Written by Wayne Jackson, this article appeared in the April, 1978 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Wayne Jackson was the editor.
"In case of the Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned." "The Rapture: the only way to fly." The preceding slogans are but two of the many currently being circulated by way of bumper stickers. They herald the alleged event that Hal Lindsey, author of the multi-million best seller The Late Great Planet Earth calls, "the ultimate trip." Lindsey, and others who advocate the heresy of dispensationalism, contend that within the next few years Christ will return to the earth in a silent and invisible way to "rapture" the living saints and to resurrect the righteous dead. According to the dispensational scheme, this will trigger a tribulation period which will be consummated by "the battle of Armageddon." Following this horrible conflict, it is claimed Christ will begin His reign of 1,000 years on David's throne in the city of Jerusalem.
Rapture Defined - The word "rapture" is derived from the Latin rapio, which means to seize or to snatch. Though this word is not used in the Bible, dispensationalists claim the idea is found in I Thessalonians 4:17. There Paul speaks of the second coming of Christ. He declares that those living saints who witness the Lord's return will be, "caught up" (harpagesometha) in the clouds to meet Him. To use I Thessalonians 4 though in an effort to prove a silent, secret return of Christ, is as Alexander Reese put it one of the sorriest attempts, "in the whole history of freak exegesis." (The Approaching Advent of Christ, p. 146)
The foregoing rapture theory is plainly contradicted by the following Biblical facts.
1. The return of Christ will not be invisible. Rather, it will be visible universally. (a) In Matthew 24:15-22 Jesus described the conditions to be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem. In connection therewith, He warns that should anyone claim, "Lo, here is the Christ" it was not to be believed. "For as the lightning comes forth from the east, and is seen (from phaino, "to shine") even unto the west; so (houtos, "in this manner") shall be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man." (v.27) (b) As those early disciples "beheld" (theaomai, "see, look at") would Christ's departure (Acts 1:11), so in like manner (tropos, "in the same way") would He come again. (c) The coming of the Lord will involve a revelation (apokalupsis, "to uncover") of His being (II Thessalonians 1:7). (d) At His coming Christ will be manifested (phaneroo). When this term is used in the passive voice, as in I John 2:28, it means to, "show or reveal oneself, be revealed, appear to someone" (Arndt & Gingrich, p. 860). (e) As Jesus was visible during His first "appearing" (epiphaneia) on earth (II Timothy 1:10) so will He be visible when He appears at His second coming (I Timothy 6:14; II Timothy 4:1,8; Titus 2:13). (f) Of His coming it is said that Christ "shall appear (horao, "become visible") a SECOND time" (Hebrews 9:28). If Lindsey and his dispensational kin are correct, Christ will not appear until His THIRD coming!
2. Further, the Scriptures indicated that the advent of Christ will be accompanied by considerable audible phenomena. The Lord will descend from Heaven, "with a SHOUT, with the VOICE of the archangel and with the TRUMPET of God" (I Thessalonians 4:16). Someone has called this the nosiest verse in the Bible. Too, when Jesus comes again, "the heavens shall pass away with a GREAT NOISE" (II Peter 3:10) and that hardly accords with the notion that the second advent will be a silent, secret event!
3. Finally, the idea that only the righteous dead will be resurrected at the time of the rapture is totally false. First of all, the New Testament teaches that there will be a single resurrection consisting of both just and unjust (Acts 24:15), who will come forth in the same hour (John 4:28-29). Secondly, this resurrection will occur at "the last day" (John 6:54), which does not leave time for a seven year tribulation period, much less a millennium! Clearly, both the good and bad are rewarded at the time of Christ's coming (Matthew 25:31ff; II Thessalonians 1:7f). Truly, the rapture theory is a ruptured theory!
History of the Doctrine - The rapture idea has its roots in history, not in Scripture. The idea appears to be traceable to the old Irvine (pentecostal) movement of the early 1800's. A recent writer says, "The idea of a two stage coming of Christ first came to a Scottish lass, Miss Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland while she was in a 'prophetic' trance" (Robert Brinsmead, Present Truth, Sept., 1974, p. 28). The author quotes from a book written by one Dr. Robert Norton, a member of the Irvinite group, and published in 1861. It reads:
"Marvellous light was shed upon Scripture, and especially on the doctrine of the second Advent, by the revived spirit of prophecy. In the following account by Miss M. M., of an evening during which the power of the Holy Ghost rested upon her for several successive hours, in mingled prophecy and vision, we have an instance. For here we first see the distinction between that final stage of the Lord's coming, when every eye shall see Him and His prior appearing in glory to them that look for Him" (The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets: In the Catholic Apostolic Church, p. 15).
The rapture theory thus rests upon the same sort of basis as Shakerism (founder Ann Lee had visions and claimed to communicate with the dead in 72 languages!), Seventh Day Adventism (Ellen White thought she took a trip to Heaven) and Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy's revelations told her there is no death!). The dispensational dogma, with all its peculiar elements, including the rapture notion, is clearly at variance with much Bible teaching and honest students of the holy Word will reject it.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Roots of Romanism (The Veneration of Mary)
This is the final installment in a series Wayne Jackson wrote examining the Catholic Church. It is copied here from the April, 1978 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
It is an undeniable fact that in Roman Catholic theology "The Blessed Virgin Mary" is accorded more attention than Christ Himself. She is venerated in the Rosary as the "Mother of God" 150 times. There are 14 feasts which are universally held in honor of Mary. She is remembered every Saturday and the whole month of May is dedicated to her. The year of 1953 was celebrated as the Marian year (F.C.H. Dreyer & E. Weller, Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture, pp. 179, 180).
The worship of female deities was quite common among the heathen of antiquity. In the days of Jeremiah, those Israelites that wandered into idolatry offered worship to, "the queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25). The Egyptians had Athor, the Greeks had Hestia and the Romans worshipped Vesta. Accordingly, when the bloody persecution of the 4th century ended with the so-called "conversion" of Constantine, the idea of a female god for "Christianity" began to evolve. As one writer notes, "An influx into the church of many pagans occurred when the Emperor Constantine declared himself a Christian, and the thought of a female element in the divinity, encouraged by pagan thought generally Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Latin began to emerge." (W.C.G. Proctor, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 344.) Another historian also traces this development:
"The adoration of Mary the mother of the Lord originated later than the veneration of angels and saints and relics. From the first, Mary was regarded as the highest ideal of maidenhood. This veneration grew steadily and the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ became an article of faith as early as the fourth century. During the great doctrinal controversies the absolute divinity of Christ was strongly emphasized, which belief enhanced respect for Mary to a point beyond the veneration paid to the saints. She was the 'Mother of God.' Augustine did not number her among sinners. Ambrose designated her the second Even who cooperated with Christ in His atonement. A legend spread that Mary, immediately on her decease, was raised by angels and carried to Heaven, where she was elevated as the heavenly queen. As such she became the object, not only of veneration, but also of invocation. People looked on her as the real helper in heaven and they prayed to her for intercession, rather than to God through Jesus Christ. They prayed in Mary's name and not in the Lord's name.
The worship of Mary was the counterpart to the worship of a female divinity, the Great Mother, by all pagans in the lands around the Mediterranean." (Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church, p. 132)
As this series of articles on the "Roots of Romanism" is concluded, let it be observed that many other examples could be cited demonstrating the dependence of Romanism upon paganism. Sincere Roman Catholics need to be taught that the total authority for religious practice resides in the sacred Scriptures. We are not at liberty to go beyond that which is written (I Corinthians 4:6). To go beyond the doctrine of Christ is to deprive ourselves of God (II John 9).
It is an undeniable fact that in Roman Catholic theology "The Blessed Virgin Mary" is accorded more attention than Christ Himself. She is venerated in the Rosary as the "Mother of God" 150 times. There are 14 feasts which are universally held in honor of Mary. She is remembered every Saturday and the whole month of May is dedicated to her. The year of 1953 was celebrated as the Marian year (F.C.H. Dreyer & E. Weller, Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture, pp. 179, 180).
The worship of female deities was quite common among the heathen of antiquity. In the days of Jeremiah, those Israelites that wandered into idolatry offered worship to, "the queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25). The Egyptians had Athor, the Greeks had Hestia and the Romans worshipped Vesta. Accordingly, when the bloody persecution of the 4th century ended with the so-called "conversion" of Constantine, the idea of a female god for "Christianity" began to evolve. As one writer notes, "An influx into the church of many pagans occurred when the Emperor Constantine declared himself a Christian, and the thought of a female element in the divinity, encouraged by pagan thought generally Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Latin began to emerge." (W.C.G. Proctor, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 344.) Another historian also traces this development:
"The adoration of Mary the mother of the Lord originated later than the veneration of angels and saints and relics. From the first, Mary was regarded as the highest ideal of maidenhood. This veneration grew steadily and the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ became an article of faith as early as the fourth century. During the great doctrinal controversies the absolute divinity of Christ was strongly emphasized, which belief enhanced respect for Mary to a point beyond the veneration paid to the saints. She was the 'Mother of God.' Augustine did not number her among sinners. Ambrose designated her the second Even who cooperated with Christ in His atonement. A legend spread that Mary, immediately on her decease, was raised by angels and carried to Heaven, where she was elevated as the heavenly queen. As such she became the object, not only of veneration, but also of invocation. People looked on her as the real helper in heaven and they prayed to her for intercession, rather than to God through Jesus Christ. They prayed in Mary's name and not in the Lord's name.
The worship of Mary was the counterpart to the worship of a female divinity, the Great Mother, by all pagans in the lands around the Mediterranean." (Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church, p. 132)
As this series of articles on the "Roots of Romanism" is concluded, let it be observed that many other examples could be cited demonstrating the dependence of Romanism upon paganism. Sincere Roman Catholics need to be taught that the total authority for religious practice resides in the sacred Scriptures. We are not at liberty to go beyond that which is written (I Corinthians 4:6). To go beyond the doctrine of Christ is to deprive ourselves of God (II John 9).
Roots of Romanism (Part 2)
This second installation in the series by Wayne Jackson appeared in the January, 1978 edition of The Christian Courier. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Having established (in a previous article) that the Roman Catholic Church has historical roots that are deeply embedded in the paganism of antiquity (a fact admitted by her own scholars), we will now look at some of the features of the church's organizational structure which further demonstrate our proposition.
Having established (in a previous article) that the Roman Catholic Church has historical roots that are deeply embedded in the paganism of antiquity (a fact admitted by her own scholars), we will now look at some of the features of the church's organizational structure which further demonstrate our proposition.
The Hierarchy
The hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church was modeled to a very great extent after the organization of the pagan Roman government.
The Pope - In Catholic theology, the pope is called the "Pontifex Maximus" meaning in Latin, the Supreme Pontiff. Donald Attwater, a Catholic scholar, declares that it is: "A title of the pope asserting his supremacy and sovereignty over the whole Church." (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 387.) The title however, has a very ancient history. Even before the founding of the Roman republic in 509 B.C., "there was a Pontifex Maximus at the head of a college of pontiffs, whose business it was to supervise all the religious affairs of the State and to give judgment in every religious cause. These pontiffs were attorneys and counsellors in religious law, and as officials of the State had vast influence." (A. H. Newman, A Manuel of Church History, I, p. 30.) Later, when the republic was transformed into the empire (31 B. C.), Augustus Caesar adopted the office of Pontifex Maximus, thus combining in his own person the civil and religious supremacy.
Attwater admits the pagan origin of the term stating that it was used of, "the emperors as heads of the principle college of priests in pagan Rome." He says the pontiff is, "commonly derived from facere (to make) and pontem (a bridge) between the gods and men..." Since the Roman pontiff claims to bridge the gap between God and man, it was but natural that he assume the title of Pontifex Maximus. Thus, "from the 5th century onwards it was a regular title of honour for the Popes, and occasionally used also of other bishops" (F. L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1089).
Cardinals - A cardinal is a member of the "Sacred College of Cardinals" who serve as assistants to the pope in the government of the Church. The chief badge of the cardinal is the red hat (ordered by the Council of Lyons in 1245 A.D.), "to show the readiness with which they are prepared to shed their blood for the liberty of the Church." (J.F. Rowe, History of Apostasies, p. 118) The term "cardinal" derives from the Latin cardo, meaning "hinge." Some suggest that the word denotes the fact that the government of the Roman Church turns on these men. Only a cardinal can be elected to the papal chair. Only cardinals can elect a pope. (Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia, I, p. 403)
Originally however, the word cardinal was employed as an appellation for the pope who was attempting to assume a place within the "Christian" movement that would be comparable to the Roman god Janus. In pagan Rome, Janus was the god of doors and hinges who was called, "the opener and the shutter." He was worshiped in Rome as the grand mediator. Janus was the "God of gods" who had access to the "door of Heaven" and hence important matters addressed to Deity must be channeled through him. In this role he was thus said to have, "all power in Heaven, in earth and the sea" and in him was vested jusvertendi cardinis; the power of turning the hinge." (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pp. 210, 211) This is of course, the very claim of the pope who asserts that he is the "Vicar of Jesus Christ" and who, "as visible head of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, represents Christ on earth and is therefore supreme in authority." (Attwater, p. 516) When the responsibility for guarding the doors of Heaven become too great for a single hand, a group of advisers were gathered around the pope known as cardinals, or "priests of the hinge."
Celibacy of the Clergy - It is well known that in the Roman Church, "marriage is prohibited to all clergy of the rank of subdeacon and upwards." (A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, III, p. 208) The Council of Elvira in Spain in 305 A.D. was the first to announce that the clergy of the first three grades must abstain from marriage or be deposed. Such a view seems unusual to the Bible student who knows that generally it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and certainly that forbidding to marry is a mark of apostasy (I Timothy 4:1-3). The roots of the practice are in paganism, not Scripture! In ancient Babylon for example, the higher orders of priesthood dedicated to Semiramis, the Chaldean Queen of Heaven, were bound to a life of celibacy. Too, when the worship of Cybele was introduced into ancient Rome, its clergy were required to remain unmarried (Hislop, pp. 219, 220).
Also, the virgins of Vesta the Roman fire goddess are prominent in history. At the age of ten, young maidens of Rome could enter the priestess service of Vesta. They served for a minimum of thirty years and their duties consisted of offering sacrifices, caring for the sacred vestibules, preservation of the eternal fire and strict chastity (if one was found unchaste, she was burned alive). A Vestal Virgin wore a long, white dress, a priestly fillet and a veil (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, X, pp. 766, 767). The parallels in modern Romanism are of course, too obvious to need elaboration. In an installment to come, some of the ritualistic aspects of Catholicism will be discussed.
Also, the virgins of Vesta the Roman fire goddess are prominent in history. At the age of ten, young maidens of Rome could enter the priestess service of Vesta. They served for a minimum of thirty years and their duties consisted of offering sacrifices, caring for the sacred vestibules, preservation of the eternal fire and strict chastity (if one was found unchaste, she was burned alive). A Vestal Virgin wore a long, white dress, a priestly fillet and a veil (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, X, pp. 766, 767). The parallels in modern Romanism are of course, too obvious to need elaboration. In an installment to come, some of the ritualistic aspects of Catholicism will be discussed.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Homosexuality
This first appeared in the January, 1978 edition of The Christian Courier. I doubt when Wayne Jackson wrote it that he could ever imagine that the issue of "gay rights" would have made as much progress as it has. Writings like this are needed now more than ever. The East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California published this. Wayne Jackson was the editor.
When a person refuses to acknowledge the existence of God, or repudiates the sacred Scriptures as a guide for moral conduct, it is entirely predictable that his lifestyle will be to some degree at least, of a baser variety. Perhaps, however the most nauseating phenomenon of our day is the growing attempt to parade sexual perversion under the guise of "Christianity." In recent times a rash of "Gay Community Churches" have been organized in various U. S. cities. These groups are claiming (and their theology is as perverted as their immorality) that the Bible is much misunderstood on the issue of homosexuality and does not in fact, condemn such acts per se. In this series of articles on this theme, some of the positions being advocated will be examined.
The Sin of Sodom - The name Sodom lives in the infamy of history. So well known is the Biblical narrative concerning the sexual perversity of the men of Sodom, that the term "Sodomite" has across the centuries, become synonymous with homosexual. How shocking therefore, was the recent "revelation" from some gay sympathizing religionists that the sin of Sodom was merely "inhospitality!" Only a perverted mind could draw such a conclusion from the clear narrative of Genesis 19. Let us briefly examine that record, along with some related passages.
When Jehovah's two messengers came to Lot's house in the city of Sodom, certain base men of the town (cf. Judges 19:22ff) surrounded the dwelling and urged Abraham's nephew to send out the visitors, "that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5). the word "know" (Hebrew yada, Greek ginosko) is sometimes employed in the Bible as a euphemism for, "to have sexual relations with" (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., II, p. 395; Cf. Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 160). For example, Adam, "knew Eve his wife; and she conceived" (Genesis 4:1); again, Joseph, "knew" not Mary until she had given birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Clearly, the men of Sodom wanted to engage in homosexual activity with Lot's guests; and he knew their design and so urged: "I pray you my brethren, do not so WICKEDLY" (19:7). In his unjustified rashness to preserve those heavenly visitors, Lot even offered his two daughters, who had, "not known man" (19:8) as substitutes but not even this would dissuade the perverted Sodomites.
The Men of Sodom - Those homosexuals are repeatedly characterized as "wicked" and their sin is said to be "very grievous" (Genesis 18:20ff). Isaiah denounced those who, "declare their sin as Sodom and hide it not" (Isaiah 3:9). Other prophets likewise alluded to the iniquity of Sodom (cf. Ezekiel 16:49). In the New Testament the inspired Peter affirmed that God turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes and, "condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;" yet righteous Lot, who was, "oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked" and daily vexed with their, "lawless deeds" was delivered (II Peter 2:6-8).
Finally, Jude explicitly declares that Sodom and Gomorrah, along with their neighboring communities had, "given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh" (Jude 7). "Fornication" here is the Greek word ekporneuo (the prefix ek strengthens porneuo and implies excessive indulgence). Homosexuality is a form of fornication! The men of Sodom were guilty of it and accordingly were destroyed. No practicing fornicator can enter Heaven (Revelation 22:15). Let those who would excuse such conduct take warning.
When a person refuses to acknowledge the existence of God, or repudiates the sacred Scriptures as a guide for moral conduct, it is entirely predictable that his lifestyle will be to some degree at least, of a baser variety. Perhaps, however the most nauseating phenomenon of our day is the growing attempt to parade sexual perversion under the guise of "Christianity." In recent times a rash of "Gay Community Churches" have been organized in various U. S. cities. These groups are claiming (and their theology is as perverted as their immorality) that the Bible is much misunderstood on the issue of homosexuality and does not in fact, condemn such acts per se. In this series of articles on this theme, some of the positions being advocated will be examined.
The Sin of Sodom - The name Sodom lives in the infamy of history. So well known is the Biblical narrative concerning the sexual perversity of the men of Sodom, that the term "Sodomite" has across the centuries, become synonymous with homosexual. How shocking therefore, was the recent "revelation" from some gay sympathizing religionists that the sin of Sodom was merely "inhospitality!" Only a perverted mind could draw such a conclusion from the clear narrative of Genesis 19. Let us briefly examine that record, along with some related passages.
When Jehovah's two messengers came to Lot's house in the city of Sodom, certain base men of the town (cf. Judges 19:22ff) surrounded the dwelling and urged Abraham's nephew to send out the visitors, "that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5). the word "know" (Hebrew yada, Greek ginosko) is sometimes employed in the Bible as a euphemism for, "to have sexual relations with" (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., II, p. 395; Cf. Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 160). For example, Adam, "knew Eve his wife; and she conceived" (Genesis 4:1); again, Joseph, "knew" not Mary until she had given birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Clearly, the men of Sodom wanted to engage in homosexual activity with Lot's guests; and he knew their design and so urged: "I pray you my brethren, do not so WICKEDLY" (19:7). In his unjustified rashness to preserve those heavenly visitors, Lot even offered his two daughters, who had, "not known man" (19:8) as substitutes but not even this would dissuade the perverted Sodomites.
The Men of Sodom - Those homosexuals are repeatedly characterized as "wicked" and their sin is said to be "very grievous" (Genesis 18:20ff). Isaiah denounced those who, "declare their sin as Sodom and hide it not" (Isaiah 3:9). Other prophets likewise alluded to the iniquity of Sodom (cf. Ezekiel 16:49). In the New Testament the inspired Peter affirmed that God turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes and, "condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;" yet righteous Lot, who was, "oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked" and daily vexed with their, "lawless deeds" was delivered (II Peter 2:6-8).
Finally, Jude explicitly declares that Sodom and Gomorrah, along with their neighboring communities had, "given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh" (Jude 7). "Fornication" here is the Greek word ekporneuo (the prefix ek strengthens porneuo and implies excessive indulgence). Homosexuality is a form of fornication! The men of Sodom were guilty of it and accordingly were destroyed. No practicing fornicator can enter Heaven (Revelation 22:15). Let those who would excuse such conduct take warning.
Roots of Romanism
This article was written by Wayne Jackson and is reprinted here from the December, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
In his celebrated debate with Bishop John B. Purcell in January of 1837, Alexander Campbell affirmed that, "The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes the 'Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church,' is not now nor was she ever catholic, apostolic, or holy; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the 'Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an apostasy from the only true, holy apostolic and catholic church of Christ." (Campbell-Purcell Debate, p. vii.) It is certainly true that the Catholic Church ultimately resulted from a "falling away" that occurred within the primitive church (cf. II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1). There is a vivid contrast between the church of Christ as represented in the New Testament and the Roman Church of today. Surely, every sincere and studious Catholic must have wondered at times concerning the many elements characteristic of the Roman system which are totally unknown in the apostolic writings.
Catholicism is a curious mixture of three major backgrounds: first, as already indicated, it is a departure from Christianity. Secondly, it has incorporated into its system some features of Judaism. And thirdly, a very large portion of the movement has roots deeply embedded in the heathen religions of ancient Greece, Rome and the Far East. Oddly enough, the paganistic background of the Roman Catholic church is not even denied by their leading authorities. Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a church historian wrote: "It is allowable for the Church to transfer to pious uses those ceremonies which the pagans employed impiously to superstitious worship, after they had been purified by consecration; for the devil is more mortified to see those things returned to the service of Jesus Christ, which were instituted for his own." (Quoted by John Rowe, The History of Apostasies, pp. 6, 7.)
Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of Catholicism's most influential theologians, declared that the apostles of Christ, "and they alone possessed, venerated and protected a Divine Message as both sacred and sanctifying; and, in the collision and conflict of opinions, in ancient times or modern, it was that Message and not any vague or antagonistic teaching that was to succeed in purifying, assimilating, transmuting and taking into itself the many colored beliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought through which it was ever moving." (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp. 356, 357.)
Again Newman shockingly admits: "The use of temples and these dedicated to particular saints and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring of marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (Ibid, p. 373.)
In the popular volume A Catholic Dictionary, which has the Imprimatur of the Church, Attwater writes: "Nothing but error and sin being foreign to Catholicism, the Church has ever sought to 'baptize' rather than to destroy the customs, institutions and native life of those to whom her missionaries are sent. Thus wrote Pope St. Gregory the Great to Augustine: 'The temples of the idols in that nation [of the English] ought not to be destroyed but let the idols that are in them be cast down; let water be blessed and sprinkled in the said temples and let alters be built and relics placed therein. For if those temples be well built, it is meet that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God. And because they are used to slay many oxen in that worship, some solemnity must be provided in exchange...For without doubt it is impossible to cut off everything at once from their rude natures'." (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 363.) Thus, by her own admission, the Roman Catholic Church is baptized paganism; a rude heathenism with a "Christian" veneer. This is stated only in the interest of truth.
The noted historian John Mosheim has summed up the matter very well. "The rites and institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans and other nations had formerly testified their religious veneration for fictitious deities, were now [in the 4th century] adopted, with some slight alterations by Christian bishops, and employed in the service of the true God. We have already mentioned the reasons alleged for this imitation, so proper to disgust all who have a just sense of the native beauty of genuine Christianity. These fervent heralds of the gospel, whose zeal out run their candour and ingenuity, imagined that the nations would receive Christianity with more facility, when they saw the rites and ceremonies to which they were accustomed, adopted in the church and the same worship paid to Christ and His martyrs which they had formerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in these times the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed very little in it external appearance from that of the Christians. They had both a most pompous and splendid ritual. Gorgeous robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images, gold and silver vases, and many such circumstances of pageantry were equally to be seen in the heathen temples and the Christian churches." (Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 105.)
In his celebrated debate with Bishop John B. Purcell in January of 1837, Alexander Campbell affirmed that, "The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes the 'Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church,' is not now nor was she ever catholic, apostolic, or holy; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the 'Mother and Mistress of all Churches,' but an apostasy from the only true, holy apostolic and catholic church of Christ." (Campbell-Purcell Debate, p. vii.) It is certainly true that the Catholic Church ultimately resulted from a "falling away" that occurred within the primitive church (cf. II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1). There is a vivid contrast between the church of Christ as represented in the New Testament and the Roman Church of today. Surely, every sincere and studious Catholic must have wondered at times concerning the many elements characteristic of the Roman system which are totally unknown in the apostolic writings.
Catholicism is a curious mixture of three major backgrounds: first, as already indicated, it is a departure from Christianity. Secondly, it has incorporated into its system some features of Judaism. And thirdly, a very large portion of the movement has roots deeply embedded in the heathen religions of ancient Greece, Rome and the Far East. Oddly enough, the paganistic background of the Roman Catholic church is not even denied by their leading authorities. Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a church historian wrote: "It is allowable for the Church to transfer to pious uses those ceremonies which the pagans employed impiously to superstitious worship, after they had been purified by consecration; for the devil is more mortified to see those things returned to the service of Jesus Christ, which were instituted for his own." (Quoted by John Rowe, The History of Apostasies, pp. 6, 7.)
Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of Catholicism's most influential theologians, declared that the apostles of Christ, "and they alone possessed, venerated and protected a Divine Message as both sacred and sanctifying; and, in the collision and conflict of opinions, in ancient times or modern, it was that Message and not any vague or antagonistic teaching that was to succeed in purifying, assimilating, transmuting and taking into itself the many colored beliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought through which it was ever moving." (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp. 356, 357.)
Again Newman shockingly admits: "The use of temples and these dedicated to particular saints and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring of marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (Ibid, p. 373.)
In the popular volume A Catholic Dictionary, which has the Imprimatur of the Church, Attwater writes: "Nothing but error and sin being foreign to Catholicism, the Church has ever sought to 'baptize' rather than to destroy the customs, institutions and native life of those to whom her missionaries are sent. Thus wrote Pope St. Gregory the Great to Augustine: 'The temples of the idols in that nation [of the English] ought not to be destroyed but let the idols that are in them be cast down; let water be blessed and sprinkled in the said temples and let alters be built and relics placed therein. For if those temples be well built, it is meet that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God. And because they are used to slay many oxen in that worship, some solemnity must be provided in exchange...For without doubt it is impossible to cut off everything at once from their rude natures'." (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 363.) Thus, by her own admission, the Roman Catholic Church is baptized paganism; a rude heathenism with a "Christian" veneer. This is stated only in the interest of truth.
The noted historian John Mosheim has summed up the matter very well. "The rites and institutions, by which the Greeks, Romans and other nations had formerly testified their religious veneration for fictitious deities, were now [in the 4th century] adopted, with some slight alterations by Christian bishops, and employed in the service of the true God. We have already mentioned the reasons alleged for this imitation, so proper to disgust all who have a just sense of the native beauty of genuine Christianity. These fervent heralds of the gospel, whose zeal out run their candour and ingenuity, imagined that the nations would receive Christianity with more facility, when they saw the rites and ceremonies to which they were accustomed, adopted in the church and the same worship paid to Christ and His martyrs which they had formerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in these times the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed very little in it external appearance from that of the Christians. They had both a most pompous and splendid ritual. Gorgeous robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images, gold and silver vases, and many such circumstances of pageantry were equally to be seen in the heathen temples and the Christian churches." (Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 105.)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Christ Was Also Tempted
This look at the temptation of Christ was written by Clarence DeLoach. It appeared in the November, 1970 edition of the Bible Herald which was published by the Bible Herald Corporation in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Clifton Inman was the editor.
Observe Satan's strategy in his temptation of Jesus. Remember that Christ is our example in all things.
First, Satan attacks at the weakest point. Jesus was hungry and this physical weakness was made the focal point of his first temptation. It wasn't sinful for Jesus to be hungry, but Satan made it appear that such should never happen to a child of God. He misrepresented God and misused His Word. Rest assured that Satan knows our weakest point and will capitalize upon it. Christians young and old should be especially alert to their weaknesses. Double guard should be utilized where we are weak.
Second, Satan made fascinating offers. He promised Eve wisdom if she disobeyed God. Consider the millions Satan has beguiled by the offer of wisdom. Satan's wisdom however is a false wisdom! The prevalence of secularism is evidence of Satan's snare. He offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world. The masses have offered themselves to Satan on the alter of materialism. Every offer that Satan makes has an exciting and fascinating appeal to it; but look beyond the offer to the sad consequences!
Third, Satan knows how to quote Scripture. There have been many laborious attempts to use the Bible to justify evil, but the Devil is the father of the idea. The Devil took a verse from its setting and misapplied it. He still likes to use a Bible verse to convince you to sin. For example, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake" is used to justify social drinking. This introduces a very important thought, i.e., it is imperative that we know the Scriptures. It is false to contend that what we don't know won't hurt us! The truth of the matter is what we don't know may condemn us! Our Lord demonstrated that knowledge of Scriptures plus skill in using it is necessary to put the Devil on the run.
Thus far we have seen that Satan tempts by appealing to our:
1. Bodies (flesh) Whatever we do for the body that keeps us from loving God and doing His will is worldly. Whatever is done with the body that dulls spirituality must be avoided and what is done to the body that endangers its health is to be avoided.
2. Minds (the eyes are the gateway to the mind) While it is impossible for the eye not to see evil, the Christian's eyes must be disciplined. Jesus spoke of, "looking on a woman to lust after her" as sinful. The look of lust is the harbored look that is impressed upon the mind. The motive for our looking determines whether it is sinful or not. Our thinking is often determined by what we read. "As a man thinketh, so is he." (Proverbs 4:23) Since the eye is the gateway to the mind, we must be careful how we look and what we read.
Observe Satan's strategy in his temptation of Jesus. Remember that Christ is our example in all things.
First, Satan attacks at the weakest point. Jesus was hungry and this physical weakness was made the focal point of his first temptation. It wasn't sinful for Jesus to be hungry, but Satan made it appear that such should never happen to a child of God. He misrepresented God and misused His Word. Rest assured that Satan knows our weakest point and will capitalize upon it. Christians young and old should be especially alert to their weaknesses. Double guard should be utilized where we are weak.
Second, Satan made fascinating offers. He promised Eve wisdom if she disobeyed God. Consider the millions Satan has beguiled by the offer of wisdom. Satan's wisdom however is a false wisdom! The prevalence of secularism is evidence of Satan's snare. He offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world. The masses have offered themselves to Satan on the alter of materialism. Every offer that Satan makes has an exciting and fascinating appeal to it; but look beyond the offer to the sad consequences!
Third, Satan knows how to quote Scripture. There have been many laborious attempts to use the Bible to justify evil, but the Devil is the father of the idea. The Devil took a verse from its setting and misapplied it. He still likes to use a Bible verse to convince you to sin. For example, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake" is used to justify social drinking. This introduces a very important thought, i.e., it is imperative that we know the Scriptures. It is false to contend that what we don't know won't hurt us! The truth of the matter is what we don't know may condemn us! Our Lord demonstrated that knowledge of Scriptures plus skill in using it is necessary to put the Devil on the run.
Thus far we have seen that Satan tempts by appealing to our:
1. Bodies (flesh) Whatever we do for the body that keeps us from loving God and doing His will is worldly. Whatever is done with the body that dulls spirituality must be avoided and what is done to the body that endangers its health is to be avoided.
2. Minds (the eyes are the gateway to the mind) While it is impossible for the eye not to see evil, the Christian's eyes must be disciplined. Jesus spoke of, "looking on a woman to lust after her" as sinful. The look of lust is the harbored look that is impressed upon the mind. The motive for our looking determines whether it is sinful or not. Our thinking is often determined by what we read. "As a man thinketh, so is he." (Proverbs 4:23) Since the eye is the gateway to the mind, we must be careful how we look and what we read.
The Secret to Victory
Jesus in, "being tempted in all points as we are" has provided the way to overcome. The victory He scored came as a result of very definite values.
First, He had God's Word, the truth at His disposal. Every temptation involves a lie, so truth is necessary to defeat it. Thank God, we can KNOW the truth and the truth will make us free. (John 8:23) Satan's lie comes often in this form: go ahead and sin, you can get by with it, no one will know, God is too good to punish you. Achan must have swallowed this line but he gambled and lost! (Joshua 7) No doubt Daniel was tempted to, "go head, eat the king's meat, drink his wine, you are in a foreign land, no one will know!" But Daniel said no. Many a young man and young woman has succumbed to this subtle voice only to reap heartache and a guilty conscience later.
Satan's lie is best answered by God's truth which affirms, "Be sure your sin will find you out" and "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7) This truth is made even more impressive when we are made to realize that we reap MORE than we sow. "They have sown the wind. They shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7) David's advice is the best antidote to being overcome. He said, "Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee." (Psalms 119:11)
Second, Our Lord was victorious because He relied heavily on prayer. There can be no victory without prayer because no one is able to win over Satan alone. What a wonderful, compassionate and understanding advocate we have! When we pray we are assured that Jesus, our High Priest intercedes for us. (Hebrews 4:14-16) Through empathy He identifies with us because He's been through it all!
Let's illustrate how Christ helps us overcome. Suppose you are facing some temptation. It may be that Satan is appealing to the flesh and wants you to use your body in the wrong way; or it could be he is appealing to your mind to deceive you. What can you do?
First, you can say to yourself, "God has promised a way of escape." Read I Corinthians 10:13. this creates a desire for victory. It gives confidence! Remember, Christ is able to succor those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)
Second, let Christ be in control of your mind and flesh as you pray for strength to overcome. Remember, that "...we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us," and "...I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Romans 8:37; Philippians 4:13)
Then third, reach into your heart where you have filed away the Word of God. Find there a promise, a commandment or a warning that applies to your situation. When God's word is filed away in our hearts, there is always easy access to it. We must keep in mind that the Word not only has power to save us from past sins, but power to enable us to be overcomers.
Blessings of Victory
When one is able to overcome through Christ he becomes stronger. Whenever the Devil is defeated it becomes more difficult for him to "catch" you the next time. Victory gives a sense of accomplishment and adds confidence. It makes one more useful because it brings endurance. (James 1:2) To score a victory over temptation brings joy to the heart of God, to your own heart and to the hearts of those who love you.
Many unnecessary temptations could be avoided if we would follow the teaching of this verse. "Make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." This simply means don't ask for trouble! Don't go to places where it's easy for Satan to tempt you. Don't watch or read things that make it easy to sin. Be careful about your associations and the activities in which you engage! Stay busy with wholesome activity and many temptations will be avoided.
The Historical Christ (Part 2)
This is the second installment of Wayne Jackson's two part look at Christ from an historical perspective. It's copied here from the November, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
Since it is quite evident that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person, the question of who He was is of vital importance. The truth is, there are only three possible answers to this query. Christ was either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. Let us focus upon these alternatives.
1. It is an indisputable fact that Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God. On trial, when interrogated by the high priest, in answer to the question, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", Jesus declared, "I am" (Mark 14:61-62). Is it possible that such a claim was false; that this Jew was in fact a phony, a con man, a totally unethical charlatan? Not even Christianity's bitterest enemies have been willing to so characterize Jesus. Infidelic French philosopher Rousseau, in contrasting Socrates with Christ, was constrained to say, "Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God" (Emile, 1.4). Renan, the renowned French humanist and historian, called Jesus a, "sublime person" and declared that in Him, "is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature" (Life of Jesus, p. 1, 28). Goethe, the German pantheistic poet, referred to Christ as, "a pattern and an example" and affirmed that He was, "the divine manifestation of the highest morality" (Lewes, Life and Works of Goethe, Vol. 2, p. 307). And David Strass, the German theologian who debunked the gospel accounts as collections of myths, nevertheless said of Jesus that He was the greatest man who ever walked the earth (Leben Jesu, B.111, s. 147).
Such accolades as the foregoing hardly accord therefore, with the recent and very exceptional view of Hugh J. Schonfield who in his infamous book The Passover Plot, asserts that Christ was some sort of messianic manipulator who, "plotted and schemed with the utmost skill" to bring about, "the attainment of His objectives" (p. 162). Schonfield can hardly be taken seriously however. For example, in his book, Schonfield contends that Christ did not die upon the cross at all. Rather, having received a powerful narcotic which made Him appear as dead, He was removed unconscious according to a prearranged plan, by His disciples. Unfortunately though, Schonfield claims, Jesus did not count on the piercing of His side by the Roman soldiers and so, after being taken from the cross on Saturday, "He regained consciousness temporarily, but finally succumbed" (p. 172). However, in a book published just six years before The Passover Plot, Hugh J. Schonfield unequivocally declared that Christ expired on the cross, observing that it was the Roman custom to break the legs of criminals to hasten death. Yet, "In the case of Jesus this was not done," he writes, "as He was found to be dead already" (The Bible Was Right, p. 74). One is led to believe that the real plot, and that with monetary overtones, is of Schonfield's doing! The fact is, Jesus' conduct was so above reproach that He could look His foes in the eye and challenge, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46).
2. Was Jesus Christ some sort of psychotic lunatic who sincerely, though mistakenly entertained grand notions of being Deity? Such was the view of the viciously irreverent Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. Shaw claimed that Christ was sane until Peter confessed Him to be the Messiah. He, "then became a monomaniac" being possessed of a delusion that is quite common, "among the insane." Shaw however, known almost as well for his amorous adventures in immorality as for his literary feats, is hardly to be considered an objective historian. Such a low view of Christ was certainly not entertained by John Stuart Mill, one of infidelity's most renowned philosophers. In his Three Essays on Religion he declared: "About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which must place the prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast" (p. 255). Though unbelieving historian H. G. Wells would strip Christ of His divine nature, he nevertheless characterized Him as a "great teacher" and asks: "Is it any wonder that to this day this Galilean is too much for our small hearts?" (The Outline of History, pp. 527, 536). Is that a description of a lunatic? Hardly! As one writer observed, "...the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!" (Clark Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case, p. 62).
3. It only remains for us to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine Son of God. All of the evidence points to this. And there is absolutely no reason for disregarding such, save on the grounds of subjective inclinations which reject the supernatural.
The multiple Biblical testimonies, from friend and foe alike, for the divine Lordship of Jesus are simply overwhelming to the unbiased mind. First, the Old Testament writers though indicating that Jesus would come in the form of a man, also clearly affirmed His divine nature as well (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 13:7). Secondly, angels testified to the divine nature of the Bethlehem baby (Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:26ff; 2:14). Thirdly, on three occasions, Jehovah the Father spoke from Heaven regarding His Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28). Fourthly, Christ Himself asserted His Deity (John 5:17; 8:58; 10:30). Additionally, those closely associated with Him in His ministry and therefore more qualified than modern critics to know, unhesitatingly declared Him to be the Son of God (Matthew 16:16; John 1:29, 34, 49; 11:27; 20:28). Finally, and highly significant when viewed from the standpoint of legal evidence, is the fact that even Christ's enemies were ultimately forced to admit either directly or by implication, the truth of His claims.
His betrayer Judas, confessed to having delivered up, "innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4). The judge at His trial, Pilate (together with his wife) conceded Jesus to be a "righteous man" (Matthew 27:19, 24) and guilty of no crime (John 18:38; 19:4, 6). And this would include perjury, though Christ had testified under oath that He was the Son of God. Even His executioners made the self incriminating admission, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54). Finally, from those very chief priests who instigated the Savior's death, a great company eventually became followers of the risen Christ (Acts 6:7).
Could more evidence possibly be needed? The Christ of history is there. He cannot be avoided. He must be dealt with. Let all people of God everywhere press this issue upon our contemporaries!
Since it is quite evident that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person, the question of who He was is of vital importance. The truth is, there are only three possible answers to this query. Christ was either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. Let us focus upon these alternatives.
1. It is an indisputable fact that Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God. On trial, when interrogated by the high priest, in answer to the question, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", Jesus declared, "I am" (Mark 14:61-62). Is it possible that such a claim was false; that this Jew was in fact a phony, a con man, a totally unethical charlatan? Not even Christianity's bitterest enemies have been willing to so characterize Jesus. Infidelic French philosopher Rousseau, in contrasting Socrates with Christ, was constrained to say, "Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God" (Emile, 1.4). Renan, the renowned French humanist and historian, called Jesus a, "sublime person" and declared that in Him, "is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature" (Life of Jesus, p. 1, 28). Goethe, the German pantheistic poet, referred to Christ as, "a pattern and an example" and affirmed that He was, "the divine manifestation of the highest morality" (Lewes, Life and Works of Goethe, Vol. 2, p. 307). And David Strass, the German theologian who debunked the gospel accounts as collections of myths, nevertheless said of Jesus that He was the greatest man who ever walked the earth (Leben Jesu, B.111, s. 147).
Such accolades as the foregoing hardly accord therefore, with the recent and very exceptional view of Hugh J. Schonfield who in his infamous book The Passover Plot, asserts that Christ was some sort of messianic manipulator who, "plotted and schemed with the utmost skill" to bring about, "the attainment of His objectives" (p. 162). Schonfield can hardly be taken seriously however. For example, in his book, Schonfield contends that Christ did not die upon the cross at all. Rather, having received a powerful narcotic which made Him appear as dead, He was removed unconscious according to a prearranged plan, by His disciples. Unfortunately though, Schonfield claims, Jesus did not count on the piercing of His side by the Roman soldiers and so, after being taken from the cross on Saturday, "He regained consciousness temporarily, but finally succumbed" (p. 172). However, in a book published just six years before The Passover Plot, Hugh J. Schonfield unequivocally declared that Christ expired on the cross, observing that it was the Roman custom to break the legs of criminals to hasten death. Yet, "In the case of Jesus this was not done," he writes, "as He was found to be dead already" (The Bible Was Right, p. 74). One is led to believe that the real plot, and that with monetary overtones, is of Schonfield's doing! The fact is, Jesus' conduct was so above reproach that He could look His foes in the eye and challenge, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46).
2. Was Jesus Christ some sort of psychotic lunatic who sincerely, though mistakenly entertained grand notions of being Deity? Such was the view of the viciously irreverent Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. Shaw claimed that Christ was sane until Peter confessed Him to be the Messiah. He, "then became a monomaniac" being possessed of a delusion that is quite common, "among the insane." Shaw however, known almost as well for his amorous adventures in immorality as for his literary feats, is hardly to be considered an objective historian. Such a low view of Christ was certainly not entertained by John Stuart Mill, one of infidelity's most renowned philosophers. In his Three Essays on Religion he declared: "About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which must place the prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast" (p. 255). Though unbelieving historian H. G. Wells would strip Christ of His divine nature, he nevertheless characterized Him as a "great teacher" and asks: "Is it any wonder that to this day this Galilean is too much for our small hearts?" (The Outline of History, pp. 527, 536). Is that a description of a lunatic? Hardly! As one writer observed, "...the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!" (Clark Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case, p. 62).
3. It only remains for us to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine Son of God. All of the evidence points to this. And there is absolutely no reason for disregarding such, save on the grounds of subjective inclinations which reject the supernatural.
The multiple Biblical testimonies, from friend and foe alike, for the divine Lordship of Jesus are simply overwhelming to the unbiased mind. First, the Old Testament writers though indicating that Jesus would come in the form of a man, also clearly affirmed His divine nature as well (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 13:7). Secondly, angels testified to the divine nature of the Bethlehem baby (Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:26ff; 2:14). Thirdly, on three occasions, Jehovah the Father spoke from Heaven regarding His Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28). Fourthly, Christ Himself asserted His Deity (John 5:17; 8:58; 10:30). Additionally, those closely associated with Him in His ministry and therefore more qualified than modern critics to know, unhesitatingly declared Him to be the Son of God (Matthew 16:16; John 1:29, 34, 49; 11:27; 20:28). Finally, and highly significant when viewed from the standpoint of legal evidence, is the fact that even Christ's enemies were ultimately forced to admit either directly or by implication, the truth of His claims.
His betrayer Judas, confessed to having delivered up, "innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4). The judge at His trial, Pilate (together with his wife) conceded Jesus to be a "righteous man" (Matthew 27:19, 24) and guilty of no crime (John 18:38; 19:4, 6). And this would include perjury, though Christ had testified under oath that He was the Son of God. Even His executioners made the self incriminating admission, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54). Finally, from those very chief priests who instigated the Savior's death, a great company eventually became followers of the risen Christ (Acts 6:7).
Could more evidence possibly be needed? The Christ of history is there. He cannot be avoided. He must be dealt with. Let all people of God everywhere press this issue upon our contemporaries!
The Historical Christ (Part 1)
Wayne Jackson is the author of this article. It's reprinted here from the October, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier, which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
E. F. Harrison was quite correct when he declared: "Some religions, both ancient and modern, require no historical basis, for they depend upon ideas rather than events. Christianity is not one of those" (A Short Life of Christ, p. 11). Christianity depends upon whether or not Jesus of Nazareth ever lived and whether the New Testament data regarding Him is reliable.
Around the middle of the 19th century Bruno Baur, a German theologian and historian concocted the notion that Jesus never lived; He was entirely mythical. Christ, he alleged, was simply a mental invention of a few 2nd century Christians who drew their concepts of their "Messiah" from Greco-Roman philosophy. Others, influenced by Baur, modified his views somewhat. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), a more recent German theologian and famous medical missionary, though acknowledging the existence of a "Jesus", nevertheless asserted in his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) that the real Jesus of history was so different from the Christ revered by Christians that the Lord Jesus of New Testament fame really could not be based upon historical fact.
The fact of the matter is, "Jesus Christ was a verifiable historical character. He was no myth! His name was Jesus and He was born in the latter half of the eighth century of the Roman era. His ancestry was Hebrew; His country Palestine. He died in Jerusalem in the administrations of governor Pontius Pilate and emperor Tiberius Caesar. These are incontrovertible facts; they are as historically certain as history can be" (Wayne Jackson, Fortify Your Faith In An Age of Doubt, p. 22). Actually, this writer knows of no reputable scholar who currently denies the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The historicity of Jesus can be established along several lines.
(1) Christ's existence is established by the primary documents of the New Testament record. Though some would not admit these as historical evidence, they must be admitted if one affirms anything at all regarding Jesus, for they are the only documents in existence that were penned by authors contemporary with the great Teacher. And there is absolutely no reason for denying the historical integrity of the New Testament books. All of the New Testament narratives had been completed within sixty years or so of Christ's death. Of the twenty seven books, no less than ten were penned by personal companions of the Lord and Paul, an eye witness of Christ, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder.
It has been fashionable in recent decades to relegate the New Testament books to the 2nd century A.D. They were considered to be productions of unknown authors (the obvious design behind such theories being the repudiation of these documents as primary sources of historical information). It is interesting to note however, that now even the radical theologians are having to bow bloody heads to the blows of evidence. For instance, recently modernistic theologian John A. T. Robinson of England dropped a bomb in the liberal camp with the publication of his book Redating The New Testament. In this volume he argues, much to the dismay of his colleagues, that all of the New Testament books were written in the first century. Amazingly (for a liberal), he contends that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Lord within two decades of Jesus death. Paul authored all the books that bear his name and John the apostle penned the fourth gospel!
(2) The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord's existence is that of the Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 A.D.). In his Antiquities of the Jews the historian twice refers to Jesus. In one passage he calls Jesus the Christ, refers to His "marvelous deeds" and alludes to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Some scholars contend that this passage is out of character with the unbelieving Josephus, hence it must have been embellished by some over-zealous scribe. Be that as it may, it is an historical reference to Jesus. In the other passage, the historian refers to the trial of James and identifies him as, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" (20.9.1).
Also, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud takes note of the Lord's existence. Put into written form in the 5th century, it is derived from materials, some of which originated in the 1st century. Its testimony to Jesus' existence is all the more valuable as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Jesus (who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Concerning this, noted scholar Bruce Metzger declared: "The defamatory account of His birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the Son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos being distorted into the name Pandera" (The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus' miracles as "magic" and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of Passover.
(3) Three Roman historical references mention Christ. Pliny, the governor of Bithynia wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan about 112 A.D. in which he asked for advice as to how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn, "to Christ as if to God" (Epist. X. 96). The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (115 A.D.) refers to, "Christus, who in the reign of Tiberas as emperor was condemned to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate" (XV. 44). Writing about 120 A.D., Suetonius, a popular Roman writer declares that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome as they, "were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii, XXV. 4). This doubtless refers to the Jewish persecution of Christians (Acts 18:2).
(4) Finally, the impact of the Christian movement itself is eloquent testimony to the historical reality of Jesus Christ. It is absolutely inconceivable that a myth could have precipitated so powerful a movement as Christianity. The religion of Christ has made an impact at one time or another in virtually every land and among all peoples around the world. That such an influential system was initiated by a Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood character rather than a real, historical Person is totally unbelievable.
No intelligent, informed person can deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ. He did exist. Who was He? Every honest person must come to grips with this penetrating query. In an article to follow, this question will be explored.
E. F. Harrison was quite correct when he declared: "Some religions, both ancient and modern, require no historical basis, for they depend upon ideas rather than events. Christianity is not one of those" (A Short Life of Christ, p. 11). Christianity depends upon whether or not Jesus of Nazareth ever lived and whether the New Testament data regarding Him is reliable.
Around the middle of the 19th century Bruno Baur, a German theologian and historian concocted the notion that Jesus never lived; He was entirely mythical. Christ, he alleged, was simply a mental invention of a few 2nd century Christians who drew their concepts of their "Messiah" from Greco-Roman philosophy. Others, influenced by Baur, modified his views somewhat. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), a more recent German theologian and famous medical missionary, though acknowledging the existence of a "Jesus", nevertheless asserted in his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) that the real Jesus of history was so different from the Christ revered by Christians that the Lord Jesus of New Testament fame really could not be based upon historical fact.
The fact of the matter is, "Jesus Christ was a verifiable historical character. He was no myth! His name was Jesus and He was born in the latter half of the eighth century of the Roman era. His ancestry was Hebrew; His country Palestine. He died in Jerusalem in the administrations of governor Pontius Pilate and emperor Tiberius Caesar. These are incontrovertible facts; they are as historically certain as history can be" (Wayne Jackson, Fortify Your Faith In An Age of Doubt, p. 22). Actually, this writer knows of no reputable scholar who currently denies the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The historicity of Jesus can be established along several lines.
(1) Christ's existence is established by the primary documents of the New Testament record. Though some would not admit these as historical evidence, they must be admitted if one affirms anything at all regarding Jesus, for they are the only documents in existence that were penned by authors contemporary with the great Teacher. And there is absolutely no reason for denying the historical integrity of the New Testament books. All of the New Testament narratives had been completed within sixty years or so of Christ's death. Of the twenty seven books, no less than ten were penned by personal companions of the Lord and Paul, an eye witness of Christ, wrote thirteen or fourteen of the remainder.
It has been fashionable in recent decades to relegate the New Testament books to the 2nd century A.D. They were considered to be productions of unknown authors (the obvious design behind such theories being the repudiation of these documents as primary sources of historical information). It is interesting to note however, that now even the radical theologians are having to bow bloody heads to the blows of evidence. For instance, recently modernistic theologian John A. T. Robinson of England dropped a bomb in the liberal camp with the publication of his book Redating The New Testament. In this volume he argues, much to the dismay of his colleagues, that all of the New Testament books were written in the first century. Amazingly (for a liberal), he contends that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Lord within two decades of Jesus death. Paul authored all the books that bear his name and John the apostle penned the fourth gospel!
(2) The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord's existence is that of the Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 A.D.). In his Antiquities of the Jews the historian twice refers to Jesus. In one passage he calls Jesus the Christ, refers to His "marvelous deeds" and alludes to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Some scholars contend that this passage is out of character with the unbelieving Josephus, hence it must have been embellished by some over-zealous scribe. Be that as it may, it is an historical reference to Jesus. In the other passage, the historian refers to the trial of James and identifies him as, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" (20.9.1).
Also, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud takes note of the Lord's existence. Put into written form in the 5th century, it is derived from materials, some of which originated in the 1st century. Its testimony to Jesus' existence is all the more valuable as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Jesus (who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Concerning this, noted scholar Bruce Metzger declared: "The defamatory account of His birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the Son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos being distorted into the name Pandera" (The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus' miracles as "magic" and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of Passover.
(3) Three Roman historical references mention Christ. Pliny, the governor of Bithynia wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan about 112 A.D. in which he asked for advice as to how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn, "to Christ as if to God" (Epist. X. 96). The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (115 A.D.) refers to, "Christus, who in the reign of Tiberas as emperor was condemned to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate" (XV. 44). Writing about 120 A.D., Suetonius, a popular Roman writer declares that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome as they, "were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii, XXV. 4). This doubtless refers to the Jewish persecution of Christians (Acts 18:2).
(4) Finally, the impact of the Christian movement itself is eloquent testimony to the historical reality of Jesus Christ. It is absolutely inconceivable that a myth could have precipitated so powerful a movement as Christianity. The religion of Christ has made an impact at one time or another in virtually every land and among all peoples around the world. That such an influential system was initiated by a Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood character rather than a real, historical Person is totally unbelievable.
No intelligent, informed person can deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ. He did exist. Who was He? Every honest person must come to grips with this penetrating query. In an article to follow, this question will be explored.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Gay Is Not OK
Considering how much attention"gay rights" is receiving, I found it interesting to read this article. It was written by Larry Chouinard and published in the September, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier. That paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Wayne Jackson. Something tells me that when Mr. Chouinard wrote this piece, he probably never imagined the Supreme Court of the United States would even be considering something like "gay marriage." Much can and needs to be said against this sin that has become acceptable to so many in society. The words below are as true now as when they were first written.
Within the past few years, crucial ethical decisions have been facing the American people. Former standards of behavior have been replaced by extreme liberalization of moral conduct. Questions of right and wrong have been replaced by the standard of sensual satisfaction. "If it feels good, do it" is the slogan for many in this pleasure mad society. With no sense of direction or shame, the doors have been opened wide to allow the entrance of every form of moral abuse. The remarkable aspect of this entire movement is its failure to see both the inconsistency and the logical end of its efforts. In the name of democracy, members of this movement argue for unlimited freedom in sexual activity; yet they fail to learn from history that such philosophical ideologies, while impressive on paper and influential on campus, spell disaster for a nation.
In order for a society to function, the populace must obligate itself to certain restraints for the welfare of the whole. When a nation is made up of self-centered minorities seeking only personal gratification, it is destined to splinter and collapse. The inconsistency of the new morality is evident when one considers the strange alliance of ideologies that characterize liberals. It is amazing that the same people who believe that the death penalty is inhumane, campaign long and hard for a woman's right to kill an innocent baby before it is born. By what standard does the one offer compassion and mercy to a murderer and rapist, yet turn a deaf ear to the pitiful cries of an infant mercilessly thrown into a garbage can because the mother decided she does not want the baby?
Why is it that the same people who protest the appearance of violence on television think nothing of the corrupting and misleading influence of pornographic films? If our children watch a violent movie and become violent, why can't they be influenced by a pornographic movie that depicts rape as pleasurable to women?
Why is it that the same people who cry for freedom of speech become violently angry when a woman in Florida uses her freedom to campaign against homosexuality? Does freedom of speech end where Christian ethics begin? If the lifestyle of the homosexual will not influence children, what about other lifestyles such as Nazism or that of the Ku Klux Klan? Would you condone a member of the Klan teaching your children American history? If the lifestyle of the homosexual is such a private matter that children would never know about, would it be agreeable to pass legislation that demands the immediate dismissal of the homosexual whose lifestyle becomes known to children? Since "Gay Liberation" is an aggressive effort to bring sanctity to the homosexual lifestyle, you are not going to convince many of us that homosexuals in the teaching profession would not influence our children toward that perverted way.
These are just some of the inconsistencies of the liberalization movement. It is time that the other side be heard. One need not endorse the totality of Anita Bryant's theology to realize that there are strong rational arguments in favor of a conservative stand on these and other moral issues. For the Christian, God is the ultimate authority.
Within the past few years, crucial ethical decisions have been facing the American people. Former standards of behavior have been replaced by extreme liberalization of moral conduct. Questions of right and wrong have been replaced by the standard of sensual satisfaction. "If it feels good, do it" is the slogan for many in this pleasure mad society. With no sense of direction or shame, the doors have been opened wide to allow the entrance of every form of moral abuse. The remarkable aspect of this entire movement is its failure to see both the inconsistency and the logical end of its efforts. In the name of democracy, members of this movement argue for unlimited freedom in sexual activity; yet they fail to learn from history that such philosophical ideologies, while impressive on paper and influential on campus, spell disaster for a nation.
In order for a society to function, the populace must obligate itself to certain restraints for the welfare of the whole. When a nation is made up of self-centered minorities seeking only personal gratification, it is destined to splinter and collapse. The inconsistency of the new morality is evident when one considers the strange alliance of ideologies that characterize liberals. It is amazing that the same people who believe that the death penalty is inhumane, campaign long and hard for a woman's right to kill an innocent baby before it is born. By what standard does the one offer compassion and mercy to a murderer and rapist, yet turn a deaf ear to the pitiful cries of an infant mercilessly thrown into a garbage can because the mother decided she does not want the baby?
Why is it that the same people who protest the appearance of violence on television think nothing of the corrupting and misleading influence of pornographic films? If our children watch a violent movie and become violent, why can't they be influenced by a pornographic movie that depicts rape as pleasurable to women?
Why is it that the same people who cry for freedom of speech become violently angry when a woman in Florida uses her freedom to campaign against homosexuality? Does freedom of speech end where Christian ethics begin? If the lifestyle of the homosexual will not influence children, what about other lifestyles such as Nazism or that of the Ku Klux Klan? Would you condone a member of the Klan teaching your children American history? If the lifestyle of the homosexual is such a private matter that children would never know about, would it be agreeable to pass legislation that demands the immediate dismissal of the homosexual whose lifestyle becomes known to children? Since "Gay Liberation" is an aggressive effort to bring sanctity to the homosexual lifestyle, you are not going to convince many of us that homosexuals in the teaching profession would not influence our children toward that perverted way.
These are just some of the inconsistencies of the liberalization movement. It is time that the other side be heard. One need not endorse the totality of Anita Bryant's theology to realize that there are strong rational arguments in favor of a conservative stand on these and other moral issues. For the Christian, God is the ultimate authority.
Restoration: The Concept
Wayne Jackson wrote this short article which appeared in the August, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier. That paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
More than nineteen centuries ago, Christ the Lord came to the earth for the purpose of giving His life as a ransom for the sins of man (Matthew 20:28). In connection with that wonderful work, the Savior announced, "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). in fulfillment of that promise, the church of Jesus Christ came into existence some fifty days following the Lord's death. As responsible people listened to apostolic preaching concerning Jesus' mission, death and resurrection, they were deeply moved by their guilt of sin. Accordingly, they submitted themselves in full obedience to the Lord God. And thus, on the day of Pentecost almost two millenia ago, the church had its beginning. Read the stirring account of these marvelous events in Acts 2.
The Lord's church, as established in Jerusalem in those early days, was exactly what He desired it to be. Under the tutelage of inspired men, the church worshipped and worked in harmony with Jehovah's revealed will. An exemplary spirit of unity prevailed, "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32). The Savior's prayer for unity of His disciples being thus answered (see John 17:20-23), it is no surprise that the church multiplied so rapidly (Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7).
Sadly however, the church was not many decades old when ominous clouds began to darken the horizon. During His earthly ministry the Master had warned, "Beware of false prophets" (Matthew 7:15). Such false teachers, the Lord cautioned, would if possible lead astray the elect (Matthew 24:24). New Testament writers spoke of times when the church would be corrupted by unholy elements from within and without (Acts 20:29-30) and some, not enduring sound doctrine, would depart from the faith (II Timothy 4:3-4; I Timothy 4:1-3). The book of Revelation symbolically depicts the church as being captivated by a prostituted force known as Babylon; and such sinister forces were already at work in the first century (see II Thessalonians 2:1-11).
It was not many years after the deaths of the apostles before that pure church of the first century began to fade into the dimness of historical antiquity. There were several reasons for this. To some extent the Christian movement was absorbed into paganism, but additionally, churches maintaining fidelity to Christ were forced to go underground; and so, though the kingdom of our Lord had not been overcome (Daniel 2:44), it had gone into protective seclusion (Revelation 12:6). Moreover, during these dark centuries it was very difficult for people to have knowledge of what the church was supposed to be, for the hand-copied Scriptures were extremely rare, very expensive and often deliberately kept from the populous.
With the invention of the printing press in the sixteenth century, a new day began to dawn. The Bible, translated into common tongues of that day and produced in greater quantity, went forth throughout the civilized world. As the masses explored the pages of the Holy book, a glaring contrast was discernible between the pristine beauty of the original New Testament church and the religious corruption and confusion of the dark ages. Thus, the cry went forth from numerous independent parts of the world with increasing intensity, "Let us go back to the Bible; let us restore original Christianity!" Gradually more and more began to realize that no genuine restoration of Christ's way could be effected until men divorced themselves from human dogma, church creeds and the various elements of religious rubbish that had obscured the body of Christ of the preceding centuries. Multitudes began to abandon divisive human names, announcing that they would henceforth be, "Christians only." Pontifical councils were repudiated and human creeds were rejected. it was recognized that the Bible, and it alone, could make men free from sin and guide them in all spiritual matters to Heaven.
What a thrilling concept the "restoration of Christianity" is! And interest in this movement is mounting even in this century. Millions of people around the world are finding true brotherhood in simple obedience to Christ and a total return to His Word for authority in all spiritual matters.
More than nineteen centuries ago, Christ the Lord came to the earth for the purpose of giving His life as a ransom for the sins of man (Matthew 20:28). In connection with that wonderful work, the Savior announced, "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). in fulfillment of that promise, the church of Jesus Christ came into existence some fifty days following the Lord's death. As responsible people listened to apostolic preaching concerning Jesus' mission, death and resurrection, they were deeply moved by their guilt of sin. Accordingly, they submitted themselves in full obedience to the Lord God. And thus, on the day of Pentecost almost two millenia ago, the church had its beginning. Read the stirring account of these marvelous events in Acts 2.
The Lord's church, as established in Jerusalem in those early days, was exactly what He desired it to be. Under the tutelage of inspired men, the church worshipped and worked in harmony with Jehovah's revealed will. An exemplary spirit of unity prevailed, "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32). The Savior's prayer for unity of His disciples being thus answered (see John 17:20-23), it is no surprise that the church multiplied so rapidly (Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7).
Sadly however, the church was not many decades old when ominous clouds began to darken the horizon. During His earthly ministry the Master had warned, "Beware of false prophets" (Matthew 7:15). Such false teachers, the Lord cautioned, would if possible lead astray the elect (Matthew 24:24). New Testament writers spoke of times when the church would be corrupted by unholy elements from within and without (Acts 20:29-30) and some, not enduring sound doctrine, would depart from the faith (II Timothy 4:3-4; I Timothy 4:1-3). The book of Revelation symbolically depicts the church as being captivated by a prostituted force known as Babylon; and such sinister forces were already at work in the first century (see II Thessalonians 2:1-11).
It was not many years after the deaths of the apostles before that pure church of the first century began to fade into the dimness of historical antiquity. There were several reasons for this. To some extent the Christian movement was absorbed into paganism, but additionally, churches maintaining fidelity to Christ were forced to go underground; and so, though the kingdom of our Lord had not been overcome (Daniel 2:44), it had gone into protective seclusion (Revelation 12:6). Moreover, during these dark centuries it was very difficult for people to have knowledge of what the church was supposed to be, for the hand-copied Scriptures were extremely rare, very expensive and often deliberately kept from the populous.
With the invention of the printing press in the sixteenth century, a new day began to dawn. The Bible, translated into common tongues of that day and produced in greater quantity, went forth throughout the civilized world. As the masses explored the pages of the Holy book, a glaring contrast was discernible between the pristine beauty of the original New Testament church and the religious corruption and confusion of the dark ages. Thus, the cry went forth from numerous independent parts of the world with increasing intensity, "Let us go back to the Bible; let us restore original Christianity!" Gradually more and more began to realize that no genuine restoration of Christ's way could be effected until men divorced themselves from human dogma, church creeds and the various elements of religious rubbish that had obscured the body of Christ of the preceding centuries. Multitudes began to abandon divisive human names, announcing that they would henceforth be, "Christians only." Pontifical councils were repudiated and human creeds were rejected. it was recognized that the Bible, and it alone, could make men free from sin and guide them in all spiritual matters to Heaven.
What a thrilling concept the "restoration of Christianity" is! And interest in this movement is mounting even in this century. Millions of people around the world are finding true brotherhood in simple obedience to Christ and a total return to His Word for authority in all spiritual matters.
Satan: Everything You've Always Wanted to Know (Part 2)
This is the second installation of a two part series written by Wayne Jackson. This appeared in the April, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
THE ORIGIN OF SATAN: Though the Bible gives no detailed account of the origin of Satan, sufficient suggestions are found to draw some reasonable conclusions. The devil did not exist eternally, hence did have an origin as the following indicates.
First, it is certainly clear that Satan is not of the nature of Deity. Deity is all powerful (Genesis 17:1). Deity cannot be restrained (Job 42:2). On the contrary however, the devil is clearly not omnipotent as evidenced by the following: (a) His power to afflict was limited (Job 1:12; 2:6). (b) When rebuked by the messenger of God, he had to remain silent (Zechariah 3:2). (c) His authority over world kingdoms was "delivered" to him (Luke 4:6). (d) He had to ask for the apostles (Luke 22:31). (e) He can "snatch" no one from the Lord's hand (John 10:28). (f) When resisted, he flees (James 4:7). (g) When cast into Hell he will be powerless to resist (Revelation 20:10). Moreover, Scripture plainly affirms that He that is in us (God) is greater than he (Satan) that is in the world (I John 4:4). So, to sum it up, Deity is all powerful but Satan is not. Thus, he is not of the Deity class.
Secondly, all things and beings that are not of the Deity class are the result of creation. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" (Colossians 1:16). This would include Satan as he originally was. It might be mentioned also at this point that all created things had their origin at some time during the creation week of Genesis 1. This Moses states in Exodus 20:11. This included the great host of angels. Incidentally, the angels, "must have been created at the very beginning of the first day of creation, for Job 38:6-7 tells of their singing and of their shout of joy at the creation of the earth" (John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth, p. 43).
THE FALL OF SATAN: All things, as they were originally created, were good. "And God saw everything that He made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 3:1). "by the application of the term 'good' to everything that God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis 'very' at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it" (C.F. Keil, The Pentateuch, I, p. 67). This means that the being known as Satan was not created as Satan (an adversary). He was created good, but became bad.
If Satan was created good but is now evil, it is obvious that he fell. The Bible seems to indicate that the devil was the very first sinner. John wrote, "...for the devil has sinned from the beginning" (I John 3:8). W.E. Vine says, "There is stress upon the phrase 'from the beginning.' Sin began when Satan first sinned." (The Epistles of John, p.56) See also Guy N. Woods' commentary on this passage.
There are several indications in the Bible that a rebellion occurred in Heaven at some remote period of antiquity. In the book of Job, Eliphaz says of God, "He puts no trust even in His servants; and against His angels he charges error" (4:18). Barnes notes, "Language like this would hardly be employed unless there was a belief that even the holiness of the angels was not incorruptible, and that there had been some revolt there among a part, which rendered it possible that others might revolt also..." (Commentary on Job, p. xiii). Two passages in the New Testament speak of such a rebellion. "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment..." (II Peter 2:4). "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of that great day..." (Jude 6). Angels were obviously subject to some kind of heavenly law, for they sinned and sin is transgression of law (I John 3:4). All evidence points to Satan as the instigator and leader in this revolt. Also, let it be noted that not all of these rebellious spirits were confined in a place of punishment (cf. Ephesians 2:2; 6:12).
In I Timothy 3:6 Paul prohibits a novice being appointed an elder, "let being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil." There is some discussion among scholars as to how the genitive tou diabolou (of the devil) should be taken. Some see it as subjective in the sense of "the devil's trap of condemnation" into which the novice falls. The expression "snare of the devil" in verse 7 is relied upon to be taken as an objective genitive, suggesting the sense, "Lest he be involved in the condemnation which the devil incurred," or the "judgment pronounced on the devil..." (Expositor's Greek Testament, IV, p.114). Alford, Wiesinger and others strongly argue that krima (judgment, condemnation) in verse 6 can only be used of a judgment into which the devil came. If this be correct, we have here a specific allusion to Satan's original fall.
Perhaps a word should be said about certain passages which are thought to shed light on Satan's fall, but which on closer examination, are hardly conclusive in that regard.
(1) Isaiah 14:12 contains a reference to "Lucifer" (KJV) an epithet of the king of Babylon (verse 4). Jerome and others of the church "fathers" took this to be a reference to Satan and such a notion is popular today, but there is no evidence of an allusion to the devil in this passage.
(2) Some have asserted that Ezekiel's "lamentation over the king of Tyre" (28:11-19) is a picture of Satan and his fall in Eden. But as Ellison notes: "Those who implicitly hold this view have generally little idea of how unknown it is in wider Christian circles, or of how little basis there is for it in fact." (Ezekiel: The Man and His Message, p. 108)
(3) When the 70 disciples returned from a preaching tour they declared: "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name" to which He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:17-18). Though some see this as a reference to the devil's initial apostasy, Plummer says: "The aorist (tense of the verb "fallen") indicates the coincidence between the success of the Seventy and Christ's vision of Satan's overthrow...; it refers to the success of the disciples regarded as a symbol and earnest of the complete overthrow of Satan" (ICC on Luke, p. 278).
(4) In Revelation 12:7-9 John sees a vision of war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels, the result being that Satan was cast down to earth. In harmony with the nature of the book and its general context, this is a symbolic description of the battle between the church of Jesus Christ and the forces of Satan. That it does not refer to a fall back near the beginning of time is clear from the fact that Satan was "cast down" or overcome, "because of the blood of the Lamb" (12:10-11). It is not impossible though, that an ancient conflict might have formed the basis of the imagery here employed, even though the reference is not specifically to such an event.
SATAN'S MISSION: The devil's mission very simply stated, is to destroy the human race in Hell. It is little wonder he has been denominated by inspiration as the "Destroyer" (Revelation 9:11). He attempted the ruin of humanity by the temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) and the seduction of His holy apostles (Luke 22:31). Though that plan failed (with the exception of Judas), he now nevertheless, "walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (I Peter 5:8).
But how does this enemy work today? Though Satan was permitted to operate supernaturally in former ages of history (as in the case of demon possessions of the 1st century - Matthew 12:22-29; cf. Exodus 7:11, 22; II Thessalonians 2:9), which was apparently for the purpose of enabling the Lord and His disciples to demonstrate the superiority of divine power over Satanic power, he cannot operate in a miraculous fashion today. If the devil could miraculously dominate men today, there would be as Rubel Shelly has observed, "a manifest 'imbalance' of spiritual power among men with the scales tipped to Satan's advantage." (Occultism, p. 7). Professor L.M. Sweet affirms that there is no evidence, "that Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men." He continues, "it is perfectly evident that Satan's power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p. 2694).
The New Testament affords evidence aplenty for this. For instance, the Deceiver: (1) Delights in blinding the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel should not dawn upon them (II Corinthians 4:4). (2) To accomplish this he does not hesitate to transform himself into an angel of light, along with his ministers who pretend to be ministers of righteousness (II Corinthians 11:14-15). (3) When people are inclined not to believe the truth, the devil takes the gospel from their hearts (Luke 8:12). (4) He is full of trickery. He has his snares (I Timothy 3:7) and employs his wiles - "a deliberate planning or system" (Ephesians 4:14; 6:11; M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 859). (5) Those converted from the power of Satan unto God are thus turned from darkness to light (Acts 26:18). (6) Accordingly, Christians must constantly be on guard, "that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his devices" (II Corinthians 2:11).
Though we must never underestimate the power of Satan, it is equally certain that we must likewise never overestimate him. By employing the same weapon as used by Christ ("It is written" (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) we can become, "more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Romans 8:37). Jehovah can grant us victories over the Destroyer and his kingdom (Romans 16:20; I John 5:4) and by His might we take courage and press on!
SATAN'S DESTINY - The Lord Jesus Christ will be completely victorious over Satan. He was manifested, "that He might destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). The eternal punishment of Hell, "is prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). And into that horrible place he will be cast and be, "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). The promise of Genesis 3:15 will then be totally fulfilled; "...he (the woman's seed, i.e., Christ) shall bruise your (the serpent's) head..." What great rejoicing will then occur!
THE ORIGIN OF SATAN: Though the Bible gives no detailed account of the origin of Satan, sufficient suggestions are found to draw some reasonable conclusions. The devil did not exist eternally, hence did have an origin as the following indicates.
First, it is certainly clear that Satan is not of the nature of Deity. Deity is all powerful (Genesis 17:1). Deity cannot be restrained (Job 42:2). On the contrary however, the devil is clearly not omnipotent as evidenced by the following: (a) His power to afflict was limited (Job 1:12; 2:6). (b) When rebuked by the messenger of God, he had to remain silent (Zechariah 3:2). (c) His authority over world kingdoms was "delivered" to him (Luke 4:6). (d) He had to ask for the apostles (Luke 22:31). (e) He can "snatch" no one from the Lord's hand (John 10:28). (f) When resisted, he flees (James 4:7). (g) When cast into Hell he will be powerless to resist (Revelation 20:10). Moreover, Scripture plainly affirms that He that is in us (God) is greater than he (Satan) that is in the world (I John 4:4). So, to sum it up, Deity is all powerful but Satan is not. Thus, he is not of the Deity class.
Secondly, all things and beings that are not of the Deity class are the result of creation. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" (Colossians 1:16). This would include Satan as he originally was. It might be mentioned also at this point that all created things had their origin at some time during the creation week of Genesis 1. This Moses states in Exodus 20:11. This included the great host of angels. Incidentally, the angels, "must have been created at the very beginning of the first day of creation, for Job 38:6-7 tells of their singing and of their shout of joy at the creation of the earth" (John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth, p. 43).
THE FALL OF SATAN: All things, as they were originally created, were good. "And God saw everything that He made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 3:1). "by the application of the term 'good' to everything that God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis 'very' at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it" (C.F. Keil, The Pentateuch, I, p. 67). This means that the being known as Satan was not created as Satan (an adversary). He was created good, but became bad.
If Satan was created good but is now evil, it is obvious that he fell. The Bible seems to indicate that the devil was the very first sinner. John wrote, "...for the devil has sinned from the beginning" (I John 3:8). W.E. Vine says, "There is stress upon the phrase 'from the beginning.' Sin began when Satan first sinned." (The Epistles of John, p.56) See also Guy N. Woods' commentary on this passage.
There are several indications in the Bible that a rebellion occurred in Heaven at some remote period of antiquity. In the book of Job, Eliphaz says of God, "He puts no trust even in His servants; and against His angels he charges error" (4:18). Barnes notes, "Language like this would hardly be employed unless there was a belief that even the holiness of the angels was not incorruptible, and that there had been some revolt there among a part, which rendered it possible that others might revolt also..." (Commentary on Job, p. xiii). Two passages in the New Testament speak of such a rebellion. "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment..." (II Peter 2:4). "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of that great day..." (Jude 6). Angels were obviously subject to some kind of heavenly law, for they sinned and sin is transgression of law (I John 3:4). All evidence points to Satan as the instigator and leader in this revolt. Also, let it be noted that not all of these rebellious spirits were confined in a place of punishment (cf. Ephesians 2:2; 6:12).
In I Timothy 3:6 Paul prohibits a novice being appointed an elder, "let being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil." There is some discussion among scholars as to how the genitive tou diabolou (of the devil) should be taken. Some see it as subjective in the sense of "the devil's trap of condemnation" into which the novice falls. The expression "snare of the devil" in verse 7 is relied upon to be taken as an objective genitive, suggesting the sense, "Lest he be involved in the condemnation which the devil incurred," or the "judgment pronounced on the devil..." (Expositor's Greek Testament, IV, p.114). Alford, Wiesinger and others strongly argue that krima (judgment, condemnation) in verse 6 can only be used of a judgment into which the devil came. If this be correct, we have here a specific allusion to Satan's original fall.
Perhaps a word should be said about certain passages which are thought to shed light on Satan's fall, but which on closer examination, are hardly conclusive in that regard.
(1) Isaiah 14:12 contains a reference to "Lucifer" (KJV) an epithet of the king of Babylon (verse 4). Jerome and others of the church "fathers" took this to be a reference to Satan and such a notion is popular today, but there is no evidence of an allusion to the devil in this passage.
(2) Some have asserted that Ezekiel's "lamentation over the king of Tyre" (28:11-19) is a picture of Satan and his fall in Eden. But as Ellison notes: "Those who implicitly hold this view have generally little idea of how unknown it is in wider Christian circles, or of how little basis there is for it in fact." (Ezekiel: The Man and His Message, p. 108)
(3) When the 70 disciples returned from a preaching tour they declared: "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name" to which He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:17-18). Though some see this as a reference to the devil's initial apostasy, Plummer says: "The aorist (tense of the verb "fallen") indicates the coincidence between the success of the Seventy and Christ's vision of Satan's overthrow...; it refers to the success of the disciples regarded as a symbol and earnest of the complete overthrow of Satan" (ICC on Luke, p. 278).
(4) In Revelation 12:7-9 John sees a vision of war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels, the result being that Satan was cast down to earth. In harmony with the nature of the book and its general context, this is a symbolic description of the battle between the church of Jesus Christ and the forces of Satan. That it does not refer to a fall back near the beginning of time is clear from the fact that Satan was "cast down" or overcome, "because of the blood of the Lamb" (12:10-11). It is not impossible though, that an ancient conflict might have formed the basis of the imagery here employed, even though the reference is not specifically to such an event.
SATAN'S MISSION: The devil's mission very simply stated, is to destroy the human race in Hell. It is little wonder he has been denominated by inspiration as the "Destroyer" (Revelation 9:11). He attempted the ruin of humanity by the temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) and the seduction of His holy apostles (Luke 22:31). Though that plan failed (with the exception of Judas), he now nevertheless, "walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (I Peter 5:8).
But how does this enemy work today? Though Satan was permitted to operate supernaturally in former ages of history (as in the case of demon possessions of the 1st century - Matthew 12:22-29; cf. Exodus 7:11, 22; II Thessalonians 2:9), which was apparently for the purpose of enabling the Lord and His disciples to demonstrate the superiority of divine power over Satanic power, he cannot operate in a miraculous fashion today. If the devil could miraculously dominate men today, there would be as Rubel Shelly has observed, "a manifest 'imbalance' of spiritual power among men with the scales tipped to Satan's advantage." (Occultism, p. 7). Professor L.M. Sweet affirms that there is no evidence, "that Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men." He continues, "it is perfectly evident that Satan's power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p. 2694).
The New Testament affords evidence aplenty for this. For instance, the Deceiver: (1) Delights in blinding the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel should not dawn upon them (II Corinthians 4:4). (2) To accomplish this he does not hesitate to transform himself into an angel of light, along with his ministers who pretend to be ministers of righteousness (II Corinthians 11:14-15). (3) When people are inclined not to believe the truth, the devil takes the gospel from their hearts (Luke 8:12). (4) He is full of trickery. He has his snares (I Timothy 3:7) and employs his wiles - "a deliberate planning or system" (Ephesians 4:14; 6:11; M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 859). (5) Those converted from the power of Satan unto God are thus turned from darkness to light (Acts 26:18). (6) Accordingly, Christians must constantly be on guard, "that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his devices" (II Corinthians 2:11).
Though we must never underestimate the power of Satan, it is equally certain that we must likewise never overestimate him. By employing the same weapon as used by Christ ("It is written" (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) we can become, "more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Romans 8:37). Jehovah can grant us victories over the Destroyer and his kingdom (Romans 16:20; I John 5:4) and by His might we take courage and press on!
SATAN'S DESTINY - The Lord Jesus Christ will be completely victorious over Satan. He was manifested, "that He might destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). The eternal punishment of Hell, "is prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). And into that horrible place he will be cast and be, "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). The promise of Genesis 3:15 will then be totally fulfilled; "...he (the woman's seed, i.e., Christ) shall bruise your (the serpent's) head..." What great rejoicing will then occur!
Monday, March 18, 2013
Satan: Everything You've Always Wanted to Know (Part 1)
This is the first of a two part study of Satan. It was written by Wayne Jackson and appeared in the March, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson. It is a bit lengthy but well worth the time to read.
Is Satan an actual, living, personal being? Atheists and their near kinsmen, infidel theologians say no. For instance, G.B. Gray, a representative of the liberal persuasion wrote: "If we would fix more exactly on the origin of the Satan, there is much to be said for Marti's suggestion that he is the personification of the self-accusing conscience of Israel" (Encyclopedia Biblica, IV, 4298). To those who have confidence in the integrity of the Scriptures however, there is no doubt about the fact that the devil is a personal being. He is constantly represented in the Bible as a personal entity. Personal names and personal pronouns, as well as personal acts are so frequently attributed to him, that it is impossible to view Satan as the mere personification of evil.
The great enemy of God is most commonly referred to in the Bible as "the devil" or "Satan." He is termed the devil 33 times in the New Testament and called Satan 36 times. But he is also designated by many other titles. He is Abaddon, Apollyon, the great dragoon, the old serpent, the deceiver of the whole world (Revelation 9:11; 12:9), the adversary (I Peter 5:8), the accuser of our brethren (Revelation 12:10), Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24), Belial (II Corinthians 6:15), an enemy (Matthew 13:28), the evil one (Matthew 13:19), the father of lies, a liar, a murderer (John 8:44), the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4), the ruler of this world (John 12:31), the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) and the tempter (Matthew 4:3). By way of definition the devil may be said to be, "A created but superhuman, personal, evil, world power represented in Scripture as the adversary both of God and man" (L.M. Sweet, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p.2693).
Is Satan an actual, living, personal being? Atheists and their near kinsmen, infidel theologians say no. For instance, G.B. Gray, a representative of the liberal persuasion wrote: "If we would fix more exactly on the origin of the Satan, there is much to be said for Marti's suggestion that he is the personification of the self-accusing conscience of Israel" (Encyclopedia Biblica, IV, 4298). To those who have confidence in the integrity of the Scriptures however, there is no doubt about the fact that the devil is a personal being. He is constantly represented in the Bible as a personal entity. Personal names and personal pronouns, as well as personal acts are so frequently attributed to him, that it is impossible to view Satan as the mere personification of evil.
The great enemy of God is most commonly referred to in the Bible as "the devil" or "Satan." He is termed the devil 33 times in the New Testament and called Satan 36 times. But he is also designated by many other titles. He is Abaddon, Apollyon, the great dragoon, the old serpent, the deceiver of the whole world (Revelation 9:11; 12:9), the adversary (I Peter 5:8), the accuser of our brethren (Revelation 12:10), Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24), Belial (II Corinthians 6:15), an enemy (Matthew 13:28), the evil one (Matthew 13:19), the father of lies, a liar, a murderer (John 8:44), the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4), the ruler of this world (John 12:31), the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) and the tempter (Matthew 4:3). By way of definition the devil may be said to be, "A created but superhuman, personal, evil, world power represented in Scripture as the adversary both of God and man" (L.M. Sweet, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p.2693).
Satan in the Old Testament
The Hebrew term satan etymologically denoted "adversary," being related to a verb suggesting the idea of lying in wait. the word was frequently used in a very general sense of adversary. In Numbers 22:22 it is even applied to the messenger of Jehovah who opposed Balaam. The general usage is usually indicated by the absence of the definite article. When the article is used, e.g., "the adversary," it becomes a proper name and thus denotes the personal devil.
Our first knowledge of Satan is derived from the temptation account in Genesis. Numerous attempts to refute the historicity of this narrative have been attempted. Professor Melancthon Jacobus speaks to this very point:
"That there was a real serpent in this transaction cannot be doubted any more than we can doubt the real history throughout. Here, where the facts speak, further explanations are not necessary nor fitted to the time of the beginning. (1) The real serpent is contrasted with the other animals (verse 1). (2) In the New Testament allusion is made to a real serpent in referring to the history (II Corinthians 11:3, 14; I John 3:8; Revelation 20:2). Yet (3) that there was in the transaction a superior agent, Satan himself, who only made use of the serpent, is plain from his being referred to as 'the Old Serpent, called the Devil and Satan' (Revelation 12:9); 'a murderer from the beginning' (John 8:44). Satan is also spoken of as the arch seducer, who is even transformed into an angel of light (II Corinthians 11:14). The reference may be to this event. Almost all the Asiatic nations hold the serpent to be a wicked being that has brought evil into the world. Some have sought to turn this history of the temptation into an allegory. But it wears the same aspect of historical detail as the rest of the narrative" (Critical and Explanatory Notes on Genesis, I, p.112).
The divine record of Chronicles declares: "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel" (I Chronicles 21:1). Here again Satan is seen in his role as a tempter and enemy of God's people. Some have claimed a contradiction between this passage and II Samuel 24:1 where it is stated that Jehovah moved David to number Israel. There is no discrepancy however, for a combining of the verses simply shows how god employed Satan as the agent to punish His people for their sins.
Satan is given more prominence in the book of Job than in any other Old Testament book. No less than 14 times he is mentioned in the first two chapters. Again, modernism has attempted to explain away these historical incidents. Andrew Zenos of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Chicago alleged that, "The apparent incongruity of a person (i.e., Satan) with such a frame of mind consorting with other 'sons of God' in the courts of Heaven, giving an account of himself to and speaking on familiar terms with God, disappears when the narrative is seen to be constructed not as a picture of realities, but as a vehicle of moral teaching..." (New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 811). Such a view totally ignores the facts and reads prejudicial opinion into the sacred text.
Satan appears as an adversary of Joshua the high priest in Zechariah 3:1-2. Joshua, clothed in filthy garments which symbolized the sins of the whole nation of which he was the representative, stood before the messenger of Jehovah. Satan was at his right hand to be his adversary. The accuser was not allowed to speak though, rather, "...the Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you Satan.'" The central message of this vision (1-10) was to show that God's people, conditioned upon a true reformation, could again enjoy prosperity. But, "Satan was ready to challenge the Lord's own institution for the forgiveness of sin, to deny the right of God to pardon the sinner. He seeks to overthrown the Throne of Grace, so hateful to him and to turn it into a seat of judgment and condemnation" (Theo. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets, p.422). Certainly the complete story of the devil's horrible character is not presented in the Old Testament. Enough is given though to warrant the conviction that he is truly a malicious being. The New Testament brings into full focus his anti-godly designs.
Satan in the New Testament
The following New Testament references will suffice to underscore our previous affirmations regarding the unscrupulous intent of the adversary of God and man.
1. As the serpent seduced Eve (Genesis 3:6) through the manifold channels of lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and the pride of life (I John 2:16), so he sought to solicit Christ to sin similarly (Matthew 4:1-11). Interestingly, he is denominated "the tempter" in that narrative. The Greek term peirazon, a present tense participle literally expanded, "the always tempting one" which suggests his characteristic activity. Had the devil succeeded in causing Christ to sin, the Lord could not have served as the blemishless sin offering (I Peter 1:19; II Corinthians 5:21) and the entire human race would have been forever lost!
2. Disease, infirmity and death are ultimately the responsibility of Satan, for by his introduction of sin into the world, he brought about such woes and hence, he is really the murderer of the human family (Cf. John 8:44). This is why it is said that a certain Jewish woman, who had been afflicted with an infirmity for 18 years was bound of Satan (Luke 13:16) and Peter declared that Jesus went about doing good, "healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38).
3. The New Testament represents the devil as a deadly foe of the apostles of Christ, who by their saving message, opposed his work. The Lord informed Peter, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat." (Luke 22:31) Many commentators have overlooked the fact that the pronoun "you" (humas) is plural, revealing that Jesus was issuing a warning regarding all the apostles yet, recognizing the special weakness of Peter, the Master adds, "But I have prayed for you (sou, singular) that your faith should not fail..." Moreover, Paul's thorn in the flesh was a "messenger of Satan" (II Corinthians 12:7) and when the apostle would have visited the Thessalonian brethren, Satan hindered him (I Thessalonians 2:18). It must ever be remembered though, that the devil can only do what he is permitted to do by God. This will be discussed later in more detail.
4. Satan, "put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot" the dastardly notion of betraying the Lord Jesus (John 13:2) and later entered, "into him" (John 13:27) thus causing him to consummate the darkest deed of all history. So captivated by the Deceiver was Judas, that Jesus once plainly called the wayward apostle a devil (John 6:70). Judas however, did not consider himself a mere passive pawn at the disposal of Satan, for he unmistakably acknowledged, "I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4). Additionally, when Ananias lied and misrepresented the amount of his gift to the early church, Peter inquired, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 5:3). And yet the apostle further asks, "Why have you conceived this thing in your heart?" Satan cannot overpower is (James 4:7) but he will gladly cooperated in the destruction of our souls!
A World Without God
Copied from the October, 1973 edition of The Gospel Teacher, published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio, Grant B. Caldwell editor. They credit it to the Eastland News in Nashville, Tennessee.
A world without God! Think about it. What would it be? This is not the same as asking about an individual who refuses to believe in and rejects a God who actually exists. I am asking about a world that came into existence quite accidentally, perhaps by evolution (this is not an examination and discussion of the scientific difficulties and impossibilities of such a premise but granting the assumption, a pondering of consequences). Let the mind then entertain the thought of the world, or a world, not made or governed by God. There is not God! What would such a world be?
NO SIN. Can you think of a single sin that a dog or cat can commit? What of the morals of a cow or trout? It is universally conceded that animals are neither moral nor immoral, but rather are amoral (i.e., there are no moral principles applicable to animals to be either kept or broken). Infidels and evolutionists obviously argue that man is an animal and nothing more, which in our "world without God" is necessarily the case we are assuming. Man is only another animal. He cannot therefore, be moral (or immoral). The word "morality" itself drops from the vocabulary; it describes nothing.
Now, what would be a sin for man? Not murder. No, for animals kill animals and even in a world with God, no one calls that a sin. And, in a world without God, who could say that it was "wrong" or "sinful" for a dog animal to kill another dog animal, or for a man animal to kill another man animal? As to whether or not this would be wise or feasible is another question. The mother bear will attack whoever molests her cub and the wild baboons will band themselves together to defend against a more formidable enemy. Even so, it would be foolish to kill a human animal under certain circumstances, but it would be no more "wrong" or "sinful" than to kill a cow, bear or baboon. There would simply be no such thing as right or wrong. In a world without God every man is become as the wild brutes and beasts (for, ipso facto, he is a beast), free to do whatever he can get away with.
NO LAW. Everything must have a starting place. Where, in a world without God, does law rightfully begin? What man, or group of men, have the right to impose their will upon any other man? As one prominent and celebrated contemporary put it just before his death, "I will not obey a law in the making of which I had no part." No man has the right to usurp the prerogative of making laws and claiming that those who dissent or refuse to obey his will are guilty of a "crime" (whatever that could be in a world where nothing is wrong anyway). The first principle of evolution, a world without God, is the survival of the fittest. In plainer language again, it is doing whatever you care to that you can get away with, regardless of what anybody else says.
One final proof that a world without God is without duly established law and justifies anarchy. The actual foundation of all law is the person of God, and He has the right to command on the basis of being the Creator, Sustainer and Owner of the universe. He has inherent and intrinsic authority. (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 50:10-13; Romans 9:20-21) Men obtain the right from God to establish civil government and God decrees the limits of its jurisdiction. (See Romans 13:1) But in a world without God, alas, there is no basis for law and every man is morally uninhibited and free (no such thing as morals anyway) to do whatever he has the will, might and force to do. Kill, rape, steal and lie when it is to your advantage, for in a world without God, they can be neither sinful, immoral, wrong or unlawful. Anarchy! Do as you please.
NO POINT. Of course, there is not much to live for in a world without God, and absolutely no purpose. If so, what is it? There is no honor in a world that knows no right or wrong and man becomes purely subject to his environment to determine his course (the current description for this by men without God is "situation ethics": nothing is right or wrong, so determine your ethics or policy by the situation). "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." There is no ultimate purpose or goal among butterflies or jackals and life itself serves only the moment and the gratification of the natural desires. A world without God is thus a world without reason.
NO HOPE. The spectre of death, in such a senseless and pointless world, has the darkness and gloom of eternal night. There is no comfort or solace at the open grave, but only a foreboding of one's own loss of existence. The dream and longing of the heart for immortality is denied and we are become the most miserable and pitiable of beasts. Oh, that we, as the other animals in this awful world without God, were more limited in intellect and not possessed of dreams that can only know frustration and futility. But no, (in this world without God) we can only look forward to pain without purpose and disappointment without hope. And, suddenly this dead end, blind alley life overshadowed by death, denial and despair is scarcely even worth living.
A WORLD WITH GOD! Let our hearts rejoice and our voices resound with praise. God is and all is well! Law springs to life, with vitality and force, for it emanates from infallible fountains from above. Sin becomes a reality when men violate divine law, for "sin is the transgression of law." Therefore, law is important and consequential and no man has the arbitrary right to dismiss it. In fact, disobedience will be judged and punished by Him who authored law. No man can sin with impunity! Righteousness is not only become valuable and meaningful, but it enriches the journey we mortals make through this world. The sordid pleasures of sin and licentiousness are not worthy to be compared to the loveliness of virtue, the nobility of integrity or the warmth of a good conscience. Nor do they approach the value and joy of a bright and living hope, or of "the peace that passes understanding." God's good earth is a wonderful place to live because He has bestowed heavenly blessings upon us. And life has become worth living!
But take away God, and the wretchedness of such a pointless world is indescribable; the corruption of such a vile world would be incalculable and unbearable. Of course, we cannot do away with God. He is. And we must believe in and obey Him to know what true happiness is in this world and to dwell with Him in the world to come.
A world without God! Think about it. What would it be? This is not the same as asking about an individual who refuses to believe in and rejects a God who actually exists. I am asking about a world that came into existence quite accidentally, perhaps by evolution (this is not an examination and discussion of the scientific difficulties and impossibilities of such a premise but granting the assumption, a pondering of consequences). Let the mind then entertain the thought of the world, or a world, not made or governed by God. There is not God! What would such a world be?
NO SIN. Can you think of a single sin that a dog or cat can commit? What of the morals of a cow or trout? It is universally conceded that animals are neither moral nor immoral, but rather are amoral (i.e., there are no moral principles applicable to animals to be either kept or broken). Infidels and evolutionists obviously argue that man is an animal and nothing more, which in our "world without God" is necessarily the case we are assuming. Man is only another animal. He cannot therefore, be moral (or immoral). The word "morality" itself drops from the vocabulary; it describes nothing.
Now, what would be a sin for man? Not murder. No, for animals kill animals and even in a world with God, no one calls that a sin. And, in a world without God, who could say that it was "wrong" or "sinful" for a dog animal to kill another dog animal, or for a man animal to kill another man animal? As to whether or not this would be wise or feasible is another question. The mother bear will attack whoever molests her cub and the wild baboons will band themselves together to defend against a more formidable enemy. Even so, it would be foolish to kill a human animal under certain circumstances, but it would be no more "wrong" or "sinful" than to kill a cow, bear or baboon. There would simply be no such thing as right or wrong. In a world without God every man is become as the wild brutes and beasts (for, ipso facto, he is a beast), free to do whatever he can get away with.
NO LAW. Everything must have a starting place. Where, in a world without God, does law rightfully begin? What man, or group of men, have the right to impose their will upon any other man? As one prominent and celebrated contemporary put it just before his death, "I will not obey a law in the making of which I had no part." No man has the right to usurp the prerogative of making laws and claiming that those who dissent or refuse to obey his will are guilty of a "crime" (whatever that could be in a world where nothing is wrong anyway). The first principle of evolution, a world without God, is the survival of the fittest. In plainer language again, it is doing whatever you care to that you can get away with, regardless of what anybody else says.
One final proof that a world without God is without duly established law and justifies anarchy. The actual foundation of all law is the person of God, and He has the right to command on the basis of being the Creator, Sustainer and Owner of the universe. He has inherent and intrinsic authority. (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 50:10-13; Romans 9:20-21) Men obtain the right from God to establish civil government and God decrees the limits of its jurisdiction. (See Romans 13:1) But in a world without God, alas, there is no basis for law and every man is morally uninhibited and free (no such thing as morals anyway) to do whatever he has the will, might and force to do. Kill, rape, steal and lie when it is to your advantage, for in a world without God, they can be neither sinful, immoral, wrong or unlawful. Anarchy! Do as you please.
NO POINT. Of course, there is not much to live for in a world without God, and absolutely no purpose. If so, what is it? There is no honor in a world that knows no right or wrong and man becomes purely subject to his environment to determine his course (the current description for this by men without God is "situation ethics": nothing is right or wrong, so determine your ethics or policy by the situation). "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." There is no ultimate purpose or goal among butterflies or jackals and life itself serves only the moment and the gratification of the natural desires. A world without God is thus a world without reason.
NO HOPE. The spectre of death, in such a senseless and pointless world, has the darkness and gloom of eternal night. There is no comfort or solace at the open grave, but only a foreboding of one's own loss of existence. The dream and longing of the heart for immortality is denied and we are become the most miserable and pitiable of beasts. Oh, that we, as the other animals in this awful world without God, were more limited in intellect and not possessed of dreams that can only know frustration and futility. But no, (in this world without God) we can only look forward to pain without purpose and disappointment without hope. And, suddenly this dead end, blind alley life overshadowed by death, denial and despair is scarcely even worth living.
A WORLD WITH GOD! Let our hearts rejoice and our voices resound with praise. God is and all is well! Law springs to life, with vitality and force, for it emanates from infallible fountains from above. Sin becomes a reality when men violate divine law, for "sin is the transgression of law." Therefore, law is important and consequential and no man has the arbitrary right to dismiss it. In fact, disobedience will be judged and punished by Him who authored law. No man can sin with impunity! Righteousness is not only become valuable and meaningful, but it enriches the journey we mortals make through this world. The sordid pleasures of sin and licentiousness are not worthy to be compared to the loveliness of virtue, the nobility of integrity or the warmth of a good conscience. Nor do they approach the value and joy of a bright and living hope, or of "the peace that passes understanding." God's good earth is a wonderful place to live because He has bestowed heavenly blessings upon us. And life has become worth living!
But take away God, and the wretchedness of such a pointless world is indescribable; the corruption of such a vile world would be incalculable and unbearable. Of course, we cannot do away with God. He is. And we must believe in and obey Him to know what true happiness is in this world and to dwell with Him in the world to come.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
The Rock
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which deals with what I believe is one of the most misinterpreted passages of the New Testament. This appeared in the January, 1977 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Several months prior to His death, Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man am?" They supplied Him with some popular opinions, then Peter confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responded, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, buy My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..." (Matthew 16:13-18).
From the early days of the church, there has been great controversy as to the meaning of the expression "this rock." The Catholic Church urges that this passage supports the notion of the "primacy of Peter." Since the name Peter (Greek: petros) means "rock" it is argued that the Lord intended to build the church upon "this rock" (petra), which was none other than Peter himself. The Roman Catholic edition of the New Testament footnotes this verse declaring, "The rock was Peter." And some loose, modern day paraphrases have certainly suggested the foregoing view by such renditions as: "...you are a rock Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." (Today's English Version; Cf. The Living Bible Paraphrased.) This opinion goes back at least to the time of Origin (225 A.D.), who suggested that the rock referred primarily though not exclusively to Peter.
Whatever else the word "rock" may mean, it is positively certain that this verse provides no support whatsoever for the concept of the "primacy of Peter" and the doctrine that he was the first Pope of Rome. In the first place, numerous Biblical verses stand directly opposed to the idea that Peter was a pope. For example: (1) Peter was married (I Corinthians 9:5) but a pope can't be. (2) Peter refused the worship of men (Acts 10:25-26) but popes do not. (3) Rather than controlling the church, that apostle was "sent" by the church (Acts 8:14). (4) Paul's letter to the church in Rome mentions neither Peter nor a pope; a circumstance remarkably strange if Peter occupied the papal throne in that city. (5) Peter was even rebuked by another apostle (Galatians 2:11). (6) It is clear that Christ is THE head of the church (Colossians 1:18), having ALL authority in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Moreover, a careful analysis of Matthew 16:18 will reveal that the rock was not the apostle Peter. Note the following:
(1) While it is true that the name Peter (petros) means rock, the term is used in Koine Greek of a stone small enough to be thrown by hand or used as a boundary marker, whereas petra is used of a mass of rock (e.g., a cliff or boulder). The claim is sometimes made that Jesus spoke Aramaic which made no distinction between the two terms. First of all, who can prove that Jesus spoke this statement originally in Aramaic? R.H. Gundry says, "A common but probably erroneous opinion is that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in Aramaic. But archaeological and literary evidence points to trilingualism." (Survey of the New Testament, p. 21.). Secondly, R.C. Foster has shown that Jesus apparently Hellenized the Aramaic form Kepha to Kephas (John 1:42), "So that the same difference in the Greek words petros and petra is seen in the kephas and kepha" (Studies in the Life of Christ, p.715). At any rate, the inspired Matthew wrote in Greek and he made a clear distinction!
(2) Petros is a noun of masculine gender, while petra is a noun of feminine gender. While obviously making a play upon these words, the text nonetheless clearly indicates that the Lord was making a distinction between Peter and the rock. While some have ridiculed this argument, Dr. Boice Blackwelder states, "The different genders (petros, masculine and petra, feminine) emphasize a distinction in the references." (Light from the Greek New Testament, p.39). R.H.C. Lenski observes, "If by 'this rock' Jesus had Peter himself in mind, He could easily have said, 'epi sou', 'on thee' will I build my church; or 'on thee, Peter' adding his name." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 625). Additionally, the pronouns employed reveal a distinction between Peter and the rock. Jesus said, "You (second person) are Peter, and on this (third person) rock..." Plainly, Christ was NOT indicating that the rock was Peter.
(3) Within this context Jesus uses a graphic illustration containing the following elements: a builder, a building, a foundation, keys and a doorman. Christ is the builder and the building is the church. Peter is viewed as the doorman (not the foundation) with the keys, which symbolized the privilege which the apostle would have of preaching the gospel first to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). By what kind of exegetical manipulation can Peter be made to be both the doorman and the foundation at the same time?
The most reasonable view of the passage is that the rock was an allusion to Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This is the very foundation upon which the early church was erected. And this is borne out in the subsequent record. Observe: (a) The apostle Paul started the church of the Lord in the city of Corinth (Acts 18:8; I Corinthians 4:15). (b) His message had consisted solely of preaching Christ crucified (I Corinthians 2:2). (c) Thus, through the preaching of Christ Paul had established the Corinthian congregation. (d) In referring to the organization of this church, the apostle declares, "I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it." And he emphatically adds, "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 3:10-11). Thus, the gospel preached by the early apostles, which had as its basis the rock like truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, was the foundation on which the church of Christ was built.
Several months prior to His death, Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man am?" They supplied Him with some popular opinions, then Peter confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responded, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, buy My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..." (Matthew 16:13-18).
From the early days of the church, there has been great controversy as to the meaning of the expression "this rock." The Catholic Church urges that this passage supports the notion of the "primacy of Peter." Since the name Peter (Greek: petros) means "rock" it is argued that the Lord intended to build the church upon "this rock" (petra), which was none other than Peter himself. The Roman Catholic edition of the New Testament footnotes this verse declaring, "The rock was Peter." And some loose, modern day paraphrases have certainly suggested the foregoing view by such renditions as: "...you are a rock Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." (Today's English Version; Cf. The Living Bible Paraphrased.) This opinion goes back at least to the time of Origin (225 A.D.), who suggested that the rock referred primarily though not exclusively to Peter.
Whatever else the word "rock" may mean, it is positively certain that this verse provides no support whatsoever for the concept of the "primacy of Peter" and the doctrine that he was the first Pope of Rome. In the first place, numerous Biblical verses stand directly opposed to the idea that Peter was a pope. For example: (1) Peter was married (I Corinthians 9:5) but a pope can't be. (2) Peter refused the worship of men (Acts 10:25-26) but popes do not. (3) Rather than controlling the church, that apostle was "sent" by the church (Acts 8:14). (4) Paul's letter to the church in Rome mentions neither Peter nor a pope; a circumstance remarkably strange if Peter occupied the papal throne in that city. (5) Peter was even rebuked by another apostle (Galatians 2:11). (6) It is clear that Christ is THE head of the church (Colossians 1:18), having ALL authority in Heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Moreover, a careful analysis of Matthew 16:18 will reveal that the rock was not the apostle Peter. Note the following:
(1) While it is true that the name Peter (petros) means rock, the term is used in Koine Greek of a stone small enough to be thrown by hand or used as a boundary marker, whereas petra is used of a mass of rock (e.g., a cliff or boulder). The claim is sometimes made that Jesus spoke Aramaic which made no distinction between the two terms. First of all, who can prove that Jesus spoke this statement originally in Aramaic? R.H. Gundry says, "A common but probably erroneous opinion is that Jesus spoke almost exclusively in Aramaic. But archaeological and literary evidence points to trilingualism." (Survey of the New Testament, p. 21.). Secondly, R.C. Foster has shown that Jesus apparently Hellenized the Aramaic form Kepha to Kephas (John 1:42), "So that the same difference in the Greek words petros and petra is seen in the kephas and kepha" (Studies in the Life of Christ, p.715). At any rate, the inspired Matthew wrote in Greek and he made a clear distinction!
(2) Petros is a noun of masculine gender, while petra is a noun of feminine gender. While obviously making a play upon these words, the text nonetheless clearly indicates that the Lord was making a distinction between Peter and the rock. While some have ridiculed this argument, Dr. Boice Blackwelder states, "The different genders (petros, masculine and petra, feminine) emphasize a distinction in the references." (Light from the Greek New Testament, p.39). R.H.C. Lenski observes, "If by 'this rock' Jesus had Peter himself in mind, He could easily have said, 'epi sou', 'on thee' will I build my church; or 'on thee, Peter' adding his name." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 625). Additionally, the pronouns employed reveal a distinction between Peter and the rock. Jesus said, "You (second person) are Peter, and on this (third person) rock..." Plainly, Christ was NOT indicating that the rock was Peter.
(3) Within this context Jesus uses a graphic illustration containing the following elements: a builder, a building, a foundation, keys and a doorman. Christ is the builder and the building is the church. Peter is viewed as the doorman (not the foundation) with the keys, which symbolized the privilege which the apostle would have of preaching the gospel first to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10). By what kind of exegetical manipulation can Peter be made to be both the doorman and the foundation at the same time?
The most reasonable view of the passage is that the rock was an allusion to Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This is the very foundation upon which the early church was erected. And this is borne out in the subsequent record. Observe: (a) The apostle Paul started the church of the Lord in the city of Corinth (Acts 18:8; I Corinthians 4:15). (b) His message had consisted solely of preaching Christ crucified (I Corinthians 2:2). (c) Thus, through the preaching of Christ Paul had established the Corinthian congregation. (d) In referring to the organization of this church, the apostle declares, "I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it." And he emphatically adds, "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 3:10-11). Thus, the gospel preached by the early apostles, which had as its basis the rock like truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, was the foundation on which the church of Christ was built.
Friday, March 15, 2013
The Apocrypha
The November, 1976 edition of The Christian Courier carried this great article by Wayne Jackson. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson. As I share this, it may be particularly timely since the Catholic church is currently in the news for naming their new Pope.
In the ever urgent work of winning souls for Christ, the Christian will occasionally confront members of the Roman Catholic Church who note, with some degree of alarm, that their versions of the Bible contain more books than the standard translations used by non-Catholics. More often than not, the average Christian is at a complete loss to explain why there are 46 books in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, yet only 39 books in the Old Testament of, for example, the King James Version. The qualified teacher needs to be able to give a reasonable explanation to his Catholic friends for the absence of those seven books in the versions we use.
In the ever urgent work of winning souls for Christ, the Christian will occasionally confront members of the Roman Catholic Church who note, with some degree of alarm, that their versions of the Bible contain more books than the standard translations used by non-Catholics. More often than not, the average Christian is at a complete loss to explain why there are 46 books in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, yet only 39 books in the Old Testament of, for example, the King James Version. The qualified teacher needs to be able to give a reasonable explanation to his Catholic friends for the absence of those seven books in the versions we use.
The Disputed Books
The title "Apocrypha" has to do with a collection of 14 books, generally produced between the 2nd century B.C. and the 1st century A.D., which were not a part of the original Old Testament canon. The names of these books are I Esdras, II Esdras, The Rest of Esther, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I Maccabees and II Maccabees. Only the last seven of these are found in Roman Catholic editions of the Bible.
The word "Apocrypha" is a transliterated form of the term apokruphos meaning, "hidden." A plural form of the word is used in Colossians 2:3 where Paul declares that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are "hidden" in Christ. The adjective "apocryphal" has come to be applied to those books which do not bear the marks of divine inspiration. There are numerous reasons why the Apocrypha is to be rejected as part of the Bible.
General Principles
(1) There is abundant evidence that none of these books was ever received into the canon of the Hebrew Old Testament. Though they appear in the Septuagint, "They do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX, but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate..." (G.T. Manley, The New Bible Handbook, p. 39.)
(2) The apocryphal books are not in those most ancient works which allude to the Old Testament Scriptures. (a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C.- 50 A.D.) wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never quoted the Apocrypha, nor even mentioned them. (b) Josephus (37-95 A.D.) rejected them. He wrote: "We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty two containing the record of all time, which have justly believed to be divine" (Against Apion I:8). By combining several Old Testament narratives into a "book" the 39 of our current editions become the 22 mentioned by Josephus. (c) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis around 170 A.D.; none of the apocryphal books is included. (d) In the early 3rd century A.D. neither Origin nor his contemporary Tertullian recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. (e) Though some of the apocryphal books were being used in church services by the 5th century, they were read only by those who held inferior offices in the church (Horne's Introduction, I, p. 436.). Not even Jerome, whose translation served as the basis of the Vulgate, accorded them status comparable to the Bible.
(3) The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concluded his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel, "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (Malachi 4:4-5). This pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Matthew 11:14; Luke 1:17). The implication of Malachi's prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John! This excludes the apocryphal writings. Josephus confirms this when he declares: "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..." (Against Apion I:8.).
(4) Jesus Christ and His inspired New Testament penmen quoted from or alluded to the writings and events of the Old Testament profusely. In fact, some one thousand quotations or allusions from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books are found in the New Testament record. And yet, significantly not once are these apocryphal books quoted or even referred to by the Lord or any New Testament writer. Schurer argues that this is really remarkable since most of the New Testament writers habitually quoted from the Septuagint which contained the Apocrypha (Emil Schurer, Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, I, p.99.).
(5) Finally, it must be noted that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament make no direct claims of being inspired of God. In fact, some of them actually acknowledge non-inspiration. In the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: "Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases."
Evidence Negating Inspiration
The Apocrypha contains a great variety of historical, geographical, chronological and moral errors. A critical study of its contents clearly reveals that it could not be the product of the Spirit of God. The following examples will establish the point.
(1) Rather than the creation resulting from nothing by the word of the Almighty (Genesis 1:1ff; Psalms 33:6-9; Hebrews 11:3), the Apocrypha has God creating the world out of, "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
(2) According to the prophet Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month of the nineteenth year of his reign (Jeremiah 52:12-13). Subsequent to this, both the prophet and his scribe Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:6-7). According to the Apocrypha however, at this very time Baruch was in Babylon (Baruch 1:2).
(3) There are two contradictory accounts of the death of the Jews' enemy Antiochus Epiphanes. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were, "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the Treachery of Nanaea's priests (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was, "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19:29).
(4) The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. "Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled" (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). The foregoing was a common belief among heathen peoples, but is certainly contrary to the Biblical view that the soul of man is formed within him at conception (Psalms 139:13-16; Zechariah 12:1).
(5) It is taught in these works that prayers may be made for the dead. "Wherefore He made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sin" (II Maccabees 12:45). In attempting to justify the Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead, Bertrand Conway quotes the above authoritatively, adding, "It is true that Protestants consider the books of Machabees apocryphal, but they rest upon the same authority as Isaiah or St. John; the divine infallible witness of the Catholic Church" (The Question Box, p. 394). Fortunately though, we are not dependent upon the witness of the Catholic Church for the integrity of the books of Isaiah and John!
(6) The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. "It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin" (Tobit 3:9). Herein lies the Roman doctrine of so much pray for so much pay!
(7) The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples. (a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword choosing, "rather to die nobly" than fall into the hands of the enemy. He was not mortally wounded however, and so threw himself down from a wall and "manfully" died among the crowds (14:41-43). (b) It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17). (c) The murder of the men of Shechem (Genesis 34), an act of violence condemned in the Bible (Genesis 49:6-7) is commended and said to be of God in Judith 9:2-9.
These along with various other considerations, make it impossible for the Apocrypha to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.
(3) There are two contradictory accounts of the death of the Jews' enemy Antiochus Epiphanes. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were, "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the Treachery of Nanaea's priests (II Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was, "taken with a noisome sickness" and so "ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land" (II Maccabees 9:19:29).
(4) The Apocrypha teaches the erroneous doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, suggesting that the kind of body one has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. "Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled" (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). The foregoing was a common belief among heathen peoples, but is certainly contrary to the Biblical view that the soul of man is formed within him at conception (Psalms 139:13-16; Zechariah 12:1).
(5) It is taught in these works that prayers may be made for the dead. "Wherefore He made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sin" (II Maccabees 12:45). In attempting to justify the Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead, Bertrand Conway quotes the above authoritatively, adding, "It is true that Protestants consider the books of Machabees apocryphal, but they rest upon the same authority as Isaiah or St. John; the divine infallible witness of the Catholic Church" (The Question Box, p. 394). Fortunately though, we are not dependent upon the witness of the Catholic Church for the integrity of the books of Isaiah and John!
(6) The Apocrypha suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. "It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin" (Tobit 3:9). Herein lies the Roman doctrine of so much pray for so much pay!
(7) The moral tone of the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible. Note some examples. (a) It applauds suicide as a noble and manful act. II Maccabees tells of one Razis who, being surrounded by the enemy, fell upon his sword choosing, "rather to die nobly" than fall into the hands of the enemy. He was not mortally wounded however, and so threw himself down from a wall and "manfully" died among the crowds (14:41-43). (b) It describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away (Tobit 6:1-17). (c) The murder of the men of Shechem (Genesis 34), an act of violence condemned in the Bible (Genesis 49:6-7) is commended and said to be of God in Judith 9:2-9.
These along with various other considerations, make it impossible for the Apocrypha to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)