Adorning the Doctrine

Posted by Roy on January 1, 2010 under Articles

In Titus 2:10 Paul told Titus that servants are to adorn the doctrine of God.

To adorn means, “to arrange, to put in order,” (W. E. Vines, NIV, Titus 2:10) so that in every way the servant or teacher will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. Therefore, the servant or teacher must conduct himself in such a way that his message will be acceptable and attractive.

Paul told Timothy to “Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Timothy 4:16).

Personality traits of the successful teacher:

• His personal life must be pure (I Timothy 5:22).
• He must be emotional, compassionate in nature (Matthew 9:36).
• He must be optimistic in outlook. He knows that the word of God will not return unto God void (Isaiah 55:11).
• He must show his appreciation for the good qualities in his students. Remember Jesus’ words when he met Nathaniel: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47).
• He must be patient. Many students will be ungrateful and unkind. He must remember that “God is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish” (II Peter 3:9).
• He must be tactful. Not only must he know the Bible, but he must know human nature. He must follow the instruction given by Paul to the church of Colosse. “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Colossians 4:6).

If you follow these instructions, then it can be said of you, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things” (Romans 10:15).

Let us adorn the doctrine of God by the life we live.

Jesus: He’s so “NICE”?

Posted by Brad on June 7, 2007 under Articles

A legend in the field of Youth Ministry, Mike Yaconelli, once said something to the effect that our concepts of Jesus are “all messed up.” He talked about how often people referred to Jesus as “such a nice person.”

After examining the scriptures closely, exactly what do we find out about how the religious leaders felt about Jesus? Did they have wonderful things to say about him?

To be honest, many of his actions were just downright confusing to most of the religious people. They are still confusing to many religious people today. Do the following passages of scripture make sense to you? Matthew 11:16-19, Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 21:31-32, Matthew 23, Mark 2:13-17, Mark 11:15-19, John 4, John 8, John 9:34-41.

Wow! Jesus was referred to by the religious people as a “glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners!” He called the religious leaders “blind guides, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, etc.” He spent his time with tax collectors, prostitutes and known sinners and had the nerve to even ask some of them to be in his “inner circle of leadership.” And there’s so much more … read the stories!

Does this sound nice to you? Does it make much sense to you? Does it sound like the best way to make friends and influence people? If it doesn’t, then try to wrap your mind around THE CROSS.

Is that the method you would have chosen to redeem the people who had turned their backs on you? Would you choose your child to be the recipient of the punishment for the sins of the entire world?

Isn’t it wonderful that we serve a God who doesn’t make sense? Thank GOD that He lives in the heavens and does whatever He pleases! (Psalm 115:3) Thank GOD He doesn’t ask for our permission or opinions about the way things should be done today!

May we continue to get out of His way and let Him do what He wants to do … when He wants to do it … in whatever way He chooses to do it!

Thank God OUR FATHER KNOWS BEST!

I hope you take the time to personally look up the scriptures that are listed and read the stories in full context. Just turn and read about the Jesus found in Matthew 11:16-19, Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 21:31-32, Matthew 23, Mark 2:13-17, Mark 11:15-19, John 4, John 8 and John 9:34-41.

Do you find a “kind,” “sweet,” “soft-spoken,” “non-controversial,” and “easily understood” Jesus in these passages? Or did you have to go back and read them again to try and understand exactly what it was He was trying to say and do?

Have you ever questioned the way Jesus chose to approach things? Be honest! Some of His sayings are pretty hard to take. He was rather bold! At times He was plainly confrontational …even down right controversial. Surely, this wasn’t God’s plan!

Just look at what He said, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, I came to bring a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be right in your own household.” (Matthew 10:34-46)

And this wasn’t even the “toughest” or “most confusing” thing He ever said. In John 6:22-66, He completely dumbfounds His listeners with His words. At one point in the story, the scriptures say, “Even His disciples said, ‘This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?’” And after He finished speaking, the scriptures say, “At this point MANY of His disciples turned away and deserted him.” Does Jesus ever cause a problem for you and your theology???

Wouldn’t it be great if we could make Jesus “fit” into a nice, neat little box that makes perfect sense? Wouldn’t it be great if He would do and say all of the things that fit perfectly with our concepts of God, religion, church, the world, etc.?

Be He doesn’t! And that causes us BIG problems! Just like it did the religious people of His day and time! And you know how they decided to handle that problem …

You don’t have to search the Gospels long before you are “knee deep” in the controversy that surrounded Jesus. The controversy followed Him His entire life.

Remember His birth? The virgin birth? Remember the problems that caused for Joseph, Mary, and their relationship? Can you imagine what everyone else must have been saying?

There was His famous “disappearing act” at age 12 that greatly distressed His parents. His selection of 12 “very ordinary” men with no religious education or heritage to speak of. Men who would lay the foundation and be the cornerstones of the church. His choice to heal people on the “Holy Day” which appeared to break the very laws He claimed to establish. His defense of His followers who did numerous things that also seemed against the Law of Moses. His disruption in the temple. Of course, who could forget His numerous public disputes with the religious leaders of His day?

Can you think of anyone like this from your world today? Do you call them a NICE GUY or a TROUBLEMAKER?

Mike Yaconelli, founder of Youth Specialties and minister for more than 40 years, put it like this: “God help us if the whole world looks at the church and says ‘aren’t they nice?'”

Jesus was accused of being a drunkard. His own parents thought He was crazy. The religious leaders thought He was a blasphemer. If you want to follow Jesus, you’re going to be called a lot of things, and NICE isn’t one of them.”

He goes on to say, “This culture loves nice people. They tolerate nice people. But what they don’t tolerate are people who are desperate for Jesus! When you and I get in touch with that desperateness for Jesus, then you better look out, because you never know where it’s going to take you.”

Have you ever been truly desperate for Jesus? What exactly would that mean? What would it look like? How would you be characterized by others if you were truly desperate for Jesus? Take the time to read about one person who was desperate for Jesus and make a list of her characteristics. (Mark 5:24-34)

In Mark 5:24-34, we read about a woman who was truly DESPERATE for Jesus. The Bible tells us she had been suffering from a terrible bleeding disease for 12 years. It was a disgusting and embarrassing problem.

It goes on to say that she had been to many doctors and she had spent everything she had to fix her problem, but she had not gotten any better. In fact, her problem was getting worse. Welcome to the land of desperation!

So she did what any desperate person would do … she broke the rules. Remember, she was a woman. She was a “ceremonially unclean” woman, and she approached Jesus PUBLICLY. She didn’t ask for anyone’s permission. She didn’t follow the proper procedures. She didn’t wait in line. She pushed and shoved her way through the crowd of people (who were headed to the RICH guy’s house to watch a little girl get healed) with no thought for anyone else. She did whatever it took to TOUCH Jesus.

The nerve of some people! How dare she! She has been described by some as rude, irresponsible, reckless, disrespectful, inconsiderate, impulsive, and uncivilized.

Surely Jesus would rebuke her for this. Surely he would remind her how important it is to be kind and considerate of others. Surely he would withhold his healing from her until she learned how to “be patient, follow the rules, and treat others as she would want to be treated.” Right?

Instead, just like he did in Mark 2:1-7 for the people who “destroyed someone’s house” in their desperate attempt to get to Jesus, he does the unthinkable. He turns to the irresponsible, reckless, disrespectful woman and says, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace. You have been healed.” In Mark 2, he not only heals the “law-breaker” but he also “forgives his sins.”

Does this make sense to you? He scolds the religious law-keepers over and over again and then repeatedly heals and forgives the people who “go against the flow” and “break all the rules.”

What can this possibly mean?

Let’s be honest – to the average person, Jesus can be a little bit confusing! Especially when imperfect, sinful people are involved! Do you know how many different CONCEPTS of Jesus there are today?

So how do you make sense of it all? Who is Jesus? Really?

Is He the grace-filled, nice guy we read about in the Gospels who defends the prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners? Or is He the rebel who challenges the religious authorities and traditions of the past and present?

Have you taken the time get to know Him? I mean REALLY know Him?

I’m not asking if you know the Jesus “everyone else” has told you about. You know … the Jesus your friends, teachers, TV, radio, newspapers, media, movies, church members and preachers have told you about. Do you know the Jesus that God wants you to know?

Have you examined the scriptures with open eyes (II Kings 6:17) often enough to see and understand who Jesus really is? Have you spent time in sincere prayer talking to Him and developing an intimate relationship with Him? Have you spent just as much time listening for His reply? Do you walk in this relationship every day?

Do you know where Jesus would spend His time on this earth if He were here this Sunday morning at 9 a.m.? Where would He be Sundays at 6 p.m.? Wednesdays at 7 p.m.? Would He be sitting in a pew in a local church building?

How would He respond to the people that “the church” often avoids today? Would He treat the homosexual dying of AIDS, the meth addict and the porn-addicted, tattooed, body-pierced person the same way He treated the lepers, the adulterers, and the divorced people in His day? (Luke 17:11-19, John 8:1-11, John 4:1-42)

Would He respond to our religious modern-day Pharisees the same way He responded to the Pharisees of His day?

When you think about it, the “Just-So-Nice” Jesus had some very thought-provoking things to say to the religious teachers and leaders of His time. These have been recorded in God’s word for our benefit. As modern-day disciples, let’s pay close attention to what was said.

The religious people in Jesus’ day were eager to “get the word out” about their faith, just like religious people are today. They thought they were very clear about their understanding of the way GOD wanted things to be done and they even went on “mission trips” to share their faith with others.

In several places in the Gospels, we are given a snapshot of what Jesus thought about this. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus looked right at the religious leaders of His day and time, and said the following:
“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves already are.” (Matt. 23:15) Just before that, He told them, “for you won’t let others into the Kingdom of Heaven, and you won’t go in yourselves.”

Why would Jesus say something like this to a religious leader who was out “sharing his faith” with the lost? Does this make sense to you? Perhaps a deeper question is, would He make comments like that to religious leaders today? Would He say something like that to you and to me? If so, why? What was it about their mission and their message that would cause the Savior to respond like that? After all, they knew God’s law better than anyone else. Right? And that should have been a good thing … unless …

They began to rely on “their” knowledge and “their” concepts “of” God, rather than relying on God. Scholars believe Jesus responded this way because their attempts to convert others focused on making others “more like them” rather than on making them “more like Christ.” It seems they were more comfortable with everyone doing things “just the way they did” instead of doing things God’s way.

And Jesus always had something to say about that …

When you get right down to it, all of these discussions about Jesus and who He really was and who He really IS, leave me with one major question.

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone ask it, but I’ve been asking myself this question for quite some time now.

A year ago, I spent 52 weeks studying the Life of Christ with our teenagers. We walked through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, taking an in-depth look at Christ from the perspective of all four Gospel writers. I realized that I didn’t know Him very well, and I have been a Christian for more than 20 years.

I learned that my concepts of Jesus had come from a combination of many different sources. I found that most of those sources, though they may have seemed “reliable” and “accurate” because they were steeped in religion and years of tradition, weren’t that reliable and accurate at all.

I found that most of my concepts about Jesus had been shaped by the opinions of men. Men often paint a very inaccurate picture of Jesus … you know … blond hair, blue eyes, perfect skin, flowing robes …

I found that NOTHING can replace opening your eyes and ears and listening to the voice of God and what He reveals to you through His Word and through His Spirit (I Corinthians 2:1-16).

This is what I realized: that the RELIGIOUS people who surrounded Jesus HATED Him. They thought He was a fraud and a troublemaker from day one. They attacked Him from every possible angle, and they did not stop until He was totally and completely humiliated, stripped of all human pride and hanging on a cross. They did not stop until He was DEAD! As a matter of fact, even that didn’t stop them.

I also learned that SINNERS absolutely LOVED Him. They were captivated by Him. They couldn’t get enough of Him. They were DESPERATE for Him. They did whatever it took to get closer to Him. They left everything behind, went without food, walked for miles, climbed trees, tore through rooftops, fought through the crowds, left jobs and families behind and risked everything they had … just to be with Him.

This leaves me with one MAJOR question …

… And the question is this, “What has changed?” What “used to be” isn’t the case any more, and I wonder what has caused it.

It’s obvious that in Jesus’ day the religious people truly hated him. They clearly made it their goal and mission in life to destroy him.

It’s also obvious that sinful people loved him. They did everything they could to spend more time with him. So, again I ask, “What has changed?”

One look at today’s world will reveal the EXACT OPPOSITE of this. In today’s world, the religious people claim to LOVE Jesus with all their heart. They promote Jesus in every way possible. Their buildings, banners, and marquees lift the name of Jesus to every person who passes by. Yet, non-religious people in today’s world seemed to be appalled by Jesus. Most of them cringe at the sound of his name. Why?

Has Jesus changed? Did he all of a sudden become NICE to the religious people and MEAN to the sinful people? Isn’t he still the same Jesus who is the only person capable of setting people free from their sins and struggles?

When did he become such a turn off to “sinful people?” What “changed” to make this happen? Have you ever SINCERELY thought about this? Since the Bible tells us that our Lord is the “same yesterday, today, and forever” what could possibly cause such a change in attitudes?

