Tag: Bible

SHOULD WE PASS OVER THE GENEALOGY?

by Mike Benson

SEVENTEEN verses. Seventeen long verses of genealogy with hard-to-pronounce names like Zerah, Hezron, Amminadab, Nahshon, Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Jeconiah—just to name a few.

From a modern vantage point, this might not have been the most effective way to start a New Testament book—much less the first book of the New Testament. I mean, let’s face it, genealogies can be, dare I say it, bland at best, and yet that’s exactly how the Holy Spirit in His infinite wisdom chose to initiate this particular gospel account. This tells us that Jesus’ genealogy is here for a reason—and as we incrementally read our way through these seventeen verses of Scripture, we begin to uncover the Divine method behind this literary madness.

Note first part of verse 1: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David…” This esteemed personality would have immediately caught the eyes and hearts of every dedicated Jewish reader who was looking for the Messiah because “The Son of David” not only rooted Jesus Christ in David’s lineage, but it also demonstrated that God had kept His promise and “establish(ed) the throne of (his descendant’s) kingdom forever (cf. Ps. 89:29; 132:11; Lk. 1:32; Acts 2:30-36). It therefore it comes as no surprise then that Matthew often employs the phrase “Son of David” as a messianic title for Jesus, reminding His readers that Jesus was not some usurper to the throne, but that He was the legitimate heir and ruler of that eternal kingdom (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42).

But notice also the latter part of verse 1: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” This description not only placed Jesus in the lineage of Israel going all of the way back to father Abraham, but it also vividly demonstrated that He was/is the fulfillment of God’s promises, not only through David, but through Abraham as well. Back in Genesis, God told Abraham, “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3b), “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed…” (22:18b). Paul later explains that Jesus was/is that “seed” of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).

But there is another fascinating detail about the Jesus’ genealogy that commands our attention. Matthew not only connects notable women as well. Ironically, Old Testament genealogies were concerned with male, as opposed to female, lineage—and yet, here they are in this inspired account: 1) Tamar (v. 3) who disguised herself as a prostitute and committed fornication with her father-in-law Judah (cf. Gen. 38), 2) Rahab (v. 5) the notorious Canaanite prostitute of Jericho (cf. Josh. 2), 3) Ruth (v. 5) the Moabite of whom God had said, a “Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord” (cf. Ruth 1-4; cf. Deut. 23:3), and finally, 4) Bathsheba (v. 6) not mentioned by name, but is referred to as “her who had been the wife of Uriah,” who committed adultery with a king (cf. 2 Sam. 11).

All four of these women would have certainly been shunned by the elite Jewish society of Matthew’s day, and yet the Bible lets us know why they, like David and Abraham, were also included in Jesus’ lineage. You see, while Christ is the Son and Seed of the likes of as David and Abraham, He also is the descendant of broken, imperfect, weak, and sinful people, which is exactly why you and I cannot and must not pass over His genealogy. Jesus the Anointed One/Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, and the offspring of sinners—is uniquely qualified to serve and save sinners Himself (Heb. 4:15; Lk. 19:10) because He Had sinners in His own family tree!

Good brethren, please don’t pass over this genealogy in Matthew. What might initially seem like a poor way of starting a book, is actually a storehouse of faith-building, soul-strengthening truth.

FOR DEEPER UNDERSTANDING:

1. Give some reasons as to why the Jews were so interested in genealogies.

2. How is Matthew’s genealogy of the Christ different from Luke’s?

3. How could Jews know to refer to Jesus as “Son of David?” Be specific

4. What is the relationship between Old Testament genealogies and the promises of God?

What MUST the Baptizer Say?

Is it necessary for one who is baptizing to say a certain verbal formula just prior tothe baptism itself?

IS IT NECESSARY, i.e., Scripture required, for one who is baptizing another to say a certain verbal formula just prior to the baptism itself?

Must he actually utter the words, “I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” in order to certify the immersion?

Let’s consider these questions together in the light of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3):

1. QUESTIONS

. What if the immerser says nothing just prior to the candidate’s immersion? Is the immerser guilty of sin? How might he go about repenting of this omission? Would a second immersion be necessary because he was silent just before the baptism took place?

. When a candidate is immersed for the remission of sins is he still in sin because the one doing the immersing did not articulate a specific verbal formula?

. Is any candidate’s salvation in any way dependent upon the verbiage of the individual performing the baptism?

. Is there a specific passage of Scripture which instructs the one doing the baptizing to say a certain verbal formula?

. Is there an approved example in the New Testament which illustrates where the individual doing the baptizing actually said, “I now baptize you in the name of…?”

2. It is essential that we differentiate between what the candidate MUST DO (Acts 16:30), and what the one doing the baptizing COULD SAY.

Every candidate MUST believe on the Lord Jesus and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; 17-18; Col. 2:12; Tit. 3:5), but every individual doing the immersing is free to speak or remain silent at the event.

3. The emphasis in Scripture has to do with the AUTHORITY for baptism and not the exact terminology employed at the time.

As Wayne Jackson states, “No passage in the New Testament, which mentions baptizing ‘into” the ‘name’ of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (or ‘into’ Christ, or ‘in’ His name), has reference to what is being said at the time of the immersion. …There is no allusion whatsoever to a formalized ‘language code’ that is required in order to validate the immersion.”1

Watch:

. “Baptizing them IN (Greek – eis, into) THE NAME OF the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat. 28:19b).

. “Baptized IN (Greek – eis, into) THE NAME OF the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).

. “Be baptized IN (Greek – epi, upon) THE NAME OF Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).

. “Baptized IN (Greek – en, in) THE NAME OF the Lord” (Acts 10:48).

. “Baptized IN (Greek – eis, into) THE NAME OF the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

“To be baptized ‘upon the name’ or ‘in the name’ of Jesus suggests the ground or occasion for the baptism. ‘The name’ in the Sacred Writing often denotes the sum of the divine attributes of the Person named; all that is involved in the Being whose name is thus designated. ‘Into the name’ denotes union or communion with. Thayer says that ‘be a usage chiefly Hebraistic the name is used for everything a name covers. . .to do a thing in the name of another, i.e., by one’s command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause.’ Thus acting by the authority of Christ from the relationship we sustain to him our Redeemer and Lord, we are baptized into a state of union and communion with God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit”‘ (emphasis mine – mb).2

Sometimes one performing a baptism will hold his free hand high in the air as we says, “I now baptize you in the name of…”

Hopefully we all recognize and agree that having his hand in the air is neither required nor commanded.

It is simply a customary activity employed to add (it is argued) solemnity to the occasion.

The person who is being baptized is not in any way impacted by this token gesture.

Well, the same is true of what is said at immersion.

Both hand gestures and verbal statements are merely customs which preachers and other have employed down through the years as they carry out their work.

The key word in that sentence is customs and customs are not commands (cf. Mat. 15:8).

Brethren, let’s be very cautious about speaking where the Bible does not speak and legislating where the Bible has not bound (1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17).

The Word of God does not specify what one doing the immersing must say;3 it does mandate what he must do – immerse!

1 Wayne Jackson, “Is a ‘Word Formula’ Required in Administering Baptism?” Christian Courier, https://christiancourier.com/articles/is-a-word-formula-required-in-administering-baptism

2 Guy N. Woods, “Questions and Answers – Open Forum,” 165-66.

3 “To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the gound of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (en) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is no the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord’s Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter. Marvin Richardson Vincent, Matthew 28:19, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, 150.

*baptism image via unsplash kaleb tapp.

How Much Do You Like the Buffet?

Larry and Jane Hudson are dear friends from the Main Street church of Christ. Years ago they invited me to Sunday dinner following the AM worship assembly. This special couple was celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary at the time, and so they asked me to go along and commemorate the happy occasion.

Our destination? Owensboro, Kentucky and Moonlite Bar-B-Q.

Everybody in this neck of the woods knows about Moonlite. Think casual dining. Think family feel. Think all-you-can-eat BBQ buffet. Underline the word “all.” Hungry guests stand in line with a plate and then help themselves to a smorgasbord of tasty, home-style dishes.

Buffet. Choose what you want. Skip what you don’t want. Go back as many times as you wish. This is gastronomical heaven. I loaded my plate with country favorites—mashed potatoes, pulled pork and green beans, but then skipped the macaroni and cheese, gravy and rolls.

I left the restaurant full as the proverbial tick. Okay, maybe not full—I stopped just one bite shy of gluttony.

The meal was great; the Christian company was even better.

It occurs to me that many preachers treat the Word like a trip to Moonlite. They fill their theological dinnerware with perennial favorites. They “eat” what their doctrinal belly desires (Philippians 3:19), but then pass over those food items that their denomination deems unpalatable. For instance, some heap their plate with faith, but then consciously omit what the Scriptures teach about baptism. They select some of God’s Word, but not the sum of God’s Word. They claim to be “Bible-believing,” but then do a “Moonlite” on those passages that teach the necessity of immersion.

Does the New Testament require baptism? You say, “No.” Look again:

According to Matthew 28:19-20, baptism is involved in my becoming a disciple of Christ.

According to Mark 16:15-16, baptism is something I must engage if I want to be saved.

According to Acts 2:37-38, baptism is something I must undergo in order to be forgiven of my sins.

According to Acts 8:12-13, 38, baptism is something to which I must submit, even if it means changing my religion.

According to Acts 10:48, baptism is something I must obey because it has been commanded.

According to Acts 16:14-15, 33, baptism is something I will yield to—immediately—in order to be faithful to the Lord.

According to Acts 22:16, baptism is something I must do if I desire my past sins to be taken away (cf. Acts 9:6).

According to Romans 6:3-7, baptism is that which makes a difference (slave of sin vs. slave of righteousness) in my life.

According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, baptism is the means by which I enter the body or church (cf. Ephesians 1:22-23).

According to Galatians 3:26-27, baptism is the way that I become a child of God.

According to 1 Peter 3:21, baptism saves.

Do you have your Bible handy? Read through Jeremiah 36. Jeremiah prophesied during the closing days of the southern kingdom of Judah. On one occasion, the prophet received a divine message from God and then had the words written on a scroll (vv. 1-3). This inspired document was later read to king Jehoiakim by Jehudi (vs. 21). When Jehudi read that the kingdom-nation would be overthrown by the Babylonian empire, Jehoiakim decided he couldn’t “stomach” anymore. The arrogant ruler took a scribe’s penknife, cut up the scroll, and then cast it into the fire until it was consumed (vs. 22-24).

Jehoiakim would have liked Moonlite. Eat what you want. Skip what you don’t want. Mashed potatoes “Yes,” dinner rolls “No.” Authoritarian rule, “Yes,” servile bondage “No.” Faith “Yes,” baptism “No.”

Dear reader, the Bible is not a self-serve restaurant. We can’t pick out the parts that we like and then reject or cut out the portions that don’t strike our fancy. We must declare and consume (Jeremiah 15:16) the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2-4), including those passages that teach the necessity of baptism.

Is your preacher offering some of God’s Word, or the sum of God’s Word? “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (Psalm 119:160).

Does God Have Body Parts?

Creaci243n_de_Ad225m

IT IS A $100 word.

Anthropomorphism.

It is difficult to enunciate; it is even more challenging to understand.

The word is a combination of the Greek anothropos, meaning human and morphe, meaning form.

Anthropomorphic language represents God having human form or characteristics.

For instance, the Bible says:

Do these passages tell us that God possesses physical features? No.

Jesus said, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), and as such, He is not a partaker of flesh and blood as we are.

Here are two helpful things to remember whenever you come across anthropomorphic language in your study of the Scriptures:

1. Anthropomorphic language typically informs readers of something God has done or is doing.

2. Anthropomorphic language speaks of God as though He were a man in order to help us, on some limited level, to comprehend deity (cf. Psalm 50:21; Isaiah 55:9).

Bernard Ramm, in his book, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, observes:

“Holy Scripture is the truth of God accommodated to the human mind so that the human mind can assimilate it. Through such accommodation the truth of God can get through to man and be a meaningful revelation. Stated another way, revelation must have an anthropomorphic character.”

Contemporary writer R.B. Thieme says similarly:

“For the sake of clarity…when describing the character and function of infinite God, the Bible often resorts to language of accommodation. In other words, to make certain that His thoughts, policies, decisions, and actions are lucidly explained, God takes into account our inherent limitations and basic ignorance. He graciously describes Himself as having human feelings, human passions, human thoughts, human anatomy-even human sins-in order to communicate things to us for which otherwise we would have no frame of reference.”

“God loves you and I love you and that’s the way it’s gonna be!” – Mike

Why Kill Lazarus?

wolf-yellowstone-aspen.jpg.860x0_q70_crop-scale

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to read the sentence without some incredulity.

John records, “…The chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death…” (John 12:10).  Think about that word–“priests.” It’s plural.  One spiritual leader didn’t scheme to murder Lazarus; many spiritual leaders schemed to murder Lazarus. And these guys were supposed to be the religious right–the moral elite of ancient Jewish society!

The ESV says, “…The chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well.” “As well…” In truth, they didn’t want to murder just one man, but two. They wanted to kill Jesus (cf. 11:53) and Lazarus.

“Why?” you may ask. Re-read John 12:9-11. A great many Jews believed in Jesus. And why did a great many believe in Jesus? Because Lazarus had been raised from the dead.

Remember that the Sadducees taught that there was no resurrection (cf. Matt. 22:23-28). Unfortunately for them, Lazarus illustrated that their dogma was at obvious variance with the Biblical data. He was a living, breathing entity despite the fact that he had been entombed for four days (11:39).

Lazarus was concrete evidence to the contrary; he was the doctrinal deathblow to their misguided, man-made tradition.

It was impossible for the chief priests to argue with or against him. Any sane, thoughtful, sincere individual wouldn’t even attempt to debate with Lazarus. He was absolute proof that Jesus could perform miracles. He was the undeniable corroboration of the divinity of Christ (cf. John 20:30-31).

And that’s why the chief priests wanted to kill Lazarus and Jesus.

A few thoughts rattle around in my neocortex as I ponder this curious incident:

  • If Jesus could resurrect a dead man, why did the chief priests entertain the idea of killing Lazarus in the first place? Couldn’t Jesus resurrect Lazarus again, if he so desired?

    What this teaches me is that you can’t expect coherent thinking and behavior from people who insist on upholding their agenda over truth.

  • If Jesus could, and obviously did, bring a dead man back to life–as Jesus had also done on previous occasions–e.g., the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) and the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40-56)–wouldn’t that serve as affirmation of His divine power? Had the chief priests really thought about the futility of trifling with the miracle Man of God?

The chief priests in John’s story remind me of a critical point: unbelief is not due to a lack of evidence; unbelief is due to a lack of conviction. People don’t reject the truth because there are no facts; they reject the truth despite the facts.

Even when there is incontrovertible testimony, some folks simply choose not to believe. If their hearts are hard and their motives are impure, you can expect them to be antagonist towards truth and to engage in sinful, destructive behavior.

On the other hand, if their hearts are soft and their motives are pure, you can expect them to investigate, believe in, and follow the Lord.

  • Was the world created in six literal days?
  • Is there life beyond this transient walk?
  • Is immersion necessary in order to be saved from sin?
  • Is it possible to live in adultery?
  • Is homosexual behavior sinful?

It depends. It depends on whether or not a person wants the truth and is willing to follow it to its inevitable conclusion.  The chief priests weren’t willing to do that.  Dear reader, are you (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:10)?

God loves you and I love you and that’s the way it’s gonna be!”–Mike