Was Peter the First Pope? by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2561

Was Peter the First Pope?

by	Moisés Pinedo

Many advocates of petrine tradition will argue that Peter was appointed the “first pope.” Consider some of the arguments that are presented in favor of this assertion.

Argument #1: Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19).

With this statement Catholicism argues that Peter was granted supreme power or authority over the church. Although the context in Matthew supports no such interpretation, people of various religions agree that Peter was granted “something special” that was given to no other apostle. This “something” has often been misinterpreted.

We need to understand what “kingdom of heaven” means. Some people have suggested that it refers to heaven itself, and thus, they have represented Peter as the one who allows or prevents access into the eternal reward. But this interpretation is inconceivable since it finds itself in clear opposition to the context of this passage. Reading Matthew 16:18, we understand that the subject under discussion is not heaven itself, but the church. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the church as being the kingdom of heaven. This is shown not only in the context of Matthew 16:18, but it also is taught in many other passages throughout the New Testament (e.g., Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28).

Further, we need to understand the nature of the “keys” given to Peter. H. Leo Boles wrote, “To use the keys was to open the door or give the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God” (1952, p. 348). In other words, because of Peter’s confession about Jesus (Matthew 16:16), Jesus gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to become Christians and thus become part of the Lord’s church. Barnes put it this way:

When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles (2005a, p. 171, italics in orig.).

There is no doubt that the “keys” represent the opportunities Peter would have to welcome the world, for the very first time, to the Christian age and to the kingdom of heaven—the church.

Also, we need to know when Peter used the “keys.” Jesus’ declaration was in a prophetic form. Peter would have the opportunity to open the doors of the church in the future. The Bible clearly shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Acts 2. Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit like the other apostles (2:4), stood and gave the first recorded Gospel sermon after the resurrection of Jesus (2:14-38). It was at that moment when Jesus’ words were fulfilled. Because of the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, 3,000 Jews (cf. 2:5) were baptized into Christ and entered through the open doors of the church (2:41-47). However, the church would be composed not only of Jews, but also Gentiles. Acts 10 tells us that Peter opened the doors of the church to the Gentiles, in the same way he opened the doors of the church to the Jews. This was the “special something” given to Peter because of his confession—the privilege of being the first to preach the Gospel (after the resurrection of Christ) to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

Peter opened the doors of the church, and since then the doors of the church have remained open. Only Peter received this privilege. Jesus said, “I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19, emp. added). There are no individuals, such as popes, opening and closing the doors of the church.

Argument #2: Peter received the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19).

With this argument Catholicism affirms two things concerning Peter: (1) that he received the authority to forgive sins; and (2) that Jesus considered anything Peter would do with His church as approved, authoritative, and good. In other words, Jesus gave him the gift of “infallibility.”

In order to analyze what Jesus said about Peter, we must take into account that the context of Matthew 16:19 is linked to the subject of the church, and not to the forgiveness of sins or the concession of some kind of infallibility about doctrinal matters. A biblical text that can help us understand Matthew 16:19 is Matthew 18:18, where Jesus made the same promise to all His apostles. He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Of this text, Boles has noted, “This is the same thought as in Matt. 16:19. This shows that it has a broader application than that of the discipline of an erring brother. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in their instruction to the erring brother and the church” (1952, p. 377, emp. added). In His declaration in Matthew 16:19, Jesus affirmed that the conditions of the Christian system that Peter and the other apostles would expound already had been required by Heaven.

The Greek grammar of these verses sheds more light on the meaning of Jesus’ statement. A.T. Robertson noted that “[t]he passive perfect future occurs in the N.T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18” (1934, p. 361). Therefore, the text should read, “whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” By saying this, Jesus declared that resolutions made on Earth were subject to decisions made in heaven. The apostles would preach in accordance with what was already bound or loosed in heaven. This was based not on the infallibility of a man, but on the infallibility of the Holy Spirit promised to the apostles in the first century (John 16:13; cf. Matthew 10:19-20). Today we have the inspired, infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit recorded for us in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Jesus never established Peter as a pope. The titles “Pope,” “Universal Bishop,” “Earthly Head of the Church,” “Pontiff,” and others never came from the mouth of Jesus to describe Peter. Regardless of the privileges given to Peter, his authority and rights were the same authority and rights given to the other apostles of the Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 12:28; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11; Galatians 2:8).

WHO WAS PETER?

If Peter was not the first pope, then the question becomes, “Who was Peter?” Was he equal to the other apostles, or did he deserve a position of supremacy among the others? The arguments that establish Peter’s identity may be presented as follows.

Argument #1: Peter was only a man.

Although this declaration is obvious to many, sometimes its implications are overlooked. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter (cf. Acts 10:25), he told him, “Stand up; I too am just a man” (Acts 10:26, NASB). With this statement Peter implied three very important points: (a) that he was “too...a man”—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was “a man”—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was “just a man”—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was unworthy of worship. Peter, with all humility, understood that his human nature prevented him from accepting worship. On the other hand, the pope, being just a man like Peter, expects men to bow before him, kiss his feet, and revere him, thus receiving worship that does not belong to him. What a difference between Peter and his alleged successors! Not even God’s angels allow men to show adoration by kneeling before them (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). One can only be astonished at the tremendous audacity of one who usurps the place that belongs only to God!

Argument #2: Peter was an apostle with the same authority and rights as the other apostles.

On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them (Luke 22:24), so Jesus told them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them.... But not so among you” (Luke 22:25-26, emp. added; cf. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48). Jesus never would have made this comment if Peter had more authority and rights than the other apostles as Catholicism suggests. In fact, if Peter was to be considered more honorable than the other apostles, this would have been the opportune time to clarify this point to the rest of the apostles who were “hungry for another’s glory.” However, Jesus assured them that this would not be the case among His apostles.

On another occasion, the mother of John and James came before Jesus with them, asking Him to allow her two sons to sit by Him in His kingdom, one on the right and the other on the left (Matthew 20:20-21). Jesus pointed out that they did not know what they were asking (Matthew 20:22), and added, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them.... Yet it shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:25-26, emp. added). If Jesus considered Peter as greater than the other disciples, He could have clarified the issue immediately by telling Zebedee’s wife and sons that they were asking for an honor already given to Peter. But, He did not do that. Today it seems that many religious people want to make it so, and exalt Peter above the other apostles, in spite of what Jesus said.

Many Catholics try to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope by affirming that he was the greatest of the apostles. They declare that Peter was greater because: (1) he always is mentioned first in the lists of the apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13); (2) he was the apostle who recognized Jesus as Lord in Matthew 16:16; and (3) Jesus told him to care for His sheep (John 21:15-19). Are these arguments sufficient for establishing the papacy or supremacy for Peter? No. Consider the case for any other apostle. For example, it could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 21:20,24); (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest (John 13:25; 21:20)—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother (John 19:26-27). Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope? If not, should we consider Peter as a pope when all of the apostles had the same authority and their own privileges? Indeed, Jesus gave all of His disciples, not just Peter, authority (Matthew 28:19-20).

Finally, consider the words of Paul. He said: “[F]or in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing” (2 Corinthians 12:11). From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul.

Argument #3: Peter was an apostle who had the same power as the other apostles.

Some religious people have spread the myth that Peter possessed more miraculous power than the other apostles, and that, therefore, he was greater than the rest. Yet, Matthew 17:14-21 presents the account of an epileptic boy who was brought to the disciples of Jesus (including Peter), but they could not heal him. If Peter had a power that was “more effective” than the other apostles’ power, he should have been able to perform this miracle. However, the boy was healed only after he was taken to Jesus. Jesus then reprimanded all the apostles for their lack of faith.

Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised all of His disciples that “he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do” (John 14:12). In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came with power, He empowered not only Peter, but also the rest of the apostles (vss. 1-4). This is confirmed when we read that “fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43, emp. added). There is no doubt that the apostle Peter was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, but that power also was manifested in the rest of the apostles and was never grounds for considering one apostle as being superior to another.

Argument #4: Peter was a man who made mistakes.

Peter committed many mistakes just as any other person. The New Testament records that he: (a) doubted Jesus (Matthew 14:28-31); (b) acted impulsively against his fellow man (John 18:10-11); (c) denied Jesus three times (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18,25-27); (d) was overwhelmed by his failure (John 21:3); and (e) acted hypocritically before the church (Galatians 2:11-21; Paul “withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed”—a confrontation that would have been considered insolent if Peter was the “head of the church”). We should not belittle Peter, but we must understand that Peter, like all servants of God, had his faults and should never be considered greater than the other apostles, or any other Christian (cf. Matthew 11:11).

CONCLUSION

Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the early Christians considered Peter as superior to the other apostles. He was simply a man privileged to be part of the apostolic ministry and a member of the body of Christ, which is the church. There is only one Head of the church, and that Head is Jesus Christ, not Peter (Ephesians 1:20-22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; et al.).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (2005), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Boles, H. Leo (1952), The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

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

If He Were a Prophet... by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2170

If He Were a Prophet...

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The gospel accounts paint a picture of the character of Jesus unrivaled by any other personality in human history. On one memorable occasion, Jesus was invited to eat with a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:36-50). During his stay, a woman who was known in the area for her sinful lifestyle approached Jesus. She proceeded to wash His feet with her tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint Jesus with fragrant oil.

Simon, seeing the sinful woman’s behavior, said to himself, “This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). Notice two important aspects of Simon’s response. First, he spoke to himself. There is no indication that his thoughts were verbalized or in any way audible to those around him. Second, the criterion he set to determine whether Christ was a prophet was knowledge of the woman’s sinful lifestyle.

Jesus’ response to Simon proved that He was far more than a prophet. He answered the Pharisee by explaining that those who have sinned much and been forgiven of their sins will love God more than those who feel they have few sins to forgive. Jesus then forgave the woman’s sins. His response exhibited a knowledge, not only of the spiritual condition of the woman, but also of Simon’s inner conversation with himself. Not only did Jesus know the woman was a sinner, but He knew the conversation Simon had with himself about Jesus’ reaction to the woman. What did Jesus’ reaction prove? It should have proved to Simon that Jesus was far more than a prophet. When Jesus forgave the woman’s sins, He proved that He was God in the flesh.

The modern application of this story is profound. Jesus has exhibited far more evidence validating His deity than any reasonable person could demand. His life was prophesied in minute detail hundreds of years before He was born, He accomplished miracles that supported the prophesies, He foretold His own death and resurrection, He showed Himself alive to many witnesses after His resurrection, and ascended to Heaven in the sight of many witnesses as the culmination of His earthly ministry. The honest, reasonable response to Jesus’ personality and power is perfectly summarized in Nathanael’s reaction to Jesus’ miraculous knowledge. After Jesus explained to Nathanael that He had miraculously seen Nathanael under the fig tree, Nathanael exclaimed: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God” (John 1:49)!

TIME Will Tell...Or Will It? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2009

TIME Will Tell...Or Will It?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The expression “time will tell” is a generally understood and accepted truth. What may be virtually impossible to prove in the here and now likely will be revealed over time. In time, we may know whether a person is lying or speaking the truth. Time will tell if your favorite sports team will win a championship. And, time can reveal the effects of decisions made by world leaders. Time has a way of clearing the murky waters of the present. Unfortunately, TIME (the magazine) does not.

For years, TIME magazine has spotlighted the theory of human evolution, attempting to sell it as fact by offering misconstrued, inadequate evidence. In August 1999, a partial skull was pictured on the cover of TIME alongside the words, “How Man Evolved.” Less than two years later, in July 2001, TIME displayed an illustration of one of our alleged ancestors (Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba) on the cover, along with the words, “How Apes Evolved” in uppercase bold font. Fast-forward to October 2006, when TIME attempted to explain “How We Became Human.” This time a monkey and a baby are pictured side by side on the cover.

“How Man Evolved.” “How Apes Evolved.” “How We Became Human.” Based upon such audacious titles, one would think that TIME would tell exactly how apes became human. The truth is, however, TIME has failed lamentably. As usual, TIME has allowed propaganda to take precedence over proof.

In 2001, TIME plastered an artist’s rendition of the face of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba on the cover and hailed it as a human ancestor from more than 5 million years ago. Yet, in perusing the article, one quickly discovered that this “ancestor” was known only by a few bone fragments and teeth found over a period of five years in five different locations. What’s more, only one bone fragment (a piece of the right mandible) came from the creature’s face. Yet, TIME took an illustrator’s “hunch” of what kadabba’s entire face looked like and placed it on the cover along with the headline, “How Apes Evolved.” In truth, TIME gave no evidence for how apes evolved into humans. If Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was the height of a modern chimp, had a brain the size of a chimp, and “its body was similarly proportioned” to a chimp (“Earliest..., 2001, 87[4]:12), perhaps kadabba was just a chimp? (For more information on Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, see Harrub, 2001.)

The latest human evolutionary mumbo-jumbo from TIME is nothing new. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman assume that apes and humans are “evolutionary cousins” because of similarities between human and ape DNA. However, similarities in DNA (or internal body structures, organs, etc.) do not prove ancestry. (Apologetics Press has addressed this issue adequately in the past; see Harrub, 2005; see also Harrub and Thompson, 2002.) Creationists have long recognized similarities between animals and humans. In fact, such similarities should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share a common heritage, yet they cannot prove it.

Ironically, though the October 6, 2006 cover of TIME was titled, “How We Became Human,” the feature article bore the heading, “What Makes Us Different?” In actuality, the bark had no bite. The TIME reader never learns “How We Became Human.” In fact, notice one of Lemonick and Dorfman’s admissions:

...[G]enes alone don’t dictate the differences between species; the changes, they [scientists—EL] now know, also depend on molecular switches that tell genes when and where to turn on and off. “Take the genes involved in creating the hand, the penis and the vertebrae,” says Lovejoy. “These share some of the same structural genes. The pelvis is another example. Humans have a radically different pelvis from that of apes.It’s like having the blueprints for two different brick houses. The bricks are the same, but the results are different” (168[15]:48, emp. added).

The fact that TIME never gets around to telling us “How We Became Human” is further clarified in the final paragraph of the article:

...[E]volution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins—and revel in a Mozart adagio. Within a few short years, we may finally understand precisely when and how that happened (168[15]:53, emp. added).

The truth is,TIME doesn’t know “how we became human” anymore than apes know how to read TIME. So why is this most recent issue labeled “How We Became Human”? For the same reason previous issues were titled “How Man Evolved” and “How Apes Evolved”—to sell an unproven, unprovable theory as fact, using the power of propaganda.

REFERENCES

“Earliest Human Ancestor Found?” (2001), Current Science, 87[4]:12, October 12.

Harrub, Brad (2001), “Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba or ‘What Bone is the Toe Bone Connected To?’,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2060.

Harrub, Brad (2005), “Initial Sequence of Chimp Genome Reported,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/353.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2002), “Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070.

Lemonick, Michael and Andrea Dorfman (2006), “What Makes Us Different?,” TIME, 168[15]:44-53, October 9.

The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=297

The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“It is unconstitutional for the government and the public schools to include endorsements of the Christian religion.” So goes the conventional propaganda that has gradually permeated much of the judiciary of the United States in the last half century. The result is an ongoing and systematic elimination of allusions to God, Christ, and the Bible in the public life of America. In order to see the falsity of this contention, all one need do is spend a little time examining the utterances of the Founders themselves. The indications of the Founders’ attachment to Christianity, and the necessary inclusion of its moral principles as the platform on which the Republic was deliberately situated, are voluminous, extensive, decisive, and undeniable (e.g., Miller, 2006).

Another way to ascertain the inaccuracy of the allegation that the Founders intended America’s civil institutions to be religiously neutral, is to examine the founding documents of both the federal and state governments. For example, immediately after Article VII, the federalConstitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.... (The United States...,” emp. added).

The Framers’ declared that their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words anno Domini, meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multicultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religiously neutral designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era—which already were in use (see “Common Era,” 2007; Hooper and Bielfeld, 1770, 3:105). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims for the commencement of the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared.

What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, or the gods of Hinduism or Native American religion. Observe that the Constitutiondoes not read “Year of the Lord”; it reads “Year of our Lord.” The Founders considered Jesus Christ to be their Lord—a concept flatly rejected by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Any attempt to soften the import of this inclusion is merely sidestepping this fact. Therefore, the Framers could not have believed that references to God or Christ should be excluded from the Constitution—since they did not do so! Yet, incredibly, on the basis of currentjudicial interpretation, their action was unconstitutional!

The same may be said for the constitutions of the respective states. The initial state constitutions contained many references to the essentiality and importance of the God of the Bible to civil society. Most of these allusions have since been expunged. Nevertheless, some remain. Consider, for example, the Preamble to the state constitution of Maine:

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God’s aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same (emp. added).

The constitution of Massachusetts reads, in part:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government... (emp. added).

The Missouri Preamble reads:

We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State (emp. added).

New Jersey’s Preamble reads:

We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution (emp. added).

North Carolina’s Preamble reads:

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution (emp. added).

Many others could be cited (“State Constitutions,” n.d.). In fact, of the 46 state constitutions that contain Preambles, only Oregon has no reference to God. Hence, 45 of the 50 state constitutions refer to the God of the Bible. But wait! On the basis of today’s ludicrous, inane standard, 45 of the state constitutions are unconstitutional. So, according to the thinking of theACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is unconstitutional! Go figure.

REFERENCES

“Common Era” (2007), Answers.com, [On-line], URL:http://www.answers.com/topic/common-era.

Hooper, William and Jacob Friedrich Bielfeld (1770), The Elements of Universal Erudition(London: G. Scott), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=gBETAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA105&dq= %22Common+Era%22+date:1-1800&as_brr=0&ei=aMzpRqzoMoz06gK06NFh.

Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War,” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.

“State Constitutions” (no date), The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/stateco.htm.

The United States Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html.

Take It or Leave It by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=295&b=Mark

Take It or Leave It

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to “tackle” at Apologetics Press was presented to us some time ago by the mother of a dear friend. She asked, “When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles on what is commonly called the ‘limited commission,’ did He instruct them to take staffs or not?” Her question was the result of studying the three following parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels (the difficult portions are in bold type).

“Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals,nor staffs (literally, “a staff”); for a worker is worthy of his food” (Matthew 10:9-10).

“He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts—but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9).

“And He said to them, ‘Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs (literally, “a staff”) nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece’ “ (Luke 9:3).

A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing. Matthew and Luke seem to agree that Jesus prohibited the disciples from taking a staff on their journeys, while Mark appears to give them permission to take one. Furthermore, although Luke does not record Jesus’ command regarding sandals, some have concluded that Matthew and Mark also contradict each other on this point. To use the words of Steve Wells, author of The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, “In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells his disciples to go barefoot and take no staff. But the Jesus in Mark’s gospel (6:8-9) tells them to wear sandals and carry a staff” (emp. added). Actually then, the question at hand is about staffs and sandals, even though Luke mentioned only staffs.

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word “provide” (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. According to Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to “procure for oneself, acquire, get” (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” or “take.” In Matthew, Jesus is saying: “Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.

To illustrate this point using a modern day scenario, consider the CEO who came to his Personnel Director near the end of the day and said that he needed her to fly to Los Angeles on a business trip immediately. If he told the director not to acquire anything for this urgent trip, including clothes, shoes, or make-up, she would know that he meant not to take anything extra. Obviously the CEO did not intend for the Personnel Director to take off her shoes, clothes, and the make-up she already was wearing in order to make the trip. Furthermore, if her boss came back five minutes later (to ensure that she understood his instructions clearly) and stated, “Hurry. The plane is leaving in one hour. Don’t take anything with you except what you are wearing,” the Personnel Director would conclude the same thing she did the first time—do not take anything extra. The CEO said the same thing using two different phrases. Similarly, the wording in Matthew and Mark represent two different ways of saying virtually the same thing.

Most apologists and biblical commentators discontinue their discussion of these parallel passages at this point. They explain the difference between Matthew and Mark’s account of Jesus sending out the Twelve, but they omit Luke’s account. In order to answer the skeptic’s criticism adequately, however, Luke’s account must be included in this discussion. Otherwise, one still is left with an unanswered alleged contradiction. The differences surrounding Luke and Mark’s account are explainable, but it takes effort on the part of the reader to comprehend them. [The following facts must be read carefully in order to understand how the differences in these accounts do not point toward a contradiction.]

As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth—that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs—only they are using different words to do so.

“Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silver…nor staffs” (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

“Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs” (Luke 9:3, emp. added).

Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew’s account, the word ktaomai is used to mean “provide” or “acquire,” whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean “purchase, buy, or earn.” Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.

“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get” (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]

“Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).

“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money!” (Acts 8:20, emp. added).

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship” (Acts 22:28, emp. added).

[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than “purchase, buy, or earn,” but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].

When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to “purchase” or “buy” money [“Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money….”]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai.

Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated “take” in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the “contradiction” completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply “take” or “pick up and carry” (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean “acquire.” Another piece of comparative data between Mark and Luke is that when Mark recorded Jesus informing His listeners that to be His disciple one had to “take up his cross” (Mark 8:34), he used the word airo. Luke, on the other hand, used the Greek word bastazo (14:27) [Miller, 1997].

Without going any further with these language comparisons, one simply must understand that the Greek language (like most languages) is flexible enough so that sometimes two writers can use the same word to mean different things, and sometimes they can use different words to mean the same thing (as indicated by the following chart,* which serves as a summary of the comparisons and contrasts made in this article).

	ktaomai	agorazo	airo	bastazo
Matthew	to acquire	to purchase, buy
Mark			to take, pick up and carry
Luke	to purchase, buy		to acquire	to take, pick up and carry
*NOTE: Only the definitions that pertain to this article are shown.

In case you think such “language leeway” in the Greek sounds absurd, remember that this flexibility appears frequently in the English language. Consider two basketball coaches who are commenting on a player. One says, “He is bad;” the other says, “He is good.” The coaches may be using two different words to mean the same thing. The truth is, in some contexts the words “bad” and “good” are opposites, in other situations they are synonymous.

Although many have been misled about the differences regarding Jesus’ instructions when sending out His apostles on the limited commission, the truth is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all saying the same thing: “Hurry up and get moving!”

REFERENCES

Bauer, Walter. (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s 5th edition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Miller, Glenn (1997), “Well, did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or not? Another Contradiction?!” [On-line], URL: http://christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html.

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

There will be false teachers among you Roy Davison

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

There will be false teachers among you

Jeremiah lived 600 years before Christ. Jacob's descendants had divided into two kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Many of the people served idols and were immoral.

God called Jeremiah to make His message known. He was a true prophet of God. There were also many false prophets in the land, who told the people what they wanted to hear. In Jeremiah, chapter 23, God warns the people not to listen to false prophets. And He warns the false prophets, that He will punish them. From this chapter we learn important truths that can help us avoid false teachers today.

Peter warns Christians of all ages: “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. And many will follow their destructive ways” (2 Peter 2:1,2).

There were false prophets in the Old Testament, there will be false teachers among us as well.

Jesus warned: “Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many” (Matthew 24:11). The fact that there are many false teachers among us and that many people listen to them is simply a fulfillment of the word of Christ.

He also said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). False teachers are false not only in doctrine but also in their appearance. They pretend to be something they are not. On the inside they are vicious wolves who kill and scatter the sheep. But they wear a sheepskin to trick the sheep.

Paul told the elders at Ephesus: “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29,30).

John warned: “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).

These warnings of Christ and His apostles would be futile if there were no way to distinguish between those who speak the truth and those who teach error.

When one considers the thousands of preachers and priests in the world, it is obvious that most of them are not speaking for God because they teach conflicting things.

One man I baptized started reading the Bible because different priests in his own church were teaching different things.

His reaction was: “Since the priests say different things, I will read the Bible for myself. What it says will certainly be right.” The first time I met him he said: “I don't know where it will lead me, but I have decided to do what the Bible says.” I thought, “If he really means that, he will become a Christian.” And he did. Have we decided to do what the Bible says?

God has given us the Holy Scriptures so we can test the spirits.

What does God think about false teachers? “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!” (Jeremiah 23:1). They will be punished for their evil deeds: “You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 23:2).

In verses 9 and 10 Jeremiah laments the terrible state of the land “because of the prophets.” “For both prophet and priest are profane” (verse 11). Profane means 'secular', 'not holy'.

The prophets and priests were supposed to be spiritual and holy. Instead, they were secular.

A tourist visiting a monastery in Italy was astounded by a sign in botched English: “We harbor all kinds of diseases and have no respect for religion. Please donate some small arms for our hospital.”

False teachers do indeed harbor all kinds of spiritual diseases and have no respect for true religion.

A preacher was invited to work with a small church of Christ in a mission area. He replied that he was willing to come if he could have a big salary and a house that was nice enough to impress the business people of the community.

Beware of false prophets, preachers and priests. They are more concerned about worldly things than spiritual values. Jesus said to the religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.” ... “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:25 and 28).

In Jeremiah 23, God says that He will bring disaster on the false prophets. The prophets of the northern kingdom caused Israel to err through idol worship. (Do some religious leaders today encourage people to bow down before images?)

Of the prophets in the southern kingdom, God says: “Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they also strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, and her inhabitants like Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14).

False teachers strengthen the hands of evildoers. This is explained in verse 17: “They continually say to those who despise Me, 'The Lord has said, “You shall have peace” '; and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, 'No evil shall come upon you.' ”

This explains why false teachers are so popular! They are politically correct. They go along with the times. They adapt their message so it will not offend society. They tell people what they want to hear.

Are people who follow their own heart in our time told by some religious leaders that no evil will come upon them? Do some religious leaders condone the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? Do some preachers say that no evil will come upon those who Jesus says commit adultery because of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:9)?

Beware of false prophets, preachers and priests who tickle the itching ears of evildoers (2 Timothy 4:3,4).

“For from the prophets of Jerusalem profaneness has gone out into all the land” (Jeremiah 23:15). They were profane themselves, and profaneness spread from them to the whole country. We live in a secular society. We must be careful that we do not become a secular church by listening to bootlicking false teachers.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:16). False teachers tell you what they think,rather than what God says.

Because of the neglect of the false prophets, the people did not repent: “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings” (Jeremiah 23:21,22).

We have been warned. We must distinguish between what comes from God and what comes from man: “ 'The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?' says the Lord. 'Is not My word like a fire?' says the Lord, 'and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?' ” (Jeremiah 23:28,29).

If a man has a dream and wants to tell it, ok, but he should not claim that it came from God. Man's word is chaff. God's word is nutritious grain. They who have God's word must speak it faithfully. It is powerful, like a burning fire and a hammer that pulverizes rocks.

Peter said: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).

How can we distinguish between the word of man and the word of God? Through Isaiah, God commanded the people: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). We recognize false teachers by comparing what they say with the word of God.

There are false teachers among us, just like there were false prophets in the Old Testament. Do not listen to them. False teachers are secular, more concerned about popularity than purity. Their profaneness spreads like cancer. False teachers strengthen the hands of evildoers, comforting them in their sin rather than calling them to repentance. God has given us the Scriptures so we can know the difference between the word of man and the word of God. “To the law and to the testimony!” Beware of false teachers.

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)

An early morning wish by Gary Rose

I deliberately do not have an "agenda" in my daily blog. I just write as the spirit moves me and say what is on my heart. 

Its about 1:30 in the morning and I can't sleep, so I thought I would write something. And, I thought- What could possibly be better than this message found in the picture.

Along with that- this simple verse...

John, Chapter 3 (WEB)

 ¹⁶  For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 

Now, these two thoughts are worth thinking about- no matter what time of day it is!!!