9/25/20

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" The Garden Of Gethsemane (26:36-46) by Mark Copeland

 

 
"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

The Garden Of Gethsemane (26:36-46)

 
INTRODUCTION

1. The last supper of Jesus with His disciples was finished...
   a. He predicted the betrayal by Judas - Mt 26:21-25
   b. He observed the Passover, instituting the Lord's Supper - Mt 26:26-30
   b. He then foretold Peter's denial of Him, as they made their way to
      the Mount of Olives - Mt 26:31-35

2. Jesus and His disciples then came to a place called Gethsemane...
   a. A garden outside the city, across the Kidron brook and on the Mount of Olives
   b. It's name means "olive press", and was possibly a remote walled garden
   c. A place where Jesus often went with His disciples - Jn 18:1-2

3. Note the contrast between the Garden of Eden, and the Garden of Gethsemane...
   a. In the first garden, the first man fell by yielding to temptation
   b. In the second garden, the Second Man (cf. 1Co 15:47) conquered
      by yielding to the will of God

[Yes, "The Garden Of Gethsemane" was a place of victory for Jesus (and
consequently for us as well).  But the victory did not come easy, as we
notice first of all that...]

I. THE GARDEN WAS A PLACE OF SUFFERING

   A. WHERE JESUS EXPERIENCED GREAT DISTRESS...
      1. He went to pray, accompanied only by Peter, James, and John - Mt 26:36-37
      2. Before He began praying, He was "deeply distressed" - Mt 26:37
      3. Mark records that He was "troubled and deeply distressed" - Mk 14:33
      4. Later, Luke records that He was "in agony", and His sweat
         became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground - Lk 22:44
      5. He was likely troubled for He knew that His hour had come - cf. Jn 12:27
         a. He knew what was imminent, for He had told His disciples
            three times - Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19
         b. There was not only physical pain to endure, but also the
            burden of our sins and separation from His Father as He
            bore our sins on the cross! - cf. Isa 53:6; Mt 27:46

   B. WHERE JESUS ENDURED INTENSE SORROW...
      1. He described Himself as "exceedingly sorrowful, even to death" - Mt 26:38
      2. The writer of Hebrews refers to His "vehement cries and tears"- He 5:7
      3. Again, His grief and sorrow was partly due to the fact that He
         was taking upon Himself our own griefs and sorrows! - cf. Isa 53:4-5

   C. WHERE JESUS ENCOUNTERED SOLEMN LONELINESS...
      1. He wanted His closest disciples to watch with Him - Mt 26: 37-38
         a. Those who had been with Him from the beginning - Mt 4:18-22
         b. Those who were privy to one of His greatest miracles - Mk 5:37-43
         c. Those who saw Him transfigured on the mountain - Mt 17:1-2
         d. Including the disciple "whom He loved" - Jn 13:23; 19:26;20:2; 21:7,20,24
      2. Yet after each episode of praying, He found them sleeping - Mt 26:40-41,43,45
         a. When He desired fellowship for comfort, there was none to be found
         b. The Psalmist foretold this would happen - cf. Ps 69:20

[Alone in His distress and sorrow, our Lord found "The Garden Of
Gethsemane" to be a place of great suffering for Him.  Then something
happened.  Before He left to face the mob led by Judas to arrest Him,
Jesus found that...]

II. THE GARDEN WAS A PLACE OF STRENGTH

   A. WHEN JESUS EXPRESSED AGONIZING PRAYER...
      1. The agony in His prayer is:
         a. Seen by His posture:  "He...fell on His face" - Mt 26:39
         b. Heard in His words:  "O My Father, if it is possible, let
            this cup pass from Me" - Mt 26:39,42,44
      2. It was "godly fear" Jesus expressed, and for such His prayer
         was heard - He 5:7
         a. Not that the cup (of suffering) was removed
         b. But that He would be able to drink it

   B. WHEN JESUS EXTENDED ENTIRE RESIGNATION...
      1. As evidenced by His words:
         a. "Not as I will, but as You will." - Mt 26:39
         b. "if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it,
            Your will be done." - Mt 26:42
      2. When man first said "My will, not Thine be done..."
         a. It opened the flood gate of sin
         b. It turned man out of the Paradise of God
      3. But when Jesus said "Not as I will, but as You will..."
         a. Victory over sin and access to the Tree of Life became possible
         b. For it prepared Jesus to go to the cross to make it possible

   C. WHEN JESUS ENJOYED SPECIAL COMFORT...
      1. Jesus received an answer to His prayer - cf. Lk 22:43
         a. Not the answer He requested (let this cup pass from Me)
         b. But strength from an angel!
      2. Like the apostle Paul would pray later - cf. 2Co 12:7-10
         a. Asking the Lord to remove his thorn in the flesh
         b. Receiving an answer different than requested, but more than
            sufficient to meet the need!

   D. WHEN JESUS EVINCED RENEWED RESOLVE...
      1. Strengthened, Jesus was ready to face the hour at hand - Mt 26:45
      2. He was ready to meet His betrayer and those with him - Mt 26:46-47

CONCLUSION

1. So "The Garden Of Gethsemane" was a place of both suffering and strength...
   a. Jesus entered the garden suffering
   b. He left the garden strengthened in His resolve

2. Notice what turned the place of suffering into a place of strength:prayer!
   a. Prayer that is fervent and persistent
   b. Prayer in which one submits to the will of God
   c. Prayer in which one is strengthened
   d. Prayer that enables one to face the cup of life given them

3. There will be times when we must enter our "Garden of Gethsemane"...
   a. Times of distress, sorrow, loneliness
   b. But such times can also be a time of comfort and strength
   -- Provided we spend them in prayer, and be willing to accept the Father's will

Jesus found prayer to be the key for turning a garden of suffering into
a garden of strength.  As Christians we have a similar blessing in prayer:

   "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and
   supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known
   to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding,
   will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." - Php 4:6-7

May we never neglect to utilize this wonderful gift, especially since
we now have Jesus Himself to intercede on our behalf!

