extra – The Divorce Debate

Divorce. Just the word is enough to make some people cringe, especially when this word is uttered in church.  After all, some topics are so tender and contentious that people just assume public discourse on these issues be disallowed so that people’s thoughts and feelings on these subjects can echo privately and undisputedly in hallways of their hearts.  This way, people do not have to suffer the cumbersome bother of articulating and defending a controversial position in public.  Contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist, however, I would contend that issues such as divorce do need to be addressed publicly – precisely because of all the contention and confusion which surrounds them.  For public discourse, when done intelligently and charitably, can lead to clarity concerning some of life’s most confusing riddles.  This is why we chose to address the subject of divorce at Concordia this past weekend.  And this is why Jesus chooses to address the subject of divorce in Matthew 19.

The scene is rife with tension.  Jesus leaves Galilee and goes “to the other side of the Jordan” (verse 1).  This region was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch who divorced his wife so that he could marry the younger, prettier Herodius.  When Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, calls Herod’s divorce into question, the ruler has John thrown into prison and later beheaded (cf. Matthew 14:6-11).  It is with this episode looming in the background that some Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason” (verse 3)?  The verbiage of the Pharisees’ question alludes to a heated debate between two different rabbinic schools of theology in that day – the Hillel school and the Shammai school.  The center of the debate swirled around Deuteronomy 24:1:  “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house.”  The rabbis of the Hillel and Shammai schools heavily debated the phrase, “something indecent.”  What does it mean to find “something indecent,” worthy of divorce, in a woman?

The Hebrew for “something indecent,” is erwat dabarerwat, meaning “nakedness,” and dabar, meaning “a thing.”  The Hillel school took this phrase, erwat dabar, as offering two separate and distinct reasons that a man could divorce his wife.  On the one hand, a man could divorce his wife for erwat, that is, “nakedness,” which the rabbis interpreted as a circumlocution for adultery, meaning that if a man caught his wife naked in bed with another man, he could divorce her.  But then, on the other hand, a man could also divorce his wife for dabar, meaning “a thing.”  Well this isn’t very specific!  Thus, the rabbis of the Hillel school capitalized on the generality of this word dabar and taught that a man could divorce his wife for adultery on the one hand and for anything else on the other!  In other words, the rabbis of the Hillel school taught that a man could divorce his wife for “any and every reason.”  Here, then, is the background to the question that the Pharisees ask Jesus.

Not everyone agreed with this liberal interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, however.  The rabbis of the Shammai school took the phrase erwat dabar as a single reason for divorce.  That is, they interpreted this phrase to mean that a man could divorce his wife for “the naked thing,” that is, adultery.  Thus, the Shammai school said that only adultery was an appropriate grounds for divorce.

So who’s right?  It seems as though those in the Hillel school were allowing what they wanted to be true trump what they actually read to be true.  In other words, they were allowing their desire to get an “any cause” divorce trump a more reasonable reading of Deuteronomy 24:1.  In Hebrew, the word erwat is in a form called “construct.”  A “construct” form in Hebrew is loosely analogous to a genitive, or possessive, case in more standard grammatical systems.  Thus, from a sheer grammatical standpoint, the word erwat possesses the word dabar.  Thus, this phrase refers to one reason for divorce, not to two.  Literally, this phrase may be translated as, “the nakedness of a thing,” the “thing” being a person.  Thus, this text is warning us things to “keep our clothes on” with people to whom we are not married.

Jesus, as a man who takes the biblical text seriously, upholds the interpretation that erwat dabar refers to one thing when responding to the Pharisees’ question:  “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (verse 9).  But Jesus actually takes His interpretation a step farther:  “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.  But it was not this way from the beginning” (verse 8).  In other words, even divorce because of erwat dabar is not God’s ultimate plan.  God’s ultimate plan is that a sinner repents, is forgiven, and receives a new tender heart toward their spouse.  Divorce, if it can be avoided, is to be avoided.

Other challenges in a marriage that have the potential of leading to a divorce are outlined elsewhere in the Scriptures.  These include abandonment by a spouse (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:15-16) and abuse, often considered to be a form of abandonment because it is a dereliction of marital duties (cf. Exodus 21:10-11).  But whether the problem be adultery or abandonment or abuse, the root of all these problems is the same – a hard heart.  And sadly, these hard hearts sometimes shatter marriages.  But other times, miraculously, these hard hearts are softened and marriages are reconciled.  And this is Jesus’ hope.  This is Jesus’ plan.

And so, if you are trapped in a marriage that is loveless, cold, and draining, let me invite you get help.  See a counselor.  Share your experience with a pastor.  Confess your sins and receive God’s forgiveness.  For God’s forgiveness can crack even the hardest of hearts.  And even if your marriage ultimately fails, you can rejoice in the promise that you are still party to a marriage that will last:

Then a voice came from the throne, saying: “Praise our God, all you His servants, you who fear Him, both small and great!” Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready.” (Revelation 9:5-7)

You are the bride of Christ.  And your marriage to Him is a marriage that lasts – even into eternity.  And in a world where marriages sadly and sometimes break, this is a marriage in which we can always rejoice and trust.

Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!

May 17, 2010 at 4:45 am 1 comment

ABC Extra – One Barley Harvest From Redemption

Depression is epidemic in our world.  According to the latest statistics available, major depression affects approximately 15 million American adults, or about eight percent of the U.S. population.  And these statistics pertain only to people 18 years of age and older.  This does not take into account the severe depression that plagues four percent of adolescents.  Interestingly, the fastest growing demographic for anti-depressants is toddlers.  Experts estimate that at least four percent of toddlers – over one million tikes – are clinically depressed.  Yes, depression is a major problem in our world.

In Adult Bible Class this weekend, we tackled the problem of depression and looked at the story of Naomi.  There can be hardly a doubt that Naomi was a depressed woman.  In the first five verses of the book of Ruth, Naomi has to move from her hometown of Bethlehem to the foreign and pagan land of Moab where she loses her husband as well as her two sons.  If I lost my home and family, I would be depressed as well!

Naomi’s depression manifests itself first in the way in which she treats her two widowed daughters-in-law.  She, as a worshiper of the true God of Israel, actually encourages her daughters-in-law to return to their former paganism (cf. Ruth 1:15), a suggestion that would have shocked and revolted any ancient Israelite.  Moreover, Naomi blames God for her tragic plight.  She declares, “The LORD has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me” (Ruth 1:21).  In the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew word for “Almighty” is Omnipotens, from whence we get our English word “omnipotence,” a word which references the all-powerful nature of God.  Thus, Naomi is accusing God of using His omnipotence not for her welfare, but for her harm.  Indeed, the Hebrew word for “misfortune” is ra’a, meaning “evil.”  Naomi, then, goes so far as to accuse God of being the author of evil in her life.

As I mentioned in Adult Bible Class, Naomi’s response to hardship is not exactly the pinnacle of piety.  Her response to trouble differs vastly from Job’s more famed response to his trials:  “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (Job 1:21).  Job’s response, in the opinion of most people, seems to be the more dignified and pious response to affliction.  And yet, our responses to suffering more often mirror Naomi’s than they do Job’s.  I know that mine do.

Still, there is hope.  For just as God restores the fortunes of Job, He also restores the fortunes of Naomi.  He does this not on the basis of her faithfulness to Him – for she acts faithlessly – but according to His grace and care for her.  Indeed, even as Naomi is accusing God of bringing evil on her, the biblical text clues us into the fact that God is working behind the scenes to care for this desolate and despondent widow:  “So Naomi returned from Moab, accompanied by Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning” (Ruth 1:22).  It is at this barley harvest that Naomi’s daughter-in-law Ruth meets a man named Boaz who is exceptionally kind to both her and her mother-in-law, providing them with food, and eventually marrying Ruth and providing an heir to carry on Naomi’s family name.  While Naomi is complaining about God, God is all the while working through something as inauspicious as a barley harvest to redeem Naomi’s tragic circumstances.  Naomi was only one barley harvest away from being redeemed by God – and she didn’t even know it.

