Wayne Jackson authored this short article which appeared in the Christian Courier of November 1988. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
One of the theories which attempts to harmonize the Bible with evolutionary chronology (i.e., that the earth is billions of years old) is known as the "gap theory." This view, which is barely more than 150 years old, argues that there exists a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which there lived successive generations of plants, animals and perhaps even pre-Adamite men (cf. First Corinthians 15:45). According to some, God destroyed this original creation due to a Satanic rebellion. Genesis 1:2ff therefore, is supposed to describe a re-creation while the "gap between 1:1 and 1:2 allows for the ancient fossils of the geological time column.
There is absolutely no Biblical basis for this compromising theory. There are several important grammatical considerations in Genesis 1 which militate against the gap theory. Mark them please.
1. Genesis 1:2 begins with "and" (Hebrew: waw, a copulative) which argues against a long time span between these verses. The Hebrew grammars and lexicons consider 1:2 to be an explanatory noun clause which describes a state contemporaneous with that of the main verb in verse 1 (cf. W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, p. 75-86).
2. Note Genesis 1:26. Man was given dominion over all of the earth and every creature upon it. This is not consistent with the notion that many generations of living creatures, over which man had no dominion, had already died and become extinct by the time humanity arrived upon the earth.
3. In 1:31, "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." At the end of the creation week, everything that God had made was still alive upon the earth. Moreover, it was pronounced, "very good." Corruption, death and extinction had not degraded the creation as yet. Make these notations. The gap theory is false.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Salvation and Works
This is an article about one of the most misunderstood aspects of salvation. Wayne Jackson wrote it. It appeared in the Christian Courier in January 1987. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Most protestant groups, reacting to the "works system" of Roman Catholicism, have adopted the extreme (and unscriptural) view that works play no role in human salvation. Certain sects contend that salvation is on the basis of "faith alone" without additional acts of obedience, while others (such as the radical Calvinists) allege that salvation is totally unconditional; that is, before the world began God elected the saved irrespective of their response to conditions of redemption. The truth of the matter lies between the extremes of Catholicism and Calvinism.
The solution to the "works" problem is to recognize the following facts. The Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. The Bible teaches that salvation is by works. Since however, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, it must be clear that there are different types of works relative to human redemption. Let us consider the following categories of works.
Works of the Law of Moses - In the book of Romans, Paul forcefully declares that, "a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (3:28). Again, in chapter 4:4-5, the apostle contends that to him who works (i.e., the works of the Mosaic system), the reward would not be reckoned as of grace but as of debt. On the other hand, to him who works not (the works of the Law), but who practices faith in Christ, he is accounted as righteous. Neither of these passages nor any other, suggests that there are no works involved in Heaven's plan of salvation!
Works of Human Righteousness - In the Ephesian letter, Paul writes, "...for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory" (2:8-9; cf. Second Timothy 1:19). Notice please, that the emphasis is upon our works, or works wherein we might glory. Positively excluded from these types of works however, are acts of obedience commanded by God to which we are expected to respond.
Works of God - There is a class of works mentioned in the Bible called, "works of God" which are directly related to human salvation. By this expression we do not mean works performed by the Lord. Rather, these are, "works required and approved by God" (J. H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 248). The Lord instructed those who would follow Him: "'Work not for the food which perishes but for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give you'...They said therefore unto Him, 'What must we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent'" (John 6:27-29). Within this context Christ makes it quite plain that there are works to be done which will result in the reception of eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work, "this is the work of God, that you believe on Him..." It therefore follows that if one is saved without any type of works, then he is saved without faith; a conclusion which would throw the Bible into hopeless confusion!
Too, it might be noted that repentance from sin is a divinely appointed work for man to do prior to the reception of salvation. Observe this point. The people of ancient Nineveh, "repented" at the preaching of Jonah (cf. Matthew 12:41) yet, the Old Testament record of this event relates that, "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way" (Jonah 3:10). Thus, if one can be saved without any kind of works, he can be saved without repentance. Yet, Jesus declared that without repentance one will perish (Luke 13:3-5).
The real bone of contention with many though, is water baptism. Baptism according to these folks, is a human work. Hence, it can have no relationship to man's salvation. The New Testament however, specifically excludes baptism from that class of human works that is unrelated to redemption. Please read carefully Titus 3:4-7. This context reveals that: (1) We are not saved by works of righteousness which we did ourselves; according to any plan which we accomplished (cf. Thayer, p. 526). (2) But (note the contrast) we were saved by the, "washing of regeneration" (an allusion to baptism) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (3) It is thus clear that baptism is excluded from those works of human righteousness which men contrive. It is though, a part of God's redemptive plan and when one is raised from baptism, it is according to the, "working of God" (Colossians 2:12) and not of man.
Most protestant groups, reacting to the "works system" of Roman Catholicism, have adopted the extreme (and unscriptural) view that works play no role in human salvation. Certain sects contend that salvation is on the basis of "faith alone" without additional acts of obedience, while others (such as the radical Calvinists) allege that salvation is totally unconditional; that is, before the world began God elected the saved irrespective of their response to conditions of redemption. The truth of the matter lies between the extremes of Catholicism and Calvinism.
The solution to the "works" problem is to recognize the following facts. The Bible teaches that salvation is not by works. The Bible teaches that salvation is by works. Since however, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, it must be clear that there are different types of works relative to human redemption. Let us consider the following categories of works.
Works of the Law of Moses - In the book of Romans, Paul forcefully declares that, "a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (3:28). Again, in chapter 4:4-5, the apostle contends that to him who works (i.e., the works of the Mosaic system), the reward would not be reckoned as of grace but as of debt. On the other hand, to him who works not (the works of the Law), but who practices faith in Christ, he is accounted as righteous. Neither of these passages nor any other, suggests that there are no works involved in Heaven's plan of salvation!
Works of Human Righteousness - In the Ephesian letter, Paul writes, "...for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory" (2:8-9; cf. Second Timothy 1:19). Notice please, that the emphasis is upon our works, or works wherein we might glory. Positively excluded from these types of works however, are acts of obedience commanded by God to which we are expected to respond.
Works of God - There is a class of works mentioned in the Bible called, "works of God" which are directly related to human salvation. By this expression we do not mean works performed by the Lord. Rather, these are, "works required and approved by God" (J. H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 248). The Lord instructed those who would follow Him: "'Work not for the food which perishes but for the food which abides unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give you'...They said therefore unto Him, 'What must we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent'" (John 6:27-29). Within this context Christ makes it quite plain that there are works to be done which will result in the reception of eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work, "this is the work of God, that you believe on Him..." It therefore follows that if one is saved without any type of works, then he is saved without faith; a conclusion which would throw the Bible into hopeless confusion!
Too, it might be noted that repentance from sin is a divinely appointed work for man to do prior to the reception of salvation. Observe this point. The people of ancient Nineveh, "repented" at the preaching of Jonah (cf. Matthew 12:41) yet, the Old Testament record of this event relates that, "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way" (Jonah 3:10). Thus, if one can be saved without any kind of works, he can be saved without repentance. Yet, Jesus declared that without repentance one will perish (Luke 13:3-5).
The real bone of contention with many though, is water baptism. Baptism according to these folks, is a human work. Hence, it can have no relationship to man's salvation. The New Testament however, specifically excludes baptism from that class of human works that is unrelated to redemption. Please read carefully Titus 3:4-7. This context reveals that: (1) We are not saved by works of righteousness which we did ourselves; according to any plan which we accomplished (cf. Thayer, p. 526). (2) But (note the contrast) we were saved by the, "washing of regeneration" (an allusion to baptism) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (3) It is thus clear that baptism is excluded from those works of human righteousness which men contrive. It is though, a part of God's redemptive plan and when one is raised from baptism, it is according to the, "working of God" (Colossians 2:12) and not of man.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Palestine - The Land of Jesus
Wayne Jackson is the author of this article which appeared in the December 1986 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
Jehovah appeared to Abraham in Chaldea and said, "Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you" (Acts 7:3). That charge was later renewed (Genesis 12:1-3); thus did the patriarch finally arrive at his appointed destination, the land of Canaan.
It was not by accident that this parcel of earth was chosen by the Lord to be the homeland of the Hebrew people. It was a part of the divine plan in preparation for the coming of the Savior of the world. Four reasons can be suggested for the uniqueness of Palestine as a contributor to Heaven's redemptive plan.
First, Canaan was isolated by natural barriers from its regional neighbors. To the north are the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. In the east and south lie the burning sands of the Arabian and Nabatean deserts and to the west is the great Mediterranean Sea. Had the Israelites driven out the pagan tribes of Canaan as they were commissioned by Jehovah to do, they would have been fairly secure from the surrounding influences of paganism that eventually corrupted them.
Second, Palestine was a corridor of land trade routes connecting Europe, Asia Minor and the East (Mesopotamia, etc.) with Egypt. The antique caravans that passed through were thus touched with Israel's concept of the true God and the hope of the coming Messiah.
Third, the lush productivity of the land (cf. Numbers 13:23) permitted the Hebrews more leisure time for the development of the unique elements of their religion which was also a contributing factor in preparing humanity for the coming of Christ (cf. Galatians 3:24).
Fourth, the great variety of geographical features characteristic of Canaan, together with its plants, animals, etc., made this land an ideal place from whence to produce much of the Bible, thus accommodating the language forms of the Holy Writings to the understanding of people in all parts of the earth. It is well to remember that the Bible borrows much of its imagery from the land.
This small parcel of Middle Eastern real estate, which has been so important in world history, is variously designated in the Bible as the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), the land of Israel (Matthew 2:20), the land of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 30:20), the land of Promise (Hebrews 11:9), the holy land (Zechariah 2:12) and Palestine (Exodus 15:14); the latter term being a corrupted form of "Philistia."
The Size of the Land - Canaan (the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean) is about 150 miles from north to south and on an average, some 50 miles from east to west. It is smaller than the state of Massachusetts. The land of the twelve tribes, the region on both sides of the Jordan, is about 80 miles in breadth or about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Eventually, Solomon's empire (the land of "Promise") spanned the territory from the river of Egypt in the west to the Euphrates in the east (I Kings 4:21).
Natural Divisions of the Land - Palestine naturally falls into four physical sections. From the Mediterranean Sean inland, are these areas: (1) The Maritime Plains are a lowland coastal region extending from Mt. Carmel in the north to Gaza in the south. This section averages about 9 to 16 miles in width. (2) The Western Highlands are a mountainous area extending from Galilee in the north, through Samaria and into Judea in the south. (3) The Jordan Valley is a deep cleavage which severs the land, dropping dramatically as it proceeds southward. it is some 1,700 feet above sea level at the source of the Jordan River (near Caesarea/Philippi) and almost 1,300 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea in the south. (4) The Eastern Tableland is a lofty plateau east of the Jordan. On an average its elevation is higher than the region west of the river.
Waters of Canaan - It is important that the Bible student have some knowledge of the major waters that are a part of this country. (1) The Mediterranean Sea, known as "the Great Sea" (Joshua 1:4), "the uttermost sea" (Deuteronomy 11:24), and the "sea of the Philistines" (Exodus 13:18) is the world's largest inland body of water. It is 2,300 miles from east to west and 1,200 miles from north to south. (2) The Jordan River (from the Hebrew word Yarden, "the descender") commences from several springs near Caesarea/Philippi in the north and winds some 200 miles southward (about 134 miles direct) on its journey to the Dead Sea. It averages 80 to 180 feet wide and from 5 to 12 feet deep and overall, drops some 3,000 feet in elevation. (3) The Sea of Galilee is about 55 miles south of the Jordan's source. It is designated in the Scriptures as: Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (N-S) by 7 miles (E-W). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet. (4) The Dead Sea, called the Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3), the Eastern Sea (Ezekiel (47:18) and the Sea of Arabah (Deuteronomy 3:17), is the lowest body of water on earth. It is 1,296 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 1,300 feet. The Sea is 48 miles long and 6 to 9 miles wide. Its evaporation rate is so great that its depth remains constant despite the continuous inflow of the Jordan River. It is about 25% solids.
Cities of the Land - It is not possible in a presentation this brief to discuss many of the communities of Canaan. However, we will mention a few.
Along the Mediterranean coast one should note the following.Gaza was the most southern of five Philistine cities. It was situated about 3 miles inland on the southwest coast of Philistia. Samson once carried off its city gates (Judges 16:1-3). Joppa is 45 miles up the coast from Gaza. It is the only natural harbor between Acco north of Mt. Carmel and the Egyptian frontier. Simon the tanner lived there (Acts 10:6). Caesarea is 23 miles south of Mt. Carmel (54 miles form Jerusalem). It was the Roman capital of Palestine and the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:1). Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician coastal cities about 35 and 60 miles respectively, north of Carmel. Jesus once visited this region (Matthew 15:21).
In the Western Highlands are several significant towns. Hebron is 19 miles SSW of Jerusalem, the highest community in the land at 3, 040 feet above sea level. Abraham's home was near this place (Genesis 13:18) and he was buried there. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus (Matthew 2:1), is located 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Famous Jerusalem is situated approximately 20 miles due west of the northern end of the Dead Sea and 33 miles to the east of the Mediterranean. It is also 133 miles from Damascus in Syria. It was David's capital city. Bethel was located about 11 miles north of Jerusalem. It was here that Jeroboam set up one of his golden calves (I Kings 12:29ff). Sycar was a small village on the main road from Jerusalem through Samaria, near Mt. Gerizim, a half mile north of Jacob's well (cf. John 4:5). Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, was located 42 miles north of Jerusalem. Nazareth, the boyhood home of the Lord (Luke 4:16) is located about 18 miles due west from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee (88 miles north of Jerusalem). Caesarea/Philippi lay at the base of Mt. Hermon, 120 miles north of Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13ff).
In the Jordan Valley, there are several cities of note. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the cities of the plain destroyed for their vile wickedness (Genesis 13:12). It is believed that these towns were located in the region now covered by the shallow waters of the southern end of the Dead Sea. En-gedi, where David hid from Saul (I Samuel 23:29), is on the west shore of the Dead Sea (about midway). Less than a mile from the NW corner of the Sea is Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Jericho was located about 5 miles from the north end of the Dead Sea, some 5 miles west of the Jordan River. It lies about 3,200 feet below Jerusalem, which is 17 miles to the southwest. Capernaum is located on the NW coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus used this town as the center for His Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 9:1).
Many other communities could be mentioned but these will suffice for the present. The diligent Bible student should learn the basic features and places of the land of Jesus if he wants to really appreciate the great story of redemption as such unfolds in ancient history.
The Land and the Book - There are many ways in which a knowledge of the lands of the Bible can enhance one's understanding of the events of sacred history. Let us consider a few of these.
1. After his great victory over the prophet Baal, Elijah ascended to the top of Mt. Carmel, bowed himself before the Lord and prayed for rain to end the parching 3 1/2 year drought (I Kings 18:42; James 5:8). The prophet informed King Ahab that he should leave the region of the mountain before the rain commenced. The king immediately departed for Jezreel, the place of his summer palace (I Kings 21:1). The Bible notes however, that Elijah, "girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel" (I Kings 18:46). The distance from Carmel to Jezreel at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, is some 16 miles. That is quite a distance to run ahead of a chariot. It is an interesting commentary on the rugged physical strength of God's prophet!
2. On the other hand, Elijah's spiritual stamina at this point was not so great. When Ahab told his evil wife Jezebel about how Elijah had slain the prophets of Baal, she vowed to take his life within a day. Accordingly, in a moment of panic, the prophet fled southward all the way to Beersheba, a distance of some 90 miles (possibly some 150 miles by the winding roads). At Beersheba, he left his servant and went another day's journey into the wilderness. After being refreshed by an angel, he pushed on another 200 miles until he finally came to Sinai where he lodged in a cave. God confronted him asking, "What are you doing here?" The point here is this: the intensity of Elijah's fear of Jezebel can only be appreciated in light of the distance he put between himself and that bloody woman!
3. Consider the case of Jonah. This prophet lived in the city of Gath-hepher (II Kings 14:25), located about 4 miles north of Nazareth. He was instructed of the Lord, "Arise, go to Nineveh..." (Jonah 1:2). Jehovah wanted the wickedness of that great city rebuked. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was situated on the bank of the Tigris River, some 500 miles east of Palestine. But Jonah did not want to do the Lord's bidding. It was not that he was afraid. Rather, as a patriot, he wanted to see Nineveh destroyed, not saved. So he journeyed 50 miles down to Joppa and from thence took a ship bound for Tarshish. Tarshish was an ancient Phoenician colony on the southwest coast of Spain, 2,000 miles west of Palestine. It was the farthest city to the west known at that time. The prophet thus intended to put some 2,500 miles between himself and Nineveh. But as know, God prepared a great fish and Jonah's itinerary was changed!
3. One recalls the Old Testament narrative concerning the twelve spies who surveyed the land of Canaan. While Israel was encamped at Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, the spies went through Palestine as far north at the, "entrance of Hamath" (Numbers 13:21). Look at a map which contains the region of Sinai and Canaan. From Kadesh to the entrance of Hamath is about 250 miles. Since the spies were gone for forty days, this means that they must have averaged 12.5 miles per day on this 500 mile round trip journey. If they traveled as much as twelve hours per day, they would have covered more than one mile per hour each day and remember, that involved mountainous terrain and spying activity along the way.
4. Can you imagine the reaction of a modern obstetrician if one of his patients in her ninth month of pregnancy should tell him that she planned to take a 93 mile trip, either walking or by means of a donkey? That is precisely what Mary did, "being great with child" (Luke 2:5) when she traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with Joseph for the taxation enrollment. Then, within a couple of weeks after the Lord's birth, Joseph, Mary and Jesus were forced to fell into Egypt 200 miles to the southwest in order to escape the wrath of Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Consider the strength of that magnificent woman! Reflect upon the providential care of Almighty God!
There are countless ways in which an understanding of Biblical geography enhances one's appreciation for the text of the Scriptures. A study of such matters will pay rich dividends for the student of sacred history.
Jehovah appeared to Abraham in Chaldea and said, "Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you" (Acts 7:3). That charge was later renewed (Genesis 12:1-3); thus did the patriarch finally arrive at his appointed destination, the land of Canaan.
It was not by accident that this parcel of earth was chosen by the Lord to be the homeland of the Hebrew people. It was a part of the divine plan in preparation for the coming of the Savior of the world. Four reasons can be suggested for the uniqueness of Palestine as a contributor to Heaven's redemptive plan.
First, Canaan was isolated by natural barriers from its regional neighbors. To the north are the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. In the east and south lie the burning sands of the Arabian and Nabatean deserts and to the west is the great Mediterranean Sea. Had the Israelites driven out the pagan tribes of Canaan as they were commissioned by Jehovah to do, they would have been fairly secure from the surrounding influences of paganism that eventually corrupted them.
Second, Palestine was a corridor of land trade routes connecting Europe, Asia Minor and the East (Mesopotamia, etc.) with Egypt. The antique caravans that passed through were thus touched with Israel's concept of the true God and the hope of the coming Messiah.
Third, the lush productivity of the land (cf. Numbers 13:23) permitted the Hebrews more leisure time for the development of the unique elements of their religion which was also a contributing factor in preparing humanity for the coming of Christ (cf. Galatians 3:24).
Fourth, the great variety of geographical features characteristic of Canaan, together with its plants, animals, etc., made this land an ideal place from whence to produce much of the Bible, thus accommodating the language forms of the Holy Writings to the understanding of people in all parts of the earth. It is well to remember that the Bible borrows much of its imagery from the land.
This small parcel of Middle Eastern real estate, which has been so important in world history, is variously designated in the Bible as the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), the land of Israel (Matthew 2:20), the land of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 30:20), the land of Promise (Hebrews 11:9), the holy land (Zechariah 2:12) and Palestine (Exodus 15:14); the latter term being a corrupted form of "Philistia."
The Size of the Land - Canaan (the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean) is about 150 miles from north to south and on an average, some 50 miles from east to west. It is smaller than the state of Massachusetts. The land of the twelve tribes, the region on both sides of the Jordan, is about 80 miles in breadth or about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined. Eventually, Solomon's empire (the land of "Promise") spanned the territory from the river of Egypt in the west to the Euphrates in the east (I Kings 4:21).
Natural Divisions of the Land - Palestine naturally falls into four physical sections. From the Mediterranean Sean inland, are these areas: (1) The Maritime Plains are a lowland coastal region extending from Mt. Carmel in the north to Gaza in the south. This section averages about 9 to 16 miles in width. (2) The Western Highlands are a mountainous area extending from Galilee in the north, through Samaria and into Judea in the south. (3) The Jordan Valley is a deep cleavage which severs the land, dropping dramatically as it proceeds southward. it is some 1,700 feet above sea level at the source of the Jordan River (near Caesarea/Philippi) and almost 1,300 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea in the south. (4) The Eastern Tableland is a lofty plateau east of the Jordan. On an average its elevation is higher than the region west of the river.
Waters of Canaan - It is important that the Bible student have some knowledge of the major waters that are a part of this country. (1) The Mediterranean Sea, known as "the Great Sea" (Joshua 1:4), "the uttermost sea" (Deuteronomy 11:24), and the "sea of the Philistines" (Exodus 13:18) is the world's largest inland body of water. It is 2,300 miles from east to west and 1,200 miles from north to south. (2) The Jordan River (from the Hebrew word Yarden, "the descender") commences from several springs near Caesarea/Philippi in the north and winds some 200 miles southward (about 134 miles direct) on its journey to the Dead Sea. It averages 80 to 180 feet wide and from 5 to 12 feet deep and overall, drops some 3,000 feet in elevation. (3) The Sea of Galilee is about 55 miles south of the Jordan's source. It is designated in the Scriptures as: Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (N-S) by 7 miles (E-W). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet. (4) The Dead Sea, called the Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3), the Eastern Sea (Ezekiel (47:18) and the Sea of Arabah (Deuteronomy 3:17), is the lowest body of water on earth. It is 1,296 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 1,300 feet. The Sea is 48 miles long and 6 to 9 miles wide. Its evaporation rate is so great that its depth remains constant despite the continuous inflow of the Jordan River. It is about 25% solids.
Cities of the Land - It is not possible in a presentation this brief to discuss many of the communities of Canaan. However, we will mention a few.
Along the Mediterranean coast one should note the following.Gaza was the most southern of five Philistine cities. It was situated about 3 miles inland on the southwest coast of Philistia. Samson once carried off its city gates (Judges 16:1-3). Joppa is 45 miles up the coast from Gaza. It is the only natural harbor between Acco north of Mt. Carmel and the Egyptian frontier. Simon the tanner lived there (Acts 10:6). Caesarea is 23 miles south of Mt. Carmel (54 miles form Jerusalem). It was the Roman capital of Palestine and the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:1). Tyre and Sidon were Phoenician coastal cities about 35 and 60 miles respectively, north of Carmel. Jesus once visited this region (Matthew 15:21).
In the Western Highlands are several significant towns. Hebron is 19 miles SSW of Jerusalem, the highest community in the land at 3, 040 feet above sea level. Abraham's home was near this place (Genesis 13:18) and he was buried there. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus (Matthew 2:1), is located 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Famous Jerusalem is situated approximately 20 miles due west of the northern end of the Dead Sea and 33 miles to the east of the Mediterranean. It is also 133 miles from Damascus in Syria. It was David's capital city. Bethel was located about 11 miles north of Jerusalem. It was here that Jeroboam set up one of his golden calves (I Kings 12:29ff). Sycar was a small village on the main road from Jerusalem through Samaria, near Mt. Gerizim, a half mile north of Jacob's well (cf. John 4:5). Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, was located 42 miles north of Jerusalem. Nazareth, the boyhood home of the Lord (Luke 4:16) is located about 18 miles due west from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee (88 miles north of Jerusalem). Caesarea/Philippi lay at the base of Mt. Hermon, 120 miles north of Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13ff).
In the Jordan Valley, there are several cities of note. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the cities of the plain destroyed for their vile wickedness (Genesis 13:12). It is believed that these towns were located in the region now covered by the shallow waters of the southern end of the Dead Sea. En-gedi, where David hid from Saul (I Samuel 23:29), is on the west shore of the Dead Sea (about midway). Less than a mile from the NW corner of the Sea is Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Jericho was located about 5 miles from the north end of the Dead Sea, some 5 miles west of the Jordan River. It lies about 3,200 feet below Jerusalem, which is 17 miles to the southwest. Capernaum is located on the NW coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus used this town as the center for His Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 9:1).
Many other communities could be mentioned but these will suffice for the present. The diligent Bible student should learn the basic features and places of the land of Jesus if he wants to really appreciate the great story of redemption as such unfolds in ancient history.
The Land and the Book - There are many ways in which a knowledge of the lands of the Bible can enhance one's understanding of the events of sacred history. Let us consider a few of these.
1. After his great victory over the prophet Baal, Elijah ascended to the top of Mt. Carmel, bowed himself before the Lord and prayed for rain to end the parching 3 1/2 year drought (I Kings 18:42; James 5:8). The prophet informed King Ahab that he should leave the region of the mountain before the rain commenced. The king immediately departed for Jezreel, the place of his summer palace (I Kings 21:1). The Bible notes however, that Elijah, "girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel" (I Kings 18:46). The distance from Carmel to Jezreel at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, is some 16 miles. That is quite a distance to run ahead of a chariot. It is an interesting commentary on the rugged physical strength of God's prophet!
2. On the other hand, Elijah's spiritual stamina at this point was not so great. When Ahab told his evil wife Jezebel about how Elijah had slain the prophets of Baal, she vowed to take his life within a day. Accordingly, in a moment of panic, the prophet fled southward all the way to Beersheba, a distance of some 90 miles (possibly some 150 miles by the winding roads). At Beersheba, he left his servant and went another day's journey into the wilderness. After being refreshed by an angel, he pushed on another 200 miles until he finally came to Sinai where he lodged in a cave. God confronted him asking, "What are you doing here?" The point here is this: the intensity of Elijah's fear of Jezebel can only be appreciated in light of the distance he put between himself and that bloody woman!
3. Consider the case of Jonah. This prophet lived in the city of Gath-hepher (II Kings 14:25), located about 4 miles north of Nazareth. He was instructed of the Lord, "Arise, go to Nineveh..." (Jonah 1:2). Jehovah wanted the wickedness of that great city rebuked. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was situated on the bank of the Tigris River, some 500 miles east of Palestine. But Jonah did not want to do the Lord's bidding. It was not that he was afraid. Rather, as a patriot, he wanted to see Nineveh destroyed, not saved. So he journeyed 50 miles down to Joppa and from thence took a ship bound for Tarshish. Tarshish was an ancient Phoenician colony on the southwest coast of Spain, 2,000 miles west of Palestine. It was the farthest city to the west known at that time. The prophet thus intended to put some 2,500 miles between himself and Nineveh. But as know, God prepared a great fish and Jonah's itinerary was changed!
3. One recalls the Old Testament narrative concerning the twelve spies who surveyed the land of Canaan. While Israel was encamped at Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, the spies went through Palestine as far north at the, "entrance of Hamath" (Numbers 13:21). Look at a map which contains the region of Sinai and Canaan. From Kadesh to the entrance of Hamath is about 250 miles. Since the spies were gone for forty days, this means that they must have averaged 12.5 miles per day on this 500 mile round trip journey. If they traveled as much as twelve hours per day, they would have covered more than one mile per hour each day and remember, that involved mountainous terrain and spying activity along the way.
4. Can you imagine the reaction of a modern obstetrician if one of his patients in her ninth month of pregnancy should tell him that she planned to take a 93 mile trip, either walking or by means of a donkey? That is precisely what Mary did, "being great with child" (Luke 2:5) when she traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem with Joseph for the taxation enrollment. Then, within a couple of weeks after the Lord's birth, Joseph, Mary and Jesus were forced to fell into Egypt 200 miles to the southwest in order to escape the wrath of Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Consider the strength of that magnificent woman! Reflect upon the providential care of Almighty God!
There are countless ways in which an understanding of Biblical geography enhances one's appreciation for the text of the Scriptures. A study of such matters will pay rich dividends for the student of sacred history.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Yes...Nondenominational Christianity
This is copied from The Gospel Teacher of July 22, 1973. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio and was edited by Grant B. Caldwell.
Many express confusion today over the various denominations. "Can I be a Christian without belonging to a denominational church" they ask.
In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations (divisions) as they now exist. The early followers of Jesus Christ were simply called Christians (Acts 11:26) and collectively, "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16). Both mean, "belonging to Christ." Religiously the apostles Paul, Peter and John were neither Protestant, Catholic nor Jew. They were Christians only.
These apostles, as well as all the saved were nondenominational Christians. This term should not be confused with the ideas of inter-denominational or all-denominational Christianity. They did not approve those of their day who tried to create divisions within the church which would have resulted in denominations. Instead, they strongly condemned such action by saying, "Let there be no division among you" (I Corinthians 1:10-13). Their allegiance was to Christ and to Him only. They were just Christians; simply those who were followers of Jesus, members of the church of Christ.
Certainly today if we follow Jesus Christ as they did, we too can be just Christians having, "like precious faith" with the apostles (II Peter 1:1). We then as they were, will be free from error and confusion of denominationalism. we can worship and serve God as simply and acceptably as they did. This has been the constant practice of the church of Christ from her beginning.
Yes, you can be a nondenominational Christian just as in the early days of the church by following only the teaching of the New Testament.
Many express confusion today over the various denominations. "Can I be a Christian without belonging to a denominational church" they ask.
In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations (divisions) as they now exist. The early followers of Jesus Christ were simply called Christians (Acts 11:26) and collectively, "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16). Both mean, "belonging to Christ." Religiously the apostles Paul, Peter and John were neither Protestant, Catholic nor Jew. They were Christians only.
These apostles, as well as all the saved were nondenominational Christians. This term should not be confused with the ideas of inter-denominational or all-denominational Christianity. They did not approve those of their day who tried to create divisions within the church which would have resulted in denominations. Instead, they strongly condemned such action by saying, "Let there be no division among you" (I Corinthians 1:10-13). Their allegiance was to Christ and to Him only. They were just Christians; simply those who were followers of Jesus, members of the church of Christ.
Certainly today if we follow Jesus Christ as they did, we too can be just Christians having, "like precious faith" with the apostles (II Peter 1:1). We then as they were, will be free from error and confusion of denominationalism. we can worship and serve God as simply and acceptably as they did. This has been the constant practice of the church of Christ from her beginning.
Yes, you can be a nondenominational Christian just as in the early days of the church by following only the teaching of the New Testament.
They Died - We Live
This was written by Joe. Fitch and appeared in the August 1969 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
Something dies to put food on your table. The price of every meal is the life of some plant or animal. Life is sustained by death. In awe, we thumb the pages of history reading of those who confessed Jesus as Christ. They were shackled in dungeons, slaughtered in arenas and tormented in the most horrible ways. Tradition claims that all the apostles except John fell as martyrs in the cause of Christ. It was a price paid so others could live. "So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (II Corinthians 4:12).
Another chapter in history tells of dedicated men who labored to translate and print the Bible. They were cruelly persecuted, killed and their bodies dishonored. All this so men could pick up their Bibles and read. They died; we live.
Recent decades witnessed men who burned themselves out carrying the gospel over this land. Their lamps burned late over open Bibles; dawn found them hard at work. Their pens were worn out writing what they learned. In volumes in my bookshelf stand the lives of selfless men; McGarvey, Lipscomb, Campbell. Life was poured out bringing life to men.
The scheme of redemption demanded Jesus' death for man's life. Remember Caiaphas' thoughtless comment. "...it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish" (John 11:50). Here the ridicule at the foot of the cross. "He saved others, Himself He cannot save" (Matthew 27:42). That is it exactly! Saving others meant sacrificing self. Jesus prayed, "...if it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." (Matthew 26:39). It was not possible to spare Him and save man too. He died; we live.
Consider our reaction if decrees against our service to God were issued today. How many Daniels could be found serving God, "as he did aforetime" (Daniel 6:10). Doubtless folk who quit when they are called an ugly name or when discipleship costs them something would not long endure with their lives at stake!
We had better prepare for, "...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Timothy 3:12). He did NOT say that all church members, but all who live godly. this is true in any age or country. Don't hunt persecution. Do right and the devil will find you. He does not have to worry with the hit and miss, now and then church member. Such already nauseate the Lord and have no good influence on anyone but Satan cannot ignore a godly man. He will try to destroy him. Our persecution maybe "sophisticated" (ridicule, financial and social reprisal) but don't discredit its impact. A wound to the wallet or pride may be more deadly than stripes on our back.
The martyr's block may never callus but we must die if we are to live with God. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20). The martyrs had already given away their lives. Living for Christ, we find courage to die for Him.
Something dies to put food on your table. The price of every meal is the life of some plant or animal. Life is sustained by death. In awe, we thumb the pages of history reading of those who confessed Jesus as Christ. They were shackled in dungeons, slaughtered in arenas and tormented in the most horrible ways. Tradition claims that all the apostles except John fell as martyrs in the cause of Christ. It was a price paid so others could live. "So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (II Corinthians 4:12).
Another chapter in history tells of dedicated men who labored to translate and print the Bible. They were cruelly persecuted, killed and their bodies dishonored. All this so men could pick up their Bibles and read. They died; we live.
Recent decades witnessed men who burned themselves out carrying the gospel over this land. Their lamps burned late over open Bibles; dawn found them hard at work. Their pens were worn out writing what they learned. In volumes in my bookshelf stand the lives of selfless men; McGarvey, Lipscomb, Campbell. Life was poured out bringing life to men.
The scheme of redemption demanded Jesus' death for man's life. Remember Caiaphas' thoughtless comment. "...it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish" (John 11:50). Here the ridicule at the foot of the cross. "He saved others, Himself He cannot save" (Matthew 27:42). That is it exactly! Saving others meant sacrificing self. Jesus prayed, "...if it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." (Matthew 26:39). It was not possible to spare Him and save man too. He died; we live.
Consider our reaction if decrees against our service to God were issued today. How many Daniels could be found serving God, "as he did aforetime" (Daniel 6:10). Doubtless folk who quit when they are called an ugly name or when discipleship costs them something would not long endure with their lives at stake!
We had better prepare for, "...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Timothy 3:12). He did NOT say that all church members, but all who live godly. this is true in any age or country. Don't hunt persecution. Do right and the devil will find you. He does not have to worry with the hit and miss, now and then church member. Such already nauseate the Lord and have no good influence on anyone but Satan cannot ignore a godly man. He will try to destroy him. Our persecution maybe "sophisticated" (ridicule, financial and social reprisal) but don't discredit its impact. A wound to the wallet or pride may be more deadly than stripes on our back.
The martyr's block may never callus but we must die if we are to live with God. "I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20). The martyrs had already given away their lives. Living for Christ, we find courage to die for Him.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Notes From the Margin of My Bible (1)
In November 1986, Wayne Jackson, the editor of the Christian Courier, began a column in that paper entitled "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." The entry copied below was the first of these columns. They are short yet insightful articles which I will continue to reproduce as I come across them. They were published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
For almost a third of a century I have had the habit of marking my Bible. I underline phrases, circle words, draw arrows and make a variety of helpful notations. For a long time I have thought about doing an occasional article entitled, "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." This is the first of such efforts.
In Genesis 1:14, Moses indicated that the luminaries of heaven were made for, "signs and for seasons and for days and years." I have circle the terms "days" and "years," thus calling attention to the Mosaic distinction between these two words in this creation context. Such a notation reminds me that this is clear evidence against the modern notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 are mere symbols for vast ages of time involving millions of years (a view designed to accommodate evolutionary chronology). Moses knew the difference between days and years!
God once said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7:3). This is a difficult verse by itself yet in the margin write: (See 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:34; 10:20). A comparison of these passages reveals that Jehovah did not arbitrarily harden the king's heart. Rather, several factors were involved. The Lord made demands upon Pharaoh that went against the monarch's selfish interests, hence in that sense God hardened his heart. On the other hand, the king resisted yielding to the divine command, thus, he hardened his own heart! The Egyptian magicians, by attempting to duplicate Moses' signs, added to Pharaoh's confusion. All of these considerations demonstrate that the evil ruler was responsible for his own conduct. He was not the victim of a capricious God!
For almost a third of a century I have had the habit of marking my Bible. I underline phrases, circle words, draw arrows and make a variety of helpful notations. For a long time I have thought about doing an occasional article entitled, "Notes From the Margin of My Bible." This is the first of such efforts.
In Genesis 1:14, Moses indicated that the luminaries of heaven were made for, "signs and for seasons and for days and years." I have circle the terms "days" and "years," thus calling attention to the Mosaic distinction between these two words in this creation context. Such a notation reminds me that this is clear evidence against the modern notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 are mere symbols for vast ages of time involving millions of years (a view designed to accommodate evolutionary chronology). Moses knew the difference between days and years!
God once said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7:3). This is a difficult verse by itself yet in the margin write: (See 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:34; 10:20). A comparison of these passages reveals that Jehovah did not arbitrarily harden the king's heart. Rather, several factors were involved. The Lord made demands upon Pharaoh that went against the monarch's selfish interests, hence in that sense God hardened his heart. On the other hand, the king resisted yielding to the divine command, thus, he hardened his own heart! The Egyptian magicians, by attempting to duplicate Moses' signs, added to Pharaoh's confusion. All of these considerations demonstrate that the evil ruler was responsible for his own conduct. He was not the victim of a capricious God!
The Mormon Church - A "Non-Prophet" Organization
This was written by Wayne Jackson and appeared in the August 1986 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
The ancient psalmist inquired, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). The Lord once told of a foolish man who built a house upon the sand, only to later see it come crashing down in a violent storm (Matthew 7:26). Obviously, no dwelling is any stronger than the foundation upon which it is constructed.
The church of Christ is grounded upon Jesus of Nazareth (I Corinthians 3:11) and the bedrock truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of god (cf. Matthew 16:16-18). Allow me to raise this question. What would be our plight should we learn that Jesus was not raised from the dead? Paul argues that we would be forced to conclude that our faith is vain and as a consequence, we are quite pitiable (I Corinthians 15:13-19). We should then be obliged to look elsewhere for the truth.
Though it has suffered some serious setbacks in recent years, the Mormon movement is an influential phenomenon in the west and apparently it is growing throughout the world. There are many admirable qualities about the Mormon people. They are hardworking, benevolent, generally moral and zealous in the propagation of their dogma. As commendable as these traits are, the brutal fact of the matter is, Mormonism was constructed upon a defective foundation. The system is therefore, a false one.
One of the books considered to be inspired by the Mormons is The Doctrine and Covenants, which purports to contain, "Revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet with additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church" (The Doctrines and Covenants, LDS Church, Salt Lake City, 1952, Title page). On April 6, 1830 when the Mormon church was being organized, Joseph Smith allegedly received a "revelation" which bound his followers to accept him as a prophet of God. It states, "...thou (the church) shalt give heed unto all his (Joesph Smith's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, waling in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C, 21:4-5). This is the very heart of Mormonism. Was Joseph Smith a genuine prophet? The validity of the Mormon system is determined by the answer to this query.
In this article, we will critically and honestly examine three of Joseph Smith's prophecies. First, in July of 1831, Smith gave a "revelation" to his disciples which asserted that the Mormon temple was to be built in Independence, Missouri. Hear him: "...in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion... Behold, the place which is now called Independence, is the center place, and a spot for the temple is lying westward upon a lot which is not far from the court house" (D&C, 57:1-3). More than two years later, Smith confirmed that "Zion" (Independence, Missouri) was to be the place; "neither shall there be any other place appointed" (D&C, 101:20). Further, in September of 1832, Smith declared that the, "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord..." (D&C, 84:4-5). More than 150 years have passed since these "prophecies" were uttered and they have miserably failed. Not one element has been fulfilled as any student of the Mormon movement well knows.
Second, in 1832 Smith claimed to have received certain revelations regarding the coming war between the states. The newspapers of the day of course, were filled with speculation concerning the possibility of a civil war (cf. J. D. Bales, The Testing of Joseph Smith, Jr., Pacific Publishing, p. 12). Here in part, is the prophecy. "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States and the nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." He further suggested that this conflict would ultimately result in, "a full end of all nations" (D&C, 87:3, 6). This "revelation" turned out to be blatantly false. Great Britain never entered the civil war, they never called upon other nations to defend them in connection with that war, the struggle between the states was not, "poured out upon all nations" and certainly the civil war did not lead to the, "full end of all nations." Finally, this question might be raised. If Joseph Smith had prophetic insight into the details of the civil war, why is it he never indicated what the final outcome would be as to the victor, North or South? He was strangely silent about that.
Third, during Smith's lifetime there was much speculation concerning the time of Christ's return. True to form, prophet Joseph contributed to the confusion. In April of 1843, Smith told his followers, "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter" (D&C, 130:14-15). Since Smith was born in 1805, this suggested that the Lord would come by the year 1891. this chronology is confirmed by an earlier statement that Smith had made. In 1835 Smith said, "...and it was the will of god that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even 56 years should wind up the scene" (History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Ed., Vol. II, p. 182). Again, 56 years from 1835 terminates the prophecy at 1891. Christ did not come in that year. As a prophet, Joseph Smith failed again.
15 centuries before the birth of Christ, Moses set forth the divine standard for determining the credibility of a prophet. "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. The Mormon church was erected upon a false foundation. Honest souls caught up in that movement should abandon it and accept the true gospel of the Son of God. As we have opportunity, may we instruct and encourage them to this end.
The ancient psalmist inquired, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). The Lord once told of a foolish man who built a house upon the sand, only to later see it come crashing down in a violent storm (Matthew 7:26). Obviously, no dwelling is any stronger than the foundation upon which it is constructed.
The church of Christ is grounded upon Jesus of Nazareth (I Corinthians 3:11) and the bedrock truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of god (cf. Matthew 16:16-18). Allow me to raise this question. What would be our plight should we learn that Jesus was not raised from the dead? Paul argues that we would be forced to conclude that our faith is vain and as a consequence, we are quite pitiable (I Corinthians 15:13-19). We should then be obliged to look elsewhere for the truth.
Though it has suffered some serious setbacks in recent years, the Mormon movement is an influential phenomenon in the west and apparently it is growing throughout the world. There are many admirable qualities about the Mormon people. They are hardworking, benevolent, generally moral and zealous in the propagation of their dogma. As commendable as these traits are, the brutal fact of the matter is, Mormonism was constructed upon a defective foundation. The system is therefore, a false one.
One of the books considered to be inspired by the Mormons is The Doctrine and Covenants, which purports to contain, "Revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet with additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church" (The Doctrines and Covenants, LDS Church, Salt Lake City, 1952, Title page). On April 6, 1830 when the Mormon church was being organized, Joseph Smith allegedly received a "revelation" which bound his followers to accept him as a prophet of God. It states, "...thou (the church) shalt give heed unto all his (Joesph Smith's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, waling in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C, 21:4-5). This is the very heart of Mormonism. Was Joseph Smith a genuine prophet? The validity of the Mormon system is determined by the answer to this query.
In this article, we will critically and honestly examine three of Joseph Smith's prophecies. First, in July of 1831, Smith gave a "revelation" to his disciples which asserted that the Mormon temple was to be built in Independence, Missouri. Hear him: "...in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion... Behold, the place which is now called Independence, is the center place, and a spot for the temple is lying westward upon a lot which is not far from the court house" (D&C, 57:1-3). More than two years later, Smith confirmed that "Zion" (Independence, Missouri) was to be the place; "neither shall there be any other place appointed" (D&C, 101:20). Further, in September of 1832, Smith declared that the, "temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord..." (D&C, 84:4-5). More than 150 years have passed since these "prophecies" were uttered and they have miserably failed. Not one element has been fulfilled as any student of the Mormon movement well knows.
Second, in 1832 Smith claimed to have received certain revelations regarding the coming war between the states. The newspapers of the day of course, were filled with speculation concerning the possibility of a civil war (cf. J. D. Bales, The Testing of Joseph Smith, Jr., Pacific Publishing, p. 12). Here in part, is the prophecy. "For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States and the nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." He further suggested that this conflict would ultimately result in, "a full end of all nations" (D&C, 87:3, 6). This "revelation" turned out to be blatantly false. Great Britain never entered the civil war, they never called upon other nations to defend them in connection with that war, the struggle between the states was not, "poured out upon all nations" and certainly the civil war did not lead to the, "full end of all nations." Finally, this question might be raised. If Joseph Smith had prophetic insight into the details of the civil war, why is it he never indicated what the final outcome would be as to the victor, North or South? He was strangely silent about that.
Third, during Smith's lifetime there was much speculation concerning the time of Christ's return. True to form, prophet Joseph contributed to the confusion. In April of 1843, Smith told his followers, "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter" (D&C, 130:14-15). Since Smith was born in 1805, this suggested that the Lord would come by the year 1891. this chronology is confirmed by an earlier statement that Smith had made. In 1835 Smith said, "...and it was the will of god that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even 56 years should wind up the scene" (History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, Ed., Vol. II, p. 182). Again, 56 years from 1835 terminates the prophecy at 1891. Christ did not come in that year. As a prophet, Joseph Smith failed again.
15 centuries before the birth of Christ, Moses set forth the divine standard for determining the credibility of a prophet. "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).
Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. The Mormon church was erected upon a false foundation. Honest souls caught up in that movement should abandon it and accept the true gospel of the Son of God. As we have opportunity, may we instruct and encourage them to this end.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Pre-Millennialism and Kingdom Propheicies
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the November 1983 Christian Courier. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
In chapter 2 of that remarkable book which bears his name, the prophet Daniel was chosen of God to interpret a dream for the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The dream involved a great image of four principal components; a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass and legs and feet of iron (the feet being partially clay). A stone, fashioned without hands, smote the image upon its feet and broke them in pieces. Eventually, the stone became a great mountain and filled the earth.
In his interpretation of the dream, Daniel noted that the image represented four empires. The head of gold was the Babylonian kingdom (2:37-38). After it another was to arise, which history reveals was the empire of the Medes and Persians (2:39; cf. 5:28). A third nation was to follow, that of the Greeks (2:39; cf. 8:20-21). Finally, a fourth kingdom would arise, symbolized by the legs and feet (2:40-41). It is very crucial to observe that only four empires are suggested by the image. The fourth (Roman) was to be partly strong and partly weak (legs of iron and feet of iron and clay) but it was the final kingdom of the dream and it signified but a single nation.
Well, of the time of the Roman empire, the prophet declared, "And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever" (2:44). Now it is a known historical fact that the Roman empire fell in 476 A.D. (though its weaknesses were discernible long before its demise). Accordingly, there are but three ways of viewing Daniel 2:44. First, the kingdom described is the church (Matthew 16:18-19) which was established during the days of the Roman empire (Luke 3:1). Second, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the millennial kingdom which the Lord will set up at His return. Hence, there must be a literal resurrection of the kings of the old Roman empire prior to Christ's advent. Or finally, Daniel was a false prophet. Obviously, those who have respect for the integrity of the Bible will reject number three. It is equally clear however, that number two is also patently false.
In his book Until - The Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom, millennialist Robert Shank contends that the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the Messiah's millennial reign which, he alleges, is to be set up in the not-too-distant future of our own generation (p. 316). But how could such a theory be harmonized with the plain historical fact that the Roman empire has been buried in the dust of oblivion for more than fifteen centuries?! Here is how the magic is performed. Shank claims that the "ten toes" of that great metallic image represent a "federation" of ten nations that are "fragments" of the old Roman kingdom. The nations are not necessarily to be literally resurrected, "but more especially nations which are the ideological and cultural heirs of the empire" (p. 113).
The theory is seriously flawed at several places. First, the indications of Daniel 2 are that God's kingdom is of a different nature than the political kingdoms with which it is contrasted. The heavenly kingdom, "cut out of the mountain without hands" (note how a similar expression is employed to stress the spiritual essence of the resurrected body in II Corinthians 5:1) was to be spiritual in nature (cf. John 6:15; 18:36; Luke 17:21). Second, Daniel's prophecy does not speak of the kingdom being established during the time of ten "nations" (plural) but rather, during the time of the "fourth kingdom" (singular, note the "it" in 2:40-41). Third, there is absolutely no indication that the "ten toes" of the image represent anything. They are not even mentioned! Perhaps the millennial advocates can tell us what the "ten fingers" of the two arms symbolize! Fourth, the Bible declares that God's kingdom would be set up, "in the days of those kings;" not merely in a time when their, "ideological and cultural heirs" would exercise influence. Such is a woeful mishandling of the Biblical text. Finally, it is quite clear that the "kingdom" of 2:44 was one that would stand forever, not merely for one thousand years! The pre-millennial concept of Daniel 2:44 is false!
In chapter 2 of that remarkable book which bears his name, the prophet Daniel was chosen of God to interpret a dream for the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The dream involved a great image of four principal components; a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass and legs and feet of iron (the feet being partially clay). A stone, fashioned without hands, smote the image upon its feet and broke them in pieces. Eventually, the stone became a great mountain and filled the earth.
In his interpretation of the dream, Daniel noted that the image represented four empires. The head of gold was the Babylonian kingdom (2:37-38). After it another was to arise, which history reveals was the empire of the Medes and Persians (2:39; cf. 5:28). A third nation was to follow, that of the Greeks (2:39; cf. 8:20-21). Finally, a fourth kingdom would arise, symbolized by the legs and feet (2:40-41). It is very crucial to observe that only four empires are suggested by the image. The fourth (Roman) was to be partly strong and partly weak (legs of iron and feet of iron and clay) but it was the final kingdom of the dream and it signified but a single nation.
Well, of the time of the Roman empire, the prophet declared, "And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever" (2:44). Now it is a known historical fact that the Roman empire fell in 476 A.D. (though its weaknesses were discernible long before its demise). Accordingly, there are but three ways of viewing Daniel 2:44. First, the kingdom described is the church (Matthew 16:18-19) which was established during the days of the Roman empire (Luke 3:1). Second, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the millennial kingdom which the Lord will set up at His return. Hence, there must be a literal resurrection of the kings of the old Roman empire prior to Christ's advent. Or finally, Daniel was a false prophet. Obviously, those who have respect for the integrity of the Bible will reject number three. It is equally clear however, that number two is also patently false.
In his book Until - The Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom, millennialist Robert Shank contends that the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is the Messiah's millennial reign which, he alleges, is to be set up in the not-too-distant future of our own generation (p. 316). But how could such a theory be harmonized with the plain historical fact that the Roman empire has been buried in the dust of oblivion for more than fifteen centuries?! Here is how the magic is performed. Shank claims that the "ten toes" of that great metallic image represent a "federation" of ten nations that are "fragments" of the old Roman kingdom. The nations are not necessarily to be literally resurrected, "but more especially nations which are the ideological and cultural heirs of the empire" (p. 113).
The theory is seriously flawed at several places. First, the indications of Daniel 2 are that God's kingdom is of a different nature than the political kingdoms with which it is contrasted. The heavenly kingdom, "cut out of the mountain without hands" (note how a similar expression is employed to stress the spiritual essence of the resurrected body in II Corinthians 5:1) was to be spiritual in nature (cf. John 6:15; 18:36; Luke 17:21). Second, Daniel's prophecy does not speak of the kingdom being established during the time of ten "nations" (plural) but rather, during the time of the "fourth kingdom" (singular, note the "it" in 2:40-41). Third, there is absolutely no indication that the "ten toes" of the image represent anything. They are not even mentioned! Perhaps the millennial advocates can tell us what the "ten fingers" of the two arms symbolize! Fourth, the Bible declares that God's kingdom would be set up, "in the days of those kings;" not merely in a time when their, "ideological and cultural heirs" would exercise influence. Such is a woeful mishandling of the Biblical text. Finally, it is quite clear that the "kingdom" of 2:44 was one that would stand forever, not merely for one thousand years! The pre-millennial concept of Daniel 2:44 is false!
Christ on David's Throne
In II Samuel 7:12-13, the prophet Nathan informed king David, "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." There is no question but that this prophecy ultimately refers to Christ (cf. Hebrews 1:5). The question is though, does it allude to the establishment of the Lord's spiritual kingdom, the church, and His enthronement at the right hand of God after His ascension, or does it denote an earthly, political regime wherein Christ reigns upon David's throne from Jerusalem? Erroneously, the millennialists contend the latter.
The truth of the matter is, II Samuel 7:12-13 simply cannot be forced into the mold of pre-millennial eschatology. Note: pre-millennialism alleges that when Christ returns to the earth, He will first raise all of the righteous dead (including David) and then, subsequent thereto, He will sit down to rule upon David's throne. This passage however, declares that the Lord will receive the throne and the kingdom while David is still asleep with his fathers. This is too soon for the pre-millennialists! Robert Shank makes a pitifully feeble response to this argument. "The passage affirms that the Messiah will reign on David's throne. But it does not require that he reign on David's throne while David remains in the grave. All that is required with respect to time to that David's Seed be 'set up' while David sleeps in his grave" (p. 33). That is amazing! The divine text says, ...you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you...and I will establish his kingdom..." By what rule of exegesis is it determined that the seed is to be "set up" while David sleeps in the grave but the kingdom will be established after he awakes, when the verbals are joined with the coordinating "and?" Shank would squeeze two thousand years into the comma between "body" and "and" in 2:12!
One of the problems of the millennialists is that they just will not let the New Testament be the interpreter of Old Testament prophecy. They have their own eschatological scheme mentally set and the Bible must be made to harmonize with that. The New Testament makes it quite plain that Jesus became heir to David's throne when He ascended to the Father's right hand.
The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she would bear the Christ child and that unto Him would be given, "the throne of His father David." He would, "reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). But when was this promise to be fulfilled? The pre-millennialists contend that it has not yet been fulfilled but its accomplishment awaits the return of Christ to the earth. The apostle Peter however, did not so view the matter. He declares in Acts 2:30ff that God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of David's loins would one be appointed to sit on David's throne. Having foreseen such (the enthronement of our Lord), David spoke of the Savior's resurrection (cf. Psalm 16:8ff). Unless one is totally blinded by a preconceived theory, he could scarcely fail to see the chronological connection between the Lord's resurrection and His exaltation to David's throne. In fact, after affirming Christ's resurrection, the apostle says, "Being therefore, by the right hand of God exalted..." (2:33). Well, what was He doing at the right hand of God? Sitting (v. 34)! Was He sitting where He had been raised "to sit" (v. 30)? Yes! Where was that? On David's throne! Now what about that is so difficult to see?
A further point for consideration of this matter is this. In connection with his argument that Jesus was exalted to David's throne at the right hand of God, Peter quotes Psalm 110. "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" This great psalm, as every serious student knows, speaks of Christ's dual roles of king and priest which, as the prophet Zechariah observes, were to be filled simultaneously (6:12-13). Now Robert Shank admits that the Lord was raised from the dead for the purpose of sitting on David's throne but he contends that the, "assumption of (Christ to) the throne of David need not immediately follow His resurrection" (p. 33). He alleges that the Savior's occupation of that throne has been delayed two thousand years! Well, if that is the case, then Christ's function as priest has also been delayed for two millennia and we are without remission of sins!
There is another passage that we should study in this connection. In Isaiah 55:3, the prophet foretold of the coming of an, "everlasting covenant" which is described as, "the sure mercies of David." This is an obvious allusion to the promise made to David in II Samuel 7:12-13 and Psalm 89:3-4. Though pre-millennialists misapply these prophecies to that alleged yet future, political kingdom on earth (Shank, p. 84), the inspired Paul in Acts 13:32 and following, shows that God, "has fulfilled" (the perfect tense reveals that the fulfillment had already been accomplished and the results were continuing) the, "good tidings of the promise made unto our fathers" which included the, "holy and sure blessings of David." This had been accomplished by the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent proclamation of remission of sins in His name. F. F. Bruce says, "Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of the 'sure mercies' or 'holy and sure blessings' promised to David" (The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, p. 270). Again, the question is paramount. Will we let inspired New Testament spokesmen interpret the Old Testament prophecies for us?
The truth of the matter is, II Samuel 7:12-13 simply cannot be forced into the mold of pre-millennial eschatology. Note: pre-millennialism alleges that when Christ returns to the earth, He will first raise all of the righteous dead (including David) and then, subsequent thereto, He will sit down to rule upon David's throne. This passage however, declares that the Lord will receive the throne and the kingdom while David is still asleep with his fathers. This is too soon for the pre-millennialists! Robert Shank makes a pitifully feeble response to this argument. "The passage affirms that the Messiah will reign on David's throne. But it does not require that he reign on David's throne while David remains in the grave. All that is required with respect to time to that David's Seed be 'set up' while David sleeps in his grave" (p. 33). That is amazing! The divine text says, ...you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you...and I will establish his kingdom..." By what rule of exegesis is it determined that the seed is to be "set up" while David sleeps in the grave but the kingdom will be established after he awakes, when the verbals are joined with the coordinating "and?" Shank would squeeze two thousand years into the comma between "body" and "and" in 2:12!
One of the problems of the millennialists is that they just will not let the New Testament be the interpreter of Old Testament prophecy. They have their own eschatological scheme mentally set and the Bible must be made to harmonize with that. The New Testament makes it quite plain that Jesus became heir to David's throne when He ascended to the Father's right hand.
The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she would bear the Christ child and that unto Him would be given, "the throne of His father David." He would, "reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). But when was this promise to be fulfilled? The pre-millennialists contend that it has not yet been fulfilled but its accomplishment awaits the return of Christ to the earth. The apostle Peter however, did not so view the matter. He declares in Acts 2:30ff that God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of David's loins would one be appointed to sit on David's throne. Having foreseen such (the enthronement of our Lord), David spoke of the Savior's resurrection (cf. Psalm 16:8ff). Unless one is totally blinded by a preconceived theory, he could scarcely fail to see the chronological connection between the Lord's resurrection and His exaltation to David's throne. In fact, after affirming Christ's resurrection, the apostle says, "Being therefore, by the right hand of God exalted..." (2:33). Well, what was He doing at the right hand of God? Sitting (v. 34)! Was He sitting where He had been raised "to sit" (v. 30)? Yes! Where was that? On David's throne! Now what about that is so difficult to see?
A further point for consideration of this matter is this. In connection with his argument that Jesus was exalted to David's throne at the right hand of God, Peter quotes Psalm 110. "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" This great psalm, as every serious student knows, speaks of Christ's dual roles of king and priest which, as the prophet Zechariah observes, were to be filled simultaneously (6:12-13). Now Robert Shank admits that the Lord was raised from the dead for the purpose of sitting on David's throne but he contends that the, "assumption of (Christ to) the throne of David need not immediately follow His resurrection" (p. 33). He alleges that the Savior's occupation of that throne has been delayed two thousand years! Well, if that is the case, then Christ's function as priest has also been delayed for two millennia and we are without remission of sins!
There is another passage that we should study in this connection. In Isaiah 55:3, the prophet foretold of the coming of an, "everlasting covenant" which is described as, "the sure mercies of David." This is an obvious allusion to the promise made to David in II Samuel 7:12-13 and Psalm 89:3-4. Though pre-millennialists misapply these prophecies to that alleged yet future, political kingdom on earth (Shank, p. 84), the inspired Paul in Acts 13:32 and following, shows that God, "has fulfilled" (the perfect tense reveals that the fulfillment had already been accomplished and the results were continuing) the, "good tidings of the promise made unto our fathers" which included the, "holy and sure blessings of David." This had been accomplished by the resurrection of Christ and the subsequent proclamation of remission of sins in His name. F. F. Bruce says, "Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of the 'sure mercies' or 'holy and sure blessings' promised to David" (The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, p. 270). Again, the question is paramount. Will we let inspired New Testament spokesmen interpret the Old Testament prophecies for us?
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Is The "Restoration Plea" Valid?
This was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the May 1986 Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson. It is well worth the time spent reading it.
There are two basic attitudes relative to the Christian religion. One disposition affirms that Jehovah, across several millennia of history, meticulously prepared for the advent of Christ and the spiritual system which He would inaugurate.It argues that Christianity, as such existed in the first century under the guidance of inspired teachers, was exactly what God intended it to be. Moreover, this view asserts that this divine plan as designed by the eternal and omniscient Creator, would be perpetually relevant, thus age lasting (cf. Daniel 2:44). Those who advocate this view maintain that if the world is ever to be saved, it must conform to the mold of Christianity, not the reverse (cf. Romans 12:2).
On the other hand, there is the theory that the Christian religion was never designed to be static. Proponents of this concept allege that beyond a few minimal components (e.g., the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for the sins of humanity) Christianity is free to "change" with the times. It may adapt to various cultures. Its "forms" may be altered to meet the whims of new generations. The Christian philosophy is thus free to experience an "evolutionary" development. Hence it is suggested, the Christianity of today may be vastly different from that of the first century yet still have Heaven's approval.
As to the validity of these two ideologies, the first represents the position of the Bible. The second has no Scriptural bases whatsoever. Amazingly however, it is advanced by a vast number of people who profess respect for Jesus Christ.
It is not surprising that society finds the "new Christianity" so appealing. We have been brainwashed to believe that everything new is better. Almost every product in stores carries the claim, "new and improved." The reasoning thus is, why is not the same principle true in religion? Why not have a new and improved Christianity?
As secular influences conditioned society's thinking in this wrong headed direction, religion was making its contribution as well. The theologians of Catholicism have long contended that the church has the option of evolving with time and culture. Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of Romanism's most influential writers, declared that, "the Church" has the right to alter its practices in the interest of converting the pagan. He conceded that the use of such items as incense, holy water, sacerdotal vestments, etc., are "all of pagan origin" but their use is acceptable for they are, "sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373). For a further discussion of this point, see John Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 105). The Catholic Church makes no apology for the fact that it can modify its doctrine as times change. Do you remember when it was considered a sin to eat meat on Friday?
The Protestant sects, in actual practice, subscribe to a similar "evolutionary Christianity." For example, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward Hiscox states, "It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but 'one Lord, one faith and one baptism,' and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, 'baptism was the door into the church.' Now it is different..." (American Baptist Publication Society, 1951, p. 22). Why is it different? Who made it so? Certainly not God! Rather, it was presumptuous men who felt they were empowered with the authority to overhaul the divine plan.
Not only has "Christendom" contended that it is permissible to change the original forms and ceremonies of New Testament doctrine, it has even radically altered its concept of morality. Several decades ago there could not be found a solitary religious body even remotely professing Christianity, that would endorse the sing of homosexuality. Now, the religious defenders of sodomy are disgustingly numerous. But why not? If Christianity can be redesigned with reference to it religious dogma, why can't its moral attitudes be amended as well?
Our own brotherhood is not without some problems in this matter. Whereas we once proudly sounded forth the restoration plea, i.e., we sought to call our fellows back to the pristine simplicity of primitive Christianity, voices of dissent are not questioning the validity of such an approach.Some, like Don White, editor of The Exegete, openly doubt that, "primitive Christianity is the normative pattern for all ages." White declares, "Nowhere does the New Testament provide explicit Scriptural basis for a restoration principle. No text explicitly states that later generations should follow the primitive church or restore it." White asserts, "Pattern theology is not supported linguistically by the New Testament." This disposition which appears to be gaining momentum within our fellowship, reflects a sad condition in the kingdom of Christ.
The fact of the matter is, the Bible plainly teaches that when God Almighty establishes a system of religion, its obligations are to remain precisely intact for as long as it is designed to last and no man has the authority to modify it. Such was true of the Mosaic economy until God Himself abolished that regime (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14) and it is no less true of the Christian way which is to abide until the end of time (Matthew 28:18-20). Let us consider evidence from both of these areas.
During the Mosaic period, the Lord charged Israel with rigid accountability to the law. "You shall observe to do therefore as Jehovah your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the way which Jehovah your God commanded you that you may live, and that it may be well with you..." (Deuteronomy 5:32-33). Again, hear the law: "You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. Proverbs 30:6).
Under the Old Testament economy, departure from the divinely ordered plan was severely censured. Surely no clearer example of this principle can be found than that of Rehoboam, the first king of northern Israel. His apostasy from the law of Moses is carefully detailed in I Kings 13. Instead of honoring Jehovah without the aid of a graven image (cf. Exodus 20:4), he set up golden calves through which to reverence the Lord (cf. I Kings 13:28; Exodus 32:4-5). Rather than worshiping at Jerusalem, Bethel and Dan became the centers of Israelite service. The priesthood was not confined to the tribe of Levi. Rather, the priests were taken from among all the people. The feast of tabernacles was changed from the 15th day of the 7th month to the 15th day of the 8th month.
Now some would see very little if any harm in such "minor" changes in the Mosaic plan. God's attitude however, was considerably different. Some twenty one times the Old Testament mentions that Jeroboam, "made Israel to sin" (cf. I Kings 14:16).
One of the truly thrilling Old Testament accounts is that of II Kings 22-23 wherein Hilkiah the high priest discovered a copy of the law in the rubble of the temple. When the testimony of the scroll revealed a glaring digression on the part of Israel, king Josiah proclaimed a dramatic restoration back to the law (II Kings 23:3). As a consequence of his great administration, the inspired writer says of Josiah, "And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might according to all the law of Moses..." (II Kings 23:25). Clearly Josiah labored under the conviction a, "restoration plea" was valid and that his people should return to the demands of the divine system.
And what of Jeremiah's declaration in an era when Israel was deep in apostasy: "Thus says the Lord; 'Stand in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where the good way is and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.'" But as it was then, so it is today. Some declare, "We will not walk in it" (Jeremiah 6:16).
In the New Testament scores of passages demand adherence to the divine pattern. Consider the following.
1. The early church is commended for, "continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Moreover, as a consequence of such, "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32). These passages suggest a unity of practice in religion.
2. Paul reminded the brethren in Rome that they had been made, "free from sin" due to the fact that they had been obedient to a certain, "form (pattern) of teaching (Romans 6:17-18). That is a pattern of theology.
3. The saints in Rome were admonished to, "mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them" (Romans 16:17). If there is no set pattern of New Testament doctrine, how could one ever be required to, "turn away from" those who do not practice it?
4. The inspired Paul taught those at Corinth that they were not to go, "beyond the things which are written" (I Corinthians 4:6). This clearly shows that spiritual activity is circumscribed by the Word.
5. To the brethren at Thessalonica and also to Timothy, Paul warned of a, "falling away" indeed, a "departure from the faith" (II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1ff; II Timothy 4:1ff). The expression, "of the faith" denotes that body of doctrine proclaimed by inspired teachers (cf. Galatians 1:23; Jude 3). If the church has the option of continually modifying Biblical truth, how could one ever fall away from the faith?
6. The apostle informed Timothy that there is a, "pattern of sound words" (II Timothy 1:13) and the young evangelist was to abide in the things he had learned from Paul (II Timothy 3:14). Timothy was to commit that same truth to other faithful brethren (II Timothy 2:2) and charge men not to teach a, "different doctrine" (I Timothy 1:13). Paul states that those who digress from the, "sound words" are merely, "puffed up, knowing nothing" (I Timothy 6:3-4).
7. The writer of Hebrews affirms that Moses, in constructing the tabernacle, was warned by God that he must, "make all things according to the pattern" which was shown to him at Horeb (Hebrews 8:5). Do we, as recipients of the, "better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6) have a lesser responsibility as we minister to God in His church, of which the tabernacle was but a type (cf. Hebrews 9:1-10)? It is unbelievable that anyone would even suggest such!
8. John plainly declares that those who go beyond the, "doctrine of Christ" have no fellowship with God (II John 9).
In view of the foregoing passages (and a host of others), the notion of an "evolutionary church," a sort of plastic Christianity is demonstrated to be totally false. The plea for a restoration of first century religion is valid. It is thoroughly Biblical and those who repudiate it have sorely drifted from the Holy Scriptures.
There are two basic attitudes relative to the Christian religion. One disposition affirms that Jehovah, across several millennia of history, meticulously prepared for the advent of Christ and the spiritual system which He would inaugurate.It argues that Christianity, as such existed in the first century under the guidance of inspired teachers, was exactly what God intended it to be. Moreover, this view asserts that this divine plan as designed by the eternal and omniscient Creator, would be perpetually relevant, thus age lasting (cf. Daniel 2:44). Those who advocate this view maintain that if the world is ever to be saved, it must conform to the mold of Christianity, not the reverse (cf. Romans 12:2).
On the other hand, there is the theory that the Christian religion was never designed to be static. Proponents of this concept allege that beyond a few minimal components (e.g., the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for the sins of humanity) Christianity is free to "change" with the times. It may adapt to various cultures. Its "forms" may be altered to meet the whims of new generations. The Christian philosophy is thus free to experience an "evolutionary" development. Hence it is suggested, the Christianity of today may be vastly different from that of the first century yet still have Heaven's approval.
As to the validity of these two ideologies, the first represents the position of the Bible. The second has no Scriptural bases whatsoever. Amazingly however, it is advanced by a vast number of people who profess respect for Jesus Christ.
It is not surprising that society finds the "new Christianity" so appealing. We have been brainwashed to believe that everything new is better. Almost every product in stores carries the claim, "new and improved." The reasoning thus is, why is not the same principle true in religion? Why not have a new and improved Christianity?
As secular influences conditioned society's thinking in this wrong headed direction, religion was making its contribution as well. The theologians of Catholicism have long contended that the church has the option of evolving with time and culture. Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of Romanism's most influential writers, declared that, "the Church" has the right to alter its practices in the interest of converting the pagan. He conceded that the use of such items as incense, holy water, sacerdotal vestments, etc., are "all of pagan origin" but their use is acceptable for they are, "sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373). For a further discussion of this point, see John Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 105). The Catholic Church makes no apology for the fact that it can modify its doctrine as times change. Do you remember when it was considered a sin to eat meat on Friday?
The Protestant sects, in actual practice, subscribe to a similar "evolutionary Christianity." For example, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward Hiscox states, "It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but 'one Lord, one faith and one baptism,' and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, 'baptism was the door into the church.' Now it is different..." (American Baptist Publication Society, 1951, p. 22). Why is it different? Who made it so? Certainly not God! Rather, it was presumptuous men who felt they were empowered with the authority to overhaul the divine plan.
Not only has "Christendom" contended that it is permissible to change the original forms and ceremonies of New Testament doctrine, it has even radically altered its concept of morality. Several decades ago there could not be found a solitary religious body even remotely professing Christianity, that would endorse the sing of homosexuality. Now, the religious defenders of sodomy are disgustingly numerous. But why not? If Christianity can be redesigned with reference to it religious dogma, why can't its moral attitudes be amended as well?
Our own brotherhood is not without some problems in this matter. Whereas we once proudly sounded forth the restoration plea, i.e., we sought to call our fellows back to the pristine simplicity of primitive Christianity, voices of dissent are not questioning the validity of such an approach.Some, like Don White, editor of The Exegete, openly doubt that, "primitive Christianity is the normative pattern for all ages." White declares, "Nowhere does the New Testament provide explicit Scriptural basis for a restoration principle. No text explicitly states that later generations should follow the primitive church or restore it." White asserts, "Pattern theology is not supported linguistically by the New Testament." This disposition which appears to be gaining momentum within our fellowship, reflects a sad condition in the kingdom of Christ.
The fact of the matter is, the Bible plainly teaches that when God Almighty establishes a system of religion, its obligations are to remain precisely intact for as long as it is designed to last and no man has the authority to modify it. Such was true of the Mosaic economy until God Himself abolished that regime (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14) and it is no less true of the Christian way which is to abide until the end of time (Matthew 28:18-20). Let us consider evidence from both of these areas.
During the Mosaic period, the Lord charged Israel with rigid accountability to the law. "You shall observe to do therefore as Jehovah your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the way which Jehovah your God commanded you that you may live, and that it may be well with you..." (Deuteronomy 5:32-33). Again, hear the law: "You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. Proverbs 30:6).
Under the Old Testament economy, departure from the divinely ordered plan was severely censured. Surely no clearer example of this principle can be found than that of Rehoboam, the first king of northern Israel. His apostasy from the law of Moses is carefully detailed in I Kings 13. Instead of honoring Jehovah without the aid of a graven image (cf. Exodus 20:4), he set up golden calves through which to reverence the Lord (cf. I Kings 13:28; Exodus 32:4-5). Rather than worshiping at Jerusalem, Bethel and Dan became the centers of Israelite service. The priesthood was not confined to the tribe of Levi. Rather, the priests were taken from among all the people. The feast of tabernacles was changed from the 15th day of the 7th month to the 15th day of the 8th month.
Now some would see very little if any harm in such "minor" changes in the Mosaic plan. God's attitude however, was considerably different. Some twenty one times the Old Testament mentions that Jeroboam, "made Israel to sin" (cf. I Kings 14:16).
One of the truly thrilling Old Testament accounts is that of II Kings 22-23 wherein Hilkiah the high priest discovered a copy of the law in the rubble of the temple. When the testimony of the scroll revealed a glaring digression on the part of Israel, king Josiah proclaimed a dramatic restoration back to the law (II Kings 23:3). As a consequence of his great administration, the inspired writer says of Josiah, "And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might according to all the law of Moses..." (II Kings 23:25). Clearly Josiah labored under the conviction a, "restoration plea" was valid and that his people should return to the demands of the divine system.
And what of Jeremiah's declaration in an era when Israel was deep in apostasy: "Thus says the Lord; 'Stand in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where the good way is and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.'" But as it was then, so it is today. Some declare, "We will not walk in it" (Jeremiah 6:16).
In the New Testament scores of passages demand adherence to the divine pattern. Consider the following.
1. The early church is commended for, "continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Moreover, as a consequence of such, "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32). These passages suggest a unity of practice in religion.
2. Paul reminded the brethren in Rome that they had been made, "free from sin" due to the fact that they had been obedient to a certain, "form (pattern) of teaching (Romans 6:17-18). That is a pattern of theology.
3. The saints in Rome were admonished to, "mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them" (Romans 16:17). If there is no set pattern of New Testament doctrine, how could one ever be required to, "turn away from" those who do not practice it?
4. The inspired Paul taught those at Corinth that they were not to go, "beyond the things which are written" (I Corinthians 4:6). This clearly shows that spiritual activity is circumscribed by the Word.
5. To the brethren at Thessalonica and also to Timothy, Paul warned of a, "falling away" indeed, a "departure from the faith" (II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1ff; II Timothy 4:1ff). The expression, "of the faith" denotes that body of doctrine proclaimed by inspired teachers (cf. Galatians 1:23; Jude 3). If the church has the option of continually modifying Biblical truth, how could one ever fall away from the faith?
6. The apostle informed Timothy that there is a, "pattern of sound words" (II Timothy 1:13) and the young evangelist was to abide in the things he had learned from Paul (II Timothy 3:14). Timothy was to commit that same truth to other faithful brethren (II Timothy 2:2) and charge men not to teach a, "different doctrine" (I Timothy 1:13). Paul states that those who digress from the, "sound words" are merely, "puffed up, knowing nothing" (I Timothy 6:3-4).
7. The writer of Hebrews affirms that Moses, in constructing the tabernacle, was warned by God that he must, "make all things according to the pattern" which was shown to him at Horeb (Hebrews 8:5). Do we, as recipients of the, "better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6) have a lesser responsibility as we minister to God in His church, of which the tabernacle was but a type (cf. Hebrews 9:1-10)? It is unbelievable that anyone would even suggest such!
8. John plainly declares that those who go beyond the, "doctrine of Christ" have no fellowship with God (II John 9).
In view of the foregoing passages (and a host of others), the notion of an "evolutionary church," a sort of plastic Christianity is demonstrated to be totally false. The plea for a restoration of first century religion is valid. It is thoroughly Biblical and those who repudiate it have sorely drifted from the Holy Scriptures.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The Languages of the Bible
Wayne Jackson is the author of this article. It appeared in the Christian Courier of April 1986. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
The original languages of the Bible are three: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. If one wishes to be a careful student of the Scriptures, he will want to do some research concerning the Biblical languages, always keeping in mind that Jehovah chose words as the medium of His special revelation to mankind.
Hebrew - The Hebrew of the Old Testament is a Semitic language (so called by modern scholars after the name of Shem, Noah's oldest son). Both Hebrew and Aramaic are a part of the northwestern group of these tongues and were employed mainly in Syria, Lebanon and Israel. It is believed that Hebrew came from the Canaanite language. The Old Testament refers to its language in two ways. It is called the, "language in Canaan" (Isaiah 19:18) and the, "Jews' language" (cf. II Kings 18:26, 28; Nehemiah 13:24; Isaiah 36:11). It is not referred to as "Hebrew" until around 130 B.C. In the New Testament it is called "Hebrew" in John 5:2; 19:13 and Acts 21:40.
The Hebrew language was written in a script composed of 22 consonants (from right to left) and it extends back to at least 1500 B.C. Most Hebrew nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs consisted of only three consonants. Before the middle of the first millennium A.D., the Old Testament text was written without vowels or diacritical marks. Eventually though, vowels were added because the ancients were fearful of losing the ability to pronounce the words as the language became more classical and the texts were no longer those of a living, spoken tongue. Some good examples of early Hebrew writing are to be found on the Moabite Stone, the Gezer Calendar, etc.
Due to the fact that the original Hebrew was strictly consonantal, some words are difficult to define with certainty. For example, the Genesis record says, "Now Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors" (Genesis 37:3). The sentence contains the expression Ketoneth passiym. The first word is clearly "coat" but the second term is very rare. Scholars have suggested that it may mean, "with long sleeves," "with much embroidery," "of choice wool" or the traditional, "of many colors." But no one knows for sure.
The imagery of the Hebrew language is largely drawn from the activities and things of everyday life. It abounds with a variety of common figures of speech; parables, similes, metaphors, etc. As with other Semitic languages, Hebrew contains frequent anthropomorphic expressions, e.g., the, "eyes of the Lord." Any attempt to literalize these figures (as Mormon writers do when they suggest that God is a "man") is the reflection of woeful ignorance.
Aramaic - Aramaic is a close cognate language (actually a group of Semitic dialects) of Hebrew. The oldest extra-Biblical example may be the Melqart stele (9th century B.C.) which mentions the warfare between Ben-hadad of Syria and Israel. Though Hebrew remained the "sacred" tongue of the Jews, they like others in the Middle East, began using vernacular Aramaic for everyday conversation and writing sometime after the 6th century B.C. In the first century A.D., Aramaic, in one dialect or another, was the common daily tongue of the Palestinian Jews though it is probable that many Jews also spoke Hebrew and Greek.
In the New Testament a number of Aramaic expressions are transliterated into Greek, e.g., Talith qumi, "Maiden arise!" and Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?" "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (cf. Mark 5:41; 15:34). In the New Testament epistles there are several Aramaic words such as Abba (Galatians 4:6) and Maranatha (I Corinthians 16:22).
Some minor portions of the Old Testament were penned in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:46-7:28 and two words in Genesis 31:47). Liberal scholars have contended that the Aramaic of the Bible is of late date, hence those works of the Old Testament containing this dialect (mainly Daniel and Ezra) were thus composed much later than the periods traditionally assigned to them. However, Aramaic papyri, every similar to these works, have been discovered at Elephantine, Egypt which date to the 5th century B.C. The critical charges are thus shown to be valueless.
In passing, we might note that there are also some, "loan words" within certain appropriate historical contexts which appear to be borrowed from other languages. The term "magicians" (hartummim) in Genesis 41:8 seems to be an Egyptian term. It probably refers to certain priests who had learned sacred writings and rituals at the temple schools. The word tirshatha (Ezra 2:63: Nehemiah 8:9) is of Persian origin, somewhat equivalent to "His Excellency." It denoted one whose principal function was to assess and collect taxes (cf. Nehemiah 7:70; Ezra 1:8).
Greek - The Greek language has passed through several major periods of change. The New Testament was composed during that era known as the Koine age. This was a period of universal or common Greek. The Greek language was freely spoken throughout the antique world in that span from about 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. Koine was the normal street language of in Rome, Alexandria, Athens and Jerusalem. When the Romans finally conquered the Greeks, it was Greek influence that flowed throughout the empire. Augustus, the emperor of Rome, inscribed his seal in Greek. Paul, writing to the saints in Rome, the capital city of the empire, sent his message in Greek, not Latin!
G. L. Archer has noted that, "Greek was the most ideally adapted linguistic medium for the worldwide communication of the Gospel in the entire region of the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and the near East. Accurate in expression, beautiful in sound and capable of great rhetorical force, it furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God's message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races. It is highly significant that the 'fulness of times,' the first advent of Christ, was deferred until such time as Greek opened up channels of communication to all the Gentile nations east of Italy and Libya on a level not previously possible under the multilingual situation that previously prevailed" (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, III, p. 870).
In the 17th century some authorities contended that the language of the New Testament was on par with the Greek of the classical period. Later, some scholars argued that New Testament Greek was of a special variety, a, "language of the Holy Ghost" so to speak. Others contended that this was not the case. Adolf Deissmann argued that the New Testament was framed in, "colloquial Greek" i.e., the language of the common people. Scholars like A. T. Robertson supported this view. In recent years however, a more balanced concept has arisen. It is now recognized that a variety of sources paved the way for the coming of the language of the New Testament.
The literature of the classical period made a contribution. The Hebrew Old Testament played a part. The Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament) left a strong influence upon the New Testament (cf. Arndt & Gingrich, Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. xviii). Moreover, there is much to be learned from the ordinary records of the first century; the papyri (writings on papyrus), the ostraca (notations on pottery fragments) and other inscriptions such as on coins. These shed much light on the New Testament.
Finally though, it must be recognized that the inspired writers of the New Testament took words which were common to their age and employed them in a far loftier sense than any to which the world had ever put them before. To use the description of Nigel Turner, many New Testament words, "acquire a deeper sense and a new consecration with the Christian vocabulary" (Christian Words, p. x). Take for instance the word charis, or "grace." It is an old Greek term derived from the verb chairo, "to rejoice." The Greeks used it for beauty, the grace of the physical form, favor, gratitude, etc. Anyone familiar with the New Testament however, is certainly aware that the divine writers have taken this term and endowed it with a special flavor. It, among other things, denotes God's great love as revealed in His redemptive plan and that in spite of man's unworthiness. Any who so wills to, can reach out (through obedience to the divine plan) and accept Heaven's grace (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9; II Corinthians 6:1; Titus 2:11-12).
In conclusion, we may note that there were providentially directed historical influences and also divinely inspired guidance in the formation of the books of the sacred Scriptures. Those who expend the time and energy (and expense in study tools) inquiring into these matters will be greatly rewarded for their diligence.
The original languages of the Bible are three: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. If one wishes to be a careful student of the Scriptures, he will want to do some research concerning the Biblical languages, always keeping in mind that Jehovah chose words as the medium of His special revelation to mankind.
Hebrew - The Hebrew of the Old Testament is a Semitic language (so called by modern scholars after the name of Shem, Noah's oldest son). Both Hebrew and Aramaic are a part of the northwestern group of these tongues and were employed mainly in Syria, Lebanon and Israel. It is believed that Hebrew came from the Canaanite language. The Old Testament refers to its language in two ways. It is called the, "language in Canaan" (Isaiah 19:18) and the, "Jews' language" (cf. II Kings 18:26, 28; Nehemiah 13:24; Isaiah 36:11). It is not referred to as "Hebrew" until around 130 B.C. In the New Testament it is called "Hebrew" in John 5:2; 19:13 and Acts 21:40.
The Hebrew language was written in a script composed of 22 consonants (from right to left) and it extends back to at least 1500 B.C. Most Hebrew nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs consisted of only three consonants. Before the middle of the first millennium A.D., the Old Testament text was written without vowels or diacritical marks. Eventually though, vowels were added because the ancients were fearful of losing the ability to pronounce the words as the language became more classical and the texts were no longer those of a living, spoken tongue. Some good examples of early Hebrew writing are to be found on the Moabite Stone, the Gezer Calendar, etc.
Due to the fact that the original Hebrew was strictly consonantal, some words are difficult to define with certainty. For example, the Genesis record says, "Now Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors" (Genesis 37:3). The sentence contains the expression Ketoneth passiym. The first word is clearly "coat" but the second term is very rare. Scholars have suggested that it may mean, "with long sleeves," "with much embroidery," "of choice wool" or the traditional, "of many colors." But no one knows for sure.
The imagery of the Hebrew language is largely drawn from the activities and things of everyday life. It abounds with a variety of common figures of speech; parables, similes, metaphors, etc. As with other Semitic languages, Hebrew contains frequent anthropomorphic expressions, e.g., the, "eyes of the Lord." Any attempt to literalize these figures (as Mormon writers do when they suggest that God is a "man") is the reflection of woeful ignorance.
Aramaic - Aramaic is a close cognate language (actually a group of Semitic dialects) of Hebrew. The oldest extra-Biblical example may be the Melqart stele (9th century B.C.) which mentions the warfare between Ben-hadad of Syria and Israel. Though Hebrew remained the "sacred" tongue of the Jews, they like others in the Middle East, began using vernacular Aramaic for everyday conversation and writing sometime after the 6th century B.C. In the first century A.D., Aramaic, in one dialect or another, was the common daily tongue of the Palestinian Jews though it is probable that many Jews also spoke Hebrew and Greek.
In the New Testament a number of Aramaic expressions are transliterated into Greek, e.g., Talith qumi, "Maiden arise!" and Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?" "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (cf. Mark 5:41; 15:34). In the New Testament epistles there are several Aramaic words such as Abba (Galatians 4:6) and Maranatha (I Corinthians 16:22).
Some minor portions of the Old Testament were penned in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:46-7:28 and two words in Genesis 31:47). Liberal scholars have contended that the Aramaic of the Bible is of late date, hence those works of the Old Testament containing this dialect (mainly Daniel and Ezra) were thus composed much later than the periods traditionally assigned to them. However, Aramaic papyri, every similar to these works, have been discovered at Elephantine, Egypt which date to the 5th century B.C. The critical charges are thus shown to be valueless.
In passing, we might note that there are also some, "loan words" within certain appropriate historical contexts which appear to be borrowed from other languages. The term "magicians" (hartummim) in Genesis 41:8 seems to be an Egyptian term. It probably refers to certain priests who had learned sacred writings and rituals at the temple schools. The word tirshatha (Ezra 2:63: Nehemiah 8:9) is of Persian origin, somewhat equivalent to "His Excellency." It denoted one whose principal function was to assess and collect taxes (cf. Nehemiah 7:70; Ezra 1:8).
Greek - The Greek language has passed through several major periods of change. The New Testament was composed during that era known as the Koine age. This was a period of universal or common Greek. The Greek language was freely spoken throughout the antique world in that span from about 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. Koine was the normal street language of in Rome, Alexandria, Athens and Jerusalem. When the Romans finally conquered the Greeks, it was Greek influence that flowed throughout the empire. Augustus, the emperor of Rome, inscribed his seal in Greek. Paul, writing to the saints in Rome, the capital city of the empire, sent his message in Greek, not Latin!
G. L. Archer has noted that, "Greek was the most ideally adapted linguistic medium for the worldwide communication of the Gospel in the entire region of the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and the near East. Accurate in expression, beautiful in sound and capable of great rhetorical force, it furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God's message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races. It is highly significant that the 'fulness of times,' the first advent of Christ, was deferred until such time as Greek opened up channels of communication to all the Gentile nations east of Italy and Libya on a level not previously possible under the multilingual situation that previously prevailed" (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, III, p. 870).
In the 17th century some authorities contended that the language of the New Testament was on par with the Greek of the classical period. Later, some scholars argued that New Testament Greek was of a special variety, a, "language of the Holy Ghost" so to speak. Others contended that this was not the case. Adolf Deissmann argued that the New Testament was framed in, "colloquial Greek" i.e., the language of the common people. Scholars like A. T. Robertson supported this view. In recent years however, a more balanced concept has arisen. It is now recognized that a variety of sources paved the way for the coming of the language of the New Testament.
The literature of the classical period made a contribution. The Hebrew Old Testament played a part. The Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament) left a strong influence upon the New Testament (cf. Arndt & Gingrich, Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. xviii). Moreover, there is much to be learned from the ordinary records of the first century; the papyri (writings on papyrus), the ostraca (notations on pottery fragments) and other inscriptions such as on coins. These shed much light on the New Testament.
Finally though, it must be recognized that the inspired writers of the New Testament took words which were common to their age and employed them in a far loftier sense than any to which the world had ever put them before. To use the description of Nigel Turner, many New Testament words, "acquire a deeper sense and a new consecration with the Christian vocabulary" (Christian Words, p. x). Take for instance the word charis, or "grace." It is an old Greek term derived from the verb chairo, "to rejoice." The Greeks used it for beauty, the grace of the physical form, favor, gratitude, etc. Anyone familiar with the New Testament however, is certainly aware that the divine writers have taken this term and endowed it with a special flavor. It, among other things, denotes God's great love as revealed in His redemptive plan and that in spite of man's unworthiness. Any who so wills to, can reach out (through obedience to the divine plan) and accept Heaven's grace (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9; II Corinthians 6:1; Titus 2:11-12).
In conclusion, we may note that there were providentially directed historical influences and also divinely inspired guidance in the formation of the books of the sacred Scriptures. Those who expend the time and energy (and expense in study tools) inquiring into these matters will be greatly rewarded for their diligence.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Pleasing the Pharisees
Dan S. Shipley wrote this article which comes from the March 1972 edition of Plain Talk. It was published by the Oaks West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:42-43).
Even among the elite Sanhedrin were many who believed on Christ. Speculation about whether they actually believed only reflects on the skeptic's faith, not the rulers'. God says they believed and for believers, that's enough but they, "did not confess Him" and herein lies their great sin. It was not so much what they did as what they failed to do. Their faith indicates knowledge. They knew, yet still would not confess and follow Christ. Why? What power, what influence could be so compelling as to cause believers to turn their backs on the Savior and salvation? We are not left to wonder.
It was "because of the Pharisees." The One who knows all hearts shows their weakness as loving the glory of men more than the glory of God. To them, getting along with men (gaining their favor and avoiding their disfavor) are priority over pleasing God. These were not men to allow such things as truth and right to interfere with their religion! While these Pharisees no longer exist as a religious sect, they are still very much in evidence as they represent those whom men strive to please more than God. "Because of the Pharisees" many of all ages have proved themselves to be as these rulers; found wanting at a crucial time, succumbing to pressures and circumstances.
Accordingly, we read of many Old Testament characters who were influenced, "because of the Pharisees." Even Abraham lied, calling Sarah his sister to avoid the disfavor of king Abimelech (Genesis 20). Aaron yielded to demands for an idol saying, "You know the people, that they are set on evil" (Exodus 32:22). King Saul disobeyed the commandments of God and later confessed it was because he, "feared the people, and obeyed their voice" (I Samuel 15:24).
"Because of the Pharisees" Pilate delivered up Christ to be crucified, "wishing to contend the multitude" (Mark 15:15). It was for the same reason that Peter followed Christ from afar, denied Him with cursing and swearing and said, "I know not the man." He later showed the same weakness in Antioch by withdrawing from the Gentiles, "fearing them that were of the circumcision" (Galatians 2:12).
Fear and favor of the "Pharisees" continues to flavor the religion of many. It has influenced the revision and updating of Catholic and denominational creeds. It promotes watered down preaching and encourages the "fear of offending" phobia. As the rulers, many have learned the way of truth but, "because of the Pharisees" will not embrace it. Even among the brethren are some who prefer to stay with the "synagogue" rather than to stand for what they know to be right. No "Pharisee" should be allowed to determine where I shall spend eternity! "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?"
"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:42-43).
Even among the elite Sanhedrin were many who believed on Christ. Speculation about whether they actually believed only reflects on the skeptic's faith, not the rulers'. God says they believed and for believers, that's enough but they, "did not confess Him" and herein lies their great sin. It was not so much what they did as what they failed to do. Their faith indicates knowledge. They knew, yet still would not confess and follow Christ. Why? What power, what influence could be so compelling as to cause believers to turn their backs on the Savior and salvation? We are not left to wonder.
It was "because of the Pharisees." The One who knows all hearts shows their weakness as loving the glory of men more than the glory of God. To them, getting along with men (gaining their favor and avoiding their disfavor) are priority over pleasing God. These were not men to allow such things as truth and right to interfere with their religion! While these Pharisees no longer exist as a religious sect, they are still very much in evidence as they represent those whom men strive to please more than God. "Because of the Pharisees" many of all ages have proved themselves to be as these rulers; found wanting at a crucial time, succumbing to pressures and circumstances.
Accordingly, we read of many Old Testament characters who were influenced, "because of the Pharisees." Even Abraham lied, calling Sarah his sister to avoid the disfavor of king Abimelech (Genesis 20). Aaron yielded to demands for an idol saying, "You know the people, that they are set on evil" (Exodus 32:22). King Saul disobeyed the commandments of God and later confessed it was because he, "feared the people, and obeyed their voice" (I Samuel 15:24).
"Because of the Pharisees" Pilate delivered up Christ to be crucified, "wishing to contend the multitude" (Mark 15:15). It was for the same reason that Peter followed Christ from afar, denied Him with cursing and swearing and said, "I know not the man." He later showed the same weakness in Antioch by withdrawing from the Gentiles, "fearing them that were of the circumcision" (Galatians 2:12).
Fear and favor of the "Pharisees" continues to flavor the religion of many. It has influenced the revision and updating of Catholic and denominational creeds. It promotes watered down preaching and encourages the "fear of offending" phobia. As the rulers, many have learned the way of truth but, "because of the Pharisees" will not embrace it. Even among the brethren are some who prefer to stay with the "synagogue" rather than to stand for what they know to be right. No "Pharisee" should be allowed to determine where I shall spend eternity! "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?"
Thursday, July 11, 2013
What Manner of Man Is This?
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the March 1986 Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was the editor.
After Jesus had concluded His great "Sermon on the Mount" in Galilee, He went down to the city of Capernaum on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Tiberias. As He journeyed along, great multitudes followed Him (cf. Matthew 8:1, 5). Christ began to teach this huge crowd, speaking to them in parables. As the day drew to a close, the Master and His disciples entered into a boat and departed for the opposite side of the lake. It was during this trip that the great storm occurred which resulted in the miracle of the stilling of the tempest. The account of this amazing episode is recorded in each of the synoptics (Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25). Let us in this brief study, consider some of the details of this thrilling narrative.
It was an extremely busy day in the ministry of Jesus. All day long He had taught the massive crowds the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But now, "evening was come" (Mark 4:35) and the Lord said, "Let us go over to the other side." Accordingly, the disciples took Jesus, weary from the long day's teaching and they set sail for the opposite shore.
We should do some brief background study before we explore the details of this account. The Sea of Galilee is a relatively small body of water. It is about 55 miles south of the source of the Jordan River. It is designated in the Scriptures as Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (North-South) by 7 miles (East-West). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet.
The boat they were using was one of those small fishing vessels so common to the Sea of Galilee. It was equipped with a sail (Luke 8:23), oars (Mark 6:48) and was large enough to accommodate at least thirteen men, with room for Jesus to sleep in the stern. Normally, a trip from Capernaum over to the, "country of the Gadarenes" (Matthew 8:23) would take only an hour or two.
Well, the journey was begun. It is significant that Luke records, "But as they sailed He (Jesus) fell asleep." The impression seems to be that He dropped off to sleep almost as soon as they were under way. Mark notes that He was in the stern (rear) of the boat asleep on "cushion" (the Greek term simply means a "headrest"). Presently, "there came down a storm of wind on the lake" (Luke 5:23). The language is quite vivid. In his famous volume, the Land and the Bible, W.M. Thompson wrote: "To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember the lake lies low - six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jaulan rise to a great height spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains" (p. 374). The storms can be both sudden and fierce.
The word for "storm" as used by Mark and Luke, is laipas. J. H. Thayer notes that this type of storm, "is never a single gust, nor a steadily blowing wind however violent, but a storm breaking forth from black thunder clouds in furious gusts, with floods of rain and throwing of everything topsy-turvy" (Greek Lexicon, p. 368). Matthew though, uses the word siesoms, a "shaking storm." One can almost hear the crashing thunder and see the blinding bursts of lightning!
Luke says the water was "raging." Mark notes that the, "waves beat into the boat" and Matthew says that the vessel was engulfed by the swells (cf. Luke 8:24; Mark 4:37; Matthew 8:24). Both Mark and Luke declared that the boat was "filling" with water. It does not take much imagination to picture a scene of mad confusion. Amidst the noise of the elements, the disciples are attempting to lower the sail, furiously row the boat to shore and bail. No doubt, excited shouts punctuated the air. It is quite important to set this scene in your mind, for in spite of this wild commotion, Jesus, "was asleep" (Matthew 8:24). In the Greek Testament, the verb is in the imperfect tense, meaning the Lord "kept on sleeping." We must take a brief moment to comment on this for it is wonderfully instructive.
First, as we have already suggested, it reveals the utter exhaustion of the Teacher. Perhaps we do not fully appreciate the physical and emotional strain under which Christ labored. His busy ministry was very demanding. Note for example, how Jesus stopped to rest at Jacob's well, "being wearied" (John 4:6). The Lord fully partook of the nature of man (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:14). He thus could be hungry (Matthew 4:2), thirsty (John 19:28), tearful (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), or as in this present instance, bone tired. While we must never neglect to stress the deity of our Savior (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8), we must never forget His humanity as well.
Second, the sleeping Christ in the midst of a violent storm underscores the absolute confidence of the Son of god in the protective care of His heavenly Father. Surely Jesus knew as the psalmist had proclaimed centuries earlier, that "he that keepeth thee will not slumber" (Psalm 121:3). Christ had a divine appointment with Calvary. No force of nature could prevent that. Hence, the Savior could sweetly sleep on.
To the credit of the disciples, we must observe that they did not awaken Jesus the moment the storm began to threaten. Rather, they only panicked when the tempest struck with all its fury. Of course they should have known that, no water can swallow the ship where lies the Master of ocean and earth and skies" but their weak faith did not suggest that at this moment of terror. Hence, they awoke Him saying, "Master, we are perishing! Don't You care that we are perishing? Lord, save us!"
The first words from Jesus' lips, even before He rose up from His resting place were, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" (Matthew 8:26) Some may be inclined to think that the Lord was rather harsh here but actually He was not as the record subsequently reveals. Christ had selected these men to be His chosen messengers. How could they be in any real danger? had they an accurate vision of their mission, they should have known this. Hence, it was necessary that He speak to the storm in their hearts before He addressed the raging elements of nature!
Now for the miracle. Jesus arose and rebuked the winds and the sea saying, "Peace, be still." The Greek is literally, "Be silent, be muzzled." The latter term is a perfect tense form, thus "be muzzled and stay muzzled" (cf. A. T. Robertson, Greek Grammar, p. 908). Immediately the wind ceased and upon the sea was a "great calm." This is clear evidence of a miracle. With but a word, the howling wind is muted and the crashing billows become a mirror of glass. Hendriksen has beautifully written, "Generally, as is well known, after the winds have perceptibly diminished, the billows will continue to roll for a while, surging and subsiding as if unwilling to follow the example of the now subdued air currents above them. But in this instance winds and waves synchronize in the sublime symphony of a solemn silence" (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412).
The Lord then directed His attention back to the trembling twelve. He asked, "Where is your faith? Why are you fearful? Have you not yet faith?" Even after the storm had abated, the Master's men are still in the grip of fear. Perhaps now however, not in fear of the tempest so much but awed by the fuller knowledge of Him in whose presence they stood. There is precedent aplenty for fearfulness when men recognize that they are in the presence of divine majesty (cf. Isaiah 6:5; Ezekiel 1:28; Luke 5:8; Revelation 1:17). And note that "yet". "Have you not yet faith?" Christ may be asking, "Having been with Me and observed both my power and My compassion, do you not yet trust Me?"
The disciples are both amazed and yet still in the clutch of fear, saying to one another, "Who then is this, that He commands the winds and water and they obey Him" (Luke 8:25)?
The answer must be, He is the Son of the living God!
After Jesus had concluded His great "Sermon on the Mount" in Galilee, He went down to the city of Capernaum on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Tiberias. As He journeyed along, great multitudes followed Him (cf. Matthew 8:1, 5). Christ began to teach this huge crowd, speaking to them in parables. As the day drew to a close, the Master and His disciples entered into a boat and departed for the opposite side of the lake. It was during this trip that the great storm occurred which resulted in the miracle of the stilling of the tempest. The account of this amazing episode is recorded in each of the synoptics (Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25). Let us in this brief study, consider some of the details of this thrilling narrative.
It was an extremely busy day in the ministry of Jesus. All day long He had taught the massive crowds the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But now, "evening was come" (Mark 4:35) and the Lord said, "Let us go over to the other side." Accordingly, the disciples took Jesus, weary from the long day's teaching and they set sail for the opposite shore.
We should do some brief background study before we explore the details of this account. The Sea of Galilee is a relatively small body of water. It is about 55 miles south of the source of the Jordan River. It is designated in the Scriptures as Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1) and the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18). This body of water, so famous because of its association with Christ, is about 13 miles (North-South) by 7 miles (East-West). It is 695 feet below sea level and has a maximum depth of 165 feet.
The boat they were using was one of those small fishing vessels so common to the Sea of Galilee. It was equipped with a sail (Luke 8:23), oars (Mark 6:48) and was large enough to accommodate at least thirteen men, with room for Jesus to sleep in the stern. Normally, a trip from Capernaum over to the, "country of the Gadarenes" (Matthew 8:23) would take only an hour or two.
Well, the journey was begun. It is significant that Luke records, "But as they sailed He (Jesus) fell asleep." The impression seems to be that He dropped off to sleep almost as soon as they were under way. Mark notes that He was in the stern (rear) of the boat asleep on "cushion" (the Greek term simply means a "headrest"). Presently, "there came down a storm of wind on the lake" (Luke 5:23). The language is quite vivid. In his famous volume, the Land and the Bible, W.M. Thompson wrote: "To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember the lake lies low - six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jaulan rise to a great height spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains" (p. 374). The storms can be both sudden and fierce.
The word for "storm" as used by Mark and Luke, is laipas. J. H. Thayer notes that this type of storm, "is never a single gust, nor a steadily blowing wind however violent, but a storm breaking forth from black thunder clouds in furious gusts, with floods of rain and throwing of everything topsy-turvy" (Greek Lexicon, p. 368). Matthew though, uses the word siesoms, a "shaking storm." One can almost hear the crashing thunder and see the blinding bursts of lightning!
Luke says the water was "raging." Mark notes that the, "waves beat into the boat" and Matthew says that the vessel was engulfed by the swells (cf. Luke 8:24; Mark 4:37; Matthew 8:24). Both Mark and Luke declared that the boat was "filling" with water. It does not take much imagination to picture a scene of mad confusion. Amidst the noise of the elements, the disciples are attempting to lower the sail, furiously row the boat to shore and bail. No doubt, excited shouts punctuated the air. It is quite important to set this scene in your mind, for in spite of this wild commotion, Jesus, "was asleep" (Matthew 8:24). In the Greek Testament, the verb is in the imperfect tense, meaning the Lord "kept on sleeping." We must take a brief moment to comment on this for it is wonderfully instructive.
First, as we have already suggested, it reveals the utter exhaustion of the Teacher. Perhaps we do not fully appreciate the physical and emotional strain under which Christ labored. His busy ministry was very demanding. Note for example, how Jesus stopped to rest at Jacob's well, "being wearied" (John 4:6). The Lord fully partook of the nature of man (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:14). He thus could be hungry (Matthew 4:2), thirsty (John 19:28), tearful (Luke 19:41; John 11:35), or as in this present instance, bone tired. While we must never neglect to stress the deity of our Savior (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8), we must never forget His humanity as well.
Second, the sleeping Christ in the midst of a violent storm underscores the absolute confidence of the Son of god in the protective care of His heavenly Father. Surely Jesus knew as the psalmist had proclaimed centuries earlier, that "he that keepeth thee will not slumber" (Psalm 121:3). Christ had a divine appointment with Calvary. No force of nature could prevent that. Hence, the Savior could sweetly sleep on.
To the credit of the disciples, we must observe that they did not awaken Jesus the moment the storm began to threaten. Rather, they only panicked when the tempest struck with all its fury. Of course they should have known that, no water can swallow the ship where lies the Master of ocean and earth and skies" but their weak faith did not suggest that at this moment of terror. Hence, they awoke Him saying, "Master, we are perishing! Don't You care that we are perishing? Lord, save us!"
The first words from Jesus' lips, even before He rose up from His resting place were, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" (Matthew 8:26) Some may be inclined to think that the Lord was rather harsh here but actually He was not as the record subsequently reveals. Christ had selected these men to be His chosen messengers. How could they be in any real danger? had they an accurate vision of their mission, they should have known this. Hence, it was necessary that He speak to the storm in their hearts before He addressed the raging elements of nature!
Now for the miracle. Jesus arose and rebuked the winds and the sea saying, "Peace, be still." The Greek is literally, "Be silent, be muzzled." The latter term is a perfect tense form, thus "be muzzled and stay muzzled" (cf. A. T. Robertson, Greek Grammar, p. 908). Immediately the wind ceased and upon the sea was a "great calm." This is clear evidence of a miracle. With but a word, the howling wind is muted and the crashing billows become a mirror of glass. Hendriksen has beautifully written, "Generally, as is well known, after the winds have perceptibly diminished, the billows will continue to roll for a while, surging and subsiding as if unwilling to follow the example of the now subdued air currents above them. But in this instance winds and waves synchronize in the sublime symphony of a solemn silence" (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412).
The Lord then directed His attention back to the trembling twelve. He asked, "Where is your faith? Why are you fearful? Have you not yet faith?" Even after the storm had abated, the Master's men are still in the grip of fear. Perhaps now however, not in fear of the tempest so much but awed by the fuller knowledge of Him in whose presence they stood. There is precedent aplenty for fearfulness when men recognize that they are in the presence of divine majesty (cf. Isaiah 6:5; Ezekiel 1:28; Luke 5:8; Revelation 1:17). And note that "yet". "Have you not yet faith?" Christ may be asking, "Having been with Me and observed both my power and My compassion, do you not yet trust Me?"
The disciples are both amazed and yet still in the clutch of fear, saying to one another, "Who then is this, that He commands the winds and water and they obey Him" (Luke 8:25)?
The answer must be, He is the Son of the living God!
When A Pagan King Challenged Jehovah
This Wayne Jackson article appeared in the Christian Courier of November 1985. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson was also the editor.
In that era of Old Testament history known as the divided kingdom, the greatest ruler was Hezekiah of Judah. When this monarch came to the throne, he removed the idolatrous worship places and tore down the pagan shrines which the Hebrews used in those days. The Biblical record praises him in this fashion:"He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him" (II Kings 18:5).
It was while Hezekiah was reigning as king in Judah that Shalmaneseer, king of Assyria, invaded the northern kingdom of Israel. After a siege of three years (724-722 B.C.), the capital city of Samaria was taken. The Assyrian annals claim that 27,290 prisoners were captured (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1958, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-40).
Two decades later (701 B.C.), another Assyrian monarch, Sennacherib, marched against the southern kingdom. The Bible declares that he came against, "the fortified cities of Judah, and took them" (II Kings 18:13). Assyrian records affirm that he conquered 46 Hebrew cities and took 200,150 captives, along with much spoil (D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1924, Vol. II, sec. 240). Hezekiah, at the capital city of Jerusalem was terrified by the invasion. Accordingly, he offered tribute (a bribe) to the Assyrian king, who assessed him a tax of nearly $2,000,000 (as we would figure it). Hezekiah was forced to strip the temple and the palace of all their treasures in order to pay the bounty (II Kings 18:16).
Encouraged by Hezekiah's apparent weakness, Sennacherib sent a great army to Jerusalem. Through his military officials, he made a series of threats, the design of which was to bully the Hebrew king into surrender. His arguments were as follows: (a) Do not expect to look to Egypt for help, for the king of Egypt, a "bruised reed" would be unable to assist you. (b) If Israel would yield, they would be treated kindly (that was a joke in view of the well known brutality of the Assyrians!). (c) Other nations had already fallen Assyria. Their gods had been unable to save them. (d) Since Judah's "high places" had been destroyed, Jehovah would also be powerless to deliver the remnant of Judah. It is thus foolish to trust Him. What a tremendous blunder this final challenge was!
Hezekiah humbled himself before the Lord and sought the intersession of the prophet Isaiah (II Kings 19:1ff). Presently, a message was received from Jehovah. Hezekiah was not to fear the words of this heathen king who had blasphemed the living God. And then, this foreboding prophecy concerning king Sennacherib: "Behold, I will put a spirit in him and he shall hear tidings and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land" (19:7). Mark this divine prediction well, for within two decades it was amazingly fulfilled.
The Assyrians however, challenged again: "Let not your God in whom you trust deceive you saying, 'Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria'" (19:10). Once more, the examples of history were cited as proof of Assyria's invincible power.
Again though, Hezekiah laid the matter before the Lord (he literally spread the threatening document before Jehovah's presence in the temple). The king's beautiful prayer, as recorded in Second Kings 19:15-19 is a magnificent expression of faith. It concluded: "Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save us I beseech thee, out of his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God alone."
Presently, Isaiah informed the king that his prayer had been heard (cf. James 5:16b) and that the Lord had a message, first for Sennacherib then for Hezekiah. The challenge of the Assyrian was actually laughable for the fact of the matter was, it was God Himself who had used this heathen monarch as an instrument of divine wrath to punish rebellious Israel; as indeed the prophet Isaiah had vividly prophesied about a third of a century earlier (cf. II Kings 19:25-28; Isaiah 10:1ff). The Lord promised that haughty king, "I will put My hook in your nose and My bridle in your lips and send you back to way you came."
Next, directing His attention to king Hezekiah, God with comforting words, pledged that the Assyrians would not conquer the city of Jerusalem. In spite of the fact that this foreign host was much the superior in military might, Jehovah would protect His people. God declared that He would defend the city along with the remnant of the house of David, "for my servant David's sake" (cf. 19:30, 34). This was doubtless an allusion to the Messianic promise through David.
Observe how the Almighty delivered Judah. "And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses - all dead" (II Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36ff). What an awesome scene that must have been as the gray light of dawn made its way among the smoldering campfires and silent tents of the Assyrian army.
There are several interesting points about this narrative that warrant further consideration. First, the destruction of the Assyrian soldiers was said to have been accomplished by, "the angel of the the Lord." the Hebrew term Malac (angel) might be better rendered here as "messenger." A consideration of all the Old Testament information concerning this Person leads to the conclusion that He is to be identified with the pre-incarnate Logos, the Christ of the New Testament (cf. John 1:1, 14). For example, note that Jacob wrestled with a Being that had assumed the form of a man (Genesis 32:24) and yet, who was clearly identified as deity (32:28, 30). Later, an inspired prophet commenting upon this incident, called this Person, "the angel" (messenger), even "Jehovah, the God of hosts" (Hosea 12:3-5; cf. Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 1:17). Here is a lesson we can learn from this. Christ is not only a loving Savior. He is a demanding Judge as well (cf. Revelation 19:11ff).
Second, though critics have scoffed at this Old Testament narrative, there is other historical evidence that corroborates it. Observe the following: (a) Herodotus, the "father of ancient Greek history" records what is probably an Egyptian legend (that grew out of this historical event). He suggests that Sennacherib's fighting force was greatly reduced when, "in one night" a plague of field mice gnawed the quivers, bowstrings and shield straps of his soldiers, thus making them suddenly venerable to their enemies (cf. Edersheim, Bible History, VII, p. 155). (b) Josephus quotes the Chaldean historian Berosus as follows: "Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army under Rabshaken his general n danger (by a plague), for God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very night of the siege, a hundred fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and generals were destroyed" (Antiquities, X, I, 5). (c) The Taylor Prism, now in the British Museum, which contains the Assyrian account of Sennacherib's exploits, has these words: "Himself (Hezekiah) like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem." And yet amazingly, there is not the remotest reference that the Assyrian king took Jerusalem! Why not?
Those Eastern rulers were always careful to document their victories and to boast of them. Their defeats were simply ignored in the records. Sennacherib's silence thus becomes quite eloquent. Too, there is another factor that tells a tale. At this point in time there was an abrupt discontinuance of Assyria's western invasions. Professor George Rawlinson of Oxford noted, "Sennacherib during his later years made no expedition further westward than Cilica; nor were the Assyrian designs against Southern Syria and Egypt resumed till toward the close of the reign of Esarhaddon" (Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, 1873, p. 145).
Finally, we are informed that after the destruction of a major portion of his army, Sennacherib returned to Nineveh in Assyria. Some twenty years later, as he was worshiping in the temple of his pagan god, two of his own sons killed him with the sword (cf. Isaiah 37:38) and thus was the prophet's earlier warning fulfilled to the very letter (cf. II Kings 19:7).
Sennacherib learned that it does not pay to challenge Jehovah. Let us remember that these accounts are written for our learning (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:6, 11).
In that era of Old Testament history known as the divided kingdom, the greatest ruler was Hezekiah of Judah. When this monarch came to the throne, he removed the idolatrous worship places and tore down the pagan shrines which the Hebrews used in those days. The Biblical record praises him in this fashion:"He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him" (II Kings 18:5).
It was while Hezekiah was reigning as king in Judah that Shalmaneseer, king of Assyria, invaded the northern kingdom of Israel. After a siege of three years (724-722 B.C.), the capital city of Samaria was taken. The Assyrian annals claim that 27,290 prisoners were captured (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1958, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-40).
Two decades later (701 B.C.), another Assyrian monarch, Sennacherib, marched against the southern kingdom. The Bible declares that he came against, "the fortified cities of Judah, and took them" (II Kings 18:13). Assyrian records affirm that he conquered 46 Hebrew cities and took 200,150 captives, along with much spoil (D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1924, Vol. II, sec. 240). Hezekiah, at the capital city of Jerusalem was terrified by the invasion. Accordingly, he offered tribute (a bribe) to the Assyrian king, who assessed him a tax of nearly $2,000,000 (as we would figure it). Hezekiah was forced to strip the temple and the palace of all their treasures in order to pay the bounty (II Kings 18:16).
Encouraged by Hezekiah's apparent weakness, Sennacherib sent a great army to Jerusalem. Through his military officials, he made a series of threats, the design of which was to bully the Hebrew king into surrender. His arguments were as follows: (a) Do not expect to look to Egypt for help, for the king of Egypt, a "bruised reed" would be unable to assist you. (b) If Israel would yield, they would be treated kindly (that was a joke in view of the well known brutality of the Assyrians!). (c) Other nations had already fallen Assyria. Their gods had been unable to save them. (d) Since Judah's "high places" had been destroyed, Jehovah would also be powerless to deliver the remnant of Judah. It is thus foolish to trust Him. What a tremendous blunder this final challenge was!
Hezekiah humbled himself before the Lord and sought the intersession of the prophet Isaiah (II Kings 19:1ff). Presently, a message was received from Jehovah. Hezekiah was not to fear the words of this heathen king who had blasphemed the living God. And then, this foreboding prophecy concerning king Sennacherib: "Behold, I will put a spirit in him and he shall hear tidings and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land" (19:7). Mark this divine prediction well, for within two decades it was amazingly fulfilled.
The Assyrians however, challenged again: "Let not your God in whom you trust deceive you saying, 'Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria'" (19:10). Once more, the examples of history were cited as proof of Assyria's invincible power.
Again though, Hezekiah laid the matter before the Lord (he literally spread the threatening document before Jehovah's presence in the temple). The king's beautiful prayer, as recorded in Second Kings 19:15-19 is a magnificent expression of faith. It concluded: "Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save us I beseech thee, out of his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God alone."
Presently, Isaiah informed the king that his prayer had been heard (cf. James 5:16b) and that the Lord had a message, first for Sennacherib then for Hezekiah. The challenge of the Assyrian was actually laughable for the fact of the matter was, it was God Himself who had used this heathen monarch as an instrument of divine wrath to punish rebellious Israel; as indeed the prophet Isaiah had vividly prophesied about a third of a century earlier (cf. II Kings 19:25-28; Isaiah 10:1ff). The Lord promised that haughty king, "I will put My hook in your nose and My bridle in your lips and send you back to way you came."
Next, directing His attention to king Hezekiah, God with comforting words, pledged that the Assyrians would not conquer the city of Jerusalem. In spite of the fact that this foreign host was much the superior in military might, Jehovah would protect His people. God declared that He would defend the city along with the remnant of the house of David, "for my servant David's sake" (cf. 19:30, 34). This was doubtless an allusion to the Messianic promise through David.
Observe how the Almighty delivered Judah. "And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses - all dead" (II Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36ff). What an awesome scene that must have been as the gray light of dawn made its way among the smoldering campfires and silent tents of the Assyrian army.
There are several interesting points about this narrative that warrant further consideration. First, the destruction of the Assyrian soldiers was said to have been accomplished by, "the angel of the the Lord." the Hebrew term Malac (angel) might be better rendered here as "messenger." A consideration of all the Old Testament information concerning this Person leads to the conclusion that He is to be identified with the pre-incarnate Logos, the Christ of the New Testament (cf. John 1:1, 14). For example, note that Jacob wrestled with a Being that had assumed the form of a man (Genesis 32:24) and yet, who was clearly identified as deity (32:28, 30). Later, an inspired prophet commenting upon this incident, called this Person, "the angel" (messenger), even "Jehovah, the God of hosts" (Hosea 12:3-5; cf. Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 1:17). Here is a lesson we can learn from this. Christ is not only a loving Savior. He is a demanding Judge as well (cf. Revelation 19:11ff).
Second, though critics have scoffed at this Old Testament narrative, there is other historical evidence that corroborates it. Observe the following: (a) Herodotus, the "father of ancient Greek history" records what is probably an Egyptian legend (that grew out of this historical event). He suggests that Sennacherib's fighting force was greatly reduced when, "in one night" a plague of field mice gnawed the quivers, bowstrings and shield straps of his soldiers, thus making them suddenly venerable to their enemies (cf. Edersheim, Bible History, VII, p. 155). (b) Josephus quotes the Chaldean historian Berosus as follows: "Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he found his army under Rabshaken his general n danger (by a plague), for God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very night of the siege, a hundred fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and generals were destroyed" (Antiquities, X, I, 5). (c) The Taylor Prism, now in the British Museum, which contains the Assyrian account of Sennacherib's exploits, has these words: "Himself (Hezekiah) like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem." And yet amazingly, there is not the remotest reference that the Assyrian king took Jerusalem! Why not?
Those Eastern rulers were always careful to document their victories and to boast of them. Their defeats were simply ignored in the records. Sennacherib's silence thus becomes quite eloquent. Too, there is another factor that tells a tale. At this point in time there was an abrupt discontinuance of Assyria's western invasions. Professor George Rawlinson of Oxford noted, "Sennacherib during his later years made no expedition further westward than Cilica; nor were the Assyrian designs against Southern Syria and Egypt resumed till toward the close of the reign of Esarhaddon" (Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, 1873, p. 145).
Finally, we are informed that after the destruction of a major portion of his army, Sennacherib returned to Nineveh in Assyria. Some twenty years later, as he was worshiping in the temple of his pagan god, two of his own sons killed him with the sword (cf. Isaiah 37:38) and thus was the prophet's earlier warning fulfilled to the very letter (cf. II Kings 19:7).
Sennacherib learned that it does not pay to challenge Jehovah. Let us remember that these accounts are written for our learning (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:6, 11).
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Marks of Jesus
Dan S. Shipley wrote this article which appeared in the July 1970 edition of Plain Talk, a publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. Robert F. Turner was the editor.
"From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Galatians 6:17). With these words the apostle Paul concludes his remarks concerning the circumcision which Judaizing teachers were seeking to bind upon Christians. In contrast to this body-mark insisted upon by these Jews as proof of obedience, Paul offers his, "marks of Jesus" as a truer trademark of allegiance. As with warriors of old, these scars were Paul's badges of honor. They were evidence of being on active duty for the King. They proved dedicated involvement for Jesus.
The conflict which scarred the body of Paul continues. Every faithful follower of Christ stands on the same battlefield; one that is stained with the blood of the Savior Himself. Loyalty to Christ and His gospel makes opposition unavoidable. Standing for God's truth means actively opposing error. The soldier of the cross not only abstains from sinful practices, he boldly reproves them as well (Ephesians 5:11). Following Christ means entering the arena of conflict and to live godly in Him is to suffer persecution (II Timothy 3:12).
As the conflict continues, so do the casualties. Those who will stand where Paul stood need not expect to escape unscathed. They too will incur, "marks of Jesus" just as real, if not so apparent, as Paul's. For some, allegiance to Christ has meant a divided family (Matthew 10:34-37). For others, it has meant the deep wounds of a severed friendship. None can deny the hurt and injuries inflicted by hostile and vindictive brethren. Scourging or stoning would be easier to bear. Sincere hearts have been cut deeply by slanderous tongues. Such wounds leave invisible scars which abide for a lifetime.
But, not every man who suffers does so as a Christian and not all marks are of Jesus. Even false teachers encounter opposition and conflict which they construe as proof of their faithfulness. Suffering, in itself, is no more a sign of loyalty than circumcision. Error, no doubt, can boast as many martyrs as truth but in no way does this enhance error or those who may die for it. Much suffering is the result of dissipation and reckless living. Its wounds could be more appropriately termed marks of Satan than of Jesus.
"Marks of Jesus" are incurred only as the result of faithfulness to Him and His word. Conflict and its fruits need not be sought by Christians for it will surely come in following Christ. The faithful must learn to expect sufferings, persecutions, injustices, social pressures, railings and reprisals from, "within and without" and in fact, should be more surprised when they don't come than when they do! Christ said, "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake" (Matthew 5:10-11).
The marks we avoid by doing and/or saying nothing may be marks we need to enter heaven.
"From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Galatians 6:17). With these words the apostle Paul concludes his remarks concerning the circumcision which Judaizing teachers were seeking to bind upon Christians. In contrast to this body-mark insisted upon by these Jews as proof of obedience, Paul offers his, "marks of Jesus" as a truer trademark of allegiance. As with warriors of old, these scars were Paul's badges of honor. They were evidence of being on active duty for the King. They proved dedicated involvement for Jesus.
The conflict which scarred the body of Paul continues. Every faithful follower of Christ stands on the same battlefield; one that is stained with the blood of the Savior Himself. Loyalty to Christ and His gospel makes opposition unavoidable. Standing for God's truth means actively opposing error. The soldier of the cross not only abstains from sinful practices, he boldly reproves them as well (Ephesians 5:11). Following Christ means entering the arena of conflict and to live godly in Him is to suffer persecution (II Timothy 3:12).
As the conflict continues, so do the casualties. Those who will stand where Paul stood need not expect to escape unscathed. They too will incur, "marks of Jesus" just as real, if not so apparent, as Paul's. For some, allegiance to Christ has meant a divided family (Matthew 10:34-37). For others, it has meant the deep wounds of a severed friendship. None can deny the hurt and injuries inflicted by hostile and vindictive brethren. Scourging or stoning would be easier to bear. Sincere hearts have been cut deeply by slanderous tongues. Such wounds leave invisible scars which abide for a lifetime.
But, not every man who suffers does so as a Christian and not all marks are of Jesus. Even false teachers encounter opposition and conflict which they construe as proof of their faithfulness. Suffering, in itself, is no more a sign of loyalty than circumcision. Error, no doubt, can boast as many martyrs as truth but in no way does this enhance error or those who may die for it. Much suffering is the result of dissipation and reckless living. Its wounds could be more appropriately termed marks of Satan than of Jesus.
"Marks of Jesus" are incurred only as the result of faithfulness to Him and His word. Conflict and its fruits need not be sought by Christians for it will surely come in following Christ. The faithful must learn to expect sufferings, persecutions, injustices, social pressures, railings and reprisals from, "within and without" and in fact, should be more surprised when they don't come than when they do! Christ said, "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake" (Matthew 5:10-11).
The marks we avoid by doing and/or saying nothing may be marks we need to enter heaven.
A Realistic Look at Sin
Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the October 1985 edition of the Christian Courier. The paper was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
If you want to liven up a conversation, introduce the subject of sin. The reactions will be varied. Some will get angry and others will jokingly sneer about it. Some will suggest that the idea of sin is an arrogant imposition of "religion;" an invention of the preistcraft and clergy for the purpose of exercising control over the masses. Others will pontificate that "sin" is simply an ignorant appellation for those cultural and psychological abberations which plague our society. Few will have a sensible and Biblical view of this important theme.
The Reality of Sin - The reality of sin is apparent on every hand. All men of every culture throughout history have acknowledged that certain conduct is wrong. The Roman philosopher Seneca declared, "We have all sinned, some more, some less." The Roman poet Ovid wrote, "We all strive for what is forbidden." Goethe, a German poet and philosopher confessed, "I see no fault in others which I myself might not have committed." There is a Chinese proverb which goes like this, "There are two good men; one is dead and the other is not yet born." The conscience of man tells him that there is a right and a wrong. The conscience of course, does not define what is right or wrong but it certainly points to the existence of such (cf. Romans 2:14-15).
In a study on crime and personality, psychologist H.J. Eysenck noted that criminal activity is restricted to a relatively small segment of society. He points out that most people lead law-abiding lives. Dr. Eysenck observes for example, that, "the reason we do not steal under conditions when it is almost certain that we would never be caught must be that there is something in us which restrains us from doing so. This is far more powerful in controlling behavior than the rather abstract fear of the policeman and the magistrate" (Family Weekly, June 11, 1972). The Scriptures of course, are quite explicit about the reality of sin and man's complicity in the same. An Old Testament writer affirms, "...there is no man that does not sin..." (II Chronicles 6:36) and Paul is bold to say that, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). If we deny that we have sinned or that we do not sin, we are certainly self-deceived (cf. I John 1:8, 10).
The Origin of Sin - Sin appears to be almost as ancient as the creation itself. John wrote, "He who sins (he practices sin in an unrestrained fashion) is of the devil, for the devil has sinned (present tense form: has been habitually sinning) from the beginning" (I John 3:8; cf. John 8:44). Satan has been practicing sin since that initial act of rebellion by which he became "the devil." Genesis 3 contains the record of man's original fall. Satan, working through the serpent, deceived the woman and she in turn influenced man to sin (cf. Genesis 3:6; II Corinthians 11:3; I Timothy 2:13-14). Since that time, all accountable people (except Jesus Christ: I Peter 2:22) have sinned and so fallen under its horrible effects.
What Is Sin? - Before we define sin positively, suppose we briefly call attention to what it is not. First, sin is not simply the violation of cultural standards. Jesus occasionally violated cultural standards, such as when He publicly conversed with a Samaritan woman (John 4:27) but He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). Second, sin is not to be equated with sickness. This is demonstrated by the fact that Jehovah holds humanity accountable for its sins but not its sicknesses. Frequently sickness cannot be avoided; sin can! Third, sin is not a matter of genetics (inheritance). The son does not inherit the iniquity of the father (Ezekiel 18:20). Paul informed the saints at Ephesus, "you were dead through your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:2). He did not suggest that their forebearers were responsible for the current state of sinful conduct.
The Bible gives several dramatic definitions of sin. First, sin is a violation of divine law (cf. I John 3:4). The Greek word rendered "sin" is hamartia, which literally meant to miss the mark or target. Note the use of the term in Judges 20:16 where the record indicates that certain men of the tribe of Benjamin could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not miss. To swerve aside from the revealed will of God is to sin. Sin is the very opposite of obedience and righteousness (cf. Romans 6:16-18).
Second, a refusal to consider what Jehovah has to say is sinful. Jeremiah spoke of those rebellious ones who had, "turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words (Jeremiah 11:10). Again he says, "I have spoken to them but they have not heard and I have called to them but they have not answered" (Jeremiah 35:17; Acts 7:57).
Third, it is sinful to disbelieve the message of the Lord for He has buttressed it with a vast array of credible evidences. Christ plainly said, "He who believes not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). One of the functions of the Holy Spirit is (by means of divine truth, Ephesians 6:17) to convict of sin those who believe not the Lord Jesus Christ (John 16:8-9).
Fourth, presumption is sin. The psalmist declared, "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins..." (Psalm 19:13). The Hebrew word rendered "presumptuous" denotes pride, arrogance. It suggests the activity of one who feels that he can operate independently of divine counsel. When Jeroboam, the first king of Northern Israel overhauled the Mosaic worship system to his own specifications (I Kings 12:25ff), he was guilty of this evil (cf. I Corinthians 4:6; II John 9).
Fifth, a neglect of one's religious and moral obligation is sinful. James declared that he who knows to do good and yet does it not is guilty of sinful conduct (James 4:17). And in one of His vivid illustrations, our Lord spoke of a certain servant who, "knew his Lord's will" and yet he, "made not ready." He neglected to do what he knew he ought. What was his fate? At the time of his Master's coming, he would be severely punished (Luke 12:47).
Surely we must remember this. Man has not been given the option of defining sin for himself. God has given a clear and definite picture of evil in the Scriptures and we must direct our lives accordingly.
The Effects of Sin - Sin has left a horrible devastation in its wake ever since its introduction to the planet Earth. Let us consider a few effects of its curse. First, it has debilitated mankind physically. Paul noted that by means of sin death entered the world (Roman 5:12), bringing of course, all of its attendant evils; disease, weakness, etc. Every funeral is an exclamation point concerning the consequence of sin.
Second, sin has extracted a high price psychologically. Isaiah declared that the wicked have no peace (Isaiah 57:21). Indeed, the "way of the transgressor is hard" (Proverbs 13:15). One writer has observed that every other hospital bed in this country is occupied by someone with a mental problem. Being "in therapy" is almost stylish!
Third, sin has wrought geophysical havoc on the earth. In Romans 8:20ff, Paul discusses the effect of sin's curse upon the creation generally. The great flood of Noah's day certainly changed the features of the earth resulting in many of the catastrophic conditions (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) that plague us today.
Fourth, sin has affected humanity culturally. Whereas at one time in the ancient past all of the human family spoke the same language, as a result of man's ambitious rebellion, God confounded humanity's language so that various nations no longer understood one another (Genesis 11:7). This lack of communication has doubtless contributed to numerous international conflicts which have brought much heartache to the peoples of the earth.
Fifth, sin has made of man a spiritual corpse! The, "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The term "death" denotes a spiritual separation from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1-2). By his transgression, man has clearly divorced himself from close communion with is Creator; a truly terrible price to pay (Genesis 3:8, 22ff; Ephesians 2:2).
Finally, sin extracts an eternal cost as well. In the book of Revelation, John speaks of, "the second death;" the final separation from God which, in the symbolism of the narrative is called the, "lake of fire" (20:14). Eternal punishment for the wicked is a clear and fearful Bible truth (cf. Matthew 15:46).
The Remedy for Sin - God is an absolutely holy and just Being (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13). Such attributes demand that evil be decisively addressed. And yet, Jehovah's love and mercy (I John 4:8; Ephesians 2:3) longed for man's redemption. How therefore, is this problem to be remedied? The answer is in Jesus Christ. Christ died for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). In the death of the Lord Jesus, an innocent victim, the love of the Father is extended and His justice satisfied. It thus only remains for sinful people to humbly accept His redemptive grace (cf. II Corinthians 6:1) through obedience to the gospel of His Son (Hebrews 5:9; II Thessalonians 1:8). Someday, the glad song of the faithful will be, "...having overcome sin, hallelujah amen!"
If you want to liven up a conversation, introduce the subject of sin. The reactions will be varied. Some will get angry and others will jokingly sneer about it. Some will suggest that the idea of sin is an arrogant imposition of "religion;" an invention of the preistcraft and clergy for the purpose of exercising control over the masses. Others will pontificate that "sin" is simply an ignorant appellation for those cultural and psychological abberations which plague our society. Few will have a sensible and Biblical view of this important theme.
The Reality of Sin - The reality of sin is apparent on every hand. All men of every culture throughout history have acknowledged that certain conduct is wrong. The Roman philosopher Seneca declared, "We have all sinned, some more, some less." The Roman poet Ovid wrote, "We all strive for what is forbidden." Goethe, a German poet and philosopher confessed, "I see no fault in others which I myself might not have committed." There is a Chinese proverb which goes like this, "There are two good men; one is dead and the other is not yet born." The conscience of man tells him that there is a right and a wrong. The conscience of course, does not define what is right or wrong but it certainly points to the existence of such (cf. Romans 2:14-15).
In a study on crime and personality, psychologist H.J. Eysenck noted that criminal activity is restricted to a relatively small segment of society. He points out that most people lead law-abiding lives. Dr. Eysenck observes for example, that, "the reason we do not steal under conditions when it is almost certain that we would never be caught must be that there is something in us which restrains us from doing so. This is far more powerful in controlling behavior than the rather abstract fear of the policeman and the magistrate" (Family Weekly, June 11, 1972). The Scriptures of course, are quite explicit about the reality of sin and man's complicity in the same. An Old Testament writer affirms, "...there is no man that does not sin..." (II Chronicles 6:36) and Paul is bold to say that, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). If we deny that we have sinned or that we do not sin, we are certainly self-deceived (cf. I John 1:8, 10).
The Origin of Sin - Sin appears to be almost as ancient as the creation itself. John wrote, "He who sins (he practices sin in an unrestrained fashion) is of the devil, for the devil has sinned (present tense form: has been habitually sinning) from the beginning" (I John 3:8; cf. John 8:44). Satan has been practicing sin since that initial act of rebellion by which he became "the devil." Genesis 3 contains the record of man's original fall. Satan, working through the serpent, deceived the woman and she in turn influenced man to sin (cf. Genesis 3:6; II Corinthians 11:3; I Timothy 2:13-14). Since that time, all accountable people (except Jesus Christ: I Peter 2:22) have sinned and so fallen under its horrible effects.
What Is Sin? - Before we define sin positively, suppose we briefly call attention to what it is not. First, sin is not simply the violation of cultural standards. Jesus occasionally violated cultural standards, such as when He publicly conversed with a Samaritan woman (John 4:27) but He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). Second, sin is not to be equated with sickness. This is demonstrated by the fact that Jehovah holds humanity accountable for its sins but not its sicknesses. Frequently sickness cannot be avoided; sin can! Third, sin is not a matter of genetics (inheritance). The son does not inherit the iniquity of the father (Ezekiel 18:20). Paul informed the saints at Ephesus, "you were dead through your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:2). He did not suggest that their forebearers were responsible for the current state of sinful conduct.
The Bible gives several dramatic definitions of sin. First, sin is a violation of divine law (cf. I John 3:4). The Greek word rendered "sin" is hamartia, which literally meant to miss the mark or target. Note the use of the term in Judges 20:16 where the record indicates that certain men of the tribe of Benjamin could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not miss. To swerve aside from the revealed will of God is to sin. Sin is the very opposite of obedience and righteousness (cf. Romans 6:16-18).
Second, a refusal to consider what Jehovah has to say is sinful. Jeremiah spoke of those rebellious ones who had, "turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words (Jeremiah 11:10). Again he says, "I have spoken to them but they have not heard and I have called to them but they have not answered" (Jeremiah 35:17; Acts 7:57).
Third, it is sinful to disbelieve the message of the Lord for He has buttressed it with a vast array of credible evidences. Christ plainly said, "He who believes not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). One of the functions of the Holy Spirit is (by means of divine truth, Ephesians 6:17) to convict of sin those who believe not the Lord Jesus Christ (John 16:8-9).
Fourth, presumption is sin. The psalmist declared, "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins..." (Psalm 19:13). The Hebrew word rendered "presumptuous" denotes pride, arrogance. It suggests the activity of one who feels that he can operate independently of divine counsel. When Jeroboam, the first king of Northern Israel overhauled the Mosaic worship system to his own specifications (I Kings 12:25ff), he was guilty of this evil (cf. I Corinthians 4:6; II John 9).
Fifth, a neglect of one's religious and moral obligation is sinful. James declared that he who knows to do good and yet does it not is guilty of sinful conduct (James 4:17). And in one of His vivid illustrations, our Lord spoke of a certain servant who, "knew his Lord's will" and yet he, "made not ready." He neglected to do what he knew he ought. What was his fate? At the time of his Master's coming, he would be severely punished (Luke 12:47).
Surely we must remember this. Man has not been given the option of defining sin for himself. God has given a clear and definite picture of evil in the Scriptures and we must direct our lives accordingly.
The Effects of Sin - Sin has left a horrible devastation in its wake ever since its introduction to the planet Earth. Let us consider a few effects of its curse. First, it has debilitated mankind physically. Paul noted that by means of sin death entered the world (Roman 5:12), bringing of course, all of its attendant evils; disease, weakness, etc. Every funeral is an exclamation point concerning the consequence of sin.
Second, sin has extracted a high price psychologically. Isaiah declared that the wicked have no peace (Isaiah 57:21). Indeed, the "way of the transgressor is hard" (Proverbs 13:15). One writer has observed that every other hospital bed in this country is occupied by someone with a mental problem. Being "in therapy" is almost stylish!
Third, sin has wrought geophysical havoc on the earth. In Romans 8:20ff, Paul discusses the effect of sin's curse upon the creation generally. The great flood of Noah's day certainly changed the features of the earth resulting in many of the catastrophic conditions (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) that plague us today.
Fourth, sin has affected humanity culturally. Whereas at one time in the ancient past all of the human family spoke the same language, as a result of man's ambitious rebellion, God confounded humanity's language so that various nations no longer understood one another (Genesis 11:7). This lack of communication has doubtless contributed to numerous international conflicts which have brought much heartache to the peoples of the earth.
Fifth, sin has made of man a spiritual corpse! The, "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The term "death" denotes a spiritual separation from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1-2). By his transgression, man has clearly divorced himself from close communion with is Creator; a truly terrible price to pay (Genesis 3:8, 22ff; Ephesians 2:2).
Finally, sin extracts an eternal cost as well. In the book of Revelation, John speaks of, "the second death;" the final separation from God which, in the symbolism of the narrative is called the, "lake of fire" (20:14). Eternal punishment for the wicked is a clear and fearful Bible truth (cf. Matthew 15:46).
The Remedy for Sin - God is an absolutely holy and just Being (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13). Such attributes demand that evil be decisively addressed. And yet, Jehovah's love and mercy (I John 4:8; Ephesians 2:3) longed for man's redemption. How therefore, is this problem to be remedied? The answer is in Jesus Christ. Christ died for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). In the death of the Lord Jesus, an innocent victim, the love of the Father is extended and His justice satisfied. It thus only remains for sinful people to humbly accept His redemptive grace (cf. II Corinthians 6:1) through obedience to the gospel of His Son (Hebrews 5:9; II Thessalonians 1:8). Someday, the glad song of the faithful will be, "...having overcome sin, hallelujah amen!"
Monday, July 8, 2013
Let Me Die the Death of the Righteous
Here's another Wayne Jackson article. This is from the Christian Courier of February 1985. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California. Jackson is also the editor.
Balaam is one of the great tragedies of the Old Testament. He was a Gentile prophet of God (cf. II Peter 2:15-16) who lived at Pethor in Mesopotamia (Deuteronomy 23:4). Because he was afflicted with the common malady of covetousness however, he sold out to Balak, a pagan Moabite king who urged him to "curse" the Israelites as they made their way toward the land of Canaan. When Jehovah overruled the effort, causing Balaam to "bless" instead of "curse," the hireling prophet suggested another plan. If the Israelites could be corrupted internally, God Himself would destroy them! And so, the children of Israel were seduced to commit fornication by the women of Moab. As a consequence, some 24,000 of them were slain (Numbers 25). Balaam himself was finally killed in battle with Israel (Numbers 31:8).
In one of his prophecies, Balaam uttered a statement that contains much food for thought. He exclaimed, "Let me die the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his! (Numbers 23:10) When the matter is duly considered, the Bible reveals that there are some similarities and also some significant differences in the deaths of the righteous and the wicked.
Similarities - In a number of ways death is identical for both the good and the bad. First, death is that inevitable fate for all except that final generation which witnesses the return of Christ (cf. I Corinthians 15:51). Scripture declares that as a consequence of Adam's transgression, death comes to all (Romans 5:12). Indeed, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
Second, the uncertainty as to the time of death is common to all classes of humanity. Death can take us at any stage of life. Death may come with a leap or with a crawl. It comes though and comes to all.
Third, for both the prepared and the unprepared, death is the same physical phenomenon. Physical death is that inanimate state of the body that results when the spirit (that part of man that is in the image of God; Genesis 1:26) has departed from its earthly tabernacle.James give a clear definition of death when he says, "the body apart from the spirit is dead" (2:26). Paul speaks of death as a departure when he writes of having the, "desire to depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23). Again, the apostle recognizes the possibility of human existence, "apart from the body" (II Corinthians 12:2-3) which would necessitate the body's death. And so, physically speaking, the righteous and the wicked die in precisely the same fashion.
Fourth, the Bible teaches that both the godly and the ungodly are conscious after death. In fact, the Scriptures do not suggest that death causes any change in the composition or nature of the human spirit. In the narrative concerning Lazarus and the rich man, both after death were quite aware of their condition and environment. The one was comforted and the other was in anguish (cf. Luke 16:25).
Differences - There are though, some very great differences in the death state of the Lord's people and those who are not. First, God's attitude toward the two groups in in great contrast. Note the testimony of the Psalmist, "Precious in the sight of Jehovah is the death of His saints" (Psalm 116:15). On the other hand, "As I live, said the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). The one is a recipient of the Lord's goodness, the other His severity (cf. Romans 2:4-11).
Secondly, from the righteous death brings fellowship with Christ. Jesus informed the penitent thief, "Today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Again, Paul knew that his departure would enable him to be, "with Christ" (Philippians 1:23) which was, "very far better" than this earthly domain. The apostle affirmed that to be, "absent from the body" is to be, "at home with (the Greek term pros literally means, 'face to face with') the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8). The wicked have no such hope; and why should they? They have rejected His fellowship in life. They will not enjoy it in death!
Third, for the faithful death is a thrilling, blissful experience. "Blessed (literally, 'happy') are the dead who die in the Lord...they do rest from their labors" (Revelation 14:13). Conversely, the wicked know nothing but, "trouble and sorrow" (Psalm 116:3), "affliction" (Jonah 2:2), "anguish" (Luke 16:25) and, "punishment" (II Peter 2:9).
Each of us as rational, responsible human beings has the option now of determining whether our death will be like the righteous or the wicked. There is one thing for certain. After death has taken us, there will be no changes in our destiny (cf. Matthew 25:1-13).
Balaam is one of the great tragedies of the Old Testament. He was a Gentile prophet of God (cf. II Peter 2:15-16) who lived at Pethor in Mesopotamia (Deuteronomy 23:4). Because he was afflicted with the common malady of covetousness however, he sold out to Balak, a pagan Moabite king who urged him to "curse" the Israelites as they made their way toward the land of Canaan. When Jehovah overruled the effort, causing Balaam to "bless" instead of "curse," the hireling prophet suggested another plan. If the Israelites could be corrupted internally, God Himself would destroy them! And so, the children of Israel were seduced to commit fornication by the women of Moab. As a consequence, some 24,000 of them were slain (Numbers 25). Balaam himself was finally killed in battle with Israel (Numbers 31:8).
In one of his prophecies, Balaam uttered a statement that contains much food for thought. He exclaimed, "Let me die the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his! (Numbers 23:10) When the matter is duly considered, the Bible reveals that there are some similarities and also some significant differences in the deaths of the righteous and the wicked.
Similarities - In a number of ways death is identical for both the good and the bad. First, death is that inevitable fate for all except that final generation which witnesses the return of Christ (cf. I Corinthians 15:51). Scripture declares that as a consequence of Adam's transgression, death comes to all (Romans 5:12). Indeed, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
Second, the uncertainty as to the time of death is common to all classes of humanity. Death can take us at any stage of life. Death may come with a leap or with a crawl. It comes though and comes to all.
Third, for both the prepared and the unprepared, death is the same physical phenomenon. Physical death is that inanimate state of the body that results when the spirit (that part of man that is in the image of God; Genesis 1:26) has departed from its earthly tabernacle.James give a clear definition of death when he says, "the body apart from the spirit is dead" (2:26). Paul speaks of death as a departure when he writes of having the, "desire to depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23). Again, the apostle recognizes the possibility of human existence, "apart from the body" (II Corinthians 12:2-3) which would necessitate the body's death. And so, physically speaking, the righteous and the wicked die in precisely the same fashion.
Fourth, the Bible teaches that both the godly and the ungodly are conscious after death. In fact, the Scriptures do not suggest that death causes any change in the composition or nature of the human spirit. In the narrative concerning Lazarus and the rich man, both after death were quite aware of their condition and environment. The one was comforted and the other was in anguish (cf. Luke 16:25).
Differences - There are though, some very great differences in the death state of the Lord's people and those who are not. First, God's attitude toward the two groups in in great contrast. Note the testimony of the Psalmist, "Precious in the sight of Jehovah is the death of His saints" (Psalm 116:15). On the other hand, "As I live, said the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). The one is a recipient of the Lord's goodness, the other His severity (cf. Romans 2:4-11).
Secondly, from the righteous death brings fellowship with Christ. Jesus informed the penitent thief, "Today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Again, Paul knew that his departure would enable him to be, "with Christ" (Philippians 1:23) which was, "very far better" than this earthly domain. The apostle affirmed that to be, "absent from the body" is to be, "at home with (the Greek term pros literally means, 'face to face with') the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8). The wicked have no such hope; and why should they? They have rejected His fellowship in life. They will not enjoy it in death!
Third, for the faithful death is a thrilling, blissful experience. "Blessed (literally, 'happy') are the dead who die in the Lord...they do rest from their labors" (Revelation 14:13). Conversely, the wicked know nothing but, "trouble and sorrow" (Psalm 116:3), "affliction" (Jonah 2:2), "anguish" (Luke 16:25) and, "punishment" (II Peter 2:9).
Each of us as rational, responsible human beings has the option now of determining whether our death will be like the righteous or the wicked. There is one thing for certain. After death has taken us, there will be no changes in our destiny (cf. Matthew 25:1-13).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)