Month: June 2026

               Today’s sermon is one of those times when the nemeses of ability and understanding are the bane of a preacher’s diligent desire to exposit scripture. Take just a moment to digest that sentence before I continue. The scriptures tell us to be careful about what we say and to use wisdom when we say it. The warning is that the words we manage are words of life, the souls we affect are eternally destined, and the way we present the word will either commend or condemn us.

               Before beginning our study of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, I was aware of its subject matter and that the first few chapters quickly expose the depth of understanding of God and His Holy Word. Our natural minds are unequipped to handle concepts that oppose our predispositions about God. Our natural opposition to truth never shines as brightly as when we begin discussion of God’s eternal decrees and we face the absolute sovereignty of God. The Confession does not obfuscate by mincing words. The third chapter, Of God’s Decrees, begins boldly with “God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever comes to pass…” This phrase sets the tone for acquiescence to God’s decision processes for every action He takes. It in fact states what the Bible so often affirms, namely nothing is done lately. God is eternal and thus every action in the present is an action determined in eternity. It also establishes the rhetorical answer to Paul’s question in Romans 9:20, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”

               If we say the salvation of any person rests only in a decision of man’s will, we reverse the doctrine of sovereignty. The will is then sovereign and leaves God’s means of bringing glory to himself to a decision of man. Imagine a world that turns on human decisions rather than “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” Will God leave the purpose of the creation in the hands of the created? Paul’s potter and clay example in Romans 9 exposes the absurdity of this conclusion. Paul’s “Nay but, O man,” serves as that doubly emphasized rhetorical question bolstered by an assertive rhetorical answer.

               Our witnessing is weak and helpless and fails miserably if we believe we coldly and flatly present the gospel and there it lays before the open uninfluenced mind to accept or reject by free will. Be sure not to pray for that person, lest God violate him by influencing his corrupt mind, his blinded eyes, his dullness of hearing, his desperately wicked heart, and his death in trespasses and sin. Free will? In what corner does it hide waiting with a shocking, “Yes!” to God? There is not one scripture that remotely suggests the possibility.

               Is this what the natural human heart routinely surrenders to God? No, the sin and corruption of our being do not like God’s sovereignty over all affairs. It resists that the counsel halls of eternity should be determinative. Thus, the person who cries “free will!” amid this breaks the first commandment as soon as he hears the good news. “No other gods before me,” says God. “Yes, except me.”

Pastor V. Mark Smith

               This week I was struggling with my thoughts for a bulletin article while rapidly approaching my own enforced deadline. I was weary after returning from Kentucky and still wrestling with time changes and getting my body back on schedule. Unexpectedly, I had two ideas and now a struggle deciding between the two. When I am up against deadlines like this, I keep going just a little further hoping something will happen during the day that will cause me to pause and think. The thought stopper this week came from an article that appeared from TGC (The Gospel Coalition). I found this article interesting because Bible students have asked about the situation and people wonder about the appropriate answer. The title of the article was, “What Happened on the Threshing floor?” My comments are not their comments, although a brief common introduction is necessary.

               This reference loses otherwise diligent students. It refers to the night Ruth secretly visited Boaz after his hard day’s work, threshing wheat. After his supper and refreshments, he lay down to sleep. At the advice of her mother-in-law, Naomi, Ruth sneaked in, uncovered Boaz’ feet, and lay down with him. The looming question is, “What happened next? What happened on the threshing floor?” Unfortunately, a mind filled with prurient interests wants to believe this was a sexual encounter. This question intrigued me because of an incident about five years ago. I heard a preacher who very mistakenly thinks he is an expository preacher, abuse the Song of Solomon by turning it into an X-rated comedy that defamed the text and turned it into a shameful opportunity to fill the congregation’s mind with the very lascivious thoughts we guard ourselves from thinking as the redeemed people of God.

               What happened on the threshing floor? First, Boaz was not drunk. We get this out of the way as an excuse for a lewd encounter. The actions of these two were symbolic and showed profound respect for God’s law and promises. Lust bombards our society from every angle while our minds will at first thought grasp at the worst to satisfy sinful desires. It is hard for us to imagine men and women privately together without gossip flying everywhere. This is what makes a pastor keep his door open or the blinds fully open when meeting with the opposite sex. It is questionable enough that it is wise to do the same with children as the basis of too many accusations is truth.

               What happened on the threshing floor? Secondly, it was a test of integrity. An Israelite man and a Moabite woman together in nearly every scenario would be an abomination. This one was different because Ruth professed faith in God and followed Naomi in her love of God. By this, God accepted her into the community of Israelites. Boaz’ integrity shows in that he already had feelings for Ruth and yet stopped himself to consider God’s law prohibited him from taking her until a nearer relative rejected the opportunity to redeem her deceased husband’s inheritance. This is the “Levirate law” which unfortunately space does not permit me to explain.

               What happened on the threshing floor? Thirdly, it considered the first steps of courtship only after it ensured the highest degree of morals. I am more than happy to destroy the prurient mind who hopes otherwise.

               I hope I have piqued your interest enough today to read the little book of Ruth. Now that we have cleared up this important detail, you will understand why we needed to address it. The story ends happily with, “So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son.” A genealogy follows and ends with, “and Jesse begat David.” Scandal on the threshing floor would have changed everything.

Pastor V. Mark Smith