Is the phrase ‘church of Christ’ proper?

Is the phrase ‘church of Christ’ proper to describe a local congregation?

An objection is made that since the 3 words ‘church-of-Christ’ cannot be found [per se] in any “book, chapter, or verse” of the Bible; to refer to a single congregation by these words is NOT speaking as the oracles of God. 

This position sets forth that unless and without a passage ‘word-for-word’, such cannot be! First of all, it denies that any inference may be made from statements, commands, and/or precedent setting examples, whereby authorization for the use of ‘church of Christ’ may be made from the Bible. It is an admission of ignorance of the use of metonymy in the Bible.

Consider some parallels:

Parallel #1. The word SUNDAY…may we properly say that the Bible authorizes saints to assemble on Sunday? Must we say ‘first day of the week’? Have you ever used Sunday? [so also for any other day (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday). Can we say ‘Saturday’ for Sabbath? You don’t find Monday through Saturday in the Bible, but is it implied by necessity? 

In Numbers 29 we find mention of the 'second day'; the 'third day'; the 'fourth day'; the 'fifth day'; the 'sixth day'; and the 'seventh day'. What was the name of the 'second day'? Is is a failure to speak as the oracles of God to say the 'second day' of the week is Monday? 

What is the ‘name’ of the Sabbath Day? What is the name of the seventh day of the week? Is it a failure to speak as the oracles of God to say the name of the Sabbath (or seventh) Day of the week is Saturday?

How may we properly use the word ‘Saturday’ or ‘Sunday’ for the first and seventh days, or Monday through Friday for the second through the sixth days?

IT IS BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION!

The Sabbath or the seventh day is by name Saturday. So likewise for the first day of the week; it’s name is Sunday; so also is Monday through Friday for the other days of the week.

Parallel #2. “Erroring Christian” – what about this phrase? Have you ever used it? Can you find it in the Bible? Can you produce book, chapter, and verse? Is it ‘scriptural’ to use this phrase on the basis of such passages as 1 Tim. 1:19 – “concerning faith have made shipwreck”, 2 Tim. 2:18 – who concerning the truth have erred…” 2 Tim. 2:8 – “reprobates” and 2 Peter 2:20-2 - if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome…known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back…”

An ‘erroring’ Christian exists, by necessary implication, from the passages given above. I can be speaking by the oracles of God and use the phrase ‘erroring’ Christian, although no book, chapter, and verse can be produced.

Parallel #3. Child of God. I cannot provide book, chapter, and verse for the phrase, Christian in/of Christ, saint in/of Christ, disciple(s) in/of Christ, yet if the relationship with Christ exists by virtue of the new birth, then that person may be called a child of God. I can provide book, chapter, and verse for the plural phrase, “children of God”; but I cannot produce book, chapter, and verse for ‘child’ (singular) of God. Am I speaking as the oracles of God in referring to a single child of God? Yes, for I can read of a Christian.

As I can read of Christian and of Christians; of a disciple and of disciples; of saint and of saints, so likewise, I can, by necessary inference be accurate in saying that the individual Christian; the individual disciple; and the individual saint is an individual child of God, while not being able to produce book, chapter, and verse for the phrase “child of God”. The singular is, of necessity, implied by the plural “children of God” as existing.

Matt. 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. – [one single peacemaker is a child of God]

Luke 20:36 - Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

John 11:52 - And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Rom.8:16, 21- he Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God… Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Rom. 9:8 – That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Gal. 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

1 John 3:10 - In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1 John 5:2 - By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

If ‘children’ (plural), are referred to in the Bible as “of God”, then the individual ‘child’, is, of necessity, also “of God”.

Necessary implication elsewhere used:

What about Lot?

In Gen. 13:1 we read, “And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.”

We find that Abram ‘went up out of Egypt’ AND LOT WITH HIM. Find book, chapter, and verse that so states that Lot went down into Egypt. Can I teach that by necessary inference, Lot went down into Egypt prior to this? I can by necessary inference from the facts found in other passages, yet I cannot produce book, chapter, and verse for it.

