During this season we wait in earnest for Christ’s second coming while we wonder in awe at his first coming. To be clear, the season is not about what we can do for Christ by our work or prayers or fasting; rather, it is about what he has done for us in his work and prayers and fasting—a work that began in his first coming in humility and which will conclude in his second coming in glory. 

A Future Orientation
As early as Eden, God’s people have been a waiting people. Following the fall of our first parents, God made a promise that permanently oriented his people toward the future. God told the serpent directly, and the guilty pair indirectly:
I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your offspring and her offspring;he shall bruise your head,and you shall bruise his heel. (Gen. 3:15)
It was, in short, the promise of a coming, conquering son. The promise encapsulated every promise in the Old Testament and, as such, shaped God’s people into a waiting people. This anticipatory posture can be seen throughout the Old Testament, as men and women of faith look forward to what God would do in the future through a promised son. Lamech names his son Noah in the hope that he will rescue the chosen line from the curse of sin and death (Gen. 5:29), yet it is six hundred years before Noah enters the ark at the time of the flood (Gen. 7:6). God promises Abraham that he will make him into a great nation through a son from his own body (Gen. 12:2; Gen. 15:4; Gen. 17:16), but he has to wait twenty-five years for the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:1–3). Isaac, in turn, has to wait twenty years for the birth of Esau and Jacob, his twin boys (Gen. 25:20, 26). Jacob works for seven years to get his wife Rachel, but in the end is deceived into marrying Leah (Gen. 29:20–30), from whom he receives Judah, the son of the promised line (Gen. 29:35; Gen. 49:10). Naomi has to wait to see if her line will continue, following the death of her husband and two sons. Even when her daughter-in-law Ruth faithfully follows her back to the promised land and pursues Boaz at the threshing floor, they both have to wait to see whether Boaz will be the kinsman to redeem Ruth (Ruth 3:12–18). Their godly patience allows Boaz to negotiate his way into marriage with Ruth, from whom comes Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:18–22). It is only in Naomi’s old age that her life is restored (Ruth 4:15). Hannah has to endure years of barrenness, like the matriarchs preceding her, before the Lord opens her womb and gives her a son called Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–20), the one who would anoint David as God’s chosen king (1 Sam. 16:1–3). However, David’s ascension to the throne does not come immediately. While he is anointed in his youth (1 Sam. 16:10–13), he has to go through several years of humiliation and suffering before his ascension to the throne at thirty years old (2 Sam. 5:4); and God’s subsequent promise to David that his son will sit on his throne forever (2 Sam. 7:12–16) is not ultimately fulfilled until the coming of his greater son, Jesus Christ—some one thousand years later. Indeed, adding up the ages in the biblical genealogies reveals that God’s promise in Eden of a coming, conquering son takes about four thousand years to become a reality.

For individuals and families, this 40-day liturgical devotional guides readers through Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany—helping Christians retain their focus on Jesus and meditate on the mystery of his incarnation.

Waiting. From the beginning of history, God calls his people to be a people waiting for the coming of his promised Son. New Testament writers capture the relief at Jesus’s arrival after the prolonged wait. Luke the evangelist describes Simeon as a righteous and devout man who has been “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25). Taking Jesus in his arms, Simeon utters words that would become an integral part of Christian liturgy from the early centuries of the church—the Nunc Dimittis:
Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,according to your word;for my eyes have seen your salvationthat you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,a light for revelation to the Gentiles,and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:29–32)
The prophetess Anna has a similar experience on the same day, as she gazes upon the baby Jesus. Unable to contain her excitement, she speaks about Christ “to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Tuesday, June 4, 2024
It’s been said many times, he who controls the language controls the culture. For believers in Jesus Christ to use the term “biological men” amounts to a surrender to the culture’s mistaken notion that there exists the possibility of a man/male other than one who is identifiable biologically as a man/male. If we know there is no such possibility – and we do know it according to “what sayeth the Lord” in Scripture – then to add the one word “biological” becomes, at best, unnecessary and useless; and, at worst, an acknowledgment and promoting of a new teaching we know to be false and harmful.

