A Timely Prayer

Posted by David on January 5, 2003 under Bulletin Articles

The following prayer considerations are timely every month and day of the year, not just in early January. Hopefully these thoughts express the yearning of every heart sincerely committed to God through Jesus Christ.

“God, work within me so that I erect nothing as a barrier to a growing understanding of Your purposes.”

“God, help my knowledge be a stepping stone to wisdom, not the inner arrogance of prideful attitudes.”

“God, teach me to praise You. May all things lead me to glorify You, not them, not me.”

“God, help my faith and my love grow through understanding. May I never view ignorance as a virtue. May I never fear understanding.”

“God, help me extend hope to those Jesus died to save. May Jesus teach me to reflect You. Help me avoid the temptation of judging those who seek Your rescue.”

“God, help me nurture and encourage every person who belongs to You.”

“God, You teach me how to love and focus that love.”

“God, teach me how to be compassionate. Help me realize You cannot touch hearts and lives through me unless I am compassionate.”

“God, teach me to be merciful. Help me understand that I cannot decide and do not determine who should and should not receive Your mercy. May Your mercy teach me how to extend my mercy.”

“God, teach me how to forgive. My greatest joys in life flow from Your forgiveness. May the joys of Your forgiveness guide my forgiveness.”

“God, Your rule blesses our world. Your rule in people’s hearts through the Lordship of Jesus Christ would be this world’s greatest blessing. Whatever the cost, help me surrender to Your rule.”

“God, may Your kingdom be shaped by Your purposes and not my or our preferences.”

“God, help me understand that my knowledge, understanding, or imagination cannot limit You. May the temptation to confine You to human thought never victimize me.”

“God, may I always be clay in Your hands! May You never stop molding me! Come, Lord Jesus!”

What is God’s Agenda?

Posted by John on January 1, 2003 under Articles

The New Testament writings provide some very clear information on God’s agenda for preaching/teaching/writing to the general public. It is the presentation of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God! This was Luke’s stated purpose (Luke 1:1-4). John’s work centered on this theme (John 20:30-31). And Matthew structured his work around the fact that Jesus fulfilled the ideas/prophecies of the Old Testament. Mark tells what Jesus did that sets Him apart from being just another man. Acts clearly shows that proving that Jesus is Lord and Christ was the major thrust of the apostolic message to the public. To convince is the first step in “disciple making” (Matthew 28:18ff; Acts 2).

It is interesting to note what was not proclaimed to the public. While “doing good to all men” is what Jesus’ disciples would joyfully do (Acts 10:38; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:10), such do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God any more than the “good works” of Mormonism prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Hence, the message was not “join us because we are a sharing-caring group like no other” (example: Acts 2:44-45). Neither was it “come worship with us in a way that’s simpler and better than the Temple … and be sure to note that the instruments have been replaced by voices” (example: Acts 2:42; Ephesians 5:19) or is it “let’s show you how baptism is really done.” The need for the unbelieving public was to convince them that Jesus is the Son of God. And the Spirit drove the early church into this proclamation (Acts 2:14ff). That was God’s agenda then and it has not changed: the public (and especially the campus) stills needs convincing!

How have Churches of Christ fared in effecting such an agenda? First, the Jule Miller Filmstrips was/is often the major “evangelistic” tool to reach the lost. But what does it try to convince people of? The main thrust is to “convince” people that the Church of Christ is the “door to heaven” … that there is salvation in no other Church!! Little time is given to prove that Jesus died for sinners and how that is vindicated by His resurrection. Instead, it can become a “selling-of-the-church” instead of selling the Christ!

Second, as evidenced by our local newspaper, one preacher sees his public work is to “write wrongs” of other churches. There is never an appeal to the public to consider who Jesus is and what He did for mankind. Oddly, those like him call themselves “gospel preachers” even when the facts of the gospel are not even given serious coverage (1 Corinthians 15:3ff).

Third, it would be great if those in the pew never had any questions or needed any strengthening of their faith (Hebrews 6:1), but such is not realistic in today’s unbelieving world. Disciples, new and old, often need to be assured that Christianity is true. Yet, little is done from pulpits or classes to meet these needs. As a result, disciples have a flimsy explanation for why Christianity is truth and something else is not. This is probably so because many have been “converted-to-the-church” instead of to Jesus as the Lord. And this could explain why many leave the faith at a later date.

Application: Dale Thompson (here in Fort Smith) recently gave a series of lessons on “Ten Reasons for the Existence of God.” The public was given something to consider and probably First Baptist Church would be where they would gravitate to for more information. No matter how one sees his theology, he met the public at the right door. One part of God’s agenda was served. And the faith of many in the pew was also firmed-up.

Those of us who are committed to “restoring” the basic shape of Christianity, like it originally was under the oversight of the apostles and Holy Spirit, would do well to start restoring the practice of meeting the public, campus and disciples right where they have questions … that is, is Christianity truth or hokum?

Issues Resolved by Looking at Contrasts of Old and New Covenants

Posted by John on under Articles

The NEW Covenant has a different look and character than the OLD Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The OLD had a physical Temple, garbed priesthood, incense, holy days, seasons, the Sabbath, circumcision, infant membership, and an army to literally fight for the Lord. All of these pointed to a time when they would be REPLACED with the true or spiritual. The shadows would give way to the substance (Hebrews 9:10, Colossians 2:16, 17). If something is REPLACED by a BETTER way or design, then what has been replaced is no longer needed and is discarded.

One major problem of the church in the transition from the OLD to the NEW way was that many were not discarding but continuing in the OLD (e.g., Colossians 2:16, 17; Galatians 5:2,3). And by not letting the symbolical give way to its TRUE counterpart, Christianity would have the character of both. This was something that was clearly not acceptable to the Apostles and other early Christian writers (e.g., The Letter to the Hebrews).

Yet, it is understandable why a transition from Judaism to Christianity would be a major problem. Since the first converts were Jews (Acts 2), it would be difficult to grasp that what once pleased God did not honor Him any more. And this is because Jesus came to FULFILL and not PERPETUATE the OLD way (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 24:25ff; Hebrews 7:1-28). A change in the manner of WORSHIP would also follow (John 4:22ff).

What basic change would occur? First, the OLD was geared toward the senses of man with its physical sounds, smells and activities. Second, by contrast, the NEW would be inward and simple (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, during the transition phase, physical circumcision was being taught in places (Acts 15:1), but it actually had been replaced by a circumcision not made with hands (Colossians 2:11-13). And even Temple–the habitation for God and where sacrifices are made–gave way to the true temple, the body of the Christian which also is a house for God and a place where sacrifices are offered (1 Corinthians 6:19,20; Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:4,5). Both circumcision and the Temple were no longer needed because they had been REPLACED by the better and spiritual.

Unfortunately, church history shows how Christianity lost its newness and became more and more OLD in character. A priesthood developed that put a man between the worshiper and God, special days and seasons were instituted, infant membership became a practice, and garments and robes, etc., were worn by those officiating the service. And today, many churches still have lingering “shades” of the OLD. For example, while the church must have a place to meet (Hebrews 10:25), over the centuries the meetinghouse evolved into a temple-like structure. It became a sacred place. In its “Sanctuary,” God could be met in a special way. Certain parts of the building became “off-limits” because one could “desecrate the building” there. Such a place was termed “the house of God” and was treated with great respect. Instead of the word “Temple” the word “Church” was used to describe these holy edifices. People want to be married “in a Church” and also buried in the “Churchyard.” Clearly, idea of a Temple has been resurrected rather than discarded. Buildings do not need to be discarded (Hebrews 10:25; Acts 20:7), but TEMPLE-attitudes about them do.

Churches of Christ have not been immune to the same folly. While attempting to restore or get back to the original shape of Christianity, what can or cannot be done in the building still seems to be an issue. While denying that there is any such thing as a “sanctified building,” attitudes toward what may be done “in there” proves otherwise. Can the building be used as a “polling place”? Can a school use the auditorium for a band concert? Can the meetinghouse have classrooms and a “gym” attached to it? Do we call the assembly room an “auditorium” but treat it as a “Sanctuary”? Is there a pattern for building a meetinghouse as to what goes in and what stays out like for the Temple? Is it OK to put in a kitchen? What about a restroom? The point of all this is to show that the Temple has been replaced by what it pointed to–Christians. Our focus should be on what is done in THIS HUMAN TEMPLE and not in a physical building. (2 Corinthians 7:1.)

This should be a part of our RESTORATION efforts!

Some Really Hard Questions

Posted by John on under Articles

The atheist asks us:

1. Why does God allow innocent children to suffer from birth defects, illnesses, etc.?
2. Why doesn’t God at least prevent damaging tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., from killing babies?
3. Why did He allow Hitler to rise up and why did He not stop the horrors of the Holocaust immediately!?
4. Why doesn’t He heal those who have devoted their lives to Him when they ask for help?
5. Why does one have to have some serious malady like cancer to “feel that God is close”?
6. Why are we here? Why did He create fallible beings anyway?
7. If He wants us to believe in Him, why doesn’t He make Himself a little more obvious?
8. Why are “answers-to-prayer” closer to just the “turn-of-natural-events” than some intervention by a God?
9. Why should those who follow God experience death? Why doesn’t He just “take them” like He did with Enoch?
10. Why would God send anyone to a burning Hell if He “loves the world” as it says in John 3:16?

Christians have difficulty answering these questions. (And many of us are at a loss in trying.)

We ask the atheist to explain:

1. What ever happened to the body of Jesus? It’s been 2,000 years now and we need an answer!
2. Why didn’t the Romans stop that pesky Christianity in its tracks by bringing out the body of Jesus for all to see? It would have been an easy task. The Jews would have been eager to help them. [It is documented that this strategy was employed. Some Jews took “a body” and dragged it through the streets of Jerusalem and declared it was the body of Jesus (see the book Toldoth Jeschu … the Jewish account of Jesus).]
3. How could the disciples have stolen and hidden the body of Jesus without such being detected? (Dead bodies stink.)
   Further, how could they have “preached” the resurrection and given their lives for such if they knew the truth of the matter? What would they have gained?

Skeptics have difficulty answering these questions (and many are at a loss to try).

Our questions versus theirs:

The questions the atheist asks us are far more philosophical and complex than what we ask. Ours are grounded in an examination of real historical facts. The atheist’s questions are more like “what is the meaning of life?”, and ours are more like “what happened to the car keys?” A simple retracing of history will provide a probable solution to our questions but not theirs. What they ask us to explain can go on endlessly. What we ask them to explain has a stopping place … a body of evidence for an event.

Practical application:

Often in discussions with the unbelievers, the talk never gets to the resurrection but stays on one of those cosmic, hard to answer issues that they raise. Let’s confront the unbeliever with our questions rather than spending time on his/hers! Then we will get to the real crux of the matter. Then either belief or unbelief will be confessed and we can go on from there.

Conclusion:

Our confidence in Christ does not depend upon our ability to answer the tough questions on suffering, etc., but upon the evidence for the resurrection! That was the driving force behind first century preaching and teaching (in Acts). For them, the resurrection proved Christianity true (1 Corinthians 15:14,32). Let’s restore the resurrection to its original status in evidence and presentation of the gospel!

Does Your Temple Have a Mercy Seat?

Posted by John on under Articles

In a previous article (Issues Resolved by Looking at Contrasts of Old and New Covenants) it was pointed out that many things in the Old Covenant pointed to and were replaced by BETTER and the more-meaningful things of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9). This is because the NEW Covenant is indeed NEW! The article dealt with the idea that we no longer have a physical edifice (Temple) in which to worship God but its replacement … OUR VERY BODY as the House for God (1 Corinthians 6:19; Acts 2:38).

By again comparing the old and new Temples an interesting parallel shows up. The OLD Temple (which was but a permanent Tabernacle) contained a physical “mercy seat” in the heart of the structure (Exodus 26:24). How does this parallel with the NEW Temple of the Christian age?

Jesus clearly taught that the MAIN AIM is to be like God (Matthew 5:48). God is the Father of mercy (2 Corinthians 1:3). Hence, His people should be full of mercy as God is (James 3:17). They should love mercy and delight in giving it (Micah 6:8; 7:18; Romans 12:8). As mercy is a trait that defines God (2 Samuel 24:14; Daniel 9:9; Exodus 34:68; 2 Chronicles 30:9), it should also define Christians (Luke 6:36; Matthew 5:48; James 5:11). Hence, NEW TEMPLE should have a “mercy seat” in its very heart (Matthew 5:48; Luke 6:36; Hebrews 8:10; Ephesians 6:6).

Mercy is a “weighty” matter but it IS POSSIBLE to relegate it to a “minor” matter (Matthew 23:23). It is “weighty” because to be merciful one lines up with the character of God. Hence, mercy is more weighty than ritual (Matthew 9:13; 23:23).

Those who have received mercy should freely give mercy (Matthew 18:23-35) and they will reap happiness themselves (Matthew 5:7). Mercy causes compassionate acts (Romans 12:8; Matthew 9:36; 14:14, etc.). It makes one ready to pardon (Nehemiah 9:17) and slow to anger (Psalm 103:8). Kindness is mercy expressed (Psalm 117:2). Mercy will save one when their faith is weak (Matthew 14:25).

