Synoptic Gospels Sections 278-279

I'm going to have to face this way so that George is still to my left. I'm just going to look over toward that wall.

All right. We are a little ahead of time, but hey, that's good. That's a good thing.

We are continuing in our study of the Synoptic Gospels. We have already distributed all of the blue books.

It will be a little bit tougher now on this very rare that if you look over the rest of the material, it's very rare that any one gospel is all by itself.

There's going to be a lot of parallel issues to be looking at over the next period of time as we seek to finish up.

We are in section 278, and we will be looking at a number of parables over the course of the next number of weeks.

This is the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman, a fairly lengthy parable.

Once again, context is vitally important. We need to keep in mind the fact that there is a growing tension here.

Jesus has cleansed the temple. He has challenged the authority of the rulers.

He has just told the parable of the two sons. He has answered the question about authority and put the scribes and Pharisees in a difficult position.

He raised the issue of John the Baptist, and they gave a good politically correct non -answer.

As a result, you then have the parable of the two sons, and all of this being applied to the

Jewish leadership. This is a direct invasion into enemy -held territory.

We are in the temple precincts in Jerusalem. This is not up in Galilee.

You can sort of imagine that the rulers in Jerusalem, as long as Jesus is up in Galilee, well, they still had their people following him around and stuff.

Now, this is the heartland. This is right where we live.

We can't escape this man any longer. The level of animosity is rising and coming to a head, as we will see finally in John chapter 19, when we have a law, and by this law this man ought to die.

They lead the people in calling for the death of Jesus and say, we have no king but Caesar, which in and of itself is a very politically charged statement as well.

Now we have the parable of the husbandmen, and it seems to be that Matthew gives us the longest version here, which is somewhat interesting in the sense that normally

Mark does, but I think, once again, as we think about the audience to whom

Matthew is writing, it makes some sense because we've got Matthew chapter 23 coming, and if you're thinking with me,

Matthew chapter 23 is the longest section of judgment upon Jewish leaders and their hypocrisy in the

New Testament, and so it would make sense that Matthew would give us the longest version of yet another parable that illustrates the wickedness of the leaders in possessing the

Word of God, talking about the Word of God and ignoring the Word of God. And so we'll look at Matthew 21, 33 through 46, which has parallels in both

Mark and Luke. Here in another parable there was a householder who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and let it out to tenants and went into another country.

Just in case there's confusion here, let means to rent out.

That's a perfectly good British English word. It's not our normal term. I have often commented, as I have been spending more time in the

UK, that when we have different terminology, their terminology is normally more logical than ours is and shorter and easier to use.

I'm not sure why that is, but the first time over there I'm seeing all these signs, to let.

So like, put an I in, it means something completely different. To let. It's our for rent.

So we use more letters to say the same thing they say in fewer letters. So it does seem to be the way things are.

So this householder has planted a vineyard. He's put some time into it. He set the hedge around it, dug a winepress in it, built a tower.

So in other words, it's nice. He's put a lot of effort into this. And he rents it out to tenants.

Not an unusual thing to do. You build a building, whatever it is, and then you rent it out.

And went into another country. When the season of fruit grew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.

And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same to them.

Afterward, he sent his son to them saying, they'll respect my son. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, this is the heir.

Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance. They took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. When, therefore, the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

They said to him, he will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruit in their seasons.

Jesus said to them, have you never read in the scriptures, the very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. This was the

Lord's doing. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.

And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces. But when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. Hey, good. But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes because they held him to be a prophet.

Now, obviously, we know the end of the story. We know the context. So it's easy for us to sort of see this one coming.

But, you know, the first time it was told, you might not necessarily see what's coming.

What we have here is a picture of God as the householder. And he creates the people of Israel.

They are his vineyard. And he, in essence, lets it out to tenants, that is, to the

Jewish leaders. We are going to see this same kind of differentiation between the

Jewish leadership and the people repeated in Matthew chapter 23. This is something some of you know a lot about because I have sort of had to make it part of my life over the past number of years to point out that Matthew 23, 37 is one of the most misquoted verses in the

Bible. People will constantly quote Matthew 23, 37. And in that text, you have

Jesus talking to Jerusalem. He says, How often would I have gathered your children under my wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not?