Thus, from the facts stated in Genesis 13:1, one can of necessity, infer correctly (and accurately teach that Lot went down into Egypt at some earlier time.

We have in Romans 16:16 - “…the churches of Christ salute you.” Who is the apostle Paul meaning by this reference [in the plural] by the term ‘churches’? Additionally, what does he mean by the phrase “of Christ”?

These were referring to local congregations elsewhere who sent greetings to the brethren in the congregation there in Rome, to whom Paul penned his epistle. Those in Rome were the “you” in verse 16; they were the ones who were to greet the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila (v. 5); and they were to salute ‘one another’ (v. 16).

If all of these congregations collectively were “of Christ”, then each single congregation, of necessity, would be “of Christ”. The following texts provide other locations of the term ‘churches’, but is not meant to be an exhaustive list.

Churches (plural):

Rom. 16:4 – “all the churches of the Gentiles…” (multiple collectives/congregations/assemblies in other localities) ~ these were churches of Christ; one single congregation in this group can properly be called a church of Christ.

1 Cor. 16:1 – “to the churches of Galatia…” (multiple collectives/congregations/assemblies in the region of Galatia) ~ these were churches of Christ; one single congregation in this group can properly be called a church of Christ. [Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, and Lycaonia were in the region of Galatia]

2 Cor. 8:23 – “…our brethren…the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” (multiple collectives/congregations/assemblies in other localities) these were churches of Christ; one single congregation in this group can properly be called a church of Christ.

Gal. 1:22 – “…unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ.” (multiple collectives/congregations/assemblies in the region of Judaea) ~ these were churches of (in) Christ; one single congregation in this group can properly be called a church of Christ.

1 Thess. 2:14 – “for ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus…” (multiple collectives/congregations/assemblies in the region of Judaea) ~ these were churches of (in) Christ; one single congregation in this group can properly be called a church of Christ.

Likewise, we read of a single congregation of the church (singular)

Rom 16:1 – the church which is at Cenchrea – a single congregation; it can be called/referred to as the church of Christ located in Cenchrea.

Rom. 16:5 – Likewise greet the church that is in their (Priscilla and Aquila’s) house. It can be called/referred to as the church of Christ.

1 Cor. 1:2 – Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord…

[it can be called/referred to as the church of Christ located in Corinth, for to be sanctified in Christ, by metonymy is to be ‘of’ Christ]

1 Cor. 4:17 – “…as I teach every where in every church…” (i.e., in every congregation or local collective) they were “of Christ”; they were taught the same uniform teaching as others who were sanctified, and thus, “of Christ”.

2 Cor. 1:1 –“…unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia…” – “of God”, meaning that they were in some way connected in spiritual fellowship with God thru the same uniform gospel message that was preached “everywhere and in every church”.

Phil. 1:1 – “…to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” (this refers to a local congregation/assembly or church of Christ); by necessary implication, to be a saint, is to be “of” or “in” Christ; to be “of God” is equal to being “in God” – it has reference to relationship.

1 Thess. 1:1 – “Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church (local congregation/assembly) of the Thessalonians [which is] in God the Father and [in] the Lord Jesus Christ…” It can be called/referred to as the church of Christ located in Thessalonica. By metonymy, “of Christ” is equal to being “in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ. It has reference to relationship.

2 Thess. 1:1 – Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; it can be called/referred to as the church of Christ located in Thessalonica. (same as in 1 Thess. above)

[“of” or “in”] Christ = meaning that a relationship exists with Christ. A single individual may be referred to or a plurality of people, depending upon the context. Thus, a church (local collective/assembly/congregation) may be said to sustain a relationship with Christ. This may properly be expressed as saying that they are “in” or “of” Christ.

Church = ‘universal’ usage

Eph. 5:23 – For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body…

(see also, Eph. 1:22-23; 5:25, 27, 32).

Col. 1:24 – “…for his body's sake, which is the church…”

Universally or locally, whether referring to one singular congregation or a plurality of congregations, by virtue of the new birth, they are the church(es) of Christ. To refer to them as such is speaking by the oracles of God.

copyright 2018

rdb

THE JUDGMENT PIT

"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand." ~ Mark 3:25

The principle is simple...it is like condemning in others what you condone in yourself. It is hypocrisy. Such is the practice of all who condemn judging by means of passing judgment. A simple examination of the context of Matt. 7, shows what the Lord condoned and condemned in the matter of passing judgment. Anyone who has a love for truth (2 Thess. 2:10), will discern truth from error.

Many cite Matthew 7:1 as to why passing judgment as humans is wrong (and obviously a sin) It reads, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Why do those who "quote" verse 1 not address verses 2-5? They are connected to Jesus' statement in verse 1.

Verses 2 through 5 read: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

It is clear that Jesus is NOT meaning that it is wrong to judge each other in verse 1; but explaining the WRONG way to pass judgment on one another, while ALSO explaining the RIGHT way to pass judgment on one another.

That this is correct is also seen from another statement of Jesus in John 7:24 ~

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

Here, Jesus explained the RIGHT and WRONG way to pass judgments.

Those that pit Jesus's words in Matthew 7:1 against Jesus' words in John 7:24 need to understand that making judgments IN THE CORRECT WAY is not WRONG, nor a sin. It is what Jesus taught; BUT DO IT IN THE CORRECT WAY!

Wrong way: according to appearances; with a beam in your own eye.

Right way: with righteous judgment; first casting out the beam in your own eye TO SEE CLEARLY HOW TO CAST OUT THE MOTE IN A BROTHER'S EYE.

The MOTIVE? To save; to restore fellowship; to keep unity.

The teaching is simple: don't judge as if you are exempt from God's judgment; for you are not:

Romans 14:10 - "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? FOR WE SHALL ALL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST."

Passing judgment is NOT for the purpose of condemning those who differ from us but to encourage one another to look into, and follow the "perfect law of liberty", which is THE STANDARD by which we will, one day, ALL be judged (John 12:48; Romans 2:16).

When anyone rejects the word of God (i.e., the standard), the apostle Paul said they pass judgment on themselves, as unworthy of everlasting life (Acts 13:46).

Paul also told the Corinthians how to pass judgment CORRECTLY in regard to their observance of the Lord's Supper. He wrote, "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

This is getting the beam out of our own eyes first, so that we may HELP others with a mote in theirs. It edifies, and promotes unity and harmony as brethren.

In these words, we see the purpose and benefit of RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT.

As Paul told Timothy, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” ~ 2 Tim. 2:25

Making judgments is a double-edged sword. It can promote the Lord's cause and result in the salvation of souls, or it can cause the name of the Lord to be blasphemed, and result in the death of someone's faith.

May God's people rightly APPLY the word of truth, as they seek to rightly DIVIDE the word of truth in judging one another.

copyright 2018

rdb

THESE WERE MORE NOBLE...WHY?

It was prophesied that division would come in the body of Christ.

There should not have been division within their ranks because the men of God warned them about division.

Notice some scriptures that explain HOW and WHY division would come.

Acts 20-this is a very important chapter. You will find the apostle Paul talking with the elders of the church of Ephesus over at Miletus. Keep in mind that he is talking to the elders of a local church, men who had the oversight of the flock of God which is "among them."

Listen to what he said, beginning at verse 28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Here we find that the elders have the oversight of the flock of God which is "AMONG THEM." Keep this in mind. Then he said, "For I KNOW this." Now, he did not say there was a doubt in his mind, or that "it might be." He said, "I KNOW this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

It is a rather strange thing that these wolves did not come while the apostles were there. They waited for the men of God to leave, then these false teachers sneaked in and divided the body of Christ.

This is the same way they will do it today. You can let a devout man of God, a faithful man of God, stay there and preach the truth, and very seldom will you ever find a false teacher that will challenge him. But yet you let that man get away from the flock, and then these wolves will come in and try to divide the body of Christ, and that is a shame and a disgrace.

But notice what he said in verse 30, "And of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

Also observe that he said, "To draw away disciples after them." When they teach things contrary to the word of God, they are going to draw away disciples...

When this happens, it results in division within the ranks of God, and there is no way to get around it.

That is exactly what the man of God said. He said that division would come, that "even of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things."

THIS is why we have so many differing denominational bodies, each with a different creed.

If these creeds did not exist, people would turn to, and read from the Bible. Much division would end, when people find that the Bible doesn't need an "interpreter" (creed language) before it can be understood; rather, read the Bible first - - - THEN you will see the errors in the creed language.

In Acts 17:11, those in Berea were MORE NOBLE than those in Thessalonica...WHY? Because "they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether those things were so...".

To be NOBLE, is to GIVE DILIGENCE; to EXAMINE; to TEST the things proclaimed as "from God" are what God revealed in the Bible. This is what the Bereans did.

Remember, Jesus prayed for us to be united in our beliefs, not divided: John 17:20-21. Would HE have prayed for what was an impossibility?

copyright 2018rdb

God's "just-ness" in revealing His will to man

God is a "just" and "righteous" God. (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4) I dare say that anyone would disagree with this.

When it comes to the revelation of His will to us in the Bible, consider this: How just would GOD be to place my salvation upon “that which is written” and then give me “that which is written” (the Bible) knowing all time that I could not understand it? 

The word “understand” occurs about 300 times in the Bible, and Paul wrote, “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). He also said, “whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4; 2 Tim. 2:7). I think it must be “kinda difficult” to “read” silence, that which is NOT written, don’t you?

If the Bible cannot be understood, only one of two reasons would explain why. Either GOD does not want us to understand it (verses just given prove otherwise), [compare 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:3-4], or He is not able to make the word understandable (and who would accuse GOD of this?). Yet, the Bible says the word is truth (John 17:17; 8:31-32; 7:17) and that we can “know” it (Psalms 119:60; 117:1-2; Prov. 23:23; John 1:17; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; etc.). The alternative is, if there is no truth, there is no error; there is no sin and Jesus died for naught!

There can be only one correct understanding of the word of GOD and this comes to us by faith, which is by the “hearing of the word of GOD” (Rom. 10:17). Anything other than an understanding is a “misunderstanding.” “To understand” means to comprehend the meaning of, to receive the correct meaning of words and signs. There is a rule of logic that says two things cannot differ on the same subject and both be right. If you “understand”: and I differ, then I necessarily “misunderstand”. If I tell you my phone number is 283-3634 and two weeks later you try to call me by calling 283-3436 and then tell me that “I understood you to say…” No, you did not, you misunderstood me to say 283-3436.

We can agree “on what is written, “but we “disagree” when talking of the “silence” and “what the Bible does not say.” Note these very great examples.

1. Exodus 3:1-3. GOD spoke to Moses out of a “bush that burned with fire.” We can know it was a “burning bush,” but when we speculate on “what kind” of a bush it was that burned, then we disagree. The answer is simple as to the disagreement – the Bible is “silent’ on the “kind” of bush it was.

2. John 3:1-2. We can all agree that Nicodemus came to Christ “by night.” However, disagreement comes when we force an “opinion” on “the why” he came by night. Unity comes on the clear statement “by night,” and disunity comes when we try to make opinion a basis for unity.

3. John 8:1-8. This scripture explicitly states that Jesus “wrote on the ground.’ What did He write? We do not know. The reason that we do not know is because the Bible does not say. On this we can all be united. Unity comes from “that which is written.” Why? There is that on which we can agree. We will all disagree on ‘that which is not written.” Why? There is no authorization for my opinion. Faith and opinion are not the same thing. It is that which is written that produces faith and is the standard, the norm, for unity. The Bible does not demand unity on our opinions, and they come from the “silence,” that is, that which is not written.

4. 2 Cor. 12:7-10…I guess, at times, much discussion is centered on Paul’s “thorn” in the flesh. Usually people have their minds made up as to what it is. Indeed, much has been said about this “thorn,” and many “ideas/opinions” have been expressed as to “what” it is. We can agree Paul had a ‘thorn’ in the flesh. We may never be, not, we will never be, united on what it was, as the Bible is “silent” on that!

5. There is no authority in this “silence” upon which man can agree. GOD does not require unity where there is no authority. What GOD teaches he expects, and what GOD has omitted, He rejects. Again, GOD does not demand unity in matters of human opinion, speculation, judgment or wisdom.

copyright 2018

rdb

The Church Fathers: Benefits and Abuses

The term “church fathers” is a descriptive of some elasticity, depending upon who is using the expression. Generically, it refers to a number of men in those centuries following the apostolic age (A.D. 30-100), who energetically promoted and defended Christianity as they understood it. Protestants usually define the duration of these scholars to about the 6th century, while Roman Catholics are prone to extend it to the 13th century. Among these writings are defenses against heretics commentaries on scripture, sermons, etc.

There is one series of ancient documents that began at the end of the apostolic age and continued until the Council of Nice (325); the collection is designated popularly as “The Ante-Nicene Fathers.” These writings contain the essays of dozens of writers, a few of whom likely were acquainted with the apostles, e.g. Clement of Rome (cf. Philippians 4:3?), Polycarp, and Ignatius.

The further away from the age of the apostles these writings are, the less reliable they become as a reflection of authentic Christianity. The works have varying values, yet not infrequently they are subject to abuse.

Beneficial Uses

One of the great contributions of the Ante-Nicene documents is their value in citing texts from the New Testament. These writers quote from every book in the New Testament. Moreover, it has been said that if the entire New Testament were destroyed, it could probably be reproduced entirely from the writings of these men (J.H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism – Revised, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995, 46).

Additionally, in an era when the printing press was yet to be invented, and the Scriptures were being hand-copied—and were expensive to obtain—the patristic writings reveal how widely the sacred documents had been dispersed throughout the antique world. Clement was in Rome, Irenaeus was in France, Ignatius was in Syria, Tertullian was in Africa, Justin Martyr was in Ephesus then Rome, Polycarp was in Asia Minor, etc. Civilization had developed an insatiable appetite for the living word of God.

The Ante-Nicene writings chronicle the early stages of that great apostasy so vividly prophesied in the New Testament (see: Acts 20:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff; 1 Timothy 4:1ff; 2 Timothy 4:1ff, etc.). For example, as early as the middle of the 2nd or 3rd century, “sprinkling” was being suggested as a substitute for immersion. Cyprian (c. 200-258) justified it (Epistle LXXV), as did the Didache (? date). Infant baptism was making its debut about that time as well. Irenaeus (c. 175-195) argued in favor of the practice (Against Heresies II.XXII), as did Cyprian in his Epistles (LVIII). Tertullian (c. 150-222), a teacher at Carthage in North Africa, opposed infant baptism, but nonetheless accommodated the idea in contending that the “soul,” along with the body, is inherited from one’s parents, hence infants are born with sinful souls.

Corruptions in church government also came quick and were radical. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107) referred to himself as “the bishop” of Syria (Romans 2:2), and he makes a distinction between “the bishop” and “elders” in his Epistle to Smyrnaeans (c.8). Cyprian was designated as “the bishop of the church in Carthage” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VII.III). These volumes are invaluable for the study of that movement which ultimately resulted in Catholicism in its various forms (Roman, Greek, and English).

Unjustified Abuses

There also are abuses associated with these writings. For example, the Roman (Catholic) Church treats many of these documents as if they were inspired of God. “Tradition,” they say, “is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and . . . is infallible” (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, New York: MacMillan, 1961, 41). Invariably, when a Catholic scholar cannot sustain his doctrinal position by the Bible, he will appeal to the testimony of the “church fathers.” For example, in his popular book, The Question Box (San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society, 1929, 135), Bertrand Conway cited Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.III) in an effort to prove the Catholic dogma of apostolic succession. But the post-apostolic writers were not inspired. They never claimed to be. They frequently contradict one another, and especially the New Testament.

Another form of abuse is when novices attempt to quote the “fathers” in efforts to prove their “pet” ideas. One must remember that no doctrinal point can be established from the testimony of the “fathers.” And when one appeals to these uninspired writings to “prove” his case, you can be certain that he could not find support for his position in the New Testament. It is most dangerous to select a text from the Ante-Nicene writers, and apply it to a modern situation, without knowing the full context of the passage and the ancient situation that was addressed.

Conclusion

While the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” are valuable contributions in matters of church history, they must be studied carefully and not taken as authoritative documents for the determination of Christian practice today. Unfortunately, misguided and inexperienced students frequently abuse these ancient writings in a variety of ways.

copyright 2018

rdb

The “promise”; the “rock”; and the “response”.

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all foretold in their writings of the beginning of Christ’s church. In Matt. 16:18, Jesus said that He would ‘build’ His church. He then said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. This meant that death would not prevent Jesus from ‘building’ or establishing His church.

Jesus was raised from the dead by His Father and, being the first to rise from the dead, never to die again, he destroyed “him who had the power of death; that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14-15).

Jesus here also stated to Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and that whatsoever Peter would bind on earth “shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever would be loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.” This had reference to the things that Peter would preach about salvation thru Jesus as recorded in the book of Acts. The things that Peter preached were no more and no less than what Jesus had commanded the apostles to preach (Acts 1:2). Included in the commands to “call upon the name of the Lord”, are examples of people doing things that constitute “calling”. Their actions were “works of righteousness”, because they were acts of obedience.

Obedience is the correct response to Jesus’ commands which were preached by the apostles. Obedience is still how one “works righteousness” today, regardless of nationality. Peter stated this in Acts 10:34-35. He then mentions several times in Acts 10:36-43 of how God ‘foreordained’ salvation in Jesus. There are specific things to believe and specific commands to be obeyed in “calling upon the name of the Lord”. These statements and commands are found at the end of the four gospels.

- Matt. 28:19-20 – “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

- Mark 16:15-16 – “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

- Luke 24:47 – “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

- John 17:18 – “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”

Jesus further stated to the apostles in Luke 24:49, “I send the promise of my father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”

Acts 1:3-5 says of this conversation, “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” This statement here in Acts 1:4-5 was what Luke was referring to in Luke 24:47, 49.

This “promise” in Luke 24:49 was the same as the “promise of the Father” in Acts 1:4. The mention of the “power from on high” in Luke 24:49 was again mentioned by Luke in Acts 1:8 as follows: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

This explains why the Holy Ghost was to come upon the apostles. It was to give them “power”, but power for what purpose? What were they to do once they received this power? We need only to read what they did AFTER receiving this “power”. Acts 2 tells us. This power came and it was connected with Peter being given the keys to the kingdom and to the building of Christ’s church. This “power’ came when the Holy Ghost came upon them. The ‘power’ was to preach salvation in Jesus in languages other than the Galilean tongue. Notice this observation is made by those who heard the apostles speak in Acts 2:8, 11. To be able to speak in a foreign language was a miracle indeed, but if there were any other miraculous works performed by the apostles in Acts 2, what verse so states?

Please observe also that the things spoken in “other tongues” WERE UNDERSTOOD by the audience and this audience was not yet saved. So, sinners heard preaching in an unknown tongue, and understood how to call upon the name of the Lord. IS THIS WHAT WE FIND TODAY IN PREACHING?

But let us notice something else unique to the building of Christ’s church. What was the ‘ROCK’ upon which Christ’s church was to be built? Look again carefully at the conversation between Peter and Jesus in Matt. 16:16. (See also Mark 8:29 and Luke 9:20) What had Peter stated just prior to Jesus’ statement that “upon this rock I will build my church”? Whatever Peter said prior, would be the ‘ROCK’ upon which the church would be built.

We find that John records Peter’s words in John 6:68-69 as follows, “Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” To recognize Jesus as the Christ is to recognize that He has “words of eternal life”. This has reference to His TEACHING. Jesus had earlier stated in this same chapter of John in verse 63, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Jesus’ teachings are the words of eternal life BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN INSTRUCTIONS OF HOW TO CALL UPON HIM.

Our mere hearing them without compliance is to make His sacrifice in vain. Jesus died for all mankind, yet all are not saved are they? If so, they why are there still pleas going out for people to accept Him? Those who gladly received Peter’s words in Acts 2 were baptized and added to Christ’s church by the Lord. Have you? If not, why not?

Perhaps the answer lies in what you were preached in how to “call upon the name of the Lord”. Were you told to “call” with the same response as Peter gave?

Remember, sinners heard preaching in an unknown tongue, and understood how to call upon the name of the Lord. IS THIS WHAT WE FIND TODAY IN PREACHING?

copyright 2018

rdb

The Influence of One Man

In the Old Testament, following the death of Solomon, the nation of Israel was divided by two rival kings. This was due to the following sequence of events:

1 Kings 11:1-11 – Solomon’s disobedience 1 Kings 11:26-40 – Jeroboam’s rebellion against Solomon

1 Kings 11:38; 14:8 – Ahijah’s message

Rehoboam was the son of Solomon and took his father's place on the throne. In Egypt, Jeroboam heard of the death of Solomon and returned to Israel. In fulfillment of the words of the prophet Ahijah, ten tribes of Israel gave their allegiance to Jeroboam. The prophet had told Jeroboam, "Then it shall be, if you heed all that I command you, walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did, then I will be with you and build for you an enduring house, as I built for David, and will give Israel to you" (1 Kings 11:38).

Jeroboam did not follow after these words. 1 Kings 12:25-33 Instead, he set up two golden calves for the people to worship and serve as the gods who brought them out of the land of Egypt. He allowed priests to come from any tribe and he "ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month." He did more evil than all those who were before him and because of his actions, set the tone for the following kings of Israel.

Ahijah prophesied that God would "give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who sinned and who made Israel sin" (1 Kings 14:8-16). The influence of this one king would set the tone for the history of the Northern tribes of God's people.

Jeroboam's son, Nadab, (1 Kings 15:25-26) "became king over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and he reigned over Israel two years. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin by which he had made Israel sin."

1 Kings 15:29-30 - Baasha would be the next king of Israel as he conspired against Nadab, killed him and "he killed all the house of Jeroboam. He did not leave to Jeroboam anyone that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken by His servant Ahijah the Shilonite, because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he had sinned and by which he had made Israel sin, because of his provocation with which he had provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger."

1 Kings 15:34; 16:7 - Baasha "did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin by which he had made Israel sin...And also the word of the LORD came by the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha and his house, because of all the evil that he did in the sight of the LORD in provoking Him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed them."

1 Kings 16:13 - Elah, the son of Baasha, reigned two years before he was murdered by Zimri (his own servant) and Zimri destroyed all the household of Baasha "for all the sins of Baasha and the sins of Elah his son, by which they had sinned and by which they had made Israel sin, in provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their idols."

Zimri, 1 Kings 16:18-19 –“…died, because of the sins which he had sinned in doing evil in the sight of the LORD, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he had committed to make Israel sin."

Omri, 1 Kings 16:25-26 - "…did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all who were before him. For he walked in all the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin by which he had made Israel sin, provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their idols."

And then there was Ahab in 1 Kings 16:30-33, "Now Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him. And it came to pass, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took as wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; and he went and served Baal and worshiped him. Then he set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a wooden image. Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him."

Ahaziah, 1 Kings 22:51-53 - "Ahaziah the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel. He did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father and in the way of his mother and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin; for he served Baal and worshiped him, and provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger, according to all that his father had done."

Jehoram (Joram), 2 Kings. 3:1-3 - “He did what was evil in the LORD’S sight; he…clung to the sins that Jeroboam….had caused Israel to commit. He did not turn away from them.”

Jehu, 2 Kings 10:28-31 - “Jehu eliminated Baal worship from Israel, but he did not turn away from the sins that Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit…worshiping the golden calves that were in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord said to Jehu, ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in My sight and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, four generations of your sons will sit on the throne of Israel’. Yet, Jehu was not careful to follow with all his heart the laws of the Lord God of Israel. He did not turn from the sins that Jeroboam had cause Israel to commit.” **

(** Although Jehu ‘reformed’ somewhat, still he did not have the approval of God. Reform is not enough!)

Jehoahaz, 2 Kings 13:2 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight and followed the sins that Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit; he did not turn away from them.”