   "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed
   through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast
   our confession.  For we do not have a High Priest who cannot
   sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted
   as we are, yet without sin.  Let us therefore come boldly to
   the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace
   to help in time of need." - He 4:14-16

   "Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who
   come to God through Him, since He always lives to make
   intercession for them." - He 7:25  
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

The Problematic Concept of a Sinful Human Nature by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749


The Problematic Concept of a Sinful Human Nature

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

It is fashionable in some religious circles to teach that human nature is sinful, i.e., we all have a “sinful nature.” If this is supposed to mean merely that all accountable persons at some point sin, and need forgiveness, then the doctrine of a sinful nature is biblical (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). However, the very words “sinful nature,” and much of the discussion surrounding it, often denote the doctrine of hereditary depravity. This is the idea that all humans inherit the sin of Adam in some way—we suffer due to this original sin, and therefore we all are inescapably sinful by nature. The biblical evidence militates against this idea, as we have shown previously (see Pinedo, 2009; Colley, 2004; Butt, 2004). The very concept of a sinful human nature is also philosophically problematic. Indeed, the concept of a sinful nature is plagued with difficulties even before the Bible is consulted.

Consider a preliminary remark concerning what it means to speak of a sinful human nature. To speak of human “nature” at all is to refer to qualities that are essential to all humans. Such characteristics cannot be accidental, or things that might become characteristic of a human as he develops, but might also not. Rather, aspects of human nature are inseparable from whatever it is that makes us human (with the possible exceptions of young children and the mentally ill). For example, we might admit that human nature is essentially rational (this is part of what differentiates us from animals), but not essentially football-loving, because there are plenty of humans who seem not (however mysteriously!) to appreciate football. Someone who thinks that we become sinful when we transgress God’s law does not believe in the essentially sinful human nature.

To ascribe a sinful nature to humanity, therefore, is to say that there is something sinful about being a human being. What part of our being might be accused of inherent sinfulness? If we think that a human being consists of a body and a soul, there are three possibilities: (1) The body could introduce guilt; (2) The soul could introduce guilt; (3) The union of body and soul could itself produce guilt.

First, someone could allege that sin comes as a result of our embodiment. Indeed, the idea that the body unavoidably mars the perfection of the soul has been popular at times. For example, the Gnostics taught that matter is intrinsically evil and is the source of all evil (see Renwick, 1982, 2:490). How may moral blame attach to human nature as it arises from our bodies? We are typically unprepared to blame purely material objects such as tables and chairs. Genes and brain matter are different from tables and chairs, but it is nonsensical to look for a difference that would give rise to moral guilt. As yet, there is no good explanation to convince us that evil arises simply from matter. (Yet, we might use our bodies to do wrong. Indeed, all sins are committed while we are “in the body” [2 Corinthians 5:10]).

On the other hand, someone who believes in sinful human nature might be (and probably is) referring to the status of the soul rather than the body. Before assessing the possibility of the essential blameworthiness of the human soul, consider that for someone to think of the soul as essentially sinful, there are some concepts of soul which he must reject. For example, the Aristotelian view of the soul as being the animating force of the body, or that which activates the body’s potential, does not allow for the human to “start out” as blameworthy. Guilt, on this view, cannot arise from outside of the human order, because Aristotle does not posit a supernatural being to ascribe the guilt. Furthermore, humans could not possibly claim to know that a newborn baby was already guilty if they did not think that God had ascribed guilt to the baby from outside the human order.

Likewise, the Stoic idea of a Universe-Soul is problematic for the idea of an essentially sinful soul. If we all share in the same soul, which also gives life to everything else in the Universe, then to ascribe guilt to that soul would be to say that everything is altogether evil. If everything is evil, how would we know what good is? And what is the point of discussing sinful human nature if we think there is no rescue from it?

There are other conceptions of soul that would a priori disallow a sinful nature. If we presuppose, however, that the soul is distinct from the body (i.e., it is its own, separable substance) and comes to the body from elsewhere (from heaven or wherever), then we have at least a format that might allow for the essential guilt of the soul. In this format, we are free to suppose that the soul acquires guilt prior to entering the body, at which time human nature is indeed guilty. There are two problems with this, however: (1) We could not know about such an arrangement unless it were revealed to us. Plato’s theory of reincarnation is beautiful and interesting, but like other theories of reincarnation, is not readily amenable to proof (Socrates’ “proofs” in the Meno [Plato, 1997, pp. 870-897] and the Phaedo [pp. 49-100] are notoriously problematic). A person has just as much reason to deny the existence of souls prior to their embodiment as he does to assert such existence, because the spiritual realm does not appear to us. (2) Most people who want to establish sinful human nature presumably would not be interested in the guilt of a soul prior to embodiment, because sin is supposed to be passed along from one embodied soul to another embodied soul. If we suppose that a new soul acquires guilt while it waits in heaven to be born into the world, we would need an additional story about where this guilt comes from. Such a story does not seem to be forthcoming. Because reincarnation is not evident (and seldom proposed by supporters of the sinful human nature), then there is no obvious way to ascribe the sin of a previous human to a soul not yet embodied.

The only remaining option is that the soul becomes sinful at the time when it is embodied, at the occasion of the union of soul and body. If the soul is innocent prior to embodiment—and as we have seen, there is no obvious reason to think it guilty—then the body is the substance that is responsible for the guilt in the union. We have already shown the difficulty of associating blame with matter. Furthermore, recall that the common view of sinful nature is that we have inherited the sins of an ancestor. His soul was guilty, not because of contact with matter, but because of his own sinful volition. This was the “original” sin. Guilt was introduced on this occasion, but did not exist prior. This ancestor did not inherit guilt, so matter, at least in his case, did not bring sin. Why should we think matter brings sin in our case?
 

CONCLUSION


One response in favor of sinful nature might be that it is a spiritual, theological matter, and thus a philosopher will not find it if he searches for it (e.g., Hodge, 2010). This is an appeal to the limits of philosophy, and would be a well-taken point if God had revealed a logically coherent doctrine of original sin that was not obvious apart from revelation. However, He has not done this. In fact, He has revealed information to the opposite effect. Glory be to God, Who does not blame us for the sins of our ancestors (Ezekiel 18:20).
 

REFERENCES


Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of Their Parents?,” http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2543.

Colley, (2004), “Did David Authorize Infant Baptism?,” http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2626.

Hodge, Bodie, “Is Original Sin (Sin Nature) Passed through the Father’s Genetic Line?,” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/23/satan-the-fall-good-evil-how-is-original-sin-passed.

Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Are Children Born With Sin?,” http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240109.

Plato, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Renwick, A. M. (1982), “Gnosticism,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

The Principle of Authority at Jericho by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=684

The Principle of Authority at Jericho

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The principle of authority is a well-established doctrine of the Bible. Stated briefly, the Bible teaches that no human being has the right to do anything without prior permission from God (see Miller, 2003). This principle applies to human conduct in every area of life—from the foods we eat to the clothes we wear (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:9; 4:3-5). We are to be governed by God’s will in every aspect of life. For example, no human has the right to engage in illegal drug trafficking—since God’s Word gives no such permission. No human being has the right to set himself up as the head of Christ’s church—since God’s Word gives no such permission. No human being has the right to worship God incorporating humanly devised means (e.g., mechanical musical instruments, choirs, “praise teams”)—since God’s Word gives no such permission.

Among the myriad of passages that expound this principle is Joshua chapter six, in which God instructed Joshua to have the people march around the city of Jericho once a day for six days, seven times on the seventh day, and then to shout when the priests blew their trumpets. When Joshua conveyed these instructions to the population, he added this clarification: “You shall not shout or make any noise with your voice, nor shall a word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I say to you, ‘Shout!’ Then you shall shout” (Joshua 6:10, NKJV). Though God did not specifically tell the people not to shout on days one through six, Joshua drew that very inference and correctly clarified the point for the people. In doing so, he was simply articulating the familiar biblical principle of authority: “that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’” (1 Corinthians 4:6, NIV).

However, some critics have objected to the biblical principle of authority as illustrated in Joshua chapter six. They allege that because the priests blew on the rams’ horns on days other than the seventh day (vss. 8,13), the priests were not required to have divine authority to do so. Critics insist that God’s silence on blowing trumpets on days other than the seventh day meant that the priests were free to exercise their own discretion and blow their trumpets on those days. They then draw the conclusion that, in like manner, since God has not spoken one way or the other on such matters as instrumental music in worship, handclapping, baby dedications, and praise teams, then worshippers are free to include or omit such actions as they choose.

Consider the following refutation of this line of thinking. In the first place, the objection fails to come to grips with Joshua’s own logic on the matter. It was Joshua who understood God’s instructions to forbid shouting on days one through six, though God did not explicitly forbid it. So to discount the biblical principle of authority, one would have to demonstrate that Joshua was mistaken in the conclusion that he, himself, drew regarding the lack of authority to shout on days one through six.

In the second place, the text gives several contextual indicators to show that the authority principle applies consistently to both the matter of blowing the trumpets and the matter of shouting. Notice the English grammar of the text in verse four: “And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets” (NKJV). Observe the “And” (a waw in Hebrew) that begins the sentence and the period after “ark” followed by “But” (also a waw). The “And” links back up with verse three, indicating that the trumpets accompanied the priests for the first six days. The period places closure on that point, and the “But” shows that the thought regarding blowing the trumpets on the seventh day is in addition to the use of the trumpets prior to that time. These observations are borne out by the way various translators have handled the Hebrew text of Joshua 6:3-4:

  • “March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets” (NIV).
  • “And you shall march around the city, all the men of war circling the city once. You shall do so for six days. Also seven priests shall carry seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark; then on the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets” (NASB).
  • “You shall march around the city, all the men of war going around the city once. Thus shall you do for six days. And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark; and on the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, the priests blowing the trumpets” (RSV).

Though the translators vary in their handling of the punctuation, the language allows for the authorized use of the trumpets prior to the seventh day. The language certainly does not require the conclusion that God confined the trumpet blowing to the seventh day. The language leaves room for the priests to utilize their trumpets each of the seven days—not merely on the seventh.

Further, one must not assume that every detail that God communicated to Joshua is divulged in verses two through five. The Bible often reveals incomplete information in various parts of a context, or even elsewhere in the Bible, that must be gathered together to grasp the entirety of the circumstances surrounding an incident. Even though only the single long blast on the trumpets is explicitly mentioned in the initial instructions given to Joshua regarding day seven (vss. 4b-5), it is evident from the rest of the account that blowing was also to be done during the six days. Joshua confirmed this very point when he repeated the instructions he had received from God to the people. He mentioned the carrying of the trumpets as occurring with the initial taking up of the ark (vs. 6)—which would seem to suggest that they would be used, not merely carried. The reason the long blast on the seventh day was emphasized was not to imply that no blowing was required, specified, or authorized prior to the seventh day, but simply to signal at which point the shouting was to occur (vs. 20)—which was limited to day seven. Observe carefully the structural layout of the events as the Holy Spirit chose to give them to us:

  • Verses 2-5: God gives instructions to Joshua
  • Verses 6-7: Joshua relays the instructions to the people (though recorded by the Holy Spirit for us in abbreviated form)
  • Verses 8-9: The first day of the carrying out of the instructions by the people commences
  • Verse 10: Narrator parenthetically interrupts to clarify Joshua’s explanation to the people regarding shouting
  • Verse 11: Summary of the first day of marching
  • Verses 12-14: Summary of the first six days of marching
  • Verses 15-16: Account of the seventh day
  • Verses 17-19: Reminders regarding Rahab and refraining from taking booty
  • Verses 20ff.: Rest of the details regarding seventh day

It is evident from the Holy Spirit’s sequential reporting of the events that the blowing of the trumpets on days one to six was included in the instructions that God had given. This fact is especially apparent in verse 8, which follows immediately on the heels of Joshua’s relaying of God’s instructions to the people in verses 6-7. Though verses 6-7 do not explicitly mention the blowing of the trumpets, notice how verse 8 is worded in such a way that it is evident that the priests blowing the trumpets in verse 8 was the direct result of Joshua’s instructions in verses 6-7: “So it was, when Joshua had spoken to the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the Lord advanced and blew the trumpets....”

Additionally, observe that in giving God’s instructions regarding shouting (vs. 10), Joshua flagged the fact that the only noise being limited/forbidden until day seven was shouting made “with your voice” and “out of your mouth.” That specification would need to be clarified if, in fact, it was understood that trumpet blowing would be occurring on days one to six.

Taking all of these factors into account, a simple reading of the chapter demonstrates that (1) God authorized the trumpets to be blown by the priests on days one to six; (2) the priests were to blow one long single blast at the specified time after the seventh trip around the city on the seventh day in order to signal the population that the time had come for them to shout with one accord; (3) the people were authorized to shout only on the seventh day and any shouting on days 1-6 would have been unauthorized by God—even as Joshua, himself, concluded.

God often gave more information to Bible characters that is recorded in Scripture. We have no right to assume an action is right unless God says so or an approved Bible character provides further explanation that verifies God’s approval. The biblical principle of authority is not brought into question by the matter of trumpet blowing in Joshua chapter six. “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:17).

REFERENCE

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Principle of Authority,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1215.

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible by Moisés Pinedo

 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=626


The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible

by  Moisés Pinedo

George Bush said of him: “When you are in his presence you say to yourself: ‘Here is a great man, a great leader.’ He is a man of liberty, of faith, who suffers every time the Church, or man, is oppressed. He will occupy, with all authority, a privileged position in the history of our time. I am not Catholic, but towards him I feel a deeply profound respect and a sincere affection” (as quoted in Mirás, n.d.).

Of whom was the former president of the United States speaking? His commentary was in reference to the late Karol Wojtyla, more commonly recognized as Pope John Paul II. Having been considered for 26 years as the “successor of the apostle Peter,” and having been the heir of an endless hierarchical legacy, John Paul II was a man who influenced the hearts of many Catholics, as well as many other religious people. At his death, thousands of followers gathered in or near St. Peter’s Plaza in Rome to pay tribute to the pope, while the bells of the Catholic Church buildings rang throughout the city (see BBC News, 2005). Since April 2, 2005, the eulogies of many close associates and supporters have been heard, and it is certain that this situation will continue for some time after his burial. Even the current president of the United States has raised his voice to declare:

[T]he world has lost a champion of human freedom, and a good and faithful servant of God has been called home. Pope John Paul II left the throne of St. Peter in the same way he ascended to it—as a witness to the dignity of human life (Bush, 2005, emp. added).

John Paul II was, for more than a quarter of a century, a representative of the monopolized throne of the Catholic Church—the papacy. But, what is the papacy? Is there a scriptural basis for this Catholic institution? Did God designate a legacy of “ecclesiastical leaders” on Earth?

Apart from what people may think concerning this institution or its members, and apart from any eulogies, blessings, insults, or condemnations that religious people may offer concerning this ecclesiastical order, it is my desire to open the pages of the Bible, as well as the pages of history, to analyze whether the papacy (with its large list of members) is a divine institution, or whether it simply should be classified as a human invention that is unworthy of the type of honor bestowed upon it.

THE ALLEGED BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY

And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

This is the biblical verse to which the Catholic apologist inevitably turns in order to defend the establishment of the papacy. Through an arbitrary interpretation of this verse—an interpretation which suggests that God constituted Peter (and ultimately his successors) as the “rock” of the church—the Catholic Church has built a grand structure with only one man as the head.

But in order to be consistent with biblical truth, we must understand the difference between the two words used in Matthew 16:18. In reference to Peter, the Holy Spirit recorded the Greek word petros—a proper noun which denotes a stone that can be easily moved. In contrast, in reference to the “rock,” the Holy Spirit recorded the Greek word petra, which denotes a solid mass of rock (see Vine, 1999, p. 663). While the word used for Peter corresponds to the Aramaic name that Jesus had given him (Kepha, John 1:42), the word used for “rock” refers to the foundation of the church—i.e., Peter’s confession that pointed to Christ as God and the Messiah (cf. Matthew 16:16).

The biblical truth that the word “rock” was used in reference to Christ Himself is derived not only from the etymology and context of Matthew 16:16-19, but this is also a truth taught and recognized throughout the entire Bible. Peter, who received the words of Jesus first hand, used the same Greek word petra in reference to Christ (1 Peter 2:8; cf. Acts 4:11). Without a doubt, Peter, more than any religious person of our modern time, would convey the true meaning of the word used by our Lord.

The inspired apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “…and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them:and the rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4, emp. added). The truth is that, ever since the Old Testament, the rock was always Christ, not Peter. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul exhorted: “…being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (emp. added). In Luke 20:17-18 Jesus remarked: “What, then, is this that is written, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? Everyone that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust’ ” (cf. Matthew 21:42,44 and Mark 12:10). In effect, Jesus used the rejection of the rock by the builders to show the rejection of the religious leaders of His time concerning His person. Without a doubt, the One Who could tell us with total veracity what the word “rock” refers to is Jesus Himself—Who used it and applied it to Himself.

Another aspect to consider is the fulfillment of the prophecies given by Jesus. He said that “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). If the “rock” is referring to the confession made by Peter (Matthew 16:16)—which revealed the truth that Jesus was God and the anticipated Messiah—it would be upon this truth that the church would be established. In effect, this prophecy realizes fulfillment when we learn that in Acts 2:36, the truth that Jesus was God and the Messiah is presented once again as a prologue to the birth of Christianity, and ultimately, of the church. The truth of the matter is that nothing exists in this biblical text to authorize the establishment of the papacy.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the idea (borne of tradition) that Peter was exalted over the other apostles—and thereby was transformed into the pioneer for the papal throne—is biblically unsustainable. Jesus imbued each of His apostles with the same authority (Matthew 28:19-20). When the apostles disputed among themselves over who was the greatest, Jesus sent them a clear message: “The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them… But ye shall not be so” (Luke 22:24-26, emp. added; cf. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48). On another occasion, Jesus told them: “Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… Not so shall it be among you” (Matthew 20:25-26, emp. added). Unfortunately there are those today who place themselves in opposition to this biblical sentiment so that an existing hierarchy should be evident among the first-century apostles, even when Jesus said it should not be!

The truth is that Peter was an apostle just like the other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11), and was a man just like other men (with the word “man” bearing many serious implications). As a man, Peter never demanded special treatment or demanded displays of adoration for himself. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter (cf. Acts 10:25), he told him: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26, emp. added). With this statement Peter set forth three very important points: (a) that he was also a man—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was a man—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was a man—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was not worthy of worship. [Note the position of the emphasis in the three points just made.]

Peter understood with all humility the implications of being only a man. But popes, being only men like Peter, allow multitudes to bow their knees before them, kiss their feet, and reverence them—thereby receiving worship that does not rightfully belong to them. What a tremendous difference between Peter and his supposed successors! Not even an angel of God would permit John to show him adoration by kneeling before him (Revelation 22:8-9). One can only be astonished when considering what tremendous audacity it takes to try to usurp the place where God belongs!

THE ORIGIN OF THE PAPACY

If Peter was not a pope, and the Bible does not record a papal hierarchy, the question arises: When and how did the papacy originate?

When Christ established His church, “he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [i.e., bishops—MP] and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11). Jesus never established a single bishop over a multiplicity of others; rather, He established an impartial order of service. However, men departed from the original pattern of the Bible in search of power, honor, and deification. The first indication of this desertion was when the distinction between the words, bishops, elders, and pastors was made—titles that are used interchangeably in the Bible (e.g., Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Peter 5:1-2; etc.)—thereby giving preeminence to the position of bishop. Quickly, the “bishop” came to take prominence over not only a congregation, but over a “diocese”—congregations of a district or a complete city (see Miller, 1976, par. 42).

One of the characters that clung to a hierarchy of the church by only one man (i.e., “the bishop”) was Ignatius of Antioch. In his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote:

For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.… Let us therefore be careful not to resist the bishop, that by our submission we may give ourselves to God (Ignatius to the Ephesians, 5:1,3, n.d.).

Later, when Emperor Constantine made Christianity a religion of “power,” the bishops strengthened and increased their prerogatives. Many new bishops (e.g., Damasus, Siricio) fought to affirm their hierarchical position in the church at Rome, appealing to their inherent “authority” in their cathedra (see Encuentra, 2000-2004). In A.D. 440, the pontificate of Leo I arrived. He became an ardent defender of the supremacy of the Roman bishop over all of the other bishops of the West. In his declaration to the Bishop of Constantinople, he wrote:

Constantinople has its own glory and by the mercy of God has become the seat of the empire. But secular matters are based on one thing, and ecclesiastical matters on another. Nothing will stand which is not built on the Rock which the Lord laid in the foundation…your city is royal but you cannot make it Apostolic (Mattox, 1961, pp. 139-140).

In mid-September of 590, Gregory the Great was designated as the bishop of Rome. He proclaimed himself as pope, and head of the “universal church.” He did his best to uphold the so-called Petrine Tradition; and towards the end of his pontificate, “the theory of the primacy of Peter and the Roman bishop as his successor and the universal head of the church was definitively established” (Mattox, p. 140). Finally, with the ascension of Boniface III to the papal throne on February 19, 607, it was established (by his own declaration!) that the only “universal bishop” would be that of Rome—ultimately, the one and only pope. Boniface III, who lived less than a year after his election, left the world of Catholic religion with many other bishops who energetically competed in the “endless race for supremacy” known as the papacy.

THE ALLEGED INFALLIBILITY OF THE PAPACY

One of the most treasured doctrines of the Roman papacy is that of infallibility. Catholicism argues that when the pope speaks as the head of the universal church, and thereby exercises his “supreme” authority, he cannot make a mistake. Pope Pio IX established the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870. In light of this relatively recent doctrine, the question begs to be asked: What about the other popes who exercised their power before 1870? The answer can be presented as follows:

…a dogma is an eternal truth that the Church did not invent but rather “discovered,” which, however, all of the other popes have been subject to it without knowing it (Infaliblidad, n.d., emp. added).

Nevertheless, history speaks strongly against this doctrine. For example, Pope Honorius I (625) bore (after his death) the title of “heretic” for having stood in agreement with the doctrine of monotheletism (the doctrine that acknowledged two distinct natures within Christ, but only one divine will). He was censured by the sixth ecumenical council, and later even by the seventh and the eighth (Constantinople III, 680; Nicea II, 787; and Constantinople IV, 869). Pope Leo II recognized the doctrinal error of Honorius, and for many centuries, the popes, in their enthronement, were required to swear that “they rejected the heresy whose ferment was introduced by Honorius” (see Hermosillo, n.d.). Another pope, Eugenius IV (1431), condemned Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake for considering her to be a participant of witchcraft, though Benedict XV canonized her as a “saint” on May 16, 1920 (see Infalibilidad Papal, n.d.). Other popes, like Paul III, Paul IV, Sixtus IV, Pio IX, et al., authorized, promoted, incited, and reinforced the “Holy” Inquisition for which the late Pope John Paul II had to apologize worldwide.

The same John Paul II (1978-2005) gave a fatal blow to the doctrine of infallibility. In opposition to the declarations of other popes and of Catholic doctrine itself, this pope declared:

  • The Spirit of Christ uses other churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation (1979, 4.32).

  • People outside the Catholic Church and the Gospel can attain salvation by grace of Christ (1990, 1.10).

  • People can be saved by living a moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church (1993, 3).

  • There is sanctification outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church (1995, 1.12).

  • The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit (1995, 3.84).

Furthermore, concerning the erroneous concept of organic evolution, on October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” (see “John Paul II,” 1996). But if evolution is to be considered more than merely a hypothesis, Adam disappears! Ultimately, then, how can it be, as Catholics allege, that humanity carries the sin of the first man? Should we not say, instead, that humanity carries the “sin” of the last primate from which we “descended” (as if primates could sin!)? Many other examples could be given, but surely the few points mentioned in this brief study provide sufficient evidence to warrant us discarding Roman Catholic doctrine. Certainly the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused, and continues to cause, many people to accept false doctrines such as original sin, the assumption of Mary, the canonization of saints, the “factuality” of evolution, and even papal infallibility itself—doctrines that are completely lacking in any biblical foundation.

What is certain is that when Pio IX declared that the pope was infallible, with the same “infallibility” that he pretended to have, he gave his final “infallible” stamp of approval for his declaration of the infallibility. Though this seems to be a jumble of words, this is exactly what happened. However, while Pio IX declared that the Pope was infallible, Adriano VI (another presumably infallible pope), declared in 1523:

It remains above all doubt that a Pope can err even in subjects touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment and decree. In truth, many roman pontiffs were heretics (as quoted in Sapia, 2000, emp. added).

So, then, Catholicism arrives at a problem in that two popes, allegedly both possessors of the same “infallibility,” affirm self-contradictory positions. How could one pope, who is supposedly infallible, condemn his own infallibility and that of others? If Pio IX was correct, Adriano VI made a mistake; and if one makes a mistake, then none of the popes can be infallible since the doctrine of infallibility supposedly involves all of the popes. Therefore, the only conclusion at which we can arrive from the history of the popes and their evident contradictions is that the doctrine of papal infallibility is unmistakably false.

CONCLUSION

The pages of the life of another member of the papacy have been written, finished, and closed. His faithful followers may weep, but soon a new pope will arise. A group of “select cardinals” who lack “infallibility” will convene in a room (conclave) and cast their secret votes (see Conclave, 1908). If all happens as planned, a new, “infallible” pope will be the result of the vote of fallible men. “Who will be the new Pope?,” many will ask. Sadly, in this moment of media racket, Catholic grief, and international suspense, many people will never hear the intense scream of the Bible to abandon the human hierarchy that apostasy has established.

The truth is that there is only one Head of the church—Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). Also, there is only one rock that serves as the foundation of the church (i.e. Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:11). To adopt another rock (i.e., another foundation) instead of that which was already laid, is to build on an unstable foundation. To place another rock instead of that which is already placed is to build upon a foundation of men. To place another rock instead of that which is already placed is to usurp the revered place of Christ.

We have no choice but to say that there is no biblical foundation or authorization for the existence of the papacy. The rock—Christ—should not be rejected in order to place human foundations in His position. Those who do so build upon an unstable foundation that one day will collapse. With Paul, faithful Christians can confidently declare: “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11, emp. added).

REFERENCES

BBC News (2005), Pope John Paul II Dies in Vatican, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4399715.stm

Bush, George (2005), President's Statement on the Death of Pope John Paul II, [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050402-4.html

Conclave (1908), The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, [On-line], URL: http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm.

Encuentra (2000-2004), El Primado Absoluto de Roma, [On-line], URL: http://www.encuentra.com/includes/documento.php?IdDoc=1026&IdSec=224

Epistles of Ignatius (no date), Ignatius to the Ephesians, [On-line], URL: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Hermosillo, Legión de María (no date), Honorio (625-638 d.C.), [On-line], URL: http://www.legionhermosillo.com.mx/honoriopapa.html

Infalibilidad (no date), Infalibilidad Papal: Otro becerro de Oro, [On-line], URL: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/sp/lp/infalibilidad-papal.html

Infalibilidad Papal (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.fbinstitute.com/Espanol/various/ infalibilidad.htm

John Paul II (1979), “Catechesi Tradendae,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html.

John Paul II (1990), “Redemptoris Missio,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_ jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html.

John Paul II (1993), “Veritatis Splendor,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii _enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html.

John Paul II (1995), “Ut Unum Sint,” [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_ jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html.

John Paul II (1996), “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm.

Mattox, F.W. (1961), The Eternal Kingdom, (Gospel Light: Delight, AR).

Miller, Jule L. (1976), Historia de la Iglesia del Señor, (Gospel Services, Inc., Houston, TX).

Mirás, Eduardo V. (no date), ¿Qué Dicen de Juan Pablo II?, George Bush, [On-line], URL: http://www.aciprensa.com/juanpabloii/dicenjp.htm

Sapia, Daniel (2000), Infalibilidad Papal. Quien, Cuando y Por qué se Promulgó, [On-line], URL: http://www.conocereislaverdad.org/infalibilidadpapal.htm

Vine, W.E. (1999), Diccionario Expositivo de Palabras del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento Exhaustivo, (Colombia, Editorial Caribe, Inc.).

The Vision of Hope by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman


 https://thepreachersword.com/2020/01/21/the-vision-of-hope/#more-15236

The Vision of Hope

Investor and philanthropist Eugene Lang, who died in 2017 at the age of 98 gave away $150 million and assisted 16,000 students to attend college over the course of his lifetime.

Once Lang was speaking to a class of 59 sixth graders in East Harlem. He wanted to inspire these predominantly black and Puerto Rican kids to get a good education. But the children seem disconnected and disinterested

Suddenly in the middle of his speech, Lang scraped his notes and admonished, “Stay in school and I’ll help pay the college tuition for every one of you.”

Immediately the lives of these students changed. One girl said, “I had something to look forward to, something waiting for me. It was a golden feeling.” Nearly 90 percent of that class went on to graduate from high school.

This true story illustrates the power and potential of hope in our lives.

This month I’m preaching in Pompano Beach on the theme “20/20 Vision: Restoring Our Focus.” Last Sunday following our previous lesson on “The Vision of Faith” I spoke about “The Vision of Hope.” Here are a few thoughts from that lesson.

Too often we use the word “hope” as a synonym for wishful thinking or whistling in the dark. “I hope this works out,” someone hesitantly utters. Or “I hope nothing bad happens” we fearfully mutter. That’s not hope.

Hope is a fervent desire plus confident expectation. Spiritual hope is founded on faith, made sweeter by divine love, and firmly anchored in Jesus Christ. Hope, William Barclay writes, “looks forward with utter conviction.”

The Bible connects our spiritual vision with hope.

When we have faith’s vision, we have the foundation for our hope. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Heb 11:1).

When our vision is clear, our insight is sharpened and our hope visible through the eye of faith. “I pray that: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling.” (Eph 1:18)

When we are  saved, our hope sustains us and preserves us.“For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. (Rom. 8:24-25)

(1) Hope’s Vision Encourages Me to Get Started.

Why become a Christian? Why serve a God you haven’t seen? Why follow Jesus who you’ve never met? Why listen to the Word of a Holy Spirit who’s not visible?

Hope. That’s why.

(2) Hope’s Vision Enables Me to Live With ___________

You fill in the blank.

What burden are you bearing? What challenges are you facing? What infirmity are you suffering? What slight are you enduring? What pressure are you feeling? What temptation are you confronting? What persecution are you encountering?

You may wonder, “Am I going to make it?”

Yes. You. Are.

You can trust in “the God of all hope.”

(3) Hope’s Vision Emboldens Me to Go On.

You not only can endure hurt, harm and heartache you can muster the courage to continue. To grow spiritually. To Strengthen your resolve. And to increase your faith.

The Psalmist asks, “Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me?

His answer? “Hope in God.” (Ps 42:5).

(4) Hope’s Vision Empowers Me to Say No.

Hope is the foundation of integrity. If there’s nothing out there, nothing in the future that really matters, then why should I be a person of integrity? Honesty? Morality?

The apostle John reminds us “Everyone who has this hope in Christ keeps himself pure just as Christ is pure’ (1 Jn. 3:3).

Because of my hope, I can say no to temporary pleasures, sinful lusts, and ungodly alliances.

(5) Hope’s Vision Enlightens Me to See the Future.

Christians’ real future is not about earthly plans, material success, or early retirement. Our aim is upward. Our goal God-ward. Our future Heavenly

This life is but a preface to eternity. We live in hope of a better tomorrow, a better body, and a better home. We live “in hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2). We have a “living hope” and anticipate receiving “an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading” (1 Pet. 1:3).

“Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (Heb 10:23).

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

CONCERNING EASTER IN ACTS 12:4 by George L. Faull

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/concerning-easter-in-acts-124-by-george.html
 

 CONCERNING EASTER IN ACTS 12:4   by George L. Faull


One of the teachers in Sunday School was defending the "Easter celebration" our church hosts each year. She said that those who object to the word "Easter" are misguided souls, since the word "Easter is even used in:
Acts 12:4, "And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
I heard you speak at a rally that I had attended one time and you told that it was a shame to refer to Jesus’ resurrection by this name. Was this woman’s defense a legitimate defense of the practice of calling Jesus’ resurrection, "Easter?"
Answer:
This woman is a good example of why the Word of God says, "Be not many teachers, knowing they shall receive the greater condemnation." It is pathetic that one who presumes to be a teacher of the Word would be so careless a student. In fact, I have a hard time believing that she studies at all.
First: I cannot imagine a commentary of any kind not showing the fallacy of translating the word as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Second: The word is "pascha," and appears 29 times and is translated "Passover" every time but this one verse. The King James Version’s use of the word "Easter" is indefensible from every stand point.
Third: The context alone shows that Herod was wanting to hold Peter till after the Passover. These were the days of unleavened bread (verse 3). In other words, it was Passover week, and he was going to kill Peter as he had John. If he intended to do that at the end of Passover week, then Sunday (which would supposedly be Easter) would be the day he would do it.
Fourth: Your teacher could do well to study Church History. "Easter" began to be celebrated years later than the first century. I just looked up the origin of "Easter" on the internet (not that I didn’t already know it). The first article I looked at said, "Easter, like Christmas, is a blend of paganism and Christianity." The second sentence informs us that it is named after an Anglo Saxon goddess. The third paragraph tells us how it is that it falls on the first Sunday after the Spring equinox. This is a moveable date between March 22nd and April 25th. It has been calculated in this way since 325 A.D. A little late for Herod to execute Peter to please the Jews, don’t you think? Of course, since it is on a moveable date, many years Easter has been and is celebrated before Passover. So people celebrate His resurrection that year before the commemoration of His death. Why? Easter was a moon goddess and a goddess of fornication. Can you imagine that? They dated the celebration of the resurrection of God’s Son based on the celebration of a pagan moon goddess!!!
I suggest that the reader go to http://wilstar.com/holidays/easter.htm for a pro Easter explanation of Easter's origin.
Conclusion:
I guess I am saying that your teacher should do a little more studying. She is wrong from context, linguistically, and historically, as any good commentary will show. I must add one more thing. Some teachers know the truth, but bluff and actually defend an undefendable position because they want it their own way. There is the possibility that your teacher knows what I just told you, but intentionally deceives people. There is the possibility that she just simply showed that the word "Easter" is in the King James Version and then let people deduct that it is quite alright to join paganism to Christianity. "See, the word ‘Easter’ is in the Bible." Let’s hope the lady you are dealing with is only ignorant and not deceitful. I wish to be gracious, but it seems to me that she has to be one or the other.

Thanks for writing.

 

The Importance of the Written Word by J.C. Bailey

 

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

The Importance of the Written Word

The written word is a very important part of God's plan. When God gave the ten commandments to Israel He wrote them on stones. The ministry of Christ was based on the written word: "And he said unto them. These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44). To this we add: "And he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead, the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46,47).

Again, we appeal to scripture for the place of the written word in the plan of God. We are believers because of the written word. "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:30,31). So we have the message of Jesus and we are to teach it to every creature (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16). God taught by oral teaching and by writing. If we follow the divine example we shall do likewise.

Paul wrote to Timothy, and hence to us: "Till I come give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching" (I Timothy 4:16). Then Paul advises: "Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching, continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee" (I Timothy 4:16).

In connection with our printed teaching program we could well heed the admonition: "And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also" (I Timothy 2:2). Let me give you an example of what we do in India with the printed word. I have recently written two tracts, one is written on the Holy Spirit and one is called The Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken. These will go out to thousands of people in four languages. They are in exact conformity with the reading and hearing of God's word that I have done for more than 70 years. I am doing by means of the printed page what I was told to do in II Timothy 2:2.

How true it is, what Jesus says in Luke 16:8: "...for the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light." Look at what the Jehovah Witnesses have done, to say nothing of the Communists, the Adventists, the Liberals, etc. We cannot name a sect or a political philosophy that has not thrived on the printed page. I know the devil is happy when we do not read good literature. When we do not put out millions of tracts and Bible Correspondence courses. When we do not print good books to answer the errors of this world. Truth is stronger than error, but if we do not use it, it is not strong.

The greatest preacher of all time, except the divine Son of God, was a great reader. Paul was awaiting death. He was in a cold dark cell, but listen to his instructions to Timothy: "...bring when thou comest the books, especially the parchments" (II Timothy 4:13). Did not Paul say that we were to be imitators of him?

J.C. Bailey, 1985, Bengough, Saskatchewan

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

The "Y" in your future by Gary Rose

 


I imagine almost everyone has heard the expression: “A fork in the road”, but a ‘“Y” in the road’? Whatever you call this picture, everyone would agree that when you reach the center of this bridge, its time to make a decision.


We all make decisions, some good and some not-so-good. The difference between them is often our “wisdom” or that which comes from God through the Holy Scriptures. Initially the early church was comprised of Jewish converts to Christianity. Then, the gentiles also became Christians.


Some of the first Christians (Jewish converts) felt that everyone should keep the Jewish law (especially the rite of circumcision). This caused a problem as it would make Christianity a sect of Judaism and re-introduce the law as the means of salvation, rather than the sacrifice of Jesus.


This problem was brought before the apostles in Jerusalem and Acts chapter 15 shows how they dealt with the “problem”…



Acts 15 ( World English Bible )

1) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”

2) Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.

3) They, being sent on their way by the assembly, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brothers.

4) When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all things that God had done with them.

5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

6) The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.

7) When there had been much discussion, Peter rose up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that a good while ago God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the Good News, and believe.

8) God, who knows the heart, testified about them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just like he did to us.

9) He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

10) Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11) But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are.”

12) All the multitude kept silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul reporting what signs and wonders God had done among the nations through them.

13) After they were silent, James answered, “Brothers, listen to me.

14) Simeon has reported how God first visited the nations, to take out of them a people for his name.

15) This agrees with the words of the prophets. As it is written,

16) ‘After these things I will return. I will again build the tabernacle of David, which has fallen. I will again build its ruins. I will set it up,

17) That the rest of men may seek after the Lord; All the Gentiles who are called by my name, Says the Lord, who does all these things.

18) All his works are known to God from eternity.’

19) “Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God,

20) but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

21) For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

22) Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers.

23) They wrote these things by their hand: “The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings.

24) Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law,’ to whom we gave no commandment;

25) it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26) men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth.

28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things:

29) that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.”

30) So, when they were sent off, they came to Antioch. Having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.

31) When they had read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.




A decision had to be made: Do we return to Judaism or define Christian behavior and doctrine as a new religion; one that is not based on the law of Moses, but rather on the grace of God? Thankfully, grace was their decision. The early church took the right “Y” in the road.


About now, you may be asking yourself: What does all this have to do with me? Well, if your religion is based on just keeping a set of rules and regulations, then it is not based on the concept of Christianity, for grace is found only in the sacrifice of Jesus.


And here we are. Decision time. LAW OR GRACE? You decide, but be very careful about what you do, for eternity hangs in the balance!