Does Laud Mean To Clap?
Does Romans 15:11 teach that the New Testament church is authorized to clap as a form of acceptable worship to God? Does the word "laud" in this verse mean "to applaud or clap"? Merriam-Webster's English dictionary defines "laud" as "praise or acclaim", but gives a possible synonym as "applaud." Just as is the case for defining the action of "baptism", so also is the case for defining the action of "laud": we must first consult the context of the Scriptures (not uninspired, English dictionaries) for God's meaning of a word and secondly the original languages of the Bible, especially the Koine ("common") Greek - realizing we will be judged only by the New Testament in the last day (Matthew 28:18; John 12:48; Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11).
Does Romans 15:11 teach that the New Testament church is authorized to clap as a form of acceptable worship to God? Does the word "laud" in this verse mean "to applaud or clap"? Merriam-Webster's English dictionary defines "laud" as "praise or acclaim", but gives a possible synonym as "applaud." Just as is the case for defining the action of "baptism", so also is the case for defining the action of "laud": we must first consult the context of the Scriptures (not uninspired, English dictionaries) for God's meaning of a word and secondly the original languages of the Bible, especially the Koine ("common") Greek - realizing we will be judged only by the New Testament in the last day (Matthew 28:18; John 12:48; Colossians 3:17; 1 Peter 4:11).
In the historical context of the Roman letter, Paul is explaining how the Jewish brethren and Gentile brethren ought to accept one another since they are in one body (Ephesians 4:4). Paul states in Romans 15:7-11: "Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written: ‘For this reason I [Jesus] will confess to You [God] among the Gentiles, and sing to Your name. ' And again he says: ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people! ' And again: ‘Praise the LORD, all you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples!'"
Let us make the following three observations to determine what "laud" means:
- Romans 15:11 is an Old Testament quotation from Psalm 117:1. It is constructed in what is known as Hebrew parallelism. A person can honestly see - even from an English translation of the Scriptures - that "laud" is used synonymously with "praise" not "clap":
(a) Praise (b) the LORD, (c) all you Gentiles!
(a) Laud (b) Him, (c) all you peoples!
- In the Greek New Testament the word for "laud" (epaineo) means "to praise or commend" (Luke 16:8; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 17, 22). The Old Testament Hebrew word (shabah) means "to praise or commend" (Psalm 117:1). Nowhere in the Hebrew or Greek Testaments can "clap" be a substitute for "laud" (in studying this Greek word using Strong's concordance, Strong's mentions the word "applaud" in error - that's in spite of the fact that it defines "laud" as "commend, laud, praise"- none of the mainstream Greek dictionaries support Strong's error)
- The English word "laud" (from the Latin, laudare) means "to praise" and the English word "applaud" (from the Latin, applaudere) means "to clap." These two actions are not the same.
In fact, the Hebrew word shabah is used in Psalm 63:3, which reads, "Because Your lovingkindness is better than life, My lips shall ‘ shabah ' (praise) you."
Lips do not clap, and neither can we if we want to be pleasing to God in our worship (John 4:24).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Do God's Instructions on the Roles of Men and Women Apply to Christians Only?
The answer is no. They apply to both Christians and non-Christians. For example, one of the reasons Paul gives for a female not to teach or have authority over the man is because "Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Timothy 2:12-14). The roles of male and female have been a universal law applying to believers as well as non-believers ever since the Garden of Eden (as have murder, deceiving, disobeying God, etc.). This is true also under the New Testament as is indicated by these passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:8-15; 1 Peter 3:1-7.
The answer is no. They apply to both Christians and non-Christians. For example, one of the reasons Paul gives for a female not to teach or have authority over the man is because "Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Timothy 2:12-14). The roles of male and female have been a universal law applying to believers as well as non-believers ever since the Garden of Eden (as have murder, deceiving, disobeying God, etc.). This is true also under the New Testament as is indicated by these passages: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:8-15; 1 Peter 3:1-7.
It appears that brethren who have tried to argue that God's laws pertaining to divorce and remarriage do not apply to the non-Christian have influenced other brethren to apply the same false teaching to the God-given roles of male and female. Assuming our God-given roles is a matter of faith - a salvation issue (1 Timothy 2:15) and is part of the sound doctrine of Christ that we must NOT transgress (Titus 2:1-5; 2 John 1:9).
Not only is this doctrine false, but it defies common sense. For instance, if non-Christians are not held accountable by God's teaching on roles, then it would not be sinful for a denominational female preacher to serve in the spiritual position of authority over men because she is not a member of the non-denominational church that Jesus established in Acts 2 and neither are the men who are allowing her to be in this forbidden position. Furthermore, it would not be sinful for non-Christian women to refuse to be in submission to their non-Christian husbands. Finally, it would not be sinful for non-Christian women to be serving in the authoritative position of a Bible class teacher over non-Christian men.
Let it again be emphasized that the establishment of the roles of men and women are rooted in the creation account (Genesis 1 & 2; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:8-15).
Though believers, Adam and Eve were not Christians.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is The Kingdom of Jesus To End?
Problem: Skeptics believe they have found a contradiction. The Bible teaches that the kingdom of Jesus would not come to an end (Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:33), whereas in other passages it is stated that the kingdom will come to an end (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
Problem: Skeptics believe they have found a contradiction. The Bible teaches that the kingdom of Jesus would not come to an end (Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:33), whereas in other passages it is stated that the kingdom will come to an end (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
Solution: There is a great misunderstanding on the part of the skeptics with regards to these verses. People need to understand that there are different meanings to the word "kingdom". It is sometimes referring to God's people (the church of Christ - Matthew 16:18). Sometimes it is referring to the reign or right of rule. This is what will be considered in this question. People need to understand that the kingdom of God existed prior to the creation of heavens, earth and mankind (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 95:3). It has existed in different phases. And it will continue into eternity.
1. God gave the creational mandate to Adam and Eve. Part of their commission was to "have dominion over...all the earth" (Genesis 1:26,27). They were to be vice-regents of the great King who reigned over creation. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve failed in their commission and were exiled out of the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24).
2. God then gave the mandate to the nation of Israel in that they were to participate in what Adam and Eve were supposed to do (Exodus 19:5,6). They were to be made a "kingdom of priests." The Israelites, however, failed in their commission and were exiled into Babylon (2 Kings 25).
3. God prophesied that His reign (kingdom) would be given over to the Messiah (Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 9:6,7). John the Immerser and Jesus had prophesied that the reign of God was near and that it would be transferred over to Jesus (Matthew 4:17). John was preparing the hearts of Israel to reconcile to God in that many of them would receive a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 7:29,30) [based on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross - Hebrews 9:15-17] that would place them in the preparatory phase of the kingdom (John 3:1-8; Matthew 11:12). The nation of Israel forfeited their role in allowing God's reign to rule in their lives. The reign, nonetheless, was given to Jesus (Matthew 21:43,44). Jesus began His reign over the kingdom when He sat down at the right hand of God (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:29-36; Psalm 110:1,2; Hebrews 1:1,2).
4. Jesus will continue to reign until He has put all enemies under His feet, even physical death (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). The kingdom under the Messiah will come to an end in the sense that Jesus will then transfer the right of rule back to God the Father and subordinate Himself to the Father. This will become the consummated phase of God's kingdom in that it will be the dwelling place where God rules over the righteous without any end (2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 21:1,2).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
What Is The Discerning of Spirits Gift?
This miraculous gift was used by an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12; Acts 5:1-11 - Peter was able to discern by the Holy Spirit that Ananias and Sapphira were lying; Acts 8:20-23 - Peter could look into the motives of Simon the Sorcerer). It was imparted to other 1st century Christians by the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:14-18; 2 Timothy 1:6) to help the infant church mature in the faith (Ephesians 4:7-16) since the 1st century church did not have the fully revealed New Testament in its written form disseminated among all the congregations (as we have it today).
This miraculous gift was used by an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12; Acts 5:1-11 - Peter was able to discern by the Holy Spirit that Ananias and Sapphira were lying; Acts 8:20-23 - Peter could look into the motives of Simon the sorcerer). It was imparted to other 1st century Christians by the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:14-18; 2 Timothy 1:6) to help the infant church mature in the faith (Ephesians 4:7-16) since the 1st century church did not have the fully revealed New Testament in its written form disseminated among all the congregations (as we have it today).
The early church needed this miraculous gift in order to be able to discern between a true prophet and a false prophet. For example, in 1 John 4:1-3, the Bible states: "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. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."
During this historical and cultural time, the inspired apostle John was writing against an early form of a false system of doctrine known as gnosticism (which itself had various forms). One of the main tenets of gnosticism was that all flesh is evil. If all flesh is evil (according to gnosticism), and Jesus was incarnated in the flesh (John 1:14), then Jesus was evil. Choosing their doctrine over the overwhelming facts, the Gnostics denied that Jesus ever came in the flesh, which hit at the heart of the truth of the gospel because Jesus had to come in a human body to be offered as the ultimate sin-offering (Hebrews 10:5-8).
In 1 John 4:1-3, John was urging the Christians who had these miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit to test those teachers who were teaching this doctrine and to expose them as false prophets.
Today, we do not any longer have the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit available to us today because miracles were given in the early church for the purpose of confirming the word of God (Mark 16:17-20). We have the fully confirmed and revealed written word of God that is sufficient for us today (2 Peter 1:3; Jude 1:3). We must study diligently in order to discern between what is the truth (John 8:31,32) and what is false teaching (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
How Does An Alien Sinner Get In Christ Where Salvation Is Found?
2 Timothy 2:10 states that salvation is found "in Christ." The question needs to be answered: "How does an alien sinner get in Christ where salvation is found?"
2 Timothy 2:10 states that salvation is found "in Christ." The question needs to be answered: "How does an alien sinner get in Christ where salvation is found?"
1. Believing on Jesus is essential for salvation (John 8:24), but, in and of itself, does not get us "in Christ" (Matthew 7:21; James 2:19, 24). There are other salvation actions God requires (such as, repentance, confession, and water immersion - Acts 3:19; Romans 10:9-10; Mark 16:15,16).
2. Repentance is essential for salvation (Acts 17:30; 2:38), but, in and of itself, does not get us "in Christ". As stated above, there are other required salvation actions.
3. Confessing Jesus as the Son of God/Lord/Savior is essential (Romans 10:9,10), but, in and of itself, does not get us "in Christ". For there are other required actions (Note: in this verse that it states that "confession is made unto salvation". The word "unto" is from the Greek word eis, which points forward to salvation, but does not arrive at the point of salvation).
4. Immersion/baptism into Christ is essential and is the point at which the alien sinner gets "in Christ" (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27). In order to receive God's grace through the gift of His Son where salvation is found, an alien sinner must be immersed in water so that he/she can come into contact with the blood of Jesus (the actual element which washes away his/her sins). Through this act of obedience based on "the remission of sins", based on "the working of God", the alien sinner gets in Christ through His cleansing blood (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Revelation 1:5,6).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
What is the Fruit of the Spirit?
Galatians 5:22,23 states: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." [NOTE: The translators capitalized the letter "S" in the word "Spirit" because they thought it was referring to the Holy Spirit.]
Galatians 5:22,23 states: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." [NOTE: The translators capitalized the letter "S" in the word "Spirit" because they thought it was referring to the Holy Spirit.]
In the greater context, Paul is dealing with the matter of the Judaizing teachers wanting to bind the law of Moses and circumcision upon the Gentile Christians as they sought to be justified by their own law of righteousness. Paul goes through a series of logical arguments throughout the letter to refute them and their false teaching. Some might ask, "If there is no more law, then do we have a license to sin in whatever way we please?" Paul then answers this possible concern by stating in the negative that we cannot walk in any way we please.
In the remote context of Galatians 5:13-26, Paul is dealing with this internal struggle with which Christians sometimes battle. Paul commands that we walk in the spirit. What is the "spirit" of this passage?
In Galatians 5:17, Paul states: "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish." [NOTE: The translators capitalized the letter "S" in the word "Spirit" because they thought it was referring to the Holy Spirit.] It is most likely what Paul is referencing is the spiritual conflict that people face in their daily lives. There is the fleshly mindset (flesh) versus the spirit (or spiritual mindset) that Christians are to set their minds (Colossians 3:1-4).
This cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit because He is Divine and is not tempted by evil (James 1:13-15). A Christian will continue to face the struggle between a fleshly mindset and a spiritual mindset.
This is further shown by Galatians 6:1, which fits the spiritual mindset rather than the Holy Spirit because we must become a people who seek to be meek and gentle: "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness (a part of the fruit of the spirit - Galatians 5:22,23), considering yourself lest you also be tempted."
We can be certain though that we must have a spiritual mindset that is continually guided by the Holy Spirit through His written revelation (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
It is the humble spirit or attitude or mind of Christ/Spirit we must all aspire to possess (Romans 12:2; Philippians 2:5-8).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Did Cornelius Receive the Holy Spirit without Baptism?
The answer is no. A common argument used against the essentiality of water immersion in its connection to salvation is the case of Cornelius and his household from Acts 10 and 11. This argument is not sound in the least, yet the argument may be constructed as follows:
The answer is no. A common argument used against the essentiality of water immersion in its connection to salvation is the case of Cornelius and his household from Acts 10 and 11. This argument is not sound in the least, yet the argument may be constructed as follows:
Major Premise: All people who receive the Holy Spirit are people who are saved.
Minor Premise: Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water immersion.
Conclusion: Therefore, Cornelius, who received the Holy Spirit, was saved before water immersion.
The minor premise is true (Acts 10:44-46). The argument falls short with regard to the major premise because it is not sound. Here is why.
1. Cornelius was informed by an angel of God in a vision to send for Peter so that he could find out from Peter what God required him to do in order to be saved (Acts 10:1-6; Acts 11:13-14). Notice Acts 10:6 very carefully: "He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He [referring to Peter the apostle] will tell you what you must do." When Peter arrived, Cornelius said, "we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God" (Acts 10:25-33). Following the instruction of God's angel, Cornelius was seeking the commands of God. Peter told Cornelius, "whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34-35). Peter further told Cornelius that he was commanded by God to preach Jesus as Judge of the living and the dead and that Cornelius must believe in Jesus in order to receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:42-43). Finally, Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be immersed (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-12) in water (for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38; Acts 10:34,35,48; Acts 22:16).
Major Premise: All commandments that were given by Peter were commandments that Cornelius must obey in order to be saved (Acts 10:6,25-35).
Minor Premise: The commandments that Peter gave Cornelius were to fear God (Acts 10:34,35), work righteousness (Acts 10:34,35), believe in Jesus (Acts 10:42,43), and to be immersed in water (Acts 10:47,48).
Conclusion: Therefore the commandments of fearing God, working righteousness, believing in Jesus, and being immersed in water were to be obeyed in order to be saved.
2. In Acts 11:1-18, when Peter gave a recount of the past events that occurred at the household of Cornelius concerning the miraculous power of Holy Spirit falling upon that household just as Peter "began to speak", then it would have been the case that Cornelius would not have received the full message that would have resulted in the final act of faith to become a son of God by putting on Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). The logical consequence of the false argument using the case of Cornelius would be that Cornelius was saved without a full faith in Jesus Christ (which is not acceptable to God according to Matthew 7:21; James 2:19; 24, etc.). What proves too much, proves nothing!
3. We must understand that the Holy Spirit has different functions in the Scripture. There is the equipping and revealing function and the saving function of the Holy Spirit. The equipping and revealing function is seen in many Scriptures such as Numbers 11:10-26 where the Holy Spirit came upon seventy men in order to relieve the burden off of the leadership of Moses. In Joel 2:28-32, it was prophesied that miraculous power from the Holy Spirit would come upon certain individuals in equipping them with miraculous gifts in the infant church (Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11; Ephesians 4:7-16). Sometimes the Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals such as the high priest, Caiphas, in John 11:49-52, and caused him to prophesy and reveal to the nation of Israel a prophecy.
We see also though that the Holy Spirit, who is Divine, desires to save all people from sin (1 Timothy 2:4). The way the Holy Spirit does this is by convicting (John 16:7-9), converting, and sanctifying (John 17:17) individuals through the medium of His inspired powerful word. This sword of the Spirit is written down and recorded for us to understand when we believe and obey the commands of what He has stated (Ephesians 6:17; Luke 1:1-4; 2 Timothy 3:16,17).
The equipping and revealing function is what we see in regards to Cornelius and his household in the events of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (specifically speaking in languages they had never studied) falling upon them directly from heaven. This divine act was for the purpose of revealing to the Jewish Christians that their built up wall of tradition and prejudice over the centuries ought to come crashing down. The Jewish Christians, therefore, ought to recognize that this sign (Gentiles speaking in tongues) was recognized as being from God since it had happened in a similar manner to the apostles some years before on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. To get Jews to start preaching to the Gentiles, it was going to take a miracle, to convince the Jews that it was God's will, that the Gentiles had the same access to the blessings of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Peter preached the same plan of salvation that he preached on the Day of Pentecost in that there was no distinction between the way Jews and Gentiles were to be saved. Both groups were to hear and obey the same plan of salvation (Ephesians 1:13; Hebrews 5:8-9), which included believing Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 10:43), repenting of one's past sins (Acts 11:18), confessing the name of Jesus before men (Matthew 10:37,38), and being immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 10:48). This involves the saving function of the Holy Spirit because He has told us what to do in order to contact the blood of Jesus Christ that can wash away our sins through the washing of water (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Titus 3:4-6; Ephesians 5:26).
4. Those who adhere to this false argument contradict themselves with many of the other passages of Scripture that teach that water immersion is an essential component in the plan of salvation (Mark 16:15,16; 1 Peter 3:20,21; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3,4; Titus 3:4-6; Revelation 1:5). They would rather be inconsistent and irrational rather than humbly submit to the Lord's commands on what a person must do in order to be saved from their sins (John 14:15; 15:14).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is It Right To Pay An Elder For His Services?
In 1 Timothy 5:17, 18, the Bible states: "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
In 1 Timothy 5:17, 18, the Bible states: "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
An elder who gives of his time, effort, and energy to building up the local congregation, especially if he "labors in the word and doctrine" has the right to receive payment from the church treasury. Paul states that there is a principle of scriptural authority for this practice from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 (A side note: This also authorizes preachers to be elders so long as they meet the qualifications and are appointed - like Peter the apostle, prophet, preacher, elder, husband, father, etc., 1 Peter 5:1-4).
The word "honor" ( time ) is a very interesting word. Louw and Nida state that it is "compensation given for special service, with the implication that this is a way by which honor or respect may be shown - "compensation, pay, honorarium." ( "GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BASED ON SE MANTIC DOMAINS," L&N, n.p.). It is also used in 1 Timothy 5:3 where the church is to help financially support the widows.
Yes, the Scriptures teach it is acceptable to God to pay an elder for his services.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is It Right To Pay The Preacher For His Work?
Yes, there are several passages of Scripture that bear this out.
1 Corinthians 9:8-14 states: "Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?
Yes, there are several passages of Scripture that bear this out.
1 Corinthians 9:8-14 states: "Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel."
Galatians 6:6 states: "Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches." (see also 1 Timothy 5:17-18)
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Did Those Persons Who Were Baptized Under John's Baptism Prior To The Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 Have To Be Rebaptized?
There are several reasons from the Scriptures as to why we can know that those persons who were baptized under the baptism of John prior to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 did not need to be rebaptized:
There are several reasons from the Scriptures as to why we can know that those persons who were baptized under the baptism of John prior to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 did not need to be rebaptized:
1. Mark 1:4,5 states: "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." This gives us the purpose of John's baptism. John was sent to the Jews to help prepare them for the Messiah, but also to facilitate for them to be in a restored relationship with God (Malachi 4:5,6; Luke 1:67-79).
Notice through Zechariah's prophecy from the Holy Spirit that he states in Luke 1:76-79: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, to give knowledge of salvation to His people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God, with which the Dayspring from on high has visited us; to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." The reason that sinners would be able to receive the remission of sins through John's baptism of water was because of another revelatory point was as Paul put it in Acts 19:4: "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When Jesus died on the cross and His blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), the efficacious power of the blood of Christ was able to retrospectively reach back to those dead who had offered in faith and obedience the animal sacrifices [which could never take away sins - Hebrews 10:1-4; animal sacrifices did, however, point to the ultimate sin sacrifice - the sacrifice of Jesus - that could take away sins (Hebrews 10:5-10)]. This enable the faithful dead under the Old Testament system to have their sins forgiven under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:14,15) as well as those who received the baptism of John prior to the Day of Pentecost since a person was to continue to believe on Jesus that was to come. Therefore the baptism of John was no longer in effect since Jesus had come already (Acts 19:1-7).
2. John 1:35-42 states: "Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God!' The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, ‘What do you seek?' They said to Him, ‘Rabbi (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), where are You staying?" He said to them, ‘Come and see.' They came and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him that day (now it was about the tenth hour). One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah' (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, ‘You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas' (which is translated, A Stone)."
A disciple is a student who follows his teacher. If a student wants to be a good student he must obey what the teacher says. It is logical that Andrew, who was a disciple of John the Immerser, underwent the baptism of John. Therefore, if Andrew repented (Matthew 3:8; Mark 1:4), was baptized (Mark 1:4,5), and continued to believe on the Messiah (Acts 19:4), then he would receive the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). We see it is the case that Andrew switches teachers and starts to follow and become a disciple of Jesus. Later on during the last supper, Jesus says to His twelve disciples in John 15:1-4: "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me." In John 17:11,12, Jesus states in His prayer to the Father: "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Jesus' disciples were in a saved condition, except for Judas Iscariot. Why? Because they had obeyed the baptism of John and continued to believe on Jesus' word that continued to cleanse them.
3. John 4:1,2 states: "Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. But He needed to go through Samaria."
In the early part of Jesus' ministry, it is seen that Jesus and John were proclaiming the same message of the preparatory phase of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 3:1,2; 4:17) through the Messiah breaking into creation. That is why we see both John and Jesus (via His disciples) baptizing Jews for the remission of sins. It would seem odd if Jesus' own disciples had not underwent the baptism of John since they were baptizing people who had come to show fruits worthy of repentance. In fact, in Luke 7:29,30, the record states: "And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." If you did not undergo the baptism of John, then you were rejecting the will of God. Certainly, Jesus would have rebuked His disciples if they had not been baptized by John.
4. Jesus stated in the early part of His ministry in John 3:3-5 to Nicodemus, a Pharisee: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Jesus, in this historical context, was certainly not wanting Nicodemus to wait two and a half more years for the Day of Pentecost in order to undergo the commandment of water baptism mentioned in Acts 2:38. Jesus was referring to the baptism of John because he mentions "water", which John was immersing with and "spirit", which shows that a person must have a heart of contrition that bears fruits worthy of repentance in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what it will take in order to undergo the new birth. A person could no longer hold on to the physical lineage of Abraham, but must spiritually undergo a change of the heart in order to enter into a new life and fellowship with God. At that time between Jesus' personal ministry and the Day of Pentecost, people who obeyed God could enter into the preparatory phase of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 11:12). That is why we find in Acts 2:41 that the about three thousand who obeyed the gospel on the Day of Pentecost were added. To whom were they added? Could it be possible that they were added to the faithful number of followers who had undergone the baptism of John (such as the apostles) and others who automatically came into the established phase of the kingdom of the Messiah?
A present-day application can still be held to John 3:1-12 to show that we must undergo the water baptism that is found in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Was Cornelius Baptized In The Holy Spirit?
There are several reasons as to why we can know that Cornelius and his household were not baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is discussed in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:4-5, and 11:16. It is the same gift equivalent to the gift of apostleship that was given to thirteen apostles in Acts 2:1-4 and by implication upon Paul in Acts 9.
There are several reasons as to why we can know that Cornelius and his household were not baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is discussed in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:4-5, and 11:16. It is the same gift equivalent to the gift of apostleship that was given to thirteen apostles in Acts 2:1-4 and by implication upon Paul in Acts 9.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit and apostleship were both miraculous gifts, imparted the same powers, came at the same time, came upon the same persons, came in the same manner, had the same sender, and had the same purposes.
Miraculous gifts - Paul lists apostleship as one of the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:28. In fact, he reveals that the first gift given in the church was apostleship. The gift of apostleship was given after the ascension of our Lord (Ephesians 4:8-12). The "promise of the Father" was that the twelve disciples would be clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:46). A promise is to be given and received. Therefore, the baptism in the Holy Spirit was a gift given to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4.
Both gifts were given after the ascension of Jesus - These two gifts were both given after the ascension of our Lord (Acts 1:9-11). Paul reveals this in I Corinthians 12:28 where he teaches, by implication, that apostleship was the first gift given in the church. Since the church was not established until Acts 2 it is implied that apostleship was not given until Acts 2. Paul plainly states that the gift of apostleship was not given until after the Lord's ascension (Ephesians 4:8-12).
Both gifts came in the same manner - The baptism in the Holy Spirit came directly from heaven without the imposition of the hands of an apostle (Acts 2:1-4). The gift of apostleship did not come by the laying on of the hands of anyone. This is proven by the words of the apostle Paul in Galatians 1:1 and 12. Paul, by implication, must have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit directly from heaven.
When Peter gave an account of what happened at the household of Cornelius in Acts 11 he begins in verse 15 to give an account of the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter said that the Holy Spirit fell upon them (Cornelius and his household) even as (adverb of manner literally-of the same manner, after the fashion - Acts 11:15) upon us. The adverb "as" refers to the manner in which the gift came. This same Greek word is found 41 other times in the New Testament. In all 41 instances it is employed in a figure of speech called a "simile." There is no doubt that this (Acts 11:15) is a simile also. The simile compares two things which have one similar quality, but otherwise are different. The one likeness or similarity between the events of Acts 2 and those of Acts 10 is the coming of the gift of the Holy Spirit (powers) directly from heaven and not through the imposition of an apostles' hands.
The reception of powers directly from heaven "reminded" Peter of the events of Acts 2. The Greek word translated "remembered" in Acts 11:16 means "to be reminded." (Thayer, page 415, Bagster, page 270). Both of the lexicons give the first definition of this word as "remind." Vine states that this word means "to remind when used in the active voice." (page 995). The event that took place in Acts 10,11 reminded Peter of a similar event that occurred on the Day of Pentecost. It was a great reminder because they were both received in the same manner - directly from heaven and not through the imposition of an apostles' hands.
Both gifts had the same results - The baptism in the Holy Spirit brought all gifts to all people (Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:17-21). The gift of apostleship brought the same gifts (Acts 8:18). Only by the laying on of an apostles' hands could gifts be given. There were special signs that only an apostle could work (2 Corinthians 12:12). It is apparent that the apostles possessed all the miraculous gifts and that they could impart them to others. In Acts 2:38-39, the promise of Joel was promised to those early Christians - that they would receive miraculous gifts. The events at the house of Cornelius were special with no parallel. The fact that these events were special does not make them a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Cornelius and his household were not able to impart miraculous gifts unto others. So the results of the events of Acts 2 and Acts 10 also reveal that they are not the same. In Acts 2 the recipients were given apostolic powers (Acts 2:1-4) whereas in Acts 10 tongue speaking was the only result, how can these be the same?
Clothed with power - Baptism in the Holy Spirit is equated to being clothed with power from on high. Jesus reveals this in Acts 1:4-8 which is parallel to Luke 24:48-49. This is a divine commentary on the meaning of baptism in the Holy Spirit. To clothe is "to envelop in, to hide in" (Thayer, page 214) to baptize is to "submerge, dip, or immerse" (Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12).
The promise of the Father in Luke 24 is equated to the coming of the Comforter in John 14-16- The Comforter enabled the apostles to be infallible witnesses (John 15:26-27). The special work of witnessing was for those who ate and drank with Jesus after His resurrection (Acts 10:39). Since baptism in the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to be infallible witnesses (Acts 1:8) and the Comforter also did the same thing these must be the same gift.
The promise of the Father in Luke 24 is equated to the baptism in the Holy Spirit - A person needs to read the passages of Acts 1:4-8 with Luke 24:47-49 to see that the inspired writer, Luke, is writing on the same subject.
Both gifts had the same sender - Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the promise of the Father had the same sender. The promise of the Father was the same as the coming of the Comforter that was to come upon the apostles in John 14-16 and that He was sent by Jesus. John the Immerser tells us that Jesus would be the administrator of the Holy Spirit baptism in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, etc.
Both gifts had the same purpose - The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles caused them to be infallible witnesses (Acts 1:8). The coming of the Comforter was for this same purpose (John 15:26-27). The gift of apostleship was for this same purpose (Acts 10:39-43).
Both gifts were given to the same persons - First, the promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was made to Jews only (Matthew 3:9 and 11). Second, it is manifest that this promise was limited to obedient Jews (John 14:16-17). Third, it is clear that it was limited to the apostles: John 14:16, Acts 1:4-5, and 19:1-7.
It can be seen that the gift of apostleship and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are equated to one another. The twelve disciples, including Paul, received it, but Cornelius, who was not an apostle, did not receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is The Water in John 3:5 Referring To The Embryonic Fluid Inside The Mother's Womb?
No. Some denominations take the position that the "water" of John 3:5 is referring to the physical birth of a child (the "water" birth representing the embryonic fluid inside a mother's womb). They go on to teach that a person who receives Christ as Savior is "born again" (the "Spirit" birth of John 3:5 being defined as a birth from the Holy Spirit). This is not true for several reasons.
No. Some denominations take the position that the "water" of John 3:5 is referring to the physical birth of a child (the "water" birth representing the embryonic fluid inside a mother's womb). They go on to teach that a person who receives Christ as Savior is "born again" (the "Spirit" birth of John 3:5 being defined as a birth from the Holy Spirit). This is not true for several reasons.
- The context and original language indicate that Jesus is speaking of the same birth (not two different births) because (1) the words are joined by the conjunction "and," (2) both words share the same preposition, "of", and (3) both words share the same verb "born".
- This is absurd because we are already physically born. It would be redundant to state that one must be physically born when he/she is already physically born.
- Water immersion is a requirement for conversion in the New Testament. John the Immerser came on the scene immersing people "in water" (John 1:26) and in places where there was "much water" (3:23) "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). This fits the remote context in which Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus telling him that he must be ready for the preparatory phase of God's kingdom. Jesus also immersed (although His disciples actually administered the immersions - John 3:22; 4:1-2). After the cross, water immersion is a requirement for conversion too. Peter notes the connection with immersion and water in 1 Peter 3:21. Paul refers to water immersion as a "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5).
- Simply put, "being born of water and spirit" means water immersion for the remission of sins.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is It Necessary To Have Living Apostles And Prophets Today?
Several denominations (such as the Mormons) claim in order to have a true church there must be living apostles and prophets today. They try to justify their position by twisting Ephesians 2:19-22. Their flawed argumentation is as follows: the foundation of the Lord's church is the apostles and prophets and if they are removed, then we remove and destroy the foundation upon which the Lord's church was built. It is true that the Lord's church is built upon the work and teachings of the Lord's original apostles and prophets, but to be built upon new and living apostles and prophets is simply not true! This passage is referencing the original apostles and prophets that the Lord had chosen in the 1st century A.D.
No.
Several denominations (such as the Mormons) claim in order to have a true church there must be living apostles and prophets today. They try to justify their position by twisting Ephesians 2:19-22. Their flawed argumentation is as follows: the foundation of the Lord's church is the apostles and prophets and if they are removed, then we remove and destroy the foundation upon which the Lord's church was built. It is true that the Lord's church is built upon the work and teachings of the Lord's original apostles and prophets, but to be built upon new and living apostles and prophets is simply not true! This passage is referencing the original apostles and prophets that the Lord had chosen in the 1st century A.D.
The Lord's church was built on the original apostles who revealed as the inspired word of God as they were guided into all truth (John 16:13). They wrote down the commandments of the Lord that would last forever (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Peter 1:22-24).
The Lord left no instructions to the church to choose new apostles. Someone may argue that a new apostle was chose in Acts 1:24-26 to replace Judas Iscariot who had died. Judas Iscariot ceased being an apostle and had to be replaced, not because he died, but because he transgressed against the Lord. When the apostle James died in Acts 12, the church did not make a replacement.
The church in the first century used the miraculous gift of the discerning of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:4-11; Revelation 2:2) to test and determine who were false apostles. There will always be those who continue to deceive people into thinking that they are apostles, but are in fact, not apostles. We have all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) and have the revealed system of faith that was given to us by the early apostles and prophets that continues to be authoritative and all-sufficient for us to follow today (Jude 1:3).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
When Was The Hour of Crucifixion?
Problem: Some assert there is a discrepancy between the Gospel writers on the hour in which Jesus was crucified. Mark states in Mark 15:25 that it was the third hour while in John 19:14,15, it was the sixth hour.
Problem: Some assert there is a discrepancy between the Gospel writers on the hour in which Jesus was crucified. Mark states in Mark 15:25 that it was the third hour while in John 19:14,15, it was the sixth hour.
Solution: One proposal to this supposed discrepancy is to note that ancients had a different concept of time than we do today. The general attitude toward time was divided into four periods: (1) 6 A.M. - 9 A.M., (2) 9 A.M. - 12 P.M., (3) 12 P.M. - 3 P.M., and (4) 3 P.M. - 6 P.M.
It is interesting to look at all these Scriptures that mention the concept of time in the New Testament: Matthew 20:3,5,9; 27:43,46; Mark 15:25,33,34; Luke 23:44; John 1:39; 4:6, 52; 14:14; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3,9,30; 23:23.
Only Matthew 20:9, John 1:39, and John 4:52 have other times besides the 3,6 and 9. It seems to be the case that the ancients rounded off to these hours.
So, there is no discrepancy when we look closely at the hour of the crucifixion where Mark rounds off to the end of the third hour, which would have been at the end of the 9-12 P.M. John rounds off to the beginning of the sixth hour, which would have been around the 12 P.M. - 3 P.M.
Mark John
9 A.M. – 12 P.M., 12 P.M. - 3 P.M.
End of the third hour | Beginning of the sixth hour
Hour of Crucifixion
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Can A Person Be Taught Wrong, Yet Immersed Scripturally?
John the Immerser taught the people that they must repent of their sins - one of the conditions of receiving the remission of sins (Matthew 3:1,2; Luke 3:7-14). In Matthew 3:7-9, John the Immerser refused to immerse some people. Why?
No.
John the Immerser taught the people that they must repent of their sins - one of the conditions of receiving the remission of sins (Matthew 3:1,2; Luke 3:7-14). In Matthew 3:7-9, John the Immerser refused to immerse some people. Why?
The text implies that certain Jews must show fruits of repentance as an essential prerequisite before they are legitimate candidates to undergo the baptism of John (Mark 1:4). One of the essential conditions of the present plan of salvation, repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30), must be shown prior to being immersed for the remission of his sins. The same holds true of the Christian dispensation. If a person refuses to transform his/her life of sin, then that person will not have a scriptural immersion.
[NOTE: For example, there are those who teach a false doctrine in marriage, divorce, and remarriage, that is exemplified when a person who is involved in an adulterous marriage (Matthew 19:9; Colossians 3:5) can be immersed and the sin of adultery is supposedly washed away. If this person does not intend to dissolve this adulterous union, then he/she cannot be scripturally immersed.]
In Acts 19:1-7, Paul came to Ephesus and met twelve men who had received the baptism of John after it had terminated (John’s baptism was valid until the law of Christ was in effect beginning in Acts 2; read also Hebrews 9:15-17). John's baptism also looked forward to the One (Jesus the Messiah) who would come after him (Acts 19:4]. It was forward looking in its approach; but after the gospel of Jesus had come into effect on the Day of Pentecost, then the looking forward focus of John's baptism became null and void since Jesus and His terms/conditions for salvation had already come. John's baptism was no longer acceptable. The “about twelve men” in Ephesus give us a clear case that if one is taught incorrectly and baptized, their baptism is not acceptable and they must be re-baptized!
In order for one to be baptized biblically, according to the terms/conditions of Christ, he/she must know why he/she is being baptized - and it must be according to the teaching of Christ (Acts 2:38; Colossians 2:12). Clearly, if a person believes that he is saved before being baptized, his faith is not according to the teaching of Christ. If a person has not repented but has been baptized, his baptism is not according to the teaching of Christ. We must understand, repentance is a matter of faith, confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is a matter of faith; and being baptized in order to have our sins forgiven is a matter of faith (Acts 2:38; 22:16). Therefore, a person who has the faith that he is already saved BEFORE he is baptized is a person who does not have the faith that is according to the teaching of Christ (faith in the working of God of cutting away the sins at the burial, Colossians 2:11-12). He who is taught and believes in the doctrine of man (faith only) cannot be baptized right according to the doctrine of God. Those who would fellowship of those baptized in a denomination under a false plan of salvation and welcome them into the body of Christ, are causing such a one to continue in his sins, and doing great harm to the body of Christ (2 John 1:9-11). They are not “into” the true body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
What Does Baptism For The Dead Mean?
In the great resurrection chapter (1 Corinthians 15), Paul states on the subject something that is very perplexing and confusing to a lot of people who study the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" The Latter-Day Saints will take this verse out of its context and apply it to a present-day religious practice (proxy baptism - a living person is baptized on behalf of a person who has already died so that they can receive salvation) that God never intended.
In the great resurrection chapter (1 Corinthians 15), Paul states on the subject something that is very perplexing and confusing to a lot of people who study the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" The Latter-Day Saints will take this verse out of its context and apply it to a present-day religious practice (proxy baptism - a living person is baptized on behalf of a person who has already died so that they can receive salvation) that God never intended.
What does this passage mean?
Remember that context is king. Paul had been discussing the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and how it is connected to the general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked at the consummation of the age, which some at Corinth were denying. Paul begins by showing evidence that there were many eyewitnesses that saw the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-11). He then follows up with the dangerous implications of "what if the resurrection of Jesus Christ had not occurred?" (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). Next, Paul discusses the logical implications of the fact that Jesus has been raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). In this section where our perplexing verse is (1 Corinthians 15:29-34), Paul is showing that both the doctrine and conduct of the apostles (as well as other witnesses) of the resurrection is given as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever this verse means, it has something to do with the subject of resurrection.
View # 1:
"Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?"
1. Notice Paul says "they" (that is, those who denied the resurrection of the dead and practiced "baptism for the dead") instead of "we" (implying that this was not a belief or practice that Paul or any faithful Christian embraced).
2. The word "for" is from the Greek word, huper, which means "in reference to, on behalf of, in the place of" (Thayer's Greek Dictionary). The word "dead" is in the plural, which means "dead ones." Those who were denying the resurrection of the dead were being baptized on behalf of the ones who had already died (violating the principles of Philippians 2:12; Luke 16:26; etc.). Not only was this practice unscriptural, but it was a contradiction to their view that there is no resurrection of the dead.
View # 2:
1. The word "they" here probably refers to those who denied the resurrection of the dead.
2. The word "for" is from the Greek word, huper, which means "in reference to."
3. The word "dead" is in the plural, which means "dead ones."
4. When they were baptized into Christ, they came from a spiritually dead state (Ephesians 2:1, 2) to a spiritual living state (Romans 6:1-10). They were raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). There being baptized implicitly also relates to a future physical, bodily resurrection of the dead.
"Otherwise, what will they (those that deny the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead) do who are baptized for (in reference to) the dead (ones), if the dead (ones) do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for (in reference to) the dead (ones)?"
To state it another way: "Or why did the ones denying the resurrection get themselves baptized since baptism relates to the resurrection from the dead? If there is no resurrection from the dead, why would they submit to an act that relates to the resurrection?"
Long ago, Jesse Sewell and David Lipscomb wrote in their Questions and Answers book on page 165: "All who are buried with Christ in baptism declare by that act that they believe that he was buried and rose again; and in believing that he rose, we at the same time believe and by our action declare our faith in a resurrection of all the dead (emp. added). In our immersion, therefore, we declare by that action that we believe in the resurrection of all the dead, of Christ first and through Him all others. If Christ did not rise from the dead, burial with Him in baptism would be meaningless; and if He rose not, then no others will rise, and the religion of Jesus is a failure at last."
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is Using Multiple Containers For The Fruit of the Vine Sinful?
There are some students of the Bible who believe that there ought to be just one cup (or container) used for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper. They will misuse the term "cup" from 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 in an attempt to justify their scruple.
No.
There are some students of the Bible who believe that there ought to be just one cup (or container) used for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper. They will misuse the term "cup" from 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 in an attempt to justify their scruple.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the text. It is clear that Jesus and Paul are referring to the contents, not the container. It is a figure of speech called a metonymy.
Metonymy is "a word or phrase that is used to stand in for another word." ( http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-metonymy.html#vp27g6AMCfh3Gr0z.99 ).
There are several examples of metonymy which we currently use in America: (1) pen - the written word [example, "The pen is mightier than the sword.", (2) the sword - military aggression [previous example], (3) the White House - in place of the President or others who work there [example, "The White House announced today that it will be canceling a dinner that was to be hosted by an environmental group."], and (3) dish - for an entire plate of food [example, "That dish was wonderful."].
We know this to be a metonymy because of how Luke and Matthew describe the Lord's Supper. It was to be "divided" (Luke 22:17), "poured out" (Luke 22:20), and "drunk" (Matthew 26:27). It is obvious that this is referring to the contents (the liquid), not the container!
Notice that Jesus mentions the contents of the cup are to be "divided", authorizing multiple containers for the Lord's Supper.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is 1 Corinthians 7:15 Another Scriptural Reason For Divorce?
“If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”
“If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”
Some people assume that the word “bondage” means the “marriage bond” (Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:39) in this passage and therefore if your spouse deserts you, you are free to marry again. Some people believe that there are two reasons for divorce – (1) fornication (Matthew 19:9) and (2) desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15).
Is 1 Corinthians 7:15 another scriptural reason for divorce? The Bible teaches that this is not true for several reasons:
1. The first reason is that it contradicts Matthew 19:9. Jesus gave only one exception – fornication. On another occasion, Jesus used the word “except” in regards to how a sinner enters into the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5, referring to water immersion). The only way to get into the kingdom is to submit yourself in humble obedience by being immersed for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Would anyone doubt this exception?
2. The second reason is that Paul used the Greek word douloo instead.of the Greek word deoin 1 Corinthian 7:15 (deo refers to the marriage bond, Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39, 40).
3. The third reason is in regards to the verb tense of douloo in 1 Corinthians 7:15. If it is an intensive perfect tense, it would be translated “a brother or sister is definitely not under bondage in such cases.” If it is in the perfect tense, it would be translated “a brother or sister is not now and never has been under bondage in such cases” It is absurd to think it refers to marriage bond because that would be stating the following: “a brother or sister is not now and never has been (married) in such cases.”
What does the verse mean? The brother or sister never has been and is not now enslaved to his or her spouse to the point that he/she would have to choose between marriage to the spouse or marriage to Christ as a saved member of His church (Matthew 6:33; 10:34-39). Notice, the Christian does not initiate the divorce from the unbeliever. It is the unbeliever who is putting forth the ultimatum. And since the Christian understands the divine aspect of the marriage (Matthew 19:6), the Christian needed to know if he/she would be in sin or had sinned if the unbeliever divorced he/she because he/she refused to give up Christ. If the unbeliever did divorce the Christian, the law of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 would still apply.
Is the Christian spouse free to remarry? No. They are still bound to the laws of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:10,11). There ought to be earnest prayer and effort made that the original non-Christian spouse will return to the Christian spouse and not contract a new marriage, thus taking the option of reconciliation off the table.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Must An Elder Have A Plurality of Children?
One of the qualifications that a Christian man must hold to in order to be appointed to the eldership is that he must "blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (Titus 1:6) and "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, ho w will he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4,5).
One of the qualifications that a Christian man must hold to in order to be appointed to the eldership is that he must "blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (Titus 1:6) and "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, ho w will he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4,5).
We commonly use the plural to include the singular. The Bible uses the terms "child" and "children" interchangeably (Matthew 18:2-5; Genesis 21:7), as do we in our own vernacular.
For example, parents who sign their children (whether they have one child or several children) up for school are told: "Be sure to register your children on next Tuesday for classes." What about the parents who have only one child? Does that include them? Of course, it does.
