Friends,

This is the day before an important midterm election. I am calling on all my Christian brothers and sisters to remember to vote tomorrow. Our faith is not partisan, but we have both the privilege and the opportunity to elect our leaders, and it behooves us to elect those whose policies most closely reflect our biblical values. I am voting on the basis of the convictions I have written about before: the protection of unborn life, marriage as between a man and a woman, the biblical teaching that God created people male and female, judges who uphold the original intent of the Constitution and protect religious liberty, and greater parental choice in the education of our children. There are also policy reasons that many voters weigh — the economy, employment, wages, national defense, taxes, and support for the military and law enforcement.

I am calling on you, my brothers and sisters, to join me today in fasting and prayer for tomorrow's elections, asking that God would grant our country leaders who will govern well, and that spiritual and moral good would advance in our land.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Fasting and prayer in connection with a public decision has ample biblical precedent. Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast for all Judah when a coalition marched against him, praying, "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you" (2 Chronicles 20:3, 12). Esther called Israel to fast before she went to the king (Esther 4:16). Ezra proclaimed a fast before the dangerous journey to Jerusalem, "that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a safe journey" (Ezra 8:21). In each case the fast expressed dependence rather than certainty about the outcome.

Paul's instruction about prayer and civil authority is broad: "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people," including kings and all in authority (1 Timothy 2:1–2) — written when Rome's ruler was no friend of the church. Christians differ, sincerely and sharply, about candidates and parties (see #2298 and #2371). What Scripture presses on all sides is that prayer for leaders is not optional, that honor is due even to those we did not choose, and that our unity in Christ runs deeper than our politics.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Luke 8:8).

When Jesus told the Parable of the Soils, He was explaining the significance of how the Word of God was heard by people. There was clearly a stark contrast between the first three kinds of people and the last person. Only the last person bore any fruit. It is in this context Jesus taught, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear". Now, they all received the Word (Gk. logos) of God, but they did not all believe. Therefore, it was not the Word of God by itself that produced faith. It was the condition of the "ears" of the hearers. Those that did not believe or did not allow the Word to bear fruit did not have "ears to hear," or perhaps more precisely, ears to believe. Now, consider what Paul wrote in response to the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews, who had clearly heard the Word (Gk. logos) of God,

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word (Gk. rhema) of God (Romans 10:17).

This verse is often preached to mean that simply the hearing of the Word of God has the power to bring forth the response of faith. But as we learned from the parable of Jesus, this was not the case. What is more, even in the context of Romans 10, if simply hearing the Word produced faith, why would Paul make the argument that the Jews heard but failed to believe? (cf. Romans 10:18–21). But why then does He write, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"?

Rather than force our preconceptions onto this text, we should consider whether there is an alternative understanding of what Paul may have meant. And there is! Notice the different Greek words used by Luke and Paul. The Word (logos) of God does not produce hearing faith but the word (rhema) of God does produce hearing faith. The first has to do with the content of Scripture and the Gospel, but the latter has to do with God's sovereign and elective decree.

It was by God's elective decree that some believed and others remained in their unbelief. It was by God's elective decree that the Gentiles, who never even sought God's Word, nevertheless, both received and believed in it.

Friends, we have ears to hear, that is, hearing faith, because God has given it to us. Faith is a gift of God. Praise be to God!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The parable of the soils distinguishes responses to the same proclaimed word. Luke’s explanation names the devil’s removal of it, a temporary response without root, the choking effects of cares and riches, and the perseverance of a receptive heart (Luke 8:11–15). It therefore challenges the assumption that exposure to teaching automatically produces mature discipleship. Yet it also resists the claim that the message is irrelevant to faith. The seed remains the word of God throughout the parable, and Jesus concludes by emphasizing how people hear (8:18).

One detail qualifies the original’s contrast: Luke 8:13 says that those represented by the rocky soil believe for a time and fall away under testing. Interpreters differ over how to relate that description to saving faith and perseverance, but the text’s own wording should remain visible. The parable is not simply a division between people who never exhibit any belief and people who immediately display a complete harvest. It portrays the exposure of a response over time. A welcome beginning needs roots, resistance to competing desires, and endurance.

The proposed lexical distinction between logos and rhema cannot bear the doctrinal weight placed upon it. Romans 10:8 itself calls the message Paul proclaims rhema; the term is not reserved for a hidden decree that creates a hearing faculty. In the Greek wording of Romans 10:8, the connection between rhema and proclamation is explicit. A doctrine of divine enabling may be argued from wider biblical evidence, but it should not be established by assigning mutually exclusive meanings to two overlapping words for speech or message.

Romans 10 also distinguishes hearing from obedient response without treating proclamation as powerless or unnecessary. The sequence of sending, preaching, hearing, believing, and calling explains why the gospel is announced (10:14–17). The subsequent lament concerns a people who have heard yet remain resistant. Paul can affirm both the necessity of the message and the reality of unbelief among hearers. It does not follow that the word in verse 17 must therefore mean something other than the message about Christ. A necessary means need not produce an identical response in every person who encounters it.

The original’s desire to exclude boasting remains spiritually important. Gratitude for grace should lead us to pray for receptive hearts and to teach patiently, not to claim superiority over those who struggle. It should also sharpen our attention to the concrete warnings Jesus gives. What anxieties repeatedly crowd out obedience? What pleasures make the word seem less urgent? Where has initial enthusiasm avoided the difficult work of perseverance? The parable invites a response of dependent attention: receive the word, hold it fast, and bear fruit over time. Theological reflection on grace serves that response best when it strengthens rather than displaces the very hearing and obedience Jesus commands.

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 9:23).

This call to discipleship is found in each of the synoptic gospels; however, Luke is the only one to explicitly include the word "daily". It is fitting because Luke was the physician and generally provided the longest and most detailed account of Jesus’ words and acts.

Jesus had just finished instructing his disciples about how he "must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed" (Luke 9:22). It was logical that those who followed him might very well suffer the same fate. As Jesus taught elsewhere, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20). Surely, those who chose to follow Jesus would have their faith severely tested. I believe this is why Jesus used such strong language to describe those that chose to follow him. He was providing a road map for their immediate future.

We must understand this immediate application of Jesus' words to his first disciples before we try to extrapolate the teaching to Jesus' disciples in our present day. Jesus was describing a very real, near-term, life-and-death type persecution for his first disciples; however, we may not experience nearly the same things today. In some parts of the world, where persecution is both real and severe, Jesus' words might resonate more directly. For us, who live in a relatively free society, we do not live out our faith on pain of death, so we may be hard-pressed to find direct application of Jesus' words here.

Nevertheless, we cannot miss Jesus' call to devotion. Therefore, it is fitting that we translate this call to devote one's whole life to our present-day experience. It is appropriate to ask ourselves whether our lives are defined by our desire for worldly gain or by our desire to honor Christ (cf. Luke 9:25). It is right to ask ourselves if we are living as if we are ashamed of our faith in Christ, or if we are simply wearing our faith on our sleeves, or whether we are boldly proclaiming that Jesus is the only hope to avoid eternal judgment and gain eternal life.

Luke writes that Jesus' call to discipleship is a call to a devotion that is to be practiced "daily". Consequently, as we consider our devotion to Christ, we too ought to check ourselves daily. Am I daily making Jesus the priority? Am I daily living for him? Am I daily being bold in declaring the Gospel of Jesus?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The word “daily” keeps Luke 9:23 from being reduced to one dramatic declaration of loyalty. Yet it must remain connected to the arresting image it qualifies. In the world of Jesus’ hearers, a cross was an instrument of public execution and shame. Taking it up did not initially suggest accepting a mildly inconvenient personality trait or enduring an ordinary household frustration. Jesus has just predicted his own rejection and death (9:22). He summons followers to a form of allegiance that may cost the security, approval, and self-protection they previously treated as nonnegotiable.

Self-denial in this context is not self-hatred. Jesus does not teach that human life has no worth; the next verses expose the disastrous exchange of gaining the world while losing oneself. What must be relinquished is the claim to determine discipleship entirely on one’s own terms. A person cannot reserve the right to follow Jesus only where his way confirms existing ambitions. The daily element brings that surrender into recurring decisions: whether to tell a costly truth, refuse an unjust advantage, confess a wrong, or remain faithful when association with Christ becomes socially inconvenient.

The original reflection helpfully begins with the first disciples’ circumstances before moving to ours. That order prevents casual comparisons between our irritations and another believer’s imprisonment or danger. Nevertheless, relative freedom does not leave the passage without direct force. The temptation to save one’s life through ultimate self-protection can operate through comfort, reputation, ambition, or silence as well as through fear of physical harm. We should neither exaggerate the cost of our obedience nor conclude that discipleship is unnecessary until persecution becomes severe.

The command also needs to be distinguished from instructions imposed by abusive people. A victim’s attempt to seek protection is not necessarily a refusal of the cross. Jesus’ summons concerns allegiance to him, not unlimited submission to another person’s wrongdoing. Scripture’s calls to justice, truthful testimony, and care for the vulnerable remain relevant. Some costly acts of discipleship involve confronting harm, leaving danger, or helping someone else obtain safety. The cross cannot rightly become a slogan that shields a perpetrator from accountability.

Luke embeds the saying in a larger movement toward the revelation of Jesus’ glory and his journey to Jerusalem. The path is demanding because of who leads it, and hopeful because death is not his final destination. Daily practices therefore matter without becoming a system for earning salvation. Prayer, Scripture, generosity, rest, faithful work, and honest conversation can train a life to follow him; they are not competing ways to display spiritual achievement. A useful evening question is not merely “Was I bold today?” but “Where did I receive Christ’s direction, where did I protect my own importance, and what repentance or obedience is now needed?” Such examination turns the daily command into concrete dependence on a living Lord rather than endless anxious evaluation of the self.

As they walked along the road a man said he would follow Jesus wherever He went. Jesus replied that foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head. He said to another to follow Him, and the man asked first to go bury his father — and Jesus told him to let the dead bury their own dead, and to go proclaim the kingdom of God. Still another said he would follow, but asked first to say goodbye to his family; Jesus replied that no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom (a paraphrase of Luke 9:57–62).

I find three lessons in Jesus's replies. Like the first three soils in the parable of the sower, these three declarations fall short of a right response.

Count the cost. The first man's statement sounds bold and unequivocal, but Jesus responds, in effect, do you know what you are getting into? There is a restless life ahead. As He teaches elsewhere, those who want to follow Him should first count the cost (see Luke 14:25–33). Matthew's parallel identifies this man as a teacher of the Law (Matthew 8:19), which is worth noting given what Jesus says elsewhere about that group's fondness for flowing robes, respectful greetings, and the best seats.

Let nothing take priority. The second man's request was reasonable by any ordinary standard, and Jesus's answer is deliberately jarring.

Do not look back. The third wanted only to say goodbye.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The three responses form a sequence rather than three versions of the same point, and the comment's headings track it well: the first man overestimates what he is offering, the second and third underestimate what is being asked.

One thing worth adding about the second request. In that culture, burying a father was among the most binding of filial obligations, and the phrasing may indicate a man whose father was not yet dead — asking to wait until the family duty had run its course, potentially years. Either way, Jesus is not dismissing the obligation to honor parents, which He defends fiercely elsewhere against people who used religious dedication to evade it (Mark 7:9–13). He is saying that the call has an urgency that does not wait for a convenient season.

This project covered the same episode from Matthew earlier, and one observation bears repeating: none of the three refuses. All three volunteer, each with a qualifier attached. What Jesus exposes is not reluctance but conditionality.

Friends, today we have another passage that clarifies our understanding of the relationship between faith and healing:

While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. "Your daughter is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher anymore." Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed." (Luke 8:49, 50 NIV)

Notice, when Jesus healed Jairus' daughter, the one exercising faith was not the daughter, who was dead, but the father. Before this, the woman healed of her bleeding exercised her own faith. And before this, when Jesus healed the demoniac, faith came to the demoniac only after he was healed. In yesterday's reading, Luke 7, Jesus raised a widow's son, and again the faith followed the healing. And if you recall earlier in Luke 5:20, there were men who brought a paralytic to Jesus, and rather than the faith of the paralytic, the passage suggests it was the faith of the men that brought him that prompted Jesus' healing.

What do all of these incidents teach us? Jesus can heal whether there is faith or not. He can heal no matter who is exercising the faith. The key is not faith but Jesus, who gives faith its effective power. Jesus emphasizes faith not because of its inherent power but because His mission is to direct people to believe in Him, even that He is their promised Messiah, and the Son of God.

In passages like Luke 8:49–50, it is perhaps best to understand the "just believe" not as "just believe that healing can take place" but rather "just believe that I, Jesus, can heal her." To Him be all the glory!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The sequence of stories undermines any simple claim that every healing requires an identical quantity of faith in the afflicted person. Jairus' daughter is dead; the woman with the flow of blood approaches believing; the delivered man responds after Jesus has acted. The narratives direct attention to Jesus' authority and compassion across differing circumstances. They are not a standardized procedure that can be reproduced by generating a particular psychological state.

Jesus nevertheless addresses Jairus with a real call to believe. Faith is not irrelevant simply because it is not the power causing the miracle. The father must continue trusting Jesus after news arrives that seems to make further hope pointless. The delay caused by another person's healing intensifies this challenge. Luke places the stories together so that one person's testimony to Jesus' power is heard just as another person's circumstances appear to have passed beyond help. Read Luke 8:40–56.

The original's comparison with the widow's son belongs to Luke 7, not Mark 7. There Jesus acts from compassion without a recorded request for resurrection. Silence about someone's faith, however, should not be turned into proof that the person possessed none. The text tells us what it emphasizes, and that emphasis is the Lord's merciful initiative.

This reading protects vulnerable people from being blamed when desired healing does not occur. A narrative in which Jesus promises a particular restoration is not a universal promise that every present request will receive the same outcome. Christians can pray expectantly while refusing to measure a sufferer's worth by the result. Faith entrusts the person to Christ, seeks appropriate care, and continues in love; it does not make the patient responsible for producing the power that belongs to God.