"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Olivet Discourse - II (24:29-51)

 

 

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Olivet Discourse - II (24:29-51)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous lesson, we covered the first half of Matthew 24...
   a. Commonly called "The Olivet Discourse", since Jesus was on the
      Mount of Olives when He delivered it
   b. A challenging passage of scripture, believed to discussing...
      1) The destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D.
      2) The second coming of Christ, which is yet to occur
      3) Or both events, described either in turn or intertwined

2. I've proposed the entire chapter foretells the destruction of
   Jerusalem, based first upon the setting leading up to the discourse,
   which includes...
   a. Jesus' words spoken in the temple
      1) His parables about Israel's rejection of Him - Mt 21:28-32, 33-46; 22:1-14
      2) His condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees - Mt 23:27-36
      3) His lamentation over Jerusalem - Mt 23:37-39
   b. Jesus' prophecy spoken about the temple - Mt 24:1-2
   c. The questions of the disciples, which when Mark and Luke's
      account are considered, appear to be:
      1) "When will these things be?"
      2) "What will be the sign when all these things will be 
         fulfilled?" -- Cf. Mt 24:3; Mk 13:4; Lk 21:7

3. We saw that in verses 4-29, Jesus describes...
   a. What will "not" be the sign (other than the gospel preached to
      all nations) - Mt 24:4-14
   b. What will be the sign - Mt 24:15
      1) The abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel - Dan 9:26-27
      2) Which Luke explains to be Jerusalem surrounded by armies - Lk 21:20
   c. What to do when they saw the sign - Mt 24:16-28
      1) Those in Judea were to flee to the mountains to avoid a great tribulation
      2) They were not to be misled by false christs or false prophets

[Up to verse 29, Jesus described a local, escapable judgment to befall
Jerusalem.  He does not describe the worldwide, inescapable judgment
taught elsewhere in the Scriptures.  But with verse 29, some believe
Jesus now addresses His second coming (cf. J.W. McGarvey's Four-Fold
Gospel).  As we continue with our study, I propose that the destruction
of Jerusalem is still under consideration...]

II. THE OLIVET DISCOURSE (continued)

   D. WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT...
      1. Events to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days"...
         a. Cosmic disturbances - Mt 24:29
            1) The sun will be darkened
            2) The moon will not give its light
            3) The stars will fall from heaven
            4) The heavens will be shaken
         b. The sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven - Mt 24:30
            1) All the tribes of the earth will mourn
            2) They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
               heaven with power and great glory
         c. The elect will be gathered - Mt 24:31
            1) For with a great sound of the trumpet, angels will be sent
            2) They shall gather the elect from the four winds, from
               one end of heaven to another     
      2. Such events certainly sound like the second coming of Christ,
         but consider two reasons why they may not be referring to
         Jesus' coming at the Last Day...
         a. The events were to occur "immediately after the tribulation
            of those days" ("in those days, after that tribulation")- Mt 24:29; Mk 13:24
            1) They are connected in time to the tribulation described in Mt 24:15-28
            2) This "coming" of Jesus was to occur at the conclusion of
               the siege of Jerusalem
         b. The events are similar to those used to foretell God's
            judgment of other nations
            1) Babylon - Isa 13:1,6-13
            2) Egypt - Isa 19:1-2; cf. Eze 32:2,7-9
            3) Tyre - Isa 23:1; 24:21-23
            4) Edom - Isa 34:4-6
            5) Nineveh - Nah 1:1-5
            6) Israel - Am 8:9
            7) Judah - Jer 4:5-6,23-28
      3. For such reasons, I suggest that even in Mt 24:29-31...
         a. Jesus refers to the destruction of Jerusalem
         b. Like other Jewish prophets, Jesus uses figurative language to depict:
            1) The judgment to befall the wicked (in terms of worldwide destruction)
            2) The provision made for the righteous (in terms of the gathering by angels)
         c. Jewish prophets foretold God's judgment upon such nations...
            1) Using figures of worldwide destruction, even though the
               judgment was local
            2) Perhaps because such judgments foreshadow God's Final
               Judgment to come upon the entire world at the Last Day

   [The rest of the chapter includes...]

   E. ADMONITIONS TO BE PREPARED AND PRODUCTIVE...
      1. The parable of the fig tree - Mt 24:32-33
         a. New branches and leaves indicate summer is near
         b. When you see these things (Jerusalem surrounded by armies),
            the time is near
      2. It would happen before "this generation" passed away - Mt 24:34
         a. Some define "generation" as a race of people (i.e., the
            Jews) - cf. McGarvey, B. W. Johnson
         b. But note its use by Jesus just prior to this discourse 
            - Mt 23:33-36 (esp. 36)
         -- The destruction of Jerusalem came to pass within forty years!
      3. The words of Jesus will come to pass - Mt 24:35
         a. Heaven and earth shall pass away one day - cf. 2Pe 3:7,10
         b. But Jesus' words will by no means pass away
         -- With v. 35, some believe Jesus now talks about the second
            coming; but Jesus is using an illustration to demonstrate
            the surety of His words - e.g., Mt 5:18
      4. Of that day and hour, only the Father knows - Mt 24:36
         a. They might discern the general timing with the advance of
            armies toward Jerusalem
         b. But the day and hour when the siege would begin, only the Father knew
         -- So don't delay when the "sign" appears (Jerusalem surrounded by armies)
      5. It will be like the days of Noah - Mt 24:37-39
         a. In the days before the flood...
            1) Noah knew what was coming and was preparing, but people
               continued with their normal activities
            2) Only when it was too late did the people know
         b. Prior to the siege of Jerusalem...
            1) Many people probably thought the conflict would end
               peacefully, and so lived their lives accordingly
            2) But once the siege began, it was too late
      6. Some will be taken away - Mt 24:40-41
         a. When the city was stormed, 97,000 Jews were taken captive
         b. Some to be killed by beasts in Roman theaters, some sent to
            work in Egypt, others sold as slaves -- Flavius Josephus,
            Jewish Wars (as quoted in Barnes Commentary on Matthew)
      7. Therefore, watch! - Mt 24:42-44
         a. You don't know the hour of the Son of Man's coming
         b. Don't be caught off guard, like the master of a house who
            did not know when a thief would break in
         c. Be ready, for the Son of Man will come when you not expect Him
         -- The siege of Jerusalem might begin promptly, so flee Judea
            quickly when you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem!
      8. The parable of the faithful servant and the wicked servant - Mt 24:45-51
         a. The faithful servant is blessed if doing the master's will when he comes
         b. So the disciples of Jesus are admonished to be productive

CONCLUSION

1. Admittedly, there is much in "The Olivet Discourse" that alludes to
   our Lord's second coming at the Last Day...
   a. But that is no different than the prophecies by other Jewish
      prophets who foretold God's judgment upon other nations
   b. It was a common motif used by Jewish prophets, we should not be
      surprised to see Jesus using the same
   -- And rightly so, for God's judgments upon nations in the past are
      types and shadows of the Final Judgment to befall the entire
      world when Jesus comes again

2. In addition to the setting leading up to the discourse, there is the
   natural flow of the discourse itself that leads me to conclude it is
   entirely about the destruction of Jerusalem...
   a. Jesus' disciples are told what will not be the sign - Mt 24:1-14
   b. They are told will be the sign that His coming is near - Mt 24:15
   c. They are told what to do when they see the sign - Mt 24:16-28
   d. His coming in judgment (the fall of Jerusalem) is described in
      terms reminiscent of other Jewish prophets who foretold of God's
      judgments upon various nations - Mt 24:29-31
   e. Admonitions are given for them to be prepared and productive in
      the meantime - Mt 24:32-51

So I view "The Olivet Discourse" to describe a local, escapable
judgment which occurred as Jesus foretold in 70 A. D.  However, there
is still the worldwide, inescapable judgment at the Last Day 

- cf. 1 Th 5:2-3; 2Th 1:7-10; 2Pe 3:10-12

Are you ready for that Day?  The admonitions to be prepared and
productive are very similar:

   "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in
   which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the
   elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the
   works that are in it will be burned up."

   "Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what
   manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
   looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because
   of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the
   elements will melt with fervent heat?"

   "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
   and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved,
   looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in
   peace, without spot and blameless;"- 2Pe 3:10-14 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

The Name “Christian” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1499

The Name “Christian”

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Christendom is conspicuous for the myriad of names worn by individuals and churches—from “Catholic” and “Protestant” to Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Episcopalian, and an innumerable host of others. Those who employ these terms to identify their religious orientation also would claim to be “Christian”—as if the secondary terms are simply further refinements or clarifications of the broader, more basic designation of Christian.

Whence did these names arise? History answers this question for each name. For example, “Catholic” simply means “comprehensive” or “universal.” The Catholic Church therefore wishes to emphasize that it constitutes the universal church. “Baptist” is connected to the Greek word for immersion, and thus represents the wearer’s conviction that baptism is by immersion. A “Baptist” is an “immersionist.” “Presbyterian” comes from the Greek word presbuteros, which refers to the form of government by which the church is to be organized. A “presbyter” in the New Testament was one of a plurality of elders who functioned as the leaders or overseers of the local congregation. “Pentecostal” refers to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles to speak in tongues. Thus a “Pentecostal” is one who believes in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. All other names, terms, and designations by which people who claim to be Christian refer to themselves may also be explained on the basis of some doctrine or feature of Christianity that historically came to receive special emphasis among a specific group of people.

What does the New Testament have to say about this state of affairs? Does Christ sanction the use of differing names and terms to identify individuals and churches? Perhaps the place to begin is in the Old Testament when the messianic prophet Isaiah predicted that the day would come when God would implement a “new name:”

For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,
Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns.
The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory.
You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will name (Isaiah 62:1-2).

This fascinating prophecy contains four points that merit close consideration: (1) Righteousness/salvation would go forth from Jerusalem; (2) the Gentiles would see this righteousness/salvation; (3) a new name would be given; and (4) the Lord Himself would bestow that new name.

One must go to the New Testament to find fulfillment and clarification of these marvelous assertions. A number of names are used to refer to God’s people in the New Testament, including believer, disciple, saint, servant, and brother. But all of these terms were used previously in the Old Testament (Exodus 4:31; Isaiah 8:16; John 9:28; Psalm 106:16; Proverbs 2:8; Leviticus 25:46,55; Nehemiah 1:2). They were not new. Isaiah’s inspired prediction allows us to pinpoint the precise occasion on which a new name was given. His first indicator was that righteousness or salvation would go forth from Jerusalem. Here is an apparent allusion to the commencement of the Christian era on the Day of Pentecost in A.D. 30, described in detail in Acts 2. After His death and resurrection, Jesus instructed His apostles to go to Jerusalem and there await the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4,12). They did so, and the Holy Spirit, as predicted, empowered the apostles to present the Gospel message and to launch Christianity and the church of Christ (Acts 2). Indeed, on that auspicious occasion, just as Isaiah predicted, the means to salvation went forth as brightness, and proceeded to go forth from Jerusalem even as Jesus predicted (Acts 1:8). The first point of Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled.

However, the throng gathered on Pentecost was composed entirely of Jews (Acts 2:5). In fact, though about 3,000 were converted to Christianity that day (Acts 2:41), and several thousand thereafter (Acts 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7), all the converts were Jewish. Samaritans (half-Jews) were eventually incorporated into the Lord’s church (Acts 8:5ff.). But it was not until perhaps eight to ten years later that the first Gentiles obeyed the Gospel and were added to the church. This momentous event occurred when Peter, at the instigation of a heavenly vision, agreed to go to the home of a Roman centurion to preach the Gospel to him, his family, and close friends (Acts 10:24). They, in turn, became the very first Gentile converts to Christianity as a result of hearing the preached message and submitting themselves to water baptism (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14).

But look back at Isaiah’s prophecy. The second action that Isaiah anticipated would occur, after salvation went forth from Jerusalem, was that the Gentiles themselves would be the recipients of this same righteousness/salvation and likewise bask in the glory of the Lord. The conversion of Cornelius and those with him in Acts 10 constitutes the fulfillment of the second criterion of Isaiah’s prediction. Incredibly, immediately after the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10, in the very next chapter, Luke reported that Peter was confronted by hostile Jerusalem Jews who had heard about the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christ’s church. These Jewish Christians insisted that he give account of his actions. He did so in Acts 11:4-18, recounting sequentially the events of Acts 10. Upon hearing of these astounding events orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, the hostile Jews melted, backed off, glorified God, and conceded: “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18). This was an amazing concession that further cleared the way for Gentile missions.

At this point in his inspired narrative, beginning in Acts 11:19, Luke proceeded to clarify the full significance of what had just occurred. The persecution that drove Jewish Christians out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-4) forced them to travel into predominately Gentile areas. However, these Jewish Christians had refrained from imparting the Gospel message to Gentiles (Acts 11:19). But with the conversion of the household of Cornelius, the Gospel now began to be presented to the predominately Gentile population in the city of Antioch: “And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:21). Aside from Cornelius’ own household, Antioch thus became the first Gentile church of Christ in all of human history. The church in Jerusalem immediately sent Barnabas to Antioch to confirm the reports, who in turn (quite logically) went to Tarsus in search of the “apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul, to introduce him into the mix at Antioch. Together, the two men spent an entire year meeting with the church and teaching many people.

In line with the prophecy of Isaiah, the first two preconditions to God imparting a new name had now been met. If the application of Isaiah’s prophecy is correct, one ought naturally next to expect the bestowal of the new name. We are not disappointed. The very next statement by Luke is simply: “And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). What an earthshaking statement! Astonishing! Isaiah was absolutely accurate—dead on! Consider the following three observations about this astounding moment in human history.

First, observe that from the inception of Christianity (Acts 2), converts were called “disciples.” They were not called Christians on the day of Pentecost! Though thousands had converted to Christianity, and now belonged to Christ and were therefore followers of Christ, they nevertheless were not called Christians. Unlike Judaism, one of the central features of New Testament Christianity is its international application—with absolutely no consideration given to ethnicity. In this sense, the church of Christ reached its full existence only when Gentiles were incorporated into its membership (cf. “also to the Greek” in Romans 1:16; 2:9-10). This circumstance came only with the conversion of Cornelius and the commencement of the Antioch church of Christ. Thus we do not read what we would full well expect to find: that “the disciples were called Christians first in Jerusalem.”

Second, Luke included a grammatical feature worth considering. He said the disciples “were called.” The term he used (chrematidzo) is typically used in the New Testament in relation to those occasions when God is specifically the One Who does the calling: “to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction” (Clarke, n.d., p. 772; cf. McCord, n.d., 2:311). The term occurs nine times in the New Testament: Matthew 2:12,22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; 11:26; Romans 7:3; Hebrews 8:5; 11:7; 12:25 (Moulton, et al., 1978, p. 1011). In every case, divine calling, warning, or admonition is contextually self-evident (cf. Thayer, 1901, p. 671; Robertson, 1930, 3:160). In fact, several translations indicate this use of the word by inserting “by/from/of God” (KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV), or “divinely” instructed/warned (NKJV) in some or all of the passages.

Third, observe the final feature of Isaiah’s prophecy: “which the mouth of the Lord will name” (Isaiah 62:2). Church historians insist that the name “Christian” arose as the result of persecution wherein the enemies of Christ originated the name as a term of derision. However, they are mistaken. Isaiah predicted that God Himself would be the author of the name. And so He was. The name Christian is, indeed, so special that it occurs only three times in the New Testament and each time flags a critical aspect of the name. In addition to Acts 11:26, where the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy spotlights the magnificent inclusion of the Gentiles in the church of Christ, the word occurs again in Acts 26:28. In that setting, Paul strove ardently to convert King Agrippa. Agrippa indicated his awareness that Paul’s purpose—his mission and goal in life—was to make people Christians. He endeavored to make people followers of Christ—not followers of Moses or any other religion.

The final occurrence of the word Christian in the New Testament is Peter’s use of the term in a context dealing with suffering that is inflicted on God’s people by their enemies: “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter” (1 Peter 4:16). “In this matter” in the NKJV is a rendering of the literal Greek phrase “in this name,” i.e., the name “Christian.” Peter insisted that the suffering that is heaped upon a follower of Christ ought to be borne under the name Christian—not some other religious appellation.

Writing over 200 years ago, Rice Haggard recognized the extreme importance of the name “Christian” in the divine scheme of things, when he wrote: “[I]t is but a due honor to the Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, that they who profess his religion, should wear his name” (1804, p. 14).

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Matthew-Acts (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Haggard, Rice (1804), An Address to the Different Religious Societies, on the Sacred Import of the Christian Name (Lexington, KY: Joseph Charless).

McCord, Hugo (no date), Fifty Years of Lectures (Atwood, TN: Atwood Church of Christ).

Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), fifth edition.

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York, NY: Harper).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

The Meaning of Baptism and the Catholic Ritual by Moisés Pinedo

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2685

The Meaning of Baptism and the Catholic Ritual

by	Moisés Pinedo

It is distressing to see how the doctrine of baptism is distorted in modern-day Christendom. With the passing of time, baptism, as a necessity for salvation, has been replaced by a “prayer of faith,” abstract manifestations of conversion, and ecclesiastical ceremonies based on traditionalism. Today, many ignore the concept, implications, and importance of baptism. Jesus said: “[U]nless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5, emp. added). Paul wrote that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5, emp. added). These New Testament passages and others make it clear that baptism is not merely a religious tradition or a commandment of men. Therefore, it is very important to understand it correctly.

It is essential to know the meaning of “baptism.” Depending on the context in which it is mentioned, “baptism” may mean many different things. For example, in an evangelical context, it is regarded as just a “public profession of faith” (Rhodes, 1997, p. 178). In a Catholic context, the word “baptism” brings to mind a ceremony, godparents, elegant robes, emotional parents, an infant in white, a fountain, and a few drops of water (as well as a pre-paid fee for the ceremony and the actual “baptism”). However, when we consider the real meaning of the word “baptism,” many of these erroneous concepts disappear.

In his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine defined “baptism” and other related words:

BAPTISMA, baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip).

BAPTIZO, to baptize, primarily a frequentative form of bapto, to dip, was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. (1966, 1:96-97, emp. added).

From the definition of the word, it is easy to see exactly what was involved in the act of baptism: “immersion, submersion and emergence.” Unfortunately, the word “baptism” has been passed from generation to generation as a transliteration, i.e., a phonetic representation of a word in another language. [Note the similarity between the Greek baptisma and the English “baptism”]. A study of the Greek etymology of this word opens the door to its real meaning and also gives us a better picture of how it was carried out in New Testament times. Baptism was not sprinkling or pouring, as Catholicism teaches, but immersion. The Bible points out some important implications concerning baptism.

First, baptism requires enough water to immerse completely a believer. The gospel accounts inform us that John the baptizer baptized in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:4-6; Mark 1:4-5; Luke 3:2-3; John 1:28). The Jordan was the largest and most important river in Palestine, and it contained enough water for the innumerable baptisms (immersions) that took place there. For example, in this river, Naaman the leper immersed himself seven times (2 Kings 5:14). If baptism were an act of sprinkling, it would have been unnecessary to baptize in the Jordan; instead, a single container of water would have been sufficient. However, as the apostle John noted, John the baptizer also baptized in the Aenon, “because there was much water there” (John 3:23).

Second, baptism is immersion since one goes down into and comes up out of the water. This fact is seen clearly in the various baptisms in the gospel accounts and the book of Acts. The gospel writers recorded the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). Matthew 3:16 and Mark 1:10 tell us specifically that Jesus “came up from the water.” Certainly the phrase “to come up from the water” would have been omitted if Jesus was only sprinkled.

Acts 8:26-39 records one of the most illustrative accounts of the procedure of baptism. Luke wrote that while an Ethiopian was on his return trip from Jerusalem, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the mouth of Philip (a servant of God). Then, “they came to some water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’” (Acts 8:36). Luke does not record the source or location of that water, but we can infer that it was sufficient for Philip to immerse the Ethiopian. Luke clarifies how baptism was performed when he notes that “both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” and “they came up out of the water” (Acts 8:38-39, emp. added). From this biblical narrative, it is illogical to conclude that the baptism of the Ethiopian was some form of sprinkling. It is impossible to “go down into” and “come up out of” a few drops of water! There is no doubt that the Ethiopian was immersed.

Third, baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is not a random practice void of any logic pattern, or special meaning. God chose baptism as the perfect representation of the redemptive plan performed by His Son, Jesus Christ. In Romans 6:3-4, Paul explained the symbolic meaning of baptism: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” R.L. Whiteside noted about these verses:

In being buried in baptism there is a likeness of his death; so also there is a likeness of his resurrection in our being raised from baptism to a new life. Hence, in being baptized we are united with him in the likeness of this death and resurrection. We are therefore, partakers with him in death, and also in being raised to a new life. Jesus was buried and arose to a new life; we are buried in baptism and arise to a new life. These verses show the act of baptism, and also its spiritual value (1988, p. 132).

There is great spiritual value and meaning in the act of immersion. It not only re-enacts the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but also unites the believer with Christ (Galatians 3:27). There is no other act of faith that is an effective (and biblical) substitute for being immersed into Christ. When a person is immersed, he is buried with Christ. Could sprinkling be described as a burial? When a person dies, do people sprinkle dirt on his head and declare him “buried”? Of course not! Rather, he is covered completely (immersed) with dirt. Similarly, to be “buried” with Christ, we must be covered completely (immersed) in water. Sprinkling falls far short of representing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.Both Paul and Peter, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and 1 Peter 3:21, added emphasis to the importance and significance of baptism.

Finally, it is important to note that the modern Catholic practice of “baptism,” i.e., sprinkling or pouring, is inconsistent with the Catholics’ own understanding of the meaning and method of biblical baptism. In the first chapter of the “Sacraments of the Christian Initiation,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:

This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature” (1994, 1214, emp. added).

It appears that ignorance of the etymology and procedure of biblical “baptism” did not mislead Catholicism from the truth concerning baptism, but rather the emphasis that Catholicism places on tradition above biblical truth. Catholics also declare:

To facilitate the application of the new discipline, baptism by infusion—which consists in pouring water on the child’s head instead of immersing the whole child in a basin—gradually became common because it was easier; it became the almost universal practice in the fourteenth century. But although immersion fell into disuse, it still had its place in the rubrics (Cabié, 1988, 3:72, emp. added).

It is declared (with shameless audacity) that the commandment for immersion given by the Lord (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16) was replaced by the traditional rite of sprinkling or pouring out of convenience. These words can find accurate parallel in the words of condemnation pronounced by Jesus against the Pharisees when He said:

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men... All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition (Mark 7:6-9).

 

REFERENCES

Cabié, Robert (1988), The Church at Prayer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).

Rhodes, Ron (1997), The Complete Book of Bible Answers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House).

Vine, W.E. (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

Whiteside, Robertson L. (1988 reprint), Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).

The Meaning of "Psallo" in the New Testament by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=868

The Meaning of "Psallo" in the New Testament

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After failing to discover a biblical command, a binding example, or a necessary inference for the use of mechanical instruments in Christian worship, those who advocate the use of such music often somtimes allege that the term psallo includes the use of instrumental music. Psallo is the Greek verb translated “making melody” in Ephesians 5:19, and “I will sing” in 1 Corinthians 14:15. The noun form of this term, psalmos, appears in such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19, and Colossians 3:16. If one looks up psallo in a Greek lexicon, he probably will find the following definitions: to touch, pull, or pluck; to twitch the strings on a carpenter’s line; to pluck or strike the cords on a musical instrument; to sing praises. Upon reviewing these definitions, some claim that Paul’s use of psallo and psalmos implies the use of a stringed instrument in worship. They further assert that these words always convey the idea of instrumental accompaniment to singing, even if the instrument is not mentioned. Are they correct? If not, why not?

When one studies the etymology of this word, he will find that it is incorrect to say that every time psallo was used in antiquity, it meant to play an instrument. By studying reliable Greek lexicons (dictionaries) and various historical documents, one soon comes to understand that the term psallo has had a variety of meanings in different periods of its history. In fact, the evidence indicates that even before Christ came to Earth, psallo no longer meant to play instruments of music. Numerous scholarly sources could be cited to prove this point, but for the sake of space, three will suffice. First, Walter Bauer’s highly respected lexicon, revised by Frederick Danker in 2000, indicates that even in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament that appeared about 250 years before Christ was born), it “is usually the case” that psallo is translated as only “to sing” (2000, p. 1096). In Henry Thayer’s often-quoted Greek lexicon, he noted that by the time the events recorded in the New Testament took place, psallo meant “to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (1962, p. 675). Finally, E. A. Sophocles, a native Greek and for thirty-eight years a professor of the Greek language at Harvard University, declared (after examining a plethora of secular and religious historical documents) that there was not a single example of psallo ever used in the time of Christ that involved or implied the use of an instrument; rather, it always meant to chant or sing religious hymns (see Kurfees, 1999, p. 47).

When one wishes to know the definition of a word from times past, he must inquire as to how the word was used at any particular time in history. For example, when one reads the word “prevent” in the King James Version (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15), he must understand that this word does not mean the same thing it did when this version was first produced in 1611. Then, it meant “to go before; to precede.” Today, it means “to keep from happening; to impede.” The word “idiot” was used in the seventeenth century in reference to one “in a private station, as distinguished from one holding public office.” Today, it is used to speak of “an unlearned, or ignorant person.” Just as these English words once had meanings that now are entirely obsolete, the Greek word psallo once meant “to pluck or strike the chords of a musical instrument.” But, before the beginning of the New Testament period, it had lost this meaning. In his well-researched book, Instrumental Music in the Worship, M.C. Kurfees noted that the word psallo never is used in the New Testament or in contemporaneous literature to mean anything other than to sing (1999, p. 45). The other meanings had entirely disappeared by the time the New Testament was written.

The fact is, however, even if this word had retained all of its original meanings (and the evidence shows that it had not), the letters Paul penned to the Christians in Ephesus and Colossae specifically name the “plucked” instrument—the heart. Thus, a harp, piano, banjo, or any other kind of musical instrument is not an integral part of psallo.

REFERENCES

Danker, Frederick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Kurfees, M.C. (1999 reprint), Instrumental Music in the Worship (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), first published in 1911.

Thayer, Joseph Henry (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

God’s Vision For A Relevant Church by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2020/02/18/gods-vision-for-a-relevant-church/#more-15448
 

God’s Vision For A Relevant Church

This past Sunday morning Norma Jean and I visited the University church in  Tampa.  This congregation holds a special place in our hearts.  It’s the church we attended when we were dating and first married.

Josh Creel is one of the ministers that serves in a preaching capacity and does a wonderful job.  His sermon title, “God’s Vision For A Relevant Church” captured my attention since my theme for the year is “20/20 Vision: Restoring Our Focus.”

Josh cited a Barna Group survey that asked, “What, if anything, helps Americans grow in their faith?”

The responses included a variety of answers including, prayer, Bible reading, family and friends.  Interestingly, the “church did not even crack the top-10 list.”  In fact, the survey showed that people are divided on the “importance of attending church.”

Millennials (those under 30), the survey showed, “stand out as least likely to value church attendance; only two in 10 believe it is important.”  59% of Millennials who grew up attending church have dropped out.  In fact, overall church membership and attendance have decreased among all age groups in the past 20 years.

The answers to Barna’s questions discovered a variety of reasons for a lack of church involvement.  The church is irrelevant to me.  I’m not finding community there. I’m not learning about or experiencing God there. And doubts are not tolerated.

From the book of Ephesians, here’s a synopsis of Josh’s points showing God’s vision for the church.

(1) The Church cannot be irrelevant. (Eph. 1:3-2:10)

Why?  Because God purposed, planned and predestinated the church. It was in His mind before He created the world.  The church is the Body of Christ. And Jesus is its head.

Eight times in this text, Paul speaks of being “in Christ.”  When we are “in Christ” we enjoy all spiritual blessings.  We receive redemption. Find forgiveness of sins. Have the promise of the Holy Spirit.  And become an heir of an eternal inheritance.

How can such a Divinely designed church be irrelevant?

(2) The church is where community is experienced.  (Eph. 2:11-3:13)

God created us in Christ for community.  We were fashioned for Divine association.  We were formed for fellowship in His family.  Christianity was never intended to be a solo act.

Paul speaks of Christians being together seven times.  He says we’re one in Christ.  And are to be united.  We’re called fellow citizens and fellow-heirs.  “With everyone else who belongs to the family of God” (Eph. 2:19).

Paul Tournier was right when he wrote, “There are two things one cannot do alone, be married and be a Christian.”

How can such a relationship be unimportant?

(3) God cannot be missing from the church. (Eph 3:8-21; 4:11-12, 22-24)

Paul wrote that “through the church, the manifold wisdom of God might be known.”  In it Christ is glorified. Gifts are discovered. Equipping occurs to prepare us for mutual edification and spiritual service.  Growth occurs. And spiritual maturity is realized as we become a new person in Christ.

How can such a mission and ministry be meaningless?

(4) The church is where doubts are answered.  (Eph 4:14-16)

When fears arise and doubts descend on us, like a tempest-tossed vessel on the ocean, we can find stability.  Receive assurance.  Reestablish our faith. And find help and hope when the truth is spoken in love.

How can such a noble endeavor be inconsequential?

(5) The church is where God is both learned and experienced. (Eph 1:1-6:24)

The entire Ephesians epistle affirms that we’ve received God’s revelation. Since the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), its teachers,  preachers and pastors, preach the gospel.  Enlighten unbelievers.  Edify the saints. Encourage the weak.  And help all who would open their hearts understand God’s Word. Experience His love. Accept His grace. Receive his mercy. And know the surety of their salvation.

How can such an experience be uneventful?

If you’ve read to this point, you may question, “I’ve been to churches that are not like you’ve described.”

Maybe so.

But the Ephesians letter is speaking of the universal church. Not a specific local congregation. It is portraying God’s vision.

If we’re falling short of these divine imperatives, then let’s refocus. Let every church leader and local congregation recapture God’s vision. So that He can “receive the glory in the church by Christ Jesus.” And that we can become all He created us to be.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

Dear Brother Faull, Is there ever reason for a person to be re-baptized?

 

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/dear-brother-faull-is-there-ever-reason.html

Dear Brother Faull,

Is there ever reason for a person to be re-baptized?

Some religious groups make the following mistakes regarding baptism:

1.                  They baptize the wrong person.  They sprinkle innocent babies, who can neither believe in Christ, nor repent of sin [as they have none.]  The command is for sinners to believe, to repent, and to be baptized.  Most churches criticize Mormons for “baptizing for the dead.”  However, baptism by proxy is no more unscriptural than faith and repentance by proxy.  Salvation is personal and cannot be done for you.

2.                  They baptize with the wrong mode.  They substitute sprinkling and pouring for immersion.  The command is to immerse the individual in the water.  The one doing the baptizing is to handle the one being immersed, not the water.  When one is baptized, he goes down under the water and comes up out of the water.

Acts 8:35-38, “35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.  36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water:  and the eunuch said , See, [here is ] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.  And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still:  and they went down both into the water both Philip and eunuch; and he [Philip] baptized him.”

It is also a burial and a resurrection.

Romans 6:1-4, “1 What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  2 God forbid.  How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?  3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:  that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Only immersion fulfills the analogy called for in these figures.

3.                  They baptize with the wrong motive. Baptism is not to get you into a congregation. It is not an invitation into some church. It is not just an outward sign of an inward act. It is being baptized into Christ for the remission of sins.”

Acts 2:38, “38 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 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as have been baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Acts 22:16, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

4.                  They baptize with the wrong authority.  It is not because the local congregation insists on it.  It is not because you have to do it to get into their church.  It is not because people voted on you and accepted you as a legitimate candidate for baptism.  One is baptized because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit commanded it to be done.

Matthew 28:18-20, “18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  20 Teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you:  and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.  Amen."

Those who were baptized in the Name of (authority of) John the Baptist, were re-baptized by the authority of Christ.  This is a  good example for re-immersion by the right authority.

Acts 19:1-5, “1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus:  and finding certain disciples, 2 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.  3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized?  And they said, Unto John’s baptism.  4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

5.                  They baptize for the wrong reason.It is not like those who preach that salvation precedes baptism. That is: "He that believeth and is saved, should be baptized. That is not what Jesus said. Nor is it like others who baptize infants. They teach, “He that is baptized and saved, shall believe. That is not right. 

Is it like others who say, “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be saved also?”  No!

Then what did Jesus say?

Mark 16:16,  “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

These are quite different, aren’t they? 

Peter says that baptism is the (Greek says, “demand or appeal”) of a good conscience before God.

I Peter 3:21, “The like figure whereunto [eve] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you were not immersed into Christ for the remission of your sins, because of our personal faith in Christ, and the repentance of your sins, I personally fail to see how you can have a good conscience before God.

Baptism into a man-made religion, by a substitute mode, for an illegitimate reason should not satisfy one who wants to stand before God in all good conscience.

I hope this straightforward, honest answer helps you decide what to do.

Trying Times by J.C. Bailey

 

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/tryingti.html

Trying Times

The USA has had both floods and cyclones with some loss of life. Canada has had some floods with some loss of life. Canada is passing through a very serious political crisis. Only time will show how serious it is. Ethiopia has a civil war. In the midst of this civil war they had a prolonged drought. The press reported that more than a million people starved to death. Iran has just had one of the worst earthquakes of this century. Today they reported that more than 500 had died and the number could go much higher. India is subject to tropical storms, and they have just had the worst storm in more than a century. While the loss of life was not as great as in Ethiopia or in Iran, tens of thousands are left with only the clothes they have on their bodies! Do you know what they have asked for more than any other one thing? "Our Bible is gone, please give us a new Bible."

Thousands of our brethren are without shelter and without clothes. There has been some clothing shipped, but for light clothes for children and grownups, the demand is almost limitless. Brother Ron Clayton is making an appeal to meet this need. Be sure to respond. In Canada our postage rate is so high that it is better to just send the money and let them buy clothes in India. They produce their own wool, cotton and silk.

From these natural catastrophes, I want to draw some lessons.

"Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty. Jehovah hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3).

Then we turn to the New Testament. "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed to us-ward" (Rom. 8:18); "And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28).

Paul is on a ship in the sea; they are lost; they are cold; they are hungry; they have not had anything to eat for fourteen days. Yet Paul said, be of good cheer. How could they be of good cheer? Paul told them that the God he served had told him that all would be saved. I quote, "...for I believe God, that it shall be even as he hath spoken unto me" (Acts 27:25).

I want to look at the Scriptures we have used and at some additional Scriptures that encourage us to say, I believe God, that it shall be as He told me. Do you profess to be a Christian? "But if God so clothes the grass of the field which today is and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall not he much more clothe you, o ye of little faith? Be not therefore anxious saying what shall we eat, what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed. For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:30-33).

We shall add some verses that we do not hear quoted very often, but that does not make their messages any less true. "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood up and cried saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive. For the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:37- 39). We shall see when this measure of the Spirit was given.

Jesus was preached as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Those who heard Peter, recognized the fact that he was Lord (Ruler) and Christ (the Anointed One). They then asked what they should do (vs. 37). And Peter said to them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." When they repented and were baptized, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Verse 39 reads, "For to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."

The Lord said that we are to seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and the material things would be added. Yet there is a greater promise. After a believer repents and is baptized into Christ, he receives spiritual power.

J.C. Bailey, 1990, Bengough, Saskatchewan

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

An eternal perspective by Gary Rose

 

A double circular rainbow – WOW! Reminds me of that once popular Stargate SG1 series from around the turn of the century. If you Look at the center of the picture, its almost as if you were viewing that community through a telescope (or maybe even that STARGATE).

Point is: This unique view of a rainbow causes us to look at things (maybe even life) from a different perspective. So, I ask the question: How does God look at things? Perhaps, I should say when instead of how, because God is eternal. Imagine how different our vision would be if we could see the past, present and future at the same time? Would we think and act as we normally do? God does, for he does not change. Consider this passage from the book of Ephesians, where the Apostle Paul writes the following…

Ephesians 3 ( World English Bible )

1 For this cause I, Paul, am the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles,

2 if it is so that you have heard of the administration of that grace of God which was given me toward you;

3 how that by revelation the mystery was made known to me, as I wrote before in few words,

4 by which, when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;

5 which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

6 that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of his promise in Christ Jesus through the Good News,

7 of which I was made a servant, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power.

8 To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,

9 and to make all men see what is the administration * of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ;

10 to the intent that now through the assembly the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places,

11 according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord;

Once Adam (and Eve) sinned, God could have just killed them both and made new human beings and ignored the problem of willful disobedience (sin). HE didn’t. His ETERNAL plan was to provide a way of escape for every man. This plan was according to HIS THINKING, which is from an ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE. It took literally thousands of years to accomplish and cost the life of his son Jesus, but it WORKED!

Now, aren’t you glad that God views things ETERNALLY!