Another example is if my wif e and I had only one child, and you ask us, "Do you have any children?", will we say, "No, we don't have any children...but we do have a child?" Obviously not.
This qualification does not prohibit a Christian man who has only one child.
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.
Is The Book of Mormon Mentioned In Ezekiel 37?
Many Latter-Day Saints (hereafter LDS) honestly believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon testify to the same gospel of Jesus Christ. A good question to ask LDS: "Is there any evidence that the Book of Mormon would come forth as a latter-day revelation from God that would testify to the gospel?" The LDS usually reply is Ezekiel 37:15-23 (please read).
Many Latter-Day Saints (hereafter LDS) honestly believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon testify to the same gospel of Jesus Christ. A good question to ask LDS: "Is there any evidence that the Book of Mormon would come forth as a latter-day revelation from God that would testify to the gospel?" The LDS usually reply is Ezekiel 37:15-23 (please read).
To help aid in your understanding and memorization, we provide the following acrostic: STICK
S- Saints' Interpretation of Ezekiel 37
T- The True Meaning of The Two Sticks in Ezekiel 37
I- Interpretation Fits The Context
C- Context Is Important
K - Knowing The Truth
S - Saints' Interpretation of Ezekiel 37
LeGrands Richards, former Apostle of the LDS church wrote:
"In ancient times it was the custom to write on parchment and roll it on a stick. Therefore, when this command was given, it was the equivalent of directing that two books or records should be kept. When their children would ask the meaning of this commandment, when the Lord would ‘take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.' Now, granting that the Bible is the stick of Judah, where is the stick of Joseph? Can anyone answer? God commanded that it should be kept and that it should be kept to record the fulfillment of his greater promises to Joseph. It would naturally be a record kept in another land, since Joseph was to be separate from his brethren. It is plan from the reading of this scripture that the record of Judah, or the Holy Bible would remain with the people, and that the record of Joseph would be joined unto it, and that the two would become one. Could this promise be fulfilled in a more simple and perfect manner than it was through the coming forth of the book of Mormon? God led a branch of the house of Joseph to America and commanded them to keep records of all their doings. He then commanded his prophet, Moroni, to hide this sacred record in the hill Cumorah in the western part of the state of New York, U.S.A. Centuries later he sent Moroni back to deliver the record to Joseph Smith and gave him power to translate it with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim. Now the two records have been joined together, constituting a complete fulfillment of another great prophecy... Until someone can explain where the record of Joseph is, the Book of Mormon stands unrefuted in its claim to be ‘the stick of Joseph (emp. mine). '" (A Marvelous Work and A Wonder Salt Lake City, 1973, pp. 67-68)
Latayne Colvett Scott states concerning Hugh Nibley's interpretation of Ezekiel 37: "‘stick of Judah' is the Bible, because it was written by Judah's descendants, the Jews; and that the ‘stick of Ephraim' is the Book of Mormon, written by the Nephites who were descended from Ephraim." (The Mormon Mirage, 1979, p. 58)
According to LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37, the stick of Joseph = the Book of Mormon and the stick of Judah = the Bible. Will this interpretation hold up in the context?
T- The True Meaning of The Two Sticks In Ezekiel 37
First, Ezekiel is to take the two sticks and write on them: "For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions ." Then take another stick and write on it, " For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions ." That is all! There was nothing else Ezekiel was to write on these sticks. The Book of Mormon and the Bible have a lot more text than this.
Second, Ezekiel is the scribe. He was the one to write on them. "The son of man" (occurs about 90 times in Ezekiel) refers to Ezekiel himself. Ezekiel did not write the Book of Mormon however!
Third, Ezekiel is to take two sticks and these two sticks represent two tribes (Ephraim and Judah), not two records. Notice what the text states again: "And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?'- say to them, "Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand."
Fourth, Ezekiel reveals what the divine interpretation is: "Then say to them, "Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Does the inspired commentary even hint to the Book of Mormon? No!
It is speaking about the tribe of Ephraim ( that is, the northern kingdom of Israel, since Ephraim was the prominent tribe in the northern kingdom), for some of them were going to return to Jerusalem from captivity. The tribe of Judah (that is, the southern kingdom of Israel, since Judah was the prominent tribe in the southern kingdom), would also return to their homeland to be joined together as one nation. They would no longer be divided into two nations again. Since Jesus was to become the "son of David," He would rule over the new Israel (that is, His own special people - the church, Romans 9:6; 11:26; Galatians 6:16; Hebrews 8:8-10).
I- Interpretation Fits The Context
The divine interpretation fits the context since Ezekiel is writing concerning his own people who had been sent into Babylonian exile and desired to return to their homeland.
C- Context Is Important
Context is very important in the study of God's Word. To take a verse out of its context, makes the verse a pretext. We should strive to allow the context to determine the true meaning of the text. When we take a closer look at the passage in its historical context, we find that the overall context of the book of Ezekiel fits the divine interpretation that has been given. Let us remember that it was sin that brought about Judah's exile into Babylonian captivity. Consider the context surrounding Ezekiel 37:
Chapters 1-24 are a survey of Ezekiel's ministry to those who are exiled in the foreign country. The people of Judah need to recognize the seriousness of their sin and to repent of it.
Chapters 25-32 are Ezekiel's prophecies against the Gentile nations (such as Tyre) who would not submit to the authority of God.
Chapters 33-48 are Ezekiel's prophecies showing forth the hope of the exiles in that they would be able to return to the land of Palestine after the seventy years of captivity and glimpses of the forthcoming Messianic age.
K -Knowing The Truth
It is so important to recognize that we must know the truth if we desire to be set free from sin (John 8:31, 32). We should not desire to be part of any false religion (Galatians 1:6-9). We should desire to "buy the truth and sell it not" (Proverbs 23:23). To those reading this article who want to know Jesus: Don't you want to learn the evidence about who Jesus claimed to be? Don't you want to learn about the church that Jesus built - the one church of the Bible (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:4)? We invite you to "Come and see" (John 1:46) the One who is "the way, the truth, and the life"; the only One through whom we can have salvation (John 14:6; 3:16; 8:24; Acts 17:30; Matthew 10:28,29; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).
www.thegospelofchrist.com
This material is copyrighted by The Gospel of Christ and its authors. This information is free to use in its entirety without further consent, however, modifications should not be made without contacting mail@thegospelofchrist.com for permission. Any and all images contained herein are believed to be free for all distribution and content.