Applications:

1. Because of our history and current writings in the local newspaper, churches of Christ are known for judgement and truth rather than for the grace and truth that characterized Jesus (John 1:14, 17). But when mercy becomes a ” weighty” item in our life, it will be expressed and people will take notice and not be repelled.
2. Being a people of mercy does not mean we are flippant about truth nor that we stop attempting to do what we know is pleasing God. It is not an “open-door” to do what we want and like (1 Thessalonians 2:4). It is being patient and longsuffering with those who may not see something as clearly as we do (Romans 14). In spite of all our debating, it is doubtful that we ever vacated the building of others on the following Sunday.
3. What can “go on” inside the physical church building has always plagued us. If we were living in the OLD COVENANT, it should rightly concern us as it did Jesus (Mark 11:15 ff). Yet, the new and better Temple, with its heart of mercy, replaced the old physical Temple with its physical mercy seat. Concern over a physical building is OLD COVENANT thinking. Instead, we should be concerned if our spiritual “mercy seat” is present or not.

A Closer Look at “The Silence of Scripture”

Posted by John on under Articles

In approaching the New Testament as a historical document, it is important to treat it as any other type of writing. This means that statements are collected and examined in light of the context of the times. In doing this for religious materials, usually a coherent picture emerges that characterizes the teachings/practices of a movement.

If there is no mention of a teaching or practice, then this “raw silence” by itself proves nothing. For  example, the “silence” of the New Testament on the topic of Purgatory is used to both prove and condemn it. It “cuts both ways.” In another case, infant baptism has been both affirmed and denied based on the mere non-mention of the practice in the New Testament. Any historian/lawyer will testify that a case cannot be made on just mere silence without any positive testimony to accompany it.

Only “silence-in-context” is significant. That is, if all the statements point toward a specific conclusion, this will shed light on what is not stated. For example, when all the New Testament information is collected on baptism together with early Christian testimony (e.g., Didache, late 1^st century), it points toward the conclusion that immersion was normative. As such, the silence of the New Testament on other modes (e.g., sprinkling, pouring) is “explained.” Here what is SAID allows for an accurate understanding of the silence.

Churches have used “raw silence” to both allow and forbid things. For example, the Catholic doctrine of “Mary as Intercessor” is a case-in-point. To the Catholic, no one can prove that it is expressly forbidden (here: “silence allows”). Protestants counter by saying such a doctrine was not present because there is no record of it in the New Testament (here: “silence forbids”). In the Churches of Christ, the use of Sunday School, individual communion cups, baptistries, orphan homes, fellowship rooms, youth ministers, songbooks, instrumental music and a host of other things have been allowed/forbidden based on the argument from the mere non-mention of these in the New Testament. (See further reading #4.)

The Solution again is to collect/examine all the statements from the record an see if a coherent picture emerges then let this “explain” the silence. This is the correct way. This is “silence-in-context.” For example, the New Testament picture presents the Holy Spirit an intercessor for us in prayer (Romans 8:26). This explains why there is no mention of Mary in this role. Even though it is claimed that she does not keep the Holy Spirit from its work, Mary is an addition that modifies the design explicitly stated. God’s express design should be respected and not changed (Hebrews 8:5; Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6).

With regard to the communion cup, all the statements show that the focus is not on the vessel but the contents (1 Corinthians 11:25, etc.). This is specific and is further confirmed by the testimony of early church writers. So, whether one drinking container or many are used, the contents are still taken. The container does not modify the expressed design of communion in any way. Hence, there is no significance to the mention/silence of any container.

In Summary, failure to use “silence-in-context” has been the cause of much division. It is very important that STATEMENTS be gathered FIRST to see if a coherent picture or design emerges, then the non-mention of something can be accurately explained.

Further study:

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Posted by Steven on under Articles

The genealogy of Jesus Christ has been a topic for discussion for many years. Matthew gives one account of the lineage of Christ while Luke gives another. The two accounts are different. Does this mean that there is a contradiction within the Bible? If there is a contradiction, does that indicate that the Bible is not the inspired word of God? If the Bible is not inspired by God, then the Bible is truly myth.

The purpose of this article is to prove that the two accounts of Christ’s genealogy are not a contradiction at all, rather both accounts are totally accurate. This also leads to the Bible indeed being the inspired word of God, and therefore not myth.

Matthew’s Account: Let’s first begin by looking at Matthew’s account of the lineage of Christ. Matthew, who was also called Levi, was one of the original twelve apostles. Matthew was a publican, a Jew who collected taxes for the Roman government. Therefore, he was despised by the Jewish people.

Matthew’s gospel, however, was written for the Jewish people. Matthew tries to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was indeed the royal son of David. Seven times in the Matthew’s Gospel we see where the statement “son of David” is used (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9, 22:42). Only in Matthew does Christ speak of “The throne of his glory” (19:28, 25:31). And only in Matthew is Jerusalem referred to as “the holy city” (4:5). Therefore, Matthew spends a great deal of time trying to convince the Jewish people that Jesus Christ was indeed the “King of the Jews” (27:29, 27:37).

Matthew begins with Abraham, the “Father” of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father’s lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Luke’s Account: Luke was known as the “Beloved Physician.” He was a follower and companion of Paul. Luke’s gospel was written primarily for the Greeks or Gentiles. This is identified through Paul, who first took his message to the Jews, and when the Jews rejected him, went to the Greeks. Luke’s gospel emphasizes the perfect humanity of Christ. Tracing Christ’s lineage all the way back to Adam, Luke lets the Greeks know that Christ’s sacrifice is for all of mankind, not simply for the Jews.

Luke’s gospel, being written for the Greeks, would not be as interested in the royal lineage of Christ, rather his true earthly lineage. In Luke’s account of the genealogy of Christ, it is my opinion, that Luke traces Christ’s ancestry through his mother, Mary. I say this because Luke only mentions Joseph to identify who Christ was. “As was supposed the son of Joseph,” (3:23). The genealogy of Luke and the genealogy of Matthew agree exactly with the line between Abraham and David. From David to Mary in Luke, or from David to Joseph in Matthew, the lineage changes. Only three times do the two different accounts mention the same names, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, and possibly Matthat (Matthan in Matthew). This can be explained very easily. Mary and Joseph were first cousins.

Only in the twentieth century has this become a form of taboo. We even had a President who married a cousin. The ancient Egyptians were so tied to keeping the royal blood line pure that the Pharaoh King could only marry his sister or at the least first cousin to produce a pure blood line to the throne.

We are born with two genealogies, one from our father and the other from our mother. It stands to reason that if Luke traces through Mary, and Matthew through Joseph, then Christ will have two different genealogies. If my theory is correct, and the account of Matthew traces through Joseph, and Luke traces through Mary, the combined accounts may read like this:

The Genealogy of Christ
Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-17God who was the father of Adam, who was the father of Seth, who was the father of Enos, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Mahalalel, who was the father of Jared, who was the father of Enoch, who was the father of Methuselah, who was the father of Lamech, who was the father of Noah, who was the father of Shem, who was the father of Arpachshad, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eder, who was the father of Peleg, who was the father of Reu, who was the father of Serug, who was the father of Nahor, who was the father of Terah, who was the father of Abraham.

Abraham begot Isaac; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren; and Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begot Hezron; and Hezron begot Ram; and Ram begot Ammin’adab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon; and Nahshon begot Salmon; and Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth; and Obed begot Jesse; and Jesse begot David, the king; and David, the king, begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begot Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begot Abijah; and Abijah begot Asa; and Asa begot Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begot Joram; and Joram begot Uzziah; and Uzziah begot Jotham; and Jotham begot Ahaz; and Ahaz begot Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begot Manasseh; and Manasseh begot Amon; and Amon begot Josiah; and Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon and after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begot Abiud; and Abiud begot Eliakim; and Eliakim begot Azor; and Azor begot Sadoc; and Sadoc begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud; and Eliud begot Eleazar and Eleazar begot Matthan; and Matthan begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Jesus being the son of Joseph, [the husband of Mary, who was the daughter of] Heli, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Jannai, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Nahum, who was the son of Esli, who was the son of Naggai, who was the son of Maath, who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Semein, who was the son of Josech, who was the son of Joda, who was the son of Joanan, who was the son of Rhesa, who was the son of Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtie, who was the son of Neri, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of Elmadam, who was the son or Er, who was the son of Joshua, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Jorim, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Simeon, who was the son of Judas, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jonam, who was the son of Eliakim, who was the son of Melea, who was the son of Menna, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son of David, the king.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Conclusion: From the creation to the end of time, as we seek to learn more about the Bible, more about God and more about ourselves, we will eventually determine that the Bible is indeed the true inspired word of God. We will learn that the Bible does not have contradictions, and that the Bible is not myth. We will stand before God, knowing the power and purity of his presence. God’s word is what we build our faith upon, and his word will never fail.

For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love. (I Corinthians 13:12-13)