Are There Modern-Day Apostles? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1226

Are There Modern-Day Apostles?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The incredible diversity of viewpoint that exists in religion today is startling and disconcerting. We are witnessing a breakdown of respect for authority in American culture, as well as a tremendous increase in personal opinion and feelings as the standard of authority. Consequently, we now have a veritable smorgasbord of doctrinal variety in religion. Such is the nature of pluralism. One is likely to see anything and everything perpetrated in the name of religion and/or Christianity. The only solution to such a situation is to reaffirm the inspiration and authority of the Bible. The Bible is the only written document on this planet that is the standard of authority in life and in religion (see Miller, 1996, pp. 430-446,462-471).

THE DEFINITION OF AN APOSTLE

Such being the case, we must go to the Bible to determine God’s will with regard to modern-day apostles. When we do so, we first learn that the word “apostle” comes from the Greek word apostolos, which means “one sent from or forth, a messenger, delegate” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 99; Thayer, 1901, p. 68). The term is used in the New Testament in two distinct senses. It can refer to an individual who is sent by other humans to accomplish a particular mission or task. The term is so used to refer, for example, to Barnabas (Acts 14:14). He was an “apostle” in the sense that he accompanied Paul on an evangelistic trip. Jesus is said to be our “Apostle” in the sense that He was sent to atone for our sins (Hebrews 3:1).
The term “apostle” also is used in a second sense—what we might call an official sense. That is, “apostle” can refer to individuals who were officially and divinely selected to serve as Jesus’ original representatives—“ambassadors” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Jesus handpicked the original twelve apostles (Matthew 10:1-5; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; 9:1-2). Of these original twelve, Judas betrayed the Lord as predicted by the Old Testament (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18-19; 18:1-5). Instead of repenting, he cinched his apostasy by committing suicide (Matthew 27:3-5; John 17:12). Consequently, a successor to Judas was selected by divine decree (Acts 1:16-26).
Only one other apostle in the official sense is alluded to in the New Testament—Paul. His appointment to apostleship was unique and unparalleled in that he was chosen for a specific first century task (Acts 9:15; 22:14-15; 26:16-18; 1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:11-12,15-16). Christ selected him to introduce the message of Christianity to the Gentile world (Romans 11:13; 15:16; Galatians 2:8; Ephesians 3:8). Paul was careful to document the fact that his apostleship was by divine appointment (e.g., Romans 1:5; 1 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1,16).

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APOSTLE

When one assembles all the relevant New Testament data, at least three qualifications emerge as prerequisite to one becoming an apostle in the official sense (Hayden, 1894, p. 33, expands these credentials to seven in number). First, an apostle had to have seen the Lord and been an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:22; 22:14; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Second, an apostle had to be specifically selected by the Lord or the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:5; Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:26; 9:15; 22:14-15,21; 26:16). Third, an apostle was invested with miraculous power to the extent that he could perform miracles. The power to perform miracles included the capability to confer the ability to work miracles to other individuals through the laying on of his hands (Mark 3:15; 16:17-20; Luke 9:1-2; John 14:12,26; 15:24-27; 16:13; Acts 2:43; 4:29-31,33; 5:12,15-16; 6:6; 8:14-18; 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6; Romans 1:11; Hebrews 2:3-4). Jesus referred to His bestowal of miraculous capability upon the apostles when He promised they would be “endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).

THE WORK OF AN APOSTLE

The apostolic office was unquestionably a temporary office for the early church (though apostolic appointment was for life). Its essential purpose was twofold. First, apostles were commissioned by Jesus to launch the Christian religion (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-48). This purpose was achieved by means of the initial presentation of the Gospel to the whole world (Colossians 1:23), and the establishment of the church of Christ (Acts 2). Second, apostles were largely responsible for making the New Testament available—first in oral form and, more specifically, in written form (1 Corinthians 14:37; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:3-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:14; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:15-16).
These two central tasks are set forth clearly in the New Testament. In Matthew 16, Jesus declared that He would build His church after His resurrection from hades (vs. 18). He then explained that it would be the apostles who would instigate initial entrance into Christ’s church (hence the significance of “keys”—vs. 19). This commencement of the Christian religion and the church of Christ would be achieved by means of the apostles “binding” and “loosing” the doctrinal tenets and principles of Christianity that Heaven had previously bound or loosed [the Greek uses the perfect passive and should be translated “will have been bound/loosed in Heaven” as in the NASB (cf. Matthew 18:18-20; John 20:22-23)]. Peter and the apostles articulated the terms of entrance into the kingdom of Christ for the first time on the Pentecost that followed Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:14ff.).
In Ephesians 4, after summarizing Christianity in terms of seven core concepts (vss. 1-6), Paul described the initial sequence of events that recounted the advent of Christianity (vss. 7-16). Paul noted that: (1) after His crucifixion, Jesus descended into the Hadean realm; (2) He then was resurrected; (3) He ascended back to Heaven; (4) upon His ascension, He dispensed gifts; (5) the apostolic office was included in the reception of these miraculous capabilities; (6) the purpose of these gifts was to equip and edify the church; (7) the preparation provided to the infant church by these gifts was temporary (“till” is an adverb of time connoting when the miraculous gifts were to terminate), in that the same preparation soon would be available through the completed revelation, i.e., “the faith.” [By “completed revelation” we do not mean completed canon. We mean that all of God’s communication to humanity would have been revealed. See the New Testament discussion contrasting “mystery” with “made known” (Romans 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Ephesians 3:1-11). In the meantime, the process of producing copies of the various New Testament documents and circulating them far and wide would have been occurring rapidly and extensively from the very moment of their production by the inspired writers (cf. Colossians 4:16, 1 Timothy 5:18, where Luke 10:7 is already known and classified as “Scripture,” and 2 Peter 3:15-16, where Paul’s epistles are already circulated and recognized as “Scriptures”). Further, the reference to “the faith” in Ephesians 4:13 cannot refer to a time when all people or all Christians will achieve unity in faith. Such a circumstance will never occur. Paul was referring to the time when all people would have access to all of God’s communication to man, thus giving them the potential for attaining spiritual maturity (“a perfect man” vs. “children“). See Miller, 2003].
Once all of the information necessary to the promotion of the Christian religion was revealed to the early church (through oral means made possible by the distribution of the gifts), the church would have the means available to grow and mature in Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8-13). While prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers [the words “pastors and teachers” share the same article in the Greek, and so should likely be construed to mean “pastor-teachers,” i.e., a single function in which pastors (those selected by the local congregation to serve as elders or shepherds) were endowed with the miraculous ability to teach inspired information not yet made available in written form] were part of this early development of Christianity (Ephesians 4:11), the office of an apostle was the primary means by which Christ accomplished the inauguration of His religion.
The apostles had the sole responsibility of executing the will of the Son of God in founding, organizing, and fully equipping the church of Christ on Earth, that she might fulfill her heaven-borne mission, until Jesus comes again (Hayden, p. 22). That is why Paul could say two chapters earlier that the household of God (i.e., the church) was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20; cf. 3:5; Revelation 21:14). That is why he informed the Corinthian Christians:

God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Corinthians 12:28-30).

The apostles are said to be “first” in the significance and criticality of their divinely appointed role. The apostles specifically described their unique role in the early church as entailing giving themselves to “the word of God” and “the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2,4).

THE DURATION OF AN APOSTLE

Once the church of Christ was established and Christianity was given its initial presentation (cf. Colossians 1:23), the apostolic office faded from the scene along with the age of miracles. As an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection, Paul referred to himself in relation to the other apostles as “last of all” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Neither apostles nor miraculous gifts was needed any longer. They had served their temporary purpose (Mark 16:20; Acts 4:29-31; 13:12; 14:3; Romans 15:18-19; Hebrews 2:3-4; cf. Exodus 4:30). Miraculous gifts functioned as scaffolding while the church was under initial construction, and were removed once the structure had been completed (1 Corinthians 3:10; 13:11; Ephesians 4:13-14). The book we call the Bible is the totality of God’s written revelation to the human race. Consequently, people now have access to everything they need (2 Peter 1:3) to enter into a right relationship with God via Christianity and the church of Christ. The apostles “had no official successors. From the nature of their duties, there could be no succession” (Hayden, pp. 20-21). Apostles, quite simply, are no longer needed!

NO APOSTLES TODAY

Unfortunately, several groups that claim affiliation with the Christian religion allege to have apostles among them, including Catholicism, Mormonism, and some pentecostal groups. This claim is unbiblical. No person living today can meet the qualifications given in Scripture for being an apostle. No one living today has been an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection. Christ has selected no one living today for the apostolic role. No one living today possesses the miraculous capabilities of an apostle. We should not be surprised that people would falsely claim to be apostles. Jesus warned that false prophets would come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they would be ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15). Paul described some of his opponents in these words:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Further warning was issued to the Galatian churches: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Anyone claiming to be an apostle today who teaches anything in addition to the New Testament is clearly not an apostle of Christ!
Peter added his voice on the same subject: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). No wonder John admonished: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1; cf. Matthew 24:11,24). In the Revelation, the church at Ephesus was commended because they “tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars” (Revelation 2:2).
Catholicism maintains that Peter was the supreme bishop, even over the other apostles, and that every pope since Peter is an apostolic successor to Peter. The pope is selected after literally hours and days of deliberation by cardinals in the Vatican. The only apostle in the Bible that was not handpicked by Christ in person was Matthias. Yet he was not selected by mere men deliberating and debating his potential. He was selected by the casting of lots—which was simply another way for Jesus to do the selecting (Acts 1:26; cf. Proverbs 16:33).
It is incredible to think that any human beings living today would presume to appoint apostles. In pinpointing the credentials of an apostle, Luke (Acts 1) made it abundantly evident that to qualify as an apostle a person would have to have seen the Lord and been an eyewitness of His resurrection. That is why Paul was careful to state: “Am I not an apostle? …Have I not seen the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1, emp. added). In recounting his conversion, he quoted Ananias as having said, “The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts 22:14-15, emp. added). What alleged modern-day apostle could make such a claim?
The New Testament also makes clear the fact that an essential characteristic of an apostle was that he had been selected by Deity. When Jesus was on Earth, He handpicked the first twelve apostles. After His departure from Earth, the disciples cast lots to select a successor to Judas. Their method allowed no input from mere humans—except in the recognition that two men possessed all the qualifications necessary to be an apostle. Casting lots allowed God to do the selecting. Divine control in the selection process by casting lots was common in Old Testament history (see Leviticus 16:8; Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; Joshua 14:2; 18:6,10; 19:51; cf. Acts 13:19; 1 Samuel 14:42; Nehemiah 10:34; Psalm 16:5). Solomon claimed: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33). Indeed, Peter’s prayer on the occasion shows that the decision already had been made by the Lord before the actual casting of lots: “…show which of these two You have chosen” (Acts 1:24, emp. added). The summary statement regarding Matthias—“he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26; cf. Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33)—gives way to a return to the expression “the twelve” (Acts 6:2; cf. Acts 2:14). The text states: “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship” (Acts 1:24-25). Paul also was handpicked by Jesus—to be a “chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15). No human being on Earth today can claim he has been personally singled out and chosen by Jesus to be an apostle.
A third proof that no apostles exist on Earth today is the fact that New Testament apostles were empowered by God—not only to perform miracles—but also to convey miraculous power to other people who then could work miracles themselves. This characteristic is demonstrated in detailed fashion in Acts: “Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money” (Acts 8:18). The issue of modern-day apostles may be settled very quickly! To authenticate their claim to be apostles, they must be able both to perform miracles as well as confer miraculous power to others. The apostles of Jesus in the New Testament demonstrated their apostolic status without hesitation. Anyone today who claims to be an apostle should be willing to do the same. No such ability exists today.

ORIGINAL APOSTLES WERE SUFFICIENT

A fascinating passage in the New Testament sheds further light upon this notion of modern-day apostles. That passage is Matthew 19:28. There Jesus informed Peter and the other apostles: “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” A related passage is Luke 22:29-30 which says, “And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
These verses are Christ’s figurative declarations describing the role of the twelve apostles in the establishment of the church and the dissemination of the gospel proclamation (cf. Bales, 1957, pp. 187-223). The “regeneration” refers to the Christian era, which began at Pentecost, during which time spiritual regeneration became possible through the blood of Christ (Titus 3:5). It is an equivalent expression with the “time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10). The throne of Christ’s glory refers to His present location at the right hand of God (Acts 2:34-36; Ephesians 1:20; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:13; 8:1; 10:12-13). The “judging” done by the apostles refers to the rule that the apostles exerted while they were on Earth, setting in place the features of New Testament Christianity (Matthew 16:19; John 20:22-23). The “twelve thrones” refers to their complete authority from Christ to implement Christ’s will until the end of time—which they presently do today through their authoritative writings—found only in the New Testament. The “twelve tribes” is a figurative way to refer to the church—the spiritual Israel (Galatians 6:16; James 1:1; cf. Romans 2:28-30; Galatians 3:29).
Neither Christ nor the original apostles needs successors or representatives on Earth today. They continue to rule and reign over the kingdom through the work that they achieved in the first century, and that is preserved for all in the New Testament. Christ is now on His throne ruling and reigning. The apostles also are on the thrones assigned to them by Christ. To suggest that the apostles have modern-day successors is to discount and discredit the current rule of the apostles. Neither Christ nor the apostles has abdicated their authority or their current rule to any humans on Earth.
Additionally, the fact that Jesus declared that all twelve apostles would occupy thrones in the kingdom proves that Peter had no greater authority than the other apostles. The apostles were equal in their reception and wielding of the authority delegated to them by Christ. Yet the Catholic Church claims that the immediate successors to Peter were Linus (from A.D. 67 to 79), Cletus (from A.D. 79 to 91) and Clement (from A.D. 91 to 100). They agree that the apostle John would have still been alive throughout this period (see G.C. Brewer’s discussion as quoted in Bales, pp. 208-210). The doctrine of the primacy of Peter means that the first three of the alleged successors of Peter would have exercised authority over the still-living apostle John—who had been handpicked by Christ Himself! The very John whom Jesus placed on one of the twelve thrones would have been under the authority, knowledge, and power of three popes who had not been selected to be among the original Twelve! (see also Hayden, pp. 22-33). Hayden aptly summarized the New Testament position regarding modern-day apostles:

The thirteen apostles chosen, ordained and endowed by the newly crowned Messiah faithfully and fully executed their commission. When they entered into everlasting rest, the church was established, with all needful ministries to edify, extend and perpetuate it throughout all coming centuries. Then the extraordinary, which was necessary to found a new institution, was succeeded by the ordinary, which is sufficient to teach, regulate and govern the subjects of Christ’s kingdom according to the laws that went forth from Jerusalem. The revelation of God was completed. The word of faith is henceforth nigh every believer, even in his mouth and in his heart. The apostolic office ceased, and evangelists and pastors became the permanent teachers and superintendents of the church (pp. 33-34).

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bales, James (1957), The Kingdom: Prophesied and Established (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation).
Hayden, W.L. (1894), Church Polity (Kansas City, MO: Old Paths Book Club).
Miller, Dave (1996), Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Is Jesus Really Michael the Archangel? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1473

Is Jesus Really Michael the Archangel?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus is not God and never claimed to be” (“Should You Believe…?,” 2000). Rather, Jesus can be understood “from the scriptures to be Michael the Archangel” (The Watchtower, 1979, p. 29). “Michael the great prince is none other than Jesus Christ himself,” they allege (The Watchtower, 1984, p. 29). The May 15, 1969 issue of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower magazine suggested: “There is Scriptural evidence for concluding that Michael was the name of Jesus Christ before he left heaven and after his return” (p. 307). Where is the “scriptural evidence” for such a doctrine? In an article titled “The Truth About Angels” that appears on the official web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses (www.watchtower.org), 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9 were the only two passages listed as proof that “the foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael” (2001).
Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet never do these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus. First Thessalonians 4:16 also alludes to “an archangel,” and, although the name Michael is not mentioned, this is the passage Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cite as proof of Jesus being the archangel. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (emp. added). Supposedly, since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Question: If Jesus’ descension from heaven “with the voice of an archangel” makes Him (as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim) the archangel Michael, then does His descent “with the trumpet of God” not also make Him God? Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this latter conclusion, yet they accept the first. Such inconsistency is one proof of their erroneous teachings about Jesus.
One of the strongest arguments against Jesus being an angel is found in the book of Hebrews. In chapter one, the writer of Hebrews showed the superiority of Jesus over the angelic beings, and contrasted Him with them.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.” But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? (1:5-13).

Jesus’ superiority over the angels is seen in the fact that the Father spoke to Jesus as His special begotten Son to Whom He gave the seat of honor at His right hand (1:5,13). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews indicated that God commanded all angels to worship Jesus (1:6; cf. Revelation 5:11-13; Philippians 2:10). Yet, if Jesus were an angel, how could He accept the worship of other “lesser” angels when, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other? Hebrews chapter one is a death knell to the idea of Jesus, the Son of God, being Michael, the archangel. [NOTE: Interestingly, John H. Paton, the most frequently used contributing writer in 1879 of Charles Taze Russel (the founder of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), admitted such when he stated in The Watchtower magazine near the end of its inaugural year: “Hence it is said, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’: (that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God)…” (1879, p. 4, emp. added). Sadly, even though Paton rejected the idea of Jesus being Michael the archangel, and even though Russell, The Watchtower's founder and first editor and publisher, allowed such a teaching in the magazine's first year of publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold firmly to the doctrine that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.]
The writer of Hebrews returned to the subject of Jesus’ superiority over angels in chapter two, saying, “He [God] has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels” (2:5). To whom will the world be in subjection? Scripture indicates that it would be Jesus, “the appointed heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2). “All authority” has been given, not to any angel, but to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). All angels, authorities, and powers “have been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). “In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Hebrews 2:8, NIV, emp. added). Jesus, therefore, is not Michael, the archangel, “for it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5, RSV).
One final proof that Jesus is not Michael the archangel actually comes from one of the five passages in which Michael’s name is found in Scripture—Jude 9. According to Jude: “Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ ” Whereas Michael would not dare pronounce a railing judgment against the devil (cf. 2 Peter 2:11), Jesus once declared about Satan: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). Jesus did not approach the subject of rebuking Satan with the same hesitation as godly angels like Michael. Jesus, as Lord of heaven and Earth (Matthew 28:18), boldly called the devil a murderer and liar, and even went so far as to declare that “there is no truth in him.” The Son of God obviously is not Michael the archangel.
I find it extremely puzzling how Jehovah’s Witnesses can conclude that there is no biblical proof of Jesus being deity, and yet at the same time allege that “[t]here is Scriptural evidence for concluding that Michael was the name of Jesus Christ before he left heaven and after his return” (Watchtower, 1969, p. 307, emp. added). Where is the evidence? There is none. Jesus is not Michael the archangel; rather, He is exactly Who the apostle John said He was (John 1:1,14), Who Thomas said He was (John 20:28), and even Who His enemies accused Him of making Himself (John 5:18; 10:33). Jesus is God!

REFERENCES

“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm.
The Truth About Angels (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1995/11/1/the_truth_about_angels.htm, originally appeared in The Watchtower, November 1, 1995.
The Watchtower, 1879, November.
The Watchtower, 1969, May 15.
The Watchtower, 1979, February 15.
The Watchtower, 1984, December 15.

“Why Are Dinosaurs Not Mentioned in the Bible?” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=936

“Why Are Dinosaurs Not Mentioned in the Bible?”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A college student visited our offices some time ago and asked what he believed were troubling questions about the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans. One question that puzzled him was why dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. “If God really did create dinosaurs, and if humans cohabited the Earth with them in the past, then surely we would read the word ‘dinosaur’ at least once in the Bible.”
Admittedly, a person will not find the word “dinosaur” in most English translations of the Bible. However, this does not negate the fact that dinosaurs once cohabited the Earth with man. First, we must keep in mind that the Bible is not a taxonomical book. The Bible’s main purpose is to tell us about God and His scheme of redemption, not to list every animal God created. The Bible mentions a variety of animals (including snakes, chickens, horses, goats, etc.), but not every animal. Simply because the Scriptures do not mention an animal does not mean that the Bible teaches the animal never existed alongside humans. There are many animals the Bible never specifically mentions, including cats, kangaroos, elephants, aardvarks, anteaters, platypuses, and penguins. To say that these animals do not cohabit the Earth with man because the Bible does not mention them, would, of course, be false. To assume dinosaurs and humans never lived together because “the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs,” is equally erroneous.
Second, one must recognize that whereas the Bible was completed 1,900 years ago and was translated fully into English by 1535 (by Miles Coverdale), the English word “dinosaur” was not coined until 1842—more than 300 years after the first complete English translation of the Old and New Testaments. Obviously, one would not expect to find the English term dinosaur—meaning “fearfully great” (deinos) “lizard” or “reptile” (sauros)—in a translation of the Bible that preceded its coinage.
Third, though most modern English Bible translators have elected to omit the term “dinosaur” in translations produced after 1842, such exclusion does not necessarily mean that Bible writers refrained from mentioning dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures. Consider the Hebrew term tannin. In Job 7:12, it is translated “sea monster” (ASV, NASB, RSV), “monster of the deep” (NIV), or “sea serpent” (NKJV). In Genesis 1:21 and Psalm 148:7 where the plural form of tannin is used (tannim) in literal contexts (like Job 7:12), the word is translated “great sea creatures/monsters” (NKJV, NIV; ASV, NASB, RSV). What are these “monsters” of the sea? No one knows for sure. It is possible that these are references to dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles (e.g., plesiosaurs). Also of interest is the fact that Isaiah referred to the “flying serpent” (30:6). Although it is impossible to know the exact identity of the “flying serpent,” we know that flying reptiles with long tails and slender bodies (e.g., Rhamphorynchus, Dimorphodon) once lived (cf. Herodotus, 1850, pp. 75-76). What’s more, the Bible gives God’s description of two massive creatures in Job 40-41, behemoth and leviathan, which sound exactly like dinosaurs or dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles (see Lyons, 2001).
Finally, regardless of whether dinosaurs are mentioned specifically in the Bible or not, one can know that they were created alongside man during the Creation week (Genesis 1), and not millions of years earlier. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Herodotus (1850 reprint), Historiae, trans. Henry Clay (London: Henry G. Bohn).
Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason & Revelation, 21[1]:1-7, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/154.

America the Beautiful? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2798

America the Beautiful?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Have you ever walked the white, sandy beaches of Florida or hiked the hills of Tennessee? Have you stood at the base of a giant California Redwood or sat atop the Rocky Mountains overlooking the Great Plains? “From sea to shining sea,” the United States of America is a beautiful country. As Katharine Bates wrote in the latter part of the 19th century, “God shed his grace” on this country of “spacious skies…amber waves of grain…purple mountain majesties” and “fruited plains.” Few countries can claim so many diverse, splendid sights as America. Physically speaking, America is “the beautiful”! (How anyone can live in this blessed country and maintain “there is no God,” is mindboggling).
Spiritually speaking, however, America has lost its moral compass. In reality, it is a filthy, ungodly nation. Instead of printing and disseminating Bibles (as did our Founding Fathers), which inform children that they are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we print millions of taxpayer-funded textbooks that tell young people they came from slime. Instead of abhorring and detesting the sin of homosexuality (as did our first Commander in Chief [“George…,” 1778] and as does God [Genesis 19; Romans 1:24-32]), our current President embraces the perversion of homosexuality. Instead of hating the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17), many millions of Americans elect representatives who support the murder of innocent, unborn children.
Oh, but do not think that evolution, homosexuality, and abortion are the only spiritual diseases infecting this country. Rather than acknowledge fornication, adultery, and impurity as sin (Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), most Americans, including many so-called Christians, embrace these actions as normal, fun, and innocent. Evil entertainment is more prolific and easily accessible than ever in our country’s history. The number one downloaded song on iTunes only a few weeks ago was Brittany Spears’ latest hit titled simply “3.” What is “3”? Only a song about “gettin’ down with 3P” (i.e., three people having sexual relations together at the same time). This former number one song glamorizes sin from beginning to end. Twice in the song Spears specifically mocks that which the Bible says separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), saying, “Livin’ in sin is the new thing (yeah).” How many people in this “Christian nation” are walking around singing this song? How many “Christians” currently have this song on their iPod? [NOTE: I spoke with a small group of Christian teens recently, one of whom admitted to having already downloaded this song on her cell phone.]
How is it that a television series largely about single women’s sexual escapades (Sex and the City) gets nominated for 50 Emmy Awards (winning seven times) during its six seasons on television? Why are songs, television shows, and movies (e.g., The 40-Year-Old Virgin) that mock purity and celebrate sin so popular? Why is the fruit of the Spirit (faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, etc.) continually ridiculed, while the works of the flesh (sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, etc.) are constantly paraded as acceptable lifestyles of “good people”? Because most Americans, even many “Christian” Americans, have forgotten God and grown accustomed to calling “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Righteousness is ridiculed regularly, while sin is celebrated incessantly.
America most certainly was founded by men who professed faith in God, read the Scriptures regularly, and made many proclamations and policies that closely mirrored biblical teachings (see Miller, 2008). America was not founded by Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. Our Founding Fathers claimed to be Christians, and believed that the God of the Bible was instrumental in the establishment of this nation. At one time in our country’s history, atheism, homosexuality, adultery, lewdness, etc. were considered repulsive and rarely celebrated publicly. Today, however, America is far from being a “Christian nation.” We live in a physically beautiful, God-given country which, sadly, is filled with ungrateful, ungodly non-believers and hypocritical “Christians.”
May God help the faithful children of God (1) to keep “unspotted from the world” (James 1:27), while (2) reflecting the light of Jesus Christ to a sin-stained country in need of a great spiritual awakening.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).

“The Event Could Have Happened Only One Way” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1965&b=Luke

“The Event Could Have Happened Only One Way”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A concerned Bible student once wrote our offices regarding the apostle Peter’s triple denial of Jesus. It was not the usual inquiry regarding how many times the rooster crowed following Peter’s denials of Christ (a question that we have answered elsewhere; see Lyons, 2004). Rather, his question focused on the charges made against Peter prior to each of his denials. All four gospel writers first testify that a “servant girl” confronted Peter (Matthew 26:69; Mark 14:66; Luke 22:56; John 18:17). The writers then seem to “go their separate ways.”

Matthew writes: “[A]nother girl saw him and said to those who were there, ‘This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth’” (26:71, emp. added).
Mark records: “[T]he servant girl saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, ‘This is one of them’” (14:69, emp. added).
Luke writes: “And after a little while another saw him and said, ‘You also are of them’” (22:58, emp. added).
John testifies: “[T]hey said to him, ‘You are not also one of His disciples, are you?’” (18:25, emp. added).

About one hour later (Luke 22:59), just prior to Peter’s third denial, John records that “one of the servants of the high priest,” a relative of Malchus, accused Peter (18:26, emp. added). Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, write: “[T]hose who stood by” charged him with associating with Jesus (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70, emp. added). What is going on here? How can all of the gospel accounts be accurate if they all are different? Allegedly, “[t]he event could have happened only one way.” Is this true? Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John err in their recording of this event?
Before answering this supposed contradiction, imagine that you are sitting next to three newspaper reporters at a professional basketball game. Ten minutes into the game, a fracas breaks out in the stands involving one prominent basketball player and a few fans—a scenario not too bizarre, given recent outbreaks at sporting events. The next morning, the three reporters retell the events in the following manners:

Reporter #1: After an angry fan sitting behind the team’s bench insulted Joe Smith by calling him a “namby-pamby boy,” Joe ran into the stands and demanded that he stop.
Reporter #2: A small group of fans behind the Wings’ bench had been taunting Smith with racial slurs for 10 minutes. Finally, Joe had had enough. He jumped into the stands and yelled at everyone in the group, insisting that they stop the verbal abuse.
Reporter #3: What caused Joe Smith to leap into the stands and threaten a father and his three sons? The father had called Joe a sissy, and the sons joined in by repeatedly calling him a “mama’s boy.”

Is it possible for all three of these reports to be true? Could it honestly be stated that Joe was responding to “an angry fan,” while at the same time reacting to “a small group of fans”? Could Joe have been called both a sissy and a namby-pamby boy? The answer to all three questions is “yes.” Reporters tell stories from different perspectives, often including details that other reporters omit. Most people have no problem understanding modern-day examples of supplementation. In fact, we often read different reports of the same story in order to get a fuller picture of what took place. One reporter’s story can differ from another’s without contradicting it.
Are the differences in the gospel writers’ accounts of the accusations hurled at Peter proof of biblical errancy? Not any more than the differences in the basketball reporters’ accounts are proof of mistakes on their part. On the occasion of Peter’s first denial, one of the high priest’s servant girls accused Peter of being a disciple of Christ. Prior to Peter’s second denial, the writers inform us that he was accused by a plurality of people, including (1) the same servant girl who confronted him the first time (Mark 14:69), (2) an unnamed man (Luke 22:58), and (3) a group of individuals simply designated as “they” (John 18:25). Only an hour later, “one of the servants of the high priest,” a relative of Malchus, accused Peter (John 18:26), along with “those who stood by” (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70). Nothing in these accounts is incongruous.
Surely one can picture the various blood-thirsty individuals all hurling charges at Peter throughout the night in hopes of him being arrested, beaten, and killed, as was Jesus. We must keep in mind that these accounts are not contradictory, but supplementary. No writer gives every detail about every event. One must read them all in order to have the best possible understanding.
Truly, “the event happened only one way.” However, it was recorded by four different individuals from four different, but harmonizing, viewpoints.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Cock-a-doodle-do...Twice?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/573.

Does God Occupy the First Place in Our Lives? by Roy Davison

 

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

 
Does God Occupy the First Place in Our Lives?

We need to ask ourselves this crucial question: Does God occupy the first place in my life?

As Creator, Sustainer and Source of all good, God deserves the first place in our lives.

Many are willing to serve God as long as it doesn’t cost them too much time or effort. They give God the crumbs of their lives, and - as far as they are concerned - He’ll just have to be satisfied with that. But He isn’t.

God never asks for more than we can give, but He does ask for the best we can give.

Under the old covenant, when people brought sacrifices to God, they were to offer Him only the very best. God did not accept a sacrifice that was second-rate or had flaws.

“When you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably? ... You also say, ‘Oh, what a weariness!’ ... And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?” (Malachi 1:8, 13). They kept the best for themselves and gave God what they wanted to be rid of anyway!

It was bad enough that they brought inferior offers, but they also complained: “What a drudgery!”

If serving God is a “weariness” to you, maybe you are just giving God the crumbs of your life, possibly from a sense of obligation or fear. But God is not pleased with scraps any more than you are. Giving God the plate-scrapings of your life can never bring the “joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:6).

We must put God first in our hearts!

Jesus tells us: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment” (Matthew 22:37, 38).

When we give God the place of highest honor in our hearts, we will also put Him first in our lives. We will offer Him the very best we have. And we will find joy in serving the Lord, instead of experiencing it as drudgery.

We must love God even more than family and friends.

Jesus said: “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37).

Sometimes we are forced to choose between Christ and others. What if relatives or friends drop in as we are preparing to go to the assembly? Do we say: “We are going to worship God now. You are welcome to come along, or if you do not wish to do so, make yourself at home. We will be back in an hour or so.” Or do we think, “Too bad. Now I can’t go.”

How we react in such situations, shows who ranks highest in our hearts.

We must love God rather than the world.

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).

To love the world does not necessarily mean that we love bad things. It can simply be that we love the things of this world, that “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches” are choking the word (Matthew 13:22).

Among other things, this means that our love for God must be greater than our love for ourselves and our own enjoyment.

What if there is an exceptional opportunity to serve the Lord on a day we were planning to do something for our own enjoyment? Do we say: “I’m thankful for this great opportunity to serve the Lord.” Or do we say: “You know, I really feel bad about it, but I have a previous appointment.”

Is our free time so filled with “enjoying ourselves” that we have little time left for the Lord? If so, we are just giving God the crumbs. We love ourselves with all our heart, not God. And God is not pleased.

What if someone we know is in the hospital, but visiting hours are the same time as one of our favorite TV programs? Do we say: “I’m going to visit him this evening. He might need cheering up.” Or do we think: “What a shame that visiting hours are at such an inconvenient time! I’ll try to visit him tomorrow, or maybe next week.”

How does our Bible study time compare with our entertainment time?

Once when visiting a congregation, a brother took me to meet another brother in the Lord. After we knocked, he came nervously to the door and said: “Come on in. We’re watching such and such on TV.”

So we sat for about an hour watching TV. Finally, the brother I was with said: “Well, it’s getting late. I guess we need to be going.” Our “host” looked away from the TV just long enough to say: “Glad you dropped in. Come back anytime.” He didn’t even go with us to the door.

What do you think of the spiritual condition of someone like that?

That rest and recreation are needed, is not being denied. We are discussing priorities and the difference between self-love and love for God and fellow man.

Once when Jesus’ disciples had just returned from a preaching trip, He told them: “Come aside by yourselves to a deserted place and rest a while” (Mark 6:31).

Although they needed rest, as it turned out, something else became more important. “So they departed to a deserted place in the boat by themselves. But the multitudes saw them departing, and many knew Him and ran there on foot from all the cities. They arrived before them and came together to Him. And Jesus, when He came out, saw a great multitude and was moved with compassion for them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. So He began to teach them many things” (Mark 6:32-34).

Notice that Jesus was moved with compassion. He had intended to have some time alone with His disciples for rest. But because He loved His fellow men, He put their welfare above His own comfort. He is, of course, the perfect example of how a man ought to put God first in his life.

There is only one first place.

We cannot give God, plus something else, first place in our lives. That is not possible. Jesus said: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24).

If we think we can have two things in first place, we are deceiving ourselves. One or the other ultimately takes precedence in our lives.

Mammon is the god of money. We can’t serve God and money. Is serving God more important to you than earning money? The headache, or the fatigue, that keeps you from the assembly, would it also keep you from going to work? What if you are offered a job that pays much more money, but one that would keep you so busy you would have little time to serve the Lord?

How you make such decisions shows what is most important in your heart.

Are we like the little girl who received two coins, one for herself and one for the collection. After she accidentally dropped one of the coins down the storm drain, she said: “Oh no, there goes the Lord’s money!”

For God, lukewarm is not warm enough!

“These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness the Beginning of the creation of God: ‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth’” (Revelation 3:14-16).

The danger of being lukewarm is that it is easy to believe you are all right. A lukewarm person thinks: “Well, at least I’m not cold.” But lukewarm isn’t warm enough for God. He will spew us out of His mouth unless we repent.

A Christian must be dedicated.

Being dedicated means to be fully committed.

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

Christianity is not certain things you do, it is a way of doing everything. The Christian gives himself fully in service to God and his fellow man. God occupies the first place in his heart and in his actions.

Does this mean that we should be fanatics?

No. In Ecclesiastes 7:16 we are warned: “Do not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise: why should you destroy yourself?”

There is a great difference between being fanatical and being dedicated. You want your family doctor to be dedicated, but not fanatical!

A fanatic is someone who has a blind, unreasoning and exaggerated zeal for something, accompanied by intolerance of others. Fanaticism is a form of arrogance. A fanatic exalts his own ideas, and will not even listen to the ideas of others.

A Christian must be patient, humble and caring. A fanatic is none of these. He is impatient, haughty and self-centered.

We must be dedicated, but not fanatical.

Christ expects us to be zealous in good works.

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

Christ came to save us from sin. But it is not enough to avoid evil. We must be zealous in doing good.

Jesus said: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

How do we put God first in our lives?

Because of our devotion, we are steadfast in Christian activities: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Steadfast means resolute and unwavering.

To continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine we must both know the Scriptures and put them into practice. To continue steadfastly in fellowship we must attend the services of the church and seek fellowship with other Christians. Each Sunday we must feast at the table of the Lord. We must continue steadfastly in prayer. All these activities are involved in putting the Lord first in our lives.

We put God first by serving others. Jesus came to serve, not to be served (Matthew 20:28). We want to be like Him. Jesus told His disciples: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14).

The church is one body with each member’s function contributing to the well-being of the whole. Depending on our ability, we can visit the sick, help the poor, teach the gospel, help maintain the meeting place, or through other good works exalt God by serving others.

Does God occupy the first place in our lives? Do we give Him our best? Do we put Him first in our heart? Is our love for Him greater than our love for any other person or any thing? Is our love for Him greater than our love for ourselves and our own enjoyment? Are we dedicated, and zealous in good works? Do we give ourselves fully in service to God and man? Let us give God the highest position in our lives. Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

A time for... by Gary Rose

Saturday morning was a time for TV shows and cartoons. Saturday afternoon was a time for work; no ifs, ands or buts. In 2016 things are different. We are constantly surrounded by media and entertainment is the new normal. For many, work has been replaced by welfare. Leisure rules- and the result is poverty.

This is preventable; just listen to the Scriptures...

Proverbs, Chapter 6 (WEB)

⁶ Go to the ant, you sluggard. 

Consider her ways, and be wise; 

  ⁷ which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, 

  ⁸ provides her bread in the summer, 

and gathers her food in the harvest. 

  ⁹ How long will you sleep, sluggard? 

When will you arise out of your sleep? 

  ¹⁰ A little sleep, a little slumber, 
a little folding of the hands to sleep: 

  ¹¹ so your poverty will come as a robber, 

and your scarcity as an armed man.

AND

Proverbs, Chapter 24 (WEB)

 ³⁰ I went by the field of the sluggard, 
by the vineyard of the man void of understanding: 

  ³¹ Behold, it was all grown over with thorns. 
Its surface was covered with nettles, 
and its stone wall was broken down. 

  ³² Then I saw, and considered well. 
I saw, and received instruction: 

  ³³ a little sleep, a little slumber, 
a little folding of the hands to sleep, 
  ³⁴ so your poverty will come as a robber 
and your want as an armed man. 

 I have no idea how many out there will heed what the Bible says and change, but even if a few will- there will be an effect. Remember: God's will, God's way, God's result. Enough said!!!