5/29/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Acting Like Our Father (5:43-48) by Mark copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Acting Like Our Father (5:43-48)

INTRODUCTION

1. When Jesus spoke about "Responding To Evil", He laid down two principles:
   a. Do not resist an evil person - Mt 5:39a
   b. Respond to evil by doing good - Mt 5:39b-42

2. This is certainly a challenging task Jesus put before His disciples...
   a. It is tempting to respond to evil in kind
   b. Especially when the mistreatment comes from an enemy!

3. But in the text for this lesson (Mt 5:43-48)...
   a. We find Jesus teaching concerning the treatment of our enemies
   b. We are told why we ought to act in the manner described in Mt 5:38-42

[Keeping in mind the context of the sermon on the mount, let's first compare...]

I. THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION

   A. THE LAW DID NOT SAY "HATE YOUR ENEMY"...
      1. It did teach to "love your neighbor as yourself" - Lev 19:18
      2. But it also taught kindness was to be shown to your enemy
         - Exo 23:4-5; Pr 25:21-22

   B. THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION HAD MISAPPLIED THE LAW...
      1. Though it did enjoin the command to "love your neighbor"...
      2. It inferred from this command one had the right to "hate your 
         enemy" - Mt 5:43
         a. "This phrase is not in Leviticus 19:18, but is a rabbinical
            inference which Jesus repudiates bluntly. The Talmud says
            nothing of love to enemies." (Word Pictures In The New
            Testament, Vol. I, Robertson)
         b. "The rabbis corrupted Lev. 19:18, which sums up the Law of
            Israel, by adding `and hate your enemy.'  By thus tampering
            with Scripture, they  intended to define their neighbors to
            include only Jews and to exclude Samaritans and Gentiles."
            (Believers' Study Bible)
         
[Having noted the difference between what the Law actually taught and
the wrong interpretation given by the scribes and Pharisees, let's now
consider what Jesus taught on...]

II. HOW TO TREAT OUR ENEMIES

   A. JESUS REQUIRES THAT WE...
      1. "Love" our enemies
         a. Not hate them
         b. Rather, show "active good will" towards them
      2. "Bless" those who curse us
         a. They may speak evil of us
         b. But in response we are to speak kindly of them
      3. "Do good" to those who hate us
         a. They may either ignore us or do evil things to us
         b. Yet we are to treat them kindly in either case
      4. "Pray" for those who spitefully use us and persecute us
         a. Notice, we are to pray FOR them, not just about them
         b. I.e., pray for their well-being, salvation, etc.

   B. THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF THE PRINCIPLES IN VERSES 39-42...
      1. Don't seek vengeance!
      2. Don't resist an evil person!
      3. Instead, react by manifesting aggressive love!

[Why should we respond to our enemies in this way?  Jesus goes on to provide...]

III. REASONS TO REACT IN THIS WAY

   A. "THAT YOU MAY BE SONS OF YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN"...
      1. That is, to demonstrate ourselves to be truly His children! - Mt 5:45a
      2. What is our Father like?
         a. He gives material blessings to both the evil and the good,
            both the righteous and the unrighteous - Mt 5:45b
         b. He is kind to the unthankful and evil - Lk 6:35-36
         c. He offered His Son while we were yet sinners and enemies-Ro 5:8,10
         d. He loved us before we loved Him - 1Jn 4:10
      3. As taught elsewhere, we are to imitate our Heavenly Father 
         - 1Jn 4:11; Ep 4:31-5:2

   B. TO BE DIFFERENT THAN "TAX-COLLECTORS"...
      1. In Jesus' day, they were despised by the Jews, because they
         made themselves rich by collecting taxes from their fellow-men
         for the Roman government
      2. And yet, these tax-collectors would...
         a. Love those who loved them
         b. Greet cordially those who greeted them
      3. We are no different if our love is limited to our "brethren" 
         or "friends"! - Mt 5:46-47

   C. TO BE "PERFECT" AS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT...
      1. The word "perfect" means "brought to completion, full-grown,
         lacking nothing"
      2. In this context, it has reference to the matter of showing 
         love and mercy; note the parallel passage:
         a. "Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is
            merciful." - Lk 6:36
         b. "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in
            heaven is perfect." - Mt 5:48
      3. When we display love and mercy to our enemies...
         a. We are "complete," "full-grown" in demonstrating love
         b. Just like our Father when He shows kindness to evil and
            unthankful men!

CONCLUSION

1. If we really want to be...
   a. "sons of your Father in heaven"
   b. "perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect"

2. It is imperative that we be influenced...
   a. More by the teachings and example of the Son of God
   b. Than by the attitudes and example of the "tax-collectors"!

Are you "Acting Like Our Father" who is in heaven?  Or do you emulate
the most carnal people around us?  May the "sayings" (cf. Mt 7:28) of
our Lord provoke us to consider the proper way to respond to our 
enemies and to any who might abuse us!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Is Faith "Infused" Directly by God? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=944

Is Faith "Infused" Directly by God?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to Catholic Catechism 153, “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.” Unlike other religious peoples who use Ephesians 2:8 as a proof text to teach (erroneously) that faith is a direct gift from God, Catholics base their view of infused faith on a statement Jesus made to Peter during His earthly ministry. Once, after Peter confessed to Jesus, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-17). The Catholic Church believes that Jesus’ statement proves that faith is given directly and supernaturally by God. Faith comes, not from “flesh and blood,” but purportedly is “infused” directly by the Father above.

The central problem with the 153rd Catholic Catechism is that Jesus did not say that God gave Peter faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus stated that God “revealed” to Peter that Jesus was the Son of God. There is a difference between revealing to someone a truth (e.g., the deity of Christ), and compelling someone to believe that truth. If a teacher quizzes a class in preparation for a final exam, and, in the process, reveals every answer to the class that they need to know in order to score a 100 on the exam, one or more students still may fail. Students might fail because they chose not to take the exam. Some could fail because they did not take heed to the revelation of facts given by the teacher during the review session. Still others could fail simply because they deliberately wrote the wrong answers on the test, thinking it was fashionable to make low grades in school. Even though the teacher revealed all of the knowledge needed for every student in the class to make a perfect score on the exam, each student still had a choice as to whether he or she would act upon that knowledge wisely and ace the test.

Similarly, even though God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Son of God, that does not mean that God directly infused faith into Peter. Faith is a commanded action on man’s part that comes after revelation, not before, or simultaneously (Acts 16:29-34; John 7:24; Romans 10:17). The Bible never speaks of faith as being given directly by God. Rather, it is self-developed following revelation from God. In Peter’s case, such revelation did not come from “flesh and blood” (Matthew 16:17; cf. 17:5). Today, biblical faith is developed by hearing or reading the written revelation from God—the Bible (John 20:30-31; Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

REFERENCES

Catechism of the Catholic Church, [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm.

PREACHING AND TEACHING? by steve finnell


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/preaching-and-teaching-steve-finnell-if.html

PREACHING AND TEACHING? 
by steve finnell

If church leaders were required to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of perjury, would there be a change of doctrine?

What will be the penalty for knowingly preaching and teaching false doctrine? What will happen on Judgment Day?   

Lord, Teach Us To Pray by E. Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/teachustopray.html


Lord, Teach Us To Pray

"And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples" (Luke 11:1).

While Jesus was praying, Luke took notice that He prayed often. He records Jesus praying at his baptism (Luke 3:21); in the wilderness (Luke 5:16); before the appointment of the apostles, when He continued all night in prayer (Luke 6:12); praying alone (Luke 9:18); and praying before His transfiguration (Luke 9:28-29).

Do we automatically know how to pray just because we understand there is a command to do so? Is there a right and a wrong way to pray? Notice the prayer in 1 Kings 8:54 where Solomon assumed a certain physical position. Is this what the disciples were asking about? Are we always to be on our knees with our hands spread up to heaven? Should we beat our breasts like the sinner in Luke 18:13? Will that make our Heavenly Father hear our prayers?

In Matthew 6:9, we see that Jesus taught his disciples to pray a certain way, but that did not include a particular body position. He taught the words to speak to our Heavenly Father, words which addressed Him reverently and humbly. If we are going to ask the Lord to teach us to pray so that He will hear, we need to notice several instances in scripture where God heard prayers and why.

King David prayed often, and in Psalms 10:17 we see one reason why God might have listened to his prayer. He prepared his heart and humbled himself before God. Again in Psalms 19:14, David says, "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer." Are we concerned with our words when we pray?

Not only are we supposed to be concerned to pray with proper words to use in prayer, but we need to know there are certain things we should pray for.

The apostle James (James 4:2-3) said, "Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."

We may assume from the account that Luke and the other disciples had been struck with the excellence and fervor of Jesus' prayers and, remembering that John the Baptist had taught his disciples to pray, they asked Jesus also to teach them. From their experience and testimony we learn:

1. That the abilities and fervor of Jesus (or Paul) should lead us to desire the same.

2. That the true method of praying can be learned only by our being properly taught. Consider that we cannot pray acceptably at all unless God is our teacher.

3. That it is proper for us to meditate beforehand what we are to ask of God, and to arrange our thoughts, so that we may not come casually into His presence.

We learn from the testimony of James that we must not ask God for things to satisfy our fleshly desires. We must ask for what God has promised He will give so that we may grow spiritually and be the best we can be.

Beth Johnson

 

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

"Greetings" by Gary Rose




This morning as I sat down to my first cup of the day, I thought how it just said "good morning" to me and somehow it made my day a bit better. People greet one another in all sorts of ways; from that casual "Hi" or semi-formal "Hello" to the more formal "Good Morning". I remember being taught that in the New Testament it was common to say either "Grace to you" or "Peace to you" and have the other person respond in the one you did not start with. Just for fun, I did a quick search on the word "Greet" and found that it was used 51 times in the Bible. What surprised me was the one book that it was used in the most...



... for, when I think of Paul's letter to the Romans, I think of a book of logic and theology, not a book of greetings. But, Paul was not only logical, he was a Christian and that made him a loving person.

As I considered these things, I remember a very famous song for 1967 by Louis Armstrong. Listen to the all the song and it will give you a better understanding of what it really means to greet someone.



To me, greeting are summed up in the following verse, said by none other than Jesus, himself...

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. "
( World  English  Bible )


And THAT is better than any cup of coffee I have ever had!


5/27/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Responding To Evil (5:38-42) by Mark Copeland


"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Responding To Evil (5:38-42)

INTRODUCTION

1. When someone treats you wrong, how do you respond?
   a. Do you react in kind, treating evil with evil?
   b. Do you just stand there and take whatever abuse is given?
   -- What is the proper way to respond to evil?

2. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus taught concerning the righteousness of 
the kingdom... a. He did so by contrasting it with the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees 1) Noting how the Law had often been interpreted and applied 2) Declaring what He expected of His disciples b. We have seen Jesus contrast this righteousness in such matters as: 1) Murder and anger - Mt 5:21-26 2) Adultery - Mt 5:27-30 3) Divorce - Mt 5:31-32 4) Swearing Oaths - Mt 5:33-37 [In this lesson, we shall look at what Jesus taught concerning "vengeance" (Mt 5:38-42) as we discuss "Responding To Evil". First,let's compare...] I. THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION A. CONCERNING "AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH"... 1. It is found in Exo 21:24-25 2. A parallel passage is Deut 19:21 B. THESE STATEMENTS WERE LAWS FOR CIVIL COURTS TO APPLY... 1. Notice carefully Deut 19:15-21; Exo 21:22-23 2. They were given to guide the priests in meriting out proper punishment C. WHAT THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES HAD DONE... 1. Interpreted these statements so as to justify personal retribution! 2. Applied them by frequently taking matters of revenge into their own hands -- Just as many people do today! D. THE LAW REPEATEDLY FORBAD "PERSONAL" VENGEANCE... 1. Consider Lev 19:18; Pr 20:22; 24:29 2. In both Old Testament and New Testaments, the matter of vengeance was to be left up to God and His duly appointed agent: civil government! - cf. Ro 12:19; 13:1-4 [There really is no difference between the Law and what we find in the New Testament in this regard: Personal vengeance has no place in the lives of those who are the children of God! Now let's examine more closely...] II. THE PROPER RESPONSE TO EVIL A. JESUS PROCLAIMED TWO PRINCIPLES... 1. Do not resist an evil person (39a) a. Not only should you not take vengeance into your own hands... b. But don't even oppose (resist) the evil person when the evil is being done! 2. Respond to evil by doing good! (39b-42) a. Jesus illustrates this principle with several examples... 1) Responding to physical abuse (39b) a) "Turn the other cheek" b) This may refer to offering the other cheek as an expression of love 2) Responding to a civil suit, by giving more than what the person is
suing! (40) 3) Responding to government oppression, by offering to do more than what is being demanded of you! (41) 4) Responding to those asking for help, by giving them what they ask! (42) b. In each case, the principle is the same 1) We are not to resist the person... a) Who would mistreat us b) Who would try to deprive us of our possessions 2) Instead, respond in a positive manner... a) Demonstrate love towards them b) Do so by freely giving them more than they were hoping to gain by force, oppression, or manipulation! B. IS THIS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY? 1. Why not? a. We have several O.T. examples... 1) Joseph, in forgiving his brothers - Gen 45:4-15 2) David, in sparing the life of Saul - 1Sa 24:8-15 3) Elisha, in feeding the army of the Arameans - 2Ki 6:8-23 b. We also have several N.T. examples... 1) Jesus, our prime example - 1Pe 2:20-23 2) Stephen, when he was being stoned - Ac 7:59-60 3) The Hebrew Christians, who "joyfully accepted" the plundering of their goods - He 10:32-34 c. We have the clear teaching of Paul in Ro 12:19-21... 1) We are not to avenge ourselves 2) We must seek to overcome evil with good 2. If not, then how do we apply these words of Jesus? a. What does Jesus mean? b. Give some examples of how to apply these teachings... ??? C. ARE WE TO APPLY IT "UNCONDITIONALLY"? 1. I.e., must we decide who is "worthy" to receive this kind of treatment? a. Jesus does not give us any indication that we are to use "discretion" b. Paul does give some qualifying instructions (e.g., 2 Th 3:10)... 1) But it applies to those who are Christians 2) And we have a responsibility to "judge" those in the church, leaving those outside to God - 1Co 5:9-13 2. I do find striking the attitude of Christians in the second century, A.D.: a. "Do good, and give liberally to all who are in need from the wages God gives you. Do not hesitate about to whom you should not give. Give to all. For God wishes gifts to be made to all out of His bounties." (Hermas, 135 A.D.) b. "And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers towards those who take away our possessions." (Irenaeus, 185 A.D.) c. "Do not judge those who is worthy and who is unworthy, for it is possible for you to be mistaken in your opinion. In the uncertainty of ignorance it is better to do good to the unworthy for the sake of the worthy, than by guarding against those who are less good not to encounter the good. For by sparing and trying to test those who are well-deserving or not, it is possible for you to neglect some who are loved by God, the penalty for which is the eternal punishment of fire. But by helping all those in need in turn you must assuredly find some who are able to save you before God." (Clement of Alexandria, 190 A.D.) -- These statements were written at a time when Christians were constantly mistreated, abused, and manipulated by others! 3. The teachings of Jesus in this passage are admittedly challenging... a. It is opposed to what we might call "human nature" b. But we are called upon to be "partakers of the divine nature" (2Pe 1:4); in other words, to be more like God than men 4. As we will see in the next lesson, it is in order to be truly "sons of your Father in heaven" that Jesus teaches a standard of righteousness that far exceeds... a. That of the scribes and Pharisees b. That of most people today! 5. At the very least, let us expend as much energy... a. In seeing how we can apply this passage to lives... b. ...as many do trying to explain how it doesn't really mean what it appears
 to say! CONCLUSION 1. Summarizing the teaching of Jesus concerning "Responding To Evil"... a. We are not to resist evil b. We are to respond by doing good in turn 2. We may never face the exact situations Jesus used to illustrate His point... a. But the principles can be applied to so many things we do face b. E.g., how people treat us at work, in our communities, in our own families,
in the church Whenever mistreated, take the challenge to see how you might overcome evil with good. Then your "righteousness" will exceed that of the scribes
and Pharisees!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Is Denominationalism Scriptural? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1199

Is Denominationalism Scriptural?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

What is a “denomination”? Does God approve of denominations? These are extremely significant and critical questions. They deserve answers from the Word of God.

When we go to the New Testament and examine God’s Word with a view toward ascertaining what His will is with regard to religion, we find that there is a clearly defined system of religion—God’s religion—in the New Testament. It is the religion of Christ that has come to be called Christianity. We also find that Satan does everything he can to blur the distinctions that God wants observed. We should not be surprised at that. Think about the great hoaxes that have been perpetrated upon mankind. For instance, the doctrine of evolution is almost universally believed by the scientific elite of many societies. So it is with many political, philosophical, and religious systems of thought like Communism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Those who have examined the evidence—objective truth—on these matters know that those systems of thought simply are not true. Yet large numbers of people adhere to them. Large numbers of people believe the tenets of those systems.

In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul spoke about the fact that Satan endeavors to take advantage of people. He said that we should not let Satan take advantage of us, “for we are not ignorant of his devices.” The word “devices” could easily have been translated “schemes.” We must be aware of the fact that Satan uses deceitful, deceptive ploys in an effort to trick people to get them to believe and practice various things that simply are not true. In a similar statement, Paul used the phrase “wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11). Most people are oblivious to this fact. Many people do not even believe that Satan exists—anymore than they believe that God exists. Yet if the New Testament is true, it is clear there is a Satan, and he will do all he can to fool, trick, and deceive people. He wants to blur distinctions that God wants observed—distinctions that are scriptural and biblical.

It is clear that this is the case with denominationalism. Consider the following dictionary definitions (American, 2000, p. 485). The term “denominate” means “to give a name to; designate.” “Denomination” is “[a] large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy; a name or designation, especially for a class or group.” “Denominator” refers to “[t]he expression written below the line in a common fraction that indicates the number of parts into which one whole is divided.” “Denominationalism” is “[t]he tendency to separate into religious denominations; sectarianism.” Think about these meanings for just a moment. The very word “denomination” means a named or designated division. Denominationalism occurs when religious people and groups divide and segregate themselves on the basis of different designations or church affiliations and different doctrines.

Have you gone to the New Testament and read Jesus’ prayer for unity in John chapter 17? There He prayed against religious division, and prayed to God that believers in Christ would be unified! Paul made the same point to the church of Christ in Corinth: “I beseech you brothers by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Here is a passage that says denominations are not even to exist! “Let there be no divisions among you.” If a denomination is a “designated division,” then denominationalism is clearly unscriptural! It is against the will of Christ. The passage continues, “but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

I assure you, I have nothing against any particular religious group. I have no biases or prejudices against any one church or denomination. But we must go to Scripture and be objective in our appraisal of New Testament truth. It is clear when we go to the Bible that denominationalism, though viewed innocently by millions of people worldwide, is an approach to religion that is out of harmony with New Testament teaching. God does not want denominations to exist. He wants all of us to understand His will in the New Testament, and then to bring our lives into conformity and our spirits into submission to that will.

DENOMINATIONALISM VERSUS
NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY

Denominationalism conflicts with New Testament teaching on a variety of subjects. Consider New Testament teaching on the subject of the one church. Passages like Isaiah 2:1-5 and Daniel 2:44 predicted that one day God would set up a kingdom, a church, a house—what Isaiah called the “Lord’s house.” In Matthew 3:2, John the baptizer preached that people should repent and get ready because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” In Mark 9:1, He said, “[T]here are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” These passages speak of the same institution. In Acts 2, we find the actual establishment of Christ’s church on Earth. Jesus Christ Himself built His church in the city of Jerusalem in approximately A.D. 30 on the day of Pentecost. Its inception is described in Acts 2.

In Colossians 1:13, Paul spoke of Christians as those who had been removed by God from darkness and translated into the kingdom of His dear Son. In Ephesians 1:22-23, the body of Christ is referred to as the church, and later we are told that there is only one (4:4). Those two passages alone should cause us to recognize that the existence of denominations is out of harmony with God’s will. Ephesians 4:4 says there is one body. That body is the church of our Lord. He established it; He built it; He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20: 28). If there is only one church, God is not pleased with the division, the named designations, of competing churches with various names, doctrines, and practices. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul wrote to Timothy that he might know how to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God. Most people just do not realize that New Testament truth is that simple, that plain, and that uncomplicated. The denominationalism that has gripped western civilization is so entrenched and so entangled in the minds of people that they seem to be unable to detach themselves from it, and to go back to the New Testament to get a clear conception of the New Testament church. They seem unable or unwilling to embrace pure New Testament teaching and to repudiate all denominationalism.

Another concept that we find clearly depicted on the pages of the New Testament is the idea of scriptural names, that is, names for both the church itself and names for individual members of that church. In Romans 16:16 we find the expression “churches of Christ.” In 1 Corinthians 1:2, we have a reference to “the church of God.” In 1 Corinthians 3:16, we find “the temple of God.” And in Ephesians 4:12, we have the phrase “the body of Christ.”

These expressions are not intended to be technical nor formal names for the church. They are descriptions. They are labels that describe Christ’s church. Additional ones may be found as well. Most of the time in the New Testament, Christ’s church is just referred to as “the church.” But here is the point: Most of the names that people are giving to their churches today are not in the New Testament. They therefore are formulating names and founding churches that cannot be found in the New Testament. That’s denominationalism!

The same thing is true with regard to the names that God wants individual Christians to wear. In Isaiah 62:2, the prophet foretold that God with His own mouth would give a name to His people. We find the fulfillment of that prophecy in Acts 11:26. The name that God wants individual members of His church to wear is the name “Christian.” In Romans 1:7, we find the term “saints,” and in Acts 5:14, we find the term “believer.” In other passages we find the word “disciple” and family names like “brother” and the “family of God.” The names that denominations and their members wear are conspicuously absent from the New Testament.

New Testament truth on the matter of names is simple. How contrary to that New Testament pattern are the churches and the individuals who have taken the names of men and applied them to themselves and their churches. Some churches designate themselves by a particular practice or doctrine. I urge you to study your New Testament and realize that God is not pleased with manmade names. He will not sanction or extend His grace to groups and individuals who have chosen to stray from His will and His pattern for religion. Those who formulate for themselves their own religions, their own churches, and their own names, will be rejected by God. The Bible records that down through the annals of human history, God has never tolerated human invention in religion.

The same is true with regard to worship. The New Testament contains specific instruction concerning how God wants to be worshipped. Yet in the denominational world, all sorts of worship practice may be found. For instance, in the New Testament, Christians met for worship on the first day of the week—Sunday. Acts of worship took place on other days—for example, New Testament Christians could and did pray anytime, anywhere. But Sunday is pinpointed in New Testament Christianity as the special day on which Christians gather together to worship God (Acts 20:7). Christians are required by God to attend worship assemblies. Yet many people in our day never attend worship services, and apparently think, “Hey, I can be a Christian at home and worship God in my own way; nothing says that I have to go to church to worship with other Christians.” Most people have not read their New Testaments. The Bible teaches the necessity of assembling in Hebrews 10:25. Jesus said, “Seek first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33). He was referring to the church. So if I am going to put the church first and seek it first in my life, obviously I am going to assemble with the church—fellow Christians—for worship on Sunday.

A further contrast between denominationalism and the New Testament church pertains to what Jesus would have us to do in the realm of music in the church. In Ephesians 5:19, Paul wrote: “[S]peaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” New Testament instructions for musical worship are that simple and unencumbered. There is no authority in the New Testament for playing musical instruments in worship to God. There is no authority in the New Testament for performance groups like choirs and praise teams. The music in the New Testament is very clearly congregational, vocal singing. It’s that simple.

We also find that communion, the Lord’s Supper, was served in the New Testament to Christians on the first day of the week. Acts 2:46 and 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 and 16:1-3 inform us that the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament church was observed every first day of the week. All Christians partook of both the fruit of the vine and the bread. In addition, every first day of the week Christians are to contribute a percentage of their income to a general treasury so that the church may carry on its work. Acts 2:42 speaks of the importance of continuing in prayer. Praying is a part of Christian worship. The same verse speaks of continuing in the apostles’ doctrine, i.e., the teaching, preaching, and examining doctrinal truth. These five acts of worship are part and parcel of public worship assemblies—no more and no less.

Yet churches all over the land are not patterned after the one church of the Bible. They have unscriptural names for their church and for their individual members. Their worship services engage in many practices that are not taught in the New Testament. Their activities are mere inventions and doctrines of men (Matthew 15:9). Do we want to be exactly what Jesus wants us to be according to the New Testament?

The same is true with God’s plan of salvation. What does the New Testament teach with reference to how one becomes a Christian? So much diversity and widespread misconception exists. Most religious groups teach salvation is solely by faith, without any further acts of obedience. They say that all you have to do is “accept Jesus as your savior,” which means orally saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ, I accept him into my heart as my personal savior.” Denominationalism teaches that at that moment the person is forgiven of sin and he becomes a Christian. The New Testament does teach that a non-Christian must believe (Mark 16:16)—but that is not all. He or she also must repent of sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), confess Christ with the mouth (Romans 10:10), and then be immersed in water with the understanding that the blood of Jesus washes away sin at the point of water baptism. Acts 22:16 indicates that it was at the moment that Saul was immersed in water that his sins were washed away (cf. Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21). Most people in the religious world believe that a person is forgiven of sins before they are immersed. But, once again, that is a departure from New Testament teaching.

The New Testament is equally explicit on the subject of Christian living. It is frightening that American civilization as we have known it is deteriorating and moving away from the fundamental behaviors that were common to our way of life from our inception as a nation. But it is happening. Many people are showing the same lack of knowledge and disrespect for God’s instructions in this area as they are in the other areas we have noted. Our society is getting farther away from the Bible. Many do not even believe the Bible to be a supernatural, inspired (i.e., God-breathed) book. They think it is just a collection of Jewish myths, a bunch of fairy tales, and the writings of mere men.

We have reason for alarm. Any civilization that does not structure itself around the mind of God as revealed on the pages of the Bible, cannot last for long. Look back over the centuries of human history and you will see this truth. Every nation that rejected God and His principles for living, eventually deteriorated from the inside out and fell to pieces, crumbling into the dust of human history. American civilization is rushing headlong down that same course. So what does the Bible teach concerning Christian living and Christian morality?

For example, regarding marriage, Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:9 are sufficient to demonstrate how far our society has deviated from God’s will. Those verses show that God’s will is that one man (never married before) marry one woman (never married before) and that those two individuals remain married for the rest of their lives. Only death should separate them. And only one exception is given to that rule. If one of those mates is sexually unfaithful, God permits the other mate, the innocent partner, to divorce the guilty mate for fornication, i.e., for sexual unfaithfulness, and to marry an eligible partner. The New Testament is that clear and that simple. Yet our society as a whole is so far from that simple teaching that it is frightening to consider whether we could ever recover our spiritual and moral senses.

What about the use of alcohol? People all over our society consume alcoholic beverages in restaurants, in homes, on airplanes, and at ball games. You cannot go to a football game without people freely drinking alcoholic beverages without giving it a second thought. They appear oblivious and unconcerned about the fact that the Bible speaks definitively and decisively against consuming intoxicating beverages (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35). If you are honest and love God and desire to follow His will, you will examine what the Bible teaches on this matter.

What else is occurring in our society? People use foul language and take God’s name in vain. How often do we hear people say, “O my God”? The expression has saturated our society. But the Bible condemns the vain use of God’s name (Exodus 20:7; Ephesians 4:29). It is sin, and it offends God. Likewise, the practice of lying and deceiving is commonplace, though God hates such acts (Proverbs 6:17; Ephesians 4:25).

What about gambling? The lottery has been legalized in most states, along with horse racing and other forms of gambling. Large numbers of people flock to these activities as if they are perfectly acceptable and moral. My friend, I don’t mean to offend you in any way, but I am telling you that the Bible speaks decisively and clearly against these practices. They are immoral, they are unchristian, and they are ungodly (Matthew 7:12; Ephesians 4:28; 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:10; 1 Timothy 6:9-10).

Our society says, “People ought to be free to believe what they want. Don’t be judgmental. You don’t have any right to say they are wrong.” But such propaganda is wrong. God has a right. He is the Creator, and He said in His Word that we must know His truth, and we must be right about that truth, and we must obey that truth (Hebrews 5:9). Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). He also said, “[Y]ou shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Paul spoke about the time when people would not want to hear healthy teaching (2 Timothy 4:3). They would reject it. But God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

The New Testament teaches that we must stay with God’s words. We are not free to deviate, or to believe and practice whatever we choose. We must not do it (2 John 9; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:8). In the final analysis, denominationalism is what results when humans assert their own religious inclinations, formulate their own religious doctrines, and originate their own churches. Solomon’s words ought to cause every single person to refrain from affiliation with denominationalism: “Every word of God is pure. He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Is Baptism a Symbol? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1232

Is Baptism a Symbol?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The design of water baptism in the New Testament is unquestionably to allow for the sinner’s sins to be removed by the blood of Jesus. This purpose is variously described as “to be saved” (Mark 16:16), “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27), to “enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), to “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), to place one “into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13) and “into Christ” (Romans 6:3). These are parallel expressions that pinpoint the same design.

In an effort to avoid the clear import of such verses, some theologians have concocted the notion that water baptism is a post-salvation action that follows the forgiveness of sins. Christendom, almost in its entirety, insists that remission of sin is imparted to the sinner at the very moment the sinner “believes” (i.e., accepts Jesus as personal Savior). This reception of Christ is an internal, mostly intellectual/mental decision in which the individual makes a genuine commitment to receive Jesus as Lord.

In his book How To Be Born Again, Billy Graham articulated the viewpoint espoused by the bulk of Christendom: “All you have to do to be born again is to repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” (1977, p. 156). He stated further: “Faith is trust, an act of commitment, in which I open the door of my heart to Him” (p. 160); “It means a single, individual relinquishment of mind and heart toward the one person, Jesus Christ” (p. 161); “Conversion occurs when we repent and place our faith in Christ” (p. 162). Near the close of his book, Graham summarized the prevailing view of when forgiveness occurs:

Make it happen now. …If you are willing to repent for your sins and to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you can do it now. At this moment you can either bow your head or get on your knees and say this little prayer which I have used with thousands of persons on every continent: O God, I acknowledge that I have sinned against You. I am sorry for my sins. I am willing to turn from my sins. I openly receive and acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Savior. I confess Him as Lord. From this moment on I want to live for Him and serve Him. In Jesus’ name. Amen. …If you are willing to make this decision and have received Jesus Christ as your own Lord and Savior, then you have become a child of God in whom Jesus Christ dwells. …You are born again (pp. 168-169, emp. in orig.).

Mr. Graham leaves no doubt as to his view of when forgiveness of sins occurs, and that it occurs before and without water baptism.

Another popular Christian writer, Max Lucado, expressed the same viewpoint in his book, He Did This Just for You:

Would you let him save you? This is the most important decision you will ever make. Why don’t you give your heart to him right now? Admit your need. Agree with his work. Accept his gift. Go to God in prayer and tell him, I am a sinner in need of grace. I believe that Jesus died for me on the cross. I accept your offer of salvation. It’s a simple prayer with eternal results (2000, p. 50, italics and emp. in orig.).

Lucado then followed this statement with a “response page” that provided the reader with the opportunity to make the decision that he (Lucado) had just advocated. The page, titled “Your Response,” includes the statement, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. I want him to be the Lord of my life,” and is followed by two blank lines, one for the reader to sign his or her name, and the other to record the date (p. 51).

These two widely recognized figures are sufficient to establish the point: most within Christendom believe that salvation occurs prior to water baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. But if this is the case, what then is the purpose of baptism? Various religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” That is, since a person already has received the saving grace of God by which sins have been cleansed, baptism serves the purpose of providing an outward demonstration or public declaration that the person has already been saved. The claim is that baptism is a symbol—a visible expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith.

Perhaps the reader would be shocked to find that the Bible nowhere articulates this unbiblical—albeit provocative—concept. It is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and repeated so often that it “sounds biblical,” even when it is not. When Ananias prodded Paul to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic (versus actual) cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s sins were washed away before he was baptized in water.

The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts 22:16, the grammar militates against the denominational interpretation that so often is placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His intended meaning:

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”

baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb:  “get yourself baptized”

apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb:  “get your sins washed away”

epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle:  “you will have been calling”

An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It shows the manner in which the main verbs are accomplished. The verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate conjunction “and” (kai)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934, p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would be:  “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away.

 

But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a symbol? Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct features.

ROMANS 6:3-18

In a context dealing with the power of the Gospel to counteract sin (5:20), Paul addressed the potential misconception that some may form in thinking that the continued indulgence in sin might be justified in order to allow grace to flourish (6:1). When the Romans became Christians, they died to sin (vs. 2). Thus, they should no more have continued a sinful lifestyle, than a physically deceased person could continue living physically. In arguing his point, Paul informed the Romans that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He used the term “likeness” (and later “form”) to pinpoint this symbolism:

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. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin (Romans 6:3-8).

When the believing, penitent non-Christian allows him or herself to be lowered into the watery grave of baptism, a parallel to Christ’s redemptive work is taking place. Baptism is into Christ’s death because that is where He shed His blood on our behalf. The atoning activity of Christ was achieved in His death, burial, and resurrection. Consequently, the alien sinner taps into that redemptive power in the act of water immersion. The “newness of life” follows—not precedes—baptism (vs. 6). The “old man of sin,” the “body of sin,” is eliminated in the waters of baptism. Being immersed in water— “buried in baptism” (vs. 4)—is equivalent to “you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered” (vs. 17). Only then, i.e., in the act of emulating Jesus’ atonement in the waters of baptism, is one “set free from sin” (vs. 18). To summarize, notice that seven significant achievements occur at the point of water immersion: (1) baptized into Christ; (2) baptized into Christ’s death; (3) newness of life; (4) united in His death; (5) old man/body of sin crucified/done away; (6) no longer slaves of sin; and (7) freed from sin.

COLOSSIANS 2:11-13

A second depiction of baptism as a symbol is seen in Paul’s identification of a link between baptism and the Old Testament practice of circumcision. God introduced the rite of circumcision into His covenant relationship with Abraham (Genesis 17:10ff.). This surgical procedure was strictly a physical feature of the Abrahamic covenant sustained by God with the physical descendants of Abraham, i.e., the Israelites. In this sense, it did not pertain ultimately to one’s spiritual standing with God (1 Corinthians 7:19). In contrasting and comparing Christianity with various unacceptable religions and philosophies, Paul used the physical rite of Jewish circumcision as a parallel to water baptism:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses (Colossians 2:11-14).

One must be very careful to allow the text to express itself with regard to the intended symbolism, refraining from drawing unintended points of comparison. The point that Paul was making is the idea that as skin was cut off in the act of circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism—skin vs. sin!

Paul underscored this meaning by alluding to the fact that baptism in water involves a burial followed by a resurrection—being “raised” (vs. 12). Twelve verses later, he again referred to this rising from the waters of baptism: “If then you were raised with Christ…” (3:1, emp. added). The conclusion is unmistakable: being buried/lowered into the waters of baptism, and then being raised from those waters, is the point at which sin is removed from the sinner—in the same way that flesh was removed from the body in the act of circumcision. In fact, Paul presented precisely the same case to the Colossians that he presented to the Romans. Note carefully the points of comparison in the following chart:

Romans 6 Colossians 2&3
(6:2) “we died” (3:3) “you died”
(6:8) “we died with Christ” (2:20) “you died with Christ”
(6:4) “buried with Him/baptism” (2:12) “buried with Him/baptism”
(6:4) “Christ raised from dead” (2:12) “raised Him from dead”
(6:4) “Walk in newness of life” (3:5) “put to death your members”
(6:2) “live any longer in it” (3:7) “when you lived in them”
(6:4) “Walk in newness of life” (3:1) “Seek things above”

Both passages teach that people are dead in sin and lost until they access the benefits of the death of Christ by being buried in water baptism. At that point, a person becomes dead to sin in the mind of God. Coming up out of the waters of baptism is a type of resurrection that signals a change in the way that person now lives life.

1 PETER 3:20-22

Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic value.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him (1 Peter 3:18-22).

Peter made a powerful point of comparison. The antediluvian people had the opportunity to hear God’s will for their lives. Noah preached to them (2 Peter 2:5), perhaps for over a century (Genesis 6:3). But the day came when God brought the Flood waters upon the Earth, drowning the entire human population with the exception of only eight individuals. Peter noted that those eight people were “saved by (i.e., diathrough) water,” i.e., through the medium of water. In other words, God used water as the dividing line between the lost and the saved. The water was the medium that separated the eight members of Noah’s family from the rest of humanity. He then compared those Flood waters with the water of baptism. The water of baptism is the dividing line that God has designated to distinguish between the lost person and the saved person.

But does that mean that H20 is the cleansing agent? Of course not. Such a conclusion would contradict other clear biblical testimony. Salvation is dependent upon and accomplished by means of the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross: His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Likewise, immersion must be preceded by faith, repentance, and confession of the deity of Christ. But Peter included this very point in his discussion. When one removes the parenthetical material from the verse, the interplay between baptism and Christ’s redemptive activity is clearly seen: “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” “Resurrection” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche in which the part is put in place of the whole. “Resurrection” includes the entire atoning event of Jesus—death, burial, and resurrection. Hence, Peter attributed one’s salvation to Christ’s work on the cross—but the application of this salvific achievement to the sinner occurs at the point of baptism.

CONCLUSION

The Bible is its own best interpreter. It teaches that baptism is, indeed, a symbol. But what does baptism symbolize? It symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; (2) the act of “cutting off ” in circumcision; and (3) the waters of the Flood. How could anyone get out of this that baptism symbolizes past forgiveness that was achieved prior to being immersed? The honest exegete is forced to conclude that the Bible nowhere expounds such a notion. The symbolism associated with water baptism further verifies the essentiality of immersion as a mandatory prerequisite to forgiveness. We dare not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6), since it is by Jesus’ words that we will be judged (John 12:48).

REFERENCES

Graham, Billy (1977), How to be Born Again (Waco, TX: Word Books).

Lucado, Max (2000), He did This Just for You (Nashville, TN: Word).

Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Is All of Life Worship? by Earl Edwards, D.Miss.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5740

Is All of Life Worship?

by  Earl Edwards, D.Miss.

[AP auxiliary writer Earl Edwards holds a B.A. from David Lipscomb University, an M.Th. from Harding School of Theology, and a D.Miss. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Edwards was a missionary in Italy for 16 years and also served as director of the Florence Bible School. For 20 years he served as the Director of Biblical Graduate Studies at Freed-Hardeman University, where he continues to work as an adjunct faculty member.]

When the Bible uses the term “worship,” what is included? Does it include all of life as some theologians affirm? For example, one commentator says that Paul, in Romans 12:1, teaches that “all Christian living is worship offered up to God.”1 Is that correct?

Let’s take some typical passages from both testaments to see how inspired writers generally use the word “worship.” In the Old Testament, it is first used in Genesis 22:5 with reference to Abraham and Isaac when Abraham says to his servant, “I and the lad will go over there and worship (shāhāh) and return.”2 It is clear that Abraham is saying we will, “over there,” do an act of “worship” (i.e., offer Isaac as a sacrifice, do an act of obedience to God) which we are not doing over here at present. All of life is not worship as the term is used here.

Let’s move on to 2 Samuel 12:20 which speaks of David, who, after the loss of his child by Bathsheba, ceased grieving and “washed” and “anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the Lord and worshiped (shāhāh).” Obviously while grieving and washing himself he was not worshiping; he did that later in “the house of the Lord.” That is, he performed some literal act in the Temple (probably praying or singing praises or sacrificing to God). So, here, too, all of life is not worship. In fact, one lexicon defines the Hebrew term used in both these passages (shāhāh) as “to bow down” before “a monarch” or “before God in worship.”3 But, as we will see later, for it to be acceptable worship to God, the outward “bowing” must be accompanied by an inward literal decision of the heart/mind to be submissive to God. Now this word shāhāh is the word which is translated by the English word “worship” in roughly 90% of the appearances of “worship” in any major version of our English Old Testament. It must be noted that even when God’s people bowed down and “multipl[ied] prayers,” God did “not listen” (Isaiah 1:15) when there was no corresponding inward decision of the heart/mind to be submissive, God required more than “lip service;” He desired “their hearts” (Isaiah 29:13). No wonder David was a man after God’s own heart, for he wrote (of God), “I will give You thanks with all my heart; I will sing praises to You before the gods. I will bow down toward Your holy temple and give thanks to Your name” (Psalm 138:1-2, emp. added).  David did “bow” his head, but the real worship was in submitting “all” of his “heart.” As P.W. Crannell says of worship, “the OT idea is therefore the reverential attitude of mind or body or both”4 But, as seen from passages like Isaiah 1:15, and others, it is clear that acceptable worship for God must include that “reverential attitude” which will necessarily provoke a literal decision of the heart/mind to be submissive.

Thus, these usages of the term “worship” militate against accepting the idea that all of life is worship because acceptable worship necessarily includes the heart/mind. It must be intentional. One does not have to bow his head to present acceptable worship, but he must of necessity make a decision in his heart/mind to be submissive to his Creator. Acceptable worship must be done with heart/mind engaged, and no man can live with his heart/mind concentrating on his relationship to God 24/7. You can’t concentrate on God when you are studying how to get “your ox out of the ditch”!

Now let’s move to some typical usages of the term “worship” in the New Testament. John 12:20 speaks of certain “Greeks among those who were going up to worship (proskuneo) at the feast.” Acts 8:27 speaks of an Ethiopian who “had come to Jerusalem to worship (proskuneo).” Acts 24:11 quotes Paul as saying, “I went up to Jerusalem to worship (proskuneo).” In all three of these passages it is clear that the persons referenced were not worshiping while traveling; rather, they intended to worship in Jerusalem after arriving. This probably involved one or more of the following: prayers, songs of praise, and/or sacrifices. The term “worship” does not include all of life here. In fact, the original Greek word proskuneo means, according to Bauer’s lexicon, “to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority.”5 Thayer’s lexicon explains further that proskuneo came originally from two Greek words which meant “kiss” and “towards,” a gesture being done “in token of reverence.”6 Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says proskuneo “remains limited to a single act.”7 Now, proskuneo is the Greek word behind roughly 90% of the appearances of the word “worship” in any major version of our English New Testament. When this gesture is done towards our God, we learn from Jesus that it must be done “in spirit and in truth” in order to be acceptable worship (John 4:24). As Leon Morris says, “in spirit” means “a man must worship, not simply outwardly...but in his spirit.”8 In bowing to men just the outward gesture may suffice, but in worship to God the outward gesture (bowing, kissing, sacrificing, mouthing words of praise) is not sufficient; it must include the literal act of submission of the inner person (the heart/mind). This can’t be done while one is concentrating on “figuring one’s income taxes”! All of life is not worship. It is clear in both testaments and in all major translations that acceptable worship to our God requires the concentration of the worshiper’s inner person on submission to his Creator. That does not happen 24/7 in any life. Therefore, all of life is not worship.

It is against this background of the meaning of “worship” in both Testaments that we must approach the problem of how to translate logikēn latreian in Romans 12:1. The NASB renders that passage as follows: “Therefore, I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your (logikēn latreian) spiritual service of worship.” The two options for translating latreian are “service” and “worship.” In fact, Bauer’s lexicon defines it as “service/worship (to God).”9 The NASB seems to try to straddle the fence and take in both concepts, but most major translations use either “worship” (RSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.) or “service” (KJV, ASV, NKJV, etc.). To be candid, one must admit that the majority of current scholars (translators and commentators) favor using “worship” in this passage, but that does not guarantee that this is correct. (The major number of current scholars also oppose “baptism for the remission of sins.”)

No one doubts that latreia can sometimes mean “worship.” In fact, I think Paul uses it to mean “the temple worship” (NIV) in Romans 9:4. However, the same Paul uses it, I believe, with a more general meaning in Acts 26:7 where Luke quotes him as saying that Christians “hope to attain” the promise as “they earnestly serve” (latreuo—the verb cognate to latreia) God “night and day.” Now what such Christians did in this “night and day” lapse might include public worship and daily prayers, but it certainly would not be limited to such. It would also include sleep when the heart/mind could not be engaged in submitting itself to God. That’s probably why the NIV, and other translations also, render latreuo as “serve” instead of “worship” here in Acts 26:7. Marvin Vincent likewise says that here latreuo is “better [rendered] as serve.”10 So sometimes latreia is a more general term. K. Hess writes,

It was originally used predominantly of physical work, but was then used generally and could include cultic service...in the OT...it is not the meticulously performed cultus which is the true worship of God, but of [general] obedience to the voice of the Lord.11

Notice that latreia, according to Hess, can include worship, but it is not limited to such. It is sometimes a broader, more general, term. As Gary Workman wrote: “It is a fact that latreuo and latreia refer to service in general, and not worship in particular.... Service is broader than worship. All worship is service, but not all service is worship.”12

Now we come to Romans 12:1 and logikēn latreian. Probably the best translation of logikēn is “reasonable” (as in the NKJV). That is, it makes sense to an intelligent, human being. Then we deal with latreian.

As noticed, the examples of acceptable “worship” from both Testaments treated earlier in this study were literal acts of the person’s heart/mind submitting itself to God, possibly also accompanied by a physical act or gesture—like bowing, kissing toward, or sacrificing or praising with one’s lips.

Now, in interpreting latreian in Romans 12:1, Everett F. Harrison aptly notes that in this passage Paul uses latreian in a different sense. He says Paul “gives it a metaphorical turn.”13 That is, though Paul uses worship language—note terms like “present” (parastesai), “sacrifice” (thusian), “holy” (agian), and “acceptable” (euareston)—he is not speaking of literal worship. He is using “metaphorical” or figurative language. William Sanday and Arthur Headlam agree. They say Paul is “metaphorical” in his use of “sacrificial language.”14 Harrison continues his discussion of Romans 12:1 saying,

The problem to be faced is whether “worship” may not be too restricted a rendering, for worship, in the strict sense, is adoration of God, which does not fit well with the concept of bodies [mentioned earlier in the verse—bodies are not where the required submission takes place]. It is just at this point that the term “service” (KJV) has an advantage since it covers the entire range of the Christian’s life and activity.... Service is the proper sequel to worship.15

Harrison is saying that the interpretation of “metaphorical language” is controlled by a different set of rules. E.W. Bullinger has written an 1,100-page book on the use of figures of speech in the Bible and in its preface he says that we should decide we are dealing with a figure when it

seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed.... Commentators and interpreters, from inattention to the figures, have been led astray from the real meaning of many important passages of God’s Word; while ignorance of them has been the fruitful parent of error and false doctrine.16

For example, since literal baptism is in water (Acts 8:36), when Jesus speaks of a “baptism” He will undergo, which is the same as the “cup” He must drink (Mark 10:38-39; cf. Matthew 26:39)—His suffering on the cross, we know that has to be a figurative baptism. Here there is little chance of mistaking this for a literal baptism but, just to avoid all such possibility, one translator renders it, “Can you be overwhelmed in the immersion that submerges me?”17 In figurative language the rules are less restrictive. In literal language one is either born into a given family or he is adopted. He cannot be both.  Instead, in God’s figurative family from one standpoint we become Christians by being “born of the water and the Spirit” (John 3:5); from another standpoint we have come into the family by “adoption as sons” (Romans 8:15). Likewise, when one thinks of the figurative foundation of the church, from one standpoint Christ is the entire foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) whereas, from another standpoint, the apostles and prophets are a part of the foundation and Christ is the “cornerstone” (Ephesians 3:20). Figurative language is less restrictive. It is controlled by different rules.

Now Harrison is saying that Romans 12:1 should tip us off to the fact that, though worship words are used, we should understand that language to be figurative since “bodies” are mentioned in the same verse and real worship does not take place there, but in the inner person—the heart. Bullinger would probably add (if he were to comment on Romans 12:1) that thinking of the “sacrifice” here as literal “worship” leads one to a definition of “worship” which is “at variance with the general teaching of Scripture.”

In other words, since acceptable worship is a heart/mind activity, such “bodies” cannot do acceptable “worship” by themselves without the participation of the inner person. When the mocking soldiers at the crucifixion “worshiped” (proskuneo) Jesus (Mark 15:19), it certainly was not acceptable worship! Acceptable worship necessarily involves the submission of the heart/mind.

Now, since lexicons agree that “service” is sometimes a legitimate translation of latreia, why should one use “worship” here in Romans 12:1 when such a translation forces a definition of “worship” which goes against the normal usage of the term in both Testaments in all major translations?

Harrison’s argument in favor of “service” in Romans 12:1 is, in reality, the same, but in different words, as the one made by Hugo McCord when he wrote (of latreian),      

Sometimes the word refers to a lifetime of service to God (Acts 24:14; Heb. 12:28), and the context of Romans 12:1 shows one’s offering his body as a living sacrifice is a lifetime of service not of meditation (which is what worship is).18

Gordon Fee seems to be making basically the same argument in his discussion of latreuo as it appears in Philippians 3:3. He says,

The verb, therefore, is not the one for “worship” in the sense of what the congregation does together as a gathered people, but represents the “service” of God’s people in terms of their devotion to him as evidenced in the way they live before him... [A]ll of life in the present is service and devotion to God.19

Now, the fact that it has that meaning in Philippians 3:3 does not necessarily signify it has the same meaning in Romans 12:1, but at least it shows that Fee believes that sometimes latreia is used by Paul to mean “service” (and we have already made the case that it is also so used in Romans 12:1).

CONCLUSION

All of life is not worship, but all of life is service. But let no one accuse this student of believing that as long as one goes to a church building on Sunday (and says he “worships”) that he can, therefore, live as he pleases during the week. The true worshiper will always remember that “Whatever you do in word or deed” you should “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17).

ENDNOTES

1 Jack Cottrell (1998), The College Press NIV Commentary: Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press), 2:312.

2 All Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publishers), unless otherwise indicated.

3 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs (1962), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Clarendon Press), p. 1005.

4 P.W. Crannell (1939), “Worship,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 5:3110.

5 Walter Bauer, Frederick Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 882.

6 Joseph Thayer (1956), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark), p. 548.

7 Gerhard Kittel, ed. (1971), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 7:172.

8 Leon Morris (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 270-271, emp. added.

9 Bauer, p. 587.

10 Marvin Vincent (1969), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:581.

11 K. Hess (1981), latreia in Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 3:549-552, emp. added.

12 Gary Workman (1993), “What is Worship?” Spiritual Sword, June, p. 7.

13 Everett Harrison (1976), Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 10:128.

14 William Sanday and Arthur Headlam (1900), International Critical Commentary: Romans. (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark), p. 353.

15 Harrison, p. 128.

16 E.W. Bullinger (1984), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. xv-xvi, emp. added.

17 Hugo McCord (1988), McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College), p. 87.

18 Hugo McCord (1982), “Worship,” Firm Foundation, June 1, p. 6.

19 Gordon Fee (1995), New International Commentary on the New Testament: Philippians (Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans), p. 300, emp. added.