I would like to begin this morning with two verses from last week's portion and then continue to the end of the chapter. Earlier this week I heard Rush Limbaugh describe the liberal religion in the stark reality of its total and absolute focus in and on political power. Of course, he was able to describe the sense of that assertion more eloquently and pointedly than I am. The fact remains that he is on to something very important, something which defines our era and explains a lot of what we observe in everyday life. It also explains the worldly hostility to the likes of Senator Ashcroft, whose only real crime is possession of a different religious spirit - a portion of the Trinity. Isn't it, absolutely amazing how virulent the opposition of the world really is to anything or anyone who is subject to the authority of the Creator God?

How much we need to regain a biblical perspective in this fallen land, so that we may measure things aright. Some years ago, I was discussing the imposition of the metric system upon American culture. My main contention that it wasn't the units of measure that the public was opposed to, but the naming of those units. After all, it really doesn't matter how long a country mile is, or how much liquid is contained in a gallon. The real affection of the public mind and heart is in the use of the familiar terms.

And so I suggested to the other person, that if only the proponents of the metric system would be open to calling a liter a quart, a meter a yard and a kilometer a metric mile, all opposition would soon end. That way, all of our collected literature would still have some meaning to future generations as long as they were able to arrange in their mind what the old content once meant. After all, when we read the various biblical measurements, we understand that an epah is a quantity of grain, and a denarius a day's wages! The meaning of the text does not hang upon the particular amount in question. However, as I remember the argument, the metric advocate was aghast at such a common sense approach. Much like the humanists who wish to redefine the calendar by taking the birth of Christ completely out of the accounting, he would not hear of it. And so I became convinced that the metric people really aren't sincere about bringing order to international business, but more concerned with overturning the cultural language and baggage of any nation that clings to something traditional.

Now, what has all of this to do with our contemporary culture and the text set before us? Simply this, we see the confrontation in this text between the Lord of all the earth and the worldly power structure of the Old Covenant Church. They like the contemporary liberal powers hung everything on political expedient and maintaining their claim to power. They did not realize it, but just like the passing administration biblical judgment is clear and concise.

Friday, I noted two items from the news media. The outgoing president has negotiated away any immediate indictment by admitting he was not forthcoming in his testimony in court. For that plea bargained admission, he will not be allowed to practice law in Arkansas for five years. I can certainly agree with the assessment of the independent counsel - it is time to put the whole tawdry mess of the last eight years behind us and look to the future. However, I must add my own and the biblical assessment as well.

The other item in the news is that the lady who taped conversations with the president's paramour was fired from her government job the same day her boss was forgiven for his indiscretions.

"And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Those are the two verses that I couldn't ignore from last week, isn't it interesting that the whole legacy of the passing administration hangs on that biblical balance and by it must the individuals be judged and punished as the Lord of all the earth will allow in His good time. Of course, we could hope and pray that real truthful sorrow for sin might someday be experienced, but for now the public witness gives no evidence that such experiences have happened and the political confrontations will and must continue.

Now let us move on to the balance of our text to see how our Lord Jesus Christ confronted the power block of His culture, His time and place. The account of Mark is simple and straight forward. Earlier in this chapter Jesus had made the triumphal entry to the accolades of the people. Then He had cleansed the Temple precincts and finally announced by miracle and parable the decline and destruction of the Old Covenant order. All of this without the permission or jurisdiction of the chief priests, scribes and elders of the Old Covenant Church. Now some would argue that the proper ecclesiastical authorities ought to have been engaged.

After all, we now live in an enlightened time when talk is cheap and life is dear. And even as the worldly science fiction points the way to discussion, enlightenment and understanding, so ought every solution to political, spiritual and material comforts be negotiated in good faith. Unfortunately the worldly opposition to our Lord and King is just as obstinate and absolute in our time and place as it was in the day of Jesus Christ. Over the years I have had to confront the minions of the opposition in the course of my worldly employment. Discussion and compromise are always held out as the only viable option for the solution of our many problems in educational endeavor. Yet always and finally, discussion is always futile and compromise is always a one way street to enhance the power and authority of those in position.

Some things never ever change in the history of man! Those in power will do almost anything to stay in power. In fact our century more than any other has developed the religiosity of political power to the highest level of perfection possible. And like that power and position of the Old Covenant magnates, the corrupted power brokers would not yield an inch of their possession even to the God of heaven nor Lord of earth. After all, He might call into question every base thought and action done in the name of their true calling - satisfying themselves from the the fat of the land and the wealth of the people.

Jesus had challenged everything near and dear to the religious leaders of His day. Their whole worldly empire built upon the spiritual foundations of Israel was called into question. And so, they began their inquisition of this "prophet" from Nazareth. Yes, they truthfully understood His real claim - a claim they could not spiritually apprise nor materially recognize without sacrificing their own prerogatives. "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority to do these things?" the delegation of leaders demands from Jesus.

I guess, the important question at this late date is - were they really this dumb? Hadn't there been enough evidence collected as to the claims of Christ. Hadn't there been more than enough miracles to substantiate the obvious? Yet even today - the majority of the worldly refuse to accept any miracles as substantive. Much time and effort has been put into liberal scholarship to debunk and delete any miraculous evidence that would weigh unfairly into their discussion of the prophetic work of the mere man Jesus. At least the leaders of the Jewish Church admit the reality of "these things", however much they wished that evidence would disappear. It was just that they did not want to accept the only logical answer to their questioning.

Jesus astutely realizes the malicious intent of their line of questioning. The Scriptures do indeed require multiple witnesses for the assertion of any legal definitions. Without two witnesses no man could be put to death for murder, and by two witnesses alone could any good thing be defined. In other places in the Gospel record, the legalities of this necessity are argued. However, the leaders of the Old Covenant Church really truly do not want the truth revealed. Their intention is to trap Jesus into saying something upon which they can hang a charge of blasphemy and then be allowed to do away with Him and bury their problem.

The attempt to trap Jesus in this text is blunted by the intelligence and forthright confrontation of our Lord. Their clumsy question is parried by a question pregnant with definitive assertions. 'All right', Jesus would say in contemporary English, 'I'll answer your question if you will answer mine.' "The baptism of John - was it from heaven or from men? Answer me." So simple, but so ultimately loaded with pitfalls for the worldly questioners. The prophetic role of John the Baptist was widely recognized. And even if the leaders could not accept him in that role, they dare not disparage the Baptist without undercutting their own position.

"They feared the people", Mark tells us. Oh my, how much mischief has been accomplished in the last eight years because of a constant and ongoing polling of the people. Well did the French philosopher prophecy that "the voice of the people is the voice of God." That popular ideology still challenges the assumptions of those who would rule, especially those who would rule well in our day and time. The only difference between our time and that of Christ, is that at least in His day - the people on this issue of who the Baptist was, were correct. Baser crowds inhabit our Republic, and we should be careful to define our views and beliefs from Scripture instead of any popular understandings.

Over the last twenty-five years I have taught a unit on the Supreme Court. In the context of that unit I would always survey the students on certain ideas of jurisprudence. The issue that I questioned regularly was the viability of natural law and its relation to revealed law. Certainly, my charges were willing to assent to the idea that the majority ruled. And for the first fifteen years or so of my career, the majority did in fact assent that revealed law should apply within the context of constitutionalism. However, about ten years ago, that majority disappeared and in a more politically correct environment I stopped asking that question publicly.

Yet, within Christ's Church we understand that even if the public doesn't agree with the assertion that revealed law from the Creator is the final word on every issue, it is still true. Never, should we underestimate the power of the people to get something wrong. That is why we are a republican government of limitations than a purely democratic system. In fact, in the time of Christ, the very crowds that welcomed Jesus as the Messiah, rejected Him within the week and called for His crucifixion.

For ourselves, for the lost souls who condemned Christ, and for the crowds who turn, turn, turn, the inescapable question is "Who is this man, Jesus?" If He is only a mad man, a rabble rouser as the world and the Jewish leaders of His day imagined, then He can safely be dismissed and ignored. However, if as we see the implications in the text, if John the Baptist was the last prophet, if Jesus was indeed the Messiah to whom the Baptist gave witness, then unlike the Jewish leaders, we must hail Him as God and King.

The Old Covenant Church leaders did not like the obvious answer and so they said, "We do not know" in answer to Christ's question. Their eternal souls hung in the balance and they rejected the Lord of all the earth so that they could hang on to power for another generation. Unless they repented and finally came over to the New Covenant Church (which some few indeed did), they died in their sin and will spend eternity outside of the blessed presence of our own Lord and King.

The answer the leaders would not give to Jesus is the fact that the baptism and ministry of John the Baptist was indeed from heaven and his ministry was to witness to the greater power and glory of Jesus Christ, who did have authority over His church, and to this day does rule over all the earth and will ultimately judge every human under the sun, when He comes again in glory at the last day. Sadly, all of the liberal commentators, scholars and believers in al the earth who decry the Lordship of Christ, the necessity of His death and the atonement for our sins in that death - they stand just as assuredly condemned as those who questioned Jesus in the passage before us.

May we stand apart from the worldly on this issue and recognize Jesus for who He truly is: the God of heaven who laid His glory by, who came down to earth and took on our substance in order that these same religious leaders might be allowed to sacrifice Himself for our sake. To Him we commit our lives, our hopes and fears and all that we are - because of the Divine reality of the Lord's presence in Him. May that commitment be ours today and always. Amen.