Wayne Jackson wrote this overview of the book of Isaiah. This was taken from the July 1975 edition of The Christian Courier, published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
There may be no book of the Old Testament that will pay richer dividends to the Bible student than the marvelous Book of Isaiah. The book bears the name of its remarkable author Isaiah, or as the name is in Hebrew, Yesha Yahu, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." The very name of the prophet sets the tone of the message which ultimately thrusts the mind forward many centuries to the coming of Him who would be the very embodiment of Jehovah's salvation.
AUTHORSHIP - Over the past two centuries there has been a concentrated attack upon the unity of the Book of Isaiah. Radical critics, due to a prejudice against the concept of predictive prophecy, have contended that certain portions of the narrative were not penned by the prophet, but were rather authored many years later by unknown writers. It is generally conceded that Isaiah may have written chapters 1-39 but liberals allege that there are at least two sections penned by others. These are: chapters 40-54 (commonly termed 2nd Isaiah) and chapters 55-66 (denominated 3rd Isaiah).
Of this theory it may be said : (a) This is a relatively modern notion. The ancient Jews knew absolutely nothing of it for the seven centuries preceding the coming of Christ. And for the first seventeen centuries of the Christian era, Biblical scholars never even hinted at a multiple authorship for this illustrious book. (b) The theory of a 1st, 2nd and 3rd Isaiah is both arbitrary and artificial, rejecting both the internal and external evidence for the book's unity. For example, no clearer evidence could be desired than that of the testimony of Christ and His inspired New Testament pensmen. They quote from all of the alleged sections of the narrative and simply attribute it to Isaiah. See John 12:37-41 where the Lord quotes from Isaiah chapters 53 and 6 in the same breath, crediting the prophet with both statements, even joining the two passages by saying, "Isaiah said again..." (v. 39)
Isaiah was the son of Amoz (1:1), not to be confused with the prophet Amos; he lived in Jerusalem with his wife and two sons. (7:3; 8:3) The ministry of this noble man of God occurred some two hundred years after the division in the United Kingdom, in the administrations of Judah's kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Bible scholars believe his work may have spanned some forty to sixty years. An ancient tradition suggests that Isaiah was martyred in the days of wicked Manasseh (who is on record as shedding much innocent blood [II Kings 21:16]), being sawn asunder with a wooden saw. (Cf. Hebrews 11:37)
THE MESSAGE - A major emphasis of Isaiah's ministry was to urge the southern kingdom of Judah to return to Jehovah, the "Holy One of Israel" (this expression is used about 25 times in the book). The northern kingdom of Israel has forsaken the Lord having become immersed in idolatry and carnality; they will fall to Assyria in 721 B.C. Judah is sandwiched between two pagan political forces, ascending Assyria to the northeast, and declining Egypt to the southwest. In the shadows of these two looming powers, Judah was inclined to form alliances for protection. They desperately needed to learn however, that "Jehovah is salvation", that protection derives from Him and that the ultimate deliverance will come through the Messiah.
ARRANGEMENT OF THE BOOK - A main thread running through the Book of Isaiah relates to the fact that God sends either judgments or comforts, depending upon how people respond to Him. Around this theme, the book falls into two major sections. Chapters 1-39 might be styled "Judgment from God" while chapters 40-66 stress the concept of "Comfort from the Lord." The following arrangement will assist one in grasping the main divisions of the book.
I. Judgment from God (1-39)
A. Prophecies concerning Judah and Jerusalem. (1-12)
B. Prophecies relating to foreign nations. (13-23)
C. Judgments upon the nations. (24-27)
D. A section of "woes". (28-35)
E. A historical interlude concerning events in the reign of Hezekiah. (36-39)
II. Comfort from God (40-66)
A. A prophecy of deliverance from the impending Babylonian captivity. (40-48)
B. Jehovah's suffering Servant. (49-57)
C. Future glory with the coming of the Christian age. (58-66)
GLIMPSES OF THE COMING MESSIAH - Isaiah is known as the Messianic prophet, for interlaced all through his message are glorious glimpses of the promised Christ. Some of these are:
1. According to Isaiah 6, the prophet is permitted to view the Lord upon His throne. in the midst of that majestic scene he is made keenly aware of human sinfulness and exclaims, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." That this was actually the pre-incarnate Christ that he saw is evidenced by the clear statement of an inspired apostle who declared: "These things said Isaiah, because he saw His (Christ's) glory; and he spake of Him." (John 12:41)
2. The great prophecy of Immanuel's birth to the virgin is foretold in 7:14. The apostle Matthew certifies the true meaning of the passage. (Matthew 1:22-23)
3. The rejection of Jehovah (Christ) as a "stone of stumbling" and "rock of offense" is predicted in 8:13-14. (Cf. I Peter 2:8; 3:14)
4. In 9:6-7 Christ is seen as "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" and heir to David's throne. (See Luke 1:32)
5. The benevolence and universality of the Messiah's reign during the Christian age is vividly portrayed in 11:1-10. Note Paul's use of this in Romans 15:12.
6. The precious, tried and sure foundation cornerstone to be laid in Zion is viewed in 28:16, and referred to on several occasions in the New Testament. (Romans 9:33; I Peter 2:6)
7. In 40:3-5 a preview is given of John the Baptist and his preparatory work for the One who came to reveal the "glory of Jehovah" to "all flesh." (Note Matthew 3:3)
8. The Lord's compassionate and just mission is stressed in 42:1-4. (Cf. Matthew 12:18-21)
9. Isaiah 53 is a veritable galaxy of prophecies pointing to the atoning work of the Savior and many details connected therewith. (Acts 8:32-35; John 12:38, etc.)
Read this magnificent book and watch your faith grow!
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Woman's Role
This article was written by Wayne Jackson and appeared in the April 1975 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
A Problem Among Young People
There are many young people in the body of Christ who are truly dedicated to serving Christ. Young people have become involved in busing programs, personal work, visitation, etc., and for this they are to be greatly commended. Most of these youngsters would not deliberately violate the Lord's will in the area of New Testament worship, yet some are engaging in practices which are clearly wrong. It is becoming increasingly the vogue for girls to LEAD both songs and prayers in devotionals where boys are present. The rather informal atmosphere of these services doubtless leaves the feeling that this is not a real worship period and hence there is nothing wrong with girls leading.
The Bible makes it very clear that there are definite roles for both men and women to occupy within the body of Christ. Paul discusses this point in I Timothy 2. He lays down certain inspired regulations based upon the following foundation. (1) man was formed first, woman second. (2) The woman, being deceived, sinned first and subsequently led man into the same. Because of these historical facts, God has placed Christian women (and girls) in a role of subordination in the church of Christ. Thus, in I Timothy 2:8 and following, the apostle authorized, "the men" (males only) to lead the prayers, etc. Later, he strictly forbids women to teach or to conduct acts of worship in any way over man.
It needs to be understood that when one LEADS a worship service, from the very nature of the situation, the others must follow. And in the Biblical sense, this is exercising authority over men; a thing forbidden women. A noted Greek scholar, in commenting on these verses, has said that those who lead, "the public prayer must be the men of the congregation, not the women. A woman's positive duty is to make herself conspicuous by good works, not by personal display. Her place in relation to man is one of subordination." (Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 106.) In our worship periods therefore, whether in a church building or in a private home, when a group of males and females are present, let only the males direct the worship.
A Problem Among Older People
Another growing practice in some congregations is that of so-called "team teaching." In this procedure, a couple, male and female (usually husband and wife) stands before a congregation or class to instruct it on some special theme. The woman teaches jointly and speaks freely as a team member. It is alleged that she is not exercising authority over the man for: (a) the husband has given her permission to so teach; (b) she is merely at his side to assist him in the presentation.
This practice is as unscriptural as it can be. In reply to the defense above, it may be observed: (a) no man has the right to authorize a woman to act contrary to the divine teaching of scripture; (b) the woman who instructs an assembly, though at the side of her husband, is doing precisely the same work as he is doing. In the student-teacher relationship she is as much an authority figure as he. And the Christian woman is not granted the concession of teaching a mixed assembly. Surely no one would contend that the preacher's wife could accompany him into the pulpit on Sunday morning and jointly with him exhort the congregation! Yet, what would be the difference in principle?
Our preachers and elders certainly ought to know better than to condone the practice of this "team teaching" phenomenon. Have we become that ignorant of the teaching of the sacred Book? Or is it that some have so imbibed the foolish raving of "Women's Liberation" that they have lost all sense of concern for what the Bible teaches?
The Background of Biblical Passages
Wayne Jackson wrote this outstanding piece. It appeared in the December 1974 edition of The Christian Courier, published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
One of the very important rules of Bible interpretation suggests that passages be studied in the light of their historical backgrounds. Indeed, there are many verses that can scarcely have the meaning for us that they ought, unless we are aware of the historical or cultural situations from which they take their rise. A few examples will help to illustrate this vital concept.
Jesus once described certain Jewish leaders (the Scribes and Pharisees) as "like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) The Lord's allusion relates back to an Old Testament practice. According to the law of Moses, anyone touching a grave was to be considered ceremonially "unclean" for a week. (Numbers 19:16) Thus, the Jews white washed the grave markers of their dead (usually each year after the heavy spring rains) to prevent anyone from accidental defilement. Such graves were of course rather paradoxical since they outwardly appeared so sparkling and bright but inwardly were filled with rot. They were thus an apt and bold figure for the outwardly appearing religious Jews who literally reeked with hypocrisy. In a similar verse Jesus described these leaders as "tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not." (Luke 11:44) This is a reference to the poorer type of grave which had no marker and it suggests the spiritual defilement which the Pharisees and others exercised upon unsuspecting victims.
Our Lord sought to encourage generosity when He said, "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure , pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom." (Luke 6:38) What does the word "bosom" denote in this verse? The dress of the working class in Palestine provides the background for understanding this expression. the everyday garment was a coarse shirt reaching down to the hells, with a sash which was secured firmly around the waist. The Palestinian citizen would go to the market to buy grain and the merchant would pour it into the top of his shirt; his shirt thus became his grain sack and he literally carried his groceries in his "bosom." And so Christ taught that when we are liberal with our possessions, God will never short-change us, rather, He will bless us with an abundance that has been pressed down, shaken together, and is running over.
In describing the phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ, Matthew says: "And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in tow from the top to the bottom..." (Matthew 27:51) We may better appreciate this dramatic event when we study the background and learn that the temple's veil (between the holy place and the most holy place) was some thirty feet wide and sixty feet long, and was a hand breath (approximately four inches) thick. According to the Jewish Talmud, it took three hundred priests to manipulate the veil. The tearing of that gigantic curtain (from top to bottom) was not a natural occurrence. It was the work of God! That partition had served as a separation between God and man; a separation which, as far as the Israelites were concerned, could only be bridged with a physical priesthood. Henceforth, all those who obeyed God were to be priests (I Peter 2:5) and to have access to Jehovah's presence through Christ, the one mediator. (I Timothy 2:5)
In view of the foregoing, one is reminded of Paul's description of the abolition of the law of Moses in Ephesians 2:14, where he declared that Christ, "brake down the middle wall of partition." In the temple of Paul's day, there was a stone wall approximately five feet high that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the sacred buildings of the temple itself. Along this wall at various points were pillars upon which was inscribed (in Hebrew, Latin and Greek) a warning of death for any Gentile who should venture beyond that wall. One of these ancient pillars was actually discovered in 1871, and the inscription (written in capital Greek letters) is as follows: "No man of another nation to enter within the fence and enclosure round the temple, and whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death ensues." It is very possible that Paul bases his figure on this situation, and thereby shows that a barrier between Jew and Gentile does not exist in Christ. The law of Moses, which was that barrier, has been removed by the death of Christ and thus both Jews and Gentiles are to be "one" in Christ. (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-22)
These few examples surely illustrate some of the rich dividends that will be paid to those who have the patience to dig deeply into the sacred text. The discovery of colorful background material can make verses which have perhaps seemed obscure, literally become alive on the pages of your Bible. The Bible is not a mere musty book of centuries gone by; it is truly as thrilling today as when it was first penned.
One of the very important rules of Bible interpretation suggests that passages be studied in the light of their historical backgrounds. Indeed, there are many verses that can scarcely have the meaning for us that they ought, unless we are aware of the historical or cultural situations from which they take their rise. A few examples will help to illustrate this vital concept.
Jesus once described certain Jewish leaders (the Scribes and Pharisees) as "like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:27) The Lord's allusion relates back to an Old Testament practice. According to the law of Moses, anyone touching a grave was to be considered ceremonially "unclean" for a week. (Numbers 19:16) Thus, the Jews white washed the grave markers of their dead (usually each year after the heavy spring rains) to prevent anyone from accidental defilement. Such graves were of course rather paradoxical since they outwardly appeared so sparkling and bright but inwardly were filled with rot. They were thus an apt and bold figure for the outwardly appearing religious Jews who literally reeked with hypocrisy. In a similar verse Jesus described these leaders as "tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not." (Luke 11:44) This is a reference to the poorer type of grave which had no marker and it suggests the spiritual defilement which the Pharisees and others exercised upon unsuspecting victims.
Our Lord sought to encourage generosity when He said, "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure , pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom." (Luke 6:38) What does the word "bosom" denote in this verse? The dress of the working class in Palestine provides the background for understanding this expression. the everyday garment was a coarse shirt reaching down to the hells, with a sash which was secured firmly around the waist. The Palestinian citizen would go to the market to buy grain and the merchant would pour it into the top of his shirt; his shirt thus became his grain sack and he literally carried his groceries in his "bosom." And so Christ taught that when we are liberal with our possessions, God will never short-change us, rather, He will bless us with an abundance that has been pressed down, shaken together, and is running over.
In describing the phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ, Matthew says: "And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in tow from the top to the bottom..." (Matthew 27:51) We may better appreciate this dramatic event when we study the background and learn that the temple's veil (between the holy place and the most holy place) was some thirty feet wide and sixty feet long, and was a hand breath (approximately four inches) thick. According to the Jewish Talmud, it took three hundred priests to manipulate the veil. The tearing of that gigantic curtain (from top to bottom) was not a natural occurrence. It was the work of God! That partition had served as a separation between God and man; a separation which, as far as the Israelites were concerned, could only be bridged with a physical priesthood. Henceforth, all those who obeyed God were to be priests (I Peter 2:5) and to have access to Jehovah's presence through Christ, the one mediator. (I Timothy 2:5)
In view of the foregoing, one is reminded of Paul's description of the abolition of the law of Moses in Ephesians 2:14, where he declared that Christ, "brake down the middle wall of partition." In the temple of Paul's day, there was a stone wall approximately five feet high that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the sacred buildings of the temple itself. Along this wall at various points were pillars upon which was inscribed (in Hebrew, Latin and Greek) a warning of death for any Gentile who should venture beyond that wall. One of these ancient pillars was actually discovered in 1871, and the inscription (written in capital Greek letters) is as follows: "No man of another nation to enter within the fence and enclosure round the temple, and whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death ensues." It is very possible that Paul bases his figure on this situation, and thereby shows that a barrier between Jew and Gentile does not exist in Christ. The law of Moses, which was that barrier, has been removed by the death of Christ and thus both Jews and Gentiles are to be "one" in Christ. (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-22)
These few examples surely illustrate some of the rich dividends that will be paid to those who have the patience to dig deeply into the sacred text. The discovery of colorful background material can make verses which have perhaps seemed obscure, literally become alive on the pages of your Bible. The Bible is not a mere musty book of centuries gone by; it is truly as thrilling today as when it was first penned.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Punishment of Hell
This article was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the December 1974 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson. I believe it's important to share here because I'm afraid Christians are too reluctant to speak about the reality of Hell.
One facet of the philosophy of materialism within the religious world is the concept that man is wholly mortal and as such, at death passes into extinction. Death is defined by the Watch Tower Witnesses as "Loss of life; termination of existence; utter cessation of conscious, intellectual or physical activity, celestial, human or otherwise." (Make Sure of All Things, p. 86.) This of course, eliminates the possibility of punishment for sin after death and is therefore readily acceptable to those who have little regard for the word of God. In addition to the Watch Tower cult, other exponents of this false view include the Seventh Day Adventists and Herbert Armstrong's Radio Church of God. No doubt many find some comfort in the foregoing heresy; unfortunately, it is far from the truth.
The ultimate abode of those who disobey God is Biblically termed "Hell" (Greek: Gehenna). This is not the same as "Hades" (rendered "Hell" in the King James Version) which is the state of disembodied spirits prior to the judgment, (whether good or evil); rather Gehenna is the FINAL place of the wicked. It is a state characterized by punishment, suffering and indescribable torment, unceasing in duration.
J. W. McGarvey has given an excellent summary of the history of the word Gehenna. "Near Jerusalem there was a deep narrow gorge in the mountains, called Genenna or the Valley of Hinnom. In the times of Jewish idolatry this valley was stained with the blood of their innocent children, which were 'burned with fire for burnt offerings to Baal.' (Jeremiah 19:1-6) The deepest depths of human guilt and misery were here combined; the guilt of men who compelled the sacrifice and the misery of the children who were burned, and of the mothers from whose breasts they were torn to be cast into the fiery furnace. When the abominations were suppressed, the most horrible associations were connected with that place. To the superstitious Jew it was a resort of ghosts and hobgoblins, and to the pious it was a place of unspeakable horror. There was no other word in Jewish speech so full of this meaning and this word Jesus seized upon as the name of that final state where the wicked are enveloped in fire and darkness and continual weeping. He called it Gehenna and this, when translated into English, is Hell."
Jesus declared that the wicked, "shall go away into eternal punishment." (Matthew 25:46) "Punishment" is from the Greek kolasis which in classical Greek meant to prune or cut off; however, by the time of the New Testament period it simply meant "punishment" and is so defined by standard Greek lexicons. In an attempt to negate the idea of punishment, the Watch Tower translation reverts to the old classical usage and thus renders Matthew 25:46, "these will depart into everlasting cutting off." It is not without significance though, that the same version has translated kolazo (the verb form of kolasis) "to punish" in Acts 4:21. If they understood its true meaning in this latter verse, why pervert its significance in the former passage? Plain dishonesty is the answer. Jesus said the wicked will be punished and punishment demands consciousness!
Paul wrote of those who shall, "suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might." (II Thessalonians 1:9) The Greek expression diken tisousin means to pay a penalty, to suffer punishment. Its usage can be seen in the LXX. "A prudent man seeth evil and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and SUFFER for it." (Proverbs 27:12) Nor does the term "destruction" in II Thessalonians 1:9 denote cessation of existence. The Greek olethros used here means "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery."
On one occasion Christ affirmed: "And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both body and soul in Hell." (Matthew 10:28) Now the idea in apollumi, says W.E. Vine, "is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well being." J.H. Thayer says that in Matthew 10:28 it means, "to devote or give over to eternal misery."
A remarkably vivid description of hell is presented by the apostle John. "And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, 'If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of His anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night.'" (Revelation 14:11; Cf. 20:10) To "torment" by definition, is "to vex with grievous pains."
While we have dealt thus far with only the final punishment of the wicked in Gehenna, it would be well to point out that there is also punishment in Hades, immediately after death, for those who rebel against God. This is a punishment of man's spirit while his body resides in the grave. After the resurrection, both body and soul of the disobedient will depart into Gehenna. (Matthew 10:28) but there is clearly punishment for the ungodly prior to judgment. (See II Peter 2:4-9 ASV.)
There are numerous descriptive terms in the Bible that characterize the punishment of the lost, whether in Hades or Gehenna. Note the following; pains, trouble, sorrow (Psalms 116:3); shame, contempt (Daniel 12:2); affliction (Jonah 2:2); darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13); fire (Matthew 25:41); anguish (Luke 16:24, Romans 2:9); torment (Luke 16:23, Revelation 14:10-11; 20:10).
But what is the duration of Hell's suffering? The Son of God described it as a place of ETERNAL punishment (Matthew 25:36), "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:38) "Eternal" is from the original term aionios, literally meaning "always being." In the New Testament it may be used of something without beginning (Romans 16:25), without beginning or ending (Romans 16:26), or without ending, as in the case of Matthew 25:46. Also, the word can be used in a figurative sense to emphasize, though involving a limited span of time; however, in such an instance the context will reveal that figurative usage. (Cf. Jonah 2:6 "for ever.") In Matthew 25:46 aionios is twice used; it determines the duration of the punishment of the wicked and the life (i.e., blessedness) of the righteous. One fact is unquestionably clear from this important passage; the conscious suffering of the ungodly will last as long as the bliss of the faithful.
Just who will enter Hell? The scriptures assign this fate to the following classes.
1. All who refuse to acknowledge the God of Heaven. Those who "know not God." (II Thessalonians 1:8; Romans 1:21)
2. The nominal believer who refuses to obey the words of Christ. (Hebrews 5:8-9; II Thessalonians 1:8; Romans 1:21)
3. All immoral people. (Romans 1:28-32; I Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21)
4. The child of God who fails to assume his Christian responsibilities. (Matthew 13:41; 25:41-46; Hebrews 3:12; 10:19-31)
One facet of the philosophy of materialism within the religious world is the concept that man is wholly mortal and as such, at death passes into extinction. Death is defined by the Watch Tower Witnesses as "Loss of life; termination of existence; utter cessation of conscious, intellectual or physical activity, celestial, human or otherwise." (Make Sure of All Things, p. 86.) This of course, eliminates the possibility of punishment for sin after death and is therefore readily acceptable to those who have little regard for the word of God. In addition to the Watch Tower cult, other exponents of this false view include the Seventh Day Adventists and Herbert Armstrong's Radio Church of God. No doubt many find some comfort in the foregoing heresy; unfortunately, it is far from the truth.
The ultimate abode of those who disobey God is Biblically termed "Hell" (Greek: Gehenna). This is not the same as "Hades" (rendered "Hell" in the King James Version) which is the state of disembodied spirits prior to the judgment, (whether good or evil); rather Gehenna is the FINAL place of the wicked. It is a state characterized by punishment, suffering and indescribable torment, unceasing in duration.
J. W. McGarvey has given an excellent summary of the history of the word Gehenna. "Near Jerusalem there was a deep narrow gorge in the mountains, called Genenna or the Valley of Hinnom. In the times of Jewish idolatry this valley was stained with the blood of their innocent children, which were 'burned with fire for burnt offerings to Baal.' (Jeremiah 19:1-6) The deepest depths of human guilt and misery were here combined; the guilt of men who compelled the sacrifice and the misery of the children who were burned, and of the mothers from whose breasts they were torn to be cast into the fiery furnace. When the abominations were suppressed, the most horrible associations were connected with that place. To the superstitious Jew it was a resort of ghosts and hobgoblins, and to the pious it was a place of unspeakable horror. There was no other word in Jewish speech so full of this meaning and this word Jesus seized upon as the name of that final state where the wicked are enveloped in fire and darkness and continual weeping. He called it Gehenna and this, when translated into English, is Hell."
Jesus declared that the wicked, "shall go away into eternal punishment." (Matthew 25:46) "Punishment" is from the Greek kolasis which in classical Greek meant to prune or cut off; however, by the time of the New Testament period it simply meant "punishment" and is so defined by standard Greek lexicons. In an attempt to negate the idea of punishment, the Watch Tower translation reverts to the old classical usage and thus renders Matthew 25:46, "these will depart into everlasting cutting off." It is not without significance though, that the same version has translated kolazo (the verb form of kolasis) "to punish" in Acts 4:21. If they understood its true meaning in this latter verse, why pervert its significance in the former passage? Plain dishonesty is the answer. Jesus said the wicked will be punished and punishment demands consciousness!
Paul wrote of those who shall, "suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might." (II Thessalonians 1:9) The Greek expression diken tisousin means to pay a penalty, to suffer punishment. Its usage can be seen in the LXX. "A prudent man seeth evil and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and SUFFER for it." (Proverbs 27:12) Nor does the term "destruction" in II Thessalonians 1:9 denote cessation of existence. The Greek olethros used here means "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery."
On one occasion Christ affirmed: "And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both body and soul in Hell." (Matthew 10:28) Now the idea in apollumi, says W.E. Vine, "is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well being." J.H. Thayer says that in Matthew 10:28 it means, "to devote or give over to eternal misery."
A remarkably vivid description of hell is presented by the apostle John. "And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, 'If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of His anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night.'" (Revelation 14:11; Cf. 20:10) To "torment" by definition, is "to vex with grievous pains."
While we have dealt thus far with only the final punishment of the wicked in Gehenna, it would be well to point out that there is also punishment in Hades, immediately after death, for those who rebel against God. This is a punishment of man's spirit while his body resides in the grave. After the resurrection, both body and soul of the disobedient will depart into Gehenna. (Matthew 10:28) but there is clearly punishment for the ungodly prior to judgment. (See II Peter 2:4-9 ASV.)
There are numerous descriptive terms in the Bible that characterize the punishment of the lost, whether in Hades or Gehenna. Note the following; pains, trouble, sorrow (Psalms 116:3); shame, contempt (Daniel 12:2); affliction (Jonah 2:2); darkness, weeping, gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13); fire (Matthew 25:41); anguish (Luke 16:24, Romans 2:9); torment (Luke 16:23, Revelation 14:10-11; 20:10).
But what is the duration of Hell's suffering? The Son of God described it as a place of ETERNAL punishment (Matthew 25:36), "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:38) "Eternal" is from the original term aionios, literally meaning "always being." In the New Testament it may be used of something without beginning (Romans 16:25), without beginning or ending (Romans 16:26), or without ending, as in the case of Matthew 25:46. Also, the word can be used in a figurative sense to emphasize, though involving a limited span of time; however, in such an instance the context will reveal that figurative usage. (Cf. Jonah 2:6 "for ever.") In Matthew 25:46 aionios is twice used; it determines the duration of the punishment of the wicked and the life (i.e., blessedness) of the righteous. One fact is unquestionably clear from this important passage; the conscious suffering of the ungodly will last as long as the bliss of the faithful.
Just who will enter Hell? The scriptures assign this fate to the following classes.
1. All who refuse to acknowledge the God of Heaven. Those who "know not God." (II Thessalonians 1:8; Romans 1:21)
2. The nominal believer who refuses to obey the words of Christ. (Hebrews 5:8-9; II Thessalonians 1:8; Romans 1:21)
3. All immoral people. (Romans 1:28-32; I Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21)
4. The child of God who fails to assume his Christian responsibilities. (Matthew 13:41; 25:41-46; Hebrews 3:12; 10:19-31)
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Matthew's Record of the Virgin Birth
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the November 1974 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
The doctrine of the virgin birth is vitally related to the true identity of Christ. Just who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was He "the fruit of an adulterous union of Mary with a certain soldier whose name was Pantheras" as the pagan philosopher Celsus charged? Was He the natural son of Joseph as German theologian Adolph Harnach suggested? Or was He in fact, precisely who He claimed to be, the divine son of God? In view of His claims, if He was not the Son of God, He was either a self-deceived lunatic or a vicious impostor. The doctrine of the virgin birth is, therefore, inseparably bound to both the claims and character of Jesus Christ. Though there are several portions of Scripture which might be studied with profit relative to this theme, this article will deal primarily with Matthew chapter one, summarizing that apostle's inspired arguments for the virgin birth of Jesus.
(1) Matthew commences his book by chronicling the legal genealogy of Jesus. In so doing he employs the verb "begat" (Greek gennao) no less than thirty nine times. From Abraham to Joseph, it is "begat" all the way until Jesus. He writes, "...and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (1:16) The term "begat" is conspicuously absent as a connective between Joseph and Jesus. This is a cautiously worded suggestion of the virgin birth.
(2) Additionally, the inspired writer stresses concerning Mary, "...of whom was born Jesus." the pronoun "whom" (hes) is singular number, feminine gender, thus excluding Joseph from any involvement in the Lord's birth.
(3) It is carefully stated that Mary's conception occurred while she and Joseph were but "betrothed." (1:18) This according to Jewish practice, embraced that interval of time (usually about twelve months for a virgin) between the formal agreement to marry and the moving of the bride into the groom's home, at which point sexual cohabitation commenced.
(4) Matthew specifically says that the conception was "before they came together." The Greek term sunerchomai is frequently used "of coming together in a sexual sense." (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 795.) there had thus been no union.
(5) Mary was said to be "found" (heurethe) with child. This word indicates a discovery or detection. (Winer, Greek Grammar, p. 769.) Joseph was surprised to learn of Mary's pregnancy and this, of course, is an evidence of his lack of complicity.
(6) Matthew observes that Mary's conception was "of the Holy Spirit." Lenski pungently observed: "In this brief phrase Matthew records what is popularly called the virgin birth, and on this phrase hangs the entire paragraph, yea, all else that the New Testament reports concerning the Word made flesh." He says that Jesus either, "entered our race as Matthew here declares, or He did not. If He did not, if Jesus was an ordinary bastard, or Joseph's natural son by an act of forbidden cohabitation, then they who will may call Him their Savior, their lascivious fancy cannot raise Him from the mire into which they have cast Him." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 42.)
(7) It is further revealed that Joseph was "minded to put her away." The term "put away" is apolusai, literally to "loose away" or to divorce. (Arndt & Gingrich, p. 96.) Under Jewish law, betrothal could be voided only by divorce. Joseph, initially feeling that Mary had been unfaithful to him, was "minded" (boulomai: indicating a decision reached after prior deliberation) to divorce her. He knew he was not the father of her child. Thus is Harnack's foolish speculation refuted.
(8) There was also the independent testimony of an angel who declared to Mary that "that which is conceived is of the Holy Spirit." (Cf. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee...")
(9) Matthew contends that Mary miraculously conceived "that it might be fulfilled" as the Lord had spoken through Isaiah (7:14), "Behold, the virgin shall be with child..." Isaiah employed the Hebrew word almah. Much controversy has surrounded this word as a result of modernism's rejection of the virgin birth. But Edward J. Young has observed that almah "is never used of a married woman, either in the Bible or elsewhere." (The Banner, April 15, 1955.) Robert Dick Wilson, an incomparable scholar who mastered some forty five languages, thoroughly researched the word and declared: "Alma, so far as known, never meant 'young married woman' and secondly since the presumption in common law and usage was and is, that every alma is virgin and virtuous, until she is proved not to be, we have a right to assume that...the alma of Isaiah 7:14 and all other almas were virgin, until and unless it shall be proven that they were not...The language itself is not the difficulty. The great and only difficulty lies in disbelief in predictive prophecy and in the Almighty power of God; or in the desire to throw discredit upon the divine Sonship of Jesus." (Princeton Theological Review, 1926, p. 316.)
In his rendition of the passage, Matthew uses the Greek word parthenos. Now parthenos is "virgin" as the consultation of a Greek lexicon will reveal. The fact that parthenos in rare instances may refer to one who is technically a non-virgin, is no argument against the unquestionably normal usage of the word. For example, Dinah is called a parthenos even after she was raped. (Genesis 34:3, LXX) However, the Old Testament frequently uses former appellations in a figurative sense to denominate subsequent situations. Abigail is called Nabal's "wife" even after she married David (II Samuel 2:2) and Jerusalem is referred to as "the faithful city" while playing the "harlot." (Isaiah 1:21) Or it may be that Dinah is called a parthenos even after her violation to stress her non-consent in the horrible act.
Isaiah makes it clear that it would be as a virgin that Mary would conceive. There is no way that a virgin can conceive other than by a miracle. If a virgin marries (thus losing her virginity), conceives and bears a child, it certainly can in no way be called a "virgin birth." Isaiah must, therefore have had exclusive reference to Mary's virginal conception. This writer totally rejects the view which asserts that the use of almah in Isaiah 7:14 involved a double prophecy, i.e. a young woman of the prophet's own time, in addition to Mary. (See William Hendriksen's Commentary on Matthew, pp. 134-143.)
(10) The child's name was to be called "Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." The use of "God" in a compound name does not in itself of course, demand the deity of the person so named. It is plain however, that Matthew's use of the name does involve the divine nature of Christ. The apostle was writing a gospel narrative primarily for the Jews. He did not therefore, need to give them the interpretation of Immanuel; but he did, and this was to stress the point that with the birth of Jesus, deity had come to earth! Christ could not have been a divine being in the flesh had He been the offspring of both a human father and mother. Thus, the very name "Immanuel," as used by the inspired writer, argues for the virgin birth.
(11) Finally, it is stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife but, "knew her not till she brought forth a son..." The verb "know" (ginosko) is used frequently in both sacred and profane literature as a euphemism for sexual relations. (Cf. Genesis 4:1, 17; Luke 1:34) Here the exact verb form is eginosken, in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Joseph "kept on refraining from sexual contact" with Mary until after the birth of Jesus (though not necessarily beyond that time. Cf. Matthew 12:55-56).
Those therefore, who reject the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, do not do so from want of Biblical evidence; such repudiation results from abject infidelity!
The doctrine of the virgin birth is vitally related to the true identity of Christ. Just who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was He "the fruit of an adulterous union of Mary with a certain soldier whose name was Pantheras" as the pagan philosopher Celsus charged? Was He the natural son of Joseph as German theologian Adolph Harnach suggested? Or was He in fact, precisely who He claimed to be, the divine son of God? In view of His claims, if He was not the Son of God, He was either a self-deceived lunatic or a vicious impostor. The doctrine of the virgin birth is, therefore, inseparably bound to both the claims and character of Jesus Christ. Though there are several portions of Scripture which might be studied with profit relative to this theme, this article will deal primarily with Matthew chapter one, summarizing that apostle's inspired arguments for the virgin birth of Jesus.
(1) Matthew commences his book by chronicling the legal genealogy of Jesus. In so doing he employs the verb "begat" (Greek gennao) no less than thirty nine times. From Abraham to Joseph, it is "begat" all the way until Jesus. He writes, "...and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (1:16) The term "begat" is conspicuously absent as a connective between Joseph and Jesus. This is a cautiously worded suggestion of the virgin birth.
(2) Additionally, the inspired writer stresses concerning Mary, "...of whom was born Jesus." the pronoun "whom" (hes) is singular number, feminine gender, thus excluding Joseph from any involvement in the Lord's birth.
(3) It is carefully stated that Mary's conception occurred while she and Joseph were but "betrothed." (1:18) This according to Jewish practice, embraced that interval of time (usually about twelve months for a virgin) between the formal agreement to marry and the moving of the bride into the groom's home, at which point sexual cohabitation commenced.
(4) Matthew specifically says that the conception was "before they came together." The Greek term sunerchomai is frequently used "of coming together in a sexual sense." (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 795.) there had thus been no union.
(5) Mary was said to be "found" (heurethe) with child. This word indicates a discovery or detection. (Winer, Greek Grammar, p. 769.) Joseph was surprised to learn of Mary's pregnancy and this, of course, is an evidence of his lack of complicity.
(6) Matthew observes that Mary's conception was "of the Holy Spirit." Lenski pungently observed: "In this brief phrase Matthew records what is popularly called the virgin birth, and on this phrase hangs the entire paragraph, yea, all else that the New Testament reports concerning the Word made flesh." He says that Jesus either, "entered our race as Matthew here declares, or He did not. If He did not, if Jesus was an ordinary bastard, or Joseph's natural son by an act of forbidden cohabitation, then they who will may call Him their Savior, their lascivious fancy cannot raise Him from the mire into which they have cast Him." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 42.)
(7) It is further revealed that Joseph was "minded to put her away." The term "put away" is apolusai, literally to "loose away" or to divorce. (Arndt & Gingrich, p. 96.) Under Jewish law, betrothal could be voided only by divorce. Joseph, initially feeling that Mary had been unfaithful to him, was "minded" (boulomai: indicating a decision reached after prior deliberation) to divorce her. He knew he was not the father of her child. Thus is Harnack's foolish speculation refuted.
(8) There was also the independent testimony of an angel who declared to Mary that "that which is conceived is of the Holy Spirit." (Cf. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee...")
(9) Matthew contends that Mary miraculously conceived "that it might be fulfilled" as the Lord had spoken through Isaiah (7:14), "Behold, the virgin shall be with child..." Isaiah employed the Hebrew word almah. Much controversy has surrounded this word as a result of modernism's rejection of the virgin birth. But Edward J. Young has observed that almah "is never used of a married woman, either in the Bible or elsewhere." (The Banner, April 15, 1955.) Robert Dick Wilson, an incomparable scholar who mastered some forty five languages, thoroughly researched the word and declared: "Alma, so far as known, never meant 'young married woman' and secondly since the presumption in common law and usage was and is, that every alma is virgin and virtuous, until she is proved not to be, we have a right to assume that...the alma of Isaiah 7:14 and all other almas were virgin, until and unless it shall be proven that they were not...The language itself is not the difficulty. The great and only difficulty lies in disbelief in predictive prophecy and in the Almighty power of God; or in the desire to throw discredit upon the divine Sonship of Jesus." (Princeton Theological Review, 1926, p. 316.)
In his rendition of the passage, Matthew uses the Greek word parthenos. Now parthenos is "virgin" as the consultation of a Greek lexicon will reveal. The fact that parthenos in rare instances may refer to one who is technically a non-virgin, is no argument against the unquestionably normal usage of the word. For example, Dinah is called a parthenos even after she was raped. (Genesis 34:3, LXX) However, the Old Testament frequently uses former appellations in a figurative sense to denominate subsequent situations. Abigail is called Nabal's "wife" even after she married David (II Samuel 2:2) and Jerusalem is referred to as "the faithful city" while playing the "harlot." (Isaiah 1:21) Or it may be that Dinah is called a parthenos even after her violation to stress her non-consent in the horrible act.
Isaiah makes it clear that it would be as a virgin that Mary would conceive. There is no way that a virgin can conceive other than by a miracle. If a virgin marries (thus losing her virginity), conceives and bears a child, it certainly can in no way be called a "virgin birth." Isaiah must, therefore have had exclusive reference to Mary's virginal conception. This writer totally rejects the view which asserts that the use of almah in Isaiah 7:14 involved a double prophecy, i.e. a young woman of the prophet's own time, in addition to Mary. (See William Hendriksen's Commentary on Matthew, pp. 134-143.)
(10) The child's name was to be called "Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." The use of "God" in a compound name does not in itself of course, demand the deity of the person so named. It is plain however, that Matthew's use of the name does involve the divine nature of Christ. The apostle was writing a gospel narrative primarily for the Jews. He did not therefore, need to give them the interpretation of Immanuel; but he did, and this was to stress the point that with the birth of Jesus, deity had come to earth! Christ could not have been a divine being in the flesh had He been the offspring of both a human father and mother. Thus, the very name "Immanuel," as used by the inspired writer, argues for the virgin birth.
(11) Finally, it is stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife but, "knew her not till she brought forth a son..." The verb "know" (ginosko) is used frequently in both sacred and profane literature as a euphemism for sexual relations. (Cf. Genesis 4:1, 17; Luke 1:34) Here the exact verb form is eginosken, in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Joseph "kept on refraining from sexual contact" with Mary until after the birth of Jesus (though not necessarily beyond that time. Cf. Matthew 12:55-56).
Those therefore, who reject the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, do not do so from want of Biblical evidence; such repudiation results from abject infidelity!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Renewing the Mind
Dan S. Shipley is the author of this article. It appeared in the June 1973 edition of Plain Talk, published by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas.
In New Testament writings, sinners are often referred to as men with reprobate minds (Romans 1:28), corrupt minds (I Timothy 6:5), defiled minds (Titus 1:15) and as men that "walk in the vanity of their mind" (Ephesians 4:17). In Colossians 1:21, Paul reminds some that they were in times past, "alienated and enemies in your mind." Such minds reflect wrong attitudes. They show dispositions of hostility and antagonism toward God and the things of God. Making the transition from sinner to saint involves changing such minds and altering such attitudes.
The process by which this radical and essential change is effected is called "renewing" (anakainosis). Romans 12:2 shows it to be the basis for transforming the life: "And be not fashioned according to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." So then, meaningful change, change of character involves more than external reforms and outward acts. It means changing the mind (heart) from whence are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 14:19-20). It means "the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God" (Vine). Essentially, to have this renewed mind is to have the mind of Christ (I Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5). It is to have and be influenced by the Divine viewpoint instead of the human viewpoint; by the spiritual instead of the carnal. Nothing is more essential to or characteristic of the "new man" (Colossians 3:10) and his "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) than this renewed mind. And of no less importance is the means of its renewal. How does God seek to change the minds of sinful men?
Contrary to many popular concepts, on the the gospel of Christ can change and renew the minds of men as God intended. Nothing but God's truth can make believers out of unbelievers. Belief (a function of the mind) comes from hearing Divine testimony (Romans 10:17). This is according to prophecy concerning the new covenant wherein the Lord says, "I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will I write them" (Hebrews 8:10). The faith by which men are motivated to "transformed" living is derived from the word of God (John 20:30-31). It is no coincidence that in every case of conversion recorded in the New Testament, what was done was based on something that was learned and believed.
For example, the obedience of the Pentecostians was in response to what they had heard (Acts 2:37); their baptism was in consequence of "receiving His word" (v. 41) and their subsequent activities were directed by the "apostles' teaching (v. 42). In receiving the knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26) these crucifiers of Jesus became informed and enlightened in their understanding; thus, believed and obeyed and received the remission of their sins. This corresponds exactly to the description of the saved as given by Peter in which he refers to them as those who, "have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord..." (II Peter 2:20).
Yes, their conversion was an "experience" but it was an experience with God's truth. And that's the only kind that can renew the mind and the life. All men need such experiences...for eternity's sake.
In New Testament writings, sinners are often referred to as men with reprobate minds (Romans 1:28), corrupt minds (I Timothy 6:5), defiled minds (Titus 1:15) and as men that "walk in the vanity of their mind" (Ephesians 4:17). In Colossians 1:21, Paul reminds some that they were in times past, "alienated and enemies in your mind." Such minds reflect wrong attitudes. They show dispositions of hostility and antagonism toward God and the things of God. Making the transition from sinner to saint involves changing such minds and altering such attitudes.
The process by which this radical and essential change is effected is called "renewing" (anakainosis). Romans 12:2 shows it to be the basis for transforming the life: "And be not fashioned according to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." So then, meaningful change, change of character involves more than external reforms and outward acts. It means changing the mind (heart) from whence are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 14:19-20). It means "the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God" (Vine). Essentially, to have this renewed mind is to have the mind of Christ (I Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5). It is to have and be influenced by the Divine viewpoint instead of the human viewpoint; by the spiritual instead of the carnal. Nothing is more essential to or characteristic of the "new man" (Colossians 3:10) and his "newness of life" (Romans 6:4) than this renewed mind. And of no less importance is the means of its renewal. How does God seek to change the minds of sinful men?
Contrary to many popular concepts, on the the gospel of Christ can change and renew the minds of men as God intended. Nothing but God's truth can make believers out of unbelievers. Belief (a function of the mind) comes from hearing Divine testimony (Romans 10:17). This is according to prophecy concerning the new covenant wherein the Lord says, "I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will I write them" (Hebrews 8:10). The faith by which men are motivated to "transformed" living is derived from the word of God (John 20:30-31). It is no coincidence that in every case of conversion recorded in the New Testament, what was done was based on something that was learned and believed.
For example, the obedience of the Pentecostians was in response to what they had heard (Acts 2:37); their baptism was in consequence of "receiving His word" (v. 41) and their subsequent activities were directed by the "apostles' teaching (v. 42). In receiving the knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26) these crucifiers of Jesus became informed and enlightened in their understanding; thus, believed and obeyed and received the remission of their sins. This corresponds exactly to the description of the saved as given by Peter in which he refers to them as those who, "have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord..." (II Peter 2:20).
Yes, their conversion was an "experience" but it was an experience with God's truth. And that's the only kind that can renew the mind and the life. All men need such experiences...for eternity's sake.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sandy Hook Shooting
Like so many others, I've had very conflicted emotions about the horrible school shooting in Connecticut. I hate hearing about what happened yet I'm glad it wasn't even more tragic. I want to watch as much of the news coverage as possible yet I wish I'd never heard about the events.
One thing I've heard several people say over the past few days is that they just can't seem to, "get over it." They can't get over what happened. I know how they feel and what they mean but it dawned on me yesterday that maybe that's the point we should take away from these events. Maybe we're not supposed to "get over it." It's now a part of us and our lives. We have to figure out what good can come about as a result. Instead of getting over it, what if we focused on what it could do for us?
Maybe it's an opportunity for us to be even thankful for our blessings; mainly our families and specifically our children. Maybe it's a chance for us to begin cherishing the time we have with our children even more than we do. I know as well as anyone how easy it is to get caught up in the day to day routine. Maybe (hopefully) the love we have for our families will manifest itself more.
Instead of getting over these events, perhaps we should remember how fleeting life truly is. James of course tells us this in his epistle. I think those of us who have reached mid-life realize how quickly the years pass. Unfortunately 20 of these shooting victims never even had the chance to live beyond their first few years. We have no guarantees. It may be a cliche but truly we should live as if there's no tomorrow. Appreciate the time we have, make the most of it and focus on the things that truly matter. As Ecclesiastes 12:31 states, "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole purpose of man.
If these events remind us that we need to focus on God's plan for us and the salvation that awaits us, then as painful as the past few days have been, it's been time well spent. Christ will return to earth. He will call the saints home to Heaven. This world will be destroyed and the lost will spend eternity with Satan in Hell. Will we renew our focus on the will of God? Will we use this opportunity to rededicate ourselves to His service? If we are to take good away from this tragic event, we should focus on what John told us in Revelation 21:3. "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Amen.
One thing I've heard several people say over the past few days is that they just can't seem to, "get over it." They can't get over what happened. I know how they feel and what they mean but it dawned on me yesterday that maybe that's the point we should take away from these events. Maybe we're not supposed to "get over it." It's now a part of us and our lives. We have to figure out what good can come about as a result. Instead of getting over it, what if we focused on what it could do for us?
Maybe it's an opportunity for us to be even thankful for our blessings; mainly our families and specifically our children. Maybe it's a chance for us to begin cherishing the time we have with our children even more than we do. I know as well as anyone how easy it is to get caught up in the day to day routine. Maybe (hopefully) the love we have for our families will manifest itself more.
Instead of getting over these events, perhaps we should remember how fleeting life truly is. James of course tells us this in his epistle. I think those of us who have reached mid-life realize how quickly the years pass. Unfortunately 20 of these shooting victims never even had the chance to live beyond their first few years. We have no guarantees. It may be a cliche but truly we should live as if there's no tomorrow. Appreciate the time we have, make the most of it and focus on the things that truly matter. As Ecclesiastes 12:31 states, "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole purpose of man.
If these events remind us that we need to focus on God's plan for us and the salvation that awaits us, then as painful as the past few days have been, it's been time well spent. Christ will return to earth. He will call the saints home to Heaven. This world will be destroyed and the lost will spend eternity with Satan in Hell. Will we renew our focus on the will of God? Will we use this opportunity to rededicate ourselves to His service? If we are to take good away from this tragic event, we should focus on what John told us in Revelation 21:3. "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Amen.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Cultists and The Holy Spirit
Wayne Jackson wrote this piece which appeared in the July 1974 edition of The Christian Courier, published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
In Hebrews 10:29, the inspired writer charges that some, having abandoned Christianity have "done despite to the Spirit of grace." The word "despite" is an intensive term meaning to insult. Once could scarcely imagine how the Holy Spirit might be more grossly insulted than by having His very existence denied, yet this is precisely what a number of religious cultists do. Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) defined the Spirit as "Divine Science." The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that the Holy Spirit is but the "active force" of God; similarly, the Herbert Armstrong cult teaches that the Spirit is an impersonal "force." Parley Pratt, one of Mormonism's original "twelve apostles" taught that the third person of the Godhead is a divine "fluid."
The Scriptures however, make it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit is an individual personality possessing the nature of deity. The Spirit's personality may be demonstrated in the following ways:
(1) Jesus promised His disciples: "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16-18) Two important points need to be observed here. (a) The Spirit is a Comforter (parakletos) which derives from two roots: para, "beside" and kaleo, "to call." This word suggests someone called to one's side for the purpose of assistance and thus implies a personality. It is always used of personality in the New Testament. (Cf. I John 2:1.) (b) The Lord referred to the Spirit as "another" (allos) Comforter. Allos denotes "another of the same kind," thus, the Holy Spirit is the same kind of Comforter as Christ, i.e., a divine person, though not physical of course.
(2) The word Spirit (pneuma) is a noun of neuter gender. From a grammatical standpoint, pronouns referring to it ought likewise to be neuter, yet in numerous instances, Inspiration has clearly set aside grammatical precision in order to deliberately stress the Spirit's personality. Note these few examples. (a) "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He (ekeinos) shall teach you all things..." (John 14:26) (b) "...the Spirit said unto him, 'Behold, three men seek thee. But arise, and get thee down and go with them, nothing doubting; for I (ego) have sent them.'" (Acts 10:19-20) (c) "...the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me (moi) Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:2) (d) "...the things of God no one (oudeis) knoweth, except the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 2:11)
(3) Actions are predicated of the Holy Spirit which could only imply a person. The Spirit is said to: speak (Matthew 10:20), teach (John 14:26), bear witness (John 15:26), guide, hear and declare (John 16:13), send (Acts 10:20), forbid (Acts 16:6), search and know (I Corinthians 2:10-11), will (I Corinthians 12:11), help (Romans 8:26), love (Romans 15:30), etc. In addition, as a person the Spirit can be: grieved (Ephesians 4:30), lied to (Acts 5:3), spoken against (Matthew 12:32), resisted (Acts 7:51) and insulted (Hebrews 10:29).
(4) The Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in connection with other persons. (a) "...Separate to Me Barnabas and Saul," (Acts 13:2). (b) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us..." (Acts 15:28). (c) "He (the Spirit) shall glorify Me (Christ)." (John 16:14). Compare also Matthew 28:19 and II Corinthians 13:14.
(5) A basic rule of interpretation is: "The proper definition of a word may be used in the place of the word. If the trial be made in this way, and the definition is wrong, the sense of the passage will be destroyed as to make it apparent." (D.R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, pp. 188, 189.) If the Holy Spirit is simply and impersonal force or power, the following passage would read: "...God anointed him with the Holy Spirit (power) and with power." (Acts 10:38)
Several objections are commonly offered in the attempt to negate the Biblical concept of the personal Spirit. Let us briefly consider them.
(1) It is speciously argued: The Bible says, "Quench not the Spirit." (I Thessalonians 5:19) One cannot quench a person, thus the Spirit is not a person. This fails of course, to recognize that I Thessalonians 5:19 involves the use of metonymy. The Spirit (source of the Word) stands for His influence as exercised through the Word of God. Thus, to quench the influence of the Truth in one's life is, in effect, quenching the Spirit.
(2) Again, we are told that the Spirit was poured forth (Acts 2:17) on Pentecost and that such cannot be true of a person. this likewise ignores figurative language. Peter identifies that which was poured out as the visible and audible effects of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Additionally, if being "poured out" demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not a person, then neither was Christ a person, for the Lord is prophetically represented as saying, "I am poured out like water." (Psalms 22:14)
(3) It is objected that men can be "filled with the Spirit," but that one person cannot be filled with another person. This is a materialistic view of the Spirit! Christians are to be "filled unto all fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) Shall we now repudiate the personhood of God, our Father?
Yes the Holy Spirit is a person. He is a divine person. (Acts 5:3-4) And it is into His possession (along with the Father and Christ) that we are baptized for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 28:19) And when one daily responds to the teaching of the divine Spirit as wielded by the Scriptures, he is in fellowship with the third person of the Godhead. (II Corinthians 13:14)
It is a gross and wicked heresy to deny the personal nature of the Holy Spirit. The cultists do it unashamedly; and some untaught Christians seem to occasionally border on this error. Let us therefore give diligence to study that we may honor the Spirit, even as we do the Father and the Son.
In Hebrews 10:29, the inspired writer charges that some, having abandoned Christianity have "done despite to the Spirit of grace." The word "despite" is an intensive term meaning to insult. Once could scarcely imagine how the Holy Spirit might be more grossly insulted than by having His very existence denied, yet this is precisely what a number of religious cultists do. Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) defined the Spirit as "Divine Science." The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that the Holy Spirit is but the "active force" of God; similarly, the Herbert Armstrong cult teaches that the Spirit is an impersonal "force." Parley Pratt, one of Mormonism's original "twelve apostles" taught that the third person of the Godhead is a divine "fluid."
The Scriptures however, make it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit is an individual personality possessing the nature of deity. The Spirit's personality may be demonstrated in the following ways:
(1) Jesus promised His disciples: "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16-18) Two important points need to be observed here. (a) The Spirit is a Comforter (parakletos) which derives from two roots: para, "beside" and kaleo, "to call." This word suggests someone called to one's side for the purpose of assistance and thus implies a personality. It is always used of personality in the New Testament. (Cf. I John 2:1.) (b) The Lord referred to the Spirit as "another" (allos) Comforter. Allos denotes "another of the same kind," thus, the Holy Spirit is the same kind of Comforter as Christ, i.e., a divine person, though not physical of course.
(2) The word Spirit (pneuma) is a noun of neuter gender. From a grammatical standpoint, pronouns referring to it ought likewise to be neuter, yet in numerous instances, Inspiration has clearly set aside grammatical precision in order to deliberately stress the Spirit's personality. Note these few examples. (a) "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He (ekeinos) shall teach you all things..." (John 14:26) (b) "...the Spirit said unto him, 'Behold, three men seek thee. But arise, and get thee down and go with them, nothing doubting; for I (ego) have sent them.'" (Acts 10:19-20) (c) "...the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me (moi) Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:2) (d) "...the things of God no one (oudeis) knoweth, except the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 2:11)
(3) Actions are predicated of the Holy Spirit which could only imply a person. The Spirit is said to: speak (Matthew 10:20), teach (John 14:26), bear witness (John 15:26), guide, hear and declare (John 16:13), send (Acts 10:20), forbid (Acts 16:6), search and know (I Corinthians 2:10-11), will (I Corinthians 12:11), help (Romans 8:26), love (Romans 15:30), etc. In addition, as a person the Spirit can be: grieved (Ephesians 4:30), lied to (Acts 5:3), spoken against (Matthew 12:32), resisted (Acts 7:51) and insulted (Hebrews 10:29).
(4) The Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in connection with other persons. (a) "...Separate to Me Barnabas and Saul," (Acts 13:2). (b) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us..." (Acts 15:28). (c) "He (the Spirit) shall glorify Me (Christ)." (John 16:14). Compare also Matthew 28:19 and II Corinthians 13:14.
(5) A basic rule of interpretation is: "The proper definition of a word may be used in the place of the word. If the trial be made in this way, and the definition is wrong, the sense of the passage will be destroyed as to make it apparent." (D.R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, pp. 188, 189.) If the Holy Spirit is simply and impersonal force or power, the following passage would read: "...God anointed him with the Holy Spirit (power) and with power." (Acts 10:38)
Several objections are commonly offered in the attempt to negate the Biblical concept of the personal Spirit. Let us briefly consider them.
(1) It is speciously argued: The Bible says, "Quench not the Spirit." (I Thessalonians 5:19) One cannot quench a person, thus the Spirit is not a person. This fails of course, to recognize that I Thessalonians 5:19 involves the use of metonymy. The Spirit (source of the Word) stands for His influence as exercised through the Word of God. Thus, to quench the influence of the Truth in one's life is, in effect, quenching the Spirit.
(2) Again, we are told that the Spirit was poured forth (Acts 2:17) on Pentecost and that such cannot be true of a person. this likewise ignores figurative language. Peter identifies that which was poured out as the visible and audible effects of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Additionally, if being "poured out" demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not a person, then neither was Christ a person, for the Lord is prophetically represented as saying, "I am poured out like water." (Psalms 22:14)
(3) It is objected that men can be "filled with the Spirit," but that one person cannot be filled with another person. This is a materialistic view of the Spirit! Christians are to be "filled unto all fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) Shall we now repudiate the personhood of God, our Father?
Yes the Holy Spirit is a person. He is a divine person. (Acts 5:3-4) And it is into His possession (along with the Father and Christ) that we are baptized for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 28:19) And when one daily responds to the teaching of the divine Spirit as wielded by the Scriptures, he is in fellowship with the third person of the Godhead. (II Corinthians 13:14)
It is a gross and wicked heresy to deny the personal nature of the Holy Spirit. The cultists do it unashamedly; and some untaught Christians seem to occasionally border on this error. Let us therefore give diligence to study that we may honor the Spirit, even as we do the Father and the Son.
Women Teaching and Praying
Roy Deaver wrote this article. It appeared in the July 1974 edition of The Christian Courier, published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, Californian and edited by Wayne Jackson.
Question: Is it in harmony with the Scriptures for a woman to lead in prayer, as in a chain prayer in a devotional, where men are present?
Answer: No, such is not in harmony with the Scriptures. All such practices are contrary to the divine restriction which God has placed upon the woman's work.
If the Bible teaches that we are saved by works (James 2:14-26) and that we are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), then it becomes obvious that there are different KINDS of works. There are works which are INCLUDED and there are works which are EXCLUDED.
If the Bible teaches that women are to pray (and all Christians are instructed to pray) and if it teaches that women are NOT to pray, then it becomes obvious that there are different KINDS of praying so far as concerns the Christian woman. There is a KIND of praying which she is to do, and there is a KIND of praying which she is forbidden to do.
In I Timothy 2:8 Paul speaks as follows: "I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing." We call attention particularly to the word "men" here. This is not the ordinary word for man (in the sense of mankind) but rather is the word aner which is used to distinguish man (male) from the woman. Therefore, it is clear that there is a kind of praying which the woman is not to do.
In verse 12 Paul continues: "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." This passage definitely forbids the woman to teach but reference is to a particular KIND of teaching. The Greek Testament is much plainer on the point which I seek to make than are our English translations. The Greek Testament says: "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor in any other way to have dominion over a man..." The oude is explicative in force. Thus, it is clear that the kind of teaching which is forbidden is the kind which necessarily and inherently involves having dominion over a man. Likewise, it is the case that the kind of praying which is forbidden is that which necessarily involves having dominion over a man.
The Christian woman can (and must) teach but she cannot (with God's approval) teach in such a fashion as to have dominion over man. Taking a leading part in teaching when men are present is clearly forbidden. Leading in prayer when men are present is clearly forbidden. Such leading (or leading part) by the very nature of the case or situation inherently involves exercising authority. And, this exercising of authority (or dominion) over a man is the very thing which has always been forbidden by God since the creation of man. Paul himself stresses that this is not a New Testament principle exclusively, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve..."
But suppose an elder or a woman's husband asks her to lead in prayer. No elder and no husband has a right to ask a woman to do anything which is contrary to God's law.
It is my judgment that I Timothy 2:8-15 is discussing basically, conduct with relationship to the worship (regular worship) situation. However, Paul makes it clear that the principle is applicable at all times, in all places and in all circumstances. At no time, in no place and in no circumstance is the woman to place herself (or allow herself to be placed) in a position in which she would ever run the risk of exercising dominion over a man.
Question: Is it in harmony with the Scriptures for a woman to lead in prayer, as in a chain prayer in a devotional, where men are present?
Answer: No, such is not in harmony with the Scriptures. All such practices are contrary to the divine restriction which God has placed upon the woman's work.
If the Bible teaches that we are saved by works (James 2:14-26) and that we are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), then it becomes obvious that there are different KINDS of works. There are works which are INCLUDED and there are works which are EXCLUDED.
If the Bible teaches that women are to pray (and all Christians are instructed to pray) and if it teaches that women are NOT to pray, then it becomes obvious that there are different KINDS of praying so far as concerns the Christian woman. There is a KIND of praying which she is to do, and there is a KIND of praying which she is forbidden to do.
In I Timothy 2:8 Paul speaks as follows: "I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing." We call attention particularly to the word "men" here. This is not the ordinary word for man (in the sense of mankind) but rather is the word aner which is used to distinguish man (male) from the woman. Therefore, it is clear that there is a kind of praying which the woman is not to do.
In verse 12 Paul continues: "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." This passage definitely forbids the woman to teach but reference is to a particular KIND of teaching. The Greek Testament is much plainer on the point which I seek to make than are our English translations. The Greek Testament says: "But I permit not a woman to teach, nor in any other way to have dominion over a man..." The oude is explicative in force. Thus, it is clear that the kind of teaching which is forbidden is the kind which necessarily and inherently involves having dominion over a man. Likewise, it is the case that the kind of praying which is forbidden is that which necessarily involves having dominion over a man.
The Christian woman can (and must) teach but she cannot (with God's approval) teach in such a fashion as to have dominion over man. Taking a leading part in teaching when men are present is clearly forbidden. Leading in prayer when men are present is clearly forbidden. Such leading (or leading part) by the very nature of the case or situation inherently involves exercising authority. And, this exercising of authority (or dominion) over a man is the very thing which has always been forbidden by God since the creation of man. Paul himself stresses that this is not a New Testament principle exclusively, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve..."
But suppose an elder or a woman's husband asks her to lead in prayer. No elder and no husband has a right to ask a woman to do anything which is contrary to God's law.
It is my judgment that I Timothy 2:8-15 is discussing basically, conduct with relationship to the worship (regular worship) situation. However, Paul makes it clear that the principle is applicable at all times, in all places and in all circumstances. At no time, in no place and in no circumstance is the woman to place herself (or allow herself to be placed) in a position in which she would ever run the risk of exercising dominion over a man.
Monday, December 10, 2012
View of the Old Testament
Wayne Jackson wrote this concise outline of the Old Testament. It appeared in the June 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier", published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
One of the more neglected areas of Bible study is that of the Old Testament. Though many people have some knowledge of scattered and isolated people and events in the Old Testament, very few are able, to use a current expression, to "get it all together." Many students of the Bible have only a vague idea of the sequence of the major historical scenes of the OT, thus, within this issue, we hope to give a sketch which will assist this end. the period of OT history may be divided, for the sake of convenience, into some seven phases.
PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS - The first eleven chapters of Genesis covers what has been properly styled the "period of beginnings." It is a section concerned with great events near the dawn of time. It places a major emphasis on: (a) The Creation; (b) The Fall of the Human Family; (c) The Flood; and (d) The Origin of Nations and Languages.
THE HEBREW FAMILY - Commencing with Genesis 12, God selects Abraham to be the head of a new race (through whom the Christ will ultimately come) hence, the balance of Genesis traces the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Significant also is the selection of the land of Canaan as an ideal spot from which to influence the great powers of the world for the future advent of the Messiah. This period spans some 215 years.
EGYPTIAN BONDAGE - Exodus begins with the descendants of Jacob migrating to Egypt where an era of bondage is inaugurated. Scholar are disagreed as to the actual time of the bondage. Some passages (e.g. Exodus 12:40) seem to indicate that it was 430 years (though the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch include the patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan in this figure) while others, based on Galatians 3:16-17 feel that the bondage period was only 215 years. Edward Mack says that modern archaeological discoveries, better knowledge of history, etc. seem to favor the 215 year figure. Within this age, Moses spends 80 years of his life being prepared for his work of delivering the children of Israel from bondage.
WILDERNESS WANDERING - As a penalty for the faithless report of the ten spies (who spied out Canaan for 40 days) the Israelites were compelled to wander for 40 years in the barren wilderness of Sinai. In fact, all 20 years old and upward (Joshua and Caleb excepted) who had murmured against the Lord died in the wilderness. Within this span of time, the law of Moses was given, the tabernacle was erected and the Israelites were taught many valuable lessons concerning absolute dependence upon God Almighty.
CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT OF CANAAN - After the death of Moses on Mt. Nebo, Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan. With a series of essentially three campaigns (central, southern, then northern sections) Palestine was virtually taken. Subsequent to this was an era known as the "Dark Ages" of Hebrew history, in which it is frequently said that, "Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah." God thus sent a series of oppressors to punish His people; when they cried for deliverance, "Judges" were raised up to save them. Based upon the figure in I Kings 6:1, this period possibly lasted for some 356 years. In the time of Samuel, the people tired of judges and wanted a king, to be like the nations around them.
THE UNITED KINGDOM - For the next 120 years, the people were united under three kings; Saul, David and Solomon. Saul was one of the most tragic examples of apostasy in OT history. He started well, but did not persevere. David, in spite of his weaknesses, was easily Israel's greatest king. In the administration of Solomon, the temple was built and the Hebrew borders extended to their furthest bounds. Sadly however, Solomon's life is also marred by his departure from God, though there may be evidence in Ecclesiastes that he saw his folly in his declining years.
THE DIVIDED KINGDOM - Around 975 B.C., there was a formal split in the united monarchy. In his book The Prophets of Israel, H.L. Ellison observes that the seeds of the division had existed for some years (Chapter 1). For the next several centuries, the people of God generally speaking, move increasingly farther from their Creator.
(a) ISRAEL - Under the leadership of Jeroboam, the Northern Kingdom of Israel (consisting of 10 tribes) was established. Shrines were set up at Bethel and Dan. Jerusalem was "too far" to go for worship and thus Israel was well on the road to apostasy. For the next 254 years the Northern Kingdom sank into deeper rebellion against God. Such valiant men as Elijah, Elisha, Amos and Hosea sought to bring them back, but to no avail. In 721 B.C. God brought the Assyrain power as the rod of His anger (Isaiah 10:5) against profane Israel and she was taken captive.
(b) JUDAH - Under the direction of Rehoboam (and some 19 subsequent rulers) the Southern Kingdom (2 tribes collectively called "Judah") struggled for some three and one half centuries with intermittent periods of faithfulness and apostasy. Finally, time for punishment came. From 606 to 536 B.C., the Hebrews suffered the indignities of Babylonian captivity. Afterwards, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah the Jews returned from captivity and rebuilt the temple and their city. About a century later, their spirits sagged again and the OT closes with the prophet Malachi rebuking their indifference and directing their attention to the coming Messiah (who appeared approximately 400 years later).
Not until the student of the Bible has mastered these main epochs of OT history, will he be prepared to appreciate the manifold details found from Genesis through Malachi.
One of the more neglected areas of Bible study is that of the Old Testament. Though many people have some knowledge of scattered and isolated people and events in the Old Testament, very few are able, to use a current expression, to "get it all together." Many students of the Bible have only a vague idea of the sequence of the major historical scenes of the OT, thus, within this issue, we hope to give a sketch which will assist this end. the period of OT history may be divided, for the sake of convenience, into some seven phases.
PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS - The first eleven chapters of Genesis covers what has been properly styled the "period of beginnings." It is a section concerned with great events near the dawn of time. It places a major emphasis on: (a) The Creation; (b) The Fall of the Human Family; (c) The Flood; and (d) The Origin of Nations and Languages.
THE HEBREW FAMILY - Commencing with Genesis 12, God selects Abraham to be the head of a new race (through whom the Christ will ultimately come) hence, the balance of Genesis traces the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Significant also is the selection of the land of Canaan as an ideal spot from which to influence the great powers of the world for the future advent of the Messiah. This period spans some 215 years.
EGYPTIAN BONDAGE - Exodus begins with the descendants of Jacob migrating to Egypt where an era of bondage is inaugurated. Scholar are disagreed as to the actual time of the bondage. Some passages (e.g. Exodus 12:40) seem to indicate that it was 430 years (though the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch include the patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan in this figure) while others, based on Galatians 3:16-17 feel that the bondage period was only 215 years. Edward Mack says that modern archaeological discoveries, better knowledge of history, etc. seem to favor the 215 year figure. Within this age, Moses spends 80 years of his life being prepared for his work of delivering the children of Israel from bondage.
WILDERNESS WANDERING - As a penalty for the faithless report of the ten spies (who spied out Canaan for 40 days) the Israelites were compelled to wander for 40 years in the barren wilderness of Sinai. In fact, all 20 years old and upward (Joshua and Caleb excepted) who had murmured against the Lord died in the wilderness. Within this span of time, the law of Moses was given, the tabernacle was erected and the Israelites were taught many valuable lessons concerning absolute dependence upon God Almighty.
CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT OF CANAAN - After the death of Moses on Mt. Nebo, Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan. With a series of essentially three campaigns (central, southern, then northern sections) Palestine was virtually taken. Subsequent to this was an era known as the "Dark Ages" of Hebrew history, in which it is frequently said that, "Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah." God thus sent a series of oppressors to punish His people; when they cried for deliverance, "Judges" were raised up to save them. Based upon the figure in I Kings 6:1, this period possibly lasted for some 356 years. In the time of Samuel, the people tired of judges and wanted a king, to be like the nations around them.
THE UNITED KINGDOM - For the next 120 years, the people were united under three kings; Saul, David and Solomon. Saul was one of the most tragic examples of apostasy in OT history. He started well, but did not persevere. David, in spite of his weaknesses, was easily Israel's greatest king. In the administration of Solomon, the temple was built and the Hebrew borders extended to their furthest bounds. Sadly however, Solomon's life is also marred by his departure from God, though there may be evidence in Ecclesiastes that he saw his folly in his declining years.
THE DIVIDED KINGDOM - Around 975 B.C., there was a formal split in the united monarchy. In his book The Prophets of Israel, H.L. Ellison observes that the seeds of the division had existed for some years (Chapter 1). For the next several centuries, the people of God generally speaking, move increasingly farther from their Creator.
(a) ISRAEL - Under the leadership of Jeroboam, the Northern Kingdom of Israel (consisting of 10 tribes) was established. Shrines were set up at Bethel and Dan. Jerusalem was "too far" to go for worship and thus Israel was well on the road to apostasy. For the next 254 years the Northern Kingdom sank into deeper rebellion against God. Such valiant men as Elijah, Elisha, Amos and Hosea sought to bring them back, but to no avail. In 721 B.C. God brought the Assyrain power as the rod of His anger (Isaiah 10:5) against profane Israel and she was taken captive.
(b) JUDAH - Under the direction of Rehoboam (and some 19 subsequent rulers) the Southern Kingdom (2 tribes collectively called "Judah") struggled for some three and one half centuries with intermittent periods of faithfulness and apostasy. Finally, time for punishment came. From 606 to 536 B.C., the Hebrews suffered the indignities of Babylonian captivity. Afterwards, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah the Jews returned from captivity and rebuilt the temple and their city. About a century later, their spirits sagged again and the OT closes with the prophet Malachi rebuking their indifference and directing their attention to the coming Messiah (who appeared approximately 400 years later).
Not until the student of the Bible has mastered these main epochs of OT history, will he be prepared to appreciate the manifold details found from Genesis through Malachi.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Providence
This was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the April 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier"; edited by Jackson and published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, CA.
In his classic book Robinson Crusoe, famed author Daniel Defoe emphasized that when Crusoe was shipwrecked on a forsaken island, he was deprived of almost everything that people consider vital for happiness. After reflecting upon his condition, he has Crusoe say, "I sat down to my meat with thankfulness, and admired the hand of God's providence which had thus spread my table in the wilderness. I learned to look more on the bright side of my condition, and less upon the dark side, and to consider what I had rather than what I wanted. And this at times gave me such secret comforts that I cannot express them... All our discontents about what we want appeared to me to spring from the want of thankfulness for what we have!"
Surely these are times of great concern to all serious minded people. Many are perplexed about governmental scandal, and a variety of crises confront us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate for us to reflect upon the gracious providence of our wonderful God. It would scarcely be possible to exaggerate the concern that our heavenly Father has for His children. Job once asked: "Doth not he see my ways, and number all my steps?" (Job 31:4; Cf. Psalm 56:8) Jesus taught that Jehovah's interest in even the smallest of His creatures is genuine proof of His concern for those who serve Him. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father; but the very hairs of your head are numbered. Fear not, therefore; ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31)
Supplementing this, in the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord emphasized that a recognition of the gracious providence of God would relieve us of the anxiety commonly characteristic of daily living. Christ exhorts: "Be not anxious (literally, don't keep on worrying) for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on." (Matthew 6:25) The Savior then supports His admonition by the following reasons.
(1) Life is more than food and the body than raiment. In other words, if God has endowed us with bodies and life, surely He will sustain us.
(2) If Jehovah both feeds the birds and clothes the lilies, He will care for us as we are of greater value than they.
(3) Anxiety is useless for it can not add to one's life. The truth is, medically speaking, worry can precipitate numerous illnesses which actually shorten life.
(4) Anxiety is basically pagan, "for after all these things do the Gentiles seek." Gentiles here stands for heathenism. Materialism is the primary thrust of the pagan's life.
(5) Worry over material things is a reversal of priorities; the kingdom of God must be the dominant factor of our lives; when such is the case, God will provide for our needs.
(6) Deal with your problems one day at a time; "the morrow will be anxious for itself."
Surely, sober reflection upon these divine words would calm quaking hearts in troubling times. Let Christians refrain from panic talk and set an example before a fearful world. Cast your cares upon God; he cares for you. (First Peter 5:7)
In his classic book Robinson Crusoe, famed author Daniel Defoe emphasized that when Crusoe was shipwrecked on a forsaken island, he was deprived of almost everything that people consider vital for happiness. After reflecting upon his condition, he has Crusoe say, "I sat down to my meat with thankfulness, and admired the hand of God's providence which had thus spread my table in the wilderness. I learned to look more on the bright side of my condition, and less upon the dark side, and to consider what I had rather than what I wanted. And this at times gave me such secret comforts that I cannot express them... All our discontents about what we want appeared to me to spring from the want of thankfulness for what we have!"
Surely these are times of great concern to all serious minded people. Many are perplexed about governmental scandal, and a variety of crises confront us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate for us to reflect upon the gracious providence of our wonderful God. It would scarcely be possible to exaggerate the concern that our heavenly Father has for His children. Job once asked: "Doth not he see my ways, and number all my steps?" (Job 31:4; Cf. Psalm 56:8) Jesus taught that Jehovah's interest in even the smallest of His creatures is genuine proof of His concern for those who serve Him. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father; but the very hairs of your head are numbered. Fear not, therefore; ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31)
Supplementing this, in the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord emphasized that a recognition of the gracious providence of God would relieve us of the anxiety commonly characteristic of daily living. Christ exhorts: "Be not anxious (literally, don't keep on worrying) for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on." (Matthew 6:25) The Savior then supports His admonition by the following reasons.
(1) Life is more than food and the body than raiment. In other words, if God has endowed us with bodies and life, surely He will sustain us.
(2) If Jehovah both feeds the birds and clothes the lilies, He will care for us as we are of greater value than they.
(3) Anxiety is useless for it can not add to one's life. The truth is, medically speaking, worry can precipitate numerous illnesses which actually shorten life.
(4) Anxiety is basically pagan, "for after all these things do the Gentiles seek." Gentiles here stands for heathenism. Materialism is the primary thrust of the pagan's life.
(5) Worry over material things is a reversal of priorities; the kingdom of God must be the dominant factor of our lives; when such is the case, God will provide for our needs.
(6) Deal with your problems one day at a time; "the morrow will be anxious for itself."
Surely, sober reflection upon these divine words would calm quaking hearts in troubling times. Let Christians refrain from panic talk and set an example before a fearful world. Cast your cares upon God; he cares for you. (First Peter 5:7)
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Acts 2:38
Wayne Jackson wrote this timeless article which appeared in the April 1974 edition of the "Christian Courier"; published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
For years the religious world has been embroiled in controversy over whether the rite of immersion in water (baptism) is an essential condition for receiving the forgiveness of sins. Views regarding this subject have frequently been rather misinformed and extreme. For example, Catholicism has placed a magical aura around baptism, alleging that water alone, properly administered will save, even in the absence of faith (as in the case of infant baptism). Meanwhile, many have over reacted, claiming that baptism has no connection with salvation whatsoever. As the case often is, the truth lies between these extremes.
One of the clearest expressions of the importance of baptism is found at the conclusion of Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost. In response to the Jewish query: "What shall we do?" (i.e., to be saved), the apostle replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (for) the remissions of your sins..." (Acts 2:38) This declaration is so remarkably lucid, it is truly difficult to see how a misunderstanding of it could arise.
These believing Jews (their faith evidenced by their question) were commanded to (1) repent; (2) be baptized. The express design of this compound command was "unto (or 'for') the remission of your sins." Let us briefly study this phrase. the preposition "unto" derives from the Greek term eis. Eis is found more than 1,700 times in the Greek New Testament and is always in the accusative case, i.e., the case of motion toward a place or state. A parallel usage of eis in connection with the expression "remission of sins" is clearly seen in Matthew 26:28. Jesus said (regarding His imminent death), "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto (eis) remission of sins." Now it is here very obvious that the shedding of Christ's blood was a prerequisite to the reception of redemption! And the same is true concerning Acts 2:38. Both repentance and baptism are conditions necessary to the reception of salvation. The renowned scholar J. H. Thayer translated the phrase in Acts 2:38, "to obtain the forgiveness of sins." (Greek Lexicon, p. 94.)
Surely a casual review of Acts 2:38 reveals the essentiality of baptism, for if obedience to this command were merely optional, repentance would have to be assessed similarly because it is connected to baptism by the conjunction "and". Some have sought to escape the force of this by claiming that two separate groups are here addressed by Peter, namely the lost (who are urged to repent) and the saved (who are allegedly admonished to be baptized as a sign of salvation already received). Baptist ministers are quite fond of making this plea, but it will not stand up as the following will abundantly show.
When Baptist writers are opposing infant baptism, they will cite Acts 2:38 in support of their argument. J. M. Pendleton writes: "No man will say that the command 'Repent' is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons were called on to repent and be baptized." (Baptist Church Manual, p. 84.) Why is it that only one group is being addressed when "infant baptism" is under discussion, yet two groups are in view when "baptism for remission of sins" is being challenged? This is very inconsistent! It is unworthy of honest men.
One of the greatest scholars ever to live among the ranks of the Baptists was Horatio B. Hackett. In his excellent Commentary on Acts, Hackett translates the phrase in 2:38, "in order to the forgiveness of sins," and then says, "we connect naturally with both preceding verbs." (p. 54) Several years ago, J. W. Shepherd asked J. Thayer himself for his scholarly opinion regarding the design of eis in Acts 2:38 and Thayer replied: "I accept the rendering of the Revised Version 'unto the remission of your sins.' The eis expressing the end aimed at and secured by 'repentance' and 'baptism' just previously enjoined." (Handbook of Baptism, p. 356.)
A few years back I wrote to Professor F. W. Gingrich of Albright College and asked: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'for forgiveness of sins' as used in Acts 2:38 expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" Dr. Gingrich, who is co-translator of the famous Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon replied: "Yes. the difference between 'repent' and 'be baptized' is simply that in the first the people are viewed together in the plural while in the second the emphasis is on each individual." (Letter to WJ, Feb. 21, 1968.)
Those clergymen therefore who suggest that "the Greek of Acts 2:38 does not imply that baptism is essential to salvation," are tragically mistaken.
For years the religious world has been embroiled in controversy over whether the rite of immersion in water (baptism) is an essential condition for receiving the forgiveness of sins. Views regarding this subject have frequently been rather misinformed and extreme. For example, Catholicism has placed a magical aura around baptism, alleging that water alone, properly administered will save, even in the absence of faith (as in the case of infant baptism). Meanwhile, many have over reacted, claiming that baptism has no connection with salvation whatsoever. As the case often is, the truth lies between these extremes.
One of the clearest expressions of the importance of baptism is found at the conclusion of Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost. In response to the Jewish query: "What shall we do?" (i.e., to be saved), the apostle replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (for) the remissions of your sins..." (Acts 2:38) This declaration is so remarkably lucid, it is truly difficult to see how a misunderstanding of it could arise.
These believing Jews (their faith evidenced by their question) were commanded to (1) repent; (2) be baptized. The express design of this compound command was "unto (or 'for') the remission of your sins." Let us briefly study this phrase. the preposition "unto" derives from the Greek term eis. Eis is found more than 1,700 times in the Greek New Testament and is always in the accusative case, i.e., the case of motion toward a place or state. A parallel usage of eis in connection with the expression "remission of sins" is clearly seen in Matthew 26:28. Jesus said (regarding His imminent death), "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto (eis) remission of sins." Now it is here very obvious that the shedding of Christ's blood was a prerequisite to the reception of redemption! And the same is true concerning Acts 2:38. Both repentance and baptism are conditions necessary to the reception of salvation. The renowned scholar J. H. Thayer translated the phrase in Acts 2:38, "to obtain the forgiveness of sins." (Greek Lexicon, p. 94.)
Surely a casual review of Acts 2:38 reveals the essentiality of baptism, for if obedience to this command were merely optional, repentance would have to be assessed similarly because it is connected to baptism by the conjunction "and". Some have sought to escape the force of this by claiming that two separate groups are here addressed by Peter, namely the lost (who are urged to repent) and the saved (who are allegedly admonished to be baptized as a sign of salvation already received). Baptist ministers are quite fond of making this plea, but it will not stand up as the following will abundantly show.
When Baptist writers are opposing infant baptism, they will cite Acts 2:38 in support of their argument. J. M. Pendleton writes: "No man will say that the command 'Repent' is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons were called on to repent and be baptized." (Baptist Church Manual, p. 84.) Why is it that only one group is being addressed when "infant baptism" is under discussion, yet two groups are in view when "baptism for remission of sins" is being challenged? This is very inconsistent! It is unworthy of honest men.
One of the greatest scholars ever to live among the ranks of the Baptists was Horatio B. Hackett. In his excellent Commentary on Acts, Hackett translates the phrase in 2:38, "in order to the forgiveness of sins," and then says, "we connect naturally with both preceding verbs." (p. 54) Several years ago, J. W. Shepherd asked J. Thayer himself for his scholarly opinion regarding the design of eis in Acts 2:38 and Thayer replied: "I accept the rendering of the Revised Version 'unto the remission of your sins.' The eis expressing the end aimed at and secured by 'repentance' and 'baptism' just previously enjoined." (Handbook of Baptism, p. 356.)
A few years back I wrote to Professor F. W. Gingrich of Albright College and asked: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'for forgiveness of sins' as used in Acts 2:38 expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" Dr. Gingrich, who is co-translator of the famous Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon replied: "Yes. the difference between 'repent' and 'be baptized' is simply that in the first the people are viewed together in the plural while in the second the emphasis is on each individual." (Letter to WJ, Feb. 21, 1968.)
Those clergymen therefore who suggest that "the Greek of Acts 2:38 does not imply that baptism is essential to salvation," are tragically mistaken.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)