Sunday Bulletin: "One IOTA" (5/16/21)

 

One Iota of Difference…

(by Pastor Terry Reese, Valley GBC of Armagh, PA; 5/16/21)

 

In the 4^th Century (AD 325), a major Church Council was held under the supervision of the Roman Emperor Constantine to deal with the Arian Controversy.

 

The Arians (named for Arius, their leader) were a heretical group that had made vast in-roads into the Christian Church, enjoying powerful political & ecclesiastical support.

 

What they believed: The Arians believed that Jesus was a created demigod, through whom God the Father created everything else (not unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses today). Jesus was thus viewed as divine only in a limited sense; while He was a god, He was not the one, eternal God.  

 

Great controversy: The great champion of the orthodox party, Athanasius, who affirmed the full Deity of Christ, refused to receive the Arians into the communion of the faithful, leading to the need for a Church Council (The Council of Nicaea) in order to settle the matter. 

 

In terms of the definitions that emerged from both parties in describing Jesus’ relationship with the Father, the difference boiled down to a single Greek letter: iota (the smallest Greek letter; the “jot” of Matt. 5:18).

 

The orthodox (i.e., Bible believing, Trinitarian) party described the relationship in these terms: Jesus is homoousios—of one substance with the Father; They are of the same essence; Jesus is fully the one and only true GOD! 

 

The Arian party, however, described the relationship this way: Jesus is homoiousios—meaning that He is like the Father, or similar to the Father…but not the same! Jesus is thus NOT God!

 

The difference between the two terms is the smallest Greek letter: iota. One iota of a difference between Heaven & HELL!

The King's Interrogation (Dan. 3:13-18)

 

Note: the term translated “maliciously accused” (Dan. 3:8; ESV) literally means “chewed (or devoured) to pieces,” referencing the eating of flesh, indicative of the malignant force behind the charges.

 

3. Interrogation before the King (3:13-18).

 v. 13: "Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and anger…"

o   The King’s wrath had similarly been on display in chapter two (vv. 5, 12-13).

 

o   The Prophet Jeremiah had also highlighted Nebuchadnezzar’s anger against two false prophets of the Exile, “Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire” (Jer. 29:22).

 

o   A general truth, regarding those who enjoy absolute authority:

Prov. 19:12:  A king's wrath is like the growling of a lion, but his favor is like dew on the grass.

Prov. 20:2: The terror of a king is like the growling of a lion; He who provokes him to anger forfeits his own life.

 

o   If this principle is true of earthly kings, how much more should we fear the wrath—and covet the blessings—of Almighty God (Heb. 10:31)! How much more should we be grateful for His patience and forbearance (Ps. 103:8)!

 

v. 14: Nebuchadnezzar responded and said to them, "Is it true…?”

v. 15a: "Now if you are ready… to fall down and worship… very well.”

o   Doubtlessly amazed, the King gives them an opportunity to defend themselves—and a second chance to comply with the royal directive!

 

v. 15b: "…you will immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire…”  

o   Consider the enormity of the temptation facing the friends of Daniel! All manner of pragmatic considerations, reasons, and excuses might have been found in order to justify compromising their faith and identity, thereby saving their lives.

 

o   A “little white lie”—i.e., their previous failure to bow was unintentional (as the King suggested)—might have saved them!

 

o   The reasons to bow were many (Matthew Henry lists no less than seven in his commentary). The reason not to bow was singular, but overruling (Ex. 20:1-6)!

 

v. 15c: “…and what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands?"

o   Robert Duncan Culver (The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel, BMH):

This verse directs an important truth our way: that God’s name and reputation are intimately connected with the obedient faith of His people.

 

o   How distant now is the King’s declaration of Daniel 2:46-47!

 

o   Nebuchadnezzar’s victories over foreign opposition (including Judah) had led him to conclude that he and his patron deities were invincible.

 

o   Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude is reminiscent of that of various other princes...

o   Pharaoh, Ex. 5:2: "Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go?”

o   Sennacherib (Assyria), 2 Kings 18:35: “Who among all the gods of the lands have delivered their countries from my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem from my hand?” (cf., 2 Chron. 32:13-17, Isa. 36:18-20).  

 

o   Contrast this attitude with that of Darius in Dan. 6:16: "Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you."

Bulletin Insert (5/09/21): "Who do Y-O-U say that I am?" (Introduction to the Doctrine of Christ)

 

“Who do Y-O-U say that I am?”

(Pastor Terry Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA; 5/9/21)

 

TEXT: Matt. 16:13-23 (cf., Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-22)

 

Intro: Studies in Christology (i.e., the Doctrine of Christ).

Christology is primarily concerned with the identity of Jesus. Who is He? What is His Nature? How do the Human & the Divine Natures of Christ relate? What are the doctrinal & devotional implications of all of this?

 

The matter of Jesus’ Identity is a fundamental and watershed doctrine, dividing orthodoxy from heterodoxy, opening and closing the gates of Paradise.

