Following the Sure Path in Religion

Posted by John on January 1, 1997 under Articles

In matters of everyday life, people usually like to walk the sure path in everyday affairs. Examples are: (1) A chemist will mix chemicals and he is reasonably sure that it will not explode in his face. It would be dangerous to take two chemicals and mix them if he is uncertain about how they will react. (2) People usually do not cross bridges if the sign in front says that there is a 10% chance of getting across; they pick the one that has a 95% certainty of getting across. (3) No one will jump out of an airplane with a parachute they are unsure of. (4) Most people try to give their boss something for Christmas that they know he likes instead of just making a guess at it.

Yet, it is a curious thing that in matters of religion most people don’t seem to care about believing and doing what they are certain of. They walk both sure and unsure paths toward God. And when questionable things are done or believed, religious division occurs.

PLEASING FATHER

Consider this analogy: Father’s Day is coming up. He has made it known that he really likes fancy Jellybeans. No question on this. But you like chocolate. You are not real sure if dad likes chocolate or not. He has never said anything one way or the other. It is a questionable item. What are you going to get dad? What will love for dad direct you to get?

Now, God is our Father. The only way we know what He likes is through what He has told us in the New Testament (1 Cor 2:11). What will we give him? Will it be those things and attitudes that are questionable or those that are certain to please him (as revealed in the New Testament)? What will love for God motivate us to do?

BAPTISM

What about baptism? There is no question that the New Testament practice and teaching point to immersion in water and the corroborative testimony of church history firms up this conclusion. This is a “sure thing.” Will that be our practice? Will we change this and offer other options according to our likes and dislikes? What will love and honor for God motivate us to do?

LORD’S SUPPER

Take, for example, the Lord’s Supper. It is a without question that Jesus wants us to remember Him by “breaking bread” (Mt 26:26-29). And Jesus told His Apostles to teach the disciples how to observe it (Matt 28:20). Hence, meeting on the first day of each week to take the Lord’s Supper has apostolic approval (Acts 20:7) and must have come from apostolic instruction (Matt 28:20, Acts 2:42). And since the death of Jesus and His resurrection are literally tied together (Rom 4:25), then logically the memorials that mirror those events are tied together. Hence, the practice seen in Acts 20:7 has a clear theological design and is centered on the core of the gospel. So, why change it into something that is questionable? What other day would fit the picture like the first day of the week (Lk 24:1-20, note that the first day of the week = the third day = resurrection day)? (It is interesting that the early church was not taught to meet on Thursday, the day when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. That would have been a logical choice.)

The Acts 20:7 practice is corroborated by early church history (see Ferguson, E., Early Christians Speak, pp. 81-105, Sweet Pub. Company, 1971). And there is a practical design to it: 52 times a year a person is reminded of what Christ has done for them and its vindication by the resurrection! What other practice can deliver this? God’s wisdom is surely apparent. Shall we modify it or honor it? To use the analogy above, why offer God, the Father, “chocolate” when it is revealed that He likes “Jellybeans”? Wouldn’t love, respect and trust for our Father motivate us to follow the sure path in this matter?

An attempt to counter the force of Acts 20:7 is to ask, “Why not also take the Lord’s Supper in an ‘upper room’ with ‘many lights’?” First, place is not important in Christianity (John 4:21). Second, the Lord’s Supper and Resurrection day are memorials to key events of the gospel. What is the gospel significance of rooms, lights and windows? Third, Christianity moves in the progress and culture of the first century. They had to meet somewhere. They had to get around somehow . . . by horse, walking, or chariot (Acts 8:28). There is such a clear, common-sense contrast between Christian practice as seen here and the ordinary ways of the first century that it seems to be a mere “quibble” to ask the question above.

MUSIC

Look at the instrumental music issue. In the Old Testament, God asks for instrumental music to be used in worship to Him (2 Chron 29:25-26, Ps 150). There clearly was no question about it. It was a “sure thing.” Note this contrast: God has not said one word to that effect in the New Testament writings as per worship! As such, using instrumental music in New Testament worship is questionable as per pleasing God.

Everyone admits that acapella music is acceptable to God. This is because singing is an apostolic directive (Eph 5:19, etc.). And if the use of an instrument is in Eph 5:19, then it took the church about 500 years and a Pope to discover it! The Greek Orthodox Church still hasn’t found it; hence, they just sing to the Lord. This is even more interesting since the Greeks read Eph 5:19 in the original Greek language like we read a newspaper! So why divide the church on a questionable item?

The contrast is clear. Why not give our Father what he has asked for and leave off what he has not asked for? What else could love for God and trust in His wisdom motivate us to do?

The case against instrumental music above is not based on silence but on a contrast in what is being asked for by our Father. To see how we understand the principle of contrast in instructions, consider this: At basketball camp, a coach left written instructions for his team to go down and do lay-ups with “dunks.” That was their practice. This year, he wrote instructions for them go down and do lays-ups. Same context, but contrast the instruction. This year, “dunks” were left out. He did not ask for them. Was this by oversight or design? Did the coach have a different purpose? What would be the wise thing for the team to do to please the coach? What practice could they be sure of? Would it be presumptuous to practice as they did last year and argue, “But last year you said . . .”

When God gives contrasting instruction between the Old Testament and New Testament worship, shall we argue, “But in the Old Testament you said . . .”?

CONCLUSION

The Restoration Plea deals with following the “sure path” in religion. It is not a restoration of first-century ways of moving, dressing and eating but of a Christ-centered religion . . . one that is internal, not physical, as contrasted to the Old Testament system. The New Testament way is aimed to conform us into the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). The “sure path” is to trust what God has revealed in matters of worship, etc., (1 Cor 2:11) and leave off what is questionable as per God’s design of things.