For starters, please don’t assume this year’s Overture 15 is similar to last year’s. During 2022-2023, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) dealt with an Overture 15 that had to do with homosexuality. This year’s Overture 15, rather, has to do with the madness called transgenderism.
The PCA’s 51st General Assembly (GA) will consider Overture 15, which requests a one-word amendment to the final sentence of Book of Church Order (BCO) 7-2, that would add the word “biological” to the requirement for church office, so if approved would read: “In accord with Scripture, these offices [elder, deacon] are open to biological men only.”
The above sentence was rejected by a presbytery but adopted by a church session in that presbytery and the overture was submitted to GA. I do not know what the rationale was for the rejection and I refuse to speculate. If there is one thing I’ve learned from my experience as a commissioner to previous GAs, it’s this: There are various rationales for a “no” vote, sometimes unexpected ones.
The Apostle Paul’s first letter to Corinth may help here. In chapter 8, Paul addresses, within the context of knowledge and love, the liberty of eating or not eating meat that has been offered to an idol. He writes, “. . . we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world” (8:4). In verse 7, he continues, “. . . but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol.”
In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:4, Calvin says that Paul
. . . explains particularly, what is the kind of knowledge on which they valued themselves – that an idol is an empty figment of the human brain, and must therefore be reckoned as nothing; and accordingly, that the consecration, that is gone through in name of the idol, is a foolish imagination, and of no importance [emphasis in original].
(Although Calvin says the Corinthians abused this teaching “in opposition to love,” Paul did not set it aside as false, “. . . for it contains excellent doctrine.”)
Calvin goes on to say that “inasmuch as there is but one God,” he prefers the older rendering, “An idol is nothing,” over that of Erasmus, “An idol has no existence.”
That said, just as an idol does not actually exist – or, is nothing according to Calvin – so also a man/male other than one who is biologically identifiable as a man/male, does not actually exist. Rather, today’s Western culture seemingly bent on suicide engages in foolish imagination, or, as in Psalm 2, it rages against the LORD and imagines a vain thing.
It’s been said many times, he who controls the language controls the culture. For believers in Jesus Christ to use the term “biological men” amounts to a surrender to the culture’s mistaken notion that there exists the possibility of a man/male other than one who is identifiable biologically as a man/male. If we know there is no such possibility – and we do know it according to “what sayeth the Lord” in Scripture – then to add the one word “biological” becomes, at best, unnecessary and useless; and, at worst, an acknowledgment and promoting of a new teaching we know to be false and harmful.
So as not to be misunderstood: all persons deserve both dignity and respect. Why? Because all mankind are created in the likeness of God, whom He made male and female. “And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.”
As one PCA elder says, “If this [Overture 15] were to pass, it would unwittingly introduce the [LGBTQ+] ideology into the BCO.”
The Overtures Committee should answer this overture in the negative. But should Overture 15 be approved and sent to the floor for a vote, I urge Commissioners to vote “No.”
Forrest L. Marion is a ruling elder in the First Presbyterian Church (PCA), Crossville, Tennessee.
Related Posts:

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
My rather sterile investigation of the gospels lead me to believe THAT Jesus was God and THAT He died for my sins and I certainly accepted His offer of Salvation. But while I considered myself “saved,” I seemed to trust Jesus for little else. I knew it was time to stretch, to step out in faith, to dream much bigger than I had ever dreamed before and trust Jesus for the results. I began to serve in the local church, entered seminary, began to write and podcast and eventually found myself with the opportunity to write a book. The crazy journey began to take shape.

The Gospel of John records an important conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus:
John Chapter 31Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know THAT You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” (emphasis mine)
Jesus then talks to Nicodemus about what it means to be “born again” and concludes the conversation by saying:
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes IN Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (emphasis again mine)
Jesus took the time here to make a distinction between belief THAT and trust IN. There’s clearly a difference between knowing THAT Jesus is a good teacher and believing IN Jesus as God and Savior.
In 1996 I did not believe that Jesus was anything more than a misunderstood legend from the first century. I had been a police officer and detective for several years, and I was a proud, independent, willful atheist. I was unmoved (and unconvinced) by the alleged evidence that Jesus actually lived or that the New Testament gospels could be trusted as eyewitness accounts. Well that’s not actually true. To be honest, I was simply unfamiliar with the depth of the evidence and unwilling to examine it fairly. I had been raised by an atheist and a cultural Catholic and thought the God of the Bible was an imaginary, unnecessary crutch.
When I walked into a Christian church in 1996, it was the first time I had ever been in a non-Catholic church building for anything other that a wedding. It’s still a mystery to me why I even decided to go in the first place. I was definitely there for my wife more than I was there for me. I still saw no need for such superstitions. I was, however, captivated by the way the pastor described Jesus. He offered Jesus as a wise sage with important wisdom that could speak to my life and inform my decision making in important areas like work, relationships and parenting. While I wasn’t interested in Christianity, I was interested in what this ancient sage had to say.
I bought my first Bible. It was an inexpensive pew Bible; I think it cost me less than five dollars. As I read through the gospels, I was surprised to find that they seemed to display characteristics of true eyewitness accounts. One of these is something I call “unintended eyewitness support.” It’s not unusual for an eyewitness to a crime to describe the events in such a way that more questions are raised than answered. It’s not until an additional eyewitness is interviewed that the questionable observation is reconciled in some way.
Read More
Related Posts: