6/29/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Who Will Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven? (7:21-23) by Mark Copeland

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Who Will Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven? (7:21-23)

INTRODUCTION

1. Most people believe they will go to heaven when they die...
   a. Their hope is fostered by the comforting words of many preachers,
      priests, and rabbis
   b. Their hope is based upon the idea that heaven is for all
      believers, or for those whose good works outweigh the bad

2. But are such hopes well-founded?
   a. Will most people go to heaven when they die?
   b. Is salvation based upon good works? Is it based upon faith only?

3. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus gave some ominous warnings...
   a. Few, not many, would be saved - Mt 7:13-14
   b. Many religious people, including some believers in Jesus, will
      learn that they too will be lost! - Mt 7:21-23

4. With Mt 7:21-23 as the spring board for our study, I wish to address
   the question:  "Who will enter the kingdom of heaven?"

[Before considering this question, perhaps this is good opportunity to
answer another one first...]

I. WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN?

   A. THE TERM "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"...
      1. Is synonymous with the "kingdom of God" - cf. Mt 4:17 with Mk 1:14-15
      2. Refers to God's kingship, or rule, from heaven
      -- The kingdom of heaven is focused in the Person of Jesus 
         Christ, and is especially manifested where He rules in the
         hearts of men - Lk 17:20-21

   B. IN BRIEF, THE "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"...
      1. Is spiritual in nature - Jn 18:36; Ro 14:17
      2. It began when all authority (rule) was given to Jesus - 
Mt 28:18; Ac 2:36; Ep 1:20-23 3. Today, it includes the Lord's church on earth (for those who submit to the Will of Christ are added to the kingdom) - Col 1:13; Re 1:9 4. In the future, it will involve the "new heavens and new earth," where we will be with God and Jesus for eternity! - Mt 13:40-43; 2Pe 3:10-13; Re 21:1-22:5 -- The kingdom of heaven was "inaugurated" on the Day of Pentecost, and will be "culminated" when Jesus returns to deliver it back to God - cf. 1Co 15:23-28 C. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IN OUR TEXT... 1. Appears to have the future aspect of the kingdom in view a. Note that Jesus says "in that day..." - Mt 7:22 b. An apparent reference to the day of judgment - cf. 2Ti 1:12,18; 4:8 2. Thus Jesus is talking about who will enter the kingdom in its future aspect a. Of which He spoke on other occasions - Mt 25:31-34 b. Of which Peter wrote in 2Pe 1:10-11 [What a wonderful blessing, to have an abundant entrance into "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"! But this leads me back to our text (Mt 7:21-23), and to the main question of our study...] II. WHO WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? A. NOT EVERYONE WHO PROFESSES JESUS... 1. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven" 2. There are some who teach that as long as one believes in Jesus, they will be saved a. That salvation is by "faith only" b. Even though the only time "faith only" is found in the Scriptures, it says: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." - Jm 2:24 3. But there is such a thing as "an unsaved believer"... a. The demons believe, but are not saved - Jm 2:19 b. There were some who believed in Jesus, but were not saved - Jn 12:42,43 c. Jesus described a true disciple as one who not only believes in Him, but does what He says - Jn 8:30-32 -- Let no one think that just because they "believe" in Jesus, they have a free ticket into heaven! B. NOT EVERYONE WHO DOES MANY GOOD WORKS... 1. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not..." - Mt 7:22 2. Here were people who not only believed in Jesus, but believed they had: a. Prophesied in His name! b. Cast out demons in His Name! c. Done many wonders in His Name! -- I.e., they thought they had been empowered to do such wonderful works! 3. Such good works certainly did not earn their way to heaven a. Indeed, salvation is by grace, not meritorious works - cf. Tit 3:3-7 b. Good works had not saved Cornelius, he still needed to be told what to do to be saved - Ac 10:1-5; 11:14 4. Indeed, sometimes what we may think is a good work is without any authority... a. Jesus condemns these as those "who practice lawlessness"- Mt 7:23 b. Literally, those who act without authority 1) It was not that they did something condemned by Jesus 2) It was that they did things for which they had no authority! -- We might be very religious, and do many things in the name of Jesus, yet He might still say: "I never knew you; depart from Me..." [Who then will be saved?] C. ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE FATHER'S WILL... 1. As Jesus said, "...he who does the will of My Father in heaven." - Mt 7:21 a. Here is the dividing line: those who DO the Father's will! b. As James would write later, it is the "doer of the work" who is blessed in what he does - cf. Jm 1:22-25 2. Is this legalism? a. No! Legalism is salvation by perfect law-keeping, believing that one earns salvation by the merit of what they have done b. Salvation by grace does not preclude the necessity of obedience 1) We simply need to recognize that our obedience does not earn or merit salvation 2) When all is said and done, we are still unworthy! - cf.Lk 17:10 3. The Father's will, while it offers salvation by grace, does require obedience! a. Only those who obey from the heart will be delivered from sin - Ro 6:17-18 b. Christ is the author of salvation to all who obey Him- He 5:9 c. Christ will come in judgment against those who obey not the gospel - 2Th 1:7-9 CONCLUSION 1. Who will enter the kingdom of heaven? a. Not those who profess to believe, but do not obey b. Not those who think they are doing many religious things, but without authority c. Only those who do the Father's will! 2. This is why we must take an earlier statement in Jesus' sermon so seriously... a. "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..." - Mt 6:33 b. We must make the finding of God's will and rule the number one priority in our life! 3. What is the Father's will? It begins with... a. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ - Ac 20:21 b. Confessing Jesus as Lord - Ro 10:10 c. Being baptized into Christ for the remission of sins - Ac 2:38 -- Followed by a life of faithful service to Christ, confessing our sins along the way - Re 2:10; 1Jn 1:9 Are you doing the Father's will?


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Making Sense of Baptism by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1230

Making Sense of Baptism

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One reason why some religious people do not feel that baptism in water is a prerequisite for salvation is because “it doesn’t make any sense.” Why would God demand that a sinner be immersed in water in order to receive the abundant amount of heavenly blessings found “in Christ” (cf. Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:34-40; 2 Timothy 2:10; Colossians 1:14)? “The necessity of baptism seems so arbitrary,” they say. “The need to confess faith in Jesus as the Son of God makes good sense. It also is logical to repent of one’s sins. But what good is baptism? What meaning does it have? And why should getting wet physically, make one clean spiritually?”

First, regardless of whether God’s instructions seem sensible to us or not, God expects His orders to be obeyed. One of the many lessons that a person learns from studying the Old Testament is that God oftentimes gave commands that seemed somewhat illogical to man. Not long after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God commanded Moses to strike a rock in order to receive water (Exodus 17:1-7). Although digging a well would seem to be the more reasonable thing to do, God wanted Moses to strike a rock with his rod before receiving water from the rock. Forty years later, as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan, Jehovah instructed the Israelites to march around the city of Jericho one time a day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day in order to conquer the city (Joshua 6:1-5). God said of the Israelites: “It shall come to pass,” on the seventh day, “when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, that all the people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the city will fall down flat” (6:5). The idea of an army defeating an enemy simply by walking around a city, yelling, and blowing horns, seems irrational. It makes no sense to the average person. Yet, this is what God demanded of His people if they wanted to be victorious. A few hundred years later, Elisha, a prophet from God, instructed a leprous man named Naaman to “wash in the Jordan seven times” in order to be cleansed of his disease (2 Kings 5:10). Considering the waters of the Jordan had no healing power, this command made little sense to Naaman then, and may not be very sensible to some Bible readers today. Why would God want a leper to dip himself in a river? And why seven times? What medicinal power did the river have? Why not simply have the prophet say to Naaman, “Your faith has made you well”?

Today, if a sinner wants to receive “the victory through…Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57), the Scriptures are clear: in addition to confessing faith in Christ and repenting of his sins (John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), he must be baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). For people to reject the command to be immersed in water simply because they feel that baptism and eternal salvation are totally unrelated, is as wrong as it would have been for Moses, the Israelites, and Naaman to reject God’s commands years ago (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9).

The truth of the matter is, however, one’s immersion into water is not the “illogical instruction” some have made it out to be. God’s plan to save man, and the conditions upon which salvation is accepted (including baptism), were in the mind of God “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). God always has known of this plan “which He accomplished in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:11). To speak of baptism as some flippant, fly-by-night ritual insults the eternal plan of God. It is meaningful, first, because God says it is. And second, if one truly takes the time to observe some of the passages that discuss baptism, he will have a better understanding of its significance. God never intended for a person to think that the power to forgive sins is in the water, any more than He expected Naaman to believe the power to cleanse his leprosy was in the Jordan River. In fact, the apostle Peter was very clear about this matter when he wrote that baptism is “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21).

Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, saying, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27, emp. added). When this passage is coupled with Romans 6:3ff., one learns that by being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death.

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 6:3-7).

Rather than asking, “Why baptism?,” perhaps we should ask, “Why not?” What other act would so fitly represent the complete ending of a life of sin? In his comments on Romans 6, R.L. Whiteside observed:

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).

It is in the act of baptism that the cross is actualized for the sinner, and brought to have individual significance (Riley, 2000, p. 72). Every time a person becomes a Christian, a sinner dies (“being buried with him in baptism”—Colossians 2:12), and is raised up a saint “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him [Jesus] from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).

Truly, baptism “makes sense” (perfect sense) when we take the time to focus on the One Who gave both His life for us, and the mode of baptism to begin our new life with Him (Matthew 28:18-20). Similar to how Noah’s new life, in a new world, began after having been transported from a world of sin by water (1 Peter 3:21; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), the sinner is carried by water into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This submissive act ushers us out of the world and into a relationship with God.

REFERENCES

Riley, Tom (2000), Dying to Live Again (Webb City, MO: Covenant Publishing).

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

Lying Wonders by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=947

Lying Wonders

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One direct source of unbelief is the false promotion of Christianity (cf. Job 13:7). It is surely a great tragedy that many people have rejected the Christian religion as the true portrait of reality on the basis of the misconduct that so many who claim to be Christians have displayed. In fact, some who purport to be faithful Christians are nothing more than crackpots and religious wackos.

It is especially intriguing to take note of the so-called “miracle workers,” “tongue-speakers,” and “faith healers” moving about the religious world today. Where fifty to one hundred years ago, to witness their theatrical presentations, one would have to go to the “revival tent” set up outside of town, now one can see these pseudo-wonder workers on several television channels. Willing participants, whose emotional state has been carefully manipulated, swoon at the mere touch of the “healer’s” hand on their forehead or cheek. Prominent religious leaders—who have built financial empires on the funds they have methodically extracted from misguided followers through threats, pleadings, and cajoling—continue to have a heyday, supposing “godliness is a means of financial gain” (1 Timothy 6:5).

But notice that the “miracles” performed involve highly questionable diseases and illnesses—nebulous aches and pains—that defy medical substantiation. Even the professed “tongue-speaking” is highly subjective, and in no way parallels the New Testament practice of speaking known human languages without prior learning (see Miller, 2003).

Scripture presents a very different picture. Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:35, emp. added). He gave the apostles these same powers “to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” (Matthew 10:1, emp. added). Included right along with these powers was the ability to “raise the dead” (Matthew 10:8; 11:5), restore shriveled or missing body parts (Luke 6:6-10; 22:49-51), and even give sight to a person born blind (John 9:1-7)! When was the last time one of these “faith healers” raised a dead person? Does God now place a limit on certain powers? Why will the tongue-speaker not come out in the open and convince unbelievers that their action conforms to the genuine New Testament gift—especially in light of the fact that tongue-speaking was for the purpose of convincing unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)?

But then, if John knew what he was talking about, no need for miracles exists today (John 20:30-31). The Bible declares itself to be all sufficient and capable of providing man with every spiritual need (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The divine purpose for which miracles existed (i.e., to authenticate the divine origin of the spoken Word—Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:4) has long since been served. All of which leads to this conclusion: the “wonders” being offered today are nothing more than “lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, emp. added), i.e., counterfeit, false, and deceptive (pseudous—Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 900).

[NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this topic, click here.]

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation (Extended Version),” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.

Luke’s “Orderly Account” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1486

Luke’s “Orderly Account”

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the prologue to Luke’s gospel narrative, he informed his readers that he sought to write “an orderly account” of the life of Christ (Luke 1:3). Based upon this statement, some tend to believe that everything in Luke’s narrative must have been recorded chronologically. Others have come to the conclusion that this statement must also mean that Luke’s account avoided the omissions that the other writers made from time to time. The evidence suggests, however, that though Luke’s account should be understood as being orderly to a degree, it is erroneous to contend that everything in Luke’s narrative is arranged in a precise chronological sequence.

One indication of Luke’s “orderly account” not being a strict sequence of events is found in Luke 3. Immediately following the record of John the Baptizer teaching the Jews about the coming of the Christ, Luke wrote: “And with many other exhortations he preached to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him concerning Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, also added this, above all, that he shut John up in prison” (3:18-20, emp. added). Had Luke already covered everything that John the Baptizer accomplished before his imprisonment and subsequent death, this statement might still be considered sequentially in order with everything else in the life of Christ. The fact is, however, the very next paragraph clearly indicates that Luke sometimes strayed from a normal chronology. Luke proceeded to inform his readers of Jesus’ baptism, saying, “When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized” (3:21). John baptized Jesus prior to his imprisonment (cf. Matthew 3:1-17; 4:12; John 1:29-34), yet Luke places John’s imprisonment before Jesus’ baptism. Although Luke does not indicate why he mentioned this event earlier than one might expect, Luke’s account is still very much characterized as being “orderly” and logical. It seems clear that Luke simply wanted to move John off the stage before focusing on the ministry of Christ. Luke did mention John a few more times in his narrative (cf. 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7,9,19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:4,6), but “the story of John’s active ministry as a free man ends here” (Hendriksen, 1978, pp. 212-213).

A second indication that Luke’s “orderly” narrative should not be understood as being a strict chronological order of everything that Jesus ever did or spoke comes from Luke 4. In the first thirteen verses of this chapter, Luke recorded how Satan confronted Jesus and tempted Him three times: first, to turn stones to bread; second, to worship him; and third, to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Interestingly, Luke’s order of the temptations is different than that found in Matthew’s gospel account. Matthew recorded that Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off of the temple, while the third temptation was Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Some might assume that because Luke had earlier professed to write an “orderly account” that his specific arrangement of the temptations of Christ must be the correct order. Most biblical scholars, however, believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like “afterward” (4:2, Greek husteron), “then” (4:5, Greek tote), “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These three adverbs strongly suggest that Matthew recorded the precise order of the temptations. Luke merely links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2,5,6, translated “and”). [NOTE: The NKJV’s translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply “and” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word “and” not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, the evidence suggests that Matthew’s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged chronologically, whereas Luke’s account is arranged in some other orderly fashion—perhaps thematically, or possibly climactically.

A final example indicating Luke’s “orderly account” is not as chronological and all-encompassing as some might initially think, appears near the end of his narrative. Luke began his final chapter “on the first day of the week” when Jesus rose from the grave (24:1). He concluded this chapter (and the narrative as a whole) informing the reader of Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Of interest, is that Luke never indicated that the events of chapter 24 covered any more than one day. Someone might read the entire chapter and assume that Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to His disciples, and ascended into heaven all on the same day, when actually what Luke recorded in this final chapter covered a period of more than five weeks (cf. Acts 1:3). Luke simply omitted most of what Jesus and the apostles did during this time, including the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee mentioned by both Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1ff.). Luke chose to focus most of his attention on what happened in (and around) Jerusalem on the day of Jesus’ resurrection. In order to get a more comprehensive chronological view of what occurred after Jesus’ resurrection and before His ascension, a person must consult the other gospel accounts.

Luke’s narrative certainly is an “orderly account.” It begins with the announcement, birth, and ministry of John the Baptizer—the forerunner of Christ, and then proceeds to focus on the life and teachings of Christ—from birth to death, and from resurrection to ascension. Luke’s account is not confused or haphazard, but “orderly.” Nevertheless, one must be careful not to force his orderly account into a strict arrangement in which every single detail falls into chronological order. In fact, according to Greek lexicographer Frederick Danker, the Greek word Luke used for “orderly” (kathexas) can refer to “sequence in time, space, or logic” (2000, p. 490, emp. added). Thus, similar to modern-day history books that are arranged chronologically, yet occasionally include nonsequential discussions of people, places, and events in order to accomplish a specific, intended purpose, Luke obviously wrote certain portions of his inspired account of the gospel in more of a thematic or climatic order.

REFERENCES

Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition of Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich.

Hendriksen, William (1978), Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).


Who Can Take the Lord's Supper? by David Vaughn Elliott


http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/who-can-take-lords-supper-by-david.html

Who Can Take the Lord's Supper?

by David Vaughn Elliott

Who can receive communion? Who can partake of the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper? Can visitors? Can everybody, anybody? Should communion be "open" or "closed"?

On one hand, there is the practice of asking all visitors to leave, and then serving the Lord's Supper to the members who remain. On the other hand, there are those who will announce before the emblems are passed: "It is the Lord's Table. We neither invite nor debar." Which practice is correct? Or is there a better way somewhere in between these two extremes? 

Scripture nowhere directly addresses this question. But neither does it lack principles that can give us guidance. First of all, in the NT, it is always the Christians who are partaking. When first mentioned in Acts 2:42, "the breaking of bread" is one of four items that "they were continually devoting themselves to." And who are "they"? The preceding verse tells us: "Those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls." Thus, in this initial instance, the communion is something that baptized believers were doing.

The most extensive text on the Lord's Supper is 1 Cor. 11:17-34. Paul first upbraids the Corinthian brethren for not understanding what the Lord's Supper is all about. He says, "When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper." In the context, Paul is saying that what they were doing was not at all what the Lord's Supper was to be like. He proceeded to explain the whole thing to them. But the question here is, who was he speaking to when saying, "when you meet together"? Just a couple of verses earlier it is clearer: "when you come together as a church" (vss.18-20). So it is the church that should come together to partake of the Lord's Table, to commune with Jesus, their Savior. 

Both texts speak of the breaking of bread, the Lord's Supper, as being something the Christians are doing, something for the church. What if visitors are present in the assembly? That issue, as I have said, is not directly addressed. However, there are several things mentioned, especially in the well-known verses beginning with verse 23 of 1 Cor. 11, that can help answer the question.  

From among various considerations, let's zero in on what is perhaps the strongest and clearest point: "A man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (vs. 28). Self-examination. How can a person who is not a Christian come out fine in a self-examination? He and she are still in their sins. They have not sought for the blood of Christ to blot out their sins in repentance and baptism. They have not yet yielded their lives to Jesus. They have not committed themselves to following Him in the way the NT ordains. They may not realize all this, in which case they do not even know how to examine themselves. Someone will say, well, it says that each person is to examine him/herself. However, in the context we have seen that it is members of the church in Corinth who are to examine themselves. Outsiders are not being considered.

No one comes to the table without sin, of course. But is the Lord's Supper a place for the sinner to obtain forgiveness? Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Peter, baptized with the Holy Spirit, said, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul taught, "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Gal. 3:27). When a person is baptized, he/she is clothed with Christ. That same person continues at the Lord's Table week by week to remain clothed with Christ.

What Then Should Be Done About Visitors?

Without explicit Scriptural teaching or example, it seems to me we should do that which is most beneficial to the visitor. I think none of us would agree to extreme customs that historically have been practiced, such as dismissing all the non-Christians before the Lord's Supper. Should we in that way or some other way "forcefully" make sure the elements do not get in the hands of the unconverted? Dealing with visitors whom we do not know – and don't know if they are believers or not – surely we would let them make the decision.

Whatever may happen the first (and maybe only) time a person visits the assembly, many of us would agree that the main thing is to teach the unconverted that they should pass the emblems by. If we invite an unconverted person to the service, it would be well to explain to that person, before attending the first time, that it is for Christians, and they can just pass the elements on to the next person. If someone is not a Christian and it is passed to them and they partake, we do not need to get all upset. But I believe we need to reach out to them at an appropriate time and place. 

As Christians, when we know a visitor is not a Christian, do we not have a spiritual obligation to him/her? The only way a non-Christian can come out fine in a self-examination is through ignorance. It is our task to teach them the way. Someone will say that it does the unsaved person no harm to partake because they are already lost anyway, so what difference does it make?

The best example I know is what happened several decades ago. A neighbor of a Christian was attending and partaking without anyone saying anything. The Christian asked my advice. I said to make it an opportunity to teach the visitor. What happened? The visitor said she thought she was fine in taking the Lord's Supper – and she might have continued "forever" without ever being converted. But because the Christian sat down with her and explained the whole thing, the visitor began to see that she was not right with the Lord. I don't remember all the details or the length of time involved, but the end result of the explanation was to open the door for Bible studies, and the neighbor was eventually converted to Christ. Praise the Lord!

So, in the case given, by allowing the visitor to partake Lord's Day after Lord's Day, she was made to feel fine, a part of the church, in communion with the Lord. That was not good for her soul. By explaining to her why she should not partake, the door was opened for her conversion and salvation. And she is faithful to the Lord to this day. That's the outcome we want to work toward.

Male and Female - God's Plan by Eugene Perry

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/roles.html

Male and Female - God's Plan

In today's society hairstyles, clothing, jewelry and oftentimes behaviour are suggestive of efforts to eradicate gender distinctions. We keep hearing and seeing the term "unisex".

This trend is of concern to thinking people because, in the judgement of many, it is a dominant cause of the ills of our time. Among these are broken and single family homes and absentee and/or non-functioning fathers. Children in such homes, all-too-frequently, in the absence of a male role model, grow up to be selfIsh, spoiled, lacking in self-discipline and unlikely to function properly as citizens and parents. Hence, the cycle repeats itself. Gender role confusion is also believed to contribute to the increasing incidence of abortions and homosexuality. The church is currently being weakened by the failure of men to exercise strong male leadership and the resulting tendency of women to challenge the concept. Thus society, the family, and the church are all being adversely affected by this problem.

What did God intend? There are those who hold that we cannot look to the Bible to determine this because, they claim, the writers of the scriptures were prejudiced by the culture of the time and hence tended to favour the oppression of women. Such an approach to scripture is unacceptable. It leaves man to judge what is cultural and what has continuing force on this and any other subject. Thus, the will of the infallible creator is being decided by His fallible creature. It smacks of Romans 1:22,23.

God made "male and female" in His image (Genesis 1: 27). Woman was created as a "help meet" (suitable helper) for man (Genesis 2: 18) and was intended to complement him in the marriage union (Genesis 2:24). This has led one writer to observe that woman was created after, from and for the sake of man.

The sometimes heard accusation that the Christian religion has been responsible for oppressive circumstances of women in the past is unfounded. Jesus, Paul and Christianity in general have been very much responsible for improvement in the lot of woman.

In the New Testament, Galatians 3:27, 28 clearly teaches that all people have equal access to salvation regardless of race, sex or status. This does not, however, override roles or functions uniquely and specifically defined in other scriptures. Differing roles do not make people superior, inferior or unequal.

There are two areas where God has seen fit to assign definitive roles to men and women (i.e. in the family and in the church). Both involve divinely instituted unions founded on love (i.e. the union of husband and wife in marriage [Ephesians 5:25-30] and the union of believers in Christ [1 Corinthians 13]).

When we examine 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, a response to a question unknown to us, we find women forbidden to speak in the public assembly of the church.

Although some, in their zeal to support changes, have taken the position that this restriction was given because of cultural circumstances of the time and thus does not apply to our times and culture, the "as also saith the law" of verse 34 and "take knowledge of the things I write unto you that they are commandments of the Lord" of verse 37 clearly refute such a position.

When we look at 1 Timothy 2: 11-14 where woman is forbidden to teach or have authority over man, it is even more obvious that the cultural argument cannot be applied. The reason given for this restriction goes beyond culture, back to the beginning.

Eugene Perry

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






To jump for joy! by Gary Rose



Beautiful picture, but one with an obvious flaw. It looks like someone inserted a man that is leaping just above the middle of that bridge. Why would someone do that? In a way it spoils the beauty of the picture; that scenic picturesque quality that you only find when you view God’s creation. But, perhaps it adds something to it as well. It could add a little humor, for it does appear to look a little leprechaun waving at you. That’s probably it; someone decided to be “funny”. But, as I look at it more, it could just be the expression of someone so happy that they would leap for joy! Have you ever felt like that, I know I have. And when I think about that little leaping man, I am reminded of someone from the book of Acts…


Acts 3 ( World English Bible )

1 Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. *

2 A certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb was being carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask gifts for the needy of those who entered into the temple.

3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive gifts for the needy.

4 Peter, fastening his eyes on him, with John, said, “Look at us.”

5 He listened to them, expecting to receive something from them.

6 But Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!”

7 He took him by the right hand, and raised him up. Immediately his feet and his ankle bones received strength.

8 Leaping up, he stood, and began to walk. He entered with them into the temple, walking, leaping, and praising God.


This man did receive money or possessions, he was given something far more important – his health. Beyond his health, he was miraculously given something he had never experienced, namely, the ability to walk and even leap. When you or I are sick, we gradually get better, but for someone who had never walked in his life, to be able to leap up and begin to walk without ever having learned how to do it, well, that is a miracle.


Even through the apostolic age of miraculous healing has passed, nonetheless, God still changing us spiritually, for when we become a Christian everything changes inside us, for as Paul said:


2 Corinthians 5 ( WEB )

17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, * all things have become new.


We no longer live a life dedicated to sin, but rather do our very best to follow God in our entire life. And God will reward us for this, with nothing less than eternal life in heaven with him.

Now, That is something to jump for joy about!

6/26/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Watch Out For Wolves! (7:15-20) by Mark Copeland



"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

Watch Out For Wolves! (7:15-20)

INTRODUCTION

1. Many people like to think that you can trust religious leaders...
   a. Ministers normally rank high in polls concerning people you can trust
   b. People will often accept whatever a preacher, priest, or rabbi
      says as the truth

2. Yet Jesus told His disciples to beware of false prophets - Mt 7:15-20
   a. They may appear like sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves
   b. We need to be able to identify them, knowing what to look for

3. Are you concerned about false prophets today?  You should be!
   a. The great diversity of teaching suggests that many are being misled
   b. We need to be reminded of the danger, and know how to spot any
      "wolves" that might come our way!

[With the words of our Savior in Mt 7:15-20 fresh on our mind, I wish
to use this opportunity to remind us to "Watch Out For Wolves!"  Let me
first re-emphasize the point that...]

I. THERE WILL BE FALSE PROPHETS

   A. AS PAUL WARNED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS...
      1. To the Ephesian elders - Ac 20:28-31
         a. Telling them to take heed
         b. For even from among themselves would men arise, misleading people
      2. To the church at Corinth - 2Co 11:13-15
         a. Referring to false teachers present even then
         b. Appearing as ministers of righteousness, even as Satan
            appears as an angel of light
      3. To the young preacher Timothy - 1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 3:1-9
         a. Warning of the apostasy that would come
         b. Describing the character and tactics of those who would mislead others

   B. AS DID OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS...
      1. Peter, in telling of the rise of false teachers - 2Pe 2:1-3
      2. John, in calling for people to "test the spirits" - 1Jn 4:1
      3. Jude, in writing of some who had already come - Jude 3-4

[With so many warnings, this is not a subject to take lightly!  But how
can we spot such "wolves" when they appear so disarming (like sheep)?
Thanks to Jesus and the Word of God...]

II. WE CAN IDENTIFY FALSE PROPHETS

   A. BY EXAMINING THE FRUIT OF THEIR LIFE...
      1. We can know them by their "fruit" - Mt 7:16-20
         a. What is truly in their heart will eventually come out
         b. For from the heart proceeds any sin that may be there - cf. Mk 7:21-23
      2. Thus false teachers and false prophets are often betrayed...
         a. By their greediness (e.g., as manifested by their lavish lifestyles)
         b. By their immorality (e.g., as manifested by adulterous relationships)
         c. By their lust for power (e.g., as manifested by religious empires)
      -- Given time, the true character of many false prophets will be
         exposed by the fruit of their life!

   B. BY EXAMINING THE FRUIT OF THEIR TEACHING...
      1. Taking notice of their methods
         a. Working secretly - cf. 2Pe 2:1
            1) Their ministries (especially finances) will be shrouded in secrecy
            2) Rather than being open to one and all - cf. 2Co 8:20-21
         b. Appealing to covetousness - cf. 2Pe 2:3
            1) They draw people with an appeal to what people often
               covet (such as health and wealth)
            2) Rather than preparing people for what Christians can
               expect - cf. Ac 14:23; 2Ti 3:12
         c. Using deceptive words - cf. 2Ti 3:13; 2Pe 2:3
            1) Twisting the scriptures to support their message (just
               as Satan did in trying to tempt Jesus)
            2) Rather handling the word of God rightly - 2Ti 2:14-16
      2. Taking notice of their doctrine
         a. How they twist and pervert the scriptures - cf. Ga 1:8-9
            1) Their gospel may start out right, but becomes twisted along the way
            2) Their teaching often expressed in the terms of man, not Scripture
         b. How they teach that which is clearly contrary to the
            scriptures - cf. Deut 13:1-4
            1) Even if they appear able to perform signs and wonders!
            2) The final test is how their teaching compares to the
               word of God and that of His apostles - cf. 1Jn 4:1,6

CONCLUSION

1. It is not necessary to judge the hearts of those who claim to speak for God...
   a. We need only to be "fruit-inspectors"
   b. The fruit of their life and teaching will become apparent soon enough
   -- This is how we can "Watch Out For Wolves!"

2. Of course, this presumes that our knowledge of God's word is sufficient...
   a. To know what to look for in the life of a false prophet
   b. To know what to listen for in the teaching of a false prophet
   -- Otherwise we will be no different than Israel, of whom God said:
      "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." - Hos 4:6

Are you equipped to identify a wolf in sheep's clothing if you saw one?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Look Who’s Talking by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1349

Look Who’s Talking

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

As we study and defend the Bible, we must keep in mind that we are dealing with an inspired record that contains numerous uninspired statements. Even though “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), not everything that the inspired writers recorded was a true statement. For example, after God created Adam, He told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest he die (Genesis 2:17). Yet, when the serpent approached Eve, he “informed” her that she would not die if she ate of this forbidden fruit (3:4). Obviously, Satan was not inspired by God to say “You will not surely die.” In fact, as we learn earlier, he actually lied (John 8:44). However, when Moses recorded the events that took place in Eden hundreds of years later, he wrote by inspiration of God (cf. Luke 24:44; John 5:46). When Jesus healed a demoniac, some of the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons, not by the power of God but by the power of “Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons” (Matthew 12:24). Like Moses, Matthew did not write a lie, but merely reported a lie. The inspired writers of the Bible are in no way responsible for the inaccurate statements that are recorded therein. Whether the statements were true or false, they reported them accurately.

When giving a defense for a particular truth the Bible teaches (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), or when refuting the error that someone else may be teaching (cf. Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:2), we must keep in mind who is doing the talking. The above examples are rather elementary: Satan’s statement and the Pharisees allegations clearly were false. But what about when statements are made by individuals who do not seem “as bad” as these?

Oftentimes when attempting to defend a certain doctrine, a person will quote a verse from the book of Job and say, “See, that’s what it says…the book of Job says…therefore my doctrine is proven true.” Not long ago I read an article by a gentleman who was defending a doctrine by citing various verses in the book of Job. This man never indicated who made the statements; he simply cited all of them as being true statements. Those who “defend the truth” in such a way totally disregard one of the fundamental rules of interpretation, i.e., knowing who is speaking. One who studies Job must realize that it is an inspired book that contains many uninspired statements. For instance, we know that Job’s wife was incorrect when she told him to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9). We also know that many statements made by Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were incorrect. Nine of the 42 chapters in the book were speeches by these “miserable comforters” (16:2) whom God said had “not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (42:7). Clearly then, one never should quote these men and claim it as an inspired truth.

Finally, we must understand that even though Job was “blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil” (1:1), there is no indication that his speeches were inspired. Neither He nor anyone else in the book ever claimed his statements were “given by inspiration of God.” In fact, when Jehovah finally answered Job out of the whirlwind, He asked: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (38:2, emp. added). Obviously, God never would have asked such a rhetorical question had Job been inspired. Prior to the Lord’s speeches, Elihu twice accused Job of the very same thing (34:35; 35:16). Later, Job even said himself: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (42:3, emp. added; cf. 30:16-23). Clearly, then, these passages indicate that Job’s speeches were not inspired.

Through the years, various authors have sought to establish scientific foreknowledge in the passage found in Job 26:7 where Job, in speaking of God, observed that “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Two items from this passage are alleged to be prescientific in nature. First, appeals have been made to the fact that one supposedly can observe an “empty space” in the northern skies—a space where there are no stars, thus corroborating Job’s statement about an “empty space” in the north. Second, some have suggested that since Job’s phrase, “He hangs the earth on nothing,” is literally true (because as everyone now knows, the Earth is freely suspended in space), this is an example of scientific foreknowledge. But if we attempt to convince people that this verse is to be taken literally, how do we then consistently deal with statements in the same chapter that obviously are figurative (such as verse 11: “The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke”)? Further, there is no empty space in the north. Instead, “billions of stars and galaxies extend outward in all directions” (DeYoung, 1989, p. 95). [Job was not speaking of a literal “empty space” in the north. During his day, pagan gods of idolaters were said to live “in the north.” Job pointed out, correctly, that this could not be true because in the north there was nothing but “an empty space.”]

The honest Christian desires to defend the Word of God with every legitimate weapon in the apologetic arsenal. However, we only hurt the cause of Christ when we employ arguments that are backed by uninspired statements. When studying your Bible or when teaching and defending one of its many truths, always remember to look who’s talking.

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Donald B. (1989), Astronomy and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Letting the Bible Explain Itself by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5589

Letting the Bible Explain Itself

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The scene is quite familiar to many people: a nervous, well-intentioned, but sometimes ill-prepared Bible teacher stands or sits before the class, reads a passage of Scripture, and then begins a discussion with this simple question, “What does this mean to you?” The question seems innocent enough. Many people find it quite appropriate. After all, Bible teachers don’t know everything, and class discussions can be very beneficial.1 So why not give everyone an opportunity to tell the class what a Bible verse means to them?

In short, because it simply does not matter what a particular Bible passage means to you or me. The actual, true explanation of the text is ultimately all that matters (i.e., what did God mean?). If there is a right interpretation of a section of Scripture, then that particular, correct explanation should be the only interpretation we seek. Application of the sacred text to our own individual lives certainly is vital to genuine Christian living, but first, we must come to a right understanding of the text (Ephesians 5:17).2 How do we do this? By allowing God to explain Himself. Similar to how we frequently ask those with whom we are engaged in conversations to explain themselves when they use words or expressions that we do not understand, if God gave us the Bible, then we need to seek His explanation of His Word. Whenever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. This principle of Bible interpretation is both logical and God-honoring.

As great and faithful as was Joseph the patriarch, he informed the King of Egypt that “it is not in me” to interpret Pharaoh’s divinely revealed dreams (Genesis 41:16).3 God was the only One Who knew for sure what the dreams meant (since He was the One Who caused them in the first place), and He chose to give Joseph the meaning so that he, in turn, could inform Pharaoh. More than 1,000 years later, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, also had a special dream from God. As he sought a revelation and an interpretation of the inspired dream, the prophet Daniel informed the king that “there is a God in heaven Who reveals secrets” (Daniel 2:28). Only when God revealed the meaning of the dream to Daniel (2:19-23) could he in turn be of real help to Nebuchadnezzar. In essence, the faithful prophet Daniel logically and honorably allowed God to explain Himself.

Bible students and teachers in the 21st century need to learn from the faithful prophets of old the important lesson of humbly seeking God’s explanation of His revealed will. Since some things in Scripture are “hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), we must approach the study of the Scriptures with the utmost care and attention. Like the apostles, we prayerfully need to seek the Master’s truthful explanations (“Explain to us the parable of the tares,” Matthew 13:36) and not rely on the imaginative, diverse, biased, and ever-changing opinions of man. If the Bible is God’s all-sufficient revelation to mankind,4 and the entirety of His Word is truth and forever settled in heaven (Psalm 119:160,89), then whenever and wherever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. Although helpful man-made commentaries have their place,5 no uninspired commentary can compare to the divinely authoritative commentary within the Bible itself. We must allow the immediate and remote contexts of inspiration to assist us in our studies. We must use the simple, straight-forward language of Scripture to help us understand the more challenging texts, and use the literal language to help us better understand the figurative. It is paramount that we use God’s Old Testament to better understand His New Testament and vice versa. If an authoritative elucidation to a particular biblical statement exists,6 we must (as much as possible) get out of God’s way and allow Him to explain Himself! Indeed, as has often been said, “The Bible is its own best interpreter.”

A Word of Caution

When “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) by using the Bible to explain the Bible, we must handle the potential associated passages with the utmost integrity and care. Do the verses actually relate to the primary passage in question, or am I rather carelessly using them to “prove” a preconceived idea? Do I actually understand the secondary passages in their own contexts, or am I rushing ahead to use them to “explain” the principal passage, when I have not yet even understood the supposed “inspired commentary” (the secondary passages)?

Example: A Misuse of 2 Peter 3:8

Second Peter 3:8 is one of the most frequently cited proof texts for the six days of Creation actually being thousands of years (or more) long. Allegedly, “Peter said, ‘One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day,’ thus the days of Creation were (or at least could have been) a thousand years (or more) long.” Sadly, for many Christians, 2 Peter 3:8 has become their leading commentary on Genesis 1.

Notice first of all that Peter does not actually say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as (Greek hos) a thousand years, and a thousand years as (hos) one day.” Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

In 2 Peter 3, the apostle reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth…are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the Church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise one or two days ago. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Bible students should also consider the fact that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This, in itself, is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years.7 (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis 1 God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis 1?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any serious student today can do the same.8

“Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth”

Although there is always the possibility of misusing Scripture when seeking to understand it (just as any communication can be misunderstood when treated carelessly), we must not allow the potential mistreatment of God’s Word to keep us from carefully and sincerely interpreting it. The saving faith of Jesus Christ “comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Hearing and understanding the revelation of God both precedes faith and continues working alongside it as faithful men and women continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Just as the Corinthian Christians were expected to “understand, even to the end” (2 Corinthians 1:13), a continual proper understanding of God’s Word is vital to our spiritual success throughout life.

Like the Bereans, we must seriously “search” or “examine” (Greek anakrino) the Scriptures in a noble, fair-minded fashion (Acts 17:11). The Greek word anakrino means to “engage in careful study of a question;” to “question, examine.”9 It is to “sift up and down;” “to make careful and exact research as in a legal process.”10 Similar to how Pilate “examined” (anakrino) Jesus and found no fault with Him concerning the things of which He was being accused (Luke 23:14), the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul preached were true. There is a commendable, reasonable manner in which to interpret Scripture, including and especially, allowing God to explain Himself—using the Bible to illuminate the Bible.

Exodus 20:11—To “Make” or to “Remake”?

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”

Several years ago, I listened to an evolutionary-sympathizing, radio evangelist emphatically and repeatedly stress that Exodus 20:11 does not mean that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days. Instead, God supposedly “fashioned” or “remade” the Universe in six days after an original creation billions of years earlier. Allegedly, between the time God (1) “created” the world (Genesis 1:1), and (2) “made” (or “recreated”) the world (Genesis 1:3-31), billions of years of time transpired in which evolution supposedly took place. This gentleman based his entire argument about Exodus 20:11 on the belief that “to create” (Hebrew bara) and “to make” (Hebrew asah) always mean two different things in relation to God’s creative acts.

The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the inspired “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.

Since Exodus 20:11 refers to the events that took place in Genesis, it is quite appropriate to revisit the book of beginnings to see how these two words are used in reference to what took place during the Creation. In Genesis 1-2, bara and asah are used several times in reference to God’s work. Interestingly, they never stand at odds with one another; they teach one central truth: God created/made the Universe and everything in it in six days. For example, on day five “God created (bara) great sea creatures and every living thing that moves” (1:21), while on day six “God made (asah) the beast of the earth according to its kind” (1:25). On day six of Creation, God said: “Let us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Then we are told in the very next verse that He “created (bara) man in His own image.” When Moses commented on this day of Creation in Genesis 5:1-2, he again used these words interchangeably: “In the day that God created (bara) man, He made (asah) him in the likeness of God. He created (asah) them male and female” (5:1-2).

In Genesis 2:4 Moses summarized the events of Creation, stating: “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (asah) the earth and the heavens.” The phrases “the heavens and the earth…were created” and “God made the earth and the heavens” parallel each other. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

Notice the prophet Isaiah’s use of four different Hebrew terms (including bara and asah) to refer to God’s work at Creation: “For thus says the Lord, Who created (bara) the heavens, Who is God, Who formed (yatsar) the earth and made (asah) it, Who has established (kun) it, Who did not create (bara) it in vain, Who formed (yatsar) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18). Did God intend to communicate a different message every time He used different words to describe something? Not according to His inspired commentary. Just as you may tell one person, “I mowed the yard,” you might mention to someone else that “I cut the grass.” You have spoken one truth, even though you used two different phrases.

Though the term asah has a broader semantic range than bara and they may not always be synonymous terms, the fact is, as Hebrew scholar Dr. Justin Rogers concluded: “As any careful reader of the Bible will observe, the Hebrew language does not make a sharp distinction between bara and asah in accounts depicting the Creation. On the contrary, the terms are used interchangeably for Creation throughout the Old Testament, and can often be found in parallel expressions.”11

Gap theorists who contend that the Hebrew words bara and asah must have two different meanings when referring to God’s creative acts “in the beginning,” and who allege that Exodus 20:11 (and other verses) refer to a re-creation of Earth and everything on it, are not logically and fairly interpreting the Bible. Rather than respectfully allowing God’s Word to explain itself, it seems they have chosen to use the latest theories in old-Earth, evolutionary science to manipulate the Scriptures to their liking.

John 2:4—Was Jesus Disrespectful to His Mother?

“Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.’”

Prudent world travelers take into consideration the differences in the countries they visit. They carefully consider their words and actions, knowing that sometimes the same word or action can mean two totally different things in different places at the same time. Wearing “pants” (trousers) in the U.S. is not equivalent to wearing “pants” (underwear) in England, nor is holding up two fingers (which may be interpreted as an obscene gesture by Englishmen).

Similar to conscientious world travelers who fairly interpret the words and actions of those in other countries according to the language and customs of those countries, Bible students must interpret the Bible with the Bible. Allowing the Bible to explain itself is fundamental to a proper understanding of it since the events of Scripture took place in very different times in different places with different people who spoke different languages and who had different customs.

The first time a person reads Jesus’ statement to His mother at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (“Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?—John 2:4), he may be a little confused. Why did the sinless Son of God address His mother with the term “woman”? According to Richard Dawkins, “Jesus’ family values, it has to be admitted, were not such as one might wish to focus on. He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with his own mother.”12 According to Dennis McKinsey, “Jesus needs to practice some parental respect.”13 “Imagine someone talking to his own mother in such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as ‘woman.’ Talk about an insolent offspring!”14

As with most Bible critics, Dawkins and McKinsey are guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in 21st-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in their proper biblical context in a first-century setting. When we allow the Bible to explain itself, we learn that it was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman” (Greek gunai). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith in Matthew 15:28 (“O woman, great is your faith”). Later, as He was dying on the cross, Jesus spoke to His disconsolate mother one last time, saying, “Woman, behold your son” (John 19:26). Then, after He rose from the dead, Jesus affectionately addressed Mary Magdalene (as the angels had just done—John 20:13) with these words: “Woman, why are you weeping?” (John 20:15). As disrespectful as it may sound to us today, the use of the term “woman” in the first century “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address,”15 “with no idea of censure.”16 As Adam Clarke remarked: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers.”17 The New International Version captures the true sense of this word in John 2:4: “Dear woman, why do you involve me?”

As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (gunai) instead of “mother” (meetros) when speaking to his own mother, we simply do not know.18 We must be careful to say “why” someone did or said something a certain way if the Bible does not give some indication, especially if we are assuming the worst about an individual.19 Contemplating and discussing why Jesus made this statement (and many others which may be left unexplained) is not wrong.20 We simply must differentiate between Bible-inspired explanations and the uninspired suggestions of men (however interesting they may be).

Mark 8:31—On What Day Exactly Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

“And He [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). And while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40). According to Mark 8:31, however, Jesus predicted that He would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). How could Jesus arise both “on” and “after” the third day? Does the Bible help explain this difference in time in the most important event in the history of the world? Indeed, it does.

Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that in Bible times a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day. Consider two examples:

  • When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (10:5). Verse 12 of that chapter indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day.’” Interesting, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
  • In Acts 10, we glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (10:3, approximately 3:00 p.m.). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour” (10:30, NASB). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the ancient Jewish method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

By studying these and other passages,21 one can see clearly that the Bible uses expressions such as “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and own use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day?

The expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of God’s divine commentary (as well as helpful, uninspired historical writings which shed light on the culture of the day),22 and not according to the present-day (mis)-understandings and biases, we find perfect harmony in the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used to describe Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Conclusion

How often have we “heard” God, but not actually understood Him? Twentieth-century American author and children’s book illustrator Robert McCloskey once stated, “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”23 Sadly, billions of people on Earth either don’t care what God’s Word says or they don’t care enough to put forth the effort to understand it properly.

Some things are definitely harder to understand than others, and some things we may never fully understand, but one thing is for sure: if we humbly and honestly allow the Bible to explain itself whenever possible, we will successfully arrive at the proper conclusions that God intended for us to reach.

Endnotes

1 Both as a student and as a teacher, I have often benefited from the scriptural, relevant, and practical comments of others in a Bible class.

2 “Explanation” logically precedes “application.” That is, we cannot apply what we do not understand.

3 All bold text in Scripture quotations has been added for emphasis.

4 Read 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13; 14:26; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:1-5; Jude 3; Revelation 22:18-19. See also Eric Lyons (2003), “Hearing God in the Twenty-First Century,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=912&topic=86.

5 Commentaries are often helpful in noting corresponding historical information, which leads to a better overall understanding of the time, place, and setting of a particular book of the Bible. The underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words are also frequently defined and discussed in a search for a better understanding of the text.

6 Keep in mind, just as the apostles did not understand all of Jesus’ teachings during His ministry (cf. Mark 9:32; John 12:16; 13:7), there are likely a number of things that we will never fully understand about the Bible this side of eternity. No doubt, we can understand everything we need to know to become a Christian and to live the faithful Christian life (John 8:32; 1 John 5:13; 1:5-10), but there may be many things about angels, the Trinity, Satan, heaven, hell, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc. that we will likely never fully understand while on Earth. Perhaps one way God tests the sincerity of our hearts is by examining whether or not we are willing to concede that we are uncertain what some Bible passages mean exactly.

7 Some argue that since “God is not bound by time” and “could have taken as long as he wanted to create the Universe and everything in it,” then the days of Creation could have been thousands of years (or more) long. The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time (He most certainly is; Psalm 90:2), but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of Scripture. God could have created the Universe in any way He so desired; in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He so chose. But the question is not what God could have done; it is what He said He did. And He said that He created everything in six days (Exodus 20:8-11). Cf. Eric Lyons (2014), “Creation and the Age of the Earth,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5000&topic=327.

8 Even if 2 Peter 3:8 could be tied to the length of the Creation days (logically and biblically it cannot), adding 6,000 years to the age of the Earth would in no way appease evolutionary sympathizers. A person could add 600,000 years or 600 million years and still not come close to the alleged age of the Universe. According to evolutionary calculations, one would still be 13+ billion years away from the Big Bang and four billion years this side of the formation of Earth. Truly, even an abuse of 2 Peter 3:8 will not help Day-Age theorists.

9 Frederick Danker, et al. (2000), Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), p. 66.

10 A.T. Robertson (1997), Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

11 Justin Rogers (2015), “Is the Gap Theory Linguistically Viable?” Reason & Revelation, 35[12]:134-141, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1208#.

12 Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 250.

13 Dennis McKinsey (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 251.

14 Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 134.

15 Marvin R. Vincent (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

16 A.T. Robertson (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman), 5:34.

17 Adam Clarke (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

18 Admittedly, the use of “woman” seems to have been an unusual way to address one’s mother in first-century Hebrew and Greek cultures.

19 Generally speaking, people understand the importance of the principle of being “innocent until proven guilty.” In our daily lives, we generally consider a person to be truthful until we have actualevidence that he or she has lied. In addition to giving peoplethe benefit of the doubt and generally considering them to be truthful about a matter unless we have evidence to the contrary, when we read a historical document or book, the same rule applies. The writing is considered to be truthful until it can be proven otherwise.

20 For example, commentator Leon Morris sensibly supposes that Jesus was indicating that there was going to be a new and different kind of relationship between Him and His mother beginning at the wedding in Cana. “Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but ‘the Son
of Man’ who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51)” ([1995], The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans], revised edition, p. 159).

21 Genesis 42:17-24; 1 Kings 29:20; Esther 4:16; 5:1.

22 The Jerusalem Talmud, for example, quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Harold W. Hoehner [1974], “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 131:248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah was indicating that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Cf. John Lightfoot (1979), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 210-211.

23 Attributed to Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman by Marvin Kalb, CBS reporter, in TV Guide, March 31, 1984, citing an unspecified press briefing during the Vietnam war, http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/quote/601648.