As C.H. Spurgeon famously wrote, “The sovereignty of God is the pillow upon which the child of God rests his head at night, giving perfect peace.” This “perfect peace” perhaps is akin to the “peace which surpasses all understanding” in Philippians 4:7. This is peace that, despite what is happening around us, we look to God in His complete control over our situation—no matter how dire—and say, “I trust you.”

The Bible is packed full with verses related to the sovereignty of God. Passage upon passage reflect on the extent to which God is sovereign over all things and, consequently, how that affects us. A wonderful example of this is from the Book of Lamentations, which declares: “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”(Lamentations 3:37-38)
The sovereignty of God is, in many evangelical spaces, a controversial topic. But should it be? The late J.I. Packer once noted that: “Men treat God’s sovereignty as a theme for controversy, but in Scripture it is matter for worship.” I would contend, like Packer, that the sovereignty of God ought not be controversial, but an avenue of worship, of awe, of amazement.
God’s sovereignty is on display in both verses here. In verse 37, we see that nothing comes to pass unless the Lord commands it. That’s a huge statement (and, quite obviously, a biblical one)! In verse 38, people shudder. Sufferers scoff. Untimely widows become perplexed. Parents of children that have passed away are enraged.
“You’re telling me, Lord, that you’re sovereign over the good and bad?” We don’t have a problem with him being sovereign over the good—but the bad too? The miscarriages, car accidents, and cancer? The persecution, slander, and revilement? Insert your suffering—no matter the degree. He’s in control over it.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Keith A. Mathison |
Wednesday, July 20, 2022
We should be extremely grateful for the overturning of Roe v Wade. It is a true milestone that many did not believe they would ever see in their lifetime. But the fight isn’t over. Unborn children will continue to be killed in those states which continue to treat the unborn as less than human. We should prepare for the work that remains if we are to protect the lives of all unborn children in these United States.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization and overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It also overturned the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In Dobbs v Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the peo­ple and their elected representatives” (Dobbs v Jackson, p. 69; cf. pp. 78–79). In short, the legality of abortion is now in the hands of each of the fifty states.
For those who oppose abortion, this represents progress for which we should be thankful. Prior to the Dobbs decision, individual states could not legally protect the lives of unborn human beings in any meaningful way. When attempts to do so were made, those laws were inevitably found to be in conflict with Roe or Casey or both and struck down. Now, after the Dobbs decision, such laws are possible. The immediate task now of those who oppose abortion is to work to enact state laws that protect the lives of unborn children.
The fact that Dobbs has made this a real possibility is good news, but it must be understood that it is not unqualified good news. Just as it is now possible for states to enact laws that protect the lives of unborn human beings, it also remains possible for states to allow unrestricted abortion on demand. Some states will move in one direction, while others will move in the opposite direction. In other words, the fight isn’t over yet. The United States still has a long way to go before the lives of the unborn are protected in every state.
The fight will not be won until and unless the status of the fetus is legally and permanently resolved at a national level. In the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court explicitly refused to address that question. The decision states: “The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes . . .” (p. 65). In other words, the legal status of the fetus is in the hands of individual state legislatures. Some of these state legislatures will determine that the fetus is a human person deserving of the same rights as any other human person. Other state legislatures will determine that the fetus is not a human person and not deserving of legal protection.
In one sense, the United States is in a position similar to the position it was in prior to the Civil War with regard to the status of people of African descent. Before the Civil War, some states passed laws acknowledging the fact that people of African descent were just that – people, human persons deserving of the same rights as every other human person. Other states determined that they were property and denied them the rights of human persons. This issue was not resolved until the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution were adopted between 1865 and 1870. These amendments abolished slavery and mandated the same protection under the law for people of African descent as for any other human person. Obviously, the change in the Constitution did not automatically cause a corresponding change in the hearts of those who believed people of African descent were less than fully human, but it was step in the right direction.
Something along these lines is what is now required in the United States if we are to take another step in the right direction with regard to the abortion question. The current Supreme Court does not believe it possesses “the authority either to declare a constitutional right to abortion or to declare a constitutional prohibition of abortion” (See Dobbs v. Jackson, J. Kavanaugh, Concurring, p. 5). It appears that the majority of this Court believes the Constitution as it stands is silent on the status of the fetus.
I’m not convinced that this is the case. I believe that an argument can be made that something about the status of the fetus can be inferred from the wording of the 14th amendment. Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first thing that must be observed is that this amendment was originally written in the context of Reconstruction immediately after the Civil War. It is explicitly addressing the status of former slaves. This does not mean, however, that it cannot be applied to other related issues, such as the status of the fetus. In the first place, the Supreme Court has long acknowledged that the words of the constitution may extend beyond the matter they were originally intended to address. Second, the very use of the word “born” in the first sentence of the amendment invites such an application. When carefully considered, it can be seen that the words of the 14th amendment implicitly protect the lives of unborn children.
The first sentence begins “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . .” These persons are then said to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. In other words, those who are born or naturalized in this country are citizens of this country. At this point, then, we have a reference to “persons” and to “citizens.” The amendment goes on to say that no state “shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This refers to those who have been born or naturalized in this country and have therefore become citizens. The amendment then continues, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The category of person is a broader category than that of citizen. It certainly includes people in this country who have not yet been naturalized and who are not yet citizens. In other words, a non-citizen is still a person who is owed protection under the law. The important question is whether the unborn are also persons who are owed protection under the law.
Read More
Related Posts:

