Do Matthew 5:43-45 And Matthew 19:16 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to address a few arguments made by Tim Staples against Sola Fide. He appeals to the command to love one's neighbor and the parable of the rich young ruler as biblical evidence for the idea that works are to be added to faith for justification before God. Following are excerpts from the author in bold along with a critique:

          "The inspired author here quotes Jesus Christ as using a purpose clause in Greek—hotos genesthe huioi tou patros humon to en ouranois—“in order that you may be made sons of your Father in heaven.” That means, in simple terms, you have to do this (love your enemies and pray for your persecutors) in order for that (being made sons of your Father) to become a reality. It really doesn’t get any plainer than that."

          The Holy Spirit pours the love of God into our hearts through His grace. That is related to our justification before God. However, this act of the Spirit is not to be conflated with such an instance. The manifestation of love in our lives demonstrates that we have been declared righteous by God.

          "When Jesus spoke to the rich young man, he was equally clear that it is not enough to believe in him (Christ) to have eternal life. That is part of it (John 3:16). But Jesus says it is also necessary to “keep the commandments” and “sell what you possess . . . and follow” him."

          A young man who was wealthy approached Jesus Christ and asked Him about what kind of works that he needed to accomplish in order to obtain eternal life (Matthew 19:16). He clearly wanted to earn a right standing before God. In response, Christ revealed that the individual fell short of meeting God's perfect standard of obedience to the Law (Matthew 19:21-22). That is true of us all (Romans 3:23). The disciples marveled at this encounter (Matthew 19:25). He concluded the conversation by reinforcing the fact of the impossibility of salvation apart from the work of God (Matthew 19:26). Rather than refuting justification by faith alone, this passage actually affirms that doctrine.

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

"Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man. I believe that he himself taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food."

The Octavius of Minucius Felix, Chapter XXX

The "Spirit of God" Or "Wind" In Genesis 1:2?

Genesis 1:1–2 speaks of more than just the act of creation. The text identifies the Creator as “God” and immediately thereafter indicates the possibility of another person of the Godhead at work: “the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters.” The phrase “Spirit of God” (יםִ להֱ אַ רוּח) occurs only fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible and appears always to be a reference to a person, not a wind. In addition, יםִ להֱ א never occurs as an adjective in the Creation account—it always refers to God.8 The evidence is so overwhelming that Hildebrandt reaches a conclusion commensurate with that of Moltmann regarding the personhood of the Spirit of God: “The personhood of God the Holy Spirit is the loving, self-communicating, out-fanning and out-pouring presence of the eternal divine life of the triune God.”9 However, Hildebrandt then warns that taking this too far might lead to “speculative intrusion into the OT references,” since the full development of the personhood of the Spirit of God awaits the NT revelation.10 This hesitation to make the commitment to seeing a divine person as “the Spirit of God” in the second verse of Genesis arises even among some of the strongest evangelical theologians. Merrill, for example, concludes that “The Spirit is to be understood here as an effect of God and not yet, as in New Testament and Christian theology, the third Person of the triune Godhead.”11 

Why the disagreements and even the hesitation to identify “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 as a person of the Godhead? Part of the resistance comes from the thinking that the interpreter must give due recognition to the ANE setting for the writing of Genesis and its Creation account.12 Is that how we must read Genesis? Must we limit ourselves to the way that pagan, unbelieving, idolatrous ANE cultures viewed God (or, gods)? To yield to this hermeneutic requires one to degrade and even destroy the significant difference between genuine believers in the true God and those who ridicule them for their faith. Their worldviews are (and were) very different. Their value systems are opposed. A rough equivalent in our own day would be to insist that future readers of evangelical books should read them as though evangelicals have adopted the prevailing worldview or Zeitgeist—that our theology and morality actually coincide with non-Christian philosophy and (im)morality in the twenty-first century. If we would scream, “Foul!,” so would the OT writers. Many who write as Hildenbrandt does only intend that we recognize that the OT writers are reacting to and interacting with the unbelieving culture of their day, not adopting the beliefs expressed by pagan myths. However, it doesn’t always come out sounding or smelling that way, especially when someone insists that there is no way that “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 could be a person of the Godhead, because such a concept was totally foreign to the ANE cultures among whom the Hebrew writers dwelt. 

One must also look at Genesis 6:3 where God refers to “My Spirit.” Hildebrandt’s treatment of this text detours into later revelation before reaching a conclusion. He seeks to place the reference in a context of divine judgment as expressed throughout the OT. He still comes to a result identifying the Spirit as a personal being, but not as independently as the decision he made in 1:2.

William D. Barrick, Divine Persons in Genesis: Theological Implications, p. 3-4

An Exegetical Analysis Of Ephesians 2:8-9

        "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

        The Apostle Paul begins this chapter by describing how the world is in terms of its standing before God. Man is utterly lost, under divine judgment for sin. Man in his natural state is enslaved to Satan, living in lawlessness and perusing fleshly desires. But God in His love and graciousness has offered to us a path of redemption. We are set free from sin and death through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is life to us. It is not because we loved God, but Him having first loved us, that He reached out to us. We are powerless to change our sinful condition by ourselves. In this passage, Paul evidently made use of themes found in the Old Testament which relate to the giving of the Promised Land. Moses said to the Israelites before they crossed into the place God had given to them:

        "Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day." (Deuteronomy 8:11-18, emphasis added)

        Moses again sternly warned the Jews not to become big-headed because of what God did for them. He used repetition so that his hearers would not misjudge or misconstrue what was going on around them. The broader point was that the Jews did not create for themselves a nation by their own wit, prowess, or exertion. All of the good things which happened to them were a result of God's covenant faithfulness:

        "Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee. Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people." (Deuteronomy 9:3-6, emphasis added)

        God promised that He was going to grant His chosen people blessings. He ensured that the Jews would remain prosperous and secure. God continually watched over His people. He continually provided for the needs of His people. He was not, however, carrying through with His oath to their ancestors because of righteous conduct. Rather, God was working things out according to His divine purpose and plan. He was not blessing Israel because of anything praiseworthy about these people, for they had went after foreign gods and put Him to the test. The Jews were indeed a rebellious people against Him, just like the rest of us. God accomplished great things on their behalf in spite of them being unrighteous. For that reason, there was no grounds for the Jews to boast or become prideful. He wanted them to place their trust in Him. This testifies to the graciousness and mercy of the Lord. 

