Brent Kercheville
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19) What does it mean that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom? Further, what authority is being given to Peter? There is a split among scholars and grammarians over how the last sentence of verse 19 ought to be translated. Some translations read, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (ESV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, TNIV). Some translations read, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been bound in heaven” (NASB, HCSB, NET). The problem is the rare Greek tense of these verbs. It is the future, periphrastic perfect tense. Without being scholars we can quickly see the problem. The future tense is of course a tense about something that has not happened yet, but will happen in the future. The perfect tense is an act that has been done in the past, but the results continue into the present. The continuing debate is which tense should carry the force of the sentence. The NASB, HCSB, and NET reflect the force of the perfect tense, while the other translations carry the force of the future tense. So, I say this just to make you aware of why your translation may be different from another trusted translation. The focus of our lesson will be to consider the keys of the kingdom that were given to Peter. What does this mean and what is the effect of this action? In answering these questions I think we will deal with all the issues surrounding this text. Examining Isaiah 22:15-25 Chapters 21-22 of Isaiah have cryptic headings as beginnings to these oracles. These chapters refer to the Assyrian invasion by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. Chapter 21 describes the approaching doom as the threat of Assyria grows larger while Assyria conquers surrounding lands. In Isaiah 22:1-14 we see that Jerusalem is now threatened by Assyria’s invasion. Isaiah is focusing on the deportment and capture of the people in this chapter (22:1-3). But rather than trusting in God during this crisis, the people are trusting in themselves (22:11). Further, the people are feasting during this distress, rather than fasting to God for help (22:12-13). The second half of chapter 22 is dedicated to an oracle against Shebna, who represent the problem with Israel. Shebna is “steward” who is charge of the royal household (“in charge of the palace,” HCSB, TNIV). The Hebrew word for “steward” is used in other Semitic languages to indicate that this is a very high official in the government, second only to the king (Oswalt, John N.; Isaiah 1-39: New International Commentary on the Old Testament). The phrase “in charge of the household” is used similarly of a high official, second only to the king. We see this in 2 Kings 15:5, “The LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death. And he lived in a separate house, while Jotham the king’s son was over the household, judging the people of the land.” The problem is that Shebna is more interested in death than life, seeing that he has a tomb prepared for himself due to the coming invasion of Assyria. Rather than think about his duty to the people of Israel as second in command to Hezekiah, Shebna is concerned only about himself. Therefore, Shebna is going to be removed from office and replaced by Eliakim (22:19-20). Being in this position of authority, Eliakim would have many things bestowed upon him: (1) clothed with Shebna’s robe, (2) Shebna’s sash tied around Eliakim, (3) Authority given to Eliakim, taken from Shebna, (4) father of the inhabitants, (5) key to the house of David so that what he opens will not shut and what he shuts will not open, (6) driven like a peg in the firm place, and (7) become the throne of glory to his father’s house. Now, many commentaries and scholars make the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:19. When we consider that this text concerning the Peter’s confession and the keys of the kingdom are only found in the Matthew account, which was written to Jews, then the connection to the Isaiah prophecy becomes even stronger. This is especially true when we recognize how rarely the figure of “keys” appears in the scriptures. But none of the commentators explain how these two passages connect. Connections Between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 1. Both are commissioning texts. These kinds of commissioning texts are also rare in the scriptures. In Isaiah we see that Eliakim is specifically named as the one to be “over the household,” meaning he is second only to the king. Eliakim is given keys, and these keys are to the Davidic kingdom. The meaning of the keys is that Eliakim has authority, such that “when he opens no one will shut” and “when he shuts no one will open.” Matthew 16 has very strong connections to this concept. Peter is specifically named and given keys. These keys are also to the Davidic kingdom (the kingdom of heaven). This authority means that whatever was bound on earth was also bound in heaven, and whatever was loosed on earth was also loosed in heaven. 2. Both involve a play on words with the individual’s name. Matthew 16 is the only place in the New Testament where Jesus makes a word play on someone’s name. Because this is a highly unusual event, we have to ask these questions: Why did Jesus do it here in Matthew 16? Why did Jesus do this now? We cannot pass this off as meaningless. Jesus has a reason for making this word play, especially when we recall who gave the name “rock” to Simon in the first place. Remember that Peter was not his given name, but Simon was his name. Jesus calls him Peter, “rock.” The connection leads us back to Isaiah 22. Eliakim’s name means “God will place” or “God will establish.” Notice how Isaiah’s prophecy is also a word play on Eliakim’s name. Isaiah 22:23 says, “I will drive him like a peg in a firm place.” Verse 25 says, “In that day the peg driven in a firm place will give way.” The emphasis on the name is put before us twice. But there are even more connections that these. 3. Both involve an individual serving as penultimate (not the ultimate) foundation of the kingdom. Eliakim was not the ultimate foundation, but Hezekiah was the king in the time frame when Isaiah prophesies. Peter was also not being spoken of as the ultimate foundation, because Christ is the ultimate foundation of the kingdom of God. But both Eliakim and Peter are being told that they will play important roles in the foundation of the kingdom. Eliakim will be like a peg driven into a firm place (immoveable, solid). Peter will be a rock (immoveable, solid) in the kingdom. The Old Testament shows us that there is a parallel between the peg, a foundation of a tent, and the rock, the foundation of a house. Zechariah 10:4 says, “From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler.” Both Eliakim and Peter are being called foundations, but not the ultimate foundation. We need to realize that the New Testament repeatedly refers to Peter and the apostles as this foundation of the kingdom of God. Please refer to “Upon This Rock” lesson for proof of this point. 4. Both involve a displacement of previous, faithless counterparts. This is another important point of comparison that helps us understand Jesus’ teaching to the apostles in Matthew 16. Eliakim was established because of the failure of Shebna. Therefore, Eliakim replaced Shebna as second over Hezekiah’s kingdom. In the same way, the apostles were established as a replacement for previous, faithless counterparts. Who were these counterparts? Look at Jesus’ words earlier: 52 “Woe to you experts in the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge! You didn’t go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in.” 53 When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to oppose Him fiercely and to cross-examine Him about many things; 54 they were lying in wait for Him to trap Him in something He said” (Luke 11:52-54). Notice that the symbolism of “the key” appears in this text. The scribes and Pharisees had taken away the key of knowledge preventing people from entering God’s kingdom. The key was given to Peter and the apostles, a replacement of the scribes and Pharisees, as they would help people enter the kingdom of God. Jesus gives the apostles the key for they would be the ones after Christ’s death who would bring people into the kingdom through the preaching of the gospel. Conclusion: Let’s tie together these three lessons to hopefully present a clear understanding of Matthew 16:15-19. 1. We need not fear understanding Peter as the foundation for the kingdom of God. In fact, I think we are not correct if we teach that Peter’s confession is the rock upon which God’s kingdom would be established. I do not at all think that is what Jesus was referring to. Jesus gave Simon the name “rock” for a reason. Something was going to be built upon him to be given this name. But Jesus is speaking about Peter as a representative for all the apostles, as the scriptures repeatedly indicated Peter to represent. What is important to recognize is that Peter and the rest of the apostles were the rock foundation of the kingdom of God in the same way that Eliakim was the foundation of Hezekiah’s kingdom. Eliakim was still second to Hezekiah, and the apostles were still second to Jesus Christ. 2. Understanding Matthew 16 in the context of Isaiah 22 puts an end to the speculation about Peter being the pope and the line of succession. We must realize that the penultimate could not appoint his successor. Only the king himself could personally and directly appoint his penultimate. Only Hezekiah could personally and directly appoint Eliakim. Shebna could not appoint his successor. Jesus personally and directly appointed Peter and the apostles. The apostles had not power to appoint their successors. Only the king can do that. Jesus has not returned to personally and directly appoint his penultimate. The voting papers, the burning of the papers, and the colored smoke are all human invention. 3. The apostles, as the penultimate, carried great authority. Paul, in defending his apostleship to the Corinthians, said this to be the case: “For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be put to shame” (2 Corinthians 10:8). To follow Jesus is to not only obey the teachings of Jesus, but to also obey those who he left in charge, that is, the apostles. What they said carries just as much power and authority as if Jesus had said those words. Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). The apostles said, “Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life” (1 Peter 3:21; GOD’S WORD). To suggest otherwise implies that only Jesus’ actual words while on the earth are of value and anything not in “red letters” in our New Testaments is not authoritative. Obey and be saved today. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary makes this point: “The periphrastic future perfects are then perfectly natural: Peter accomplishes this binding and loosing by proclaiming a gospel that has already been given and by making personal application on that basis (Simon Magus). Whatever he binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel. He has no direct pipeline to heaven, still less do his decisions force heaven to comply; but he may be authoritative in binding and loosing because heaven has acted first (cf. Acts 18:9-10). Those he ushers in or excludes have already been bound or loosed by God according to the gospel already revealed and which Peter, by confessing Jesus as the Messiah) has most clearly grasped.”
0 Comments
Brent Kercheville
We have noted in previous lessons that the word church in our Bibles is the Greek word ekklesia, which simply means people called out of one relationship or location and into another. Therefore, when we speak of the church of Christ in the scriptures, we are talking about people who have been called out of the world and into a relationship with Christ. We also noted that there is a distinction between the universal and local church in the scriptures. Sometimes the scriptures refer to all the saved that have every lived in any location, which we call the universal church. This concept is seen in passages like Matthew 16:18 and Hebrews 12:22-23. We also see the scriptures refer to the church in a local sense, referring to a certain geographical location of Christians. This concept can be seen in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:2 and Revelation 2-3. Last time we took another step in our understanding the Lord’s church. We found that the Lord’s body is undenominational, meaning that it does not consist of a coalition or association of local churches. John 15:1-10 and Hebrews 12:22-23 show that the Lord’s church is made up of saved individuals, and not denominations, institutions, or churches. Today we are going to see that when we understand that the Lord’s church is not a denomination (consisting of local churches), then we will be able to resolve an assortment of problems that arise when speaking to unbelievers. In our lesson today, we will see how our language and speech ought to change with this proper understanding of the Lord’s church. Do You Think You Are the Only One Who Will Be Saved? Universal sense When someone asks this question, there are three possible concepts that questioner may have in mind. A simple yes or no answer will not be sufficient until we understand what the questioner is driving at. First, we must understand the person is asking if we think only the church of Christ will be saved. If the person is using the phrase “the church of Christ” in the universal sense, then the obvious answer is yes. The Bible tells us that all the saved from the past and present are in the Lord’s church. We see this in Acts 2:47 that those who were being saved were added by the Lord into His church. By definition, the Lord’s body only consists of the saved and no others. There is not any wickedness and any disobedient person who is in the Lord’s body. But we need to note that it is rare that the questioner has this concept in his or her mind when asking the question. The person is not asking if all the saved are saved. The person is not asking if everyone in the Lord’s body is saved. This is usually understood. Local sense The questioner may have the local sense in mind. Sometimes the questioner is asking us if we believe that the only ones who will be saved are those who belong to our local church. We know that the answer to this is no. No where do the scriptures teach that our local church will be saved. There are two reasons for this. First, we know that there are Christians in other states and other countries who do not belong to our local church. We know that there are Christians in Jerusalem who already died that were never part of our local church that are saved. Second, we know that there are those who belong to this local church that may not be saved. This was true in the first century as well as today. 1 Corinthians 5 we see that there was a fornicator who had fellowship with the church in Corinth, but was not in fellowship with God and was at that time not saved. In Revelation 3:1-6 we see that there were only a few that were faithful to Christ in Sardis. Though many were part of the local church in Sardis, only a few were saved. Therefore, if someone is asking if we believe that being joined to the local church where we attend will save them, we know the answer is no. Salvation is determined by being in fellowship with Christ, not by being in fellowship with a local church. Denominational sense Often the person who is asking this question is asking us if the only people who are saved are those who attend places where they call themselves the church of Christ. The questioner is asking if the collection of churches which call themselves the church of Christ are the only ones saved. As we noted in our last lesson, this is a denominational concept that we must fight against. The Lord’s church is not made up of local churches. The church of Christ is not made up of churches, it is made up of saved people. But the questioner is not thinking of the church as people, but as a collection of churches. Therefore, we must take care how we answer this question. If we answer yes, then we are perpetuating the concept that the Lord’s church is a denomination, made up of local churches of Christ. However, if we say no, then we are conveying to the questioner that other denominations are also saved. Neither of these concepts are true. So how should we answer this question? I believe we need to answer the question scripturally. Notice Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” According to this passage, who will be saved? Those who believe and are baptized. We need to tell people that only those who have obeyed the commands of Christ will be saved. Only those who are in fellowship with Christ, and not in fellowship with the world will be saved. In Mark 7:6-9 and in Matthew 7:21-23 we see that simply being religious will not save someone. Religious appearance is not what Christ has called us to. We must have total obedience to His word. Only those who have obeyed the commands of Christ will be saved. If the Lord’s body is undenominational, as we have proven it is, then we need to speak of the Lord’s body in such a way as to communicate that it is undenominational. I Am a Baptist or Methodist or _______. What Are You? Church of Christ Sometimes when someone approaches us and says, “I am a Baptist, what are you?” our reaction can be to answer back “church of Christ.” But again, we need to consider what our answer is conveying to the person who is asking it. Do we believe that I myself, as an individual, is the church of Christ, a church of Christ, or church of Christ? No. By definition, the word “church” means that it has more than one person. The word church is a collective noun denoting that it has a plurality of members. One senator cannot say that he is Congress. One sheep cannot say that it is flock. Neither can one Christian say that he or she is church of Christ. It simply is not true. One individual is not the universal church because the universal church consists of all the saved from time past to present, including people in other countries. One individual is not a local church because it consists of all the Christians in a geographically area that have decided to work and worship together. What we need to recognize is that the person is asking us what denomination we are. When the questioner states the denomination they are and then asks what we are, they are implying in the question that they want to know what denomination we are. If we answer “church of Christ,” then we are again perpetuating a denominational concept of the Lord’s body. Just Christians What we need to tell people is that we are Christians. They will usually respond that they know that we are Christians, but what kind are you, or what denomination are you? But we are not any kind of Christian and do not belong to any denomination. We are simply Christians and this is what we see in the New Testament. In Acts 11:26 we see the disciples called themselves Christians in Antioch. In Acts 26:28 King Agrippa did not say that he had almost been persuaded to become church of Christ. He had almost been persuaded to become a Christian. In 1 Peter 4:16 we read that Peter identifying the followers of Christ as Christians. He says there, “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.” We also need to identify ourselves to the world as Christians, and not communicate to others a denominational concept. We do not find in the scriptures one person identifying himself or herself as church of Christ. 11 By Samuel Matthews READ Matthew 5:1-4 (KJV). Loved ones, in this post we will look at the beginning of the sermon on the mount. Jesus begins this sermon by teaching on what has been commonly referred to as the Beatitudes. As we study the first 4 verses of chapter 5, we hope to make some practical application of these words spoken by Jesus. In our local newspapers we have a section of classified ads. Invariably these ads contain "Help Wanted" announcements. Here’s an example of one such ad from a bank: Cashier Wanted: Downtown area, full-time or PART time positions available, must be flexible and willing to work, polygraph required, apply in person... $15 per hour. An ad like this indicates that an employer is searching for someone. There's a job to be done and a need for someone to do it. When it comes to spiritual matters, God Himself is searching for someone. The New Testament presents us with a sort of divine "Help Wanted" announcement that reads something like this: “Servants Wanted - must go throughout the world, ONLY full-time positions available, must be willing to develop certain character traits, apply in person at the throne of God… blessedness promised.” Now when we say that a "Help Wanted" ad appears in the New Testament, we do not wish to be misunderstood. We are NOT suggesting that God is an employer, or that God is looking to hire someone. The New Testament does not teach that. Yet, the New Testament does teach that God intends to do a work in this world (Matthew 28:18-20). He purposes to do all that He possibly can to save men from sin. To accomplish this task God needs a special kind of people—servants. Even God's only begotten Son admitted this. Consider Jesus' own personal statement on why He came into this world: “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Another sound Bible version says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life—a ransom for many.” Plain and simple, Jesus came to be a servant. To secure man's salvation from sin, God needed a Son who would be a servant, willing to serve and give. Likewise, to continue God's saving work in this century, God needs a church consisting of both men and women, boys and girls. who are true servants. The Lord seeks human beings who will bear the distinctive marks of true servanthood. With this divine search for servants in mind, we want to center this sermon on the passage of our TEXT: Matthew 5:3-4, those familiar words that we call… The Beatitudes. After His 40-day fast and temptation in the wilderness by Satan, Jesus comes into Galilee and begins preaching, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). Now in chapter five, He comes to this mount and begins teaching those who will enter into the kingdom how to prosper and be profitable as servants of God. Someone may ask, “brother preacher, why study this passage to learn about servanthood?” ANSWER: Because in these well-known words, God's Perfect Servant (Jesus) reveals the Distinctive Character Traits of servanthood. These distinctive qualities vividly portray the IMPACT of the Kingdom of God in the lives of men. When God is given His proper place in our lives, these Distinctive Character Traits will emerge. If we were to attempt to capture in a single sentence the idea that we wish to impress upon your mind from this study, it would be this: “Distinctive Character Traits mark the lives of God's true servants.” The Beatitudes present us with eight-character traits associated with true servanthood. True servants are (1) poor in spirit, (2) those who mourn, (3) meek, (4) they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, (5) merciful, (6) pure in heart, (7) peacemakers, ( they which are persecuted for righteousness sake. In this post we will only deal with the first two, but when all eight are mixed in your life, balance emerges. It is helpful to realize that this is not a "multiple choice" list where we are free to pick and choose our favorites. Our Savior has stated very clearly the qualities that together will lead to a DIFFERENT lifestyle from that of the world. If your aim is to be a servant of God that pleases the Lord, you can't pick and choose when it comes to these servanthood traits. Every single one of them must be present in your life in order to be pleasing to God. 1. POOR IN SPIRIT The pleasing lifestyle of a servant begins with being “poor in spirit.” The word "poor"(ptochos – Strongs 4434) comes from a verb meaning "to crouch like a beggar." It depicts extreme poverty. “Ptochos” describes a beggar who is totally dependent on the help of another for his basic necessities. Lazarus was such a person. In Luke 16:20, the Lord calls him “ptochos,” because his utter poverty forced him to beg. Lazarus was a deeply impoverished man. He was helpless and powerless to provide for his own physical needs. In the Beatitudes, Jesus applies this sense of deep poverty to spiritual matters. "Blessed are the poor in spirit. . ." The Lord is saying, "Blessed are those who freely admit their spiritual poverty, spiritual inadequacy, and spiritual destitution because of sin. Blessed are those who see themselves for what they are—spiritually bankrupt." Jesus is saying, servanthood means open acknowledgment that YOU and "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23), "All we like sheep have gone astray" (Isaiah 53:6), and remember, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). A true servant sees his own sad condition in these words. He acknowledges that he is spiritually undone, inadequate, desperate. He feels helpless, powerless impotent. He realizes that his only hope is to cast himself totally on God's mercy. A true servant is willing to humble himself before God and cry, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). In this world you may be climbing the ladder of success. You make more money than you ever dreamed; you live in a fine house; two cars are in the garage; a boat is out back. Your closet may be filled with the finest clothes; your children do not fret over money for their college education. But don't let material success hide the reality of your spiritual poverty! Whether you're a chairman of the board, an assembly line worker, or a homemaker; whether you're a banker, a nurse, a secretary, or a preacher; you need to come face to face with, and daily admit, your spiritual dependency on God. “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” 2. THOSE WHO MOURN Another distinctive character trait of a true servant is seen in Jesus' words: "Blessed are they that mourn... " The word "mourn" is a form of the Greek word pentheo (Stro. 3996). “Pentheo” describes mourning for the dead (Mark 16:9-10). It is bereavement, the utter grief and sorrow which accompanies the loss of someone dear. “Pentheo” means to grieve with a grief which so takes possession of the whole being that it cannot be hid. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word is used to express the overwhelming grief of Jacob when he believed the false report of Joseph's death (Genesis 37:34). There is no stronger word for mourning in the Greek language than pentheo. Even today, the modern Greeks use this same word to indicate bereavement. One other matter should be noticed! The mourning described in this passage is not a one-time matter. Nor is it an every once in a while kind of grief. It is continuous! Literally, the passage reads, "Blessed are the ones who keep on mourning. . . " Jesus commends an ongoing experience of passionate sorrow, a condition of the heart. Now, let's put this all together. God's Perfect Servant (Jesus) reveals still another distinctive mark of true servanthood. It is an inner quality of the heart, a deeply felt sorrow that abides at all times within the servant. But to what kind of sorrow does this refer? What kind of sorrow must the servant of God feel every day of his life? In context, it's not the sorrow associated with the loss of a loved one, but the sorrow resulting from sin. This is a distinctive trait of a true servant. It is one thing to be spiritually bankrupt and admit it; it is another to be grieved by it. Jesus would have you to realize that you cannot serve God without being intensely sorry for your own personal sins. You cannot be God's servant until you sense the destructive nature of sin. Almost two thousand years ago, the only perfect man who ever lived was taken and brutally killed on a hill near Jerusalem. Because of sins which were NOT His own, Roman soldiers executed our Lord. Because of my trespasses and yours, cruel man nailed the loveliest person in all the world to a wooden cross. Like the prophet said about seven hundred years before that dark day: “5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:5-6). Because of our sin, a lonely, desperate cry was heard from the cross: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Sin crucified Jesus. Sin made it happen. A day should never pass that you and I don't fall down on our knees and, before God, grieve because of the price which had to be paid because of our sins. If we did that, it would cause us to think twice about giving in to the next temptation to sin (to show undue anger, to use cursing language, to show unconcern for the lost). If we grieved over our sin, we would quit minimizing sin, wouldn't we? We wouldn't joke about it. We would hate it for what it is—the only thing in this world that would make it necessary for the Son of God to be nailed to a cross. “Blessed are they that keep on mourning: for they shall be comforted.” To be continued in Part 2 - Blessed are the meek… To the God of heaven be the Glory as His Will is done (1 Corinthians 10:31). Please pray for wisdom, for me and my wife, Cynthia, and for the Liberty NW church of Christ meeting in Portland, Oregon, USA. We are praying for you, and we love you all so much. Samuel. By Wayne Jackson
“If baptism is an essential requirement within the plan of salvation, why did Paul dismiss it as NOT being a part of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17)?” This is a common argument employed by certain denominational folks in an effort to negate the several compelling passages that associate baptism with the remission of sins. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, the inspired apostle wrote: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” For example, two modern writers have argued in this vein. We are saved by the gospel (Rom. 1:16). Paul, however, “separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, ‘Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.’ Therefore, baptism is not a part of what saves us” (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1992, p. 428). This view reflects a total misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Paul’s instruction in this important passage. Note, please, the immediate context. The apostle addressed the problem of factionalism in the church at Corinth. Some of those Christians were inordinately enamored with the person who had immersed them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious title (see vv. 12-13) — a practice not dissimilar to the common habit of wearing human titles in the modern world of “Christendom.” In view of such a perversion, Paul expressed thanksgiving that he had personally immersed only a few of these people (cf. vv. 14-16). It was within this context that he wrote: “For Christ sent me not to baptize.” Baptism was not the problem; it was the perverted practice of certain Corinthians that warranted rebuke. W.E. Vine noted that “in abstaining from baptizing all the converts the Apostle had not given occasion for undue adherence to himself” (First Corinthians — Local Church Problems. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 20). The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (see J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 94). Paul had not been commissioned to be primarily an administrator of baptism. The fact that he could remember only three names (cf. 1 Cor. 1:14-16) of those whom he had baptized, during an eighteen-month stay in the city (Acts 18:11), is clear evidence of that. His main function had been to proclaim the gospel. The apostle was not disassociating himself from the importance of baptism as a component in the sacred plan of redemption (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21); rather, he was contending that no special adoration was to be attached to the person administering the rite. Since Paul himself was immersed in order to have his sins “washed away” (Acts 22:16), and inasmuch as he taught that by means of baptism one enters “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27), he certainly is not about to disavow the divine command as an element apart from the gospel. It is an egregious fallacy to employ 1 Corinthians 1:17 in an attempt to nullify God’s holy commandment. Scripture References 1 Corinthians 1:17; Romans 1:16; Acts 18:11; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4 By Wayne Jackson
Is the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration” scriptural? In order to answer such a question, one first must define precisely what he means by that designation. Exactly what is “baptismal regeneration”? The phrase connotes different things to different people. For some, the expression is merely a bit of inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate those who affirm that baptism is a part of the regeneration process. To others, it is the notion that baptism is a “sacrament” which has a sort of mysterious, innate power to remove the contamination of sin — independent of personal faith and a volitional submission to God’s plan of redemption. The doctrine of baptism’s essentiality has the support of the Bible; the “sacramental” ideology does not. Let us reflect upon this latter concept. Baptism As a Mystical Sacrament “Baptism,” as administered by the Roman Catholic Church, reflects a form of “baptismal regeneration” that is wholly at variance with the New Testament. A leading Catholic authority defines “baptism” in the following fashion: “A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ, in which, as a result of washing with water accompanied by the words ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ a human being is spiritually regenerated, and made capable of receiving the other sacraments” (Attwater, 45). This view involves the idea that “baptism” need not be accompanied by faith, or personal surrender to the Lord. Note these additional citations from the same page of this volume. “Baptism of the insane may be lawfully performed if such a desire has been expressed in a lucid interval, or in imminent danger of death if, before losing reason, a desire had been manifested. Those who have been insane from birth, or since before attaining the use of reason, may at any time be baptized as infants.” “Baptism of the unborn. If there is not a probable hope that a child can be baptized after birth, Baptism may be administered in the womb: in the case of a head presentation, on the head; in other presentations on the part presented, but then it has to be again baptized conditionally if it is living on complete delivery. Should the mother die in labour, the child is to be extracted from the womb and, if certainly living, baptized absolutely; if life is doubtful, conditionally. An aborted fetus must also be baptized, unconditionally or conditionally according to the circumstances.” The sentiments expressed by Attwater (whose book, incidentally, has the Imprimatur of the Roman Church) are wholly foreign to New Testament doctrine. But how does the teaching of the New Testament differ from this concept of “baptismal regeneration”? New Testament Baptism First, there is nothing in the teaching of the Scriptures which would even remotely suggest that there is some magical essence inherent in the water of baptism that can effect forgiveness of sin. Rather, baptism, i.e., immersion in water, is a rite that is accompanied by both faith (Mark 16:16) and repentance (Acts 2:38). Void of those prerequisites, it has no validity whatever. Second, baptism is an act of obedience wherein one expresses his confidence in the power of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to produce pardon. Paul makes it quite clear that when one is buried with Christ through baptism, it is into the Lord’s death, i.e., the benefits of his death, that the sinner comes. And, just as the Son of God was raised from the dead to the glory of Father, even so, when one is raised from the burial of baptism, he passes into a state characterized as “newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). The power to save is in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Penitent believers access that power when they humbly submit to the Lord’s requirement to replicate the Savior’s burial and resurrection in the action of baptism (cf. Col. 2:12-13). Third, though we readily acknowledge that there is no “sacramental” power intrinsic to the water of baptism, that does not give us leave to repudiate the sacred connection between the rite of baptism and forgiveness. To do so, is to ignore numerous passages of the plainest import. Salvation is preceded by both faith and baptism, according to the precise language of Mark 16:16. The Greek text literally suggests: “He who has believed, and who has been immersed, shall be saved.” In a parallel passage, baptism is viewed as the culminating act by which one is acknowledged as a disciple (Mt. 28:19 – ASV). Jesus informed Nicodemas that one does not enter the kingdom of God except by the new birth process (Jn. 3:5), which involves “water,” i.e., baptism. Not many would deny that the new birth and “regeneration” are equivalents. Hence, there is a solid connection between regeneration and the birth that involves water. For fifteen centuries it was conceded that the “water” of this passage is an allusion to baptism. John Calvin introduced