 

The historic Grace Brethren Statement of Faith, Article III:

 

“WE BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ in His pre-existence and deity (John 1:1-3), incarnation by virgin birth (John 1:14; Matt. 1:18-23), sinless life (Heb. 4:15), substitutionary death (2 Cor. 5:21), bodily resurrection (Luke 24:36-43), ascension into heaven and present ministry (Heb. 4:14-16), and coming again (Acts 1:11).”

 

I. The Context & Setting of Matt. 16.

A. Rising opposition; the shadow of the Cross falls upon Him.

B. Near mostly gentile Caesarea Philippi (25 mi. n. of Galilee, near Mt. Hermon); an area associated with dead idolatry & paganism.

 

II. The 1^st query (v.13): Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

The Disciples response (v.14):

"Some say John the Baptist… or one of the prophets."

 

Respectful views—but no Messianic confession amongst them!

 

III. The Question of Questions (v. 15).

He said to them, "But who do YOU say that I am?"

 

It was not yet time for public proclamation (v. 20), but it was essential that His Own understand who He was, and what He was about to do (v. 21).  

 

IV. Enormous, emphatic stress is placed upon “YOU!”

Salvation is a personal matter; regardless of the opinions of others about us as to the identity of Jesus, in the end, the only question is: “Who do YOU think about Him?”

V. The Good Confession of Peter (v. 16).

"You are the Christ [i.e., Messiah], the Son of the living God."

 

Jesus’ question is put in the plural, and bold Peter, as a natural leader, acts in a sense as a group spokesman (while not negating the personal element). Peter confesses Jesus as…

 

A. The Christ: the Messiah of OT expectations; the awaited

Mediator, ordained of the Father & anointed of the Spirit as…

 

i. Prophet (Deut. 18:15);

ii. Priest (Ps. 110:4);  

iii. King (Ps. 2:6, Zech. 9:9).  

 

B. The Son of the Living God: no less than an affirmation of Jesus’ Divine nature. He is the Son of God in a unique sense that is not applicable to any mortal being or creature.

 

John 5:18: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

 

He is identified with the “Living God,” who is real & living, in contrast with the dead idols of the world, and who is also the source of life & vitality.

 

VI. The Lord’s response (v. 17).

A. Warm, personal, immediate, definite, commendatory.

B. Simon son of Jonah: a mere man, the son of a man.

C. His condition: “blessed” (cf., Matt. 5:3-12).

D. Flesh and blood is not the source of this revelation. Human wisdom, study, cognition, intuition, tradition, calculation, etc., could not have produced such insight. It was a matter of Divine, electing, efficacious grace (John 6:44).

 

VII. The Good—and essential—Confession; a mark of both

Biblical Fundamentalism & personal regeneration. In Christology, we are dealing with a matter of Heaven & Hell!

 

The Deity of Christ:  John 8:24: “That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

 

The Humanity of Christ: 2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

What concerns could be weightier than this?

The Fiery Furnace (Dan. 3); the Accusation (cont.; 5/5/21)

 

v. 9: They responded and said to Nebuchadnezzar the king: "O king, live forever!

o   Formulaic, stylized honor bestowed upon the sovereign; cf., Dan. 2:4; 5:10; 6:6; 21.

 

o   A matter of protocol; but in reality, neither Nebuchadnezzar nor his Kingdom would last forever—despite his present attempts to alter and modify the message of chapter two through his innovative symbolism, regarding the great image.

 

o   We are well-advised not to put too much stock in human flattery—a device which often serves as a camouflage for evil intent.

Prov. 25:27: “It is not good to eat much honey, nor is it glorious to seek one's own glory.”

Prov. 7:21: “With her flattering lips she seduces him.”

 

vv. 10-11: "You, O king, have made a decree…”

o   A reminder before the King of his own words.

o   Not the only occasion when a King is held to account by his own words (cf., Dan. 6:12-13; Mark 6:26)!

 

v. 12a: "There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the administration of the province of Babylon…

 

o   Perhaps a subtle insinuation that the King himself was ill-advised in appointing such men as these unto high office over the chief providence of Babylon.

o   If this was their intent, it somewhat recalls the veiled accusation made by Adam in the Garden, questioning God’s wisdom: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate" (Gen. 3:12).

 

o   Perhaps also an attempt to magnify the ingratitude of the Accused by reminding the King of his past kindnesses unto them (Dan. 2:49).

 

o   The reference to their high position also underlines that these men should be examples of loyalty and obedience in Nebuchadnezzar’s One World Government!

 

v. 12b: These men, O king, have disregarded you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up."

 

o   Three basic accusations:

1) They did not respect Royal Authority;

2) They did not worship the King’s gods;

3) They failed to bow down to the golden statue.

 

o   Truth conflated with a lie. While it was indeed true that the Accused would not engage in idolatrous practices, it was not their intention to disrespect the king.

 

o   Foreshadows the wicked accusations made against Daniel during the Persian Period by the commissioners & satraps (Dan. 6:13) and the outrageous universal charges made against the entire Jewish nation (Esth. 3:8) by Haman:

 

Dan. 6:13: Then they answered and spoke before the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the injunction which you signed, but keeps making his petition three times a day."

 

Esther 3:8: Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other people and they do not observe the king's laws, so it is not in the king's interest to let them remain.