I cannot tell you how many times. I continue, even having made this an issue for a number of years,

I continue to hear people misquote that. How often would I have gathered you, but you would not? That's not what it says.

It's talking about the Jewish leaders. Matthew 23 is a judgment oracle on the

Jewish leaders. And here you have the differentiation between the

Jewish leaders and the Am Ha 'aretz. The Am Ha 'aretz means the people of the land.

And we see over and over again in the Gospel presentations the distinction that is made in the thinking of the

Jewish leaders themselves. Well, we have the grace of God.

We have the blessings of God. We are the ones that God has favored.

And the people of the land, there's no grace for them. They do not keep the 613 laws.

And they are not as punctilious as we are in their observation of God's law. And so we are the chosen few.

And then you have the Am Ha 'aretz, the people of the land that just sort of muddle along. And one of the things obviously that caused the greatest consternation and conflict between the

Lord and the Pharisees was, who was it that Jesus is always hanging out with? He doesn't look to gain some kind of repertoire or some kind of relationship and relationship get along with the

Jewish leaders, get into their circles, get their approval. No, he doesn't do that.

Instead, he is willing to, from their perspective, profane holy things by discussing them with people they consider to be beneath the grace of God.

And so this distinction is clearly there. It's not something we have to only look to the New Testament for.

You can find this, you know, the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke chapter 16 is mirrored in prayers that we have found at Qumran and other places where you have these individuals who truly do see their distinction as indication of their acceptance with God and so on and so forth.

And so this is behind all of this. And it helps us to interpret the parables and to see what's going on and to sense the growing anger and hatred that exists in this situation.

And so you have these tenants, and the tenants are not the vineyard, but they are the ones who have been placed in charge of the vineyard.

There is a responsibility. I mean, Jesus is going to say in Matthew chapter 23 at the beginning, do what those who sit in Moses's seat say, but don't do as they do.

In other words, because they have been put in a position of authority, because they sit in Moses's seat, which was this stone seat in the synagogue from which the law of Moses was read.

Well, when they're doing what they're supposed to be doing in reading the Word of God, well, don't overthrow the synagogue worship.

Don't, just because they're hypocrites, ignore the Word of God or disarm the Word of God or wherever else it might be.

But don't do as they do, because they're hypocrites. And that begins the whole lengthy thing there.

But they're still in a position of leadership. And so Jesus doesn't come along and say, ah, kill all the scribes and Pharisees, overthrow everything, burn down the synagogues and start all over again.

That's not what he does. And so the tenants are the Jewish leaders, the vineyard, the people of Israel that God has created.

And so they don't catch this immediately. At the end of the parable, they start to catch this and I'd imagine every other parable after this, okay.

But at first, no. And when the season of fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit.

Who are the servants? Well, his prophets. Those who have been sent by God, always calling

God's people to godliness and to do that which God's law would call them to do.

And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another and so on and so on. Well, you look back over the history of what happened to the various prophets that were sent to the people of Israel and that's pretty much what happens.

Jeremiah is thrown into a pit and according to the book of Hebrews and tradition, you know, some were sawn in half and some were run through the sword and so on and so forth.

Again, he sent other servants, more than the first and they did the same to them. We don't even know all the prophets that were sent.

I mean, we can tell from the records that we do have, from what God has preserved for us, that there were quite a number.

Some toiled in anonymity and we will not know of them until eternity itself.

Afterward, he sent his son to them. Now, this is very interesting.

We read that and go, well, duh. That's clear. And again, we know the end of the story already, so it's easy for us to just put the theological bricks together, in essence, and go, ah,

Jesus is the son of God and he's self -identifying himself as the son of God and so on and so forth.

But again, they didn't even know who this was being applied to at first. So, one can imagine that what actually happens is, once Jesus says in verse 43, therefore

I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. They're like, alright, if he's making application to us, if we're the tenants, then who's the son?

And they start to see what it is that Jesus is claiming for himself and they understand this as application is made.

Afterward, he sent his son and saying, though I respect my son, but when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, this is the heir, come let us kill him and have his inheritance.

Now, again, you do not want to make a parable, quote -unquote, walk on all fours, though I'm not really sure where that comes from either.

Walk on all fours. But what it means is you don't want to press everything to a literal point to where God was like, well,

I'll send my son and surely they'll respect him. Because from the beginning,

Jesus is saying, this is what's going to happen. He knows what's going to be taking place and it's necessary to go to Jerusalem and be betrayed, et cetera, et cetera.

But the point is that when you would send a son, there should be a certain level of respect on the part of anyone.

In fact, anyone who would behave in this way is demonstrating their utter depravity, not just from a personal behavioral perspective, but from any culture of that day to behave in this way was just completely beyond anything that could be accepted or be conscionable.

When the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, this is the heir, let us kill him and have his inheritance.

What is this actually communicating? It's communicating their attitude.

They don't care about the landowner. They don't care about the one who's built what they themselves did not work to get.

But they want the inheritance. And so they'll do anything to obtain that inheritance.

Talk about a picture that's just about to be fulfilled. This is a prophetic parable of what is going to be happening this very week.

This is Passion Week that we're talking about here. And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard.

Where is Jesus crucified? Outside of Jerusalem. And killed him.

They didn't kill him and cast him out of the vineyard. They take him out of the vineyard and then they kill him.

When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? And so the question is then thrown to them.

What is the righteous thing to be done here? And I cannot help but think of when

Nathan is sent to David. And he tells the parable of the man who has, you know, the one little.

One man has a huge flock and one has one little lamb. And he takes one little lamb. David's righteous indignation is brought forth.

And then you are the man. Here's the same situation. With the judgment with which you judge, you shall yourself be judged.

And so he says, they said to him, he will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruit in their seasons.

Now Mark and Luke just simply have, he will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to them. Give the vineyard to others,

I'm sorry. And, but Matthew has more of the flavor, maybe reflecting the language they used or the tone of voice that they used in saying these things.

He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruit in their seasons.

And so he allows them to utter their own condemnation in their own words.

And that's what takes place. Because Jesus' response is to once again point to their own incredible hypocrisy.

What truly makes the Jewish leaders worthy of the strongest language from Jesus is their possession of so much light, which should make us think all the more carefully about these parables.

Because Jesus called for repentance from all sinners.

When he spoke to prostitutes and to tax collectors and to people who were engaged in the lowest forms of sinful behavior in the society, his was still a message of repentance.

He never said, well, you know, you're just a down and outers and so it's understandable that you do these things.

No, that's never what he says. That's never the attitude that he portrays in any way, shape or form.

It's always a message of repentance. And it's always a message that is received only by those who are looking for a message of grace.

Jesus, I see no evidence that Jesus is talking to people who are seeking to justify their sinfulness, seeking to defend their sinfulness, seeking to say it's not sinfulness at all.

See, that's one of the problems I think that modern Protestant liberalism has developed, is that we live in a day where everybody, high and low, questions whether God has spoken with clarity or not.

And there are so many today who simply seek to justify their sin, to question

God's ability to give his law or to apply his law. God would never be just.

He would never be holy. You know, some of you know that over the past number of weeks,

I've sort of been rather unwillingly dragged two different directions away from where I'm supposed to be writing a book right now.

But one of them is in responding to some things that have happened recently in the emergent church movement.

And the emergent church movement is a movement that is primarily populated by former conservatives, normally fundamentalists, who have found a whole new world out there.

And a book came out a few weeks ago, I've mentioned it to you, Love Wins by Rob Bell, and I did some responses to that and things like that.

But then this past Tuesday, I got up at 3 .40 in the morning, something like that, and went down to the office and at 5 o 'clock was on the air, well actually recording, it only aired yesterday, but recording a program in London on the unbelievable radio broadcast.

