6/19/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Golden Rule (7:12) by Mark Copeland


"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Golden Rule (7:12)
INTRODUCTION 1. Have you ever found yourself in a situation... a. Faced with the need to make a decision on the spur of the moment? b. Wondering what is the right way to act? c. Unable to recall whether the Bible specifically addresses the moral dilemma in which you find yourself? 2. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus provided a helpful tool in such a situation... a. A quick and easy way to know what to do b. Something that is easy to remember 3. It is found in Mt 7:12, and is commonly called "The Golden Rule"... "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Mt 7:12) [But what is "The Golden Rule"? Was Jesus teaching anything new or original by what He stated? Well, in a way it was something new...] I. THE "GOLDEN" RULE VS. THE "SILVER" RULES A. MANY HAVE TAUGHT THAT WHICH IS SIMILAR... 1. The HINDU religion taught: This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain. - The Mahabharata 2. The BUDDHIST religion taught: Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. - Udana-Varga 3. The JEWISH traditions taught: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. - The Talmud 4. The MUSLIM religion taught: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. - Hadith 5. The BAHA'I faith teaches: He should not wish for others that which he doth not wish for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfil. - The Book of Certitude 6. Some other sources: a. Do not that to thy neighbor that thou wouldst not suffer from him. - Pittacus of Lesbos (650-570 BC) b. What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others. - Confucius (551-479 BC) c. Do not do unto others what angers you if done to you by others. - Isocrates (436-338 BC) d. "Tzu-kung asked, `Is there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one's life?' The Master said, `It is perhaps the word "shu". Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" - Analects, 15.24 e. Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. - Seneca (4 BC-AD 65) B. JESUS' "RULE" WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT... 1. Jesus requires you to do something favorably to others, while the others only prohibit you from doing something unfavorably to others! a. Jesus: Do unto others what you want them to do to you b. Others: Don't do to others what you don't want done to you 2. Note the difference... a. With the others, all that is required is that you don't harm other people b. With Jesus, what is required is that you show kindness to others 3. Jesus' rule is truly the "Golden" rule a. The others are "Silver" rules b. Of value, yes, but not as much as "gold" 4. The only ones that come close to teaching exactly what Jesus taught was: a. That found in Hadith, the traditions of Islam; but then, much of Islam is based upon what Jesus taught 600 years before Mohammed b. That stated by Seneca, who lived about the same time as Christ (I wonder if he had been influenced by the teachings of Christ?) [So what Jesus taught was something new compared to what many teachers had taught prior. But in another sense it was nothing new; rather, in a simple and easy to remember statement, Jesus gives us...] II. A GUIDELINE FOR RIGHTEOUS CONDUCT TOWARDS OTHERS A. ONE IN HARMONY WITH THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS... 1. As we have seen earlier in the sermon (cf. Mt 5:20-48) a. Jesus taught a standard of righteousness that contrasted with that of the scribes and Pharisees b. But it was in harmony with what the Law actually revealed 2. This one "rule" summarizes what the Law and the Prophets were all about 3. Just as the commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" summed up the Law according to Paul - Ro 13:8-10 B. A SORT OF "POCKET KNIFE" OR "CARPENTER'S RULE"... 1. That is, something that is always ready to be used 2. For example, even in an emergency, when there is no time to consult a friend, teacher, or book for advice, "the golden rule" can be guide for proper conduct 3. Treat others as you would be treated, and it is unlikely you will ever do the wrong thing III. SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW TO APPLY THIS "RULE" A. IN TEACHING THE LOST... 1. Imagine what it must be like to be told you are wrong, or in sin 2. Wouldn't you want to be told in a loving and patient spirit? 3. As you would have others try to persuade you to change religiously, so treat those you seek to convert - cf. 2Ti 2:24-26; Ep 4:15 B. IN CORRECTING ONE ANOTHER... 1. No one likes to have their mistakes, errors, etc., pointed out 2. When necessary, wouldn't we prefer to be approached with a meek and patient spirit? 3. As you would have others offer you constructive criticism, so give it to them - cf. Ga 6:1-2 C. IN TREATING OUR FAMILY, NEIGHBORS, ENEMIES... 1. Everyone likes to have loving families, good neighbors, and no enemies 2. Applying the golden rule will not only transform ourselves, but may also transform those around us! a. Sibling rivalry would cease b. Neighborly squabbles would be non-existent c. Enemies would become friends 3. Don't limit the application of the Golden Rule to religious matters! CONCLUSION 1. "The Golden Rule would reconcile capital and labor, all political contention and uproar, all selfishness and greed." Joseph Parker (1830-1902) a. Such would be the impact on our society if more followed Jesus' words b. But let's start close to home, and let the Golden Rule transform our own lives and those closest to us! 2. "We have committed the Golden Rule to memory; let us now commit it to life." Edwin Markham (1852-1940) a. This reflects what is true with most people; they know the rule, but don't live by it b. If Jesus is truly our Lord, then His "golden rule" will govern our life!


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Jesus’ Hermeneutical Principles by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2307

Jesus’ Hermeneutical Principles

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

We live in a pluralistic society where differing, even conflicting, viewpoints are seen as equally valid. This attitude has become very prevalent in our culture since the 60s. Television and radio talk shows continually stress that no absolutes exist. Many consider truth to be subjective and relative. They insist that there are very few, if any, definites—very little black and white, but a lot of gray. The matter is further muddled by the fact that on any religious or moral question, there are knowledgeable, sincere authorities on both sides of the issue. The general American mindset is that since truth is so elusive, no one should judge anyone else. No one should be so arrogant or dogmatic as to insist that a certain viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint. Truth to one person is not truth to another.

But without even examining God’s Word, we ought to be able to see that such thinking is self-contradictory and unacceptable. Why? Because those who espouse it insist that they are correct. They are dogmatic in their insistence that “no one should be dogmatic.” They hold as absolute and certain truth the fact that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold it!

Especially in religion, people tend to take the foolish position that truth is elusive and unattainable. Only in the task of interpreting the Bible do people take the position that truth is relative, always changing, and something of which we can never be sure. We reason in religion in a way that differs from the way we reason in every other facet of our lives.

For example, when we visit the doctor, we communicate to him our symptoms and expect him to understand us. We expect him to gather all the relevant evidence (the verbal information we give as well as the signs our bodies manifest) and then properly interpret that evidence to draw the right conclusions concerning our ailment and proper treatment. He then writes down a prescription that we take to the pharmacist and, once again, we expect the pharmacist to interpret properly the doctor’s instructions. We take the prescription home and read the label, fully expecting to understand the directions. The fact that doctors and pharmacists may sometimes make mistakes by drawing unwarranted conclusions from the evidence they gather about our physical condition does not change the fact that if they gather sufficient evidence and reason properly about the information, they can arrive at truth regarding our medical condition.

Everyday we interpret thousands of messages accurately. We read the newspaper, fully expecting to understand what we are reading. We read novels with the same expectation. We watch the news on television, we go to the mailbox and get our mail and browse through it, fully expecting to interpret properly the messages being conveyed to us. The fact that misunderstanding sometimes occurs, does not negate the fact that more information can be examined in order to draw the right conclusions and arrive at correct interpretations.

We go through this process constantly—every waking hour of the day, day in and day out, year after year. We give ourselves credit for having the ability to operate sensibly and communicate with one another intelligibly. Yet we turn right around and imply that the God of heaven, the One Who created our minds and our thinking capacity, the One Who is infinitely wiser and more capable than humans, is incapable of making His will known to humanity in a clear and understandable fashion! When we come to the Bible, we do a sudden about-face and insist that we can’t be sure what God’s will is, we must not be dogmatic on doctrine, and we must allow for differing opinions on what is spiritually right and wrong!

Did God author the Bible through inspired men with the purpose of making known His will for us? Did God have the Bible written in such a way that we can grasp the meanings that He intended to convey? The Bible declares, “yes.” God has given man written revelation with the understanding that it can be comprehended correctly. This means that for every teaching, for every passage, for every verse, for every word in the Bible, there is a meaning that God intended to convey. That’s what Peter meant when he wrote: “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). He meant that men did not decide what information to include in inspired material—God did. God has given every responsible human being the task of ascertaining that one correct interpretation. There is only one correct interpretation to any given passage—the right one: God’s view!

Let us return to the New Testament and Jesus Christ Himself. Let us examine the very approach that Jesus took in interpreting Scripture. Let us discover Jesus’ attitude toward truth and revelation. Let us consider how He employed Scripture to face the assaults of those who would deter Him from conformity to the will of God. Then let us “go and do likewise.” Jesus’ own approach to interpretation may be viewed in terms of His attitude toward Scripture and His actual use of Scripture.

Jesus’ Attitude Toward Scripture

Concerning His attitude toward Scripture, several elements emerge from His life on Earth.

1. Jesus clearly considered Scripture to be divinely inspired through human instrumentality. He attributed David’s words in Psalm 110:1 to the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36). He treated Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:27 as an inspired prediction that most certainly would come true (Matthew 24:15). On the very day He visited the synagogue in Nazareth and read aloud from Isaiah 61, He declared the passage fulfilled in their hearing (Luke 4:21). He maintained that Scripture’s affirmation that Elijah was to precede the Messiah’s appearance (Malachi 4:5) was exactly what transpired (Mark 9:11-13).

At His arrest, He asked Peter two questions, the second of which further confirmed His belief in the inspiration of Scripture: “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew 26:54). He attributed His selection of Judas to the inevitable fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 (John 13:18). Indeed, He was so sure of the inspiration of the Old Testament that even at His death, He quoted Psalm 22:1 (Matthew 27:46). Clearly, Jesus recognized Scripture as originating in the mind of God, thus imparting a controlling unity to the whole of Scripture. To Jesus, the Old Testament from beginning to end is inspired of God.

Jesus consistently approved the idea that Scripture has been preserved from error and is the Word of God in all of its parts. Not only did He receive the predictive elements of Old Testament Scripture, but also He acknowledged the credibility of the didactic and historical portions as well. Daniel’s historicity (Mark 13:14), Jonah’s fish experience (Matthew 12:40), the divine creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4), the reality of Noah and the Flood (Luke 17:26-27), Lot and the destruction of Sodom as well as the fate of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29,32), the widow, famine, and drought of Elijah’s day (Luke 4:25-26), and the leprous Syrian commander, Naaman (Luke 4:27)—all attest to His conviction that Scripture is inspired fully “in all of its parts.” The credibility of the inspired writers was unquestioned and their literary productions contained no mistakes.

For Jesus, Old Testament inspiration extended to the verbal expression of the thoughts of the sacred writers. Jesus clearly embraced this understanding of the matter. He based His powerful, penetrating defense of the reality of the resurrection of the dead upon the tense of the grammar of Exodus 3:6. If God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the very moment He was speaking to Moses, though the three had already died, then they must still exist beyond the grave (Matthew 22:32). [NOTE: The claim that Jesus made an argument based upon the “tense” of Old Testament language needs clarification. Actually, Hebrew has no past, present, or future tenses. Rather, action is regarded as being either completed or incomplete, and so verbs occur in the Hebrew Perfect or Imperfect. No verb occurs in God’s statement in Exodus 3:6. Consequently, tense is implied rather than expressed. In this case, the Hebrew grammar would allow any tense of the verb “to be.” Of course, Jesus clarified the ambiguity inherent in the passage by affirming what God had in mind. Matthew preserves Jesus’ use of the Greek present tense: “Ego eimi.”] The argument depends on God having worded His statement to convey contemporaneity.

When Jesus challenged the Pharisees to clarify the identity of the Messiah, He focused upon David’s use of the single term “Lord” in Psalm 110:1—“If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” (Matthew 22:45). His whole point depends upon verbal inspiration. On yet another occasion, Jesus was on the verge of being stoned by angry Jews because He identified Himself with deity. His defense was based upon a single word from Psalm 82:6—“gods” (John 10:34-35). His whole point depends upon verbal inspiration.

Jesus’ allusion to the “jot and tittle” constituted a tacit declaration of belief in verbal inspiration (Matthew 5:18). Not only the thought of Scripture, but also the words themselves and the letters that formed those words, were viewed as inspired. The same may be said of Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 2:24 in His discourse on divorce. Notice the wording: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said...” (Matthew 19:4-5). The verse to which Jesus alludes occurs immediately after a statement made by Adam. No indication is given in the text that the words are a direct quote of God. In fact, the words seem to be more authorial, narratorial comment by Moses, the author of the Pentateuch. Yet Jesus attributed the words to God. In other words, God was the author. The Genesis passage is not a record of what God said; it is what God said.

2. On the basis of this divine origin, Jesus also clearly demonstrated His attitude that Scripture is authoritative and that men are obligated to follow its precepts. When He described Abraham’s chat with the rich man in Hades, He quoted Abraham’s remark, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). In so doing, He manifested His high regard for the authority of the Old Testament as the ultimate voice and guide for Israel.

To Jesus, Scripture is the foundation of belief. He declared, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). He told the Jews, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life.... [H]ad you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:39,46-47). Jesus asserted that the Old Testament bore authoritative divine witness to Himself and, in so doing, bore witness to the authority of the Old Testament itself.

Many instances demonstrate Jesus’ recognition of the authority of Scripture. In Matthew 12:39-40, Jonah’s experience (Jonah 1:17) foreshadowed Jesus’ own burial: “For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). In Matthew 4:17ff. Jesus opposed Jewish traditions and scribal commentary for making void the Word of God. In Mark 12:10, to confirm the point of His parable, Jesus introduced an authoritative Scripture with the rhetorical query, “Have you not read this Scripture?” In Luke 4:21, Jesus declared Isaiah 61:1-2 to be applicable to those who were in His presence on that occasion. In Luke 24:27,44, Jesus expounded the Old Testament Scriptures and declared the necessity of their fulfillment—a superfluous, futile exercise unless they were authoritative for His listeners. In John 15:25, words from a Psalm are described as “law.”

Perhaps the most striking proof that Jesus viewed Scripture as authoritative is the occasion when He ascribed legal authority to the entirety of Scripture—a view also held by the Jews (John 12:34). By maintaining that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), Jesus asserted that its authority could not be annulled, denied, or withstood. Scripture’s authority is final and irrevocable. It governs all of life and will be fulfilled, come what may. Clearly, Jesus’ uniform attitude toward Scripture was one of complete trust and confidence in its authority.

3. Jesus also viewed Scripture as propositional, absolute, and objective. Phrases such as “it is written,” “God said,” “through the prophets,” and “Scripture says” show that Jesus and His apostles esteemed the Old Testament as divine and regarded its precepts as absolute truth. Its objective and absolute quality is seen in His frequent allusion to the Jewish writings as a unit—a well-defined, sacred totality (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; cf. Matthew 24:35). The apostles and gospel writers agreed with Jesus’ view that Scripture must be fulfilled (cf. Matthew 26:26; Luke 3:4; 22:37; John 12:38).

Even as a boy of 12, Jesus’ handling of Scripture as an objective body of truth was evident as He dazzled the doctors of the law with “His understanding and answers” (Luke 2:47). This characteristic continued throughout His earthly habitation. He contradicted His antagonists (e.g., the chief priests, scribes, and Sadducees) by pinpointing ignorance of the Scriptures as the cause of their religious error (Matthew 21:16; 22:29). He as much as said: “If you knew Scripture, you would not be in error” (cf. Mark 12:24). He prodded the Pharisees to consult Hosea 6:6—“go and learn what this means” (Matthew 9:13). On the other hand, Jesus knew Scripture (He ought to, He wrote it!), and used it as the basis of objective perception.

The propositional nature of Scripture is particularly apparent in Christ’s frequent use of isolated Old Testament statements (i.e., propositions) to prove various contentions. He used Psalm 110:1 to prove His lordship (Mark 12:36). He proved His Messianic identity and impending resurrection by alluding to an apparent conflation of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (Mark 14:62). He proved His death and resurrection were imminent by referring to Psalm 118:22 (Mark 12:10-22; cf. Acts 4:11).

Jesus’ Use of Scripture

Not only does the New Testament enlighten us as to Christ’s attitude toward Scripture, it also gives us many striking samples of Jesus’ pragmatic use of Scripture in day-to-day life. At least three observations emerge from an examination of Jesus’ actual handling of Scripture.

1. He relied very heavily upon Scripture. He quoted from the Old Testament frequently. He constantly reiterated to His disciples how the written Word of God should permeate life (e.g., Luke 24:27). He consistently affirmed the certainty of Scripture’s fulfillment in the world (e.g., Luke 24:44-46). He possessed a sense of the unity of history and a grasp of its wide sweep (e.g., Luke 11:50-51).

Preachers were once distinguished by their “book, chapter, and verse” approach to preaching. This very quality was typical of Jesus’ own approach to life. Yet preachers and members today are far more impressed by the theologians and latest popular authors than with the words of John, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Moses. We have abandoned the primary sources in exchange for secondary, inferior, and in many cases, erroneous sources. We are now the most academically educated generation the church has ever known—yet we are the most ignorant when it comes to plain Bible knowledge. It is time to abandon the heart-warming anecdotes and reacquaint ourselves with the divine text. It is time to emulate Jesus’ own extensive reliance upon and allusion to Scripture.

2. In addition to a heavy reliance upon scriptural quotation, Jesus repeatedly demonstrated incredible proclivity for rationality in His sharp, potent, penetrating use of logic and sound argumentation. His first recorded responsible activity consisted of logical dialogue between Himself and the Jewish theologians at the age of 12. His logical prowess was evident not only to the doctors of the law, but to His parents as well (Luke 2:45-51). On the occasion of His baptism, He reasoned with John in order to convince John to immerse Him (Matthew 3:13-15). He advanced a logical reason to justify the action.

Immediately after this incident, Jesus faced Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). Satan posed three arguments, urging Christ to act on the basis of erroneous reasoning. The sequence of the disputation between the two demonstrates Christ’s superior (i.e., accurate) use of logic to defeat His opponent. Jesus used direct statement, account of action, and implication. His allusion to the behavior of the Israelites, His use of direct statements from Deuteronomy, and His implied applications to the situation He was facing, all demonstrate a hermeneutic analogous to the traditional one that calls for “command, example, or necessary inference” as authority for belief and practice.

This incident also provides a marvelous demonstration of Christ’s mastery of debate and logical disputation. The example is not an isolated instance. Jesus employed logic and reason throughout His earthly sojourn. He responded to His contemporaries with piercing, devastating logic. He continually was besieged with questions and verbal tests to which He consistently displayed rational, reasoned response (Luke 11:53-54). Consider these few examples:

The exchange with the Pharisees over eating grain (Matthew 12:1-9);

The dialogue with chief priests and elders over authority (Matthew 21:23-27);

The interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22);

The response to the Sadducees concerning marriage and the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33);

The argument posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46);

The demonstrations of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14-16; 14:1-6);

The response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14ff);

The answer to the scribes and Pharisees concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39);

The handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50);

The exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40);

The comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53).

Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when hard-hearted Jews declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, others countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John 10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). How could anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ uniform use of logic and correct reasoning? He was and is the Master Logician who created the human mind to function rationally as well! His inspired followers were no different.

3. Closely related to Jesus’ emphasis upon logic is His virtually constant use of implication. Modern scholars are surely uncomfortable with Jesus’ use of what many have called “necessary inference.” Indeed, cries that call for an abandonment of implication in interpreting the Scriptures have grown louder. Not only is such thinking self-contradictory, it is patently foolish in light of Jesus’ own frequent and accurate use of implication.

Over and over, Jesus used implication. In Matthew 4:1-11, every case of Jesus’ use of Old Testament Scripture to counter Satan’s arguments requires proper reasoning and drawing of correct conclusions implied by the explicit statements. In Matthew 12:1-9, Jesus implied that if the Pharisees accepted David, who clearly violated Old Testament law, they should have no problem accepting the disciples, who did not violate Old Testament law. In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus implied that if the chief priests and elders believed John’s baptism to be from Heaven, they should have submitted to John’s teaching—and to Jesus’ teaching as well. He further implied that if they believed John’s baptism to be from men, they ought to have been willing to face the peoples’ displeasure. The chief priests and elders had enough sense to infer precisely what Jesus implied and so refused to answer.

In Matthew 22:23-32, Jesus implied that if God declared Himself to be presently the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then they were still in existence. He also implied that if they were still in existence after their physical deaths, then resurrection of the dead is factual. Further, in context, Exodus 3:6, 13-16 are intended to identify the One who sent Moses to Egypt. However, in making this point, God implied that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence. Jesus, in fact, was basing His point on a minor side point of the Exodus passage, but a point that is nevertheless clearly and divinely implied.

In Matthew 22:41-45, in response to Jesus’ question, the Pharisees identified the Christ as David’s son, no doubt alluding to 2 Samuel 7:11-17. Jesus cited Psalm 110:1 in order to encourage the Pharisees to fit two distinct concepts together by reasoning correctly about them and inferring what they clearly implied. Notice also that in its original context, Psalm 110:1 referred to the supremacy and conquest of the Messiah over the world. But Jesus focused upon an implication of the passage—that the Messiah would be both physically descended from David and yet Lord over David.

CONCLUSION

The Bible presents itself in terms of principles by which its truth may be ascertained. We can transcend our prejudices and presuppositions sufficiently to arrive at God’s truth—if we genuinely wish to do so. There is simply no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation.” There is only God’s interpretation. There is only God’s meaning—and with diligent, rational study, we can arrive at the truth on any subject that is vital to our spiritual well-being.

Rather than shrugging off the conflicting views and positions on various subjects (such as baptism, music in worship, miracles, how many churches may exist with God’s approval, etc.), rather than dismissing religious differences as hopeless, irresolvable, and irrelevant—we must study and search God’s book, cautiously refraining from misinterpreting and misusing Scripture. If we give diligent and careful attention to the task with an honest heart that is receptive to the truth, we will know God’s will. We will be prepared, as Jesus said in John 12:48, to stand before God at the Judgment and be judged by His words.

It is evident that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, demonstrated several significant hermeneutical principles in His own attitude toward and use of Scripture. He approached Scripture with the abiding conviction that the Old Testament is the authoritative, absolute, propositional, plenary, verbally inspired Word of God. In His handling of Scripture, He relied heavily upon extensive Scripture quotation, proper logical reasoning, and implication.

As American civilization jettisons the Bible from public life, so many in the church are participating in the culture-wide devaluation of God’s Word. They are accomplices in the sinister dissolution of Christianity in American culture. May God bless us in our efforts to conform ourselves to the hermeneutical principles of Jesus.

Jesus Used Logic by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3755

Jesus Used Logic

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Jesus was undoubtedly the Master Logician. He demonstrated unsurpassed logical prowess on every occasion. One such incident occurred when He was preaching to a group that had gathered in a house. So many people were crammed into the house that four men were unable to bring a paralytic into contact with Him, so they carried him onto the roof, punched a hole through the ceiling, and lowered him down through the hole into the presence of Jesus. The text then reads:

When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go your way to your house.” Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2:5-12).

Observe that in their private thoughts the scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy, since He claimed to forgive the man of his sins on the spot—an act that only Deity could rightly perform. By asking the question, “Which is easier…?,” Jesus was urging them to reason correctly and think through what was taking place. If Jesus had the power to cause a bedfast paralytic to stand up and walk, instantaneously healing him of his affliction, then He either had divine backing or He, Himself, was God. Anyone can verbally say, “Your sins are forgiven” (cf. Catholic priests). That is what Jesus meant when he used the word “easier.” For a mere human to pronounce forgiveness upon a fellow human does not make it so. How, then, can one determine whether sin is actually forgiven, i.e., that God forgave the individual? Answer: The one making the claim would either have to be God in the flesh, or he would have to have divine authority for his action, and that divine authority would have to be verified, i.e., proven and shown to be authentic.

The purpose of miracles throughout the Bible was to authenticate God’s spokesmen. To verify that his words and claims were authored by God, the speaker would perform a miracle (see Miller, 2003; cf. Hebrews 2:3-4). When an observer saw a bona fide miracle performed before his very eyes, he could know, i.e., have complete certainty, that the speaker was a genuine representative of God. Jesus, therefore, prodded the scribes to face up to the fact that if Jesus could merely speak to the paralytic and cause him to be healed, then Jesus possessed divine credentials and had every right to also forgive the man of his sins. Follow the logic:

  1. If Jesus can perform miraculous feats, then His claim to be the Son of God Who can forgive sin is true.
  2. Jesus can perform miraculous feats (He healed the paralytic on this occasion).
  3. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God Who can forgive sin.

Having pressed this remarkably logical handling of the situation, all that remained was for Jesus to perform a miraculous feat, thereby validating His power to forgive the paralytic man of sin. So Jesus healed the man, prefaced with this logical conclusion: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins” (vs. 10). Jesus’ logic was impeccable, powerful, and perfectly consistent with Deity.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Jesus Said: "Do Not Believe Me" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4214

Jesus Said: "Do Not Believe Me"

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Most within Christendom see Jesus as One Who expects people to accept Him “by faith.” What they mean by “faith” is that people ought to accept Jesus as the Son of God without any proof, evidence, or rational justification—simply because He claimed to be divine. Most, in fact, see faith and proof as opposites. They think one must have faith in those areas where proof is unavailable. To them, “faith” is blindly accepting what you cannot prove, and deciding to believe what you cannot know.

Tragically, this widespread malady has fomented unbelief, skepticism, and atheism. After all, God created the human mind “in His image” (Genesis 1:26). Hence, the human mind was designed to function rationally. When humans conduct themselves illogically, they are going against their natural inclination. In the face of such irrationality, the atheist rightly dismisses “Christianity” as a false system of thinking. Ironically, the atheist is equally irrational in his blind commitment to atheism and evolution—both of which contradict the evidence. [see www.apologeticspress.org]

True, undenominational, New Testament Christianity, on the other hand, is the one and only consistent, rational perspective. According to the New Testament, God never expects nor requires anyone to accept His Word without adequate proof. God empowered His spokesmen on Earth to verify their verbal pronouncements by performing accompanying supernatural acts (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4). The book of John spotlights this feature repeatedly. When Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, approached Jesus one night, he stated: “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2, emp. added). Nicodemus was a rational man! He saw evidence that pointed to the obvious conclusion that Jesus was of divine origin, and was honest enough to admit it.

Responding to critical Jews, Jesus defended His divine identity by directing their attention to the works (i.e., “supernatural actions”) He performed: “[T]he very works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). He made the same point to His apostles on another occasion:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves (John 14:10-11, emp. added).

Later, Jesus noted that when people refused to believe in Him as the Son of God, they were without excuse, since the evidence of His divine identity had been amply demonstrated: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:24, emp. added). So their lack of faith could not be attributed to their inability to know the truth regarding the person of Jesus (cf. John 8:32).

If it is the case that God does not expect a person to believe in Him unless adequate evidence has been made available to warrant that conclusion, then we ought to expect to see Jesus urging people not to believe Him unless He provided proof for His claims. Do we find Jesus doing so while He was on Earth? Absolutely! This fact is particularly evident in Jesus’ response to the tirade launched against Him by hard-hearted Jews who refused to face the reality of His divinity. He reiterated: “The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (John 10:25). His subsequent explicit declaration of His deity incited angry preparations to stone Him. He boldly challenged them: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38, emp. added).

Since Jesus came to the planet to urge people to render obedient submission to Him (John 3:16; 8:24), it is difficult to envision Him telling people not to believe Him. But that is precisely what He did! He has provided the world with adequate evidence for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. We can know that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, and that the Bible is the Word of God. If the evidence did not exist to prove these matters, God would not expect anyone to believe; nor would He condemn anyone for failing to believe—since He is fair and just (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11; Peter 3:9). But the evidence does exist! We can know! All accountable human beings are under obligation to investigate and find the truth (John 8:32; 6:45; 7:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). All who desire to know the truth can find it (Matthew 5:6; 7:7-8). All who fail to do so are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20)!

Gospel Preached Everywhere Before the End by David Vaughn Elliott


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/gospel-preached-everywhere-before-end.html

Gospel Preached Everywhere Before the End

by David Vaughn Elliott


Jesus said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). Have you heard of the modern-day sects which boast of having already reached most of the world, adding that when they reach the remaining areas, the way will be paved for the Lord's return? Is this what Jesus was talking about?


"The end will come." The end of what? When a husband and wife have a severe argument and one says, "This is the end," no one would think for a moment that they were talking about the end of the world. Maybe the end of "their" world, but not the end of "the" world. The context of the statement shows what end is in view.  


So it is with the context of Matthew 24:14. The whole conversation began with Jesus' shocking statement about the temple: "There shall not be left here one stone upon another" (24:2). Then, immediately after mentioning "the end" in verse 14, Jesus quoted Daniel's famous prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Then in verse 16 Jesus advised: "let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." Jesus was not talking about the end of the world. He was still talking about the end of the temple in Jerusalem, which was in Judea.  


Jesus' prediction of no stone upon another was fulfilled by the Romans in 70 A.D. But was the gospel preached in all the world before that time? The inspired apostle Paul, about the year 62 A.D., gave the answer to the Colossian saints:  "the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven" (1:23). "Was preached"--past tense. Jesus' prediction of the gospel being preached in all the world was already fulfilled 8 years before the end of the temple in Jerusalem. 

"Which church should we attend?" by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/whichchurch.html

"Which church should we attend?"

In 1947, when I was seven and my brother, Dale, was four, my parents decided to start going to church. Sunday school would be good for their children.

But which church should they attend?

My father, Charles Henry Davison, had attended the Methodist church as a boy, but he felt no particular loyalty to that denomination.

My mother, Bessie Inez Kincaid, had attended the Christian Church, and had been baptized into Christ as a teenager. After she left home, however, her parents, Charles and Pearl Kincaid, left the Christian Church and became members of the Central Church of Christ in Saint Louis, Missouri.

After some discussion, my parents decided to visit the Christian Church and the Church of Christ. I remember those visits well.

We lived at Clinton, Maryland near Washington, D.C. where my father was an electronics technician with the Naval Research Laboratory.

We first visited the National City Christian Church at 5 Thomas Circle in Washington, DC. It was a congregation of almost 2000 members. I remember the impressive building with its large columns like a Greek temple. But most of all, I remember the steps! There are 31 stone steps from the street up to the door. There was no handrail. It was scary! I would need to be very careful on those steps! If I fell, I might tumble all the way down to the bottom and really hurt myself!

The Sunday school classes were putting on a big pageant for the parents that day. So my brother and I were put on two chairs in the corner of the classroom while the other children put on their costumes. One boy was dressed like a Roman soldier and had a wooden sword. The whole class then filed out into the auditorium and took seats at the front. The teacher told us that when the other children got up to go on stage, we should just stay in our seats, since we would not know what to do. I remember feeling very lonely and conspicuous after the others got up. Dale and I sat alone in the midst of all those empty seats. During the worship service, I noticed that the preacher wore special clothes. It looked like he had his collar on backwards.

The next Sunday we visited the Anacostia Church of Christ (in 1952 the name was changed to the Southeast Church of Christ when they built their own building). It had less than a hundred members and met in a rented lodge hall. The building was used for dancing on Saturday nights, so someone had to come early on Sunday morning to sweep up the broken beer bottles and open the windows to air the place out.

My brother and I had an interesting Bible class, and I remember how nice the singing sounded. The people were friendly and made us feel like long-lost friends.

Can you guess which congregation my parents decided to attend? They were zealous and attended all the services and Bible studies. Although my father came from a denominational background, he thought he was a Christian. He had been immersed when he was a teenager, so he thought his baptism was valid.

A gospel meeting was held shortly thereafter and my father went up and down our street inviting people to attend. During that meeting, he was baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38). The clear preaching of the gospel caused him to realize that his previous immersion was not valid, and that he actually was not yet a Christian.

When he was a teenager, his mother had told him he was old enough to join the church. He asked how he was supposed to do that, and she told him to talk to the preacher. When my father heard the true gospel preached during that meeting, he realized that his previous immersion was just to please his mother and to join the Methodist Church, not to put on Christ (Galatians 3:26).

My father wanted to preach. He had always tried to do what was right, but he simply did not know what was right. He thought there were probably others like that too, and he wanted to help them.

He quit his government job and studied at Freed-Hardeman and at the Bible Chair at Eastern New Mexico University where he earned a BS degree in Physics and Bible.

Working as an electronics technician, he supported himself as a preacher during most of his life. He preached full-time for a while at Soccoro, New Mexico, and he established a new congregation at Fargo, North Dakota. For many years he would close his TV repair business for two months during the summer so he and my mother could help small congregations in the northern United States as vacation Bible school teachers.

My mother went to her reward in 1982. After my father remarried, he and his new wife, Yvonne, made several trips to Ukraine to teach Bible classes in English. In 1995 Dad made his last trip to Ukraine at the age of 81. He went to be with the Lord in 1996.

That seven-year-old boy, who was afraid of falling down the stone steps of that neoclassic building, and who -- like his parents -- greatly preferred the friendly congregation with the beautiful singing, has now been preaching the gospel in the Dutch-speaking part of Europe for more than 40 years.

Roy Davison

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

To kiss a fish by Gary Rose




Well, here is a new one; a dog kissing a fish – or is it a fish kissing a dog? On second thought- does it really matter? Two completely different creatures apparently showing affection for one another; now, here is a lesson for us all!


Consider; we all have our own completely original background, for no two of us are absolutely alike. Well, what about twins, you may ask? No even twins, because each of them lives in their own space, experience slightly different things during the course of their lives. So, they may be identical in genome, but not in experience.


But what about those who are different from us? Different in age, sex, race, religion, or location (an American verses a person from a different country). Culture does change things, but every human (well, most of them anyway) performs the same basic bodily functions, such as speaking, hearing, thinking, eating, sleeping, etc.. So then, why has it become so very hard for human beings to get along? Now, if I could really answer that question, I think I would be entitled to a genuine Nobel peace price for bringing people together. But, I do know someone who is able to do that, and his name is Jesus. He and He alone is able to bring people of every possible shape, size and description together. The Apostle of Jesus, Paul, knew this and realized the difference that Jesus can make in the life of any human being. This change humbles you, changes you and enables you to lead a different life; a life joined with God. Paul says…


1 Timothy 1 ( World English Bible )

12 And I thank him who enabled me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he counted me faithful, appointing me to service;

13 although I was before a blasphemer, a persecutor, and insolent. However, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

14 The grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15 The saying is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

16 However, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might display all his patience, for an example of those who were going to believe in him for eternal life.

17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.


No matter what you are like, no matter how bad or how good you may think you are, GOD LOVES YOU! He loves you enough to send Jesus to the cross to pay the price for all your sins. Words may sound nice, but actions that involve a sacrifice really mean something.


Paul encountered Jesus and when he did, it completely changed his life. He dedicated his life to serve him. Humm, isn’t that what every person who truly becomes a Christian does? Not just in a man-made prayer, but in loving obedience to the Gospel, by believing in God (and Jesus), repenting of your current way of living (of living sinfully) and turning to God to show you how to live according to his will. So, having done these things, you confess Jesus as LORD and submit to him by being baptized into HIS body for the forgiveness of sins. You begin life anew; a life directed by God’s will and not your own.


The answer to all the world’s problems – to them all, is God and his love in Jesus the Christ of God. His love provides the motivation to love others, no matter who they are or where the come from and to bring all human beings together into the one body. This love has and will continue to change the world into a better place.


God wants us to love every single person we will ever meet, even the worst of them. This means to do the best we can towards others, no matter how they act toward us. It does not mean that we will like everyone, but it does mean we will do our best to show to them like Jesus showed his love toward us- in actions.


Having said all this, there is but one question that remains unanswered:

Could I really kiss a fish?