Without much thought, one might say that it’s due to the sinful state of today’s world. Yet one look at the CHURCH in Corinth will reveal Christians who were involved in adultery, divorce, hatred, envy, jealousy, etc. That sounds a lot like the world we live in today, doesn’t it?

Since Jesus hasn’t changed, it might be good for God’s people to think about what HAS caused this change in the “outsider’s” attitude toward Jesus??? Do religious people have anything to do with this change? (May God bless you as you think about this …)

It’s obvious that our world’s thoughts about Jesus have changed. The religious people of His day hated Him, now religious people love Him. The sinful people of His day loved Him, now sinful people hate Him??? What changed?

Could it be that our understanding and presentation of “who Jesus is” has changed?

Is it possible that religious people have introduced a Jesus to people who appears to be out of touch and unable or unwilling to meet people where they are?

When Jesus walked on this earth, people knew how He would respond to them. The religious people knew and the sinful people knew.

The sick, sinful people of the world wanted what He had to offer. They saw the way He responded to the lepers, the tax collectors, the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well, the woman with the bleeding disease, the woman who wiped his feet with her tears, etc.

Sometimes they came to Him and sometimes HE WENT TO THEM. Either way, the result was always the same: He healed them … physically and spiritually and they were never the same!

Why don’t people in similar situations today run to Jesus the way they used to? Isn’t He the same Jesus? Isn’t He still willing to do what He has done in the past? (Hebrews 13:8)

Do religious people today present this same Jesus to the lost? Does our Jesus still meet people right where they are? Is He still willing to go to them, or do they have to come find Him at the church building and meet a long list of requirements before He can help them? (Titus 3:4-7)

What kind of Jesus do you present to those who need Him the most? (Mark 2:17)

Jesus always has been and always will be debated. In the past, in the present and in the future, people will try to “figure Him out.” They will always ask, “Who was He really?” Scholars will read His words, His stories, and His parables and they will have endless debates over “what He REALLY meant?” They will all think THEY are right.

Was He just a nice, gentle man who never ruffled anyone’s feathers and always sought to “pursue peace with all men” Or was He a renegade, a rebel and someone who was always shaking things up? After all, His actions and His teachings led Him to His own death on a cross at the hands of the religious leaders of His time.

So who is this man from Nazareth … this man who was “born of a virgin” … this man who never sinned, yet was referred to as a glutton, a drunkard and a sinner by all of the religious people?

No matter how long the debates continue and no matter how many different opinions there are about Him, some facts will NEVER change … and you can take it to the bank:

My Jesus is the King of Kings! He’s the Lord of Lords! He’s the Prince of Peace! He’s the Lamb of God! He’s the Great High Priest! He’s the Living Water! He’s the Bread of Life! He’s the Light of the World! He’s the Chief Cornerstone! He’s the Resurrection and the Life! He’s the Good Shepherd! He’s the Head of the Church! He’s the Author and Finisher of our faith! He’s the ROCK! He’s the Alpha and the Omega! He’s the Beginning and the End! He’s the Great I AM! He’s the Great Redeemer! He’s the Lion who is the Lamb!

HE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE!

AMEN!
(Revelation 3:14, 20-22)

Learning to Listen to God

Posted by Brad on February 5, 2004 under Articles

This past weekend, we spent three days with our teens and families teaching them how to listen to God in various ways. Hopefully, we gave them some tools that will help them develop and improve their daily Christian disciplines like quiet time, prayer, reading Scripture, writing down what they hear, etc.

Sometimes, our daily disciplines, that are designed to help us grow in our relationship with Jesus Christ, take effort and commitment. Other times, our study and prayers seem to flow without much effort at all.

This past week, a friend sent me an article that recently appeared in an Arkansas newspaper. The article mentioned various brothers/congregations in our fellowship and the differences they hold about various issues the church is facing today. Some of the brothers were very aggressive and condemning with the words they used to describe the actions of the brothers with whom they disagreed.

Later that very day, during my personal quiet time and reflection on God’s word, I “accidentally” came across the following passage. Sometimes we need to simply stop our teaching and preaching and let God do the talking. Here is what I found recorded in His word in the book of James:

“Don’t speak evil against each other, my dear brothers and sisters. If you criticize each other and condemn each other, then you are criticizing and condemning God’s law. But you are not a judge who can decide whether the law is right or wrong. Your job is to obey it. God alone, who made the law, can rightly judge among us. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. So what right do you have to condemn your neighbor?”

It was so obvious and so clear: God has a job to do and so do we. God’s job involves many things that He never intended for us to worry about. It is God’s job to create the law, to judge people by that law, to save and to destroy. Our job is simple: obey Him.

May we learn to listen to God. May we be slow to speak and quick to listen. May we be slow to speak out against those who differ from us and quick to listen to God’s Word, Voice and Spirit. May we learn to focus on doing what He wants us to do instead of trying to do His job for Him. Remember, He is ALMIGHTY GOD and He is very capable of being God without our help.

My prayer for each of you this week is that you will spend some time alone with God every day listening to what He wants to say to you. (I Corinthians 2:10-16.)

Why Do Churches of Christ “Just Sing”?

Posted by John on January 1, 2004 under Articles

This is a question most often asked. We feel that there are very sound reasons for NOT using physical instruments in our worship. Contrary to what some claim, our practice is based on what the New Testament actually SAYS rather than what it is silent about. That is, we believe that a clear picture emerges that shows worship occurring in a NEW TEMPLE that replaces the OLD Temple of Judaism. Please consider the following:

First, the issue of music in worship must be understood in the context of a New Covenant. (1) Worship patterns in the NEW will be different than in the OLD (John 4:21ff). (2) The physical forms of the OLD were symbols of their true realities in the NEW (Hebrews 10:1ff). (3) When the NEW came, the symbols were no longer needed. That is, the physical Jewish Temple itself has been replaced by the bodies of Christians (1 Corinthians 6:19). Each Christian is a NEW living “house of prayer” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) in which the Spirit of God dwells (1 Corinthians 6:19, Acts 2:38) and helps in prayer (Romans 8:26). Also, this NEW TEMPLE is mobile and can worship God at any place and at any time (e.g., John 4:21ff, Acts 16:25, James 5:13) as contrasted with the fixity of the OLD Jewish Temple. It is clear that a better and more spiritual Temple has come into being under the NEW Covenant.

In the same way, as physical instruments of music were inside the OLD Temple for praising God (2 Chronicles 29:25ff, Psalm 150, Psalm 147:7), spiritual instruments are inside the NEW Temple for praising God. In Ephesians 5:19, singing is to be accompanied by the vibrating of the strings of the “HEART.” [The Greek word psallo, which is translated “making melody” in Ephesians 5:19, literally means to “twang, pluck, or vibrate.” Just what is to be vibrated immediately follows (i.e., heart).] Like the examples above, the outward of the Old is again replaced by the inward of the New. Hence, singing accompanied by a spiritually-tuned, vibrant heart is the style of musical praise now!

Second, in another strand of thought, the very PRIESTHOOD of the Old Covenant has also been replaced by Christians themselves. NEW sacrifices are now offered that are spiritual in nature (1 Peter 2:5). A person’s daily life is put on the altar (Romans 12:1). This offering will naturally include sacrifices of praise … specifically, the fruit of lips that confess His name (Hebrews 13:15). Only speaking, singing or chanting exactly fulfills this (Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 14:15), but a harp, horn, drum or tambourine, etc., cannot. Again, the material has been replaced by a more spiritual way.

Third, if musical instruments in Christian worship was just an “optional matter,” it seems that those converts coming from Judaism would naturally and immediately use it in worship from the start. After all, inspired texts –such as Psalm 150– encourage the use of instruments in praise to God! Yet with these texts right before their very eyes, the Jewish-converts just sang and never brought over the instrument (neither did pagans) as over 500 years of early church history confirms! This surely shows that a new pattern or design for worship has come about (See McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 739; Schaff-Herzog, Vol. III, p. 1961, “When did churches start using instrumental music?” at www.christianitytoday.com.)

CONCLUSION: A coherent picture emerges that shows that worship via the physical, ritualistic and symbolic style of the OLD TEMPLE has been replaced. NOW there is a NEW living Temple that is a mobile, dwelling place for God, where daily spiritual sacrifices of praise are offered and singing is accompanied by the vibrating strings of a joyful heart (not a harp, etc.). Something new and better has arrived that makes the former way obsolete. Hence, using physical instruments in praising God is conceptually “out-of-place” in New Covenant worship. It changes the design.

APPLICATION:

1) In light of the conclusion above, using musical instruments in Christian worship would move us backward toward the physical style of the Old Temple … clearly a move in the wrong direction.

2) Since “just singing” was the norm for at least 500 years after Pentecost, such reinforces the conclusion and makes this practice a move in the right direction.

Some questions:

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)