Interestingly, the barley harvest in ancient Israel was also known as the Feast of Firstfruits.  The Feast of Firstfruits was an opportunity for the Israelites to bring the first and best of their harvest before God in thankfulness to Him (Numbers 15:17-21).  Notably, this was also the day on which Jesus rose from death, for He too is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20).  The Feast of Firstfruits, then, was a time to celebrate the redemption of God and, finally, how that redemption is expressed fully and finally in Christ, even as Paul writes:  “Christ was delivered to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25).  For on the Feast of Firstfruits, Christ, risen from the dead, redeemed us from sin, death, and the devil.

In Ruth 1:22, the barley harvest is beginning.  And though Naomi cannot yet see it, she will soon be celebrating the redemption of God, just as she should be at the Feast of Firstfruits.  She is only one barley harvest away from having her tragedy redeemed by her Lord.

In your times of trial, do you believe that God can redeem you out of tragedy?  You should. Scripture exhorts us to “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23).  There is a Day coming when our Lord will appear and redeem us out of all our trouble, heartache, and pain, for the older order of this sinful world will pass away.  This day is the Last Day of Christ’s return, sometimes pictured as a harvest (cf. Matthew 3:12).  Thus, like Naomi, no matter what we face today or tomorrow, and no matter how much depression it might bring us, Scripture promises that we are only one harvest away from redemption.  I hope you hold fast to this precious promise.

Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!

May 10, 2010 at 4:45 am Leave a comment

“There’s Truth In That Thar Text”

This past Wednesday, I had the pleasure of leading our terrific Concordia youth in a discussion on Philosophical Relativism using Focus on the Family’s “The Truth Project.”  Philosophical Relativism is the skeptical stance that the truth of a proposition lies only in that proposition’s interpreter.  In other words, “Truth,” with its offensively bombastic capital “T,” is not and cannot be external to an interpreter.  It resides only within the individual.

The ascendency of philosophical relativism has birthed many a methodological cousin, one of which is the unfortunate “Reader Response Criticism,” still practiced in English classes across this country and trumpeted by some teachers and professors as if it’s the Holy Grail of hermeneutics.  Reader Response Criticism focuses on the reader of a text and his or her response to that text rather than the text itself, stridently eschewing any notion that the text itself could contain or, in its more radical forms, would even bother to try to communicate, meaning to its reader.

Sadly, this kind of methodology has been used not just on standard fare English class texts like Moby Dick or Catcher in the Rye, it has also been used on the Holy Scriptures.  Indeed, the proliferation of downright weird readings and interpretations of Biblical texts which have long since drifted away from their socio-historical and theological moorings find their moorings, at least in part, in the Reader Response methodology.  This is dangerous both because it fails to take God’s Word seriously as divinely revealed Truth and because it leads us astray from the Gospel, the very message our salvation.  That is, such a methodology not only leads us down the path to interpretive idiosyncrasy and “weirdness,” it leads us down a path to damnation because it makes us, rather than God, Truth’s creator and arbitrator.  This is serious business.

It is with this in mind that I wanted to share with you a quote from Francis Watson.  In his book Text and Truth:  Redefining Biblical Theology, he offers a trenchant rebuke of Philosophical Relativism in general and Reader Response Criticism in specific:

A Christian faith concerned to retain its own coherence cannot for a moment accept that the biblical texts (individually and as a whole) lack a single determinant meaning, that their meanings are created by their readers, or that theological interpretations must see themselves as non-privileged participants in an open-ended, pluralistic conversation.  Such a hermeneutic assumes that those texts are like any other “classic” texts:  self-contained artifacts, handed down to us through the somewhat haphazard process of tradition, bearing with them a cultural authority that has now lost much of its normative force, yet challenging the interpreter to help ensure that they will at least remain readable, and continue to be read. (97)

According to Watson, the problem with Reader Response Criticism is that it calls us to “save the Bible,” as it were, making it relevant by means of our own responses to it, lest it quickly fade into the recesses of history as some antiquated and rotting curious cultural artifact.  The difficulty with such a stance is that the Bible is in no need of saving.  Rather, the Bible is inspired of God so that we might be saved.

In the 1840’s, M.F. Stevenson, then the assayer of the Dahlonega Mint in Dahlonega, Georgia, was working hard to keep his boom town from going bust as more and more people were moving west to join in the California Gold Rush of 1849.  He sought to persuade his town’s residents that Georgia still had its own share of gold to be mined.  “There’s gold in them thar hills,” he told his miners.