So, what path will you follow? The way that is certain as far as being pleasing to God or the way that is uncertain?

Evidence for God from the Prophets

Posted by John on under Articles

FULFILLED PROPHECY

What if someone could speak of events before they happened in sufficient detail to make “coincidence” unlikely? Surely, this would directly support the existence of the supernatural. The arguments for God from prophecy are more direct than those from the sciences.

Bible students know that the kingdom of Israel became divided. Samaria (city) became the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, while Jerusalem was the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah.

MICAH FORETELLS THE DOOM OF JERUSALEM

Micah claims to be a prophet of God (1:1) and his word carried weight in the eyes of the leaders of Judah. The prophet Jeremiah was not put to death for his prophecy against Jerusalem because it corroborated with what Micah had said (Jer 26:8, 9, 18, 19)! Are there any more reasons to believe that Micah is a true prophet?

First, read the book of Micah and be convinced that his speeches have a ring of honesty and truth to them. Sometimes the “proof is in the hearing.”

Second, many things that he says are corroborated by other independent sources (cf. 2 Ki 15:32-20:21; 2 Chron 27:1- 32:33; Hosea, Amos, Isaiah). When testimony in a court of law matches details presented by other witnesses, we believe the statements given are true. So, why not believe Micah?

Third, Micah could have had material gain by not saying what he did (Mic 3:5, 11). And he went against “peer pressure” to speak out (2:6). So, here we have a man who claims to be a prophet, the authority of his words saved Jeremiah from death, he sounds honest, his testimony can be verified by independent sources, he does not “preach for a price” and has enough courage to stand up against the establishment of the day. What more could one ask for in order to believe in the credibility of a person?

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

What does Micah have to say about Jerusalem? Will it also fall to Assyria? At the time of his prophecy (remember this next line . . .) Assyria was the major force and reasonable choice to destroy Jerusalem! Already Assyria had come mighty close to taking it (see 2 Ki 18, 19 and 2 Chron 32, Isa 36, EBH pp. 374, 280). But the prophet says it will be Babylon and not Assyria that takes Jerusalem (Micah 4:10). This would seem far-fetched during Micah’s time because Babylon was a mere “spit-in-the-road” kingdom (EBH, pp. 282). Further, he says that Jerusalem will be plowed under and the Temple will be bashed down (Micah 3:12); this happened under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. (EBH, pp. 271). Hence, the prophet Micah looked about 100 years into the future to see Babylon as a major conquering force from the north (EBH, pp. 450). Again, common sense would have made him see a world dominated by the Assyrians and not by some mediocre state like Babylon. But he did not follow any kind of private interpretation. He was moved by the Spirit of God to speak the truth (Mic 3:8ff; 2 Pet 2:20, 21).

NAHUM FORETELLS THE DOOM OF ASSYRIA

Some want to date the book of Nahum to be very late to avoid any suggestion that real prophecy took place. This is done because some scholars have an anti-supernatural bias in which they approach any Old Testament book. They have already decided that miracles cannot happen and this includes speaking of events before they occurred. Yet, when Nahum spoke, Assyria still had a grip on Judah (1:13, 2:2) and was still the dominant force to contend with. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that Nahum prophesied during the reign of Assyria and, therefore, before the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.).

What is amazing about the prophecy of Nahum is not just the fact that he predicted the demise of Nineveh but the mechanism of its fall. They are:

(1) Water would play a major role in the destruction of the city (Nah 1:8, 2:6). Further, the siege of Nineveh occurred during the month of Ab, and according to a Babylonian tablet, this was the season of their heavy rainfall. So, rain poured heavy on the city. The early historian Diodorus Siculus (circa 30 B.C.) wrote of the destruction of Nineveh and testifies that water played a major role in its downfall (EDV, pp. 310-311). So, here we have independent, corroborating testimony from someone who is in a better position to know than any historian is today. (2) Drunkenness also played a role (Nah 1:10) and so did fire (Nah 2:13, 3:13). Diodorus Siculus cites drunkenness as a major factor in the fall of Nineveh and testifies to the burning of the palace by the Assyrian king himself. A.H. Layard, the foremost expert on Nineveh and who actually discovered Nineveh and proved its existence to a doubting world (ZPBD, pp. 589), said that in every major dig traces of fire are evident (PM, pp. 62). Therefore, the prophecy of Nahum is substantiated. Even by guessing, how could a person predict that flooding, drunkenness and fire would be factors in the fall of a city that God himself called “great” (Jonah 1:2)? Just to predict its downfall seems amazing enough in the context of the time. (It would be like Britain accurately predicting the downfall of Nazi Germany after the Blitz of London!)

(3) Nineveh’s destruction would be final (1:9, 14). Many cities in the ancient world were destroyed and then later rebuilt (e.g., Jerusalem). Nineveh never was rebuilt!

Such details cannot reasonably be assigned to mere coincidence. The best conclusion would be that Nahum spoke things beyond human understanding. This verifies the existence of God in a more direct way . . . a particularity of the God described in the Old Testament.

CONCLUSION

While the study of nature testifies to the existence of a God it is limited in describing or identifying “which God.” Old Testament prophecy gives us more direct evidence that the God of Abraham is the true God. However, there is a drawback. Old Testament history and the intermingling of the prophets and archeology is hard to study. But the jewels are there for the looking!

References:
EDV, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (a. Josh McDowell), Campus Crusade Intl., 1972, 1989.

ZPBD, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary (ed. Merrill C. Tenney), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

EBH, Eerdman’s Bible Handbook (ed. D. Alexander), Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1973.

PM, The Prophet Motive (a. Kenny Barfield), Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1995.