Written by A.W. Workman |
Wednesday, February 22, 2023
All of our physical, emotional, spiritual suffering is welcome in the practice of the great physician—even the seemingly-small stuff. He will not despise us if we come or send us away. He won’t sigh and help us reluctantly. He’ll take our hand, and sooner or later, help us to rise up, well again, and able to serve.

I’ve always loved the placement of the story where Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law. The account is a short one. She has a fever, so Jesus touches her hand. She is healed, rises, and like a good Middle Eastern mom immediately begins to serve her guests. In Matthew, this non-flashy miracle comes directly after Jesus has healed a leper and a paralyzed servant who was suffering terribly. And it’s followed by Jesus casting out demons and healing all the sick brought to him in Capernaum. In Luke and Mark the preceding account is of the showdown with the demonized man in the synagogue. (Matt 8:1-17, Mark 1:21-33, Luke 4:31-41).
In this context, the healing of a fever seems like a small thing. “Big deal, fevers are ho-hum, everyday stuff. Casting out demons and healing those with life-threatening diseases and excruciating pain? Now that’s what really counts.” Yet there it is, a simple healing of a simple illness, placed in all three synoptic gospels, a reminder that Jesus cares about fevers too. Apparently, he does not scoff at requests to heal the little stuff, but even there he delights to show his compassion and power.
Perhaps fevers were more life-threatening in first century Galilee. But still, a qualitative difference remains. The doctors in Capernaum would have felt like they had adequate medicine for fevers. There were treatable by normal means, as it were. Leprosy and demon-possession? Not so much. Peter’s household may have felt some temptation to not ask for healing. After all, shouldn’t Jesus’ power and attention be saved for the big stuff, especially when local remedies existed for things like fevers? Whether they felt this or not, we are not told. We are simply told that they told Jesus about her fever and he healed her.
This is the logic of faith functioning as it should. Jesus can heal bigger and badder things, so therefore let’s be quick to ask him to take care of this fever also. This is true humility, faith like a child. Yet so often we fall into a different kind of logic, where because we know Jesus can heal bigger and badder things, we think he shouldn’t be bothered with our little forms of suffering – if we even put them in the category of suffering at all. I know that I for one am often guilty of taking headache medicine without praying for God to heal. Even today my kids are home sick from school, yet it took me until I wrote this post to actually pray for them. My underlying assumption seems to be that it’s not worth bringing the little stuff to God, that either he or I really can’t be bothered.
Read More
Related Posts:

How often in your sermon—actually in the midst of your preaching—does your teaching drive you to simply, and vocally, offer up your own doxology? When we study for our sermons, when we pray for our sermons, when we prepare our sermons, when we deliver our sermons . . . we ought to be driven to praise the Lord.

When considering how to preach, we often think about certain words: faithfully, exegetically, expositionally, passionately, clearly. I’d like to take this post to encourage you to preach doxologically. Preach in a way that drives you and your listeners to unbridled worship.
Consider the example of Scripture.
Paul, after discussing the faithfulness of God in using Israel’s hardening to extend salvation to the Gentiles and in preserving a remnant of Jewish people, breaks forth with words of praise:
Oh the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33–36)
Paul ends the entire epistle, this epic treatise on the gospel, with another doxology:
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom 16:25–27)
Paul breaks out into doxological praise in teaching the Corinthians about God’s care for him in hardship (2 Cor 11:31). Many times he opens his epistles (his specific teaching to those local congregations) with doxologies (Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:4–5; Eph 1:3). He introduces his teaching to Timothy, a teaching directly addressing the form and function of the local church, with an explanation of the Lord’s work in salvation, which leads to lofty doxological praise: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1 Tim 1:17).
Read More
Related Posts:

 Is reality outside the church a common realm that is unrelated to the kingdom of Christ? No, the moral division in this life is not between the kingdom of Christ and a common realm considered as two static domains with diverse locations. The moral division in this life is between the kingdom of Christ and Satan’s kingdom considered as two dynamic domains that can penetrate any sphere of life. Both these kingdoms are defined by moral orientation and ultimate allegiance.

I was at a Presbytery meeting listening to the examination of a candidate for ordination. When asked, “What is the kingdom?” the candidate simply answered, “The church.” I was surprised by the brevity of the accepted answer. I wondered at the time if the candidate was implying that there are no senses in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church. I was later told that the question and answer were based on Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2:
“The visible church … consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ…”
The examination was thorough overall, and I am grateful for those who do this work. I am also grateful that this exchange motivated me to examine this subject more thoroughly.
As a general rule, the current members of the visible church and the citizens of the kingdom now alive are the same people. There is this degree of identity within this limited context. That doesn’t mean that the kingdom and the church are identical in every way and in every context. There are different nuances to being under Christ’s royal reign and being part of the gathered assembly of the saints. There are also contexts in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church because Christ’s royal authority extends beyond the assembly of the saints.
In its commentary on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster Shorter Catechism refers to the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. We are to pray “that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it” and “that the kingdom of glory may be hastened” (WSC 102). The kingdom of grace is here a reference to the visible church in this age, and the kingdom of glory, a reference to the invisible church in the full glory of a new creation after the second advent. The Westminster Confession of Faith mentions a related concept, the keys of the kingdom, which refer to the power to open and close access to gospel benefits and church privileges through administering the Word and through church discipline. This is a power wielded by church officers and not by civil magistrates (WCF 30.2; 23.5).
In their commentaries on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster catechisms mention a third kingdom: Satan’s kingdom, or the kingdom of sin and Satan (WSC 102; WLC 191). We are to pray for Satan’s kingdom to be destroyed. Jesus three times referred to Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and the Apostle John said that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). What are we praying to be destroyed, the world as a place or the sway of Satan over the world? I believe the latter, and this implies that the domain of Satan’s kingdom is not a static domain limited to any specific place but a dynamic domain defined by its moral orientation and ultimate allegiance. This understanding is further confirmed in that we are to pray the second petition “acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan…” (WLC 191). This is a reference not to humanity’s created nature but to humanity’s “corrupted nature, conveyed to all [our fallen first parents’] posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” (WCF 6.3). “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified…” (WCF 6.5).
The Westminster Larger Catechsim mentions one other kingdom in its commentary on the second petition, the kingdom of Christ’s power. We are to pray that Christ “would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends” (WLC 191). “These ends” include the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, the fulfillment of certain duties of the civil magistrate and the rule of Christ in Christian hearts. These are objectives that are not totally confined within the boundaries of the church. The effective range is “all the world.” The power in play here includes God’s providential control within history. The Triune God who created the world preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions (WSC 11). The question is whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father.
Some answer yes to this question. This means that the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power are all complementary aspects of a unified kingdom under the royal authority of the resurrected, glorified and ascended Christ seated at the right hand of God the Father. This understanding is found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology:
“Christ has what theologians are accustomed to call his kingdom of power. As Theanthropos and as Mediator, all power in heaven and upon earth has been committed to his hands. … This universal authority is exercised in a providential control, and for the benefit of his Church. … Under the present dispensation, therefore, Christ is the God of providence. It is in and through and by Him that the universe is governed. This dominion or kingdom is to last until its object is accomplished, i.e., until all his enemies, all forms of evil, and even death itself is subdued. Then this kingdom, this mediatorial government of the universe, is to be given up. (1 Cor. xv.24.) (2.600-601; cf. 2.635-638)
The kingdom of Christ’s power is here defined as one of the temporary elements of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. There are other temporary elements as well. “Christ executeth the office of a king in subduing us to Himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all His and our enemies” (WSC 26). The only element in this list that is not temporary and thus lasts into the kingdom of glory is Christ’s ruling His people as their King.
The positive answer to our question does not limit the power given to Jesus as the exalted God-Man to His power and authority over the church. This is consistent with the statement of the Westminster Larger Catechism that “Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth” (WLC 54). In addition, Jesus’ execution of His office as a king includes His “restraining and overcoming all [His people’s] enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel” (WLC 45). The Scriptural evidence also points in this direction. Hebrews 2:8 says, “For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.” Ephesians 1:22 says, “And He put all things under His feet…” In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” 1 Corinthians 15:27 implies that all has been put under the rule of the exalted God-Man except God Himself:
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
This understanding is also consistent with the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is not only the Head of the church but also the ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5; cf. 2:27).
This understanding does not require a Lutheran explanation of Jesus’ exaltation. Many are familiar with the Lutheran teaching that the physical body of the exalted Christ experiences some form of omnipresence. Such thinking is not necessary to explain how Jesus administers the kingdom of His power as the exalted God-Man. One can explain the ministries of the exalted God-Man “without conversion, composition, or confusion” of the two natures (WCF 8.2). No one questions that Jesus exercises His priestly ministry as the exalted God-Man. Yet His priestly ministry also has challenges that are beyond finite human capabilities. As our heavenly high priest, Jesus hears untold numbers of prayers every minute of every day. This does not mean that the human mind of the exalted God-Man now possesses some form of omniscience. Similarly the exalted God-Man exercises His kingly ministry without His human nature possessing some form of omnipotence. The Westminster Larger Catechism explains how this is possible without confusing the two natures:
Q.40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person ?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.
Returning to our question as to whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father, some answer in the negative. This means that the kingdom of Christ’s power is not related to Christ’s current heavenly session and thus is in a different category from the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. With this understanding, God the Son exercises His providential power apart from His exalted humanity even as He did before His incarnation and exaltation.
In summary, Westminster kingdom theology includes two antithetical kingdoms, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. Within the kingdom of Christ are three divisions: the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power. Some hold that all three of these are part of the mediatorial kingdom of the exalted God-Man. Others separate the kingdom of Christ’s power as a providential rule apart from the mediatorial kingdom. In any case, the exercise of the kingdom of Christ’s power “in all the world” implies that the concept of the kingdom is broader than the concept of the church, even though there are also senses in which the kingdom and the church can be identified.
This broader understanding of the kingdom is taught by others as well.
Read More
Related Posts: