3/28/22

Did Jesus Disagree With Moses on Divorce? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-disagree-with-moses-on-divorce-5975/


Did Jesus Disagree With Moses on Divorce?

From Issue: R&R – July 2021

Over the centuries, critics of the Bible have devoted their energies to attempting to pinpoint contradictions and discrepancies in an effort to discredit its claim to inspiration. On one occasion in the life of Jesus on Earth, the Pharisees confronted Him and demanded to know if the Law permitted a man to divorce his wife “for just any reason?” Jesus immediately directed their attention to two Old Testament verses that provided the proper answer: Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24—which provided a negative answer as evidenced by Jesus’ own divine commentary on the two verses: “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Observe carefully: humans have no right to separate what God Himself has joined together, unless He gives His approval to do so. Hence, wholesale, carte blanche divorce is not sanctioned by God. This view of divorce coincides with God’s true attitude toward divorce in His forthright declaration through the prophet Malachi: “For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce” (2:16).

Before Jesus could complete His response as to whether there are any exceptions to the general rule forbidding divorce, His questioners, no doubt stung by the stringency of Jesus’ answer, sought to justify their rejection of such a narrow viewpoint by calling attention to the Mosaic injunction in Deuteronomy 24: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Their words constitute an allusion to Deuteronomy 24. Read carefully the passage as it occurs in the Pentateuch:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

If this Old Testament passage provides a suitable answer to the Pharisees’ question, Jesus undoubtedly would have alluded to it. Instead, His response to their quibble clearly demonstrates that this passage does not provide the proper answer to their question concerning the propriety of divorce. He discounted the passage by offering a rebuttal to its applicability to the question at hand.

Moses Did Not Command Divorce

First, the Mosaic legislation, which included an acknowledgment that divorce was occurring in Israelite society, was a reflection of the hard hearts that existed at the time. No doubt, Egypt’s influence on the first two generations of Israelites included a relaxed view of divorce, establishing a practice that was underway even before God gave His covenant at Sinai. This acknowledgment in no way provided divine sanction for or approval of divorce. The Law neither commanded divorce nor established divorce as a right. After all, who would argue that God would overlook, sanction, or save those who possess hard hearts? Will anyone be in heaven that possesses a hard heart? To ask is to answer. Hence, Jesus’ pronouncement that the Mosaic provision pertained to “hard hearts” underscores the fact that it was not intended as a divine sanction of divorce—let alone a command (eneteilato) to do so. Such a command would, in fact, have been in direct conflict with God’s original intention as reflected in Jesus’ response on the occasion.

Meaning of permitted”?

But if Moses did not “command” divorce, why did Jesus assert that Moses “allowed” it? What did He mean by His use of the term “allowed” (ESV/RSV), “suffered” (KJV/ASV), or “permitted” (NKJV/NASB)? The underlying word provided by Matthew is epetrepsen. This Greek word means “to allow someone to do something, allow, permit,”1 “to give over, to leave to the entire trust or management of any one; hence, to permit, allow, suffer.”2 The English words “allow” and “permit” do not necessarily imply permission or approval. For example, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “allow” as “1a: permit; 1b: to fail to restrain or prevent.” For the latter definition, this example of usage is given: “allow the dog to roam.”3 You may not want your dog to roam the neighborhood, yet do nothing to prevent it. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “allow” as “to give permission for someone to do something, or to not prevent something from happening.”4 And the American Heritage Dictionary gives as the first meaning of “allow”: “To let do or happen; permit.”5 The word does not include the idea of sanction, authorization, or approval—let alone forgiveness. God allowed divorce in the sense that He tolerated it—like He does the wicked behavior of the world’s population throughout history. He “puts up with it.” He allows it to go on—without implying endorsement. As Greek expositor Alexander Bruce clarified—“permitted, not enjoined.”6

This understanding is confirmed by two additional Greek terms that are similarly used. In Paul’s address to the idolatrous Athenian philosophers, he courageously declared: “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). The Greek verb rendered “overlooked” (huperorao) is defined as “to overlook, disregard; to bear with,”7 “to indulgently take no notice of, overlookdisregard.”8 Paul was certainly not telling the Athenians that in the past God endorsed idolatry or did not reckon it as sin. Indeed, all those who entered eternity prior to Christianity in an idolatrous state will be eternally lost. Rather, Paul intended to impress his pagan audience with the fact that God had put up with a great deal of inexcusable polytheism through the centuries. But with the coming of Christianity, all who continued to worship false gods were under divine mandate to forsake their idolatry and turn to Christ.

The KJV translated the Greek word in this verse as “winked at”: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at.” What did “winked at” mean in 1611? Interestingly enough, William Shakespeare provides the answer. In his famous play Romeo & Juliet, the prince of Verona, Escalus, delivers a stinging rebuke to the grieving families who have gathered in the wake of the tragic deaths of their two children—deaths spawned by their two warring factions:

Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish’d.9

Escalus had, in fact, on more than one occasion, intervened with stern rebukes to urge the warring factions to cease and desist their hostilities—but to no avail. Hence, he “winked” at their discords in the sense that he allowed, tolerated, and permitted them to continue without forcibly preventing them. He certainly did not endorse, approve, or forgive their discordant activities throughout the period in which they occurred. But he did not stop or physically restrain them. He had hoped that his repeated verbal admonitions would have been heeded.

A second Greek term that reinforces the proper meaning of Jesus’ use of the word “allowed/permitted” is the synonym which occurs three times in Paul’s dark portrait of the Gentile world in his letter to the Romans:

  • “God also gave them up to uncleanness” (1:24).
  • “God gave them up to vile passions” (1:26)
  • “God gave them over to a debased mind” (1:28).

The Greek term rendered “gave them up/over” (paradidomi) means “to give over, hand over, deliver up, turn over” and includes the idea to “abandon” as in “he abandoned them to impurity.”10 In addition to the three occurrences in Romans 1, the same word occurs in Stephen’s great speech before the High Priest and Jewish council, in which he described the generation that exited Egypt and constructed a golden calf to worship: “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42). A variety of English translation renderings make clear the meaning:

  • NRSV: “But God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the host of heaven”
  • NCV/ICB/EXB: “But God turned against them and did not try to stop them from worshiping the sun, moon, and stars.”
  • NIRV: “But God turned away from them. He let them go on worshiping the sun, moon and stars.”
  • NOG: ““So God turned away from them and let them worship the sun, moon, and stars.”
  • ERV: “But God turned against them and let them continue worshiping the army of false gods in the sky.”
  • DARBY/NASB1995: “But God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven.”

Once again, it is plain to see that Jesus, Paul, and Stephen all referred to the same point, i.e., that God can tolerate and allow people to “go their own way” without His allowance implying endorsement, approval, or forgiveness.

“From the Beginning”

Second, observe that Jesus next redirected His questioners’ attention back to the two verses given in His initial response to their question—verses that pertain to the very “beginning” of the human race when God articulated His intention regarding marriage. His remark (“from the beginning it was not so”—vs. 8) presses the fact that God’s will for marriage is ultimately seen at the Creation when God articulated the guiding principle that answers the Pharisees’ question. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 are intended to be normative injunctions enjoined upon all people for all time. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent presses this very point when he observes that the use of the perfect tense in Matthew 19:8 indicates a past action that continues to be active: “Notwithstanding Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force.”11 In other words, the sole exception—the only ground for legitimate divorce—from the Garden of Eden to our present day, has always been fornication.12 This firm reality explains why even God divorced His spiritual spouse—Israel—on the sole grounds of adultery (Jeremiah 3:6-8).

The Meaning of Moses’ Directive

Third, careful analysis of the text of Deuteronomy 24 yields additional insights that clarify the Lord’s outright rejection of the passage as prototypical. Observe that the verses in question are lodged in a context of a particular type of legal material found in the Law of Moses known as casuistic law. This format for conveying legal obligations is couched in what logicians refer to as a “hypothetical syllogistic” arrangement—“If…then….”—in which the “if” portion of the statement is known as the “antecedent” while the “then” segment is the “consequent.” Grammarians identify the two segments as the “protasis” and the “apodosis.”

A protasis may have multiple conditions, joined together in English by the conjunction “and.” In Hebrew grammar, the conjunction is a single letter (the waw) which is prefixed to the subsequent word. Context must determine what conditions are part of the protasis, and at what point in the series the apodosis commences. In the case of Deuteronomy, however, it is evident that the protasis continues through verse 3 and the protasis (“then…”) commences with verse 4. Here are the conditions of the protasis:

  1. When a man takes a wife and marries her
  2. and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her
  3. and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house
  4. and she has departed from his house
  5. and goes and becomes another man’s wife
  6. and if the latter husband detests her
  7. and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife…

Each occurrence of “and” as bolded above is a waw in the Hebrew text. The apodosis now commences:13

Then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Observe carefully that the seven conditions of verses 1-3 are hypothetical, that is, they envision what some person or persons might do. They are not commands. They are not instructions on how to achieve a divorce. They assume that the perpetrator of the actions has made up his mind to divorce his wife regardless of God’s will on the matter—the “hard heart” of which Jesus spoke. Such is typically the case with the conditions of a protasis. For example, consider a similar construction in Exodus 21:29—

If the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

The four conditions of the protasis are not actions that are approved by God. They merely reflect circumstances that could potentially occur among people in a farm society. The apodosis is designed to provide God’s attempt to manage the unpleasant situation by providing after-the-fact assistance—not indicate God’s sanction of the events that led up to the dilemma at hand. Far from providing authority for divorce, Deuteronomy 24 was intended to be a limitation on divorce—an attempt to minimize and lessen its frequency. In the process, it served as a measure designed to address the mistreatment of women: “It prevented the husband from later claiming rights over this ex-wife.”14

Having disposed of the Pharisees’ quibble concerning Deuteronomy 24, Jesus brought His response to its logical climax by applying God’s original marriage law to the specific matter of divorce: “And (kai—“but”) I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (vs. 9). In sharp contrast to the apparent widespread practice of divorce among the Jews of Jesus’ day, Jesus insisted that the original will of God, going all the way back to the beginning of the human race, was for a man and woman to remain married to each other for life. He forthrightly declared that the only way for that first marriage to terminate in a divorce that God approves is for one of the spouses (the innocent party) to divorce the other (the fornicator), solely on the ground of sexual infidelity. Jesus clarified for all people for all time Deity’s will concerning divorce: the one and only ground for divorce is illicit sexual intercourse. Hence, Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ original question (“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”) was “no.”

 Endnotes

1 Fredrick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 385, italics in orig.

2 Wesley J. Perschbacher, ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 167.

3 The Merriam Webster Dictionary online, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allow.

4 Cambridge Dictionary online, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/allow.

5 American Heritage Dictionary, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=allow.

6 Alexander Bruce (no date), The Synoptic Gospels in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:246.

7 Perschbacher, p. 418.

8 Danker, p. 1034, italics in orig.

9 Act V, Scene iii, line 290ff. Other occurrences in Shakespeare of the use of “winked” are found in Cymbeline, V.iv.192; Hamlet, II.ii.137; Henry 5, V.ii.300; and King John, IV.ii.211. See https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/Searchresults.aspx?search=winking&WholeWordSearch=True.

10 Danker, p. 762; Perschbacher, p. 306.

11 Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1:108, italics in orig.

12 No doubt Moses did not explicitly articulate this fact in his recounting of the events in the Garden since Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth and, hence, incapable of committing adultery.

13 A number of English translations demonstrate awareness of these grammatical principles and the commencement of the apodosis at verse 4. Among those that insert “then” at the beginning of verse 4 are the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NAB, and the Geneva Bible. The CEB has “in this case,” the CJB has “In such a case,” and the EHV has “in these circumstances.” The EXB, GNT, ICB, and NCV have “In either case.”

14 Jack Lewis (1978), “From the Beginning It Was Not So…” in Your Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 415.


Published

“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). by Roy Davison

 


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



“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

It is the responsibility of parents to discipline their children.

“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15).

“The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Proverbs 29:15).

“He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24).

“Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (Proverbs 29:17).

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:9-11).

Let us examine an important text about raising children: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’ And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-4).

“Children obey your parents in the Lord.”

Children are told to obey their parents and their parents must teach them to obey.

To do this effectively, the parents must give the child a good example by obeying God themselves!

The man must fulfil his responsibility as leader in the home. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19).

And the wife must submit to her husband. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18). “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:23, 24).

Notice that the children are to obey both parents. But how can children obey their parents if the parents tell them different things?

When there is conflict between the parents, some bad parents even use the children as a way to rebel against the other parent. This is very bad for the children and the children will try to use one parent against the other. If one parents tells them to do something, they will run to the other parent.

Parents must support each other’s authority. As head of the house, the father may overrule something his wife has said, but he may only do so if it is something very important. Otherwise he must support what his wife tells the children to do and punish them if they do not obey their mother.

The wife may not contradict what the father tells the children to do, but must support his authority. If she really thinks he is wrong, she should discuss it with him in private, and not in the presence of the children.

This all must be done in love. Then the children can learn to obey their parents.


“‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth’” (Ephesians 6:2, 3).

Children are to obey their parents for the child’s own good. Children lack experience and can end up having a very bad life, and may even die young because of not obeying their parents. “The eye that mocks his father, and scorns obedience to his mother, the ravens of the valley will pick it out, and the young eagles will eat it” (Proverbs 30:17).

Parents who fail to teach their children to obey, harm their children and themselves. I know a couple in another country who told us once: “We do not invite that family into our home because their children do not behave. They pick up things that they should leave alone, and even break things. They do not obey their parents.” If you do not teach your children to obey, they and you will suffer. The children will also have trouble in school and in society if they do not learn obedience. And later they are more likely to also disobey God.


“And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath” (Ephesians 6:4).

There are various ways that a father can provoke his children to wrath: if he is a hypocrite and demands things of his children that he does not do himself; if he is unfair in his dealing with his children; if he favors one child above another; if he is lazy and does not meet his responsibilities in the home. Children are not stupid. They know if they are being mistreated by their parents and this can make them very angry. This is not referring to a child not liking punishment. Of course a child does not like being punished. That is the whole idea of punishment! But if the father does something that the child knows is not right, it can cause the child to develop a deep-seated anger. Fathers must avoid provoking their children to wrath.

I want to show you an elephant. This paper weight is valuable to me personally because I remember it being on my father’s desk when I was seven years old. There was something else on his desk for which I had great respect: a ruler. My father spanked me with that ruler when I did something that was very bad. When I did “little things” that were wrong, my mother would give me a swat on my behind with her hand or she might even give me a real spanking with her hand. But if I did something serious, she would say: “I’m going to have to tell your father about that!” And then I knew I was in big trouble! But I never remember being punished by either of my parents when I did not know in my heart that I deserved it. I am thankful that my parents loved me enough to discipline me when I was a child.

Parents must have great respect for the children God gives them: “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

How you talk to your children is important. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:6). This also applies to how we talk to our children.

Children may never be abused verbally! My parents always treated me with respect, and I never remember either of my parents saying anything to me that was demeaning or caused me to question whether they respected me and loved me.

If you holler and scream at your children. They will holler and scream back at you. If you say disrespectful things to your children, that teaches them to say disrespectful things to others, including you.

You must be consistent and not make fake threats. If for example you say: “You do that one more time and you are getting a spanking.” They do it one more time, but you do not give them a spanking. That teaches them not to pay attention to anything you say. Be very careful about saying what you are going to do unless you really plan to do it.

I must also point out that there is a big difference between a spanking and a beating. You may never beat your child. A beating causes physical injury. A spanking does not cause injury. There is a good, well-padded place that is suitable for a spanking. It hurts a little but does no harm.

Also, never punish your child while you are out of control because of anger. It is alright to be angry, if you still have control of yourself and do not do or say something wrong because of your anger. It is good for a child to know that certain things make his parents angry. Certain things we do, make God angry!


“Bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

This means that we are to teach them about God. We spend much time and effort providing our children with nourishing food for their bodies. They also need spiritual food. Admonition refers to encouragement to do what is right. Training refers to teaching them to actually do what is right. We must know the word of God ourselves to teach it to our children. And we must live according to the word of God because example is the most powerful teacher.

Moses emphasized this to the people of Israel.

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:6, 7).

“Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 11:18, 19).

Bringing up children in the training and admonition of the Lord is a full-time job! Let us pray for wisdom and help.
Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.

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

"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH" Denominationalism by Mark Copeland

 









"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

Denominationalism

INTRODUCTION
  1. A great challenge confronting the church is denominationalism...
    1. According to one account, there are more than 38,000 different denominations!
    2. Different religious organizations, bearing many different religious names
    3. Hindering the spread of the gospel ("Why, you Christians can't even agree!")
  2. Denominationalism confronted the church early on...
    1. Many think that it started with the Protestant reformation (ca. 1517 AD)
    2. Properly understood, its origins can be traced to the second century AD

[What is denominationalism? Why is it wrong? Such questions this study will address...]

  1. DEFINING DENOMINATION AND DENOMINATIONALISM
    1. WHAT IS A DENOMINATION...?
      1. "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
      2. By their common name and tie to a governing body above the local congregation, they are "denominated" from all congregations that do not submit to the same authority
      3. Some examples:
        1. The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the pope in Rome
        2. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the patriarch of Constantinople
        3. The Anglican Church of England is a denomination made up of those churches that submit to the archbishop of Canterbury
        4. The Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) is made up of those churches that submit to the synod in Missouri
        -- A denomination is a group of congregations that are joined together under some governing body, all wearing the same distinctive name
    2. WHAT IS DENOMINATIONALISM...?
      1. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
        1. "The tendency to separate into religious denominations"
        2. "Advocacy of separation into religious denominations"
        3. "Strict adherence to a denomination; sectarianism"
      2. For the purpose in this series, I will be applying the term to any approval of the denominational division which exists today
        1. Many in denominations today are not all that devoted to their denominational principles or interests
        2. But by membership in a denomination they implicitly advocate separation into religious denominations

        [Is denominationalism really a challenge confronting the church? Some consider it a blessing: e.g., "Join the church of your choice!" But from a Biblical perspective, consider...]

  2. WHY DENOMINATIONALISM IS WRONG
    1. IT IS UN-SCRIPTURAL...
      1. That is, it is without Scriptural support
        1. There is no basis in the Bible for local churches being divided up into various denominational bodies
        2. There is no denomination that can go to the Bible and say, "See that passage? There is our church (denomination)!"
      2. In the New Testament...
        1. Local congregations were independent, autonomous (self-governing)
        2. Church organization was limited to within the local congregation
        3. With elders (also known as pastors, bishops, overseers, presbyters) appointed to oversee only the congregation of which they were members - cf. Ac 20:17,28; 1Pe 5:1-2
      3. The only authority above the local church in the NT was Christ and His apostles
        1. Once the church began, apostles were not replaced after they died - e.g., Ac 12:1-2
        2. But through the Word of God, the authority of Christ and His apostles continues
        -- Individuals, synods, conferences, etc., that presume to usurp authority over local churches today do so without Scriptural authority
    2. IT IS ANTI-SCRIPTURAL...
      1. Not only is it without scriptural support, it is contrary to what the Bible teaches
      2. It is contrary to the prayer of Jesus for unity among His believers - Jn 17:20-23
      3. It is condemned by Paul in his epistle to the church at Corinth
        1. There are to be no divisions among believers - 1Co 1:10-13
        2. Sectarianism is a sign of carnality - 1Co 3:3-4
      4. It opposes the efforts of Christ on the cross! - Ep 2:14-16
        1. Jesus died to break down the wall of division
        2. Jesus died to reconcile man to God in ONE body
        -- Just as our sin works against the efforts of Christ on the cross (for He died to put away sin), so does denominational division!
    3. IT IS HARMFUL TO THE CAUSE OF CHRIST...
      1. Jesus knew that unity among His disciples would be "the final apologetic"
        1. Cf. "that the world may believe" - Jn 17:21
        2. In view of Jesus' words, we should not be surprised when unbelievers are slow to accept the gospel coming from a divided church
      2. Many point to the divided condition of those professing to follow Christ...
        1. Atheists and agnostics use religious division as an excuse not to believe in God
        2. Muslims, Jews, etc. often use denominationalism reasons not to believe in Christ
      3. Denominationalism has also given support and encouragement to the cults
        1. Mormonism started in reaction to the denominationalism of Joseph Smith's day
        2. Those who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" use religious division to encourage people to follow their own strictly-controlled organization
        -- How can any true disciple of Christ support such a harmful concept?
    4. OTHERS WHO VIEWED DENOMINATIONALISM AS WRONG...
      1. Martin Luther, a leader of the Reformation Movement:
        "I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My doctrine, I am sure, is not mine, nor have I been crucified for any one. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have." - Hugh Thomason Kerr, A Compend of Luther's Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943, p. 135)
      2. John Wesley, another reformation leader, among whose followers are Methodists, Wesleyans, etc.:
        "Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world, were forgot and that the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion." - John Wesley, Universal Knowledge, A Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Arts, Science, History, Biography, Law, Literature, Religions, Nations, Races, Customs, and Institutions, Vol. 9, Edward A. Pace, Editor (New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1927, p. 540)
      3. Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest Baptist preachers who ever lived:
        "I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ's name last forever." - Spurgeon Memorial Library, Vol. I., p. 168
      -- Note well: these individuals were bemoaning the use of denominational titles, not organizational ties per se
CONCLUSION
  1. But it is organizational ties above the local church that leads to denominationalism...
    1. Once local churches are "organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy", denominational names soon follow!
    2. And so it is that denominationalism with its religious division continues to grow!
  2. If local churches are to successfully confront the challenge of denominationalism, they must...
    1. Remain independent, autonomous (self-governing) congregations
    2. Refuse organizational associations with other churches
    3. Refrain from using denominational names for their churches
  3. Churches that succeed in avoiding denominationalism are more likely to be...
    1. Nothing more than local churches of Christ
    2. Christians who simply seek to follow Jesus as His disciples
    3. The answer to the prayer of our Lord for unity among believers - cf. Jn 17:20-21

But there is another challenge, one that is closely related to denominationalism, which we shall consider in our next study: Sectarianism!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022

Truth: Of human and divine origin

 

Interesting, very interesting. All the above statements are true, but this is not a comprehensive list. Well, right about now, you might ask:”what is missing? Spiritual truth is my answer. Truth as found only in the Bible. Obviously, statements like the above are found in the book of Proverbs and similar instructions in the book of Ecclesiastes, but I like to think of Jesus when I consider such things.


Then, there is the following passage, with the last verse being the cornerstone…


John 17 ( World English Bible )

13 But now I come to you, and I say these things in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.

14 I have given them your word. The world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that you would take them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one.

16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth.


The Bible teaches you what God wants you to know and the purity of its message will change you. I am not saying that you will be a perfect person, but the more you learn about God’s desire for your life, the better you will be. After all, isn’t that the crux of living; taking what you have and using it the best way possible. The perfect application of this concept is made perfect by the designer of everything- GOD. So, listen to what HE has to say and not just some human musings. Remember, Jesus also said:


Matthew 7 ( WEB )

21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’

23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’

24 “Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.

25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.

27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”


Your friend,

Gary

3/21/22

The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/the-interval-between-christs-death-and-resurrection-5977/


The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection

From Issue: R&R – July 2021

Questions have been raised by skeptics concerning the Bible’s reliability based on the reports of the Gospel writers regarding the interval of time that transpired between the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. As is always the case with such alleged discrepancies, further study and honest exegesis dispels the allegation. The Bible refers to this interval in four forms:

  1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
  2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
  3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
  4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”1 Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”2 The highly respected 17th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”3 The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

  • “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
  • “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
  • “On the next day” (vs. 23)
  • “the following day” (vs. 24)
  • “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave one complete day and night (24 hours) and parts of two nights (36 hours total) satisfies both the literal and idiomatic expressions. The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “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, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”4

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

2 Bullinger, p. 845, emp. added.

3 John Lightfoot (1823), Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae or Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark (London: J.F. Dove), 11:202.

4 p. 846, emp. added.


Published

Search the Scriptures by Charles J. Kinkade

 http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Kincaid/Charles/Jones/searchthescriptures.html

 


 

 Search the Scriptures

“Search the Scriptures,
for in Them Ye Think
Ye Have Eternal Life,
and They Are They
Which Testify of Me”
Jesus.

Search the Scriptures every day,
Read them through and through.
Then if your desire is to be saved
You’ll know just what to do.
Do not take what others say
And think that they are right,
But read the Bible for yourself
And you will see the light.
For we are taught in Mark sixteen
The commands the Savior gave
To His Apostles long ago,
Whereby we must be saved.
So just take it as it stands.
Hear it, believe it and obey.
Do not listen to someone else
Lest you be led astray.
For there are many creeds of men,
Different churches of every kind,
But when we search God’s Holy Writ
The church of Christ is all we find.
We turn to Acts in chapter two
And there we see the Simple Way
That Peter taught three thousand souls
On that great Pentecostal day.
He told them how by wicked hands
They took and crucified the Lord.
They saw the great mistake they made
And believed the Holy Word.
So they cried out to the Apostles,
“Men and Brethren, what shall we do?”
“Repent and be baptized,” said Peter,
“And the Lord will pardon you.”
So they believed just what he said,
And confessed their faith that day,
And were baptized into the Lord,
Proceeding on the heavenly way.
So now we turn to Acts nineteen
Where some are found who couldn’t see
Just how to obey the Lord’s command
From sin to be made free.
So there we find old Brother Paul
Who preached to them God’s Holy Word.
And when they heard it they believed
And were baptized into the Lord.
So let us read some more in Acts,
In chapter eight, verse thirty-seven.
There we see what the Eunuch did
That he might get to heaven.
Now don’t get tired, but read some more,
In Acts twenty-two and verse sixteen
What Ananias told Saul of Tarsus.
There the way is plainly seen.
So while you’re passing through this life,
If someone comes and says to you:
“My desire is to be saved
But I don’t know just what to do.”
Just point him to what Peter says
In Acts two, verse thirty-eight,
And tell him to accept it now
Before it is too late.
Also let him read First Peter,
Chapter three, verse twenty-one.
Then he can straightway see
What it is that must be done.
Do not tell him he must wait
Until another day
And look for something he can’t get
In any other way,
For Jesus says, “I am the way,”
Because He rose from the grave,
He also says, “Come unto me,
And you, I will surely save.”
Thus my friend if you’re out of Christ,
You must surely get within
If you expect to reign with Him,
In a land that’s free from sin.
So now’s the time, the accepted time,
Accept it now and be wise.
Just believe his Holy Word,
Repent, confess, and be baptized.
Some preachers are so uninformed
That they cry out very bold
And tell lost wayward sinners
That baptism doesn’t save the soul.
So I point them to First Peter,
Chapter three, verse twenty-one,
“Baptism doth now also save”
Through God’s only begotton Son.
Then if that doesn’t convince them,
I refer them to John three, verse five,
That in order to enter the Kingdom,
They must surely be baptized.
This was said by the Master,
Spoken while on earth He trod,
Unless one of water and Spirit is born,
He cannot see the Kingdom of God.
And it is also plainly written
In Galatians three, verse twenty-seven,
That into Christ they were baptized,
And were on their way to heaven.
So if you’re in a lost condition
And desire a better way,
Just believe the Savior’s teaching,
And accept His Word today.
Lay aside all sin and folly,
Prepare yourself for paradise.
Do not deny what Jesus says:
“Repent, confess and be baptized.”
So search the Scriptures for yourself
And read them every day.
Do not listen to someone else
Or you might go astray.

Yours for the Bible,
CHARLES J. KINCAID
Etowah, Tennessee.

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

"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH" Authority In Religion by Mark Copeland

 








"CHALLENGES CONFRONTING THE CHURCH"

Authority In Religion

INTRODUCTION
  1. The Lord's church can expect to confront many challenges...
    1. Opposition by Satan was foretold in the parable of the tares - Mt 13:24-30,36-43
    2. Attacks from within and without foretold by Paul - Ac 20:29-30
    3. Apostasy was foretold, and began very early - 2Pe 2:1-3; Jude 4
  2. Previously, we suggested that the local church will be at the front of the confrontation...
    1. As the church universal is a spiritual entity well preserved by Jesus
    2. But the church local is subject to many things that can threaten its existence
    3. How can the church local stand strong and firm in the service of Christ?
  3. I believe the key is respecting the proper authority...
    1. How shall we determine what is right or wrong, good or evil?
    2. What shall be our authority in matters of religion?
    3. Is a particular doctrine or practice from heaven or from man? - cf. Mt 21:23-25

[Using the proper authority in matters of religion, most challenges confronting the church can be easily overcome. What is the proper authority in religion? Let's first consider...]

  1. WHAT MANY CHURCHES ACCEPT AS AUTHORITY
    1. THE OLD TESTAMENT...
      1. From the beginning of the church, many have appealed to the OT - e.g., Ac 15:1-5
      2. The OT has its place, when properly handled - Ro 15:4; 1Co 10:11; 2Ti 3:14-17
      3. But it can be misused, to authorize things no longer required - Ga 5:1-4; 1Ti 4:1-3
      -- We cannot assume that just because something is in the OT, it is authorized!
    2. TRADITIONS OF MEN...
      1. The handing down of traditions was common in Rabbinic Judaism - e.g., Mk 7:1-5
      2. Traditions of God are not wrong - 1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; 3:6
      3. But Jesus condemned the traditions of men...
        1. When they are taught as doctrines of God - Mk 7:6-7
        2. When they displace the commands of God - Mk 7:8-13
        -- Uninspired traditions cannot be equated with or replacements for the Word of God!
    3. MODERN DAY PROPHETS...
      1. Throughout church history, many have claimed to be prophets of God - e.g., Re 2:20
      2. Christ and His apostles warned against false prophets - Mt 7:15; 2Pe 2:1; 1Jn 4:1
      3. The OT gives us two ways to test the prophets
        1. Do their prophecies come to pass? - Deut 18:20-22
        2. Even if they do, is their doctrine consistent with God's Word? - Deut 13:1-5
        -- Since the 1st century A.D., all "prophets" have failed either one or both tests!
    4. MAJORITY RULE...
      1. Many people and church councils decide doctrine or practice based on majority rule
      2. Yet Jesus warned of the danger of following the majority - Mt 7:13-14
      3. If we had followed the majority...
        1. In Noah's day, we would have perished in the flood
        2. In Joshua's day, we would have perished in the wilderness
        -- Following the majority is not a good guide for authority in religion!
    5. CONSCIENCE...
      1. "Let your conscience be your guide" is the motto of many
      2. But our conscience cannot always be reliable
        1. Paul had served God with a good conscience throughout his life - Ac 23:1
        2. Even at a time when he was persecuting Christians! - cf. Ac 26:9-11
      3. The conscience is like a clock, which works properly only if set properly
      -- Our conscience is not always a reliable guide in matters of religion
    6. HUMAN WISDOM...
      1. Many feel that through their own wisdom they can determine right and wrong
      2. But God's thoughts and ways are not always our own - cf. Isa 55:8-9
      3. In fact, God has chosen to save man in a manner specifically designed to confound those who depend solely upon human wisdom - cf. 1Co 1:18-29
      4. For us to know God's will, it was necessary for Him to reveal it to us - 1Co 2:9-12
      5. This He has done through His Spirit-inspired apostles - Ep 3:1-3
      6. Who in turn shared it with us through their writings - Ep 3:4-5
      -- Human wisdom is often the exact opposite of God's wisdom!
    7. FEELINGS...
      1. This is often the standard of authority for many people and churches
        1. Who go by whatever 'feels right'
        2. Who place stock in a religion 'better felt than told'
        3. Who will follow societal trends that may seem good and right
      2. Yet the Bible declares the danger of trusting in feelings
        1. "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." - Pr 14:12
        2. "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool..." - Pr 28:26
        3. "O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps." - Jer 10:23
        -- Such subjective feelings are from the heart of man, not the mind of God!

      [These seven "standards of authority in religion" are from men, not from heaven, and are the main reason for much religious confusion and division that exists today. Allow me to suggest...]

  2. WHAT CHURCHES SHOULD ACCEPT AS AUTHORITY
    1. THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST...
      1. Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth - Mt 28:18
      2. He expects us to observe all things whatsoever He commanded - Mt 28:19-20
      3. He is the head of the church, which is to be subject to Him - Ep 5:23-24
      -- As the body of Christ, we must submit to our Head!
    2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES...
      1. To receive Christ, we must receive His apostles - Jn 13:20
      2. They were sent as His ambassadors - 2Co 5:20
      3. To ensure reliability, Jesus promised them the Holy Spirit - Jn 14:26; 16:12-13
      4. The apostles' wrote so that we might have their understanding - Ep 3:1-5
      5. They wrote their epistles that we might always be reminded - 2Pe 1:12-15; 3:1-2
      6. Their writings were "the commandments of the Lord" - 1Co 14:37
      7. They received their word as "the word of God" - 2Th 2:13
      8. Thus the early church "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" - Ac 2:42
      -- Any true local church of Christ respects the doctrine of the apostles as their authority
    3. THE FAITH REVEALED ONCE FOR ALL...
      1. The faith or doctrine of Christ was delivered "once for all time" (NLT) - Jude 3
      2. The apostles did not hesitate to proclaim the "whole counsel" of God - Ac 20:27
      3. They proclaimed "all things" pertaining to life and godliness - 2Pe 1:3
      4. The Scriptures therefore provide everything needed to make one "complete" - 2Ti 3:16-17
      -- With the Scriptures as an all-sufficient guide, we need no other authority!
CONCLUSION
  1. The only proper authority in religion...
    1. Is that which emanates from Jesus as the head of His church
    2. Which has come to us through the doctrines of His Spirit-inspired apostles
    3. Which has been preserved in the form of the New Testament
  2. All other authority in religion comes from...
    1. Either misapplication of the Scriptures (e.g., the Old Testament)
    2. Or uninspired men (and women) who usurp authority based on feelings, etc.
  3. When confronted with any challenge, the church today needs to...
    1. Look to the words of Christ, and the writings of His apostles
    2. Observe all things He commanded, and continue steadfastly in their doctrine

Our next study will examine a challenge that has confronted the church throughout its history: Denominationalism!

 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2022