Like in the hills of Georgia, we, as Christians, ought to believe, “There’s Truth in that thar text.”  The Bible contains and reveals its Truth apart from any single reader, though it must be believed by its readers to be efficacious for their salvation.  The Truth of Scripture is not dependent on its readers.  As readers of Scripture, then, it is our calling to responsibly and carefully mine Scripture’s Truth and rejoice that God has pleasured to reveal to us His Truth.

“There’s Truth in that thar text.”  I hope you’ll read and believe that Truth today.  After all, it’s God’s Truth of eternal life for you.

May 7, 2010 at 8:21 am Leave a comment

ABC Extra: Children Who Rebel

Rebellion has become a sort of rite of passage as children move into adulthood.  The teenage son breaks his curfew to sneak out with his friends and party late into the night.  The teenage daughter secretly dates that cute boy she’s head over heals for in spite of her parents’ strong objections.  The Fourth Commandment, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12), seems of little consequence to many teenagers.

It is a common misconception that it didn’t used to be this way.  Children did not used to so headily and so arrogantly rebel against their parents.  The truth of the matter, however, is that children have been rebelling against their parents for centuries.  Jesus puts it like this:  “Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death” (Mark 13:12).  Indeed, the rebellion of children against their parents goes back even farther.  It stretches all the way back to the Fall into sin.

In Luke 3, the evangelist presents us with a genealogy of Jesus Christ.  And what a genealogy it is!  It traces the Lord’s lineage all the way to the first man, Adam.  It’s especially interesting the way Adam is talked about.  In the midst of a bunch of genealogical standard fare – “so and so was the son of so and so, and so and so was the son of so and so” – we come to this:  “Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan,  the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:37-38).  Luke says that Adam, like everyone else throughout the course of history, was a son.  He was a son of God.  And just like every son that has come after him, he rebels against his parents, or, more precisely, his Father.  God commands His son Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam sneaks off and eats from the tree anyway.  The first sin was one of rebellion.  And children have been rebelling against their parents ever since.

This weekend in worship and ABC, we studied 1 Samuel 2 and the story of the rebellion of Hophni and Phineas against their father and against God.  The author of 1 Samuel is pointed in his analysis of the sons’ character:  “Eli’s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD” (verse 12).  Their rebellion was two-pronged.  On the one hand, they took animal sacrifices that were properly to be burned in honor of the LORD and instead kept these animals for private meals (cf. verses 13-15).  On the other hand, they engaged in sexual immorality with the women who served at the temple where they were priests (cf. verse 22).  Eli, Hophi and Phineas’ father, although he condemns the latter sin, does not condemn the former.  We find out why he does not condemn the former sin just verses later when a prophet of God arrives at Eli’s doorstep and rebukes Eli for too partaking of animal sacrifices which properly belong to God!  The prophet asks in the stead of the LORD:  “Why do you scorn My sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for My dwelling?  Why do you honor your sons more than Me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by My people Israel” (verse 29)?

The Hebrew word for the “choice parts” of the Israelite offerings on which Eli and his sons are fattening themselves is re’shi’ith. Interestingly, this word is most often associated with the practice of tithing:  “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God” (Exodus 23:19).  The Hebrew word for “best” is again re’shi’ith. Be it Hophni or Phineas or their father Eli, this is a family that is not interested in bringing their first and best before God.  And so they receive judgment from God.

Does your family bring its first and best before God?  Does your family give the first of its week to God in worship?  Does your family give the first of its money to God in finances?  Does your family give the first of its day to God in prayer and study of God’s Word?  Although the practice of giving the first to God in your family’s life may not prevent those hoary teenage years of rebellion altogether, it is good training in righteousness – for your children…and for you.  And righteousness has a mysterious way of repressing rebellion.

Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!

May 3, 2010 at 4:45 am 1 comment


Follow Zach

Enter your email address to subscribe to Pastor Zach's blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Questions?

Email Icon Have a theological question? Email Zach at zachm@concordia-satx.com and he will post answers to common questions on his blog.

Zach’s Tweets

Calendar

May 2010
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

%d bloggers like this: