Clarence DeLoach, Jr. wrote this article which appeared in the December 15, 1970 edition of the "Bible Herald", published by the Bible Herald Corporation in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
In his introduction of Jesus' ministry, Mark records, "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel.'" (Mark 1:14-15)
Jesus came preaching! What a simple and yet profound statement! As Broadus has observed, "Preaching is the unique characteristic of Christianity." Its survival depends upon the dissemination of truth. Patriarchy was not evangelistic! Neither was Judaism essentially. The work of the prophets was primarily to Judah and Israel. But the commission of the New Covenant is "Go preach!"
Just as the gospels record that "Jesus came preaching," the writer of the Acts states that, "the disciples went everywhere preaching." (Acts 8:4) Preaching is perpetually relevant because it deals with a perpetually relevant message and never changing needs. In this series of articles, we plan to focus attention upon the importance of preaching.
(1) Preaching is God's means of spreading the gospel. Some would like to eliminate preaching and many belittle it. The divine orders however, for saving men, whether traced from effect to cause or cause to effect, involve the preacher and preaching. In Romans 10:13-17, Paul traces salvation from effect to cause. A number of questions are obvious.
a. Who are the saved? Answer: Those who have called!
b. Who are those who have "called on the name" of the Lord? Answer: Those who have believed!
c. How did they come to believe? Answer: They heard the gospel!
d. How did they hear it? Answer: From a preacher!
e. Why is he preaching? Answer: Because he is sent!
The great commission emphasizes the place of preaching in God's plan (Matthew 28:18-20). The divine message has been given to human vessels. God's plan for disseminating the gospel did not call for the employment of angels but of men! Paul expressed this truth to Timothy in these words, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same (the gospel message) commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (Second Timothy 2:2) A perpetual cycle of preaching and teaching is indicated. From Paul to Timothy (inspired men) to faithful men to others.
(2) Preaching is the divine means of producing faith in the hearer. Faith is indispensable for without it we cannot please God. (Hebrews 11:6) Since faith is indispensable, preaching becomes imperative! "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Romans 10:17) This divine revelation, the gospel, has been given authenticated and confirmed by signs, wonders and miracles. (Hebrews 2:1-3) It needs no further confirmation, it simply needs to be proclaimed!
Someone has stated it thus, "The gospel is a FACT - tell it simply. It is a JOYFUL fact - tell it cheerfully. It is an ENTRUSTED fact - tell it faithfully. It is a fact of infinite LOVE - tell it with feeling."
Only gospel preaching will produce faith that pleases God. Sadly, we are living in a time when the "latest" is considered the best. Like the ancient Athenians, some spend their time either telling or hearing something new. (Acts 17:21) There are hundreds of "isms" and "ologies." They come and go. But as far as the gospel is concerned, if it's true it is not new and if it's new it is not true.
(3) Preaching is God's way of reconciling men unto Him. Interestingly, the gospel is called the "word of reconciliation." (Second Corinthians 5:19) It is God's means of making men right with himself. Man, who is described as being dead in sins, needs to be regenerated. The living, incorruptible seed is the means of effecting a "new birth." (First Peter 1:23)
The Word of God is living! It moves, operates and saves. (Hebrews 4:12; James 1:21) It is the living message of the living Christ! The power of preaching consists in the vitality of its message. Liberalism seeks to strip away its vitality, consequently preaching is minimized. The eastern message of the social gospel is a poor substitute for the heavenly message of the gospel of Christ.
Since the Word lives, it can impart live. Jesus said, "The words that I speak, the same are spirit and life." (John 6:63) The Word is able to develop spiritual life in those who have been born again. It is like milk and meat that causes one to grow. (First Peter 2:2; Second Peter 3:18)
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Jesus Christ The Lamb of God
As I mentioned previously, many of these more recent posts are reprints of articles published in brotherhood bulletins and papers from many years ago. They were given to me by my dad and I've put them on here because I feel it's the best way to get these messages to as many people as possible.
The article below appeared in the March 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier" which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson. The copy my dad gave me has a note he wrote which states, "Good sermon thought." Even though this might be considered lengthy by some, I agree that it is a great lesson.
John the Baptizer once introduced Jesus thusly: "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) On the following day, John in company with two of his disciples, saw Jesus walking nearby and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" More than thirty times in the New Testament, Christ is figuratively designated as a Lamb. In a variety of ways the metaphor is quite appropriate to our wonderful Lord.
A SINLESS LAMB - In connection with the selection of a Passover lamb while in Egyptian bondage, Moses instructed: "Your lamb shall be without blemish" (Exodus 12:5). This lamb was of course, symbolic and pointed to the blemishless Christ. As Peter majestically affirms, our redemption results not from the price of material things, "but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ" (First Peter 1:19). The New Testament abounds with allusions to the spotless perfection of the Son of God. Christ Himself could unashamedly claim: "I do always the things that are pleasing to Him (God)" (John 8:29). Inspired New Testament writers plainly affirm of Jesus that "in Him is no sin" (First John 3:5), that He "knew no sin" (Second Corinthians 5:21), indeed, that He "did no sin" (First Peter 2:22). It is interesting to observe the contrast between the character of Christ and that of Christians as evidenced by a comparison of First John 3:9 and First Peter 2:22. In the former verse John says that the child of God "doeth no sin." The verb does not imply that the Christian never sins at all (Cf. First John 1:8), rather the Greek present tense implies that the child of God does not habitually practice sinning as a way of life. However, as Peter declares that the Lord "did no sin", he employs the aorist form of the verb, meaning Christ never committed a single sin! And it is precisely because He was sinless that He could be our sin-bearer; the innocent for the guilty! Praise God for His sinless Lamb!
A SORROWFUL LAMB - Isaiah describes the Lamb of God as "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). Twice the New Testament records Jesus Christ weeping. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. The Greek word for wept (edakrusen - aorist tense) suggests the Lord suddenly burst into tears. Many have sought to speculate as to why our Master silently wept on this occasion. some think it was out of sympathy for His saddened friends. Others think Christ was grieved at the thought of bringing Lazarus back from death to the cares of life again (the Jews did later seek to kill Lazarus [John 12:10]). And still others feel that Jesus was burdened upon reflecting how sin (and through sin, death [Romans 5:12]) could so crush the human being. All of these thoughts may be involved.
Again, in Luke 19:41 it is stated that as Jesus drew near Jerusalem "He saw the city and wept over it." Unlike the former instance, the term for wept here is eklausen which signifies to weep aloud. Here the Lord lamented for His own people and for the horrible destruction which was to come upon them because of their rejection of Him. Oh how the boundless love of Christ is revealed by His tears!
A SUFFERING LAMB - Our Lord drank deeply of the dregs of suffering. His physical suffering was great. the Psalmist graphically described it: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and Thou hast brought me into the dust of death" (Psalm 22:14-15). But the Savior suffered mentally as well. It pained Him to know that men would so despise Him and thus reproach His Heavenly Father. He exclaimed: "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men and despised of all the people" (Psalm 22:6). Note how the prophets considered the rejection of Christ to be an insult to God Himself (Zechariah 11:13). And great was the suffering of Christ in contemplation of the cross. How His holy soul recoiled at the prospect of having to bear the penalty of the world's sin, and thus, for a while be separated from God (Matthew 26:39f; 27:46).
A SILENT LAMB - Isaiah prophesies of Christ: "He was oppressed, yet when He was afflicted He opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7). The Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) did not come as a banner waving, loud mouthed rebel rouser. It was foretold of Him: "He will not cry, nor lift up His voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street" (Isaiah 42:2). He never taught His disciples to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression. When Jesus was personally abused he did not retaliate, and in this He is our noble example (First Peter 2:21-22).
A SACRIFICED LAMB - Paul declares of the Savior: "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ" (First Corinthians 5:7). Concerning the death of Christ, the New Testament affirms the following elements: (a) the fact of it; (b) the manner of it; (c) the purpose of it; (d) the extent of it; and (e) the result of it. Consider these points for a moment. That a man named Jesus actually lived and died in 1st century Palestine the New Testament records, the Jewish Talmud admits and secular history verifies. Christ's death was by crucifixion (Psalm 22:16) which thus involved the shedding of His blood which contained His life (Cf. Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 26:28; Leviticus 17:11). he exchanged His life for ours! Christ died in order to atone for human transgression. it is interesting to observe how the New Testament writers stress the substitutionary nature of the Lamb's death by the use of various prepositions. Jesus gave His life a ransom for (anti) many (Matthew 20:28). he poured out His blood for (peri) many for (eis) remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). He became a curse for (huper) us (Galatians 3:13). Also the blessed Savior delivers us out of (ek) this evil world (Galatians 1:4) and continues to cleanse us from (apo) all sin as we walk in the light (First John 1:7). The extent of Christ's death was universal (Titus 2:11), i.e., the benefits of His death are available to all, yet only those who obey Him are recipients of such (Hebrews 5:9). Finally, the result of Jesus' death is that we might ultimately be glorified with Him (Romans 8:16).
A SUPREME LAMB - The most predominate usage of the title "Lamb" for the Son of God is found in the Book of Revelation. Actually, the theme of that book is the victory and supremacy of the Lamb. In Revelation 4, John the apostle is permitted to look into Heaven to the very throne of God. Around the throne worshipping the Almighty were the twenty four elders and the four living creatures. As John continued to observe, he saw a Lamb standing as though it had been slain, and heavenly beings began to sing praise unto the Lamb. With a great voice ten thousand times ten thousand exclaimed: "Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Yes, Christ IS worthy. He died, but now He is alive for evermore and He has the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:7). And when all of His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is death (First Corinthians 15:26), He will deliver the kingdom to His Father. This is the LAMB OF GOD!
The article below appeared in the March 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier" which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson. The copy my dad gave me has a note he wrote which states, "Good sermon thought." Even though this might be considered lengthy by some, I agree that it is a great lesson.
John the Baptizer once introduced Jesus thusly: "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) On the following day, John in company with two of his disciples, saw Jesus walking nearby and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" More than thirty times in the New Testament, Christ is figuratively designated as a Lamb. In a variety of ways the metaphor is quite appropriate to our wonderful Lord.
A SINLESS LAMB - In connection with the selection of a Passover lamb while in Egyptian bondage, Moses instructed: "Your lamb shall be without blemish" (Exodus 12:5). This lamb was of course, symbolic and pointed to the blemishless Christ. As Peter majestically affirms, our redemption results not from the price of material things, "but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ" (First Peter 1:19). The New Testament abounds with allusions to the spotless perfection of the Son of God. Christ Himself could unashamedly claim: "I do always the things that are pleasing to Him (God)" (John 8:29). Inspired New Testament writers plainly affirm of Jesus that "in Him is no sin" (First John 3:5), that He "knew no sin" (Second Corinthians 5:21), indeed, that He "did no sin" (First Peter 2:22). It is interesting to observe the contrast between the character of Christ and that of Christians as evidenced by a comparison of First John 3:9 and First Peter 2:22. In the former verse John says that the child of God "doeth no sin." The verb does not imply that the Christian never sins at all (Cf. First John 1:8), rather the Greek present tense implies that the child of God does not habitually practice sinning as a way of life. However, as Peter declares that the Lord "did no sin", he employs the aorist form of the verb, meaning Christ never committed a single sin! And it is precisely because He was sinless that He could be our sin-bearer; the innocent for the guilty! Praise God for His sinless Lamb!
A SORROWFUL LAMB - Isaiah describes the Lamb of God as "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). Twice the New Testament records Jesus Christ weeping. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. The Greek word for wept (edakrusen - aorist tense) suggests the Lord suddenly burst into tears. Many have sought to speculate as to why our Master silently wept on this occasion. some think it was out of sympathy for His saddened friends. Others think Christ was grieved at the thought of bringing Lazarus back from death to the cares of life again (the Jews did later seek to kill Lazarus [John 12:10]). And still others feel that Jesus was burdened upon reflecting how sin (and through sin, death [Romans 5:12]) could so crush the human being. All of these thoughts may be involved.
Again, in Luke 19:41 it is stated that as Jesus drew near Jerusalem "He saw the city and wept over it." Unlike the former instance, the term for wept here is eklausen which signifies to weep aloud. Here the Lord lamented for His own people and for the horrible destruction which was to come upon them because of their rejection of Him. Oh how the boundless love of Christ is revealed by His tears!
A SUFFERING LAMB - Our Lord drank deeply of the dregs of suffering. His physical suffering was great. the Psalmist graphically described it: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and Thou hast brought me into the dust of death" (Psalm 22:14-15). But the Savior suffered mentally as well. It pained Him to know that men would so despise Him and thus reproach His Heavenly Father. He exclaimed: "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men and despised of all the people" (Psalm 22:6). Note how the prophets considered the rejection of Christ to be an insult to God Himself (Zechariah 11:13). And great was the suffering of Christ in contemplation of the cross. How His holy soul recoiled at the prospect of having to bear the penalty of the world's sin, and thus, for a while be separated from God (Matthew 26:39f; 27:46).
A SILENT LAMB - Isaiah prophesies of Christ: "He was oppressed, yet when He was afflicted He opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7). The Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) did not come as a banner waving, loud mouthed rebel rouser. It was foretold of Him: "He will not cry, nor lift up His voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street" (Isaiah 42:2). He never taught His disciples to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression. When Jesus was personally abused he did not retaliate, and in this He is our noble example (First Peter 2:21-22).
A SACRIFICED LAMB - Paul declares of the Savior: "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ" (First Corinthians 5:7). Concerning the death of Christ, the New Testament affirms the following elements: (a) the fact of it; (b) the manner of it; (c) the purpose of it; (d) the extent of it; and (e) the result of it. Consider these points for a moment. That a man named Jesus actually lived and died in 1st century Palestine the New Testament records, the Jewish Talmud admits and secular history verifies. Christ's death was by crucifixion (Psalm 22:16) which thus involved the shedding of His blood which contained His life (Cf. Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 26:28; Leviticus 17:11). he exchanged His life for ours! Christ died in order to atone for human transgression. it is interesting to observe how the New Testament writers stress the substitutionary nature of the Lamb's death by the use of various prepositions. Jesus gave His life a ransom for (anti) many (Matthew 20:28). he poured out His blood for (peri) many for (eis) remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). He became a curse for (huper) us (Galatians 3:13). Also the blessed Savior delivers us out of (ek) this evil world (Galatians 1:4) and continues to cleanse us from (apo) all sin as we walk in the light (First John 1:7). The extent of Christ's death was universal (Titus 2:11), i.e., the benefits of His death are available to all, yet only those who obey Him are recipients of such (Hebrews 5:9). Finally, the result of Jesus' death is that we might ultimately be glorified with Him (Romans 8:16).
A SUPREME LAMB - The most predominate usage of the title "Lamb" for the Son of God is found in the Book of Revelation. Actually, the theme of that book is the victory and supremacy of the Lamb. In Revelation 4, John the apostle is permitted to look into Heaven to the very throne of God. Around the throne worshipping the Almighty were the twenty four elders and the four living creatures. As John continued to observe, he saw a Lamb standing as though it had been slain, and heavenly beings began to sing praise unto the Lamb. With a great voice ten thousand times ten thousand exclaimed: "Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Yes, Christ IS worthy. He died, but now He is alive for evermore and He has the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:7). And when all of His enemies have been destroyed, the last of which is death (First Corinthians 15:26), He will deliver the kingdom to His Father. This is the LAMB OF GOD!
Weekly Communion
I don't think we can ever read enough good material concerning the Lord's Supper. The following appeared in the March 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson.
One of the distinctive features of the church of Jesus Christ is the practice of observing the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. Quite often our religious neighbors cannot understand our strictness in this regard; they feel that the time of such participation is relatively inconsequential and thus an optional matter. What does the New Testament teach?
Jesus instituted the Lord's supper on the night prior to his death (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20). In connection therewith, he said, "This do in remembrance of Me." Later, Paul wrote, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come" (First Corinthians 11:26). But is there a specified time for eating the communion supper? It is true that Christ Himself, so far as the New Testament record goes, did not specify a time; but we must remember two things. First, not everything that Jesus taught is recorded in the Gospels (Cf. Acts 20:35). Also, Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles (and through them, the entire church) into truth which He personally did not commit to them (John 16:13). So, it is not merely a matter of what the Lord Himself taught, but also what was the practice of the early church under the leadership of inspired men? An understanding of this is of utmost importance.
The first century church observed the Lord's supper with a consistent frequency. Of those early disciples it is said: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). the phrase "the breaking of bread" is a reference to the communion supper. the definite article "the" specifies a particular even, in contrast for example, to a common, daily meal as mentioned in verse 46, "...breaking bread at home, they took their food..." The verb "continued steadfastly" (vs. 42) is in the Greek imperfect tense, suggesting their customary or habitual practice of eating the Lord's supper. Still however, the time is not stated.
Later, Luke writes: "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread..." (Acts 20:7). Here we do have a time specified. It is upon the first day of the week, Sunday. But why this day? Obviously because it's the Lord's resurrection day! By observing the supper on Sunday, Christ's death and resurrection are intimately connected. Now here is a very significant question: why commemorate the Savior's resurrection each Sunday (by assembling on that day) if one doesn't also remember His death each Lord's day (by partaking of the supper)? For the simple truth is, there would have been on resurrection had the Son of God not died in the first place!
But notice some other important points in this verse. (a) The disciples "were gathered together." The verb is in the passive voice, indicating that the assembly was not of their own initiative; it was a divine appointment! (b) The infinitive phrase "to break bread" (the Greek may be rendered literally, "for the breaking of bread") denotes the primary purpose for which the Christians were assembled. Thus, the purpose of that meeting on the first day of the week was to observe the Lord's supper. Now if we can learn the frequency of their Sunday meetings, we will know how often, under divine guidance, the disciples remembered the Lord's death in the supper. The answer is supplied in First Corinthians 16:2 where Paul admonishes the saints to lay by in store "on the first day of every week." (NASV) Though the King James Version omits the word "every", it is in the Greek text. This demonstrates that the early Christians met each Sunday. Since the purpose of that assembly was "to break bread" it conclusively follows that they observed the Lord's supper each Lord's day. This argument is simply unanswerable, and those who wish to be apostolic in practice will follow the divinely led example of the first century church.
One of the distinctive features of the church of Jesus Christ is the practice of observing the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. Quite often our religious neighbors cannot understand our strictness in this regard; they feel that the time of such participation is relatively inconsequential and thus an optional matter. What does the New Testament teach?
Jesus instituted the Lord's supper on the night prior to his death (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20). In connection therewith, he said, "This do in remembrance of Me." Later, Paul wrote, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come" (First Corinthians 11:26). But is there a specified time for eating the communion supper? It is true that Christ Himself, so far as the New Testament record goes, did not specify a time; but we must remember two things. First, not everything that Jesus taught is recorded in the Gospels (Cf. Acts 20:35). Also, Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles (and through them, the entire church) into truth which He personally did not commit to them (John 16:13). So, it is not merely a matter of what the Lord Himself taught, but also what was the practice of the early church under the leadership of inspired men? An understanding of this is of utmost importance.
The first century church observed the Lord's supper with a consistent frequency. Of those early disciples it is said: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). the phrase "the breaking of bread" is a reference to the communion supper. the definite article "the" specifies a particular even, in contrast for example, to a common, daily meal as mentioned in verse 46, "...breaking bread at home, they took their food..." The verb "continued steadfastly" (vs. 42) is in the Greek imperfect tense, suggesting their customary or habitual practice of eating the Lord's supper. Still however, the time is not stated.
Later, Luke writes: "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread..." (Acts 20:7). Here we do have a time specified. It is upon the first day of the week, Sunday. But why this day? Obviously because it's the Lord's resurrection day! By observing the supper on Sunday, Christ's death and resurrection are intimately connected. Now here is a very significant question: why commemorate the Savior's resurrection each Sunday (by assembling on that day) if one doesn't also remember His death each Lord's day (by partaking of the supper)? For the simple truth is, there would have been on resurrection had the Son of God not died in the first place!
But notice some other important points in this verse. (a) The disciples "were gathered together." The verb is in the passive voice, indicating that the assembly was not of their own initiative; it was a divine appointment! (b) The infinitive phrase "to break bread" (the Greek may be rendered literally, "for the breaking of bread") denotes the primary purpose for which the Christians were assembled. Thus, the purpose of that meeting on the first day of the week was to observe the Lord's supper. Now if we can learn the frequency of their Sunday meetings, we will know how often, under divine guidance, the disciples remembered the Lord's death in the supper. The answer is supplied in First Corinthians 16:2 where Paul admonishes the saints to lay by in store "on the first day of every week." (NASV) Though the King James Version omits the word "every", it is in the Greek text. This demonstrates that the early Christians met each Sunday. Since the purpose of that assembly was "to break bread" it conclusively follows that they observed the Lord's supper each Lord's day. This argument is simply unanswerable, and those who wish to be apostolic in practice will follow the divinely led example of the first century church.
Thanksgiving
Today we celebrated Thanksgiving. For me personally, it was a wonderful day. I was able to spend it with my wife, daughters and part of our extended family. Throughout the day I found myself thinking both of things I was thankful for and of Thanksgivings from my past. As the day comes to an end, I am thankful for this day and everything that was a part of it as well.
One thing I've noticed recently is the number of people who no longer call this day Thanksgiving. For many it's become "Turkey Day." Perhaps some say that thinking their being funny. This year it seems the number of people of people using this phrase has increased greatly from what I remember in the past. I hope we never forget the focus of this day.
I realize of course that as Christians, everyday should be a day of thanksgiving. We should constantly remember our position as lost sinners and be thankful for the forgiving love of our Father in Heaven. When we pray we should want to thank Him for all the countless blessings He bestows upon us. Even though we live in a world that seems to become more sinful by the day, I hope we don't fall into disrespecting the one day that even the secular world considers to be a day of thanksgiving.
There are so many verses that deal with and teach about thankfulness which of course is our gratitude for our blessings. Second Thessalonians 2:13 reminds us that it is our duty to be thankful. Our gratitude should be never ending (Ephesians 1:16). Thanksgiving is ultimately the theme of Heaven as we read in Revelation 7:12.
We are also reminded in the Scriptures of so many things that we should express our thanks for. Among them are food (John 6:11,23), answered prayers (John 11:41), our salvation (Second Corinthians 9:15) our ultimate victory over death (First Corinthians 15:57) our changed lives (First Thessalonians 2:13) along with so many other examples.
So even though this day has ended, I hope in the future that we don't fall into such silliness as making light of a day that was set aside by a non-religious institution as a day of thanksgiving. It should be a day that we as thankful Christians embrace, emphasize and make the most of.
One thing I've noticed recently is the number of people who no longer call this day Thanksgiving. For many it's become "Turkey Day." Perhaps some say that thinking their being funny. This year it seems the number of people of people using this phrase has increased greatly from what I remember in the past. I hope we never forget the focus of this day.
I realize of course that as Christians, everyday should be a day of thanksgiving. We should constantly remember our position as lost sinners and be thankful for the forgiving love of our Father in Heaven. When we pray we should want to thank Him for all the countless blessings He bestows upon us. Even though we live in a world that seems to become more sinful by the day, I hope we don't fall into disrespecting the one day that even the secular world considers to be a day of thanksgiving.
There are so many verses that deal with and teach about thankfulness which of course is our gratitude for our blessings. Second Thessalonians 2:13 reminds us that it is our duty to be thankful. Our gratitude should be never ending (Ephesians 1:16). Thanksgiving is ultimately the theme of Heaven as we read in Revelation 7:12.
We are also reminded in the Scriptures of so many things that we should express our thanks for. Among them are food (John 6:11,23), answered prayers (John 11:41), our salvation (Second Corinthians 9:15) our ultimate victory over death (First Corinthians 15:57) our changed lives (First Thessalonians 2:13) along with so many other examples.
So even though this day has ended, I hope in the future that we don't fall into such silliness as making light of a day that was set aside by a non-religious institution as a day of thanksgiving. It should be a day that we as thankful Christians embrace, emphasize and make the most of.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Why God Should Be Served
This appeared in the January 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier", edited by Wayne Jackson and published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
We are living in times when it is becoming increasingly fashionable to be anti-religious. People are raising the questions: Is religion really valid? If there is a God, just why should I serve Him? One young atheistic college student recently said: "The so-called God of the Bible must be on a super ego trip if He expects men to worship only Him." Are there valid reasons for committing one's life to Jehovah? Tragically, far too few Christians are able to give an inquiring world satisfactory answers to this urgent query.
WHO IS GOD? - God is the supreme Spirit of the universe. (John 4:24; First Timothy 6:15-16) He is eternal (Psalm 90:2), all powerful (Genesis 17:1) and infinitely wise (Romans 11:33-35). Jehovah is holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous and just (Psalm 89:14), rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4) and loving (First John 4:8). Thus, on the basis of His nature, our God is "worthy to be praised (Psalm 18:3). This is one of the great lessons of the Book of Job. Satan charged that God is not worthy of man's praise separate from the physical blessings He bestows. Accordingly, as a test case Job of Uz was greatly afflicted. He was deprived of prosperity, health and friendship. Yet through all of this, he continued to serve his Creator.
REASONS FOR SERVING GOD - First of all, it needs to be made clear that Jehovah does not covet our service from selfish motives. God, being infinite in all His attributes is not personally enhanced by human worship. Contrary to the facts, it is commonly held that the more we worship God, the greater He is glorified and thus, as stated above, the Lord urges men to serve Him because of a "super ego." How wonderfully the Scriptures refute this ignorant charge. Just prior to His death, Jesus prayed: "And now, Father, glorify me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Had Jehovah's glory been INCREASING by virtue of human service across the foregoing centuries, Christ would hardly have prayed to simply share again the glory which was characteristic of them prior to creation! Because God is love (First John 4:8) and He longs for man's ultimate happiness, He urges the human race to truly serve Him. This is what man was designed to do. (See Isaiah 43:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:13.) And no person will ever know genuine contentment apart from obedience to Almighty God.
Secondly, God is worthy of our service because He is the Creator and we are His creatures. Spiritually, we are created in God's own image (Genesis 1:26); physically we are descended from Adam and Eve. Thus, the Psalmist humbles us by emphasizing that it is God "that hath made us, and not we ourselves" (Psalm 100:3). It is in order to escape the natural responsibility necessitated by the creature-Creator relationship that men have resorted to the absurd theory of evolution. God, as the Potter, has "a right over the clay" (Romans 9:21) and all of the foolish denials of men to the contrary will not change that fact!
Thirdly, men ought to submit to God because of the condition they are in. All responsible persons are sinners (First John 1:10; Romans 3:23). No, we were not born evil, but in our youth (Genesis 8:21) we yield to the weakness of the flesh and thus, relatively early in life we "go astray" from God (Psalm 58:3). The corruption of mankind appears to have become increasingly vile (Second Timothy 3:13). As we surrender ourselves to the habitual commission of sin, we become slaves thereto (John 8:34) and thus, it ought to be very obvious that if we are to escape this miserable servitude, it will be by virtue of our contact with the Holy God who is able to free us from sin (Romans 6:17-18) that we might become "partakers of the divine nature" (Second Peter 1:4).
Fourthly, men ought to serve God for the sheer pleasure of it. The devil has sown a deceitful tale when he suggests that the Christian life is all pain and woe. It is true, of course that there are trials in living for Christ (Second Timothy 3:12) but there are rewards to be claimed here and now, that are rich indeed. Our Savior promised: "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5). And Paul spoke of the "peace of God, which passeth all understanding" (Philippians 4:7) of which the world knows nothing. Oh, to be certain there is some pleasure in sin but such pleasure is only "for a season" (Hebrews 11:25). In the final analysis, the "way of the transgressor is hard" (Proverbs 13:15).
Fifthly, it pays to obey God because all accounts are not settled in this life. The inspired writer of Psalms was deeply perplexed when he observed "the prosperity of the wicked" (Psalm 73:3) even to the point of wondering if perhaps his religion was in vain (vs. 13). But he went into the "sanctuary of God" (the source of real truth as opposed to human wisdom) and the "latter end" of the wicked was revealed to him (vs. 17). Why can't men see that there is an eternity ahead through which their immortal spirits will live? Jesus raised the question: "For what shall a man profit if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26) The Lord here drives home the point that if one had a deed to this entire earth (how vastly rich!) and yet lost his SOUL, he would profit absolutely nothing. Think about it. It DOES pay to serve God; and dreadful will the consequences be for those who do not!
We are living in times when it is becoming increasingly fashionable to be anti-religious. People are raising the questions: Is religion really valid? If there is a God, just why should I serve Him? One young atheistic college student recently said: "The so-called God of the Bible must be on a super ego trip if He expects men to worship only Him." Are there valid reasons for committing one's life to Jehovah? Tragically, far too few Christians are able to give an inquiring world satisfactory answers to this urgent query.
WHO IS GOD? - God is the supreme Spirit of the universe. (John 4:24; First Timothy 6:15-16) He is eternal (Psalm 90:2), all powerful (Genesis 17:1) and infinitely wise (Romans 11:33-35). Jehovah is holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous and just (Psalm 89:14), rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4) and loving (First John 4:8). Thus, on the basis of His nature, our God is "worthy to be praised (Psalm 18:3). This is one of the great lessons of the Book of Job. Satan charged that God is not worthy of man's praise separate from the physical blessings He bestows. Accordingly, as a test case Job of Uz was greatly afflicted. He was deprived of prosperity, health and friendship. Yet through all of this, he continued to serve his Creator.
REASONS FOR SERVING GOD - First of all, it needs to be made clear that Jehovah does not covet our service from selfish motives. God, being infinite in all His attributes is not personally enhanced by human worship. Contrary to the facts, it is commonly held that the more we worship God, the greater He is glorified and thus, as stated above, the Lord urges men to serve Him because of a "super ego." How wonderfully the Scriptures refute this ignorant charge. Just prior to His death, Jesus prayed: "And now, Father, glorify me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Had Jehovah's glory been INCREASING by virtue of human service across the foregoing centuries, Christ would hardly have prayed to simply share again the glory which was characteristic of them prior to creation! Because God is love (First John 4:8) and He longs for man's ultimate happiness, He urges the human race to truly serve Him. This is what man was designed to do. (See Isaiah 43:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:13.) And no person will ever know genuine contentment apart from obedience to Almighty God.
Secondly, God is worthy of our service because He is the Creator and we are His creatures. Spiritually, we are created in God's own image (Genesis 1:26); physically we are descended from Adam and Eve. Thus, the Psalmist humbles us by emphasizing that it is God "that hath made us, and not we ourselves" (Psalm 100:3). It is in order to escape the natural responsibility necessitated by the creature-Creator relationship that men have resorted to the absurd theory of evolution. God, as the Potter, has "a right over the clay" (Romans 9:21) and all of the foolish denials of men to the contrary will not change that fact!
Thirdly, men ought to submit to God because of the condition they are in. All responsible persons are sinners (First John 1:10; Romans 3:23). No, we were not born evil, but in our youth (Genesis 8:21) we yield to the weakness of the flesh and thus, relatively early in life we "go astray" from God (Psalm 58:3). The corruption of mankind appears to have become increasingly vile (Second Timothy 3:13). As we surrender ourselves to the habitual commission of sin, we become slaves thereto (John 8:34) and thus, it ought to be very obvious that if we are to escape this miserable servitude, it will be by virtue of our contact with the Holy God who is able to free us from sin (Romans 6:17-18) that we might become "partakers of the divine nature" (Second Peter 1:4).
Fourthly, men ought to serve God for the sheer pleasure of it. The devil has sown a deceitful tale when he suggests that the Christian life is all pain and woe. It is true, of course that there are trials in living for Christ (Second Timothy 3:12) but there are rewards to be claimed here and now, that are rich indeed. Our Savior promised: "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5). And Paul spoke of the "peace of God, which passeth all understanding" (Philippians 4:7) of which the world knows nothing. Oh, to be certain there is some pleasure in sin but such pleasure is only "for a season" (Hebrews 11:25). In the final analysis, the "way of the transgressor is hard" (Proverbs 13:15).
Fifthly, it pays to obey God because all accounts are not settled in this life. The inspired writer of Psalms was deeply perplexed when he observed "the prosperity of the wicked" (Psalm 73:3) even to the point of wondering if perhaps his religion was in vain (vs. 13). But he went into the "sanctuary of God" (the source of real truth as opposed to human wisdom) and the "latter end" of the wicked was revealed to him (vs. 17). Why can't men see that there is an eternity ahead through which their immortal spirits will live? Jesus raised the question: "For what shall a man profit if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26) The Lord here drives home the point that if one had a deed to this entire earth (how vastly rich!) and yet lost his SOUL, he would profit absolutely nothing. Think about it. It DOES pay to serve God; and dreadful will the consequences be for those who do not!
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Biblical Faith
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the January 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
There is considerable disagreement in the religious world as to what constitutes Biblical faith. Some have defined the term as a combination of belief in historical facts about Christ, along with a willingness to trust Him as Savior. This is the basis of those who preach the theory of salvation by FAITH ALONE. Let us honestly examine the matter.
I. The verb "believe" in the Greek New Testament is pisteuo. In their Greek Lexicon, noted scholars Liddell and Scott show that the word pisteuo may also mean "to comply." They further state that pisteuo is the opposite of apisteuo, which may mean "to be disobedient...refuse to comply." Cremer (Biblico - Theological Lexicon) says that "faith" (pistis) both in the Old and New Testaments "is a bearing towards God and His revelation which recognizes and confides in Him and in it, which not only acknowledges and holds to His word as true, but practically applies and appropriates it." W.E. Vine acknowledges that pistis involves "a personal surrender" to Christ. And lexicographer J.H. Thayer says that pisteuo is "used especially of the faith by which a man embraces Jesus, i.e. a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah - the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ." Specific contexts will of course, also determine New Testament usages of the word.
II. That acceptable faith requires ACTION in addition to trusting the historical Christ, the following points will abundantly prove.
(1) When the Lord observed the action of the four who brought the palsied man, Mark declares that Jesus saw "their faith" (Mark 2:5) and with this concept agree the words of James when he challenges "show me thy faith apart from works" (James 2:18).
(2) Belief and disobedience are set in vivid contrast in the Scriptures. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). Similarly, those Israelites "that were disobedient" were condemned "because of unbelief" (Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:3,6).
(3) While John 3:16 promises eternal life to him that "believeth", Hebrews 5:9 attributes eternal salvation to such as "obey" thus demonstrating that the two are not mutually exclusive, rather saving faith involves obedience!
(4) Paul, citing Genesis 15:6, argues that Abraham was accounted righteous because he "believed God" (Romans 4:3). Note: when Paul discounts "works" in connection with Abraham's justification, he does not refer to works of divine obedience but to works of human effort whereby he might "glory." James, also citing Genesis 15:6, shows that Jehovah's promise concerning Abraham's accounted righteousness was not "fulfilled" until the patriarch's faith was consummated by works (obedience) in offering Isaac (James 2:21).
(5) That mere mental reception of Christ as the Son of God is not enough to constitute one a child of God is clearly evidenced by John 1:12 where those who "believe on His name" are said to "have the right TO BECOME children of God."
(6) The New Testament uses the word "faith" as a synecdoche (a part put for the whole) to denote the sum total of gospel obedience in becoming a Christian. For example, Paul says: "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God..." (Romans 5:1). That this means more than mere mental faith is proved by Paul's own conversion. He believed in Jesus' Lordship on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:10) but he had no "peace" for three days subsequent thereto; until he was baptized (Acts 22:16; 9:18-19). Repentance results in life (Acts 11:18) but not repentance alone. Baptism saves (First Peter 3:21) but not baptism alone. Availing faith (Galatians 5:6) therefore, is that which accepts the Biblical facts regarding the Christ, trusts the Savior with singleness of heart, turns from evil with godly sorrow and acknowledges the Lord's death by being immersed in water to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). With no less, can you become a Christian. Please, consider this.
There is considerable disagreement in the religious world as to what constitutes Biblical faith. Some have defined the term as a combination of belief in historical facts about Christ, along with a willingness to trust Him as Savior. This is the basis of those who preach the theory of salvation by FAITH ALONE. Let us honestly examine the matter.
I. The verb "believe" in the Greek New Testament is pisteuo. In their Greek Lexicon, noted scholars Liddell and Scott show that the word pisteuo may also mean "to comply." They further state that pisteuo is the opposite of apisteuo, which may mean "to be disobedient...refuse to comply." Cremer (Biblico - Theological Lexicon) says that "faith" (pistis) both in the Old and New Testaments "is a bearing towards God and His revelation which recognizes and confides in Him and in it, which not only acknowledges and holds to His word as true, but practically applies and appropriates it." W.E. Vine acknowledges that pistis involves "a personal surrender" to Christ. And lexicographer J.H. Thayer says that pisteuo is "used especially of the faith by which a man embraces Jesus, i.e. a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah - the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ." Specific contexts will of course, also determine New Testament usages of the word.
II. That acceptable faith requires ACTION in addition to trusting the historical Christ, the following points will abundantly prove.
(1) When the Lord observed the action of the four who brought the palsied man, Mark declares that Jesus saw "their faith" (Mark 2:5) and with this concept agree the words of James when he challenges "show me thy faith apart from works" (James 2:18).
(2) Belief and disobedience are set in vivid contrast in the Scriptures. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). Similarly, those Israelites "that were disobedient" were condemned "because of unbelief" (Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:3,6).
(3) While John 3:16 promises eternal life to him that "believeth", Hebrews 5:9 attributes eternal salvation to such as "obey" thus demonstrating that the two are not mutually exclusive, rather saving faith involves obedience!
(4) Paul, citing Genesis 15:6, argues that Abraham was accounted righteous because he "believed God" (Romans 4:3). Note: when Paul discounts "works" in connection with Abraham's justification, he does not refer to works of divine obedience but to works of human effort whereby he might "glory." James, also citing Genesis 15:6, shows that Jehovah's promise concerning Abraham's accounted righteousness was not "fulfilled" until the patriarch's faith was consummated by works (obedience) in offering Isaac (James 2:21).
(5) That mere mental reception of Christ as the Son of God is not enough to constitute one a child of God is clearly evidenced by John 1:12 where those who "believe on His name" are said to "have the right TO BECOME children of God."
(6) The New Testament uses the word "faith" as a synecdoche (a part put for the whole) to denote the sum total of gospel obedience in becoming a Christian. For example, Paul says: "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God..." (Romans 5:1). That this means more than mere mental faith is proved by Paul's own conversion. He believed in Jesus' Lordship on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:10) but he had no "peace" for three days subsequent thereto; until he was baptized (Acts 22:16; 9:18-19). Repentance results in life (Acts 11:18) but not repentance alone. Baptism saves (First Peter 3:21) but not baptism alone. Availing faith (Galatians 5:6) therefore, is that which accepts the Biblical facts regarding the Christ, trusts the Savior with singleness of heart, turns from evil with godly sorrow and acknowledges the Lord's death by being immersed in water to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). With no less, can you become a Christian. Please, consider this.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Leaven of Liberalism
Johnny Ramsey wrote this piece which appeared in the December 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Like so many of the articles I've reprinted onto this forum, I'm struck how timeless the message is.
In an age when preachers are trying to be sensational, instead of spiritual; shocking instead of scriptural; cute rather than correct; clever instead of clear; different rather than doctrinal; and unusual in the place of unerring; we truly need to return to the basics of fundamental soundness in the gospel! A double portion of Joshua 1:7 and Second Timothy 2:15 would cause us to hold a straight course in the Truth, which alone can make us free from the paralysis of liberalism.
Any honest, careful student of church history knows we are living again the scenes of apostasy that shattered the restoration movement of the nineteenth century. Attitudes, and probably motives, are virtually parallel to the sad saga of digression that shattered the work of great servants of the Lord a century or more ago. The powerful emphasis of "What does the Bible say" is once again being replaced by "Is this acceptable to the people 'round about us?" One can detect an almost worshipful atmosphere at the shrine of higher education on the part of brethren today. And any student of history can tell you the end results of that arrangement! Even among those who must know better comes an appeal for cheap grace, and not the deeply based teaching on the commands of Christ. It would appear that some are wilfully ignorant (Second Peter 3:5) as they "wrest the Scriptures" and go about "seeking their own righteousness" (Romans 10:3; Second Peter 3:15-16). While they so often speak of liberty and freedom in Christ, they and their devotees become the abject slaves of error (Second Peter 2:17-22).
In the evangelistic epistles of Timothy and Titus, we are often exhorted to use healthy words. In First Corinthians 1:18-25 and Colossians 2:8-10, we are admonished to shun human philosophy, traditions of men and false pride, as we cling more closely to Christ and the pure gospel message. Liberalism is actually anything that diverts our full allegiance from the simple message of our Lord. We must ever go back to the original source (Luke 8:11; Romans 1:16; First Corinthians 2:1-5; John 8:31-32) and not to our own guidelines, projects or promotional schemes. We do not have to be true to Campbell, Lipscomb or McGarvey; but we must loyally follow Christ (First Corinthians 11:1).
Today the brotherhood is plagued by liberal writers, editors and papers who have abandoned sound doctrine because "they received not the love of the truth" (Second Thessalonians 2:10). We are reminded of Romans 3:18: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Several of their articles even speak out in favor of evolution, denominationalism and situation ethics. This "anything goes" is really in fact "everything goes." But that's not what Romans 12:9 and First Thessalonians 5:21 tell us! We must make a distinction between truth and error (Hebrews 5:12-14).
What has caused this rash of loose thinking? Why have so many brethren become so soft on error? When did this "Jesus minus absolute authority" take hold on the minds of those who once gladly affirmed the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible (Matthew 28:18; Second Peter 1:21)? Have we raised a generation of young people on rallies, camps, retreats, shallow preaching and super-emotionalism and then wondered why they are not strong for the Lord and the power of His might (Ephesians 6:10-17)?
We even have brethren today who misuse Mark 9:38-40 (as sectarians have always done) to try to uphold religious error and the softness toward those in error. A careful reading of the passage lends no assistance to folk who wish to be rewarded by Christ, but who will not walk with Him over the rugged terrain of obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9). But the very fact that some members of the church cite this passage proves the point that liberalism is a growing problem in the church!
"Does it glorify God and His Word" should be our deepest concern as we view any teaching or emphasis in our midst today. Will it make the church stronger in the Lord? Will this take us back to New Testament teaching? Can we truly mature as children of God if we push this thrust or idea? These are proper questions as we live in the midst of weak, insipid, anti-scriptural ideas and notions.
we dare not allow ourselves to be spiritually blackmailed by those who have a project, program or plan of their own invention and who demand that we financially back them or be labeled "anti." Since each congregation is autonomous, we can choose to cooperate or not, and be just as Biblical either way. Especially must we carefully analyze each appeal for help to see if plain Bible teaching is being done, or if we would actually be contributing to liberalism. At any rate, we need to do away with all hierarchy and pressure tactics in the body of Christ (First Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28-32).
If we will speak only as the oracles of God (First Peter 4:11) and contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3) and cease seeking the vain glory of men (First John 2:15-17; Galatians 4:16) the creeping paralysis of liberalism can be halted. We do not need to relax the laws of God (Matthew 5:19) but we do need to redouble our efforts to obey the commands and to present them clearly, without apology to the world. It would also be a blessing to the church if preachers everywhere would tell it as it is! We need more fearless teachers and fewer forked tongues! Preach the Word! Amen!
In an age when preachers are trying to be sensational, instead of spiritual; shocking instead of scriptural; cute rather than correct; clever instead of clear; different rather than doctrinal; and unusual in the place of unerring; we truly need to return to the basics of fundamental soundness in the gospel! A double portion of Joshua 1:7 and Second Timothy 2:15 would cause us to hold a straight course in the Truth, which alone can make us free from the paralysis of liberalism.
Any honest, careful student of church history knows we are living again the scenes of apostasy that shattered the restoration movement of the nineteenth century. Attitudes, and probably motives, are virtually parallel to the sad saga of digression that shattered the work of great servants of the Lord a century or more ago. The powerful emphasis of "What does the Bible say" is once again being replaced by "Is this acceptable to the people 'round about us?" One can detect an almost worshipful atmosphere at the shrine of higher education on the part of brethren today. And any student of history can tell you the end results of that arrangement! Even among those who must know better comes an appeal for cheap grace, and not the deeply based teaching on the commands of Christ. It would appear that some are wilfully ignorant (Second Peter 3:5) as they "wrest the Scriptures" and go about "seeking their own righteousness" (Romans 10:3; Second Peter 3:15-16). While they so often speak of liberty and freedom in Christ, they and their devotees become the abject slaves of error (Second Peter 2:17-22).
In the evangelistic epistles of Timothy and Titus, we are often exhorted to use healthy words. In First Corinthians 1:18-25 and Colossians 2:8-10, we are admonished to shun human philosophy, traditions of men and false pride, as we cling more closely to Christ and the pure gospel message. Liberalism is actually anything that diverts our full allegiance from the simple message of our Lord. We must ever go back to the original source (Luke 8:11; Romans 1:16; First Corinthians 2:1-5; John 8:31-32) and not to our own guidelines, projects or promotional schemes. We do not have to be true to Campbell, Lipscomb or McGarvey; but we must loyally follow Christ (First Corinthians 11:1).
Today the brotherhood is plagued by liberal writers, editors and papers who have abandoned sound doctrine because "they received not the love of the truth" (Second Thessalonians 2:10). We are reminded of Romans 3:18: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Several of their articles even speak out in favor of evolution, denominationalism and situation ethics. This "anything goes" is really in fact "everything goes." But that's not what Romans 12:9 and First Thessalonians 5:21 tell us! We must make a distinction between truth and error (Hebrews 5:12-14).
What has caused this rash of loose thinking? Why have so many brethren become so soft on error? When did this "Jesus minus absolute authority" take hold on the minds of those who once gladly affirmed the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible (Matthew 28:18; Second Peter 1:21)? Have we raised a generation of young people on rallies, camps, retreats, shallow preaching and super-emotionalism and then wondered why they are not strong for the Lord and the power of His might (Ephesians 6:10-17)?
We even have brethren today who misuse Mark 9:38-40 (as sectarians have always done) to try to uphold religious error and the softness toward those in error. A careful reading of the passage lends no assistance to folk who wish to be rewarded by Christ, but who will not walk with Him over the rugged terrain of obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9). But the very fact that some members of the church cite this passage proves the point that liberalism is a growing problem in the church!
"Does it glorify God and His Word" should be our deepest concern as we view any teaching or emphasis in our midst today. Will it make the church stronger in the Lord? Will this take us back to New Testament teaching? Can we truly mature as children of God if we push this thrust or idea? These are proper questions as we live in the midst of weak, insipid, anti-scriptural ideas and notions.
we dare not allow ourselves to be spiritually blackmailed by those who have a project, program or plan of their own invention and who demand that we financially back them or be labeled "anti." Since each congregation is autonomous, we can choose to cooperate or not, and be just as Biblical either way. Especially must we carefully analyze each appeal for help to see if plain Bible teaching is being done, or if we would actually be contributing to liberalism. At any rate, we need to do away with all hierarchy and pressure tactics in the body of Christ (First Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28-32).
If we will speak only as the oracles of God (First Peter 4:11) and contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3) and cease seeking the vain glory of men (First John 2:15-17; Galatians 4:16) the creeping paralysis of liberalism can be halted. We do not need to relax the laws of God (Matthew 5:19) but we do need to redouble our efforts to obey the commands and to present them clearly, without apology to the world. It would also be a blessing to the church if preachers everywhere would tell it as it is! We need more fearless teachers and fewer forked tongues! Preach the Word! Amen!
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Will the Jews Rebuild the Temple?
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the December 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
In the December issue of "Moody Monthly", a religious journal published by the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, there appears an article entitled: "When Will the Jews Rebuild Their Temple?" Malcolm Couch, author of the article, contends that it could be within the next ten years. Couch, who spent last summer making a documentary movie on archaeological excavations of the temple, says: "What I saw and heard there, plus our research of past months, convinces me that within the next ten years Israel could move to rebuild the temple." (p. 34.) However, Couch admits: "This of course is only an opinion. Many Bible scholars disagree. Some argue that the temple will never be rebuilt." This is but another in a long series of attempts to find some support for the Scripture-bare, materialistically oriented theory of premillennialism.
In the first place, to even ask the question: "When will the Jews rebuild their temple" is to reveal Biblical ignorance. The temple was never the Jews' temple! It was God's temple (Matthew 21:13). He planned it, designed it and had it built (Hebrews 8:5). He organized its functions to be merely preparatory to the coming of a spiritual system (Hebrews 10:1). And when the Jews finally filled up the measure of wickedness that was characteristic of their ancestors (Matthew 23:32), God sent "His armies" (the Romans) and destroyed Jerusalem (Matthew 22:7), including the temple, of which not one stone was left that was not thrown down (Matthew 24:2).
Classic premillennialists contend that the temple will be rebuilt and the Jewish economy reinstated in the Millennium. This view is based upon a perverted view of certain Old Testament prophecies (e.g. Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 6:12-13). This simply is not admissible for the following reasons.
1. The death of Christ completely nullified forever the Old Testament system of sacrifices. (Hebrews 9:10-15; 10:1-4, 18)
2. Christians are strongly warned against reverting to the Old Testament system. (Galatians 3:23-25; 4:3-9; 5:1; Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:11-14)
3. Christ abolished the law which was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentile (Ephesians 2:11-22), so that the "Israel of God" now consists of those who obey the gospel of faith thereby becoming "Abraham's seed." (Galatians 6:16; 3:26-29)
4. The temple that Zechariah prophesied Christ would build was the church (Matthew 16:18) which was the spiritual "temple of God." (I Corinthians 1:2; 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22) This is evidenced by the fact that in connection with the building of that temple, Christ was to serve as a priest (Zechariah 6:13), which He could never do on earth. (Hebrews 7:14; 8:4) Consequently, it was never prophesied that Christ should build a literal or material temple on this earth!
Furthermore, it would be impossible for the Jews to rebuild the temple since the details of the original plan have been lost for centuries. As McClintock and Strong observe: "It thus appears that as regards the building itself we have little more than a few fragmentary notices, which are quite insufficient to enable us to make out a correct architectural representation of it, or even to arrive at a very definite idea of many things belonging to its complicated structure and arrangements. All attempts that have been made in this direction have utterly failed and for the most part, have proceeded on entirely wrong principles." (Cyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 255.)
An interesting example of an attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple occurred in the reign of the Roman emperor Julian (363 A.D.). The infidel historian Edward Gibbon points out that the very purpose of Julian in initiating this project was to refute the Christian conviction that the Mosaic economy had passed away by divine authority. He writes: "As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist (Julian) would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation." (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, p. 778.) Gibbon states that the Jews were very enthusiastic for this venture. They came from all parts of the empire and donated generously for the work. As the project was begun however, "horrible balls of fire" kept "breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks." So incessant and severe were these fires, that the "scorched and blasted workmen" soon abandoned the undertaking. Incidentally, Julian died within six months after the work was started.
In his remarkable book Christ's Second Coming, Professor David Brown emphasizes that it is not surprising that "the unbelieving Jews should look for a rebuilt temple, a re-established priesthood, the restoration of their bloody sacrifices, and an Israelitish supremacy - at once religious and civil - over all the nations of the earth when their Messiah comes." To believe otherwise would necessitate the Jews forsaking their entire scheme of Old Testament interpretation; a scheme by the way, which resulted in the crucifixion of Christ! What is amazing, Dr. Brown points out, is that men who profess to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy should agree with the Jews views of Old Testament prophecy! (p. 338.)
Surely it must be that many of those who are contending for the theory of premillennialism are unaware of the serious implications necessarily resulting from that doctrine.
In the December issue of "Moody Monthly", a religious journal published by the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, there appears an article entitled: "When Will the Jews Rebuild Their Temple?" Malcolm Couch, author of the article, contends that it could be within the next ten years. Couch, who spent last summer making a documentary movie on archaeological excavations of the temple, says: "What I saw and heard there, plus our research of past months, convinces me that within the next ten years Israel could move to rebuild the temple." (p. 34.) However, Couch admits: "This of course is only an opinion. Many Bible scholars disagree. Some argue that the temple will never be rebuilt." This is but another in a long series of attempts to find some support for the Scripture-bare, materialistically oriented theory of premillennialism.
In the first place, to even ask the question: "When will the Jews rebuild their temple" is to reveal Biblical ignorance. The temple was never the Jews' temple! It was God's temple (Matthew 21:13). He planned it, designed it and had it built (Hebrews 8:5). He organized its functions to be merely preparatory to the coming of a spiritual system (Hebrews 10:1). And when the Jews finally filled up the measure of wickedness that was characteristic of their ancestors (Matthew 23:32), God sent "His armies" (the Romans) and destroyed Jerusalem (Matthew 22:7), including the temple, of which not one stone was left that was not thrown down (Matthew 24:2).
Classic premillennialists contend that the temple will be rebuilt and the Jewish economy reinstated in the Millennium. This view is based upon a perverted view of certain Old Testament prophecies (e.g. Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 6:12-13). This simply is not admissible for the following reasons.
1. The death of Christ completely nullified forever the Old Testament system of sacrifices. (Hebrews 9:10-15; 10:1-4, 18)
2. Christians are strongly warned against reverting to the Old Testament system. (Galatians 3:23-25; 4:3-9; 5:1; Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:11-14)
3. Christ abolished the law which was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentile (Ephesians 2:11-22), so that the "Israel of God" now consists of those who obey the gospel of faith thereby becoming "Abraham's seed." (Galatians 6:16; 3:26-29)
4. The temple that Zechariah prophesied Christ would build was the church (Matthew 16:18) which was the spiritual "temple of God." (I Corinthians 1:2; 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22) This is evidenced by the fact that in connection with the building of that temple, Christ was to serve as a priest (Zechariah 6:13), which He could never do on earth. (Hebrews 7:14; 8:4) Consequently, it was never prophesied that Christ should build a literal or material temple on this earth!
Furthermore, it would be impossible for the Jews to rebuild the temple since the details of the original plan have been lost for centuries. As McClintock and Strong observe: "It thus appears that as regards the building itself we have little more than a few fragmentary notices, which are quite insufficient to enable us to make out a correct architectural representation of it, or even to arrive at a very definite idea of many things belonging to its complicated structure and arrangements. All attempts that have been made in this direction have utterly failed and for the most part, have proceeded on entirely wrong principles." (Cyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 255.)
An interesting example of an attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple occurred in the reign of the Roman emperor Julian (363 A.D.). The infidel historian Edward Gibbon points out that the very purpose of Julian in initiating this project was to refute the Christian conviction that the Mosaic economy had passed away by divine authority. He writes: "As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist (Julian) would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation." (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, p. 778.) Gibbon states that the Jews were very enthusiastic for this venture. They came from all parts of the empire and donated generously for the work. As the project was begun however, "horrible balls of fire" kept "breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks." So incessant and severe were these fires, that the "scorched and blasted workmen" soon abandoned the undertaking. Incidentally, Julian died within six months after the work was started.
In his remarkable book Christ's Second Coming, Professor David Brown emphasizes that it is not surprising that "the unbelieving Jews should look for a rebuilt temple, a re-established priesthood, the restoration of their bloody sacrifices, and an Israelitish supremacy - at once religious and civil - over all the nations of the earth when their Messiah comes." To believe otherwise would necessitate the Jews forsaking their entire scheme of Old Testament interpretation; a scheme by the way, which resulted in the crucifixion of Christ! What is amazing, Dr. Brown points out, is that men who profess to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy should agree with the Jews views of Old Testament prophecy! (p. 338.)
Surely it must be that many of those who are contending for the theory of premillennialism are unaware of the serious implications necessarily resulting from that doctrine.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Origin of Life
This article was printed in the October 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson. Dr. H. Douglas Dean was the author. It's message is as relevant today as when it was first written.
Today, as in former times, people are asking a most important question, "What is life? How did it originate?" Our own nation spends a considerable amount of money in order to study this question. Nearly all of our space probes are concerned with the question, "Does life exist out there?" During our Apollo flights, science was interested in looking at the moon to determine if it might contain some form of life. Even now, as further Mars investigation is being planned, the question is still being asked, "Will they find life there?" Yet all of the evidence that science has received to the present time would indicate that no life is present anywhere in the universe except here on Earth.
One might ask the question, "What is life; is it possible to define life?" Many have attempted such a definition, only to find the task impossible. Though we can list some of life's characteristics, and science has learned much about the laws by which life is governed, life itself remains that unexplained mystery that it has always been. Even the scientist is baffled concerning life and its origins. He says that he cannot believe in miracles, but he asks us to believe that all life on earth developed by some form of chemical evolution. Having studied many works concerning what might be called the problem of problems, I have come to the conclusion that science confesses no real knowledge, nor does science afford any definite theory as to how the first forms of life were produced on Earth.
At the present time, we are told that the answer concerning the origin of life is not available; yet most scientists still emphatically deny that life came to Earth through some miracle. Instead, they declare that natural law produced the first life. To believe this, one would have to admit that spontaneous generation produced the first life, whereas the great principle of biology teaches that life comes only from life. That natural law could produce life is a violation of all the known facts of biology today. Many indications today point to a time when life was not present on Earth; when the Earth was probably a mass of approximately 90 elements. According to some scientists, certain combinations of these elements had to be quickened in order for life to become present on the Earth. But if one begins with dead matter, life must appear by quickening of dead matter, whereas biology postulates that life had to come form some source and by some process. We know that life is not now being originated on Earth and that all life today comes from pre-existing life.
The question is then asked, "From what source and by what process did the first life appear on the Earth?" Thus far only two theories have been seriously advanced in order to answer this question: creation by miracle and evolution by natural law. The entire structure of evolution is based upon the concept that natural law can quicken dead matter into life. To admit divine intervention by a miracle in any aspect would destroy much of the theory of evolution. That God, by miracle, breathed life into the first life forms and endowed each form with the power to transmit that life to offspring is the foundation of the creation theory.
It is only fair to state that neither theory can be proven by actual demonstration, but their acceptance must by faith be founded on logical reasoning and existing fact. Which of the two theories is supported by the stronger evidence must be left to the individual to decide, for both cannot be true. Those that accept the view that God is the originator of life do so as a matter of faith, but a faith based upon more reasonable grounds than is the evolutionary theory of the origin of life. Those who reject the Biblical account of the origin of life do so because of its miraculous nature. However, if the theory of creation by miracle be rejected, the only alternative is spontaneous generation of life, which, if possible, would be a greater miracle than the Genesis account of origins. Spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated in the laboratory; on the contrary, it has been disproved. All evidence seems to declare that spontaneous generation has not occurred in the past and cannot now occur.
As we look at human life with its spiritual attributes, we might recognize that this does not come from dead matter. A spiritual attribute is something that can only come from a spiritual source. Life, mind, and spirit are in God and can originate from no other source. Belief that God is the source of life is based first upon faith, then upon the total lack of evidence that natural law could ever have produced life, and finally upon the realization that such a belief harmonizes with all of the discovered facts which relate to life itself. I firmly believe that the first chapter of Genesis contains the real story of the origin of life upon the Earth. Its essence has not been changed by knowledge acquired by man since Genesis was written, revealing that God formed man of the dust of the Earth and breathed into him the breathe of life, whereupon man became a living soul. Thus we have the origin of man's life upon the Earth.
Contrary to popular belief, life has never been created in a test tube. Various news media may have reported that certain scientists have produced life, but it is also interesting to note that these scientists have emphatically denied that they created life. Some parts of living cells have been produced, but only after enzymes that came from living organisms were introduced. When these cell-derived enzymes were placed in the test tube, it was possible to duplicate certain functions or parts of living cells. But again we find life functions coming from pre-existing life. It has only been possible to duplicate life processes in a test tube when an enzyme which comes from some other living organism is introduced into that test tube. Thus, in reality, the scientist has not produced life. He has merely imitated cell functions using cell parts from some other source of life.
Again, it is important to know what science has done and what it has failed to accomplish. When the announcement came from Berkeley, California, many people were convinced that life had been created in a test tube. Yet when all the facts were in, it became evident that life had not been created. Man today is ready to accept any statements and discoveries which deny the hand of God. He seems eager to dispose of God and to serve the creature rather than the Creator.
When the scientist seeks the origin of life, he can only determine that every living organism comes from living organisms. The Bible is very explicit concerning the origin of life. All life created was to produce after its kind, and every living organism which produces life came from the hand of a living God. God is the originator of life. There is no other alternative.
Today, as in former times, people are asking a most important question, "What is life? How did it originate?" Our own nation spends a considerable amount of money in order to study this question. Nearly all of our space probes are concerned with the question, "Does life exist out there?" During our Apollo flights, science was interested in looking at the moon to determine if it might contain some form of life. Even now, as further Mars investigation is being planned, the question is still being asked, "Will they find life there?" Yet all of the evidence that science has received to the present time would indicate that no life is present anywhere in the universe except here on Earth.
One might ask the question, "What is life; is it possible to define life?" Many have attempted such a definition, only to find the task impossible. Though we can list some of life's characteristics, and science has learned much about the laws by which life is governed, life itself remains that unexplained mystery that it has always been. Even the scientist is baffled concerning life and its origins. He says that he cannot believe in miracles, but he asks us to believe that all life on earth developed by some form of chemical evolution. Having studied many works concerning what might be called the problem of problems, I have come to the conclusion that science confesses no real knowledge, nor does science afford any definite theory as to how the first forms of life were produced on Earth.
At the present time, we are told that the answer concerning the origin of life is not available; yet most scientists still emphatically deny that life came to Earth through some miracle. Instead, they declare that natural law produced the first life. To believe this, one would have to admit that spontaneous generation produced the first life, whereas the great principle of biology teaches that life comes only from life. That natural law could produce life is a violation of all the known facts of biology today. Many indications today point to a time when life was not present on Earth; when the Earth was probably a mass of approximately 90 elements. According to some scientists, certain combinations of these elements had to be quickened in order for life to become present on the Earth. But if one begins with dead matter, life must appear by quickening of dead matter, whereas biology postulates that life had to come form some source and by some process. We know that life is not now being originated on Earth and that all life today comes from pre-existing life.
The question is then asked, "From what source and by what process did the first life appear on the Earth?" Thus far only two theories have been seriously advanced in order to answer this question: creation by miracle and evolution by natural law. The entire structure of evolution is based upon the concept that natural law can quicken dead matter into life. To admit divine intervention by a miracle in any aspect would destroy much of the theory of evolution. That God, by miracle, breathed life into the first life forms and endowed each form with the power to transmit that life to offspring is the foundation of the creation theory.
It is only fair to state that neither theory can be proven by actual demonstration, but their acceptance must by faith be founded on logical reasoning and existing fact. Which of the two theories is supported by the stronger evidence must be left to the individual to decide, for both cannot be true. Those that accept the view that God is the originator of life do so as a matter of faith, but a faith based upon more reasonable grounds than is the evolutionary theory of the origin of life. Those who reject the Biblical account of the origin of life do so because of its miraculous nature. However, if the theory of creation by miracle be rejected, the only alternative is spontaneous generation of life, which, if possible, would be a greater miracle than the Genesis account of origins. Spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated in the laboratory; on the contrary, it has been disproved. All evidence seems to declare that spontaneous generation has not occurred in the past and cannot now occur.
As we look at human life with its spiritual attributes, we might recognize that this does not come from dead matter. A spiritual attribute is something that can only come from a spiritual source. Life, mind, and spirit are in God and can originate from no other source. Belief that God is the source of life is based first upon faith, then upon the total lack of evidence that natural law could ever have produced life, and finally upon the realization that such a belief harmonizes with all of the discovered facts which relate to life itself. I firmly believe that the first chapter of Genesis contains the real story of the origin of life upon the Earth. Its essence has not been changed by knowledge acquired by man since Genesis was written, revealing that God formed man of the dust of the Earth and breathed into him the breathe of life, whereupon man became a living soul. Thus we have the origin of man's life upon the Earth.
Contrary to popular belief, life has never been created in a test tube. Various news media may have reported that certain scientists have produced life, but it is also interesting to note that these scientists have emphatically denied that they created life. Some parts of living cells have been produced, but only after enzymes that came from living organisms were introduced. When these cell-derived enzymes were placed in the test tube, it was possible to duplicate certain functions or parts of living cells. But again we find life functions coming from pre-existing life. It has only been possible to duplicate life processes in a test tube when an enzyme which comes from some other living organism is introduced into that test tube. Thus, in reality, the scientist has not produced life. He has merely imitated cell functions using cell parts from some other source of life.
Again, it is important to know what science has done and what it has failed to accomplish. When the announcement came from Berkeley, California, many people were convinced that life had been created in a test tube. Yet when all the facts were in, it became evident that life had not been created. Man today is ready to accept any statements and discoveries which deny the hand of God. He seems eager to dispose of God and to serve the creature rather than the Creator.
When the scientist seeks the origin of life, he can only determine that every living organism comes from living organisms. The Bible is very explicit concerning the origin of life. All life created was to produce after its kind, and every living organism which produces life came from the hand of a living God. God is the originator of life. There is no other alternative.
Worship
This appeared in the August 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson.
The word worship occurs scores of times in the Bible in one form or another, and yet significantly, man is never simply commanded to worship. Human beings are by inherent need worshipping creatures. The philosopher Immanuel Kant observed: "Man is a creature of religious instincts, and must worship something." Other writers have acknowledged the universal religious tendency characteristic of humanity. "As far back as Cicero in the first century B.C., or even earlier, pagan thinkers had observed that religion in some form or other is a universal trait in human nature. And though in modern days apparent exceptions of 'atheistical tribes' have been adduced to prove the contrary, the trend of anthropological science may be said on the whole to support the judgment of antiquity. There may indeed be savages (though the point has not been proved) among whom no definite trace of religious observance can be discerned; but are they normal representatives even of undeveloped humanity? Is there no such thing as degradation? And have not even these poor savages some vestige at least of the religious faculty? For that is all our argument requires. The world-wide progress of Christian missions to the heathen seems to testify quite triumphantly that no race or tribe of men, however degraded and apparently atheistic, lacks that spark of religious capacity which may be fanned or fed into a mighty flame." (The One Volume Bible Commentary, J.R. Dummelow, Editor, Ci.)
WORSHIP DEFINED - Worship, generally defined, carries "the idea of reverence, of humility, of bowing down, prostrating ourselves in recognition of our dependence upon a superior power." The Bible suggest certain qualities that will characterize worship. First of all, true worship involves an attitude that is continuously with the child of God. Now I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Jehovah has commanded certain specified "act of worship" which are to be rendered to Him on stated occasions, and I intend to discuss these later, but presently I'm talking about that worshipful disposition which many ought to constantly have toward his Creator. Worship is not something that is "turned on" and "turned off" like a switch, though at times of course, we will be more meditative than at other periods. Jesus made it clear that "worship" and "service" to God go hand in hand. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10). And the writer of Hebrews exhorts: "Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name" (Hebrews 13:15).
Secondly, a spirit of happiness should attend the worshipful disposition. The Psalmist could exclaim: "I was glad when they said unto me, let us go unto the house of Jehovah" (Psalm 122:1). The true worshipper of God does not live in a climate of fear (I John 4:18) nor is he a perpetual malcontent (Philippians 4:11), rather life for him is a pleasant, indeed an exhilarating experience. It was this spirit that enabled Paul to rejoice from a dark, bug-ridden prison cell (Phillipians 4:4). There is no advertisement any worse for the Christian religion than the grouchy, down in the mouth disposition of some who profess to be worshipers of God.
PRESCRIBED WORSHIP - Jehovah has not left man to his own ingenuity concerning worship. The popular notion of "let every man do his own thing" has no warrant in the Word of God. In fact, it is plainly condemned (Judges 17:6). Not all worship is acceptable to God. He seeks true worshippers (John 4:23) and if there are true worshippers, there must be false ones. The Creator has prescribed a proper order of worship and those who attempt to worship otherwise, either through rebellion or ignorance (Acts 17:23) are not acceptable to Him. Note the following passages. "Now therefore fear Jehovah, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth" (Joshua 24:14). "God is Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). An analysis of the foregoing reveals that acceptable worship consists of three elements: the proper Object, Attitude and Method.
Object of True Worship Only God is to be worshipped. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10). By the term "God" we mean DEITY, the Divine Nature. We worship the three personalities who possess the nature of Deity. The Father is God (Ephesians 1:3), the Son is God (Hebrews 1:8) and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). These are not three gods (as though their natures were divergent) but one, unified Divine Nature manifest in three Persons. To worship other than God is idolatry and all who practice this crime against Deity will surely be lost (Revelation 21:8). Some forms of idolatry are:
(a) Worship of men. No man, not even an apostle of Christ, is worthy of worship. When Cornelius attempted to worship Peter, he was prohibited (Acts 10:25-26). The Pope of Rome claims to be the "successor of St. Peter." Isn't it strikingly strange however, that Peter refused to accept that veneration which the Pope so earnestly covets? The papacy is not the only idol of Catholicism. The worship of Mary, the "saints", etc. is equally sinful.
(b) Worship of angels. When the apostle John fell at the feet of an angel to worship, he was told: "Do it not" (Revelation 22:8-9). Worshipping of angels will cause one to lose his prize (Colossians 2:18). Incidentally, this is one of the ways we know that Christ was not a mere angel, as the Jehovah's Witnesses allege, for He accepted worship (Matthew 8:2, John 20:28), thus demonstrating the He was divine as well as human.
(c) Worship of material things. Some, who would actually be appalled at the thought of bowing to a god of stone or gold, are Biblically speaking, idolaters. Their sin is evidenced by their attitude toward their possessions. This was the problem of the rich ruler who sadly turned from following Christ (Luke 18:18). Covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). And such idolatry is rampant even in the body of Christ.
(d) Worship of self. Paul wrote that many serve the god of their own belly, and significantly he added, "whose end is perdition" (Philippians 3:19). Again, in Romans 16:18 some are charged with serving their own bellies and not our Lord Jesus. Belly-serving is simply a figurative expression for self-serving. Countless thousands excuse themselves from a life of dedication to God on the grounds that they are too busy making a living, too occupied with family, friends and fun. Will such gods save one in the day of judgment?
(e) Will-worship. The religious precepts and doctrines of men as a substitute for the objective revelation of God (the Bible) is an example of will-worship (Colossians 2:23). Modernists elevate human wisdom above the Bible. The existentialist searches his "inner self" for truth and the neo-pentecostal exclaims: "I don't care what the Bible says. I know what I feel" thus making his emotions supreme. All of these forms of will-worship are idolatrous in sentiment. (To be continued)
The word worship occurs scores of times in the Bible in one form or another, and yet significantly, man is never simply commanded to worship. Human beings are by inherent need worshipping creatures. The philosopher Immanuel Kant observed: "Man is a creature of religious instincts, and must worship something." Other writers have acknowledged the universal religious tendency characteristic of humanity. "As far back as Cicero in the first century B.C., or even earlier, pagan thinkers had observed that religion in some form or other is a universal trait in human nature. And though in modern days apparent exceptions of 'atheistical tribes' have been adduced to prove the contrary, the trend of anthropological science may be said on the whole to support the judgment of antiquity. There may indeed be savages (though the point has not been proved) among whom no definite trace of religious observance can be discerned; but are they normal representatives even of undeveloped humanity? Is there no such thing as degradation? And have not even these poor savages some vestige at least of the religious faculty? For that is all our argument requires. The world-wide progress of Christian missions to the heathen seems to testify quite triumphantly that no race or tribe of men, however degraded and apparently atheistic, lacks that spark of religious capacity which may be fanned or fed into a mighty flame." (The One Volume Bible Commentary, J.R. Dummelow, Editor, Ci.)
WORSHIP DEFINED - Worship, generally defined, carries "the idea of reverence, of humility, of bowing down, prostrating ourselves in recognition of our dependence upon a superior power." The Bible suggest certain qualities that will characterize worship. First of all, true worship involves an attitude that is continuously with the child of God. Now I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Jehovah has commanded certain specified "act of worship" which are to be rendered to Him on stated occasions, and I intend to discuss these later, but presently I'm talking about that worshipful disposition which many ought to constantly have toward his Creator. Worship is not something that is "turned on" and "turned off" like a switch, though at times of course, we will be more meditative than at other periods. Jesus made it clear that "worship" and "service" to God go hand in hand. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10). And the writer of Hebrews exhorts: "Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name" (Hebrews 13:15).
Secondly, a spirit of happiness should attend the worshipful disposition. The Psalmist could exclaim: "I was glad when they said unto me, let us go unto the house of Jehovah" (Psalm 122:1). The true worshipper of God does not live in a climate of fear (I John 4:18) nor is he a perpetual malcontent (Philippians 4:11), rather life for him is a pleasant, indeed an exhilarating experience. It was this spirit that enabled Paul to rejoice from a dark, bug-ridden prison cell (Phillipians 4:4). There is no advertisement any worse for the Christian religion than the grouchy, down in the mouth disposition of some who profess to be worshipers of God.
PRESCRIBED WORSHIP - Jehovah has not left man to his own ingenuity concerning worship. The popular notion of "let every man do his own thing" has no warrant in the Word of God. In fact, it is plainly condemned (Judges 17:6). Not all worship is acceptable to God. He seeks true worshippers (John 4:23) and if there are true worshippers, there must be false ones. The Creator has prescribed a proper order of worship and those who attempt to worship otherwise, either through rebellion or ignorance (Acts 17:23) are not acceptable to Him. Note the following passages. "Now therefore fear Jehovah, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth" (Joshua 24:14). "God is Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). An analysis of the foregoing reveals that acceptable worship consists of three elements: the proper Object, Attitude and Method.
Object of True Worship Only God is to be worshipped. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10). By the term "God" we mean DEITY, the Divine Nature. We worship the three personalities who possess the nature of Deity. The Father is God (Ephesians 1:3), the Son is God (Hebrews 1:8) and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). These are not three gods (as though their natures were divergent) but one, unified Divine Nature manifest in three Persons. To worship other than God is idolatry and all who practice this crime against Deity will surely be lost (Revelation 21:8). Some forms of idolatry are:
(a) Worship of men. No man, not even an apostle of Christ, is worthy of worship. When Cornelius attempted to worship Peter, he was prohibited (Acts 10:25-26). The Pope of Rome claims to be the "successor of St. Peter." Isn't it strikingly strange however, that Peter refused to accept that veneration which the Pope so earnestly covets? The papacy is not the only idol of Catholicism. The worship of Mary, the "saints", etc. is equally sinful.
(b) Worship of angels. When the apostle John fell at the feet of an angel to worship, he was told: "Do it not" (Revelation 22:8-9). Worshipping of angels will cause one to lose his prize (Colossians 2:18). Incidentally, this is one of the ways we know that Christ was not a mere angel, as the Jehovah's Witnesses allege, for He accepted worship (Matthew 8:2, John 20:28), thus demonstrating the He was divine as well as human.
(c) Worship of material things. Some, who would actually be appalled at the thought of bowing to a god of stone or gold, are Biblically speaking, idolaters. Their sin is evidenced by their attitude toward their possessions. This was the problem of the rich ruler who sadly turned from following Christ (Luke 18:18). Covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). And such idolatry is rampant even in the body of Christ.
(d) Worship of self. Paul wrote that many serve the god of their own belly, and significantly he added, "whose end is perdition" (Philippians 3:19). Again, in Romans 16:18 some are charged with serving their own bellies and not our Lord Jesus. Belly-serving is simply a figurative expression for self-serving. Countless thousands excuse themselves from a life of dedication to God on the grounds that they are too busy making a living, too occupied with family, friends and fun. Will such gods save one in the day of judgment?
(e) Will-worship. The religious precepts and doctrines of men as a substitute for the objective revelation of God (the Bible) is an example of will-worship (Colossians 2:23). Modernists elevate human wisdom above the Bible. The existentialist searches his "inner self" for truth and the neo-pentecostal exclaims: "I don't care what the Bible says. I know what I feel" thus making his emotions supreme. All of these forms of will-worship are idolatrous in sentiment. (To be continued)
Monday, November 5, 2012
Premillennialism (Part 6)
This is from the continuing series of articles that appeared in the "Christian Courier" on this topic. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson. This article appeared in the July 1973 edition. It's my opinion this is the most critical installment of the series.
The 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation, verses one through six, is the very heart and soul of the theory of premillennialism. It is what George Murray calls, "the very citadel and bulwark of premillennial eschatology." (Millennial Studies, p. 175.) Indeen it may be said, were it not for these half dozen verses, the theory would not even have a semblance of suggestion in the New Testament. As Albert Barnes observes, "It is admitted on all hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the Scriptures at all, is found in this one passage only. It is not pretended that there is, in any other place, a direct affirmation that this will literally occur, nor would the advocates for that opinion undertake to show that it is fairly implied in any other part of the Bible. But it is strange, not to say improbable, that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the righteous, a thousand years before the wicked, should be announced in one passage only." (Commentary on Revelation, pp. 428, 429.)
In a former article, it was stressed that it is foolish to attempt a forced harmony between the figurative elements of Revelation 20:1-6 and the premillennial theory, the latter being contradicted by so many plain passages of SScripture. Making this very point with reference to Revelation 20:1-6, noted scholar Charles Hodge wrote: "It is a sound rule in the interpretation of Scripture that obscure passages should be so explained as to make them agree with those that are plain. It is unreasonable to make the symbolic and figurative language of prophecy and poetry the rule by which to explain the simple didactic prose language of the Bible. It is no less unreasonable that a multitude of passages should be taken out of their natural sense to make them accord with a single passage of doubtful import." (Systematic Theology, III, p. 842.) Finally, note this significant quotation from Geerhardus Vos concerning the relationship of the Book of Revelation to the premillennial view. "In regard to a book so enigmatical, it were presumptuous to speak with any degree of dogmatism, but the uniform absence of the idea of the millennium from the eschatological teaching of the New Testament elsewhere ought to render the exegete cautious before affirming its presence here." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 987.)
PURPOSE AND FORM - Preliminary to this discussion should be a few observations concerning the purpose and form of the Book of Revelation. According to the testimony of Irenaeus, the book was penned by the apostle John near the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (who died in 96 A.D.). The church of this age was being severely persecuted, indeed in subsequent years it was subjected to a veritable blood bath. The design of Revelation is thus to show: (a) the relatively infant church would be heir to much persecution and suffering; (b) The saints must persevere and by their faith overcome these trials; (c) The Christ would ultimately be victorious over all His enemies.
That the Book of Revelation is highly symbolic is evidenced not only by its content, but also by the introduction. Christ "signified" the message by His angel unto John (1:1). The question naturally arises as to why the Lord chose symbols to be the vehicles of these truths. Symbolism frequently serves a two fold purpose, to reveal and to conceal. Occasionally, the Lord's parables functioned in this capacity, that is, they portrayed certain truths to the disciples while withholding the same from those who were spiritually dull (Matthew 13:10-15). The message of victory within Revelation, much of which was in the imagery that adorned the Old Testament, with which the Christians were undoubtedly familiar, would be grasped by those early disciples. At the same time, the defeat of the persecuting powers was veiled to those not discerning the figures. One can well imagine for example, how trials for the Christians might have been intensified had they been discovered circulating a document which literally predicted the overthrow of the Roman empire. And so, as George Ladd points out: "In the apocalypses, symbolism becomes the main stock in trade, particularly as a technique for outlining the course of history without employing historical names." (Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 52.) It is thus a gross error to literalize the Book of Revelation, and this is precisely what the premillennialists have done with the first six verses of chapter twenty.
THEY SYMBOLS EMPLOYED - An examination of these first half dozen verses of Revelation 20 evidences the following symbols: a key, a chain, a dragon or serpent, an abyss, a thousand years, thrones, a beast, marks on foreheads and hands and a resurrection. It is certainly a strange interpretation which contends that a figurative serpent was bound with a figurative chain and thrown into a figurative abyss which was locked with a figurative key to be confined for a literal thousand years! It ought to be manifestly obvious that no literal reign of Christ upon the earth is here alluded to. Even if one does not understand the specific design of the symbols, he can see the symbolic import of the thousand years.
SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS - Perhaps this context is more significantly devastating to the premillennial theory for what it does not say but which, if the theory be true, it surely would have mentioned. Nothing is said of : (a) Christ's second coming; (b) the establishment of a kingdom; (c) an earthly regime; (d) a bodily reigning; (e) the throne of David or; (f) the Jews being regathered to Palestine. Now all of these elements are vitally important to the millennial view, yet they are conspicuously absent from this narrative!
THE GIST OF THE NARRATIVE - Obviously the context of Revelation 20:1-6 is a part of the design of the book as a whole. Many scholars believe that this section is a symbolic description of the revival of Christianity from a period of bloody persecution. For example, note that earlier (6:9-11) John had seen the "souls" of the martyrs "underneath the alter" crying, "How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Here however, the apostle views the "souls" on "thrones" reigning with Christ. For a while, Christianity appeared to have been buried in tribulation but ultimately it emerged; it was, figuratively speaking, resurrected. The Scripture speaks of figurative resurrections as well as literal ones. (See Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:12; Romans 11:15.) "It would, therefore, not be inconsistent with the analogy of prophecy if we should understand the Apostle as here predicting that a new race of men were to arise filled with the spirit of the martyrs, and wereto live and reign with Christ a thousand years." (Hodge, op. cit., p. 842.) That this "resurrection" alludes to the triumphs of persecuted saints is further borne out by the fact that "the second death hath no power" over these reigning ones, which harmonizes perfectly with chapter 2, verse 11: "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Thus, the "resurrection" of 20:6 is a figurative way of saying "overcome." The one thousand years of course, would also be symbolic in scope, suggesting either that the victory of God's cause as considered in this context would be lengthy in span, or possibly the one thousand years may denote the completeness of the saints' triumph. For the figurative usage of numbers compare Exodus 20:6; Matthew 18:22; Revelation 5:11, etc.
At any rate, it is certain that there is no support for the theory of premillennialism, not in the Book of Revelation, not in the whole Bible. It is a false heresy.
The 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation, verses one through six, is the very heart and soul of the theory of premillennialism. It is what George Murray calls, "the very citadel and bulwark of premillennial eschatology." (Millennial Studies, p. 175.) Indeen it may be said, were it not for these half dozen verses, the theory would not even have a semblance of suggestion in the New Testament. As Albert Barnes observes, "It is admitted on all hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the Scriptures at all, is found in this one passage only. It is not pretended that there is, in any other place, a direct affirmation that this will literally occur, nor would the advocates for that opinion undertake to show that it is fairly implied in any other part of the Bible. But it is strange, not to say improbable, that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the righteous, a thousand years before the wicked, should be announced in one passage only." (Commentary on Revelation, pp. 428, 429.)
In a former article, it was stressed that it is foolish to attempt a forced harmony between the figurative elements of Revelation 20:1-6 and the premillennial theory, the latter being contradicted by so many plain passages of SScripture. Making this very point with reference to Revelation 20:1-6, noted scholar Charles Hodge wrote: "It is a sound rule in the interpretation of Scripture that obscure passages should be so explained as to make them agree with those that are plain. It is unreasonable to make the symbolic and figurative language of prophecy and poetry the rule by which to explain the simple didactic prose language of the Bible. It is no less unreasonable that a multitude of passages should be taken out of their natural sense to make them accord with a single passage of doubtful import." (Systematic Theology, III, p. 842.) Finally, note this significant quotation from Geerhardus Vos concerning the relationship of the Book of Revelation to the premillennial view. "In regard to a book so enigmatical, it were presumptuous to speak with any degree of dogmatism, but the uniform absence of the idea of the millennium from the eschatological teaching of the New Testament elsewhere ought to render the exegete cautious before affirming its presence here." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 987.)
PURPOSE AND FORM - Preliminary to this discussion should be a few observations concerning the purpose and form of the Book of Revelation. According to the testimony of Irenaeus, the book was penned by the apostle John near the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (who died in 96 A.D.). The church of this age was being severely persecuted, indeed in subsequent years it was subjected to a veritable blood bath. The design of Revelation is thus to show: (a) the relatively infant church would be heir to much persecution and suffering; (b) The saints must persevere and by their faith overcome these trials; (c) The Christ would ultimately be victorious over all His enemies.
That the Book of Revelation is highly symbolic is evidenced not only by its content, but also by the introduction. Christ "signified" the message by His angel unto John (1:1). The question naturally arises as to why the Lord chose symbols to be the vehicles of these truths. Symbolism frequently serves a two fold purpose, to reveal and to conceal. Occasionally, the Lord's parables functioned in this capacity, that is, they portrayed certain truths to the disciples while withholding the same from those who were spiritually dull (Matthew 13:10-15). The message of victory within Revelation, much of which was in the imagery that adorned the Old Testament, with which the Christians were undoubtedly familiar, would be grasped by those early disciples. At the same time, the defeat of the persecuting powers was veiled to those not discerning the figures. One can well imagine for example, how trials for the Christians might have been intensified had they been discovered circulating a document which literally predicted the overthrow of the Roman empire. And so, as George Ladd points out: "In the apocalypses, symbolism becomes the main stock in trade, particularly as a technique for outlining the course of history without employing historical names." (Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 52.) It is thus a gross error to literalize the Book of Revelation, and this is precisely what the premillennialists have done with the first six verses of chapter twenty.
THEY SYMBOLS EMPLOYED - An examination of these first half dozen verses of Revelation 20 evidences the following symbols: a key, a chain, a dragon or serpent, an abyss, a thousand years, thrones, a beast, marks on foreheads and hands and a resurrection. It is certainly a strange interpretation which contends that a figurative serpent was bound with a figurative chain and thrown into a figurative abyss which was locked with a figurative key to be confined for a literal thousand years! It ought to be manifestly obvious that no literal reign of Christ upon the earth is here alluded to. Even if one does not understand the specific design of the symbols, he can see the symbolic import of the thousand years.
SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS - Perhaps this context is more significantly devastating to the premillennial theory for what it does not say but which, if the theory be true, it surely would have mentioned. Nothing is said of : (a) Christ's second coming; (b) the establishment of a kingdom; (c) an earthly regime; (d) a bodily reigning; (e) the throne of David or; (f) the Jews being regathered to Palestine. Now all of these elements are vitally important to the millennial view, yet they are conspicuously absent from this narrative!
THE GIST OF THE NARRATIVE - Obviously the context of Revelation 20:1-6 is a part of the design of the book as a whole. Many scholars believe that this section is a symbolic description of the revival of Christianity from a period of bloody persecution. For example, note that earlier (6:9-11) John had seen the "souls" of the martyrs "underneath the alter" crying, "How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Here however, the apostle views the "souls" on "thrones" reigning with Christ. For a while, Christianity appeared to have been buried in tribulation but ultimately it emerged; it was, figuratively speaking, resurrected. The Scripture speaks of figurative resurrections as well as literal ones. (See Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:12; Romans 11:15.) "It would, therefore, not be inconsistent with the analogy of prophecy if we should understand the Apostle as here predicting that a new race of men were to arise filled with the spirit of the martyrs, and wereto live and reign with Christ a thousand years." (Hodge, op. cit., p. 842.) That this "resurrection" alludes to the triumphs of persecuted saints is further borne out by the fact that "the second death hath no power" over these reigning ones, which harmonizes perfectly with chapter 2, verse 11: "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Thus, the "resurrection" of 20:6 is a figurative way of saying "overcome." The one thousand years of course, would also be symbolic in scope, suggesting either that the victory of God's cause as considered in this context would be lengthy in span, or possibly the one thousand years may denote the completeness of the saints' triumph. For the figurative usage of numbers compare Exodus 20:6; Matthew 18:22; Revelation 5:11, etc.
At any rate, it is certain that there is no support for the theory of premillennialism, not in the Book of Revelation, not in the whole Bible. It is a false heresy.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Book of Lamentations
This article about an often overlooked book appeared in the June 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", edited by Wayne Jackson and published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
One of the really little known portions of the Bible is the Book of Lamentations. Although frequently neglected by some students, this narrative truly contains some rich deposits of truth which will abundantly reward those who examine its contents.
In the Hebrew Old Testament the book is entitled Ekah, meaning "How" or "Alas", taken from the first verse. The Septuagint calls it Threnoi Ieremious, Lamentations of Jeremiah. The term threnoi is the plural form of a Greek term meaning "to cry aloud" which is indicative of the anguished nature of the book. Though the Hebrew version does not declare its authorship, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the "weeping prophet" Jeremiah, was its inspired pensman. The style of the book is similar to the book of Jeremiah and certainly the lamentation type of literature was characteristic of that prophet (II Chronicles 35:25). Further, the Septuagint has a superscription which affirms: "and it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremias sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said..."
If one is to appreciate the message of this holy treatise, he must understand the events which relate to its contents. After the destruction of the ten tribes of Israel by Assyria (721 B.C.), the citizens of Judah (i.e., tribes of Benjamin and Judah, collectively known as Judah) continued to decline spiritually. Though there were occasional periods of reformation (such as in the days of Josiah), they were both superficial and temporary. Finally, the time for punishment had come. Jehovah through His providence, brought Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians against Judah and Jehoiakim, king of Judah "became his servant" (II Kings 24:1). This occurred in 605 B.C. Eight years later, the army of Nebuchadnezzar came again to Jerusalem and besieged the city. The temple was ransacked and its vessels of gold confiscated and cut into pieces; also, many were taken captive to Babylon (II Kings 24:10-17). Zedekiah was appointed as a puppet-king over the "poorest sort of people" who had not been transported to Babylon. However, in the ninth year of his reign he rebelled, and once again came Nebuchadnezzar with his army. Jerusalem was besieged for almost eighteen months. Conditions within the city were dreadful. "...Famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land" (II Kings 25:3). Finally, a breach was made in the city. The invading army "had no compassion upon young man or virgin, old man or hoary-headed" (II Chronicles 36:17). The remaining vessels of the temple were taken and they "burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire..." Truly, it was a horrible spectacle.
The prophet Jeremiah was a witness to the spiritual death of the city of Jerusalem and the Book of Lamentations is actually a funeral dirge that depicts the suffering and sorrow which attended Jerusalem's death. It was doubtless sung by the Jews in captivity as a reminder of their sorrow and especially the sins of their past which precipitated the destruction of the Holy City. In this connection, the arrangement of the book is interesting. Four out of five chapters are acrostic in form. Chapters one, two and four contain twenty two verses each and each verse begins with a connective letter of the Hebrew alphabet (i.e., Aleph, Beth, etc.). Chapter three has sixty six verses and each third verse is introduced with a letter from the Hebrew Alphabet. Chapter five is not arranged alphabetically. Some have suggested that this format was to facilitate memorization while others feel that the design was to emphasize that Judah had sinned "from aleph to thau," or as we would say, from A to Z.
For study purposes, Lamentations may be divided into five sections, corresponding to the chapter segments.
Chapter 1, The suffering of Jerusalem - The desolation of Jerusalem and the resulting sadness is the theme of this section. Jerusalem, once "great among nations" now sits as a weeping and solitary widow whom none can comfort. She has been greatly afflicted "for the multitude of her transgressions." For these things, says the prophet, "I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water."
Chapter 2, The suffering of the Sanctuary - This section deals with the destruction of the temple and the heartbreak connected therewith. In the day of God's anger, not even his "footstool" is spared. (See I Chronicles 28:2 where the temple is called the footstool of God.) Indeed, Jehovah has "violently taken away His tabernacle" and "destroyed His place of assembly." (This shows that the destruction of the temple was not strictly of the Babylonians; it was GOD working through them.) The Lord "cast off His alter" and "abhorred His sanctuary." when reflecting upon such, Jeremiah exclaimed, Mine eyes do fail with tears, my heart is troubled..." Sad though it was, it fulfilled the oracle of centuries past, for "Jehovah hath done that which He purposed; He hath fulfilled His word that He commanded in the days of old."
Chapter 3, The suffering of Jeremiah - "This chapter is the mountain peak of the book. Here Jeremiah bares his heart to the reader, as he frequently does in prophecy. His life was one long martyrdom, in which he served as both judge and intercessor for people bent on their own destruction. No prophet ever pleaded with a people in more impassioned manner, calling for a national conversion, than he did. And no one except Jesus, was treated with more national contempt than he." (Ross Price, Wycliffe Bible Commentary) In spite of his numerous persecutions (vs. 1-18), Jeremiah sees a better day ahead; says he, "Jehovah is my portion, saith my soul; therefore I will hope in Him."
Chapter 4, The suffering of the siege - As mentioned earlier, during the eighteen month siege of Jerusalem, conditions became intolerable. Famine was acute. "The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst. The young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them." Conditions were so horrible that "the hands of pitiful women have boiled their own children" so that "they that are slain with the sword are better than they that are slain with hunger." But Judah was only reaping what she had sown. Her iniquities were many; the prophets and priests had been corrupt and the people rejoiced therein (Jeremiah 5:30).
Chapter 5, Judah's Penitent Plea - In this final section, Judah's deplorable condition, caused by her sins, is graphically summed up. She acknowledges that she has, to use a common figure of speech, gone to the bottom of the barrel and consequently, her only hope is in the everlasting Jehovah. The prayer is thus made: "Turn thou us unto Thee, O Jehovah, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old."
God did of course, remember his people and half a century later, the restoration from Babylonian captivity was begun. But not until many valuable lessons had been learned by the Jews. We too may learn by their experiences if we will but apply ourselves to learning of these ancient events (I Corinthians 10:6,11; Romans 15:4).
One of the really little known portions of the Bible is the Book of Lamentations. Although frequently neglected by some students, this narrative truly contains some rich deposits of truth which will abundantly reward those who examine its contents.
In the Hebrew Old Testament the book is entitled Ekah, meaning "How" or "Alas", taken from the first verse. The Septuagint calls it Threnoi Ieremious, Lamentations of Jeremiah. The term threnoi is the plural form of a Greek term meaning "to cry aloud" which is indicative of the anguished nature of the book. Though the Hebrew version does not declare its authorship, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the "weeping prophet" Jeremiah, was its inspired pensman. The style of the book is similar to the book of Jeremiah and certainly the lamentation type of literature was characteristic of that prophet (II Chronicles 35:25). Further, the Septuagint has a superscription which affirms: "and it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremias sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said..."
If one is to appreciate the message of this holy treatise, he must understand the events which relate to its contents. After the destruction of the ten tribes of Israel by Assyria (721 B.C.), the citizens of Judah (i.e., tribes of Benjamin and Judah, collectively known as Judah) continued to decline spiritually. Though there were occasional periods of reformation (such as in the days of Josiah), they were both superficial and temporary. Finally, the time for punishment had come. Jehovah through His providence, brought Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians against Judah and Jehoiakim, king of Judah "became his servant" (II Kings 24:1). This occurred in 605 B.C. Eight years later, the army of Nebuchadnezzar came again to Jerusalem and besieged the city. The temple was ransacked and its vessels of gold confiscated and cut into pieces; also, many were taken captive to Babylon (II Kings 24:10-17). Zedekiah was appointed as a puppet-king over the "poorest sort of people" who had not been transported to Babylon. However, in the ninth year of his reign he rebelled, and once again came Nebuchadnezzar with his army. Jerusalem was besieged for almost eighteen months. Conditions within the city were dreadful. "...Famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land" (II Kings 25:3). Finally, a breach was made in the city. The invading army "had no compassion upon young man or virgin, old man or hoary-headed" (II Chronicles 36:17). The remaining vessels of the temple were taken and they "burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire..." Truly, it was a horrible spectacle.
The prophet Jeremiah was a witness to the spiritual death of the city of Jerusalem and the Book of Lamentations is actually a funeral dirge that depicts the suffering and sorrow which attended Jerusalem's death. It was doubtless sung by the Jews in captivity as a reminder of their sorrow and especially the sins of their past which precipitated the destruction of the Holy City. In this connection, the arrangement of the book is interesting. Four out of five chapters are acrostic in form. Chapters one, two and four contain twenty two verses each and each verse begins with a connective letter of the Hebrew alphabet (i.e., Aleph, Beth, etc.). Chapter three has sixty six verses and each third verse is introduced with a letter from the Hebrew Alphabet. Chapter five is not arranged alphabetically. Some have suggested that this format was to facilitate memorization while others feel that the design was to emphasize that Judah had sinned "from aleph to thau," or as we would say, from A to Z.
For study purposes, Lamentations may be divided into five sections, corresponding to the chapter segments.
Chapter 1, The suffering of Jerusalem - The desolation of Jerusalem and the resulting sadness is the theme of this section. Jerusalem, once "great among nations" now sits as a weeping and solitary widow whom none can comfort. She has been greatly afflicted "for the multitude of her transgressions." For these things, says the prophet, "I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water."
Chapter 2, The suffering of the Sanctuary - This section deals with the destruction of the temple and the heartbreak connected therewith. In the day of God's anger, not even his "footstool" is spared. (See I Chronicles 28:2 where the temple is called the footstool of God.) Indeed, Jehovah has "violently taken away His tabernacle" and "destroyed His place of assembly." (This shows that the destruction of the temple was not strictly of the Babylonians; it was GOD working through them.) The Lord "cast off His alter" and "abhorred His sanctuary." when reflecting upon such, Jeremiah exclaimed, Mine eyes do fail with tears, my heart is troubled..." Sad though it was, it fulfilled the oracle of centuries past, for "Jehovah hath done that which He purposed; He hath fulfilled His word that He commanded in the days of old."
Chapter 3, The suffering of Jeremiah - "This chapter is the mountain peak of the book. Here Jeremiah bares his heart to the reader, as he frequently does in prophecy. His life was one long martyrdom, in which he served as both judge and intercessor for people bent on their own destruction. No prophet ever pleaded with a people in more impassioned manner, calling for a national conversion, than he did. And no one except Jesus, was treated with more national contempt than he." (Ross Price, Wycliffe Bible Commentary) In spite of his numerous persecutions (vs. 1-18), Jeremiah sees a better day ahead; says he, "Jehovah is my portion, saith my soul; therefore I will hope in Him."
Chapter 4, The suffering of the siege - As mentioned earlier, during the eighteen month siege of Jerusalem, conditions became intolerable. Famine was acute. "The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst. The young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them." Conditions were so horrible that "the hands of pitiful women have boiled their own children" so that "they that are slain with the sword are better than they that are slain with hunger." But Judah was only reaping what she had sown. Her iniquities were many; the prophets and priests had been corrupt and the people rejoiced therein (Jeremiah 5:30).
Chapter 5, Judah's Penitent Plea - In this final section, Judah's deplorable condition, caused by her sins, is graphically summed up. She acknowledges that she has, to use a common figure of speech, gone to the bottom of the barrel and consequently, her only hope is in the everlasting Jehovah. The prayer is thus made: "Turn thou us unto Thee, O Jehovah, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old."
God did of course, remember his people and half a century later, the restoration from Babylonian captivity was begun. But not until many valuable lessons had been learned by the Jews. We too may learn by their experiences if we will but apply ourselves to learning of these ancient events (I Corinthians 10:6,11; Romans 15:4).
Friday, November 2, 2012
Premillennialism (Part 5)
This is a continuation of a series of articles written by Wayne Jackson on this topic. This one appeared in the June 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
Based primarily upon a misunderstanding of Revelation 20:1-6 (to be discussed in a later article) premillennialists urge that there will be two resurrections of the dead. The first will occur at the time of Christ's coming and will consist of the righteous only. Following this, it is contended, will be the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Terminating this will be the second resurrection (of the wicked) and the judgment. There is no real support for this view; in fact, it contradicts numerous verses of clearest meaning. The Scriptures teach that when the Lord Jesus comes: (a) time will end; (b) all of the dead will be raised at the same time; (c) the judgment will occur; (d) eternity will commence.
THE END - In I Corinthians 15:23 Paul speaks of the "coming" of Christ. With reference to that even, he says, "then cometh the end..." (24). It is obvious that the return of Christ is not to begin as earthly reign; rather, it will bring an end to earthly affairs! Some contend that the adverb "then" (Greek eita) demands an interval which allows time for a millennium. Such is not the case however. Note the use of eita in connection with eutheos (immediately) in mark 4:17. Noted scholor Wick Broomall declares, "The usage of eita shows conclusively that the premillennial view is erroneous."
THE DAY - Jesus spoke of "the day" in which He would be revealed (the day of His coming). In presenting this truth, the Lord referred to two divine destructions of former ages (Luke 17:26-30). Observe that on "the day" that Noah entered the ark, the antediluvian world was destroyed. Further, in "the day" that Lot departed Sodom, the people of the plain cities were destroyed. So, contends Christ, "In like manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed." The clear implication of this passage is that the wicked will be destroyed in "the day" of Christ's coming; certainly there is no room for a 1,000 interval here. (Compare Matthew 13:40,49; 25:31-46; II Thessalonians 1:7-9.)
THE HOUR - "Marvel not at this; for the hour cometh in which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). This passage thoroughly negates the "two resurrections" theory. Professor David Brown wrote, "It is hardly possible to conceive a plainer statement of the simultaneousness of the resurrection of both classes." (Christ's Second Coming, p. 190) See also Acts 24:15 where Paul makes it clear that there "shall be a resurrection (singular) both of the just and unjust." Thus, a single resurrection involving two classes.
Certainly there are contexts in which only the resurrection of the righteous is under consideration (John 6:54; II Thessalonians 4:13-18, etc.) but these do not cancel the plain force of verses affirming a general resurrection. Additionally, the symbolic language of the Book of Revelation (20:1-6) must be brought into harmony with these literal New Testament declarations of the coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgment. It is most definitely not a sound hermeneutical principle to force numerous inobscure verses into harmony with a solitary symbolic reference.
Based primarily upon a misunderstanding of Revelation 20:1-6 (to be discussed in a later article) premillennialists urge that there will be two resurrections of the dead. The first will occur at the time of Christ's coming and will consist of the righteous only. Following this, it is contended, will be the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Terminating this will be the second resurrection (of the wicked) and the judgment. There is no real support for this view; in fact, it contradicts numerous verses of clearest meaning. The Scriptures teach that when the Lord Jesus comes: (a) time will end; (b) all of the dead will be raised at the same time; (c) the judgment will occur; (d) eternity will commence.
THE END - In I Corinthians 15:23 Paul speaks of the "coming" of Christ. With reference to that even, he says, "then cometh the end..." (24). It is obvious that the return of Christ is not to begin as earthly reign; rather, it will bring an end to earthly affairs! Some contend that the adverb "then" (Greek eita) demands an interval which allows time for a millennium. Such is not the case however. Note the use of eita in connection with eutheos (immediately) in mark 4:17. Noted scholor Wick Broomall declares, "The usage of eita shows conclusively that the premillennial view is erroneous."
THE DAY - Jesus spoke of "the day" in which He would be revealed (the day of His coming). In presenting this truth, the Lord referred to two divine destructions of former ages (Luke 17:26-30). Observe that on "the day" that Noah entered the ark, the antediluvian world was destroyed. Further, in "the day" that Lot departed Sodom, the people of the plain cities were destroyed. So, contends Christ, "In like manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed." The clear implication of this passage is that the wicked will be destroyed in "the day" of Christ's coming; certainly there is no room for a 1,000 interval here. (Compare Matthew 13:40,49; 25:31-46; II Thessalonians 1:7-9.)
THE HOUR - "Marvel not at this; for the hour cometh in which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). This passage thoroughly negates the "two resurrections" theory. Professor David Brown wrote, "It is hardly possible to conceive a plainer statement of the simultaneousness of the resurrection of both classes." (Christ's Second Coming, p. 190) See also Acts 24:15 where Paul makes it clear that there "shall be a resurrection (singular) both of the just and unjust." Thus, a single resurrection involving two classes.
Certainly there are contexts in which only the resurrection of the righteous is under consideration (John 6:54; II Thessalonians 4:13-18, etc.) but these do not cancel the plain force of verses affirming a general resurrection. Additionally, the symbolic language of the Book of Revelation (20:1-6) must be brought into harmony with these literal New Testament declarations of the coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgment. It is most definitely not a sound hermeneutical principle to force numerous inobscure verses into harmony with a solitary symbolic reference.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Exposing Error
Dan Flournoy wrote this piece which appeared in the May 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson.
Exposing error has never been a pleasant task. Yet, it has always been a necessity. God's messengers, even of old were called upon to expose the false doctrines of men (Isaiah 58:1; Titus 1:9-11). Some, rather than to "reprove, rebuke and exhort with all long suffering and doctrine (II Timothy 4:2), would preach the smooth things (Isaiah 30:9). While Jude would have preferred to write about the common salvation, he found it necessary to exhort the brethren to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
God has placed his "watchmen" upon the walls of spiritual Zion to warn the wicked that they might be saved (Ezekiel 3:17; II Timothy 4:1-4). Gospel preachers and godly elders have a responsibility to sound out the warning before digression and apostasy overrun the people of God (Titus 1:9-14; I Timothy 1:3). This sometimes involves exposing error (Ephesians 5:11), marking those who cause division and occasions of stumbling (Romans 16:17) and sometimes it necessitates rebuking folks publicly (I Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:3; Galatians 2:11). Many however, who should be watchmen, have grown blind, ignorant and have fallen asleep.
"His watchmen are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isaiah 56:10).
Far too many preachers and elders are like these dumb watchdogs that cannot bark. If a watchdog cannot or will not bark, of what good is he? And to further complicate matters, often these "dumb dogs" attack the very ones who are courageous enough to speak out against sin and error within the church. Oh how they can then bark about the "judgmental and unloving" attitude of those "keepers of orthodoxy" and "church regulators."
Preachers and elders need to wake up and watch! They need to sound out a warning against sin and error. Today, perhaps more than ever before, we need watchmen on the walls of spiritual Zion who will lift up their voices like a trumpet and cry out against wickedness (Isaiah 58:1).
Exposing error has never been a pleasant task. Yet, it has always been a necessity. God's messengers, even of old were called upon to expose the false doctrines of men (Isaiah 58:1; Titus 1:9-11). Some, rather than to "reprove, rebuke and exhort with all long suffering and doctrine (II Timothy 4:2), would preach the smooth things (Isaiah 30:9). While Jude would have preferred to write about the common salvation, he found it necessary to exhort the brethren to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
God has placed his "watchmen" upon the walls of spiritual Zion to warn the wicked that they might be saved (Ezekiel 3:17; II Timothy 4:1-4). Gospel preachers and godly elders have a responsibility to sound out the warning before digression and apostasy overrun the people of God (Titus 1:9-14; I Timothy 1:3). This sometimes involves exposing error (Ephesians 5:11), marking those who cause division and occasions of stumbling (Romans 16:17) and sometimes it necessitates rebuking folks publicly (I Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:3; Galatians 2:11). Many however, who should be watchmen, have grown blind, ignorant and have fallen asleep.
"His watchmen are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber" (Isaiah 56:10).
Far too many preachers and elders are like these dumb watchdogs that cannot bark. If a watchdog cannot or will not bark, of what good is he? And to further complicate matters, often these "dumb dogs" attack the very ones who are courageous enough to speak out against sin and error within the church. Oh how they can then bark about the "judgmental and unloving" attitude of those "keepers of orthodoxy" and "church regulators."
Preachers and elders need to wake up and watch! They need to sound out a warning against sin and error. Today, perhaps more than ever before, we need watchmen on the walls of spiritual Zion who will lift up their voices like a trumpet and cry out against wickedness (Isaiah 58:1).
Eating the Lord's Supper Unworthily
C.L. Farmer wrote this article. It appeared in the May 1973 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson.
The apostle Paul declared to the church at Corinth, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body" (I Corinthians 11:27-29). There may be no other expression in the New Testament that has given more trouble to Christians that the expression "unworthy manner." It is certain that nothing has caused more Christians to abstain from communion with Christ that a misunderstanding of this verse. How often do we hear the excuse, "I am unworthy to partake of this holy communion. I will wait until I correct my wrongs, till I am worthy." Even church leaders have been known to discourage weaker Christians with some spiritual defect from taking the Lord's Supper.
No person is really worthy of the death of Christ. If the table of the Lord were only for worthy people, i.e., perfect persons, none of us could ever eat of it. The Greek word translated "unworthy manner" is the adverb anaxios. An adverb is never used to describe a person; it describes a person's action. In this case it describes the manner of participation in the Supper, not the character of the person partaking. One partakes in an unworthy manner "if he discern not the body" of Christ. Thus, when observing the communion one must be mentally aware of the body and blood of Jesus which the elements of the Supper represent. One must be emotionally involved in the events of Calvary. The eating of these elements is vain if not done sincerely from the heart. When one is aware of the greatness of what he is taking part in, when he has a deep sense of the love that these symbols represent, and when he is aware of the obligation that is laid upon him, he will not let other thoughts distract him from his worship.
If one fails to show proper respect to the Lord's sacrifice by eating in a manner not worthy of such a sacrifice, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. To eat of the bread, or drink of the fruit of the vine in a careless or thoughtless way is to show an unconcerned attitude toward the death of Christ, and hence, actually to classify oneself with those who initially crucified our Lord.
What about self-examination? God requires that we worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). We ought to examine ourselves before every phase of worship to Jehovah. To perform any act of worship carelessly or in a way not prescribed by Him, is to show contempt for the Creator we worship. In verse 28, the word translated "examined" is better translated "prove". It means to test. Each person is to test himself. One is not to test another. But of what is one to test himself? The testing is concerning the manner of partaking the Lord's Supper , including one's attitude toward the Lord's body and blood as he communes. One must test himself to determine if he exhibits the proper reverence due the body and blood of the Son of God.
Thus, may these verses never be used to turn a child of God away from the weekly communion with the Savior. May we never add sin upon sin by refusing to eat the Lord's Supper as He has commanded. Let these words bring each of us to the Lord's table with the soberness and reverent meditation, the end that we should be edified, not condemned, and that we might proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
The apostle Paul declared to the church at Corinth, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body" (I Corinthians 11:27-29). There may be no other expression in the New Testament that has given more trouble to Christians that the expression "unworthy manner." It is certain that nothing has caused more Christians to abstain from communion with Christ that a misunderstanding of this verse. How often do we hear the excuse, "I am unworthy to partake of this holy communion. I will wait until I correct my wrongs, till I am worthy." Even church leaders have been known to discourage weaker Christians with some spiritual defect from taking the Lord's Supper.
No person is really worthy of the death of Christ. If the table of the Lord were only for worthy people, i.e., perfect persons, none of us could ever eat of it. The Greek word translated "unworthy manner" is the adverb anaxios. An adverb is never used to describe a person; it describes a person's action. In this case it describes the manner of participation in the Supper, not the character of the person partaking. One partakes in an unworthy manner "if he discern not the body" of Christ. Thus, when observing the communion one must be mentally aware of the body and blood of Jesus which the elements of the Supper represent. One must be emotionally involved in the events of Calvary. The eating of these elements is vain if not done sincerely from the heart. When one is aware of the greatness of what he is taking part in, when he has a deep sense of the love that these symbols represent, and when he is aware of the obligation that is laid upon him, he will not let other thoughts distract him from his worship.
If one fails to show proper respect to the Lord's sacrifice by eating in a manner not worthy of such a sacrifice, he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. To eat of the bread, or drink of the fruit of the vine in a careless or thoughtless way is to show an unconcerned attitude toward the death of Christ, and hence, actually to classify oneself with those who initially crucified our Lord.
What about self-examination? God requires that we worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). We ought to examine ourselves before every phase of worship to Jehovah. To perform any act of worship carelessly or in a way not prescribed by Him, is to show contempt for the Creator we worship. In verse 28, the word translated "examined" is better translated "prove". It means to test. Each person is to test himself. One is not to test another. But of what is one to test himself? The testing is concerning the manner of partaking the Lord's Supper , including one's attitude toward the Lord's body and blood as he communes. One must test himself to determine if he exhibits the proper reverence due the body and blood of the Son of God.
Thus, may these verses never be used to turn a child of God away from the weekly communion with the Savior. May we never add sin upon sin by refusing to eat the Lord's Supper as He has commanded. Let these words bring each of us to the Lord's table with the soberness and reverent meditation, the end that we should be edified, not condemned, and that we might proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)