Jehoash, 2 Kings 13:11 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight. He did not turn away from all the sins that Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit, but he walked in them.”

Jeroboam II, 2 Kings 14:24 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight. He did not turn away from all the sins Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit.”

Zechariah, 2 Kings 15:9 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight as his fathers had done. He did not turn away from the sins Jeroboam son of Nebat had cause Israel to commit.” Murdered after only 6 months in power.

Shallum, 2 Kings 15:10 - 13-15, murdered Zechariah, and one month later was murdered by Menahem.

Menahem, 2 Kings 15:18 - “he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight. Throughout his reign, he did not turn away from the sins Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit.”

Pekahiah, 2 Kings 15:24 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight and did not turn away from the sins Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit.”

Pekah, 2 Kings 15:28 - “He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight. He did not turn away from the sins Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit.”

Hoshea, 2 Kings 17:1 - “He did evil in the Lord’s sight, but not like the kings of Israel who preceded him.”

2 Kings 17:6-18; 21-22 summarizes the history of Israel. Another interesting observation following the captivity is the practice of compromise. 2 Kings 17:24-41 tells of this. (COMPROMISE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! Matt. 6:24)

WHAT DO WE SEE FROM THIS?

All the remaining kings of Israel followed the pattern of their predecessors. All followed in the way of Jeroboam. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel was completed by the Assyrians when they invaded the land and took the ten tribes away, never to be a united people again. "And the LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them from His sight. For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD, and made them commit a great sin. For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them" (2 Kings 17:20-22).

The lesson in this sad history is the impact a life can have on so many. Jeroboam's works followed him after he died. The evil he lived in his life was not contained only while he lived but continued on for generations to come. Consider how many lives were lost because of his influence. Think of all the lives that were given over to evil because of his influence. The powerful influence of an evil life destroyed a great nation. While the influence of Jeroboam was felt for many generations, I want to make this observation:

- Jeroboam was a religious person - his changes were not a discouragement to religion, they encouraged it for they appealed to the comforts of the people. We see this from his words in 1 Kings 12:28, “…it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem to worship.”

This mindset opens a door that cannot be closed. When man assumes the role of decision making in religion, then he assumes a role of authority that belongs only to Christ. When man assumes this authority to decide what is best, or how to worship God, it only results in a moral decline.

So likewise today... There are so many deviations, and such diversity among denominationalism, and the “freedom” to do as one’s heart desires, continues to plunge man further into immorality.

Illustration: the 1930 motion picture industry code:

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. No film shall infer that casual or promiscuous sex relationships are the common thing ... These [seduction and rape] should never be more than suggested, and then only when essential to the plot. They should never be shown explicitly ... Crime shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime ... Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail ... Revenge, in modern times, shall not be justified ... Mercy killing shall never be made to seem right or permissible ... Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or emphasizing indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene ... Laws – divine, natural or human – shall not be ridiculed.

This shows how far we’ve come as a society. What was once prohibited is now advocated.

Pagan worship was not acceptable to God from the children of Israel. God gave instructions regarding how HE was to be worshiped:

Deut. 12:29-31 - When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ YOU SHALL NOT WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD IN THAT WAY; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

This lesson needs to be remembered by God's people today, for not just any worship is acceptable today. God has revealed thru the teachings of Jesus and the apostles HOW HE IS TO BE WORSHIPED.

Likewise, there is a pattern for the organization and work of a local church. Any innovations to these patterns are an unacceptable as the innovations of Jeroboam were in his day.

As those of Jeroboam’s day didn’t know that Jeroboam’s innovations were wrong, so has the influence of denominational theology and philosophy resulted in innovations and reform.

The church that Jesus spoke of in Matt. 16:18 is identifiable by it's doctrines. The patterns contained in the New Testament are to be preached so that unity, love and reverence for God will prevail and carry a greater influence on society. In this way, righteousness will "flow" as God purposed; His people will be the "head", not the "tail", as Moses told Israel in Deut. 28:13, 44, "And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them."

Spiritual seed will produce after its kind as does physical seed (Luke 8:11).

copyright 2018

rdb