"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).
While driving down the highway one day I noticed a large billboard on the side of the road which said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). I wondered at what those who read the billboard might think. Undoubtedly some would think that belief in Jesus Christ is the only prerequisite for salvation. Is that really the case? Let's take a look at the Bible at see what it has to say.
The Psalmist said, "How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them!" (139:17).
And again, "The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever (119:160, ASV).
In both of these passages the Psalmist illustrates the value of the "sum" of God's word. The "sum" refers to the total of a thing's many parts. When one studies the Bible one must take great care not to ignore the many parts of the Bible. One that ignores any part of the Bible in his or her exegesis of any one particular passage will not arrive at the “truth” for the “sum” of God’s word is truth. Very often it is the case that a verse will be illuminated by another scripture and thus made more easily understandable. One should be very careful not to stake one's soul on any verse to the exclusion of the whole. Such is the sad case concerning Acts 16:31. So many have taken this verse and made its instruction the sole condition for salvation.
Let us test this hypothesis. If one was to base one’s idea of the plan of salvation solely on Acts 16:31 then one would not have to believe that God the Father exists. One simply needs to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord for the Father is not mentioned in this passage. Neither is repentance mentioned in this passage. Are we to exclude that from God’s plan of salvation as well? Certainly not. Are we to exclude baptism as a condition for salvation because it is not mentioned even though a plethora of other passages speak to its necessity? To do so would be to do despite unto the word of God. That which proves too much, proves nothing.
If such is NOT the meaning of Acts 16:31 then what DOES it mean?
The word translated believe is the word πιστεύω (pisteuō) and can be used many different ways.
1. It can be used to refer to the mental assent that a fact is true: the Hebrew writer says that in order to be pleasing to God one must “believe that He is” (Hebrews 11:6). This simply means that one must assent to the fact that God exists. Paul was told that there were divisions in the church at Corinth. Upon hearing this news he wrote “I partly believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:18). Paul had heard a report and he received it as credible. Christ prophesied that there would come a time when false Christ’s would arise and men would say “Lo, here is Christ” (Matthew 24:23). Christ charged His hearers to “believe it not.” When another says “Here is Christ” one is not to accept that statement as true.
2. This word can also involve the idea of trust: Paul said of the apostles that they had been put in “trust” with the gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4). The Master of the unjust steward asked him “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luke 16:11). While on earth Christ did not “commit” (KJV) or “entrust” (ASV) Himself to men because He knew that their intentions were not in accordance with God’s divine will (John 2:24).
3. The same word can also be used to mean obey. “He that believeth (pisteuō) on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheō) on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36). The King James Version did us no favor in its translation of this verse because it translated two different words using the same term, “believe.” The former (pisteuō) means to believe but the latter word (apeitheō) is the negative form of the word peitheō which means to obey. Therefore the meaning of the word apeitheō is to disobey. One can cross reference Romans 2:8, 9 to see the use of these words in the New Testament: “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey [apeitheō] the truth, but obey [peitheō] unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” (2:8, 9). Now understanding the definition of these words one can better see the contrast in John 3:36. The ASV reads as follows: “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” What happened? Why mention the believers in the first half of the verse and then the disobedient in the latter half? The reason is because disobeying is the opposite of believing. One that believes is one that obeys and that is the use of the word in John 3:36. Notice also, “And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of Jews and Greeks believed [pisteuō]. But the Jews that were disobedient [apeitheō] stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (Acts 14:1, 2 ASV). Here again belief is contrasted with disobedience. To disbelieve is to disobey and to believe is to obey. They are used synonymously here.
This third definition of believe, by way of synecdoche, is the prominent definition of believe in the book of Acts.
A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the whole is named when a part is intended or where a part is named when the whole is intended. We use this figure of speech even today. When one takes a “head count” one is not interested in how many heads are present but one wants to know how many people are present. One might say to another concerning his or her new car, “Nice wheels.” It is probably the case that one is not commenting on the actual wheels of the car but rather the car as a whole. This figure of speech is often employed in the Bible. Speaking of Noah and his family Peter mentions how that “eight souls were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:20). Does that mean that their bodies perished in the flood? Of course not. One part of man (his soul) is named when both body and soul (cf. Matthew 10:28) are intended. This is the case when only “belief” is named. Because belief is the initial and foundational act of obedience it is often used as a synecdoche to represent the whole of one’s obedience to God. Notice its use in the book of Acts:
When Peter preached the first gospel sermon recorded in Acts chapter 2 he was speaking to Jews who were “devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (2:5). It is safe to say that they believed in God the Father. As Peter preached he preached Christ crucified and resurrected (2:22-35). His conclusion was this “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v.36). It is apparent that their conscience was stirred and they believed on the Christ for the Bible says of them, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v.37). “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls” (vs.38, 40, 41). How did Luke sum up their obedience? “And all they that believed were together, and had all things in common” (v.44). Was Luke ignoring their repentance and their baptism? Of course not. By way of a synecdoche he epitomized their obedience by naming them “they that believed” for without belief no one will be obedient to God.
As punishment for their bold preaching, Peter and John were imprisoned “Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand” (4:4). Is there any doubt that these five thousand included the three thousand (cf. 2:41) which were baptized on Pentecost? Why then should “believe” mean anything different here than it did there? Belief is again used to describe the total obedience of those that heard the preaching of Peter and John.
As Paul passed through Ephesus he found certain disciples and “He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost?” (19:1, 2). Notice Paul’s response: “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism” (v.3) Did Paul change the topic? No he did not. He asked the same question in different words. When Paul asked them about their belief it necessarily included their baptism.
Now we come to the text with which we began, Acts 16:31. Paul and Silas were imprisoned for their efforts in spreading the gospel of God’s kingdom (v.23). While imprisoned they sang praises to God and the prisoners heard them (v.25). Then came a mighty earthquake which loosed the bonds of the prisoners and opened wide the doors to the prison (v.26). The jailer, thinking the prisoners had fled, sought to take his own life in lieu of awaiting the Roman axe. Paul shouted “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here” (v.28). The jailer then asked the question “What must I do to be saved?” (v.30). Paul and Silas answered “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (v.31). They then proceeded to preach Christ unto the jailer and his household. The jailer’s response to the gospel was a positive one. He took Paul and Silas and washed their wounds (indicating a penitent heart) and then he and his household were baptized “straightway” (vs.32, 33). Question: if belief is all that is necessary for one to be saved, why ought one to be baptized? Such a question merits some consideration. Afterward, the jailer brought Paul and Silas to his house, set food before them, and rejoiced. Notice, it was only after he and his family were baptized that they were said to be “believing in God” (v.34). Their belief necessarily included their repentance as well as their baptism.
The evidence is overwhelming. While belief sometimes refers to the acceptance of a fact or indicates the idea of trust, it can also indicate one’s total obedience and submission to God’s holy will. When considering the “sum” of God’s word (cf. Psalm 119:160 ASV) one can see that belief is not the only condition for salvation.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Let's Just Be Honest
In this day of political correctness it is not acceptable to call the proverbial “spade a spade.” The inspired writers of the Bible, however, were not concerned with political correctness. In the book of Leviticus alone the word “sin”, in some form or another, is found 131 times. Some form of “trespass” is used 35 times. The word iniquity is used 18 times in different forms, and the word “abomination” is found an astounding 16 times! We need a good dose of plain spoken honesty in today’s world: let’s just be honest.
Abortion is not an issue of “women’s rights”; it’s murder, and it’s sinful (Lk. 1:41; Gal. 5:19-21). A woman who chooses to have an abortion is not exercising “freedom of choice” but rather her freedom to sin. Homosexuality is not “an alternative lifestyle” it’s an abomination and it’s sinful (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). If one is in a relationship with another’s spouse, it’s not “love”, it’s adultery and it’s sinful (Mat. 19:9). If one parks and “makes out” with someone to whom one is not married, it’s not “petting”, it’s not “affection”, it’s lasciviousness and it’s sinful (Gal. 5:19-21). If one tells a dirty joke it’s not “funny”, it’s foolish jesting, it’s lascivious speech, and it’s sinful (Eph. 5:4, 5). If one says something that is false it’s not a taradittle, it’s not a fib, and it’s not a “little white lie.” There is no such thing as a “white lie.” Every lie from the garden unto this present moment is as black as hell, and it’s sinful (Eph. 4:25). Instrumental worship is not “contemporary”, it’s not “culturally in vogue”, it’s unauthorized and it’s sinful (Col. 3:16, 17).
Let’s just be honest, these things are sinful and they must stop.
Concerning one’s relationship with God, every individual of an accountable age stands in one of two positions: one is either saved or lost. Let’s just be honest about that. There are two ways: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Mat. 7:13, 14). One is either in light or in darkness: “This is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:5-7). Either a person is inside of Christ or outside of Christ: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Either a person is with Christ, or against Him (Mat.12:30); either one is a Christian, or one is not.
Every person of an accountable age is either saved or lost. Let’s just be honest about it.
How can we expect to convince anyone to be saved if we never convince a person that he or she is lost? How can we expect to convince a person that he or she is lost if we are not willing to name sin for what it is? God’s only remedy for sin is the plain straightforward preaching of the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16). We must not allow the trend of politically correct speech to water down the preaching of the gospel.
“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).
Abortion is not an issue of “women’s rights”; it’s murder, and it’s sinful (Lk. 1:41; Gal. 5:19-21). A woman who chooses to have an abortion is not exercising “freedom of choice” but rather her freedom to sin. Homosexuality is not “an alternative lifestyle” it’s an abomination and it’s sinful (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). If one is in a relationship with another’s spouse, it’s not “love”, it’s adultery and it’s sinful (Mat. 19:9). If one parks and “makes out” with someone to whom one is not married, it’s not “petting”, it’s not “affection”, it’s lasciviousness and it’s sinful (Gal. 5:19-21). If one tells a dirty joke it’s not “funny”, it’s foolish jesting, it’s lascivious speech, and it’s sinful (Eph. 5:4, 5). If one says something that is false it’s not a taradittle, it’s not a fib, and it’s not a “little white lie.” There is no such thing as a “white lie.” Every lie from the garden unto this present moment is as black as hell, and it’s sinful (Eph. 4:25). Instrumental worship is not “contemporary”, it’s not “culturally in vogue”, it’s unauthorized and it’s sinful (Col. 3:16, 17).
Let’s just be honest, these things are sinful and they must stop.
Concerning one’s relationship with God, every individual of an accountable age stands in one of two positions: one is either saved or lost. Let’s just be honest about that. There are two ways: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Mat. 7:13, 14). One is either in light or in darkness: “This is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:5-7). Either a person is inside of Christ or outside of Christ: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Either a person is with Christ, or against Him (Mat.12:30); either one is a Christian, or one is not.
Every person of an accountable age is either saved or lost. Let’s just be honest about it.
How can we expect to convince anyone to be saved if we never convince a person that he or she is lost? How can we expect to convince a person that he or she is lost if we are not willing to name sin for what it is? God’s only remedy for sin is the plain straightforward preaching of the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16). We must not allow the trend of politically correct speech to water down the preaching of the gospel.
“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).
Abstain from All Appearance of Evil
“Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22).
If one has been listening to preaching for any length of time the chances are that he or she has heard this quoted frequently. The most common usage of the verse is something like this: “If a thing looks evil one ought not to do it because the Bible says to abstain from even the appearance of evil.” It is a wonderful suggestion to abstain from things which appear evil. It is certainly a good idea to protect one’s influence and one does so by taking heed to the things which he or she does. The Bible is replete with verses that speak concerning the importance of a good name, the value of reputation, and the responsibility of protecting one’s influence (cf. Proverbs 22:1; Ecclesiastes 7:1; 10:1; Matthew 5:13-16; Romans 12:17; 2 Corinthians 8:21). However, the question we want to ask is, “Is that the meaning of ‘Abstain from all appearance of evil’?” Let’s examine the passage in its context and ascertain its meaning.
Paul begins the passage with a REBUKE: “Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings” (vs.19, 20).
On the outset this may appear to be a precautionary commandment, as if Paul is warning the Thessalonians not to begin quenching the Spirit. A closer look will reveal that this is actually a rebuke.
The Greek construction of these verses indicates that Paul was addressing a problem already present in the church at Thessalonica. The passage would be more properly rendered “Stop quenching the Spirit. Stop despising prophesyings.” Can one cease a thing which one has not already begun? Of course not.
Now we ask, “What does it mean to ‘quench the Spirit’?” This is an excellent example of parallelism. Parallelism is a literary device in which the writer says the same thing twice but in different words. The benefit of this is that the latter statement will interpret the former and vice versa. One “quenches the Spirit” by “despising prophesying.”
Let me explain further. Not only does Paul employ parallelism but he also employs a figure of speech called metonymy. There are many types of metonymy but we will only mention metonymy of the cause because it is the type used here. Metonymy literally means “a change of name” which hints at its function. In metonymy of the cause the cause is named while the effect is intended. One may ask, “Have you ever read Shakespeare?” That would be a foolish question were it taken literally. First of all, no one living has ever met William Shakespeare. Second, if anyone had met Shakespeare one could not read him. A person does not read people. A person reads writing. When one is asked if he or she has ever read Shakespeare that is understood to be referring to his writings. The cause (Shakespeare) is named when the effect (his writings) is intended. This is metonymy of the cause (cf. Luke 16:31, for more on metonymy see Hermeneutics, Dungan). During the first century the Holy Spirit inspired the preaching (prophesying is often a reference to inspired preaching) of men (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-11) and can therefore be said to have caused it. In this case Paul names the cause (the Spirit) when the effect (preaching) is intended. Therefore, by despising prophesying one quenches the Spirit. A good cross reference would be Stephen’s statement concerning his recalcitrant audience: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). What had the people resisted? They had resisted the preaching of Stephen and therefore he could rightly say that they had resisted the Holy Spirit.
We also learn something about the character of the word of God from this verse. The word here translated “quench” is used eight other times in the New Testament. Every other time it is used it describes the flame of a fire being “quenched” or put out (cf. Matthew 12:20; 25:8; Mark 9:44, 46, 48; Ephesians 6:16; Hebrews 11:34). Why should its meaning be any different here? Jeremiah oft compared the word of God to a fire (cf. Jeremiah 5:14; 20:9; 23:29). The word of God is a fire that can set our hearts aflame if we would only allow it to work. One is not to despise preaching because the word of God is the power He uses to work in the hearts of men.
Paul now gives the REMEDY for one who despises preaching: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (vs.21, 22).
The Apostles were not the only ones preaching. There were false prophets even during this time (cf. Matthew 7:15; Acts 13:6; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1) not unlike today. One preacher says that in order to be saved all one must do is believe. Another preacher preaches that one has to believe but one also has to repent. Still another preacher says that one must have an "experience" in which one "receives the Spirit." One preacher says that the church does not matter and another preaches that one must be a member of a church in order to go to heaven. With all of the confusion in the religious world it is easy to see how one could easily get “fed up” with religion and begin to “despise” preaching. What is a person to do? The only way to remove such frustration is to get rid of the confusion. One does that by proving all things.
The same word translated “prove” is translated “examine” in 1 Corinthians 11:28. This word was often used to describe the melting of metals and ores in order to separate the substance from the impurities. The Thessalonians were commanded to do just that with the preaching that they heard. They were to submit all preaching to the fire of God’s word (even Paul’s preaching was examined, Acts 17:11). When that is done all preaching will fall into one of two categories: good or evil.
These two words have reference to the truthfulness of the preaching. The word here translated “good” has reference to a thing’s quality, not necessarily its appeal. This is the same word used by Jesus in His warning against false prophets: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-20). Can there be any question as to what the “good fruit” refers in this passage? It is obviously true doctrine. Preaching is considered “good” in its quality when it is found to be true and “evil” when it is proven to be false.
Paul then indicates a RESPONSIBILITY that the Thessalonians had to all preaching: “Hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (vs.21b, 22).
If the preaching to which they were listening was determined to be true then they were to “hold fast” to it and if it were false they were to “abstain” from it.
Hold fast is translated “keep” in Luke 8:15. There the result of “keeping” the word was bringing forth fruit. Therefore “keeping” the word refers to one’s obeying that word.
There is an interesting play on words here. The words translated “hold fast” and “abstain” share the same root word with different prefixes attached. The root word is one that is commonly translated “to have” or “to keep.” Abstain is in the middle voice which means that it is something that is done to or for one’s self. So whereas they were to “keep” sound doctrine they were to “keep themselves away” from false doctrine.
CONCLUSION:
Refraining from doing things that appear evil is a good principle by which to live, but hopefully we have shown here that such is not the meaning of “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” It does however give us great instruction concerning the proper response to false doctrine. Let us test all preaching with the fire of God’s word, obey the truth, and reject error.
If one has been listening to preaching for any length of time the chances are that he or she has heard this quoted frequently. The most common usage of the verse is something like this: “If a thing looks evil one ought not to do it because the Bible says to abstain from even the appearance of evil.” It is a wonderful suggestion to abstain from things which appear evil. It is certainly a good idea to protect one’s influence and one does so by taking heed to the things which he or she does. The Bible is replete with verses that speak concerning the importance of a good name, the value of reputation, and the responsibility of protecting one’s influence (cf. Proverbs 22:1; Ecclesiastes 7:1; 10:1; Matthew 5:13-16; Romans 12:17; 2 Corinthians 8:21). However, the question we want to ask is, “Is that the meaning of ‘Abstain from all appearance of evil’?” Let’s examine the passage in its context and ascertain its meaning.
Paul begins the passage with a REBUKE: “Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings” (vs.19, 20).
On the outset this may appear to be a precautionary commandment, as if Paul is warning the Thessalonians not to begin quenching the Spirit. A closer look will reveal that this is actually a rebuke.
The Greek construction of these verses indicates that Paul was addressing a problem already present in the church at Thessalonica. The passage would be more properly rendered “Stop quenching the Spirit. Stop despising prophesyings.” Can one cease a thing which one has not already begun? Of course not.
Now we ask, “What does it mean to ‘quench the Spirit’?” This is an excellent example of parallelism. Parallelism is a literary device in which the writer says the same thing twice but in different words. The benefit of this is that the latter statement will interpret the former and vice versa. One “quenches the Spirit” by “despising prophesying.”
Let me explain further. Not only does Paul employ parallelism but he also employs a figure of speech called metonymy. There are many types of metonymy but we will only mention metonymy of the cause because it is the type used here. Metonymy literally means “a change of name” which hints at its function. In metonymy of the cause the cause is named while the effect is intended. One may ask, “Have you ever read Shakespeare?” That would be a foolish question were it taken literally. First of all, no one living has ever met William Shakespeare. Second, if anyone had met Shakespeare one could not read him. A person does not read people. A person reads writing. When one is asked if he or she has ever read Shakespeare that is understood to be referring to his writings. The cause (Shakespeare) is named when the effect (his writings) is intended. This is metonymy of the cause (cf. Luke 16:31, for more on metonymy see Hermeneutics, Dungan). During the first century the Holy Spirit inspired the preaching (prophesying is often a reference to inspired preaching) of men (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-11) and can therefore be said to have caused it. In this case Paul names the cause (the Spirit) when the effect (preaching) is intended. Therefore, by despising prophesying one quenches the Spirit. A good cross reference would be Stephen’s statement concerning his recalcitrant audience: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). What had the people resisted? They had resisted the preaching of Stephen and therefore he could rightly say that they had resisted the Holy Spirit.
We also learn something about the character of the word of God from this verse. The word here translated “quench” is used eight other times in the New Testament. Every other time it is used it describes the flame of a fire being “quenched” or put out (cf. Matthew 12:20; 25:8; Mark 9:44, 46, 48; Ephesians 6:16; Hebrews 11:34). Why should its meaning be any different here? Jeremiah oft compared the word of God to a fire (cf. Jeremiah 5:14; 20:9; 23:29). The word of God is a fire that can set our hearts aflame if we would only allow it to work. One is not to despise preaching because the word of God is the power He uses to work in the hearts of men.
Paul now gives the REMEDY for one who despises preaching: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (vs.21, 22).
The Apostles were not the only ones preaching. There were false prophets even during this time (cf. Matthew 7:15; Acts 13:6; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1) not unlike today. One preacher says that in order to be saved all one must do is believe. Another preacher preaches that one has to believe but one also has to repent. Still another preacher says that one must have an "experience" in which one "receives the Spirit." One preacher says that the church does not matter and another preaches that one must be a member of a church in order to go to heaven. With all of the confusion in the religious world it is easy to see how one could easily get “fed up” with religion and begin to “despise” preaching. What is a person to do? The only way to remove such frustration is to get rid of the confusion. One does that by proving all things.
The same word translated “prove” is translated “examine” in 1 Corinthians 11:28. This word was often used to describe the melting of metals and ores in order to separate the substance from the impurities. The Thessalonians were commanded to do just that with the preaching that they heard. They were to submit all preaching to the fire of God’s word (even Paul’s preaching was examined, Acts 17:11). When that is done all preaching will fall into one of two categories: good or evil.
These two words have reference to the truthfulness of the preaching. The word here translated “good” has reference to a thing’s quality, not necessarily its appeal. This is the same word used by Jesus in His warning against false prophets: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-20). Can there be any question as to what the “good fruit” refers in this passage? It is obviously true doctrine. Preaching is considered “good” in its quality when it is found to be true and “evil” when it is proven to be false.
Paul then indicates a RESPONSIBILITY that the Thessalonians had to all preaching: “Hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (vs.21b, 22).
If the preaching to which they were listening was determined to be true then they were to “hold fast” to it and if it were false they were to “abstain” from it.
Hold fast is translated “keep” in Luke 8:15. There the result of “keeping” the word was bringing forth fruit. Therefore “keeping” the word refers to one’s obeying that word.
There is an interesting play on words here. The words translated “hold fast” and “abstain” share the same root word with different prefixes attached. The root word is one that is commonly translated “to have” or “to keep.” Abstain is in the middle voice which means that it is something that is done to or for one’s self. So whereas they were to “keep” sound doctrine they were to “keep themselves away” from false doctrine.
CONCLUSION:
Refraining from doing things that appear evil is a good principle by which to live, but hopefully we have shown here that such is not the meaning of “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” It does however give us great instruction concerning the proper response to false doctrine. Let us test all preaching with the fire of God’s word, obey the truth, and reject error.
The Role of the Bible in One's Overcoming Temptation
It has long been accepted that the perfect model for obtaining victory over temptation is that of our Lord after His fasting in the wilderness. At the center of His victory we find the resounding chorus, “It is written.” Christ brings to the forefront the importance of the word of God in defeating the Devil. This article will examine Matthew 4:1-11 and focus upon the Bible’s role in one’s overcoming temptation.
After His forty days of fasting in the wilderness Christ was “afterward an hungered” (4:2). “And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (4:3). One might ask, “What is wrong with eating bread? How is that a temptation?” It was not eating of bread itself that would have been sinful but it was, as our Savior’s response will show, that in satisfying His hunger through His own ability He would have expressed a lack of trust in His Father which is always an evil thing. “But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (4:4). It should be noted that in this quotation Christ identifies Himself with man. He faced temptation as a man. If such is not the case then what would have been the sense in referencing a scripture concerning man and applying it to Himself? In Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3 we get our first glimpse into one way that the Bible plays a role in one’s overcoming temptation: the Bible reminds one of the promises of God. Christ could have yielded to the temptation to provide Himself with food but He allowed the Bible to remind Him that God has promised to care for His children. Christ took His stand upon the promises of God and withstood this first recorded temptation. Will we follow His example? In this time of economic difficulty will we resort to dishonest means of appropriating money or will we trust in the promises of God recorded in the Bible? “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). Will we withdraw support from the missionaries we support? Will we decrease our weekly contribution? Or will we put our trust in the Lord? “As it is written, He that had gatherd much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack” (2 Corinthians 8:15, cf. Exodus 16:18). Recalling God’s promises can help us to overcome these temptations.
Following this temptation the devil attacks again. In essence Satan says, “Since you trust in God’s promises why not cast yourself off of the temple? For it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Again one may ask, “What is wrong with that? God did promise to save Him did He not?” Our Lord’s response shows that casting Himself off the temple would have constituted “tempting” the Lord. He quotes from Deuteronomy 6:16 in which Moses references the doubting Israelites who required a sign in order for God to prove His abiding presence. Their lack of faith is evident in asking, “Is the LORD among us, or not?” (Exodus 17:7). For Christ to require a sign of God, such as saving Him through a miraculous intervention of angels, in order to prove His presence would have shown forth in Christ a spirit of unbelief like that of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:4, 12:39). Now what does this tell us about the Bible’s role in one’s overcoming temptation? Namely this: the Bible allows us to recognize sin when we see it. If Christ did not have a thorough knowledge of the Bible then He may have been fooled by Satan’s sly use of scripture. Just the same, a working knowledge of the Bible would keep sin out of many lives, but sadly a great number of Christians do not even know when sin presents itself. The temptation to install “progressive worship”, to join the ranks of anti-ism, or to reverse gender roles could be removed in many places simply through a better Bible education.
“Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (4:8, 9). In this temptation Christ is faced with a simple choice: will He fulfill His mission God’s way and become King over the earth through suffering? Or will He acknowledge Satan as an overlord and take a short cut to His kingship? Our Lord responds with a confident rebuke of Satan and a faithful appeal to scripture: “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (4:10). One is reminded of James’ words: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7b). It is not that there are any “magic words” in Christianity or that quoting scripture suddenly endows one with super strength. Reciting scripture does not suddenly run the devil off (as we have already seen even he can quote scripture). Christ simply allowed scripture to settle the matter. We could say, “This is where the rubber meets the road.” A Bible education will do no good if one has not already determined to allow God’s word to settle the matters of “life and godliness” (cf. 2 Peter 1:3). Remembering the promises of God will be useless unless one “purposes in his heart” (cf. Daniel 1:8) to obey God even before temptation arises. The Psalmist wrote “With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid [laid up, ASV] in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psalm 119:10, 11). Love for and dedication to God and His word are absolutely essential to one’s overcoming temptation.
The Holy Bible truly is a precious treasure (Psalm 119:72). It is the meditation of the righteous man (Psalm 1:2, 119:97), the adoration of the faithful (Jeremiah 15:16), the salvation of the believer (Romans 1:16), and a companion during time of temptation. Let us increase in knowledge, rest in God’s promises, and determine to live the Christian life.
Why Do We Have the Old Testament?
The previous post ("Under Which Law Do We Live?") brings to light another common question: “If we’re not under the Law of Moses then why do we even have the Old Testament?” This article seeks to answer that question.
The answer as to the importance of the Old Testament to the Christian can be found recorded in Romans 15:1-4: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. For whatsoever things were written aforetime [the Old Testament scriptures] were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” Paul, speaking by inspiration, points out that the Old Testament scriptures are “for our learning.” Here Paul appeals to an Old Testament passage (Ps. 69:9) and holds up Christ as our example of “pleasing not ourselves” but rather edifying our neighbour. One might ask: “Paul, why are you quoting from the Old Testament? Don’t you know that we’re under the New Testament?” He answers in v.4 and says, in essence, “I’m trying to teach you something.” Though we are not ammenable to the Law of Moses this verse shows that the scope of the Old Testament scriptures extended beyond that age. Notice Romans 4:23, 24: “Now it was not written for his [Abraham’s] sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” We are taught that belief (trusting obedient faith) in God brings about righteousness (Gen. 15:6, 1 Jn. 3:7), and that from the Old Testament.
Paul also lists two specific things that can be produced by a study of the Old Testament: patience and comfort. I know from the Old Testament that God rewards those that submit to Him in loving trusting obedience (Gen. 15:6, 2 Chr. 7:14). I know that God never forsakes those who do not forsake Him (Deu. 31:6-8, Josh. 1:5, Heb. 13:5). Those things bring me comfort. I can take Job as my example (Job 1:21, 22; 2:10; 42:10; cf. also James 5:10, 11) and learn patience. One could read numerous other passages where New Testament writers quote Old Testament scriptures as examples for us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6-11, Heb. 3:7-4:11, 1 Tim. 5:18, 1 Pet. 2:21-25).
“All scripture [“all” encompasses both testaments] is given by inspiration of God…and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). One cannot fully appreciate the abounding riches of the New Testament without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament. One need only to read his New Testament and note how many times the writers thereof penned the words “It is written” to know how important the Old Testament is to our understanding of the New. Often has it been said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The Old Testament is of great value and should not be neglected by any student of the word of God.
The answer as to the importance of the Old Testament to the Christian can be found recorded in Romans 15:1-4: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. For whatsoever things were written aforetime [the Old Testament scriptures] were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” Paul, speaking by inspiration, points out that the Old Testament scriptures are “for our learning.” Here Paul appeals to an Old Testament passage (Ps. 69:9) and holds up Christ as our example of “pleasing not ourselves” but rather edifying our neighbour. One might ask: “Paul, why are you quoting from the Old Testament? Don’t you know that we’re under the New Testament?” He answers in v.4 and says, in essence, “I’m trying to teach you something.” Though we are not ammenable to the Law of Moses this verse shows that the scope of the Old Testament scriptures extended beyond that age. Notice Romans 4:23, 24: “Now it was not written for his [Abraham’s] sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” We are taught that belief (trusting obedient faith) in God brings about righteousness (Gen. 15:6, 1 Jn. 3:7), and that from the Old Testament.
Paul also lists two specific things that can be produced by a study of the Old Testament: patience and comfort. I know from the Old Testament that God rewards those that submit to Him in loving trusting obedience (Gen. 15:6, 2 Chr. 7:14). I know that God never forsakes those who do not forsake Him (Deu. 31:6-8, Josh. 1:5, Heb. 13:5). Those things bring me comfort. I can take Job as my example (Job 1:21, 22; 2:10; 42:10; cf. also James 5:10, 11) and learn patience. One could read numerous other passages where New Testament writers quote Old Testament scriptures as examples for us (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6-11, Heb. 3:7-4:11, 1 Tim. 5:18, 1 Pet. 2:21-25).
“All scripture [“all” encompasses both testaments] is given by inspiration of God…and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). One cannot fully appreciate the abounding riches of the New Testament without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament. One need only to read his New Testament and note how many times the writers thereof penned the words “It is written” to know how important the Old Testament is to our understanding of the New. Often has it been said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The Old Testament is of great value and should not be neglected by any student of the word of God.
Under Which Law Do We Live?
During my relatively short time as a student of the Bible I have been very interested in short and simple answers. Allow me to explain: I understand, as I’m sure you do, that when afforded an opportunity to discuss the Bible with someone, one does not always have a great amount of time available. Because of this unavoidable truth I have always been on the look out for quick answers to certain key doctrinal questions that I am often asked by those with whom I come in contact. One of those questions is concerning whether or not the Law of Moses is binding upon the Christian today. This article seeks to offer a short and simple explanation that will enable one to readily answer the question with only a limited amount of time at one’s disposal. The passage which supplies this quick answer is Galatians 3:23-25.
To properly understand this passage one needs to be aware of the purpose and design of the book of Galatians. Judaizing teachers were troubling the churches of Galatia teaching that it was necessary to keep the Law of Moses. Paul writes to show that salvation is not in the keeping of the Law but rather in obedience to the gospel of Christ. Galatians 2:16 could very well be a synopsis of the book: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Now to our text: It begins “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” The King James Version did us no favor by its translation of this passage. The text should read “But before THE faith came.” The definite article “the” is present in the Greek text but one needs no knowledge of the original language to know the intention of the writer, one need only use common sense. The word “faith” could not possibly refer to one’s personal faith or belief because the text speaks of “faith” as not having come during the time of the law. Yet Abraham certainly had faith (cf. Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:12) and he lived BEFORE the law was given! The reference then is not to one’s personal faith but to the system of faith i.e. the gospel (cf. Acts 6:7, Rom. 1:5, Gal. 1:23).
“But before [the] faith came, we were kept under the law…Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” A significant word in v. 24 is “schoolmaster.” During the first century wealthy Roman families often had a slave called a paidagogos (the word here translated “schoolmaster”). The schoolmaster would accompany a boy under the age of 16 to and from school and also be responsible for his behavior. He even had the right to discipline the boy. Once the boy reached manhood the schoolmaster was no longer needed. Just like the schoolmaster brought the young Roman boy to school, the Law brought us to Christ.
The analogy continues: “But after that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (v. 25). The Greek article “the” is again present in this verse though it does not appear in the KJV. Just like the mature Roman boy is no longer under the schoolmaster, the Christian is no longer under the Old Law. Christ came in the “fullness” (denoting maturity) of time (cf. Gal. 4:4). The Christian is made perfect (mature) by the faith i.e. the gospel (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). We might phrase it this way: If the Law of Moses is the schoolmaster (and it is, v. 24) then we could replace the word “schoolmaster” with “the Law of Moses” and do no harm to the text. Using this logic, v. 25 reads as follows: “But after that [the] faith is come we are no longer under the Law of Moses.” After the faith (the gospel) comes we are no longer under the Law of Moses. So the only question remaining is “Has the faith come?” Indeed it has: “The faith…was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3, ASV).
So then we conclude by our brief examination of these three verses that the Christian is not amenable to the Law of Moses but rather to “the faith” or “the gospel” of Jesus Christ: “For ye are all the children of God by [the] faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (vs. 26, 27).
To properly understand this passage one needs to be aware of the purpose and design of the book of Galatians. Judaizing teachers were troubling the churches of Galatia teaching that it was necessary to keep the Law of Moses. Paul writes to show that salvation is not in the keeping of the Law but rather in obedience to the gospel of Christ. Galatians 2:16 could very well be a synopsis of the book: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Now to our text: It begins “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” The King James Version did us no favor by its translation of this passage. The text should read “But before THE faith came.” The definite article “the” is present in the Greek text but one needs no knowledge of the original language to know the intention of the writer, one need only use common sense. The word “faith” could not possibly refer to one’s personal faith or belief because the text speaks of “faith” as not having come during the time of the law. Yet Abraham certainly had faith (cf. Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:12) and he lived BEFORE the law was given! The reference then is not to one’s personal faith but to the system of faith i.e. the gospel (cf. Acts 6:7, Rom. 1:5, Gal. 1:23).
“But before [the] faith came, we were kept under the law…Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” A significant word in v. 24 is “schoolmaster.” During the first century wealthy Roman families often had a slave called a paidagogos (the word here translated “schoolmaster”). The schoolmaster would accompany a boy under the age of 16 to and from school and also be responsible for his behavior. He even had the right to discipline the boy. Once the boy reached manhood the schoolmaster was no longer needed. Just like the schoolmaster brought the young Roman boy to school, the Law brought us to Christ.
The analogy continues: “But after that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (v. 25). The Greek article “the” is again present in this verse though it does not appear in the KJV. Just like the mature Roman boy is no longer under the schoolmaster, the Christian is no longer under the Old Law. Christ came in the “fullness” (denoting maturity) of time (cf. Gal. 4:4). The Christian is made perfect (mature) by the faith i.e. the gospel (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). We might phrase it this way: If the Law of Moses is the schoolmaster (and it is, v. 24) then we could replace the word “schoolmaster” with “the Law of Moses” and do no harm to the text. Using this logic, v. 25 reads as follows: “But after that [the] faith is come we are no longer under the Law of Moses.” After the faith (the gospel) comes we are no longer under the Law of Moses. So the only question remaining is “Has the faith come?” Indeed it has: “The faith…was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3, ASV).
So then we conclude by our brief examination of these three verses that the Christian is not amenable to the Law of Moses but rather to “the faith” or “the gospel” of Jesus Christ: “For ye are all the children of God by [the] faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (vs. 26, 27).
The Nature of the Kingdom of God
There has been much discussion in the religious world surrounding the topic of the kingdom of God. Many have debated the time of the establishment of God’s kingdom, others have debated its duration, and still others have debated the very nature of the kingdom. This particular article seeks to discuss the nature of the kingdom while mentioning briefly the time of its establishment.
Daniel wrote, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure” (Daniel 2:44, 45). In this passage Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the “great image” (2:31). In his dream Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image which had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass (2:32), legs of iron, and feet of part iron and part clay (2:33). The image represented the succession of kingdoms beginning with Babylon as the head of gold. The Babylonians were followed by the kingdom of Media and Persia as the breast and arms of silver, then the kingdom of Grecia (Greece) as the belly and thighs of brass. Finally, the kingdom of Rome was represented by the legs of iron and the feet of part iron and part clay. It was in the days of those kings (the kings of the Roman Empire) that God would establish his kingdom made “without hands”. The phrase “without hands” gives us an important insight into the nature of God’s kingdom.
As we travel through the Bible we will notice that the phrase “without hands”, or something synonymous, is always put in contrast to something physical and thus denotes something that is spiritual. It is declared that that God does not dwell in temples “made with hands” (Acts 7:48; 17:48; cf. also 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18) but rather His temple is a spiritual one, indeed it is heaven itself (Psalm 11:4; Habbakuk 2:20). Notice also 2 Corinthians 5:1: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Here Paul contrasts our physical earthly bodies with the spiritual bodies “not made with hands” that we will have upon our resurrection from the dead. This spiritual body is described as a “house which is from heaven” (5:2). When Paul wrote to the Colossian brethren he spoke of spiritual circumcision: “And ye are complete in Him [Christ], which is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead” (2:10-12). Here the spiritual circumcision of “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” is called a circumcision “made without hands.” Finally, notice a contrast made by the Hebrew writer between the physical tabernacle in the wilderness and the spiritual tabernacle in heaven: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (9:24). In this same chapter it is stated that Christ is a high priest “by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (9:11). Over and over again we notice that the phrase “without hands”, or its equivalent, references something that is not physical but spiritual.
When this is applied to the kingdom of God (the stone cut out “without hands”) it can mean nothing except that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom. Notice a statement from the mouth of our Lord Himself: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). There is no better commentary on Daniel 2:44, 45 than that statement. The kingdoms of Babylon, Media and Persia, Grecia, and Rome were all established and sustained by physical combat and the strength of mighty men, but not so with the kingdom of our Lord. The kingdom of God, the church of Christ, was established by Christ’s redemptive work on the cross (cf. Matthew 16:18, 19; Acts 20:28). It was a spiritual battle, not a physical one (Hebrews 2:14). Just the same, Christ’s soldiers fight a spiritual battle (Ephesians 6:12), with spiritual armor (Ephesians 6:10-17), even in the face of physical death (Revelation 2:10; Matthew 10:32, 33).
Not only do these truths fly in the face of Pre-Millennial doctrine, which champions the establishment of a physical kingdom on earth during the “last days”, but these truths should also give us great comfort. Because of its spiritual nature the kingdom of God “shall not be left to other people” (Daniel 2:44). No number of mighty men can shake the kingdom of God. No nuclear bomb can destroy its walls, nor can any amount of technology subdue its borders. For we take our stand on the blood of Christ in the midst of a kingdom which “cannot be moved” (Hebrews 12:28).
Daniel wrote, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure” (Daniel 2:44, 45). In this passage Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the “great image” (2:31). In his dream Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image which had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass (2:32), legs of iron, and feet of part iron and part clay (2:33). The image represented the succession of kingdoms beginning with Babylon as the head of gold. The Babylonians were followed by the kingdom of Media and Persia as the breast and arms of silver, then the kingdom of Grecia (Greece) as the belly and thighs of brass. Finally, the kingdom of Rome was represented by the legs of iron and the feet of part iron and part clay. It was in the days of those kings (the kings of the Roman Empire) that God would establish his kingdom made “without hands”. The phrase “without hands” gives us an important insight into the nature of God’s kingdom.
As we travel through the Bible we will notice that the phrase “without hands”, or something synonymous, is always put in contrast to something physical and thus denotes something that is spiritual. It is declared that that God does not dwell in temples “made with hands” (Acts 7:48; 17:48; cf. also 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18) but rather His temple is a spiritual one, indeed it is heaven itself (Psalm 11:4; Habbakuk 2:20). Notice also 2 Corinthians 5:1: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Here Paul contrasts our physical earthly bodies with the spiritual bodies “not made with hands” that we will have upon our resurrection from the dead. This spiritual body is described as a “house which is from heaven” (5:2). When Paul wrote to the Colossian brethren he spoke of spiritual circumcision: “And ye are complete in Him [Christ], which is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead” (2:10-12). Here the spiritual circumcision of “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” is called a circumcision “made without hands.” Finally, notice a contrast made by the Hebrew writer between the physical tabernacle in the wilderness and the spiritual tabernacle in heaven: “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (9:24). In this same chapter it is stated that Christ is a high priest “by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (9:11). Over and over again we notice that the phrase “without hands”, or its equivalent, references something that is not physical but spiritual.
When this is applied to the kingdom of God (the stone cut out “without hands”) it can mean nothing except that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom. Notice a statement from the mouth of our Lord Himself: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). There is no better commentary on Daniel 2:44, 45 than that statement. The kingdoms of Babylon, Media and Persia, Grecia, and Rome were all established and sustained by physical combat and the strength of mighty men, but not so with the kingdom of our Lord. The kingdom of God, the church of Christ, was established by Christ’s redemptive work on the cross (cf. Matthew 16:18, 19; Acts 20:28). It was a spiritual battle, not a physical one (Hebrews 2:14). Just the same, Christ’s soldiers fight a spiritual battle (Ephesians 6:12), with spiritual armor (Ephesians 6:10-17), even in the face of physical death (Revelation 2:10; Matthew 10:32, 33).
Not only do these truths fly in the face of Pre-Millennial doctrine, which champions the establishment of a physical kingdom on earth during the “last days”, but these truths should also give us great comfort. Because of its spiritual nature the kingdom of God “shall not be left to other people” (Daniel 2:44). No number of mighty men can shake the kingdom of God. No nuclear bomb can destroy its walls, nor can any amount of technology subdue its borders. For we take our stand on the blood of Christ in the midst of a kingdom which “cannot be moved” (Hebrews 12:28).
In Spirit and in Truth
"God is spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).
Traditionally this verse has been interpreted to mean that one must worship God with the right actions ("in truth", cf. John 17:17) and with the right attitude ("in spirit"). However, is that the case? I am in agreement that one ought to worship God with authorized acts of worship (cf. Colossians 3:17) in a spirit of reverence (cf. Matthew 15:7-9; Hebrews 12:28, 29; Psalm 89:7) but is that the proper explanation of John 4:24? Let us examine the text and determine whether or not this is so.
Jesus and His disciples had just entered a city of Samaria called "Sychar" where Jacob's well was (vs. 5, 6). When they arrived "Jesus...being wearied with His journey, sat thus on the well" (v.6). As a particular woman of Samaria comes to draw water, Jesus engages her in conversation. In His masterful way of teaching He was able to move from a physical topic (water, vs. 7-9) to a spiritual one (everlasting life, vs. 10-15). By telling the woman things which no stranger could possibly know, Jesus proves that He is no ordinary man (vs. 16-18). "The woman saith unto Him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet" (v. 19). Now let me ask this question: what would you do if you knew that you were in the presence of one who had direct revelation from God? Personally, I would ask that person the most pressing religious question(s) I had. The Samaritan woman responded the same way. She asks the Christ, "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain [Mount Gerazim, MB]; and ye [the Jews, MB] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" (v. 20). In essence, her question was this: "Where ought men to worship? In Jerusalem or on Mount Gerazim?" "Jesus saith unto her, Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither worship in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews" (vs. 21, 22). In reverse order, Jesus answers her question. He says, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews." This answers the question as to where men ought to worship: in Jerusalem. However, Jesus also warns the woman of a change that is on the horizon: "The hour cometh, when ye shall neither worship in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." Jesus pointed to a time when worship would not be centered around any particular geographic location. That would have been a very revolutionary statement. For little more than a thousand years the worship of the God of heaven had centered around Jerusalem, and now, all that was going to change. Jesus was undoubtedly pointing to the abrogation of the Law of Moses, the coming of a new law (cf. Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:4-10), and the establishment of the church (cf. Matthew 16:18, 19; Acts 2:36-47). This sets the context for the following passage:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (vs. 23, 24).
We will ask two questions from this passage: 1. What does the phrase "the hour cometh, and now is" mean? 2. What does the phrase "in spirit and in truth" mean?
Traditionally this verse has been interpreted to mean that one must worship God with the right actions ("in truth", cf. John 17:17) and with the right attitude ("in spirit"). However, is that the case? I am in agreement that one ought to worship God with authorized acts of worship (cf. Colossians 3:17) in a spirit of reverence (cf. Matthew 15:7-9; Hebrews 12:28, 29; Psalm 89:7) but is that the proper explanation of John 4:24? Let us examine the text and determine whether or not this is so.
Jesus and His disciples had just entered a city of Samaria called "Sychar" where Jacob's well was (vs. 5, 6). When they arrived "Jesus...being wearied with His journey, sat thus on the well" (v.6). As a particular woman of Samaria comes to draw water, Jesus engages her in conversation. In His masterful way of teaching He was able to move from a physical topic (water, vs. 7-9) to a spiritual one (everlasting life, vs. 10-15). By telling the woman things which no stranger could possibly know, Jesus proves that He is no ordinary man (vs. 16-18). "The woman saith unto Him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet" (v. 19). Now let me ask this question: what would you do if you knew that you were in the presence of one who had direct revelation from God? Personally, I would ask that person the most pressing religious question(s) I had. The Samaritan woman responded the same way. She asks the Christ, "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain [Mount Gerazim, MB]; and ye [the Jews, MB] say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" (v. 20). In essence, her question was this: "Where ought men to worship? In Jerusalem or on Mount Gerazim?" "Jesus saith unto her, Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither worship in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews" (vs. 21, 22). In reverse order, Jesus answers her question. He says, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews." This answers the question as to where men ought to worship: in Jerusalem. However, Jesus also warns the woman of a change that is on the horizon: "The hour cometh, when ye shall neither worship in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." Jesus pointed to a time when worship would not be centered around any particular geographic location. That would have been a very revolutionary statement. For little more than a thousand years the worship of the God of heaven had centered around Jerusalem, and now, all that was going to change. Jesus was undoubtedly pointing to the abrogation of the Law of Moses, the coming of a new law (cf. Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:4-10), and the establishment of the church (cf. Matthew 16:18, 19; Acts 2:36-47). This sets the context for the following passage:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (vs. 23, 24).
We will ask two questions from this passage: 1. What does the phrase "the hour cometh, and now is" mean? 2. What does the phrase "in spirit and in truth" mean?
1. What does the phrase "the hour cometh, and now is" mean? Is the hour coming or is it already here? Does it refer to a future or a present condition?
This phrase, or its equivalent, only appears in the gospel according to John, and only appears three times (John 4:23; 5:25; 16:23). Of these three verses John 16:23 gives us the clearest definition of the phrase. The record of John 16 finds Jesus in an upper room with His apostles partaking of His last Passover feast at which He instituted the Lord's Supper. As they ate, Christ taught. During this upper room discourse Jesus speaks these words: "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me." Question: were the apostles currently with Him or had they already been scattered? Obviously, they were with Him. If not, to whom is He speaking? So, in the strictest sense, the phrase "the hour cometh, and now is" refers to an event that is yet in the future.
However, we might also ask, "What will bring about this 'scattering' of the apostles?" Certainly that is a reference to their scattering upon Jesus' arrest (cf. Mark 14:50). Now, when Jesus is arrested whom do we find leading the bunch? None other than Judas Isacriot (Mark 14:43-50). When the words of John 16:32 were spoken Judas Iscariot had already left the upper room to betray the Christ into the hands of sinners. So while the phrase "the hour cometh, and now is" has reference to a future event, it is an imminent one. The things which would bring this event to pass were already taking place.
2. What does "in spirit and in truth" mean?
How does our definition of "the hour cometh, and now is" affect the meaning of "in spirit and in truth"? Notice, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him" (v. 23). The record says that though things were working in order to bring about worship that is "in spirit and in truth" that kind of worship was yet in the future. Question: were there Jews who were presently worshiping with reverence and godly fear ("in spirit") according to the Law of Moses ("in truth")? Certainly there were, and yet, Jesus says that that has yet to take place. We have a dilemma: either there was not a single Jew worshiping correctly ("in spirit and in truth"), or, the traditional definition of "in spirit and in truth" is a flawed one. The conclusion is evident: the definition is flawed.
What then is the definition of "in spirit and in truth"?
A. Very often in the New Testament the word "flesh" is used as a metaphor for the Law of Moses. In the same way, the word "spirit" is used as a metaphor for the New Law, the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Notice: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Romans 7:4-7). In this text Paul discusses himself as he was under the old law and as he is under the new law. We can know of which law he is speaking because he quotes from it: "Thou shalt not covet" (v.7). Which law said that? The Law of Moses. When Paul speaks of himself under the Law of Moses he says that he was "in the flesh." Here, "the flesh" is a metaphor for the Law of Moses. When Paul speaks of himself as a Christian he says that he serves in "newness of spirit."
"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ" (Philippians 3:2-7). This passage is undoubtedly a contrast between the things accomplished by Paul while serving the Law of Moses ("in the flesh") and the things gained in Christ. It's interesting that in this passage Paul actually uses the phrase "worship God in spirit" (v.3) as a reference to his serving God according to the New Law in lieu of the Old.
And finally, notice the following passage: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" (2 Corinthians 3:3-8). Can there be any question as to the illustration here? The "ministration of death" (v.7), also called "the letter" (v. 6), was one that was "engraven in stones" (vs.3, 7) and administered by the hands of "Moses" (v.7). This is an obvious reference to the Old Law, the Law of Moses. Whereas, the New Law, the "new testament" (v.6), is called "the ministration of the spirit" (v.8), or just, "the spirit" (v.6).
B. When contrasting things of the Old Law and things of the New Law, the former is spoken of as a "shadow" or "figure" and the latter is called "the image," "the perfect," or "the true."
This imagery is used repeatedly in the book of Hebrews:
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect" (10:1).
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us . . . For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (9:8-12, 24).
Notice also this very revealing passage from the gospel according to John: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). What are we to make of such a statement? Are we to think that there was no grace under the Law of Moses? Certainly not. Five times in Exodus 33:12-17 it is said that both Moses and the people had found grace in God's sight. Are we to think that there is no law for those that are in Christ? Absolutely not. Galatians 6:2 and 1 Corinthians 9:21 both make mention of "the law of Christ." Again we ask, what then are we to make of such a passage? Here again we find a contrast between the Old Law and the New. One may want to make note that in the original language the definite article is present before both "grace" and "truth" to make the passage read thusly: "For the law was given by Moses, but [the] grace and [the] truth came by Jesus Christ." We find a similar construction in Ephesians 2:8, "For by [the] grace are ye saved through [the] faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." When the definite article is present it has reference to the system of grace, the system of truth, the system of faith, the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice the following examples:
"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). What had the priests obeyed? "The word of God"which is designated later as "the faith."
"But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed" (Galatians 1:23). What did Paul preach? "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man" (Galatians 1:11). Paul preached "the gospel" which was elsewhere called "the faith."
"But before [the] faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by [the] faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:23-27). Are we to believe that no one under the Old Law had faith? Of course not. What then is the meaning of the phrase "before faith came"? When the word "faith" is used in this passage it refers to the New Testament. Before the New Testament came, we were under the Old Law (cf. Romans 7:1-4).
"The faith" refers undoubtedly to God's power to save, the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 1:16). The faith is equated with "the grace" (cf. Ephesians 2:8), and "the grace" is called "the truth" per John 1:17. All of these things reference the New Law, the New Testament of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion:
Jesus has just answered the question of the Samaritan woman concerning worship: "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither worship in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews" (vs.21, 22). To paraphrase, "The Jews worship correctly by worshiping Jerusalem. However, there is coming a time when worship will not be restricted to any particular geographic location." How soon will this worship arrive? What will it be like? "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (vs.23, 24). In essence, Jesus answers, "The events that will bring about this new worship are already taking place. It is as if it is already here. This new worship will not be in the fleshly carnal ordinances of the Old Law (cf. Hebrews 9:9-12; Philippians 3:2-7; Colossians 3:12-17), but rather, it will be a ministration of the spirit (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6-8), with a spiritual priesthood (cf. 1 Peter 2:9), and spiritual children of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:23-29). This new worship will be according to a law that is not merely a figure or shadow of redemption (cf. Hebrews 9:9-12), but a law which brings about true redemption and actual remission of sins (cf. Hebrews 9:24; 10:1-10; John 1:17). These are the worshipers that God desires. Those that wish to worship Him must worship Him in the spirit, not in the flesh. Those that worship Him must worship Him in truth, not according to the shadow and figure. Those that worship God must forsake the Law of Moses and worship God according to the New Testament."
What a succinct explanation of the scheme of redemption. In the space of four verses Jesus the Christ takes us from Mt. Sinai to the old rugged cross. Jesus truly is the master teacher.
"God is a spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).
Would We Give It All?
The Cross Was His Own
Author Unknown
They borrowed a bed to lay His head when Christ my Lord came down.
They borrowed an ass from the mountain pass for Him to ride to town.
But the crown that He wore and the cross that He bore were His own. The cross was His own.
He borrowed the bread when the crowd He fed on the grassy mountain side.
He borrowed the dish and broken fish by which He was satisfied.
He borrowed a ship in which to sit to teach the multitude.
He borrowed a nest in which to rest; He had never a home so rude.
He borrowed a room on His way to the tomb, the Passover lamb to eat.
They borrowed a cave for Him a grave; they had borrowed a winding sheet.
But the crown that He wore and the cross that He bore were His own. The cross was His own.
_________________________
Christ gave up everything for us. What would we give up for Him? Would we give up family? Would we give up friends? Would we give up money? Would we give up our hobbies? Would we give up our time? Would we give it all? Would we give ourselves? "And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Luke 9:23).
"And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto Him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:57-62).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