Do you ever doubt if Jesus’ death was sufficient to atone for your sins? God doesn’t, so you don’t have to either. The resurrection is proof that Jesus did the work that he set out to accomplish at the cross, and that work is sufficient for your need and mine, that God was satisfied with what Jesus accomplished at the cross. God heard Jesus’ cries at the cross and vindicated him, just as he will vindicate everyone who trusts in him.

If you were here last week, you know that the first part of Psalm 22 is anything but happy. Psalm 22 is the cry of a righteous person who is suffering for no fault of their own. It is intense. The psalmist feels abandoned and ignored by God, and taunted and despised by people. It’s a heartbreaking cry for God to listen. After describing his anguish, the psalmist cries out:
But you, O LORD, do not be far off!you my help, come quickly to my aid!Deliver my soul from the sword,my precious life from the power of the dog!Save me from the mouth of the lion!You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!(Psalm 22:19–21)
Why is this psalm in the Bible? For one reason, because this is our experience sometimes. Sometimes we will suffer innocently. Sometimes we will feel abandoned and ignored by God, and taunted and despised by people. Sometimes we’ll cry out to God to pay attention to our cries. This psalm gives language to how you may feel at some point in your life. “Lament is the honest cry of a hurting heart wrestling with the paradox of pain and the promise of God’s goodness” (Mark Vroegop). It’s given because you may one day need the words of this psalmist.
But there’s another reason Psalm 22 is in the Bible. It’s in the Bible because it so accurately describes the suffering of Jesus, the ultimate innocent sufferer. It describes his anguish on the cross, so much so that as he hung on the cross he quoted, verbatim, the words of this psalm (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). Not only that, but other details in this psalm show up on the day that Jesus was crucified. Close your eyes and read verses 16 to 18, and you would think the psalmist is describing the crucifixion of Jesus:
For dogs encompass me;a company of evildoers encircles me;they have pierced my hands and feet—I can count all my bones—they stare and gloat over me;they divide my garments among them,and for my clothing they cast lots.
As one scholar says of this psalm, “More than any other passage of Scripture it penetrates into the actual suffering of our crucified Lord” (Alec Motyer).
But here’s the other reason why I think this psalm is in the Bible. It’s in the Bible because it helps us understand not just the crucifixion of Jesus but the resurrection of Jesus. Written a thousand years before Easter Sunday, this psalm helps us understand what happened on that first Easter when Jesus rose from the dead. We’re not guessing when we say this. Hebrews 2:11-12 applies this second part of this psalm to Jesus.
In other words, if you want to understand all the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus and what it means for us today, you couldn’t do any better than to look at this psalm. It’s a portrait of the death and triumph of our Savior.
In verse 21, something happens:
Save me from the mouth of the lion!You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!
In verse 21, the innocent sufferer is rescued from God. The rest of this psalm describes what happened.
It tells us that the resurrection means three things:
First, the resurrection means that Jesus is vindicated (22:22-24)
Read verses 22 to 24. The psalmist says:
I will tell of your name to my brothers;in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:You who fear the LORD, praise him!All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!For he has not despised or abhorredthe affliction of the afflicted,and he has not hidden his face from him,but has heard, when he cried to him.
On the cross, Jesus bore God’s wrath against the sins we committed. He willingly offered his life to make full payment for our sins. How do we know that the payment was sufficient, that God was satisfied with Jesus’ work? Because, as verse 24 says, God didn’t despise or abhor the affliction of Jesus. He hasn’t hidden his face from Jesus. He heard Jesus’ prayer and vindicated him by raising him from the dead.
Jesus’ resurrection is a sign that God heard Jesus’ prayers on the cross and rescued him, that he didn’t despise or abhor what Jesus did on the cross. 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks of his resurrection this way: “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit…” As one theologian writes:
…Christ’s resurrection says something. It is the announcement of his justification. (Fred Zaspel)
Read More
Related Posts: