This was written by Frank Jamerson and appeared in The Gospel Teacher, a weekly publication of the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio. Grant B. Caldwell was the editor.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). The word God in this verse is the plural form Elohim which indicates that more than one being have the nature of Godhead. The Bible teaches that the Father, the Word (Son) and the Holy Spirit have the same nature; God, or Deity. To affirm that they are Divine beings is to affirm their eternity. We want to notice specifically the claims of Jesus to Godhead, or Deity.
In Exodus 3:10, God said to Moses, "I AM." This term denotes timelessness in existence. God was saying to Moses, "I am eternal." In John 8:58, Jesus claimed the same for Himself. "Before Abraham was born, I am." In affirming that He is the, "I am" He is saying that He, "was with God and was God" (John 1:1). Other passages clearly show that Christ was God. Isaiah 40:3 says, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." This is quoted and applied to Jesus in Matthew 3:3. In Isaiah 40:28, the Lord is the Creator but John 1:3 affirms that the Son was the Creator. Jesus was called, Immanuel" which means, "God with us." Yes, the Bible clearly says that Jesus is "God the Son." The word God sometimes refers to the Father (Romans 15:6) but often refers to the Godhead; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Does the term "begotten" indicate that Jesus had a beginning? As a human being, Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit then was brought forth as other human beings are but this does not tell the whole story of how Jesus was the "begotten." The Psalmist's statement, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee" (Psalm 2:7) is quoted in Acts 13:33035. It is applied to His resurrection and exaltation, thus has nothing to do with origin but rather is a title of position. In W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, concerning, "only begotten," he says, "We can only rightly understand the term the only begotten when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhead. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father." To this we may conclude that if there ever was a time when the Son was not the Son, then there was a time when the Father was not the Father!
Does "Son of God" prove that God created Jesus? No! The term "son of" was used in the Bible to refer to "sameness," thus stating His Godhood. In Mark 3:17, "sons of thunder" shows a nature (explosive) rather than origin. Luke 20:34 refers to, "children of this world" referring to the worldly minded. The term "father" is also used to refer to sameness. In Genesis 4:20, Jabal was "father" of tent dwellers and cattle raisers. In verse 21, Jubal is called, "father of all such as handle the harp and organ." These uses of "father" and "son" show equality with, or sameness. The Jews understood that when Jesus was claiming to be, "the Son of God" that He was making Himself God. He was claiming to be the same (John 5:18).
In 2 Samuel 7:12-16, we find a dual prophecy that refers to both Solomon and Christ. Hebrews 1:5 quotes part of verse 14 and shows its fulfillment in Christ. "I will be to him a Father and he shall be to Me a son." This shows that in the sense of servitude or submission, His sonship had a beginning. When the New Testament speaks of the subjection of Jesus, it is using sonship in the sense of 2 Samuel 7:14. That role had a beginning (when he came into the world as a man [Philippians 2:6-8]) but that does not prove that Jesus was not eternal. Again, a definition for Vine on the Son of God sets forth the New Testament teaching. "An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is..." Then he gives John 14:9 and Hebrews 1:3 and concludes that, "absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title.
The Bible teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, thus co-eternal. I readily admit that I cannot conceive of eternity but to deny the eternity of either is to deny His Deity, or Godhead!
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Forebearing One Another in Love
This was written by Paul Jarrett and appeared in the October 15, 1971 edition of The Bible Herald which was published by the Bible Herald Corporation in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
"A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another." In the space of two small verses in John 13:34-35, Jesus saw fit to urge thrice that His disciples, "love one another." If repetition alone does not point to the importance of this command, the fact that Jesus indicates this to be the mark of discipleship which we present to the world, should erase all doubt.
Much has been said about the importance of loving one another so I do not propose to add to the wealth of material on the subject since I'm sure that all those reading this publication realize the need. What I do propose to do in this article, is to present you with three modes of behavior which I feel, if adopted, would serve to facilitate obedience to the command, "love one another." Our problem is not a lack of appreciation for the need to "love one another," but rather the problem arises in our carrying out what is not always an easy task. It is in hopes of making our obedience a little easier and surer that I present these three suggestions.
1.Forebear One Another in Love: In Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:13, we find Paul urging Christians to forbear one another. If you were to look up the word "forbear" in your dictionary, you would find it defined as an archaic word meaning to, "endure or tolerate." I believe that this is one archaic word that needs to be given a rebirth in our vocabulary and perhaps you too will come to share my sentiments as you continue reading.
One translation records Ephesians 4:2 in this fashion, "...making allowances for one another because you love one another." How often do you overlook someone's idiosyncrasies because you love them? If I had to list the most predominant sin (fault, if you prefer) among Christians, I feel I would say pettiness. We do not realize that sometimes love MUST be blind, deaf and mute. Lest anyone misconstrue my meaning, let me make clear that I am not urging that we overlook those faults in a brother that might lead to his being lost or leading others astray. We must however, learn when to speak and when to forebear (i.e., endure, tolerate) in love.
Colossians 3:13 furnishes us with guidance on this matter, "you must bear with one another's faults, be generous to each other...the Lord's generosity to you must be the model of yours." If we would consider how much God overlooks in our life in order to claim us as His, we might tend to be less critical of every little fault we see in our brother. Do you not feel that our inability to cope with the large problems that confront us today often lies in our failure to overlook the petty faults? If we insist on making mountains of mole hills, how can we ever hope to cope with a real mountain?
Before leaving this point, let me include one word of caution. Forbearing will not succeed without true forgiving. If we merely postpone comment on our brother's fault and do not also forgive and forget, we merely postpone and eventually make more devastating our eventual confrontation.
2. Outdo One Another in Honor: Our first point was a passive one; the art of learning when to keep silent. The point we now wish to consider calls for an active role on our part. I hope that our discussion up to now has served to impress you with the need to refrain from critical comments of a negative nature except in areas of eternal significance but now, let me urge upon you a positive position as called for by Paul in Romans 12:10 when he writes, "...outdo one another in showing honor." (RSV)
This calls upon us to be active in our praise of one another and I am convinced that by following this course of action we will develop a strong bond of love between us. In order to carry this out however, we must have the attitude that Paul enjoined on the Philippians when he wrote, "...let each of you regard one another as more important than himself" (Philippians 2:3). If we would practice what Paul advises in a conscientious fashion, not only would those whom we come in contact with be lifted up, but we ourselves would experience the joys of love. In order to practice what is advised here, we must be ready to lower ourselves rather than simply waiting for others to rise to meet us.
To summarize and illustrate our second point, let me propose this situation: If a boy who is six feet tall is dating a girl who is five feet tall and he desires to kiss her, does he insist that she grow to his height first or does he lower himself and perhaps lift her a little to accomplish his desired purpose? The answer depends on the boy's real feelings as to how much he wants to kiss the girl. Our ability to, "love one another" is also dependent on how much we want to and whether we are willing to humble ourselves and lift others in order to accomplish it. Keep in mind though that the boy enjoys the kiss as much as the girl and when we give love, we too profit from the giving.
3. A Two-Way Street: No matter how much forbearance and giving of honor we practice, there will be times when we face the real test of our ability to, "love one another." I do not propose to be an authority on dealing with problems among brethren as I too have had my failures in this regard but I would like to call your attention to two passages of Scripture in Matthew which I do feel, if observed, would remove one major obstacle in the settling of differences among brethren.
In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus speaks concerning a man, who upon coming to worship God, remembers that he has a brother who, "...has some grievance against you." Jesus advises this man to leave his gift on the alter and first make amends with his brother before worshiping God.
In Matthew 18:15, we find Jesus giving instruction as to how to deal with a situation where, "...your brother wrongs you..." and His first advise is that you go to him by yourself and try to patch up your differences.
If you read these two passages together, you will find that Jesus places the responsibility to take the first step in settling the differences among brethren on both the one who has been offended and the one who committed the offense. How many differences go unresolved because both of the involved parties refuse to take the first step? Don't Jesus' instructions remove this obstacle by placing equal responsibility on both the offender and offended?
Consider this, if you have a neighbor who has wronged you, where is the best location for settling your differences: (1) in his house, (2) in your house, or (3) on the sidewalk between your houses where you meet as you are both on the way to see each other? Jesus advised the third location for the children of God.
The command to, "love one another" will never be an easy one to obey but if we will practice forbearance, outdo one another in showing honor and settle our differences on a two-way street, I think we'll be a little more successful in accomplishing this mark of discipleship.
"A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another." In the space of two small verses in John 13:34-35, Jesus saw fit to urge thrice that His disciples, "love one another." If repetition alone does not point to the importance of this command, the fact that Jesus indicates this to be the mark of discipleship which we present to the world, should erase all doubt.
Much has been said about the importance of loving one another so I do not propose to add to the wealth of material on the subject since I'm sure that all those reading this publication realize the need. What I do propose to do in this article, is to present you with three modes of behavior which I feel, if adopted, would serve to facilitate obedience to the command, "love one another." Our problem is not a lack of appreciation for the need to "love one another," but rather the problem arises in our carrying out what is not always an easy task. It is in hopes of making our obedience a little easier and surer that I present these three suggestions.
1.Forebear One Another in Love: In Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:13, we find Paul urging Christians to forbear one another. If you were to look up the word "forbear" in your dictionary, you would find it defined as an archaic word meaning to, "endure or tolerate." I believe that this is one archaic word that needs to be given a rebirth in our vocabulary and perhaps you too will come to share my sentiments as you continue reading.
One translation records Ephesians 4:2 in this fashion, "...making allowances for one another because you love one another." How often do you overlook someone's idiosyncrasies because you love them? If I had to list the most predominant sin (fault, if you prefer) among Christians, I feel I would say pettiness. We do not realize that sometimes love MUST be blind, deaf and mute. Lest anyone misconstrue my meaning, let me make clear that I am not urging that we overlook those faults in a brother that might lead to his being lost or leading others astray. We must however, learn when to speak and when to forebear (i.e., endure, tolerate) in love.
Colossians 3:13 furnishes us with guidance on this matter, "you must bear with one another's faults, be generous to each other...the Lord's generosity to you must be the model of yours." If we would consider how much God overlooks in our life in order to claim us as His, we might tend to be less critical of every little fault we see in our brother. Do you not feel that our inability to cope with the large problems that confront us today often lies in our failure to overlook the petty faults? If we insist on making mountains of mole hills, how can we ever hope to cope with a real mountain?
Before leaving this point, let me include one word of caution. Forbearing will not succeed without true forgiving. If we merely postpone comment on our brother's fault and do not also forgive and forget, we merely postpone and eventually make more devastating our eventual confrontation.
2. Outdo One Another in Honor: Our first point was a passive one; the art of learning when to keep silent. The point we now wish to consider calls for an active role on our part. I hope that our discussion up to now has served to impress you with the need to refrain from critical comments of a negative nature except in areas of eternal significance but now, let me urge upon you a positive position as called for by Paul in Romans 12:10 when he writes, "...outdo one another in showing honor." (RSV)
This calls upon us to be active in our praise of one another and I am convinced that by following this course of action we will develop a strong bond of love between us. In order to carry this out however, we must have the attitude that Paul enjoined on the Philippians when he wrote, "...let each of you regard one another as more important than himself" (Philippians 2:3). If we would practice what Paul advises in a conscientious fashion, not only would those whom we come in contact with be lifted up, but we ourselves would experience the joys of love. In order to practice what is advised here, we must be ready to lower ourselves rather than simply waiting for others to rise to meet us.
To summarize and illustrate our second point, let me propose this situation: If a boy who is six feet tall is dating a girl who is five feet tall and he desires to kiss her, does he insist that she grow to his height first or does he lower himself and perhaps lift her a little to accomplish his desired purpose? The answer depends on the boy's real feelings as to how much he wants to kiss the girl. Our ability to, "love one another" is also dependent on how much we want to and whether we are willing to humble ourselves and lift others in order to accomplish it. Keep in mind though that the boy enjoys the kiss as much as the girl and when we give love, we too profit from the giving.
3. A Two-Way Street: No matter how much forbearance and giving of honor we practice, there will be times when we face the real test of our ability to, "love one another." I do not propose to be an authority on dealing with problems among brethren as I too have had my failures in this regard but I would like to call your attention to two passages of Scripture in Matthew which I do feel, if observed, would remove one major obstacle in the settling of differences among brethren.
In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus speaks concerning a man, who upon coming to worship God, remembers that he has a brother who, "...has some grievance against you." Jesus advises this man to leave his gift on the alter and first make amends with his brother before worshiping God.
In Matthew 18:15, we find Jesus giving instruction as to how to deal with a situation where, "...your brother wrongs you..." and His first advise is that you go to him by yourself and try to patch up your differences.
If you read these two passages together, you will find that Jesus places the responsibility to take the first step in settling the differences among brethren on both the one who has been offended and the one who committed the offense. How many differences go unresolved because both of the involved parties refuse to take the first step? Don't Jesus' instructions remove this obstacle by placing equal responsibility on both the offender and offended?
Consider this, if you have a neighbor who has wronged you, where is the best location for settling your differences: (1) in his house, (2) in your house, or (3) on the sidewalk between your houses where you meet as you are both on the way to see each other? Jesus advised the third location for the children of God.
The command to, "love one another" will never be an easy one to obey but if we will practice forbearance, outdo one another in showing honor and settle our differences on a two-way street, I think we'll be a little more successful in accomplishing this mark of discipleship.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Teacher's Toolbox: The Conversion of Saul
Brandon Renfroe wrote this article that appeared in the January 2013 edition of The Gospel Gleaner. That paper is published by Gospel Gleaner Publications in Killen, Alabama. Andrew D. Erwin is the editor.
According to multiple studies, it takes 10,000 hours to become an "expert" in any field; whether in athletics, chess, music or a wide range of other activities. Most of these professionals spend several hours every day honing their skills. In fact, to reach such levels of proficiency is believed to require some five hours of focused practice every day.
How this shames most of us who profess to be Bible students! Many church members neglect the Scriptures altogether, or else do a little "light reading" before bedtime. How unlike the psalmist, who meditated upon the word of God, "during the night watches" (Psalm 63:6).
Before we can reach others with the saving message of the gospel, we must know its content ourselves. There are various modes of study and review that have proven successful over the years; we will highlight one. It is a simple method to be certain, but one that serious students have found beneficial. By the effective use of note cards, a lengthy or complex subject can often be reduced to its key components. This facilitates memorization, as well as providing for conciseness and clarity in our responses. As N.B. Hardeman was fond of saying, "If I couldn't write on a postal card enough to make my position clear on a subject, I'd quit."
The first card we will add to our toolbox is one that deals with a very basic Bible subject; conversion and specifically, that of Saul of Tarsus. Much confusion abounds in the denominational community concerning the salvation of this former persecutor of the church of God. It is commonly believed for example, that Saul was saved immediately on the Damascus road. The popular song, "I Saw the Light" reinforces this misconception.
A careful study of two of the instances wherein Saul's conversion is detailed (Acts 9 and 22) will demonstrate more than "faith alone" was involved and specifically, that baptism was positively enjoined.
Acts 9:6
Observes that the resurrected Lord appeared to Saul. When the persecutor inquired, "What will You have me to do?" the Savior informed him that he was to go into the city, where he would be told what he must do. Note that the instructions given to the Pharisee were not to be optional-it would be a divine imperative.
Acts 9:9
We are not left to wonder what Saul's course of action was. He was, "not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19) complying explicitly with the Lord's initial command. In the meantime, for three days the now-blind Saul fasted. He certainly was in a sober, reflective and contrite mood.
Acts 9:11
Critical to our study is Acts 9:11. Ananias, the gospel preacher, was informed where he would find Saul. Further, he was even told what Saul was doing: "Behold, he prayeth." If ever there was a candidate for salvation through the so-called "sinner's prayer," surely it was Saul! For three days he abstained from food, giving himself completely over to prayer.
Acts 22:16
In Acts 9, we read of Saul's conversion from Luke's pen, as it occurred in "real time." In Acts 22 and 26, Saul (now Paul) the apostle, recounts it from his own perspective. From the words of Ananias, the preacher, it is obvious that Saul's prayers had not saved him. "Arise, and be baptized," he was told, "and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This refutes the notion that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus. As Marshall Keeble explained, A man is not saved and then baptized. A woman doesn't wash clothes because they're already clean...she washes the clothes because they're dirty. Man is baptized because he's dirty and needs to be cleaned."
And remember: Jesus informed Saul that he would be told what he "must" do (Acts 9:6). But Saul was told to be baptized. Thus, baptism is not an expedient that might be neglected with impunity. It is absolutely essential for sinful man's salvation.
By committing these four simple references to memory, one can more effectively instruct gospel prospects. In teaching those with, "honest and good hearts" (Luke 8:15) the, "way of the Lord more accurately" (Acts 18:26), a harvest of souls will follow.
According to multiple studies, it takes 10,000 hours to become an "expert" in any field; whether in athletics, chess, music or a wide range of other activities. Most of these professionals spend several hours every day honing their skills. In fact, to reach such levels of proficiency is believed to require some five hours of focused practice every day.
How this shames most of us who profess to be Bible students! Many church members neglect the Scriptures altogether, or else do a little "light reading" before bedtime. How unlike the psalmist, who meditated upon the word of God, "during the night watches" (Psalm 63:6).
Before we can reach others with the saving message of the gospel, we must know its content ourselves. There are various modes of study and review that have proven successful over the years; we will highlight one. It is a simple method to be certain, but one that serious students have found beneficial. By the effective use of note cards, a lengthy or complex subject can often be reduced to its key components. This facilitates memorization, as well as providing for conciseness and clarity in our responses. As N.B. Hardeman was fond of saying, "If I couldn't write on a postal card enough to make my position clear on a subject, I'd quit."
The first card we will add to our toolbox is one that deals with a very basic Bible subject; conversion and specifically, that of Saul of Tarsus. Much confusion abounds in the denominational community concerning the salvation of this former persecutor of the church of God. It is commonly believed for example, that Saul was saved immediately on the Damascus road. The popular song, "I Saw the Light" reinforces this misconception.
A careful study of two of the instances wherein Saul's conversion is detailed (Acts 9 and 22) will demonstrate more than "faith alone" was involved and specifically, that baptism was positively enjoined.
Acts 9:6
Observes that the resurrected Lord appeared to Saul. When the persecutor inquired, "What will You have me to do?" the Savior informed him that he was to go into the city, where he would be told what he must do. Note that the instructions given to the Pharisee were not to be optional-it would be a divine imperative.
Acts 9:9
We are not left to wonder what Saul's course of action was. He was, "not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19) complying explicitly with the Lord's initial command. In the meantime, for three days the now-blind Saul fasted. He certainly was in a sober, reflective and contrite mood.
Acts 9:11
Critical to our study is Acts 9:11. Ananias, the gospel preacher, was informed where he would find Saul. Further, he was even told what Saul was doing: "Behold, he prayeth." If ever there was a candidate for salvation through the so-called "sinner's prayer," surely it was Saul! For three days he abstained from food, giving himself completely over to prayer.
Acts 22:16
In Acts 9, we read of Saul's conversion from Luke's pen, as it occurred in "real time." In Acts 22 and 26, Saul (now Paul) the apostle, recounts it from his own perspective. From the words of Ananias, the preacher, it is obvious that Saul's prayers had not saved him. "Arise, and be baptized," he was told, "and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This refutes the notion that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus. As Marshall Keeble explained, A man is not saved and then baptized. A woman doesn't wash clothes because they're already clean...she washes the clothes because they're dirty. Man is baptized because he's dirty and needs to be cleaned."
And remember: Jesus informed Saul that he would be told what he "must" do (Acts 9:6). But Saul was told to be baptized. Thus, baptism is not an expedient that might be neglected with impunity. It is absolutely essential for sinful man's salvation.
By committing these four simple references to memory, one can more effectively instruct gospel prospects. In teaching those with, "honest and good hearts" (Luke 8:15) the, "way of the Lord more accurately" (Acts 18:26), a harvest of souls will follow.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Swine Over Savior
Jim Bill McInteer is the author of this short piece which appeared in the Bible Herald of September 15, 1970. It was published by the Bible Herald Corporation. Clifton Inman was the editor.
In an either/or proposition, which do you choose? If you could have a million dollars or the measles, which would you rather have? If you could have a good night's rest or a tortuous trip to the emergency room of the hospital, which would you choose? If you could select a successful business or one condemned to bankruptcy, which would you choose to operate? Do you feel there is really no choice? Anyone with any degree of intelligence would know which is the better quality. Then add another choice; which had you rather have, swine or a Savior?
Oddly, some folks claimed the pigs! Two thousand swine rushed headlong over a cliff, dashed into the sea and were choked beneath its waves. The swine herders told everyone in the countryside, as well as in the town, about what had occurred. They came rushing out to see the incomparable Christ. Perhaps with some degree of facetiousness Mark adds, "When they saw the swine" (Mark 5:17) they asked Jesus to leave their shores! Can you imagine? They had rather have two thousand pigs than one Savior. They must think they're going to live forever, or they must think they have no sins, or they must think that Jesus could do nothing about their sins, or they must not think, period!
But lest one deride unduly these folks who made such a pitiful selection, how do you score on the card of choice? Does Saturday night mean so much in carousal that you have neither the strength nor the disposition to think of proper activities on the Lord's Day? Does money mean so much that even dishonest methods are justified to obtain it rather than the honest pursuits of it Jesus demands? For what will a man sell his soul; a new car, a new house, a promotion, social acclaim? If one today puts a value on anything more important than the Christ, then what right or reason does he have to criticize the person who chose swine rather than the Savior?
Make the right choice my brother, all eternity depends on it!
In an either/or proposition, which do you choose? If you could have a million dollars or the measles, which would you rather have? If you could have a good night's rest or a tortuous trip to the emergency room of the hospital, which would you choose? If you could select a successful business or one condemned to bankruptcy, which would you choose to operate? Do you feel there is really no choice? Anyone with any degree of intelligence would know which is the better quality. Then add another choice; which had you rather have, swine or a Savior?
Oddly, some folks claimed the pigs! Two thousand swine rushed headlong over a cliff, dashed into the sea and were choked beneath its waves. The swine herders told everyone in the countryside, as well as in the town, about what had occurred. They came rushing out to see the incomparable Christ. Perhaps with some degree of facetiousness Mark adds, "When they saw the swine" (Mark 5:17) they asked Jesus to leave their shores! Can you imagine? They had rather have two thousand pigs than one Savior. They must think they're going to live forever, or they must think they have no sins, or they must think that Jesus could do nothing about their sins, or they must not think, period!
But lest one deride unduly these folks who made such a pitiful selection, how do you score on the card of choice? Does Saturday night mean so much in carousal that you have neither the strength nor the disposition to think of proper activities on the Lord's Day? Does money mean so much that even dishonest methods are justified to obtain it rather than the honest pursuits of it Jesus demands? For what will a man sell his soul; a new car, a new house, a promotion, social acclaim? If one today puts a value on anything more important than the Christ, then what right or reason does he have to criticize the person who chose swine rather than the Savior?
Make the right choice my brother, all eternity depends on it!
Friday, September 20, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Jesus From the Beginning)
This installment of the popular series of articles written by Wayne Jackson is copied here from the Christian Courier of September 1989. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
In Revelation 3:4, Jesus Christ is called, "the beginning of the creation with God." The Jehovah's Witnesses employ this passage as a proof-text that Christ is not an eternal Being. They contend that He was created by the Father, hence, was the "beginning" of Jehovah's creation. This is a totally false view. The Greek term arche (beginning) may denote either the beginning of something or it may mean the active cause, that by which something begins to be. The context, either immediate or remote, must determine the word's definition in a given setting. That the latter meaning must be attached to the term in connection with Christ is demonstrated by the following.
a. The Bible makes it quite clear that the second Person of the Godhead (Christ) possesses eternal existence. His goings forth are from times everlasting (Micah 5:2). The Word always was - so the verbal form (imperfect tense) suggests in John 1:1.
b. Since Christ was the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), if He Himself was a crated object, the obvious conclusion must be, He created Himself! That is an absurdity.
c. In Revelation 21:6, Jesus is denominated as, "the beginning and the end." If "beginning" suggests His origin, the "end" must imply His termination. Can the "Witnesses" live with that conclusion? Enter these references in the margin of your Bible in conjunction with Revelation 3:14.
In Revelation 3:4, Jesus Christ is called, "the beginning of the creation with God." The Jehovah's Witnesses employ this passage as a proof-text that Christ is not an eternal Being. They contend that He was created by the Father, hence, was the "beginning" of Jehovah's creation. This is a totally false view. The Greek term arche (beginning) may denote either the beginning of something or it may mean the active cause, that by which something begins to be. The context, either immediate or remote, must determine the word's definition in a given setting. That the latter meaning must be attached to the term in connection with Christ is demonstrated by the following.
a. The Bible makes it quite clear that the second Person of the Godhead (Christ) possesses eternal existence. His goings forth are from times everlasting (Micah 5:2). The Word always was - so the verbal form (imperfect tense) suggests in John 1:1.
b. Since Christ was the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), if He Himself was a crated object, the obvious conclusion must be, He created Himself! That is an absurdity.
c. In Revelation 21:6, Jesus is denominated as, "the beginning and the end." If "beginning" suggests His origin, the "end" must imply His termination. Can the "Witnesses" live with that conclusion? Enter these references in the margin of your Bible in conjunction with Revelation 3:14.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
An Expose of the A.D. 70 Doctrine (Part 2)
This is the second of a two part installment written by Charles J. Aebi. It is reprinted here from the July 1989 edition of the Christian Courier. The monthly paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Wayne Jackson. Both of these articles are rather lengthy but well worth the time spent reading to refute this false doctrine.
A.D. 70 Replaces the Cross As the Central Point in History
Hebrews 9:15 and a host of other passages place the cross at the very center of all history and prophecy. The gospel centers on the cross (I Corinthians 15:1-4) and the cross is the turning point in the conversion process (Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:3). The cross was implicit in the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), as that promise is interpreted by Peter (Acts 3:25-26). The New Testament is replete with references back to the cross of Christ as to the beginning of a new era. The Old Testament looked to the cross of Christ as the event of the future and, though not always clearly understood, at some times very specifically envisioned (Isaiah 53).
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
Overthrowing The Faith of Some
When I first heard the A.D. 70 doctrine, I charged that it would overthrow the faith of some today as a similar doctrine did in A.D. 67 or earlier (cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18). King objected strongly to that comparison and said that his doctrine does not affect the Christian's hope today because, "the believer in death may now enter immediately into his eternal reward" (Spirit of Prophecy, p. 224).
Note however, that King says all prophecy has been fulfilled. He stated publicly in my hearing that there is no New Testament eschatology remaining for us; nothing left unfulfilled. Then when asked upon what he bases his hope of eternal reward, he spent 30 minutes trying to show how the promise to Abraham assures him of a reward hereafter.
I charge that this shows that King has a doctrinal hangover; he previously believed in heaven when he understood the many New Testament promises of the resurrection and eternal life hereafter and now that he has changed his mind about the resurrection and eternal life, he still has his anachronistic belief troubling him. He has rejected all New Testament promises as already fulfilled and in desperation he goes back to an Old Testament promise, a part of which he seemingly believes to be yet unfulfilled and in which he can look for personal blessing when he dies.
How that weakens the Christian hope which we have in such glorious promises as 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 4-5; Philippians 3:11, 20-21; Colossians 3:4. King says, "The hope, and the redemption of New Testament saints was deliverance from (out of) the Jewish age" (p. 80). That is not what the above and many other like passages affirm. They promise immortality and glory when Christ returns and they say nothing of A.D. 70 or of the Jewish age. It was Paul's understanding that the Jewish law was already dead and the Jewish age already past. Christians today have the same needs, the same Christ, the same gospel, the same forgiveness and the same hope as did the saints of the early New Testament church. We have neither more nor less than they, except that their gospel was often oral and ours is written. We still have to fight Judaizers and Jews today persecute Christians whenever they have opportunity and power to do so; only some (not all) of their power was eliminated in A. D. 70.
Removes Motivation For Good
The A.D. 70 doctrine removes the motivation for good when it wipes out the promises of Christ's second coming, the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and hell. Any faith that the A.D. 70 advocates may have in accountability is as anachronistic as their hope of eternal reward, for they have nullified the passages which promise (prophecy) both.
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Destroys Fellowship in Work and Worship
Not only is motivation to work destroyed but also fellowship in that work is destroyed. How can we work with those whose gross distortions make the Scriptures meaningless? How can we trust the exegesis of one who is afflicted with a "spiritulaizing" craze? When a teacher says that Matthew 22:30 and Galatians 3:28 mean the same thing, we have to question his honesty.
But this is a two-sided street. We have no alternative but to refuse to bid Godspeed to one who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ. But how do the A.D. 70 people feel about us? I have observed their leaders refuse to sing a large number of songs in worship, and indeed they must if they do not believe in the promises of the gospel. "When Jesus Comes to Reward His Servants," "When the Trumpet of the Lord Shall Sound" and many other songs must not be sung, hence, fellowship in worship is destroyed.
Not only singing, but the motivation to partake of the Lord's supper is also affected. We partake of the Lord's supper to, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Why should we still do it if we believe he has already come?
Fellowship is also destroyed because we have learned by experience that the spiritualizing away of any plain passage that is found to set forth a disagreeable statement (such as hell, judgment, etc.) is a characteristic common to liberals. Is not the logical conclusion of the A.D. 70 doctrine liberalism? If Jesus' second coming was "spiritual" (i.e., figurative, not literal), then His going into heaven also must have been figurative, since Acts 1:11 says that they will both be the same. If the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 is figurative and bodily, then the resurrection of Christ was not either, since 1 Corinthians 15:16, 20-23 says they are the same type of resurrection (the first fruits are the same kind as the later fruits!). Thus the A.D. 70 doctrine's logical conclusion would whisk away the resurrection and ascension of Christ into a spiritulized nothingness; just as the liberals have done.
For these and other reasons, we must reject the A.D. 70 doctrine as heresy. Its dangers are only gradually being realized but they are as great or greater than the threat posed by premillennialsim.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Baptism)
This is another installment of the popular series by Wayne Jackson. This comes from the July 1989 edition of the Christian Courier which was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
In one of his famous defenses of the Christian religion, Paul discusses the details of his conversion to the Lord. In relating that matter, he mentions that he was confronted by the devout preacher Ananias, who addressed him as "brother Saul" (Acts 22:13). Subsequent to this, Ananias commanded Saul to, "arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (22:16).
Denominational preachers who deny the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, occasionally appeal to these passages in an attempt to prove that immersion is not a condition for salvation. Their reasoning goes like this. Ananias referred to Saul as a "brother" prior to his baptism, hence the Jewish zealot was a child of god before and without the rite of baptism. In response, we note the following points.
a. If such was the case, then Saul became a child of god without having his sins washed away, for Acts 22:16 is quite clear that baptism was preliminary to the cleansing of sin.
b. The term "brother" is not employed by Ananias in the Christian sense. Rather, it is used in a nationalistic sense. They were Jewish brethren. Note Peter's similar usage of the term in Acts 2. Addressing those who had murdered the Lord and who, accordingly, needed to repent of that evil deed, the apostle declared, "Brethren, I may say unto you..." (2:29). Thus, if the use of "brother" in Acts 22:13 proves that baptism is nonessential to salvation, the use of "brethren" in Acts 2:29 demonstrates that repentance is unnecessary as well, for these Jews had not yet repented of their sins (cf. 2:38).
Hence, underline "brother" in Acts 22:13 and in the margin of your Bible write, "See Acts 2:29,38). There are several conditions requisite for the reception of salvation and baptism is one of them (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; I Peter 3:21).
In one of his famous defenses of the Christian religion, Paul discusses the details of his conversion to the Lord. In relating that matter, he mentions that he was confronted by the devout preacher Ananias, who addressed him as "brother Saul" (Acts 22:13). Subsequent to this, Ananias commanded Saul to, "arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name" (22:16).
Denominational preachers who deny the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, occasionally appeal to these passages in an attempt to prove that immersion is not a condition for salvation. Their reasoning goes like this. Ananias referred to Saul as a "brother" prior to his baptism, hence the Jewish zealot was a child of god before and without the rite of baptism. In response, we note the following points.
a. If such was the case, then Saul became a child of god without having his sins washed away, for Acts 22:16 is quite clear that baptism was preliminary to the cleansing of sin.
b. The term "brother" is not employed by Ananias in the Christian sense. Rather, it is used in a nationalistic sense. They were Jewish brethren. Note Peter's similar usage of the term in Acts 2. Addressing those who had murdered the Lord and who, accordingly, needed to repent of that evil deed, the apostle declared, "Brethren, I may say unto you..." (2:29). Thus, if the use of "brother" in Acts 22:13 proves that baptism is nonessential to salvation, the use of "brethren" in Acts 2:29 demonstrates that repentance is unnecessary as well, for these Jews had not yet repented of their sins (cf. 2:38).
Hence, underline "brother" in Acts 22:13 and in the margin of your Bible write, "See Acts 2:29,38). There are several conditions requisite for the reception of salvation and baptism is one of them (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; I Peter 3:21).
An Expose of the A.D. 70 Doctrine (Part 1)
This is a lengthy article but one that I feel is important in refuting false teaching. It is reprinted from the Christian Courier of June 1989. It was written by Charles Aebi, a professor of Bible and religion at what is now Ohio Valley University in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
It is truly difficult to know where to start in an expose of the A.D. 70 doctrine. Its errors are legion, though most of them are interrelated and these errors are not easily grasped because they are couched in language we are accustomed to using to mean other things. In this way the A.D. 70 doctrine resemble Neo-Orthodoxy and other brands of liberalism. It assigns strange meanings to familiar words and passages and thus requires a very tedious examination to even understand exactly what is being said in the first place. Some new terms are invented but mostly it is an arbitrary assignment of esoteric ideas to commonly used words and a consequent forced reinterpretation of many well-known passages, to yield totally unexpected meanings.
It is truly difficult to know where to start in an expose of the A.D. 70 doctrine. Its errors are legion, though most of them are interrelated and these errors are not easily grasped because they are couched in language we are accustomed to using to mean other things. In this way the A.D. 70 doctrine resemble Neo-Orthodoxy and other brands of liberalism. It assigns strange meanings to familiar words and passages and thus requires a very tedious examination to even understand exactly what is being said in the first place. Some new terms are invented but mostly it is an arbitrary assignment of esoteric ideas to commonly used words and a consequent forced reinterpretation of many well-known passages, to yield totally unexpected meanings.
The Arrogance of Date-Setters
Sometime in the middle A.D. 60's, two fellows named Hymenaeus and Philetus set the date for Christ's second coming (i.e., of the resurrection) as past already, or as having been sometime before A.D. 67 or thereabouts. Some eighteen centuries later, William Miller set the date for Christ's second coming for 1843 and when it did not occur, Miller's associates set the date again for October 22, 1844. Nothing happened then either.
A half-century later, Charles T. Russell set the date for 1914 and when Christ did not appear that time, "Judge" Rutherford set the date for 1920. Later, the "Judge" rendered the "decision" that Jesus had appeared but it had occurred secretly and was not generally known, so the "Judge" and his followers were commissioned to announce it to the unsuspecting world.
Another half-century later, Max. R. King (The Spirit of Prophecy, 1971) declared that all the others were wrong and that Christ actually had come in A.D. 70 and unbeknown to anyone, had effected the end of the world, the judgment, the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of the eternal kingdom. King later affirmed this in debates (The Nichols-King Debate, 1973; The McGuggan-King Debate, 1975).
Each of the above date-setters was certain of his position, yet Jesus Christ, the divine King whose coming is the point of the issue, said that neither He nor the angels of heaven knew when the date of His second coming would be (Matthew 24:36). We therefore charge the A.D. 70 advocates with the error of colossal arrogance! If Jesus did not know when it would be, how can uninspired men know?
The A.D. 70 people will doubtless reply that Jesus was speaking of no one knowing the future but that they know the past and are merely stating what has already occurred; that their knowledge is not prophetic but historic. To this we respond that Hymenaes and Philetus were in the same position and were wrong and that if it is history, we should all have known it. Indeed, every eye would have already seen it and the mourning of all nations would have come to our ears (Revelation 1:7). But such is not the case. Instead, as with the Jehovah's Witnesses, they insist that they are the enlightened ones who have found the truth camouflaged in plain language which does not at all mean what it says.
The New A.D. 70
"Spiritualizing" Hermeneutic
The basic error of the A.D. 70 doctrine is its new hermeneutic that is described as "spiritual" and that "spiritualizes" the Bible in general and prophecy in particular. Each one who has set the date for Christ's second coming has erred similarly in thinking that he possessed some secret, heretofore unknown key to the interpretation of certain prophecies and/or to the Bible in general. One such date-setter, Herbert W. Armstrong, claimed that eighteen and half centuries after the key to Biblical interpretation was lost in the destruction of Jerusalem, it was revealed to him through his wife. With this magical key, Armstrong manipulated each passage of scripture to read into it what he wanted to find (i.e., that "Israel" means Anglo-Saxons) and then, to extract some amazing "truth" from it (e.g., that all Anglo-Saxons will be spared - Romans 11:26).
Starting with the assumption that A.D. 70 was the end of the world and the second coming of Christ, King employs a "new hermeneutic" key to "spritualize" eschatological and other passages in such a way so that they fit his theory. By this spiritualizing tactic he treats virtually all prophecy as figurative, never literal, in its meaning and fulfillment. The first and primary meaning he says, is figurative (he uses the term "spiritual" rather than "figurative," thus prejudicing his case), and any literal meaning or fulfillment is secondary if at all.
The result of the "spiritualizing" hermeneutic is to reverse the accepted use of language, which is to take words and sentences at face value (literally) unless there is good reason to understand them figuratively; i.e., unless a literal understanding does not make sense or else forces a contradiction with another passage or known truth.
Subjective Chaotic Exegesis
The spiritualizing hermeneutic makes for chaotic exegesis, since any "spiritual" or figurative meaning given as the first or primary interpretation would of necessity depend on the subjective prejudices of the interpreter. Thus we would have as much confusion in the exegesis of clear, plain passages of Scripture as now exists in the interpretation of the book of Revelation! Imagine the sea of doctrinal confusion in which we would be floundering if baptism were "spiritualized" to mean whatever the Pentecostal, Calvinist or Catholic wanted it to mean.
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
A Reinterpretation of the New Testament
One might expect the A.D. 70 advocates to apply their chaotic exegesis to prophetic passages referring to the resurrection, the second coming, the judgment and the end of the world but what is not suspected is that they demand a reinterpretation of much, if not all of the New Testament because of the arbitrary definitions they have assigned to words which are used in contexts other than the prophetic ones.
For example, it came out in a certain lectureship that they believe Ephesians 6:10-20 is not really referring to our Christian warfare against the world in which we live but to the battle the pre-A.D. 70 Christians had to fight against the Jewish leaders ("rulers of the darkness of this world") up until and during "the evil day" (vv. 12-13). How this conflict can be made to refer to the fall of Jerusalem or Judaism is a sleight-of-tongue operation which leaves the common Christian aghast and wondering fearfully where they will strike next, and whether any Scripture will remain understandable to any bu the "spiritualizing" elite, if the A.D. 70 doctrine be accepted.
Why is this the case? Simply because the A.D. 70 doctrine is so opposed to the plain statements of Scripture everywhere that a reinterpretation must be done to create the impression of harmony between it and many opposing passages. This is done by building a new vocabulary or, what is worse, using the common vocabulary but giving the words new and arbitrary meanings without regard to context.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Coexistence of Judaism and Christianity
Some passages are pressed for esoteric meanings reminiscent of the allegorical school of Alexandria and similar allegorical interpretations, such as that of the Jewish view which held that because god created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, the earth would stand for six thousand years in turmoil, and the seven thousand would be the millennium of the Messiah. Such an allegorical interpretation is applied to Paul's own allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 with amazing results.
In a chapter entitled, "Abraham Had Two Sons," King (The Spirit of Prophecy, pp. 27-44) says that because Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael lived together in Abraham's house for a time, Christianity and Judaism were both in effect from about A.D. 30 to 70. This means that both Jews and Christians were God's people during a 40 year transition period.
We have all understood, on the basis of Colossians 2:14-18, Hebrews 9:15-17, Acts 2 and many other passages, that there was a short period of some 50 days (between the cross and Pentecost) when the new law had been legislated and thus was "on the books" but during which the old law was still valid unto the effective date of the new law, which was on Pentecost. But we have never understood and we do not now understand that the transitional period was 40 years. If the New Testament as a will was to be valid after its testator (Christ) died, as Hebrews 9:15-17 affirms, it was as wills are, put in force when it was probated and read on Pentecost when the gospel of the risen Savior was first preached. Who ever heard of a will not becoming valid until 40 years after its testator died, unless such a clause was plainly contained in the will itself? Where is there such a limiting clause in the New Testament?
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Five Sobering Warnings
This was written by Clarence DeLoach. It is reprinted here from the September 1, 2003 edition of The Gospel Proclaimer, a weekly publication of the Church of Christ in Washington Court House, Ohio.
The book of Hebrews stresses the superiority of Christ. The Jewish Christians had been brought the messages of Christ by the apostles and prophets (Hebrews 2:3-4). They had not matured in the faith and consequently, they lacked confidence. They were on the fringes, in danger of returning to the patterns of Judaism. They were tempted to hang on to the old temple ritual and its worship.
God wanted them to understand that they no longer needed the old temple. They system was shaking and was about to be destroyed. They were a part of the new, unshakable kingdom. They didn't need the old priesthood or sacrifices. They had a better covenant, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice.
Whenever a Christian departs from Christ, he always goes to the inferior. It does not get better than Christ. In view of that truth, the writer of Hebrews gives sobering warnings that Christians of all ages need to heed.
The book of Hebrews stresses the superiority of Christ. The Jewish Christians had been brought the messages of Christ by the apostles and prophets (Hebrews 2:3-4). They had not matured in the faith and consequently, they lacked confidence. They were on the fringes, in danger of returning to the patterns of Judaism. They were tempted to hang on to the old temple ritual and its worship.
God wanted them to understand that they no longer needed the old temple. They system was shaking and was about to be destroyed. They were a part of the new, unshakable kingdom. They didn't need the old priesthood or sacrifices. They had a better covenant, a better priesthood and a better sacrifice.
Whenever a Christian departs from Christ, he always goes to the inferior. It does not get better than Christ. In view of that truth, the writer of Hebrews gives sobering warnings that Christians of all ages need to heed.
The Word of God
1. Don't DRIFT from the Word (Hebrews 2:1-4). It is easy to just drift! Drifting is gradual. Drifting is dangerous. Drifting is caused by neglect. The cure to drifting is to pay close attention. Be spiritually alert.
2. Don't DOUBT the Word (Hebrews 3:12-13). A doubting, questioning heart turns from the living God. Doubting leads to hardness of the heart and finally to outright unbelief.
3. Don't be DULL toward the Word (Hebrews 5:11-14). The Hebrews were, "slow to learn." They could not bear solid food. Their dullness had resulted in spiritual sluggishness.
4. Don't DESPISE the Word of God (Hebrews 10:26:39). A deliberate, presumptuous attitude reflects a willful despite toward God.
5. Don't DEFY the Word of God (Hebrews 12:14-25). One may get to the point where he actually refuses him who speaks. Hebrews opens with the declaration that, "God has spoken" and ends with a warning to, "see that you do not refuse him who speaks" (Hebrews 1:1; 12:25).
There is a progression involved in these warnings. If you don't hear the Word, you will drift from it. When you drift from it, you will doubt it for faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17). When hearts are hardened, sluggishness results. Sluggishness produces dullness toward the Word. When we become dull, a spiteful spirit results.
Why is it so vital that we store up God's Word, reverentially, in our hearts? Because, as He Himself said in Hebrews 1:1-2, "God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." If it is our desire to hear God, then we must hear Him through the words of His son as revealed in the New Testament.
In Hebrews we are warned of grave dangers. Let us not allow these possibilities to happen to us. Keep an open, tender, receptive and believing heart toward the Word of God.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Who Can Forgive Sins?
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the May 1989 edition of the Christian Courier. He was also the editor of the paper. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to His apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that the apostles passed on to their successors (the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin. For a defense of the Catholic position on this point see B.L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 287 and James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 343ff. The Roman assertion is utterly false. Consider the following facts.
1. No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage, e.g., John 20:23, which would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. Now the fact of the matter is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, to have a forgiving disposition (Ephesians 4:32), ultimately only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psalm 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18; Acts 8:22; etc.). He did not grant that right to the apostles nor anyone else.
2. There is a Biblical idiom whereby one is sometimes said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare. Note: (a) Pharaoh's butler said regarding Joseph, "...me he (Joseph) restored unto my office, and him (the baker) he hanged" (Genesis 41:13). Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. Here merely announced by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be. (b) Did God appoint Jeremiah to literally destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jeremiah 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.
3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles could only announce terms of forgiveness upon the basis of God's previous appointment. Literally, it is: "Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not already been forgiven." The first verbs in the two clauses are in the aorist tense, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which started before the action of the aorist. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In an exhaustive treatment of this passage, J.R. Mantley noted that the Greek fathers never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see J.R. Mantley, Journal of Biblical Literature, 58 (1939), pp. 243-249).
4. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit's guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone. Rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired, "...what shall we do," Peter responded, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently we are told that, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized..." (v. 41). Hence, we conclude upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
The New Testament does not support the Roman Catholic view of priestly absolution of sins.
Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to His apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that the apostles passed on to their successors (the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin. For a defense of the Catholic position on this point see B.L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 287 and James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 343ff. The Roman assertion is utterly false. Consider the following facts.
1. No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage, e.g., John 20:23, which would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. Now the fact of the matter is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, to have a forgiving disposition (Ephesians 4:32), ultimately only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psalm 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; Daniel 9:9; Micah 7:18; Acts 8:22; etc.). He did not grant that right to the apostles nor anyone else.
2. There is a Biblical idiom whereby one is sometimes said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare. Note: (a) Pharaoh's butler said regarding Joseph, "...me he (Joseph) restored unto my office, and him (the baker) he hanged" (Genesis 41:13). Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. Here merely announced by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be. (b) Did God appoint Jeremiah to literally destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jeremiah 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.
3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles could only announce terms of forgiveness upon the basis of God's previous appointment. Literally, it is: "Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not already been forgiven." The first verbs in the two clauses are in the aorist tense, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which started before the action of the aorist. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In an exhaustive treatment of this passage, J.R. Mantley noted that the Greek fathers never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see J.R. Mantley, Journal of Biblical Literature, 58 (1939), pp. 243-249).
4. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit's guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone. Rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired, "...what shall we do," Peter responded, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently we are told that, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized..." (v. 41). Hence, we conclude upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.
The New Testament does not support the Roman Catholic view of priestly absolution of sins.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Proving Love for God
Dan S. Shipley wrote this article which appeared in the November 1970 edition of Plain Talk. The paper was published monthly by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
Through John, God teaches us that in loving our brethren we show our love for Him and prove ourselves to be His children (I John 3:10; 4:7). "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us" (4:12). "...he who loves God must love his brother also" (4:21). Love for God cannot bypass the brethren. As our standing with God is made dependent upon loving our brethren, every Christian needs to understand what this love involves.
Since love for brethren is easier professed than practiced, John says, "My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and truth" (I John 3:18). Here is a vitally important principle. Love for brethren is expressed in DOING and not SAYING! We recall how Peter said he would lay down his life for Jesus but in the same night denied Him three times. Like Peter, may brethren would do that which they will not do! Many WOULD lay down their lives for a brother but will not lay down a five dollar bill to help feed them. Others who would "go all the way" for a brother will not go across town to visit him in the hospital. "How does the love of God abide in him?" The most careful aim avails nothing when the shot is not fired; neither the best of intentions if not fulfilled. The true measure of love for our brethren is not to be found in what one WOULD DO, but rather, in what one IS DOING!
Children of God can and must demonstrate love for brethren now! "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10). There are brethren among us who could benefit from the expressions of such love today. In addition to the poor and sick, our ministration of love could included the aged, lonely, widows, babes in Christ, the weak and unfaithful and those who are distressed and bereaved. Opportunities for demonstrating love are limitless!
But this love cannot be manifested by merely, "bumping into each other" at Bible class and worship. Loving in deed means in act and fact. It requires a personal, face to face involvement. Only in this way can we express the care, concern and tender affection that we are to have for all brethren.
The requirements of this love makes debtors of us all (Romans 12:8). Loving brethren is an ever owed, never satisfied debt. The exercise of it strengthens us, it helps the brethren and it glorifies God. By this love the family of God is cemented together. Without it, he who claims love for God is twice wrong.
"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Here is the simple antidote to many complex problems that plague God's people. Love the brethren in deed and truth! Failure here could make our unloved brethren the biggest obstacle between us and Heaven!
Through John, God teaches us that in loving our brethren we show our love for Him and prove ourselves to be His children (I John 3:10; 4:7). "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us" (4:12). "...he who loves God must love his brother also" (4:21). Love for God cannot bypass the brethren. As our standing with God is made dependent upon loving our brethren, every Christian needs to understand what this love involves.
Since love for brethren is easier professed than practiced, John says, "My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and truth" (I John 3:18). Here is a vitally important principle. Love for brethren is expressed in DOING and not SAYING! We recall how Peter said he would lay down his life for Jesus but in the same night denied Him three times. Like Peter, may brethren would do that which they will not do! Many WOULD lay down their lives for a brother but will not lay down a five dollar bill to help feed them. Others who would "go all the way" for a brother will not go across town to visit him in the hospital. "How does the love of God abide in him?" The most careful aim avails nothing when the shot is not fired; neither the best of intentions if not fulfilled. The true measure of love for our brethren is not to be found in what one WOULD DO, but rather, in what one IS DOING!
Children of God can and must demonstrate love for brethren now! "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10). There are brethren among us who could benefit from the expressions of such love today. In addition to the poor and sick, our ministration of love could included the aged, lonely, widows, babes in Christ, the weak and unfaithful and those who are distressed and bereaved. Opportunities for demonstrating love are limitless!
But this love cannot be manifested by merely, "bumping into each other" at Bible class and worship. Loving in deed means in act and fact. It requires a personal, face to face involvement. Only in this way can we express the care, concern and tender affection that we are to have for all brethren.
The requirements of this love makes debtors of us all (Romans 12:8). Loving brethren is an ever owed, never satisfied debt. The exercise of it strengthens us, it helps the brethren and it glorifies God. By this love the family of God is cemented together. Without it, he who claims love for God is twice wrong.
"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (John 15:12). Here is the simple antidote to many complex problems that plague God's people. Love the brethren in deed and truth! Failure here could make our unloved brethren the biggest obstacle between us and Heaven!
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Time and Truth
Dan S. Shipley was the author of this article which appeared in the May 1970 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
Early in the first century, Christ sent the Spirit of truth to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1ff). The New Testament records that truth which these inspired men wrote and taught. This gospel truth was being preached, believed and obeyed before the middle of that first century. Over 1900 years ago souls were being saved from sin through the knowledge of this truth. The implications of this simple fact are profound.
Think if it! A sinner could be saved in obedience to this gospel over 250 years before the Nicene Creed was formulated; long before there was a Catholic church to establish "Divine Tradition" or "interpret" the Scriptures. It was over 500 years before Catholicism had a universal Pope; before Catholic doctrine of celibacy, sprinkling for baptism, instrumental music in worship, transubstantiation, purgatory, extreme unction, holy orders, Mary-worship, confession before priests and over 1800 years before the doctrine of Papal infallibility.
Think of it! An individual could be reconciled to God through Christ over 1450 years before the Catholic monk Martin Luther made his historic protest; before he advanced the false notion of justification by faith only, before his name was worn by anyone except his family.
Think of it! Men and women could become CHRISTIANS, live and die with the hope of Heaven, over 1450 years before there was a Church of England (Episcopal) or a Presbyterian church; before John Calvin and his false teaching on predestination, direct operation of the Holy Spirit and infant baptism!
Think of it! Men were being redeemed by the blood of Christ over 1500 years before John Smyth began his work which resulted in the establishment of the first Baptist church; over 1650 years before John Wesley and the Methodist church; over 1750 years before Joseph Smith, the father of Mormonism, received his alleged revelation, which was was about the same time the Adventist group had its beginning under the leadership of William Miller. It was over 1800 years before Mary Baker Eddy's "revelation" and Christian Science, over 1800 years before there was a Jehovah's Witness sect to knock on the door or distribute the Watchtower paper!
Think of it! The simple gospel of Christ was providing men with ALL THINGS pertaining to life and godliness over 1,900 years ago! (Second Peter 1:3) It was furnishing men completely unto every good work at that early date (Second Timothy 3:17). That gospel truth provides the basis for man's becoming, being and doing ALL that God requires of him. It is further evidenced by the fact that men will one day be judged by this very gospel (John 12:48).
Think of it! If all of the combined religious creeds, ideas, doctrines, concepts, opinions, "revelations" and traditions of the past 2000 years should perish, men could STILL know how to serve God and be saved! Is it not time you considered uncluttered, unadulterated New Testament Christianity?
Early in the first century, Christ sent the Spirit of truth to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1ff). The New Testament records that truth which these inspired men wrote and taught. This gospel truth was being preached, believed and obeyed before the middle of that first century. Over 1900 years ago souls were being saved from sin through the knowledge of this truth. The implications of this simple fact are profound.
Think if it! A sinner could be saved in obedience to this gospel over 250 years before the Nicene Creed was formulated; long before there was a Catholic church to establish "Divine Tradition" or "interpret" the Scriptures. It was over 500 years before Catholicism had a universal Pope; before Catholic doctrine of celibacy, sprinkling for baptism, instrumental music in worship, transubstantiation, purgatory, extreme unction, holy orders, Mary-worship, confession before priests and over 1800 years before the doctrine of Papal infallibility.
Think of it! An individual could be reconciled to God through Christ over 1450 years before the Catholic monk Martin Luther made his historic protest; before he advanced the false notion of justification by faith only, before his name was worn by anyone except his family.
Think of it! Men and women could become CHRISTIANS, live and die with the hope of Heaven, over 1450 years before there was a Church of England (Episcopal) or a Presbyterian church; before John Calvin and his false teaching on predestination, direct operation of the Holy Spirit and infant baptism!
Think of it! Men were being redeemed by the blood of Christ over 1500 years before John Smyth began his work which resulted in the establishment of the first Baptist church; over 1650 years before John Wesley and the Methodist church; over 1750 years before Joseph Smith, the father of Mormonism, received his alleged revelation, which was was about the same time the Adventist group had its beginning under the leadership of William Miller. It was over 1800 years before Mary Baker Eddy's "revelation" and Christian Science, over 1800 years before there was a Jehovah's Witness sect to knock on the door or distribute the Watchtower paper!
Think of it! The simple gospel of Christ was providing men with ALL THINGS pertaining to life and godliness over 1,900 years ago! (Second Peter 1:3) It was furnishing men completely unto every good work at that early date (Second Timothy 3:17). That gospel truth provides the basis for man's becoming, being and doing ALL that God requires of him. It is further evidenced by the fact that men will one day be judged by this very gospel (John 12:48).
Think of it! If all of the combined religious creeds, ideas, doctrines, concepts, opinions, "revelations" and traditions of the past 2000 years should perish, men could STILL know how to serve God and be saved! Is it not time you considered uncluttered, unadulterated New Testament Christianity?
Monday, August 5, 2013
Simon Says...
Jim R. Everett wrote this article which appeared in the November 1972 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
When I was a boy, we played a game called, "Simon Says." One person was selected who had the authority to direct the game but what he said was to obeyed only if he said, "Simon says." It didn't matter what Simon said, if you were going to play the game you had to do it. Therefore, one could be put out of the game by failing to do what Simon said, or by acting when Simon hadn't said to do it.
Simon Peter says to people who believe in Jesus and want to be saved from their sin, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38). In the game, pretend Simon might have said, "Take two steps forward for a soda." Every child playing the game would have obeyed that command carefully.
While every little boy and girl would know exactly what "for" meant, some claim today that "for" doesn't mean "for" and refuse to do what Simon says, that they might be saved. Jesus said, "For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for (eis, same Greek word as in Acts 2:38) many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). And we understand that His blood had to be shed in order that sins be forgiven.
Years later, Simon wrote to the elect scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, etc., and said, "There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism..." (I Peter 3:21). Someone says, "Baptism is only a figure." Indeed it is, but Simon says it is a figure of Noah's salvation by water. As Noah was saved by water, we are saved by baptism. Don't presume that Simon said that baptism was a figure of OUR salvation.
Simon explains the Scriptural baptism that saves by saying, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). Baptism that saves is that which Simon said was, "for the remission of sins."
One lady said that Simon could not have been teaching that baptism saves (even though that's what he said), because peter knew that men were saved by the grace of God. But that is exactly what Simon said; hence, the baptism of which he speaks must be in complete harmony with God's grace.
In the game of Simon says, the difficulty was not in understanding what Simon said, but rather in a willingness at times, to condescend to the commands of the leader. Simon says that we must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and some pretend that it is too hard to understand. I suspect that it may be too costly for them to obey.
Do not think however, that Simon originated such teaching. Jesus commanded Simon and the other apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16).
When I was a boy, we played a game called, "Simon Says." One person was selected who had the authority to direct the game but what he said was to obeyed only if he said, "Simon says." It didn't matter what Simon said, if you were going to play the game you had to do it. Therefore, one could be put out of the game by failing to do what Simon said, or by acting when Simon hadn't said to do it.
Simon Peter says to people who believe in Jesus and want to be saved from their sin, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38). In the game, pretend Simon might have said, "Take two steps forward for a soda." Every child playing the game would have obeyed that command carefully.
While every little boy and girl would know exactly what "for" meant, some claim today that "for" doesn't mean "for" and refuse to do what Simon says, that they might be saved. Jesus said, "For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for (eis, same Greek word as in Acts 2:38) many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). And we understand that His blood had to be shed in order that sins be forgiven.
Years later, Simon wrote to the elect scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, etc., and said, "There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism..." (I Peter 3:21). Someone says, "Baptism is only a figure." Indeed it is, but Simon says it is a figure of Noah's salvation by water. As Noah was saved by water, we are saved by baptism. Don't presume that Simon said that baptism was a figure of OUR salvation.
Simon explains the Scriptural baptism that saves by saying, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). Baptism that saves is that which Simon said was, "for the remission of sins."
One lady said that Simon could not have been teaching that baptism saves (even though that's what he said), because peter knew that men were saved by the grace of God. But that is exactly what Simon said; hence, the baptism of which he speaks must be in complete harmony with God's grace.
In the game of Simon says, the difficulty was not in understanding what Simon said, but rather in a willingness at times, to condescend to the commands of the leader. Simon says that we must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and some pretend that it is too hard to understand. I suspect that it may be too costly for them to obey.
Do not think however, that Simon originated such teaching. Jesus commanded Simon and the other apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16).
Friday, August 2, 2013
Note From the Margin of My Bible (God's Free Gift)
This is another installment from the series of short articles by Wayne Jackson. This appeared in the Christian Courier in January 1989. Jackson was also the editor.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul declared that, "the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (6:23). Similarly, the apostle wrote, "For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8).
There are many who read these precious words and, focusing upon the term "gift," conclude that redemption must be wholly dependent upon God, and that man therefore, is utterly without responsibility in the matter of his salvation. What these folks fail to realize of course, is the fact that a "gift" can be conditional, without there being any meritorious effort on the part of the recipient. Consider the following passages, making appropriate notations in the margins of your Bible at Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:8.
1. Jehovah promised to give the city of Jericho to ancient Israel (Joshua 6:1ff). Observe the use of the verb "given" in Joshua 6:2, 16. Clearly however, they did not receive the victory until after they had completed their obedience to the divine instructions for taking the city (6:20; Cf. Hebrews 11:30).
2. In that perilous voyage to Rome, when Paul and his shipmates appeared to be in danger of losing their lives, an angel spoke to the apostle and said, "Fear not, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has granted (given) you all them that sail with you" (Acts 27:24). Yet, this gift was not unconditional for Paul warned the soldiers, "Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved" (27:31). Even so, though salvation is God's gift, "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Obedience to the gospel is essential for salvation.
3. Jesus plainly taught that we are not to work primarily for the bread which perishes. Rather, we are to work, "for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you" (John 6:27). This context makes it wonderfully clear that working the works of God (i.e., obeying His will) and receiving His gift of salvation, are not mutually exclusive propositions. They complement one another. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). Learn these valuable points and teach them to your friends.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul declared that, "the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (6:23). Similarly, the apostle wrote, "For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8).
There are many who read these precious words and, focusing upon the term "gift," conclude that redemption must be wholly dependent upon God, and that man therefore, is utterly without responsibility in the matter of his salvation. What these folks fail to realize of course, is the fact that a "gift" can be conditional, without there being any meritorious effort on the part of the recipient. Consider the following passages, making appropriate notations in the margins of your Bible at Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:8.
1. Jehovah promised to give the city of Jericho to ancient Israel (Joshua 6:1ff). Observe the use of the verb "given" in Joshua 6:2, 16. Clearly however, they did not receive the victory until after they had completed their obedience to the divine instructions for taking the city (6:20; Cf. Hebrews 11:30).
2. In that perilous voyage to Rome, when Paul and his shipmates appeared to be in danger of losing their lives, an angel spoke to the apostle and said, "Fear not, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has granted (given) you all them that sail with you" (Acts 27:24). Yet, this gift was not unconditional for Paul warned the soldiers, "Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved" (27:31). Even so, though salvation is God's gift, "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Obedience to the gospel is essential for salvation.
3. Jesus plainly taught that we are not to work primarily for the bread which perishes. Rather, we are to work, "for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you" (John 6:27). This context makes it wonderfully clear that working the works of God (i.e., obeying His will) and receiving His gift of salvation, are not mutually exclusive propositions. They complement one another. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). Learn these valuable points and teach them to your friends.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Evolution)
Wayne Jackson authored this short article which appeared in the Christian Courier of November 1988. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
One of the theories which attempts to harmonize the Bible with evolutionary chronology (i.e., that the earth is billions of years old) is known as the "gap theory." This view, which is barely more than 150 years old, argues that there exists a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which there lived successive generations of plants, animals and perhaps even pre-Adamite men (cf. First Corinthians 15:45). According to some, God destroyed this original creation due to a Satanic rebellion. Genesis 1:2ff therefore, is supposed to describe a re-creation while the "gap between 1:1 and 1:2 allows for the ancient fossils of the geological time column.
There is absolutely no Biblical basis for this compromising theory. There are several important grammatical considerations in Genesis 1 which militate against the gap theory. Mark them please.
1. Genesis 1:2 begins with "and" (Hebrew: waw, a copulative) which argues against a long time span between these verses. The Hebrew grammars and lexicons consider 1:2 to be an explanatory noun clause which describes a state contemporaneous with that of the main verb in verse 1 (cf. W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, p. 75-86).
2. Note Genesis 1:26. Man was given dominion over all of the earth and every creature upon it. This is not consistent with the notion that many generations of living creatures, over which man had no dominion, had already died and become extinct by the time humanity arrived upon the earth.
3. In 1:31, "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." At the end of the creation week, everything that God had made was still alive upon the earth. Moreover, it was pronounced, "very good." Corruption, death and extinction had not degraded the creation as yet. Make these notations. The gap theory is false.
One of the theories which attempts to harmonize the Bible with evolutionary chronology (i.e., that the earth is billions of years old) is known as the "gap theory." This view, which is barely more than 150 years old, argues that there exists a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which there lived successive generations of plants, animals and perhaps even pre-Adamite men (cf. First Corinthians 15:45). According to some, God destroyed this original creation due to a Satanic rebellion. Genesis 1:2ff therefore, is supposed to describe a re-creation while the "gap between 1:1 and 1:2 allows for the ancient fossils of the geological time column.
There is absolutely no Biblical basis for this compromising theory. There are several important grammatical considerations in Genesis 1 which militate against the gap theory. Mark them please.
1. Genesis 1:2 begins with "and" (Hebrew: waw, a copulative) which argues against a long time span between these verses. The Hebrew grammars and lexicons consider 1:2 to be an explanatory noun clause which describes a state contemporaneous with that of the main verb in verse 1 (cf. W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, p. 75-86).
2. Note Genesis 1:26. Man was given dominion over all of the earth and every creature upon it. This is not consistent with the notion that many generations of living creatures, over which man had no dominion, had already died and become extinct by the time humanity arrived upon the earth.
3. In 1:31, "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." At the end of the creation week, everything that God had made was still alive upon the earth. Moreover, it was pronounced, "very good." Corruption, death and extinction had not degraded the creation as yet. Make these notations. The gap theory is false.
Salvation and Works
This is an article about one of the most misunderstood aspects of salvation. Wayne Jackson wrote it. It appeared in the Christian Courier in January 1987. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Most protestant groups, reacting to the "works system" of Roman Catholicism, have adopted the extreme (and unscriptural) view that works play no role in human salvation. Certain sects contend that salvation is on the basis of "faith alone" without additional acts of obedience, while others (such as the radical Calvinists) allege that salvation is totally unconditional; that is, before the world began God elected the saved irrespective of their response to conditions of redemption. The truth of the matter lies between the extremes of Catholicism and Calvinism.
The solution to the "works" problem is to recognize the following facts. The Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. The Bible teaches that salvation is by works. Since however, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, it must be clear that there are different types of works relative to human redemption. Let us consider the following categories of works.
Works of the Law of Moses - In the book of Romans, Paul forcefully declares that, "a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (3:28). Again, in chapter 4:4-5, the apostle contends that to him who works (i.e., the works of the Mosaic system), the reward would not be reckoned as of grace but as of debt. On the other hand, to him who works not (the works of the Law), but who practices faith in Christ, he is accounted as righteous. Neither of these passages nor any other, suggests that there are no works involved in Heaven's plan of salvation!
Works of Human Righteousness - In the Ephesian letter, Paul writes, "...for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory" (2:8-9; cf. Second Timothy 1:19). Notice please, that the emphasis is upon our works, or works wherein we might glory. Positively excluded from these types of works however, are acts of obedience commanded by God to which we are expected to respond.
Works of God - There is a class of works mentioned in the Bible called, "works of God" which are directly related to human salvation. By this expression we do not mean works performed by the Lord. Rather, these are, "works required and approved by God" (J. H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 248). The Lord instructed those who would follow Him: "'Work not for the food which perishes but for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give you'...They said therefore unto Him, 'What must we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent'" (John 6:27-29). Within this context Christ makes it quite plain that there are works to be done which will result in the reception of eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work, "this is the work of God, that you believe on Him..." It therefore follows that if one is saved without any type of works, then he is saved without faith; a conclusion which would throw the Bible into hopeless confusion!
Too, it might be noted that repentance from sin is a divinely appointed work for man to do prior to the reception of salvation. Observe this point. The people of ancient Nineveh, "repented" at the preaching of Jonah (cf. Matthew 12:41) yet, the Old Testament record of this event relates that, "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way" (Jonah 3:10). Thus, if one can be saved without any kind of works, he can be saved without repentance. Yet, Jesus declared that without repentance one will perish (Luke 13:3-5).
The real bone of contention with many though, is water baptism. Baptism according to these folks, is a human work. Hence, it can have no relationship to man's salvation. The New Testament however, specifically excludes baptism from that class of human works that is unrelated to redemption. Please read carefully Titus 3:4-7. This context reveals that: (1) We are not saved by works of righteousness which we did ourselves; according to any plan which we accomplished (cf. Thayer, p. 526). (2) But (note the contrast) we were saved by the, "washing of regeneration" (an allusion to baptism) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (3) It is thus clear that baptism is excluded from those works of human righteousness which men contrive. It is though, a part of God's redemptive plan and when one is raised from baptism, it is according to the, "working of God" (Colossians 2:12) and not of man.
Most protestant groups, reacting to the "works system" of Roman Catholicism, have adopted the extreme (and unscriptural) view that works play no role in human salvation. Certain sects contend that salvation is on the basis of "faith alone" without additional acts of obedience, while others (such as the radical Calvinists) allege that salvation is totally unconditional; that is, before the world began God elected the saved irrespective of their response to conditions of redemption. The truth of the matter lies between the extremes of Catholicism and Calvinism.
The solution to the "works" problem is to recognize the following facts. The Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. The Bible teaches that salvation is by works. Since however, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, it must be clear that there are different types of works relative to human redemption. Let us consider the following categories of works.
Works of the Law of Moses - In the book of Romans, Paul forcefully declares that, "a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (3:28). Again, in chapter 4:4-5, the apostle contends that to him who works (i.e., the works of the Mosaic system), the reward would not be reckoned as of grace but as of debt. On the other hand, to him who works not (the works of the Law), but who practices faith in Christ, he is accounted as righteous. Neither of these passages nor any other, suggests that there are no works involved in Heaven's plan of salvation!
Works of Human Righteousness - In the Ephesian letter, Paul writes, "...for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory" (2:8-9; cf. Second Timothy 1:19). Notice please, that the emphasis is upon our works, or works wherein we might glory. Positively excluded from these types of works however, are acts of obedience commanded by God to which we are expected to respond.
Works of God - There is a class of works mentioned in the Bible called, "works of God" which are directly related to human salvation. By this expression we do not mean works performed by the Lord. Rather, these are, "works required and approved by God" (J. H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 248). The Lord instructed those who would follow Him: "'Work not for the food which perishes but for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give you'...They said therefore unto Him, 'What must we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent'" (John 6:27-29). Within this context Christ makes it quite plain that there are works to be done which will result in the reception of eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work, "this is the work of God, that you believe on Him..." It therefore follows that if one is saved without any type of works, then he is saved without faith; a conclusion which would throw the Bible into hopeless confusion!
Too, it might be noted that repentance from sin is a divinely appointed work for man to do prior to the reception of salvation. Observe this point. The people of ancient Nineveh, "repented" at the preaching of Jonah (cf. Matthew 12:41) yet, the Old Testament record of this event relates that, "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way" (Jonah 3:10). Thus, if one can be saved without any kind of works, he can be saved without repentance. Yet, Jesus declared that without repentance one will perish (Luke 13:3-5).
The real bone of contention with many though, is water baptism. Baptism according to these folks, is a human work. Hence, it can have no relationship to man's salvation. The New Testament however, specifically excludes baptism from that class of human works that is unrelated to redemption. Please read carefully Titus 3:4-7. This context reveals that: (1) We are not saved by works of righteousness which we did ourselves; according to any plan which we accomplished (cf. Thayer, p. 526). (2) But (note the contrast) we were saved by the, "washing of regeneration" (an allusion to baptism) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (3) It is thus clear that baptism is excluded from those works of human righteousness which men contrive. It is though, a part of God's redemptive plan and when one is raised from baptism, it is according to the, "working of God" (Colossians 2:12) and not of man.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Palestine - The Land of Jesus
Wayne Jackson is the author of this article which appeared in the December 1986 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
Jehovah appeared to Abraham in Chaldea and said, "Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you" (Acts 7:3). That charge was later renewed (Genesis 12:1-3); thus did the patriarch finally arrive at his appointed destination, the land of Canaan.
It was not by accident that this parcel of earth was chosen by the Lord to be the homeland of the Hebrew people. It was a part of the divine plan in preparation for the coming of the Savior of the world. Four reasons can be suggested for the uniqueness of Palestine as a contributor to Heaven's redemptive plan.
First, Canaan was isolated by natural barriers from its regional neighbors. To the north are the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. In the east and south lie the burning sands of the Arabian and Nabatean deserts and to the west is the great Mediterranean Sea. Had the Israelites driven out the pagan tribes of Canaan as they were commissioned by Jehovah to do, they would have been fairly secure from the surrounding influences of paganism that eventually corrupted them.
Second, Palestine was a corridor of land trade routes connecting Europe, Asia Minor and the East (Mesopotamia, etc.) with Egypt. The antique caravans that passed through were thus touched with Israel's concept of the true God and the hope of the coming Messiah.
Third, the lush productivity of the land (cf. Numbers 13:23) permitted the Hebrews more leisure time for the development of the unique elements of their religion which was also a contributing factor in preparing humanity for the coming of Christ (cf. Galatians 3:24).
Fourth, the great variety of geographical features characteristic of Canaan, together with its plants, animals, etc., made this land an ideal place from whence to produce much of the Bible, thus accommodating the language forms of the Holy Writings to the understanding of people in all parts of the earth. It is well to remember that the Bible borrows much of its imagery from the land.
This small parcel of Middle Eastern real estate, which has been so important in world history, is variously designated in the Bible as the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), the land of Israel (Matthew 2:20), the land of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 30:20), the land of Promise (Hebrews 11:9), the holy land (Zechariah 2:12) and Palestine (Exodus 15:14); the latter term being a corrupted form of "Philistia."
The Size of the Land - Canaan (the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean) is about 150 miles from north to south and on an average, some 50 miles from east to west. It is smaller than the state of Massachusetts. The land of the twelve tribes, the region on both sides of the Jordan, is about 80 miles in breadth or about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Eventually, Solomon's empire (the land of "Promise") spanned the territory from the river of Egypt in the west to the Euphrates in the east (I Kings 4:21).
Natural Divisions of the Land - Palestine naturally falls into four physical sections. From the Mediterranean Sean inland, are these areas: (1) The Maritime Plains are a lowland coastal region extending from Mt. Carmel in the north to Gaza in the south. This section averages about 9 to 16 miles in width. (2) The Western Highlands are a mountainous area extending from Galilee in the north, through Samaria and into Judea in the south. (3) The Jordan Valley is a deep cleavage which severs the land, dropping dramatically as it proceeds southward. it is some 1,700 feet above sea level at the source of the Jordan River (near Caesarea/Philippi) and almost 1,300 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea in the south. (4) The Eastern Tableland is a lofty plateau east of the Jordan. On an average its elevation is higher than the region west of the river.
Waters of Canaan - It is important that the Bible student have some knowledge of the major waters that are a part of this country. (1) The Mediterranean Sea, known as "the Great Sea" (Joshua 1:4), "the uttermost sea" (Deuteronomy 11:24), and the "sea of the Philistines" (Exodus 13:18) is the world's largest inland body of water. It is 2,300 miles from east to west and 1,200 miles from north to south. (2) The Jordan River (from the Hebrew word Yarden, "the descender") commences from several springs near Caesarea/Philippi in the north and winds some 200 miles southward (about 134 miles direct) on its journey to the Dead Sea. It averages 80 to 180 feet wide and from 5 to 12 feet deep and overall, drops some 3,000 feet in elevation. (3) The Sea of Galilee is about 55 miles south of the Jordan's source. It is designated in the Scriptures as: Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (N-S) by 7 miles (E-W). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet. (4) The Dead Sea, called the Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3), the Eastern Sea (Ezekiel (47:18) and the Sea of Arabah (Deuteronomy 3:17), is the lowest body of water on earth. It is 1,296 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 1,300 feet. The Sea is 48 miles long and 6 to 9 miles wide. Its evaporation rate is so great that its depth remains constant despite the continuous inflow of the Jordan River. It is about 25% solids.
Cities of the Land - It is not possible in a presentation this brief to discuss many of the communities of Canaan. However, we will mention a few.
Along the Mediterranean coast one should note the following.Gaza was the most southern of five Philistine cities. It was situated about 3 miles inland on the southwest coast of Philistia. Samson once carried off its city gates (Judges 16:1-3). Joppa is 45 miles up the coast from Gaza. It is the only natural harbor between Acco north of Mt. Carmel and the Egyptian frontier. Simon the tanner lived there (Acts 10:6). Caesarea is 23 miles south of Mt. Carmel (54 miles form Jerusalem). It was the Roman capital of Palestine and the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:1). Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician coastal cities about 35 and 60 miles respectively, north of Carmel. Jesus once visited this region (Matthew 15:21).
In the Western Highlands are several significant towns. Hebron is 19 miles SSW of Jerusalem, the highest community in the land at 3, 040 feet above sea level. Abraham's home was near this place (Genesis 13:18) and he was buried there. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus (Matthew 2:1), is located 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Famous Jerusalem is situated approximately 20 miles due west of the northern end of the Dead Sea and 33 miles to the east of the Mediterranean. It is also 133 miles from Damascus in Syria. It was David's capital city. Bethel was located about 11 miles north of Jerusalem. It was here that Jeroboam set up one of his golden calves (I Kings 12:29ff). Sycar was a small village on the main road from Jerusalem through Samaria, near Mt. Gerizim, a half mile north of Jacob's well (cf. John 4:5). Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, was located 42 miles north of Jerusalem. Nazareth, the boyhood home of the Lord (Luke 4:16) is located about 18 miles due west from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee (88 miles north of Jerusalem). Caesarea/Philippi lay at the base of Mt. Hermon, 120 miles north of Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13ff).
In the Jordan Valley, there are several cities of note. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the cities of the plain destroyed for their vile wickedness (Genesis 13:12). It is believed that these towns were located in the region now covered by the shallow waters of the southern end of the Dead Sea. En-gedi, where David hid from Saul (I Samuel 23:29), is on the west shore of the Dead Sea (about midway). Less than a mile from the NW corner of the Sea is Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Jericho was located about 5 miles from the north end of the Dead Sea, some 5 miles west of the Jordan River. It lies about 3,200 feet below Jerusalem, which is 17 miles to the southwest. Capernaum is located on the NW coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus used this town as the center for His Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 9:1).
Many other communities could be mentioned but these will suffice for the present. The diligent Bible student should learn the basic features and places of the land of Jesus if he wants to really appreciate the great story of redemption as such unfolds in ancient history.
The Land and the Book - There are many ways in which a knowledge of the lands of the Bible can enhance one's understanding of the events of sacred history. Let us consider a few of these.
1. After his great victory over the prophet Baal, Elijah ascended to the top of Mt. Carmel, bowed himself before the Lord and prayed for rain to end the parching 3 1/2 year drought (I Kings 18:42; James 5:8). The prophet informed King Ahab that he should leave the region of the mountain before the rain commenced. The king immediately departed for Jezreel, the place of his summer palace (I Kings 21:1). The Bible notes however, that Elijah, "girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel" (I Kings 18:46). The distance from Carmel to Jezreel at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, is some 16 miles. That is quite a distance to run ahead of a chariot. It is an interesting commentary on the rugged physical strength of God's prophet!
2. On the other hand, Elijah's spiritual stamina at this point was not so great. When Ahab told his evil wife Jezebel about how Elijah had slain the prophets of Baal, she vowed to take his life within a day. Accordingly, in a moment of panic, the prophet fled southward all the way to Beersheba, a distance of some 90 miles (possibly some 150 miles by the winding roads). At Beersheba, he left his servant and went another day's journey into the wilderness. After being refreshed by an angel, he pushed on another 200 miles until he finally came to Sinai where he lodged in a cave. God confronted him asking, "What are you doing here?" The point here is this: the intensity of Elijah's fear of Jezebel can only be appreciated in light of the distance he put between himself and that bloody woman!
3. Consider the case of Jonah. This prophet lived in the city of Gath-hepher (II Kings 14:25), located about 4 miles north of Nazareth. He was instructed of the Lord, "Arise, go to Nineveh..." (Jonah 1:2). Jehovah wanted the wickedness of that great city rebuked. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was situated on the bank of the Tigris River, some 500 miles east of Palestine. But Jonah did not want to do the Lord's bidding. It was not that he was afraid. Rather, as a patriot, he wanted to see Nineveh destroyed, not saved. So he journeyed 50 miles down to Joppa and from thence took a ship bound for Tarshish. Tarshish was an ancient Phoenician colony on the southwest coast of Spain, 2,000 miles west of Palestine. It was the farthest city to the west known at that time. The prophet thus intended to put some 2,500 miles between himself and Nineveh. But as know, God prepared a great fish and Jonah's itinerary was changed!
3. One recalls the Old Testament narrative concerning the twelve spies who surveyed the land of Canaan. While Israel was encamped at Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, the spies went through Palestine as far north at the, "entrance of Hamath" (Numbers 13:21). Look at a map which contains the region of Sinai and Canaan. From Kadesh to the entrance of Hamath is about 250 miles. Since the spies were gone for forty days, this means that they must have averaged 12.5 miles per day on this 500 mile round trip journey. If they traveled as much as twelve hours per day, they would have covered more than one mile per hour each day and remember, that involved mountainous terrain and spying activity along the way.
4. Can you imagine the reaction of a modern obstetrician if one of his patients in her ninth month of pregnancy should tell him that she planned to take a 93 mile trip, either walking or by means of a donkey? That is precisely what Mary did, "being great with child" (Luke 2:5) when she traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with Joseph for the taxation enrollment. Then, within a couple of weeks after the Lord's birth, Joseph, Mary and Jesus were forced to fell into Egypt 200 miles to the southwest in order to escape the wrath of Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Consider the strength of that magnificent woman! Reflect upon the providential care of Almighty God!
There are countless ways in which an understanding of Biblical geography enhances one's appreciation for the text of the Scriptures. A study of such matters will pay rich dividends for the student of sacred history.
Jehovah appeared to Abraham in Chaldea and said, "Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you" (Acts 7:3). That charge was later renewed (Genesis 12:1-3); thus did the patriarch finally arrive at his appointed destination, the land of Canaan.
It was not by accident that this parcel of earth was chosen by the Lord to be the homeland of the Hebrew people. It was a part of the divine plan in preparation for the coming of the Savior of the world. Four reasons can be suggested for the uniqueness of Palestine as a contributor to Heaven's redemptive plan.
First, Canaan was isolated by natural barriers from its regional neighbors. To the north are the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. In the east and south lie the burning sands of the Arabian and Nabatean deserts and to the west is the great Mediterranean Sea. Had the Israelites driven out the pagan tribes of Canaan as they were commissioned by Jehovah to do, they would have been fairly secure from the surrounding influences of paganism that eventually corrupted them.
Second, Palestine was a corridor of land trade routes connecting Europe, Asia Minor and the East (Mesopotamia, etc.) with Egypt. The antique caravans that passed through were thus touched with Israel's concept of the true God and the hope of the coming Messiah.
Third, the lush productivity of the land (cf. Numbers 13:23) permitted the Hebrews more leisure time for the development of the unique elements of their religion which was also a contributing factor in preparing humanity for the coming of Christ (cf. Galatians 3:24).
Fourth, the great variety of geographical features characteristic of Canaan, together with its plants, animals, etc., made this land an ideal place from whence to produce much of the Bible, thus accommodating the language forms of the Holy Writings to the understanding of people in all parts of the earth. It is well to remember that the Bible borrows much of its imagery from the land.
This small parcel of Middle Eastern real estate, which has been so important in world history, is variously designated in the Bible as the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), the land of Israel (Matthew 2:20), the land of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 30:20), the land of Promise (Hebrews 11:9), the holy land (Zechariah 2:12) and Palestine (Exodus 15:14); the latter term being a corrupted form of "Philistia."
The Size of the Land - Canaan (the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean) is about 150 miles from north to south and on an average, some 50 miles from east to west. It is smaller than the state of Massachusetts. The land of the twelve tribes, the region on both sides of the Jordan, is about 80 miles in breadth or about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Eventually, Solomon's empire (the land of "Promise") spanned the territory from the river of Egypt in the west to the Euphrates in the east (I Kings 4:21).
Natural Divisions of the Land - Palestine naturally falls into four physical sections. From the Mediterranean Sean inland, are these areas: (1) The Maritime Plains are a lowland coastal region extending from Mt. Carmel in the north to Gaza in the south. This section averages about 9 to 16 miles in width. (2) The Western Highlands are a mountainous area extending from Galilee in the north, through Samaria and into Judea in the south. (3) The Jordan Valley is a deep cleavage which severs the land, dropping dramatically as it proceeds southward. it is some 1,700 feet above sea level at the source of the Jordan River (near Caesarea/Philippi) and almost 1,300 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea in the south. (4) The Eastern Tableland is a lofty plateau east of the Jordan. On an average its elevation is higher than the region west of the river.
Waters of Canaan - It is important that the Bible student have some knowledge of the major waters that are a part of this country. (1) The Mediterranean Sea, known as "the Great Sea" (Joshua 1:4), "the uttermost sea" (Deuteronomy 11:24), and the "sea of the Philistines" (Exodus 13:18) is the world's largest inland body of water. It is 2,300 miles from east to west and 1,200 miles from north to south. (2) The Jordan River (from the Hebrew word Yarden, "the descender") commences from several springs near Caesarea/Philippi in the north and winds some 200 miles southward (about 134 miles direct) on its journey to the Dead Sea. It averages 80 to 180 feet wide and from 5 to 12 feet deep and overall, drops some 3,000 feet in elevation. (3) The Sea of Galilee is about 55 miles south of the Jordan's source. It is designated in the Scriptures as: Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (N-S) by 7 miles (E-W). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet. (4) The Dead Sea, called the Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3), the Eastern Sea (Ezekiel (47:18) and the Sea of Arabah (Deuteronomy 3:17), is the lowest body of water on earth. It is 1,296 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 1,300 feet. The Sea is 48 miles long and 6 to 9 miles wide. Its evaporation rate is so great that its depth remains constant despite the continuous inflow of the Jordan River. It is about 25% solids.
Cities of the Land - It is not possible in a presentation this brief to discuss many of the communities of Canaan. However, we will mention a few.
Along the Mediterranean coast one should note the following.Gaza was the most southern of five Philistine cities. It was situated about 3 miles inland on the southwest coast of Philistia. Samson once carried off its city gates (Judges 16:1-3). Joppa is 45 miles up the coast from Gaza. It is the only natural harbor between Acco north of Mt. Carmel and the Egyptian frontier. Simon the tanner lived there (Acts 10:6). Caesarea is 23 miles south of Mt. Carmel (54 miles form Jerusalem). It was the Roman capital of Palestine and the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:1). Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician coastal cities about 35 and 60 miles respectively, north of Carmel. Jesus once visited this region (Matthew 15:21).
In the Western Highlands are several significant towns. Hebron is 19 miles SSW of Jerusalem, the highest community in the land at 3, 040 feet above sea level. Abraham's home was near this place (Genesis 13:18) and he was buried there. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus (Matthew 2:1), is located 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Famous Jerusalem is situated approximately 20 miles due west of the northern end of the Dead Sea and 33 miles to the east of the Mediterranean. It is also 133 miles from Damascus in Syria. It was David's capital city. Bethel was located about 11 miles north of Jerusalem. It was here that Jeroboam set up one of his golden calves (I Kings 12:29ff). Sycar was a small village on the main road from Jerusalem through Samaria, near Mt. Gerizim, a half mile north of Jacob's well (cf. John 4:5). Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, was located 42 miles north of Jerusalem. Nazareth, the boyhood home of the Lord (Luke 4:16) is located about 18 miles due west from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee (88 miles north of Jerusalem). Caesarea/Philippi lay at the base of Mt. Hermon, 120 miles north of Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13ff).
In the Jordan Valley, there are several cities of note. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the cities of the plain destroyed for their vile wickedness (Genesis 13:12). It is believed that these towns were located in the region now covered by the shallow waters of the southern end of the Dead Sea. En-gedi, where David hid from Saul (I Samuel 23:29), is on the west shore of the Dead Sea (about midway). Less than a mile from the NW corner of the Sea is Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Jericho was located about 5 miles from the north end of the Dead Sea, some 5 miles west of the Jordan River. It lies about 3,200 feet below Jerusalem, which is 17 miles to the southwest. Capernaum is located on the NW coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus used this town as the center for His Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 9:1).
Many other communities could be mentioned but these will suffice for the present. The diligent Bible student should learn the basic features and places of the land of Jesus if he wants to really appreciate the great story of redemption as such unfolds in ancient history.
The Land and the Book - There are many ways in which a knowledge of the lands of the Bible can enhance one's understanding of the events of sacred history. Let us consider a few of these.
1. After his great victory over the prophet Baal, Elijah ascended to the top of Mt. Carmel, bowed himself before the Lord and prayed for rain to end the parching 3 1/2 year drought (I Kings 18:42; James 5:8). The prophet informed King Ahab that he should leave the region of the mountain before the rain commenced. The king immediately departed for Jezreel, the place of his summer palace (I Kings 21:1). The Bible notes however, that Elijah, "girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel" (I Kings 18:46). The distance from Carmel to Jezreel at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, is some 16 miles. That is quite a distance to run ahead of a chariot. It is an interesting commentary on the rugged physical strength of God's prophet!
2. On the other hand, Elijah's spiritual stamina at this point was not so great. When Ahab told his evil wife Jezebel about how Elijah had slain the prophets of Baal, she vowed to take his life within a day. Accordingly, in a moment of panic, the prophet fled southward all the way to Beersheba, a distance of some 90 miles (possibly some 150 miles by the winding roads). At Beersheba, he left his servant and went another day's journey into the wilderness. After being refreshed by an angel, he pushed on another 200 miles until he finally came to Sinai where he lodged in a cave. God confronted him asking, "What are you doing here?" The point here is this: the intensity of Elijah's fear of Jezebel can only be appreciated in light of the distance he put between himself and that bloody woman!
3. Consider the case of Jonah. This prophet lived in the city of Gath-hepher (II Kings 14:25), located about 4 miles north of Nazareth. He was instructed of the Lord, "Arise, go to Nineveh..." (Jonah 1:2). Jehovah wanted the wickedness of that great city rebuked. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was situated on the bank of the Tigris River, some 500 miles east of Palestine. But Jonah did not want to do the Lord's bidding. It was not that he was afraid. Rather, as a patriot, he wanted to see Nineveh destroyed, not saved. So he journeyed 50 miles down to Joppa and from thence took a ship bound for Tarshish. Tarshish was an ancient Phoenician colony on the southwest coast of Spain, 2,000 miles west of Palestine. It was the farthest city to the west known at that time. The prophet thus intended to put some 2,500 miles between himself and Nineveh. But as know, God prepared a great fish and Jonah's itinerary was changed!
3. One recalls the Old Testament narrative concerning the twelve spies who surveyed the land of Canaan. While Israel was encamped at Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, the spies went through Palestine as far north at the, "entrance of Hamath" (Numbers 13:21). Look at a map which contains the region of Sinai and Canaan. From Kadesh to the entrance of Hamath is about 250 miles. Since the spies were gone for forty days, this means that they must have averaged 12.5 miles per day on this 500 mile round trip journey. If they traveled as much as twelve hours per day, they would have covered more than one mile per hour each day and remember, that involved mountainous terrain and spying activity along the way.
4. Can you imagine the reaction of a modern obstetrician if one of his patients in her ninth month of pregnancy should tell him that she planned to take a 93 mile trip, either walking or by means of a donkey? That is precisely what Mary did, "being great with child" (Luke 2:5) when she traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with Joseph for the taxation enrollment. Then, within a couple of weeks after the Lord's birth, Joseph, Mary and Jesus were forced to fell into Egypt 200 miles to the southwest in order to escape the wrath of Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Consider the strength of that magnificent woman! Reflect upon the providential care of Almighty God!
There are countless ways in which an understanding of Biblical geography enhances one's appreciation for the text of the Scriptures. A study of such matters will pay rich dividends for the student of sacred history.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Yes...Nondenominational Christianity
This is copied from The Gospel Teacher of July 22, 1973. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio and was edited by Grant B. Caldwell.
Many express confusion today over the various denominations. "Can I be a Christian without belonging to a denominational church" they ask.
In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations (divisions) as they now exist. The early followers of Jesus Christ were simply called Christians (Acts 11:26) and collectively, "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16). Both mean, "belonging to Christ." Religiously the apostles Paul, Peter and John were neither Protestant, Catholic nor Jew. They were Christians only.
These apostles, as well as all the saved were nondenominational Christians. This term should not be confused with the ideas of inter-denominational or all-denominational Christianity. They did not approve those of their day who tried to create divisions within the church which would have resulted in denominations. Instead, they strongly condemned such action by saying, "Let there be no division among you" (I Corinthians 1:10-13). Their allegiance was to Christ and to Him only. They were just Christians; simply those who were followers of Jesus, members of the church of Christ.
Certainly today if we follow Jesus Christ as they did, we too can be just Christians having, "like precious faith" with the apostles (II Peter 1:1). We then as they were, will be free from error and confusion of denominationalism. we can worship and serve God as simply and acceptably as they did. This has been the constant practice of the church of Christ from her beginning.
Yes, you can be a nondenominational Christian just as in the early days of the church by following only the teaching of the New Testament.
Many express confusion today over the various denominations. "Can I be a Christian without belonging to a denominational church" they ask.
In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations (divisions) as they now exist. The early followers of Jesus Christ were simply called Christians (Acts 11:26) and collectively, "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16). Both mean, "belonging to Christ." Religiously the apostles Paul, Peter and John were neither Protestant, Catholic nor Jew. They were Christians only.
These apostles, as well as all the saved were nondenominational Christians. This term should not be confused with the ideas of inter-denominational or all-denominational Christianity. They did not approve those of their day who tried to create divisions within the church which would have resulted in denominations. Instead, they strongly condemned such action by saying, "Let there be no division among you" (I Corinthians 1:10-13). Their allegiance was to Christ and to Him only. They were just Christians; simply those who were followers of Jesus, members of the church of Christ.
Certainly today if we follow Jesus Christ as they did, we too can be just Christians having, "like precious faith" with the apostles (II Peter 1:1). We then as they were, will be free from error and confusion of denominationalism. we can worship and serve God as simply and acceptably as they did. This has been the constant practice of the church of Christ from her beginning.
Yes, you can be a nondenominational Christian just as in the early days of the church by following only the teaching of the New Testament.
They Died - We Live
This was written by Joe. Fitch and appeared in the August 1969 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
Something dies to put food on your table. The price of every meal is the life of some plant or animal. Life is sustained by death. In awe, we thumb the pages of history reading of those who confessed Jesus as Christ. They were shackled in dungeons, slaughtered in arenas and tormented in the most horrible ways. Tradition claims that all the apostles except John fell as martyrs in the cause of Christ. It was a price paid so others could live. "So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (II Corinthians 4:12).
Another chapter in history tells of dedicated men who labored to translate and print the Bible. They were cruelly persecuted, killed and their bodies dishonored. All this so men could pick up their Bibles and read. They died; we live.
Recent decades witnessed men who burned themselves out carrying the gospel over this land. Their lamps burned late over open Bibles; dawn found them hard at work. Their pens were worn out writing what they learned. In volumes in my bookshelf stand the lives of selfless men; McGarvey, Lipscomb, Campbell. Life was poured out bringing life to men.
The scheme of redemption demanded Jesus' death for man's life. Remember Caiaphas' thoughtless comment. "...it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish" (John 11:50). Here the ridicule at the foot of the cross. "He saved others, Himself He cannot save" (Matthew 27:42). That is it exactly! Saving others meant sacrificing self. Jesus prayed, "...if it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." (Matthew 26:39). It was not possible to spare Him and save man too. He died; we live.
Consider our reaction if decrees against our service to God were issued today. How many Daniels could be found serving God, "as he did aforetime" (Daniel 6:10). Doubtless folk who quit when they are called an ugly name or when discipleship costs them something would not long endure with their lives at stake!
We had better prepare for, "...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Timothy 3:12). He did NOT say that all church members, but all who live godly. this is true in any age or country. Don't hunt persecution. Do right and the devil will find you. He does not have to worry with the hit and miss, now and then church member. Such already nauseate the Lord and have no good influence on anyone but Satan cannot ignore a godly man. He will try to destroy him. Our persecution maybe "sophisticated" (ridicule, financial and social reprisal) but don't discredit its impact. A wound to the wallet or pride may be more deadly than stripes on our back.
The martyr's block may never callus but we must die if we are to live with God. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20). The martyrs had already given away their lives. Living for Christ, we find courage to die for Him.
Something dies to put food on your table. The price of every meal is the life of some plant or animal. Life is sustained by death. In awe, we thumb the pages of history reading of those who confessed Jesus as Christ. They were shackled in dungeons, slaughtered in arenas and tormented in the most horrible ways. Tradition claims that all the apostles except John fell as martyrs in the cause of Christ. It was a price paid so others could live. "So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (II Corinthians 4:12).
Another chapter in history tells of dedicated men who labored to translate and print the Bible. They were cruelly persecuted, killed and their bodies dishonored. All this so men could pick up their Bibles and read. They died; we live.
Recent decades witnessed men who burned themselves out carrying the gospel over this land. Their lamps burned late over open Bibles; dawn found them hard at work. Their pens were worn out writing what they learned. In volumes in my bookshelf stand the lives of selfless men; McGarvey, Lipscomb, Campbell. Life was poured out bringing life to men.
The scheme of redemption demanded Jesus' death for man's life. Remember Caiaphas' thoughtless comment. "...it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish" (John 11:50). Here the ridicule at the foot of the cross. "He saved others, Himself He cannot save" (Matthew 27:42). That is it exactly! Saving others meant sacrificing self. Jesus prayed, "...if it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." (Matthew 26:39). It was not possible to spare Him and save man too. He died; we live.
Consider our reaction if decrees against our service to God were issued today. How many Daniels could be found serving God, "as he did aforetime" (Daniel 6:10). Doubtless folk who quit when they are called an ugly name or when discipleship costs them something would not long endure with their lives at stake!
We had better prepare for, "...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Timothy 3:12). He did NOT say that all church members, but all who live godly. this is true in any age or country. Don't hunt persecution. Do right and the devil will find you. He does not have to worry with the hit and miss, now and then church member. Such already nauseate the Lord and have no good influence on anyone but Satan cannot ignore a godly man. He will try to destroy him. Our persecution maybe "sophisticated" (ridicule, financial and social reprisal) but don't discredit its impact. A wound to the wallet or pride may be more deadly than stripes on our back.
The martyr's block may never callus but we must die if we are to live with God. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20). The martyrs had already given away their lives. Living for Christ, we find courage to die for Him.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (1)
In November 1986, Wayne Jackson, the editor of the Christian Courier, began a column in that paper entitled "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." The entry copied below was the first of these columns. They are short yet insightful articles which I will continue to reproduce as I come across them. They were published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
For almost a third of a century I have had the habit of marking my Bible. I underline phrases, circle words, draw arrows and make a variety of helpful notations. For a long time I have thought about doing an occasional article entitled, "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." This is the first of such efforts.
In Genesis 1:14, Moses indicated that the luminaries of heaven were made for, "signs and for seasons and for days and years." I have circle the terms "days" and "years," thus calling attention to the Mosaic distinction between these two words in this creation context. Such a notation reminds me that this is clear evidence against the modern notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 are mere symbols for vast ages of time involving millions of years (a view designed to accommodate evolutionary chronology). Moses knew the difference between days and years!
God once said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7:3). This is a difficult verse by itself yet in the margin write: (See 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:34; 10:20). A comparison of these passages reveals that Jehovah did not arbitrarily harden the king's heart. Rather, several factors were involved. The Lord made demands upon Pharaoh that went against the monarch's selfish interests, hence in that sense God hardened his heart. On the other hand, the king resisted yielding to the divine command, thus, he hardened his own heart! The Egyptian magicians, by attempting to duplicate Moses' signs, added to Pharaoh's confusion. All of these considerations demonstrate that the evil ruler was responsible for his own conduct. He was not the victim of a capricious God!
For almost a third of a century I have had the habit of marking my Bible. I underline phrases, circle words, draw arrows and make a variety of helpful notations. For a long time I have thought about doing an occasional article entitled, "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." This is the first of such efforts.
In Genesis 1:14, Moses indicated that the luminaries of heaven were made for, "signs and for seasons and for days and years." I have circle the terms "days" and "years," thus calling attention to the Mosaic distinction between these two words in this creation context. Such a notation reminds me that this is clear evidence against the modern notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 are mere symbols for vast ages of time involving millions of years (a view designed to accommodate evolutionary chronology). Moses knew the difference between days and years!
God once said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7:3). This is a difficult verse by itself yet in the margin write: (See 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:34; 10:20). A comparison of these passages reveals that Jehovah did not arbitrarily harden the king's heart. Rather, several factors were involved. The Lord made demands upon Pharaoh that went against the monarch's selfish interests, hence in that sense God hardened his heart. On the other hand, the king resisted yielding to the divine command, thus, he hardened his own heart! The Egyptian magicians, by attempting to duplicate Moses' signs, added to Pharaoh's confusion. All of these considerations demonstrate that the evil ruler was responsible for his own conduct. He was not the victim of a capricious God!
The Mormon Church - A "Non-Prophet" Organization
This was written by Wayne Jackson and appeared in the August 1986 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
The ancient psalmist inquired, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). The Lord once told of a foolish man who built a house upon the sand, only to later see it come crashing down in a violent storm (Matthew 7:26). Obviously, no dwelling is any stronger than the foundation upon which it is constructed.
The church of Christ is grounded upon Jesus of Nazareth (I Corinthians 3:11) and the bedrock truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of god (cf. Matthew 16:16-18). Allow me to raise this question. What would be our plight should we learn that Jesus was not raised from the dead? Paul argues that we would be forced to conclude that our faith is vain and as a consequence, we are quite pitiable (I Corinthians 15:13-19). We should then be obliged to look elsewhere for the truth.
Though it has suffered some serious setbacks in recent years, the Mormon movement is an influential phenomenon in the west and apparently it is growing throughout the world. There are many admirable qualities about the Mormon people. They are hardworking, benevolent, generally moral and zealous in the propagation of their dogma. As commendable as these traits are, the brutal fact of the matter is, Mormonism was constructed upon a defective foundation. The system is therefore, a false one.
One of the books considered to be inspired by the Mormons is The Doctrine and Covenants, which purports to contain, "Revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet with additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church" (The Doctrines and Covenants, LDS Church, Salt Lake City, 1952, Title page). On April 6, 1830 when the Mormon church was being organized, Joseph Smith allegedly received a "revelation" which bound his followers to accept him as a prophet of God. It states, "...thou (the church) shalt give heed unto all his (Joesph Smith's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, waling in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C, 21:4-5). This is the very heart of Mormonism. Was Joseph Smith a genuine prophet? The validity of the Mormon system is determined by the answer to this query.
In this article, we will critically and honestly examine three of Joseph Smith's prophecies. First, in July of 1831, Smith gave a "revelation" to his disciples which asserted that the Mormon temple was to be built in Independence, Missouri. Hear him: "...in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion... Behold, the place which is now called Independence, is the center place, and a spot for the temple is lying westward upon a lot which is not far from the court house" (D&C, 57:1-3). More than two years later, Smith confirmed that "Zion" (Independence, Missouri) was to be the place; "neither shall there be any other place appointed" (D&C, 101:20). Further, in September of 1832, Smith declared that the, "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord..." (D&C, 84:4-5). More than 150 years have passed since these "prophecies" were uttered and they have miserably failed. Not one element has been fulfilled as any student of the Mormon movement well knows.
Second, in 1832 Smith claimed to have received certain revelations regarding the coming war between the states. The newspapers of the day of course, were filled with speculation concerning the possibility of a civil war (cf. J. D. Bales, The Testing of Joseph Smith, Jr., Pacific Publishing, p. 12). Here in part, is the prophecy. "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States and the nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." He further suggested that this conflict would ultimately result in, "a full end of all nations" (D&C, 87:3, 6). This "revelation" turned out to be blatantly false. Great Britain never entered the civil war, they never called upon other nations to defend them in connection with that war, the struggle between the states was not, "poured out upon all nations" and certainly the civil war did not lead to the, "full end of all nations." Finally, this question might be raised. If Joseph Smith had prophetic insight into the details of the civil war, why is it he never indicated what the final outcome would be as to the victor, North or South? He was strangely silent about that.
Third, during Smith's lifetime there was much speculation concerning the time of Christ's return. True to form, prophet Joseph contributed to the confusion. In April of 1843, Smith told his followers, "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter" (D&C, 130:14-15). Since Smith was born in 1805, this suggested that the Lord would come by the year 1891. this chronology is confirmed by an earlier statement that Smith had made. In 1835 Smith said, "...and it was the will of god that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even 56 years should wind up the scene" (History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Ed., Vol. II, p. 182). Again, 56 years from 1835 terminates the prophecy at 1891. Christ did not come in that year. As a prophet, Joseph Smith failed again.
15 centuries before the birth of Christ, Moses set forth the divine standard for determining the credibility of a prophet. "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. The Mormon church was erected upon a false foundation. Honest souls caught up in that movement should abandon it and accept the true gospel of the Son of God. As we have opportunity, may we instruct and encourage them to this end.
The ancient psalmist inquired, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). The Lord once told of a foolish man who built a house upon the sand, only to later see it come crashing down in a violent storm (Matthew 7:26). Obviously, no dwelling is any stronger than the foundation upon which it is constructed.
The church of Christ is grounded upon Jesus of Nazareth (I Corinthians 3:11) and the bedrock truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of god (cf. Matthew 16:16-18). Allow me to raise this question. What would be our plight should we learn that Jesus was not raised from the dead? Paul argues that we would be forced to conclude that our faith is vain and as a consequence, we are quite pitiable (I Corinthians 15:13-19). We should then be obliged to look elsewhere for the truth.
Though it has suffered some serious setbacks in recent years, the Mormon movement is an influential phenomenon in the west and apparently it is growing throughout the world. There are many admirable qualities about the Mormon people. They are hardworking, benevolent, generally moral and zealous in the propagation of their dogma. As commendable as these traits are, the brutal fact of the matter is, Mormonism was constructed upon a defective foundation. The system is therefore, a false one.
One of the books considered to be inspired by the Mormons is The Doctrine and Covenants, which purports to contain, "Revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet with additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church" (The Doctrines and Covenants, LDS Church, Salt Lake City, 1952, Title page). On April 6, 1830 when the Mormon church was being organized, Joseph Smith allegedly received a "revelation" which bound his followers to accept him as a prophet of God. It states, "...thou (the church) shalt give heed unto all his (Joesph Smith's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, waling in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C, 21:4-5). This is the very heart of Mormonism. Was Joseph Smith a genuine prophet? The validity of the Mormon system is determined by the answer to this query.
In this article, we will critically and honestly examine three of Joseph Smith's prophecies. First, in July of 1831, Smith gave a "revelation" to his disciples which asserted that the Mormon temple was to be built in Independence, Missouri. Hear him: "...in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion... Behold, the place which is now called Independence, is the center place, and a spot for the temple is lying westward upon a lot which is not far from the court house" (D&C, 57:1-3). More than two years later, Smith confirmed that "Zion" (Independence, Missouri) was to be the place; "neither shall there be any other place appointed" (D&C, 101:20). Further, in September of 1832, Smith declared that the, "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord..." (D&C, 84:4-5). More than 150 years have passed since these "prophecies" were uttered and they have miserably failed. Not one element has been fulfilled as any student of the Mormon movement well knows.
Second, in 1832 Smith claimed to have received certain revelations regarding the coming war between the states. The newspapers of the day of course, were filled with speculation concerning the possibility of a civil war (cf. J. D. Bales, The Testing of Joseph Smith, Jr., Pacific Publishing, p. 12). Here in part, is the prophecy. "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States and the nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." He further suggested that this conflict would ultimately result in, "a full end of all nations" (D&C, 87:3, 6). This "revelation" turned out to be blatantly false. Great Britain never entered the civil war, they never called upon other nations to defend them in connection with that war, the struggle between the states was not, "poured out upon all nations" and certainly the civil war did not lead to the, "full end of all nations." Finally, this question might be raised. If Joseph Smith had prophetic insight into the details of the civil war, why is it he never indicated what the final outcome would be as to the victor, North or South? He was strangely silent about that.
Third, during Smith's lifetime there was much speculation concerning the time of Christ's return. True to form, prophet Joseph contributed to the confusion. In April of 1843, Smith told his followers, "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter" (D&C, 130:14-15). Since Smith was born in 1805, this suggested that the Lord would come by the year 1891. this chronology is confirmed by an earlier statement that Smith had made. In 1835 Smith said, "...and it was the will of god that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even 56 years should wind up the scene" (History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Ed., Vol. II, p. 182). Again, 56 years from 1835 terminates the prophecy at 1891. Christ did not come in that year. As a prophet, Joseph Smith failed again.
15 centuries before the birth of Christ, Moses set forth the divine standard for determining the credibility of a prophet. "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. The Mormon church was erected upon a false foundation. Honest souls caught up in that movement should abandon it and accept the true gospel of the Son of God. As we have opportunity, may we instruct and encourage them to this end.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)