I've been on it a number of times, but normally while I'm in the studio. Only twice had I been on from over here, and that was from a radio station, so the quality would be good.

But the quality turned out really good anyways, thankfully. I was happy about that. But I did a dialogue with the leader, really the best known person in the emergent church movement, a man by the name of Brian McLaren.

And Mr. McLaren and I, very similar backgrounds when he mentions going to church, wearing slippery socks and slippery shoes, wearing a clip -on tie.

I'm just going, yeah, yeah. Only difference is Brian McLaren doesn't do that anymore and I still do.

But my ties are not clip -on, even the bow ties are not clip -on, that's exactly right, they're the real thing now.

But anyway, in having to interact with these folks, one of the marks of the emergent church was that the church is just a real detestation of the concept of a

God who would in any way bring final judgment upon someone who despises

His ways. The big thing that has gotten Rob Bell a lot of money in the sales of Love Wins is this whole idea of, well, you know, love wins.

And God sets His love upon every single individual, there's no differentiations in love of God whatsoever.

I mean, just because there was a special love God had for Israel in the Old Testament that He didn't obviously have for the

Egyptians, ah, it doesn't really matter, that's not a paradigm for anything else. God's love is a peanut butter love, there's no distinctions in it,

He's actually not capable of having the kind of love human beings have. We're supposed to have a certain kind of love for our wife, we don't have for anybody else's wife, but God doesn't have that kind of love, no,

He has to have this, it's all out for everybody, and that means that love wins, that means

God's never going to give up and that means everyone's going to get saved. Because that love, even after death, is just going to keep working on people and working on people is eventually going to wear everybody down and eventually love wins.

And that's a, you know, people like that idea. That sounds really neat, we don't have to have any eternal punishment, we don't have to have anything like that because eventually love wins.

And when you hear, especially people calling in on these programs, it wasn't a call -in program, we did it obviously since we were recording it, but, um, well, it's interesting, right in the middle of all this

I happened to be watching O 'Reilly, and he had had something on about Easter, I forget what it was, and he was answering emails, and this guy wrote in and said,

Jesus said, He is the way, the truth, and life, no one comes to the Father but by Him. And O 'Reilly just looks in the camera and says,

God's a just God, and He's a loving God, and He would never leave just one way to come to Him.

You know, that's the attitude of man, you know, God has to provide holiness in many ways, not just one.

Sure, the one way is, you know, He and the person of His Son entering into human flesh and giving

His life, but you know, that's just, that's too narrow, there needs to be more, is the idea.

Well, that's what Protestant liberalism has always been about, there is no concern about the holiness of God or the freedom of God or anything else.

And as a result, it just seems to me that those churches today that still read the

Bible, they still have it up on the altar someplace, they are comfortable with the old traditions, and yet, so they have this blindingly bright spiritual light, and yet, they don't walk in it.

They don't want even, it's not there, I don't care. We don't really believe what it says about this, we don't really believe what it says about that.

There's great condemnation there. I don't know if any of you saw it, I don't know if you saw it, but it did make me feel very old this past week, because I remember when

Princess Diana got married, and it was shortly after I got married, and people were staying, you know, getting up at one o 'clock in the morning, we had these things called video tape machines,

VHS, it was a really neat thing, and lots of people were banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out how to program it to get the start right, and so the royal wedding this week, no

I did not stay up to watch it, but I do have a DVR, so I through it, and it was interesting, because I was honestly concerned about an attack taking place, because I mean, talk about a huge target, and a lot of space to try to defend, but anyway,

I'm thankful that didn't happen, but what struck me was in watching the ceremony, and of course, like I said,

I really like London. I've spent, I've walked down those streets, and it's a beautiful place, and so it was interesting to get to watch it, knowing, okay, you know, the unbelievable studio's over that direction, and that's over that direction, the tube's over there, and that kind of thing, but watching the actual service,

I was struck by how distinctively Christian it was.

I mean, the music, I mean, I don't know if you listen to the music, but the choir that sang during the wedding itself, you listen to the words, it was a psalm.

I mean, it was extremely, you know, you just went, wow,

I wonder what most Brits are thinking in light of how secular the society has become, and you know, allegedly, the kindly little lady in the yellow dress is the head of the

Church of England, and the kindly old man doing the ceremony,

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, is more pagan than he is Christian in his theology.

It's amazing, and yet here's the old words, and they're comforting, and they're beautiful, and yet, what does

God think about having the words without the reality? Because the people we're talking about here had all the pomp and circumstance.

You know, these Jewish leaders had more flowing robes than Rowan Williams was wearing, and they had the sacrifices, and they had the temple.

I mean, as beautiful as Westminster Abbey is, they had the temple, and yet,

Jesus' words to them is, have you never read in the Scriptures? What an insult. I mean, you know,

I can always tell when a conversation's probably not going to be going real well, when

I'm talking with somebody, and they say, well, haven't you ever even read the

Gospel of John? You know, yeah, a few times, translated a few times, yeah, okay, you know, but the very fact that they're going to say something like that means your position is so far out, in my opinion, from what the

Bible says, have you even read it? And that's what Jesus says. Have you never read in the

Scriptures? Ooh, wow, I mean, that is, that is, take off the glove, and that is the gentleman's insult, right there.

Have you never read in the Scriptures? Can you imagine saying that to the scribes and Pharisees, the people who prided themselves on their knowledge of the

Scriptures? Slap across the face. And then you have the citation, the very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, this is the

Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes, and you just, you go, hmm, all right, do they understand what is being said here in Psalm 118?

There is a stone which the builders rejected. There is going to be a rejection on the part of the leadership that is going to bring condemnation, and yet it is the

Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Well, who is the our eyes? Well, it's the remnant, it's not the leaders.

And having quoted that, you then have, therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.

And then you may have, I was going to look at the textual evidence on this, but it's put in brackets in Matthew, it's probably from the parallel Luke.

He who falls on a stone will be broken to pieces. When it falls on anyone, it will crush him. When the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

When they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him to be a prophet. And so there is a very clear prophetic element to this text.

And the conclusion is, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.

Now you say nation, well, what, Italy? No, a people, a group of people that will produce the fruits of being the people of God.

And how is that going to happen? This is so important to see this. We have, you know, we're told in the

New Testament, these things are written for our encouragement, for our learning, for our understanding.

What do we see constantly over and over again in the Old Covenant? We have the people of God called to be the people of God, and yet they stumble and they fall and they stumble and they fall.

And there's this constant rhythm of, you know, the prophets are sent and there's a brief repentance and sometimes a glorious period.

But normally you have a majority who just do not have a heart for the things of God and a minority who do.

And what's the difference? Well, the remnant, who has kept the remnant for himself? God has. It's always grace.

And it's never a matter of possession of the scriptures or possession of a genetic relationship and a genealogy.

It's never any of that type. There's never a basis for boasting.

It's always based upon grace. And how then does the church produce the fruits of it in this prophetic utterance?

Well, we know the only time the church produces the fruits of being the kingdom of God is when the

Holy Spirit of God brings that about. It's the Spirit's work. It's never due to possession.

These people possessed all the positive possibilities in the world. They had the scriptures, they had the covenants, they had the temple, they had the worship.

They had all the pictures right there in front of them as we've been seeing as we go through the book of Hebrews. They had all the advantages.

But apart from the Spirit of God making those things to come alive in a person's heart and mind, just so much religious hypocrisy.

And that's what it led to in this situation. So the chief priests, Pharisees, figure out, they perceive that he was speaking about them.

Yeah, well, good. But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes because they held him to be a prophet.

And so even though they have much authority, you'll notice what they have to do is they sort of have to do things on the fly.

They need to do things at nighttime. They do things when the Amharites aren't around.

Because while they don't know what's really best for them and we do, still we don't want to get them too upset because we're the minority and they are the majority when it comes to that.

So they wanted to have him arrested, but could not. And of course, as John would probably put it, for his hour had not yet come, as we see in John's recording of a lot of this.

So we have enough time, actually. The next one, the parable of the

Great Supper, you'll notice it says CP number 216. Now, when you see that and we're in 279, what does that mean?

Been there, done that. Already did the parable of the Great Supper. But we did it.

And again, I'll just mention, Luke has this in Luke chapter 14, which is why we did it then.

We did do it. Did we not? Oh, great keeper of the notes. You're looking for section 216 right now?

I don't want to skip over it. And then we realized that actually when we got to 216, we said, well, we're going to cover this later on when it's at section 279.

That's normally not how we've done it. Normally, we cover it as it comes up, as the synoptic presents it.

Why have this parable in two very different places? Mark doesn't even give it.

Luke has it at a much earlier point in time. Well, again, it is very, very doubtful that Jesus told these stories only once.

And the application of the story, in light of the context, in light of the ministry in Jerusalem, would be very appropriate as well.

Boy, it's even in a different book. That means it was a while ago.

It'll be interesting to see when it was, when you've been doing this for eight years,

I think now. It's fairly amazing that I can remember any of it.

But I do specifically remember making application here.

And let me just go ahead and mention, maybe it would be good to take about five minutes just simply to make application of something here. Yes? When?

June 14th, so almost two years ago.

We've only done 53 sections in two years? That's, that's, that's, no.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

There is a reason why I'm a gold preferred flyer with US Airways. You've got to spend some time in an airplane to get that, get that first class seat.

Anyway, I did want to make one application real quick, because I do recall this.

We did discuss the casting out of the man who had no wedding garment.

Fred, how did you get here without a wedding garment? He was speechless. And the king said, the attendants bind him hand and foot and cast him in the outer darkness.

Their men will weep and gnash their teeth for many are called and few are chosen. It does seem to make application once again to the desire that many people have to have a

God who, again, has no kingly holiness or majesty.

And in reality, man is the, it's sort of scary, to be honest with you.

Man is the, the focus of the God of so many people, rather than God needing to be our focus and God accomplishing his own self -glorification being his primary goal and our primary goal.

What makes me think of this is I've been recently dealing with Mormonism again, far more than I expected to.

And I, and I need to wrap up what I've been doing, but it's been a while since I spent a lot of time on the subject of Mormonism.

And a Oxford graduate Mormon commented on one of my videos.

And so I'm, I'm on the 10th installment of my response. It's a small book at this point.

But as part of my response, I quoted from a section of LDS publications that contains a part of their scriptures.

And one of the scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants talks about how it is

God's purpose. It's God's glory to bring about man's redemption.

Mormonism is so man -centered that it even has a man as God. If you know

Mormonism, you know that men, God, and angels are all just different levels in the same spectrum. God is weird as men.

Men are, are gods in embryo. Gods are just exalted men. There, there is no fundamental distinction between the creator and the creation in Mormon theology.

And it's, it's frightening how many evangelicals would not object for a moment to Mormonism's man -centeredness in even defining the very nature of God.

Because so many want to have a God, like Rob Bell, who only has a desire for a certain element of his attributes to be demonstrated.

And the demonstration of his holiness and his justice and his righteousness is irrelevant to these people.

But the parables Jesus tells don't fit that. Look at this king. The guy's at the party.

He's in dress right. Kick him out. Why? You see, there's so much more to it than the

Rob Bells the world will, will allow for. And that's what happens when instead of the text providing your theology, your society provides the matrix in which your theology is to be formed.

Then the Bible just sort of becomes a, a quote book that you use to substantiate that. So that is important.

So we're a little bit late on getting to section 280. This would have been appropriate about two weeks ago on paying tribute to Caesar.

But we'll, we'll get to it. We'll get to it next time, whenever that is, which probably should be next week, but we'll see.

As far as we're. Our great heavenly father, we do thank you for your word and the freedom we continue to have to have access to it, to speak its truth and to live in its light.

Help us to do that while we have light to do so. Be with us now as we go into worship.

May we be pleasing in your sight. May you lift up our hearts and minds to understand your truth. Conform us ever closer to the image of Jesus Christ.