the novel view that the “water” must be spiritualized, and he has been followed by numerous advocates of the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone.” The historian Philip Schaff observed that Calvin’s view was an excessive reaction to the dogma of Catholicism, and that it is impossible to disassociate the “water” in this verse from the rite of baptism (Lange, p. 127). When asked: “What shall we do?” by sincere folks who had been convicted of their sin guilt, Peter informed them that they must repent and be baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). No sectarian quibble can evade the force of this transparent command and the design associated with it. Paul of Tarsus, who had been praying for days — and still was lost, was instructed to: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). This was not “baptismal regeneration” in a mystical sense; rather, it was merely submission to an inspired ordinance. It is by baptism that one is said to enter “into Christ” (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27), wherein salvation is located (2 Timothy 2:10). Paul describes baptism as a “washing of water,” or a “washing of regeneration,” in connection with which the sinner is “cleansed” or “saved” (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5). A.T. Robertson, a Baptist scholar, concedes that both of these passages allude to water baptism (p. 607). And so, while the Roman Catholic dogma of “baptismal regeneration” is false, there is a perfectly legitimate nexus between baptism and regeneration. Peter unequivocally affirms that baptism is involved in our salvation. Just as Noah and his family were transported from an environment of corruption into a realm of deliverance, so, similarly, in baptism we are moved from the world of defilement into a redeemed relationship with the Lord (1 Pet. 3:21). One does not have to believe in the Catholic concept of “baptismal regeneration” in order to acknowledge that there is a relationship between water immersion and forgiveness, in the passages cited above. The Principle Involved Perhaps it would be helpful if we would illustrate, by other cases in the Scriptures, the principle that is involved in this relationship. The Case of Naaman Naaman was an officer in the Syrian army, but he was woefully afflicted with the dreaded disease leprosy. The prophet Elisha bade him go “wash” in the Jordan river, promising that he would be “clean.” Finally, after some equivocation, the captain thus did, and his flesh was restored (2 Kgs. 5:14). Certainly there was no merit in Jordan’s water, and there is no textual suggestion that Namaan was disposed to trust in the efficacy of the river; he simply came to a state of confidence in the prophet’s message. There was no “water healing” in this case. But who, thinking rationally, could deny that his restoration was dependent upon submission to the divine command? The Man Born Blind Jesus once encountered a man who had been blind since birth. The Lord spat upon the ground and made a clay potion, anointing the man’s eyes. He then commissioned the gentleman to: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (Jn. 9:7). The man obeyed; he washed, and came away seeing. Was there medicinal value in Siloam’s water? Of course not. Should the blind man have refused the Savior’s command? What if he had reasoned in this fashion: “If I go and wash, that will suggest that I am trusting in water. I do not believe in ‘washing restoration.’ I do not wish to ‘merit’ my sight. Therefore, I will simply trust in Jesus’ power to heal, and refrain from going to Siloam.” Just what would have been the result? Perhaps the following chart will help to put things in focus with reference to the connection between baptism and salvation, and the order of their occurrence, in the scriptural plan. The Biblical Order Baptism Salvation (Mk. 16:16) Born of Water Enter Kingdom (Jn. 3:5) Baptism Remission of Sins (Acts 2:38) Baptism Washing (Acts 22:16) Baptism Death of Christ (Rom. 6:3) Washed Justified (1 Cor. 6:11) Baptism Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) Baptism Clothed With Christ (Gal. 3:27) Washing of Water Cleansed (Eph. 5:26) Baptism Working of God (Col. 2:12) Washing of Regeneration Saved (Tit. 3:5) Baptism Saved (1 Pet. 3:21) Conclusion Even when one has done precisely as the Lord commands, he has merited nothing; he has earned nothing. The fact that we are saved by God’s grace does not negate human responsibility in accepting Heaven’s gift, and one’s refusal to do what is clearly commanded by the Son of God, or to assign it a subordinate status, is not justified. Those who speak in opposition to New Testament baptism, contradicting the sacred writings, will have a heavy judgment to bear. Scripture References Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12-13; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3:27; 2 Timothy 2:10; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21; 2 Kings 5:14; John 9:7; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 2:12 |
Archives
January 2022
Categories
All
|
Site powered by Weebly.Managed by Baggies Web Solutions
Copyright © Eagle Park church of Christ 2022, All Rights Reserved