        Likewise, God offered up His Son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to make atonement for our sins. He did so, not because of any righteousness that we have, but in spite of our unrighteousness. We have all sinned against Him. We have all broken His Law. Thus, we neither deserve His grace nor His salvation. None of us are worthy of entering the kingdom of God. His offer of eternal life is available without cost to all who come by faith. Justification in His sight is not accomplished by our merits and power, but by God Himself. He wants us to lean on Him. He gives to believers His righteousness. He saves us because He is loving and merciful. There is no room for Christians in this framework to boast, since it is God who pours new life on to our souls through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is He who removes the stains of sin from us. We are not justified by works of righteousness, but by His grace.

        Compare the phrase "lest anyone should boast" in Ephesians 2:9 with the language of 1 Corinthians 1:28-29: "and the insignificant things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no human may boast before God." It is clear that God despises the pride or exaggerated sense of greatness that is so common to man. He listens to the humble of heart. God uses ordinary people to bring down those who are puffed-up and perceive themselves to be mighty. He uses us to bring glory to Himself. God oftentimes does not operate in ways that we would expect. He takes pleasure in forgiving our trespasses against Him. 

        Why would anyone boast before God? Sin is insane and foolish. It gives one a distorted sense of reality, which results in futile behavior. The Apostle Paul wrote elsewhere that people who fail to recognize God for who He is become senseless in their reasoning and worship created entities rather than Himself (Romans 1:21-25). That is a most unnatural scenario to happen. Paul's words about the exclusion of boasting find their backdrop in the words of the Weeping Prophet Jeremiah: "This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord" (Jeremiah 9:23-24). God's blessings are acts of divine grace, not human merit.

When Did Marriage Become A Sacrament?

Divorce, Annulment & Communion
An Orthodox Theologian Weighs In
By David Bentley Hart

Neither, for several centuries after the Apostolic Age, did any Christian theological authority think of marriage as a sacrament in our sense. Augustine (354–430) thought it might be described as a sacramentum in the proper acceptation of the Latin word: a solemn and binding oath before God. But even then, although he took the term chiefly from Jerome’s rendering of Ephesians 5:32, he certainly did not number matrimony among the saving “mysteries” of the church, alongside baptism and the Eucharist. Neither did anyone else, for many, many years. Even the great Church Fathers tended to treat marriage as little more than a civil institution, no different in kind for Christians than for non-Christians. One need only look, for example, at John Chrysostom’s fifty-sixth homily (on the second chapter of Genesis) to see how unacquainted even a late-fourth-century theologian of the highest eminence was with any concept of “holy” matrimony. And, inasmuch as they thought of marriage chiefly as a natural fact rather than as a sacred vocation, the Christians of late antiquity did not treat it as a theological topic.

In his Commentary on Matthew, for example, Origen (ca. 184–253) notes that many of the bishops of his time permitted both divorce and remarriage among the faithful. Canon 11 of the Council of Arles (314) recommends that a divorced man not remarry so long as his former wife still lives, but also grants that, for healthy young men incapable of the continence this would require of them, remarriage may prove necessary. Basil the Great (ca. 330–379) instructed Amphilochius of Iconium to allow men abandoned by their wives to remarry without penalty...Even Augustine, while firmly convinced that marriage should as a rule be indissoluble, nonetheless confessed in his Retractiones that he had no final answer on the issue.

To be honest, many modern believers would be shocked to learn how late in Christian history a clear concept of marriage as a religious institution evolved, and how long it took for it to be absolutely distinguished from what would come to be thought of as common-law unions, or for the church to insist on its solemnization in all cases. They would be even more disturbed, I imagine (as much on democratic principles as religious), to discover that throughout much of the Middle Ages the whole issue of wedlock certified by the church concerned mostly the aristocracy, inasmuch as marriage was chiefly a matter of property, inheritance, and politics. As far as we can tell, among the peasantry of many lands, and for many centuries, marital union was a remarkably mercurial sort of arrangement, one that coalesced and dissolved with considerable informality, as circumstances dictated. And the clergy did not, for the most part, give a damn.

Really, when one looks at it closely, in light of both the empirical facts and the abstract principles of the matter, the distinction between divorce and annulment is specious all the way down. For one thing, as regards actual cases on the ground, anyone who has seen a sufficient number of annulments at close quarters (and I have witnessed quite a few) knows that they are not only fairly easy to obtain for those willing to make the effort, but that the terms governing them are applied with such plasticity that it is difficult to see how any marriage could fail to meet the standards. True, abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not do away with proper use); but, in fact, there really is no abuse involved. The very concept of annulment, as something ontologically distinct from divorce, is logically incoherent, and really can be taken seriously only by a mind so absolutely indoctrinated to believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not tolerate divorce and remarriage that no evidence to the contrary can alter that conviction.

The very premise that a marriage can be pronounced null and void, in effect retroactively (since that same marriage would be regarded as real and legitimate if suit for annulment had never been brought forward), on the grounds of some original defect of intention that means it was never a real marriage to begin with (though again, it would be considered a real marriage if that defect were never exposed), basically provides a license to regard every marriage as provisional only. After all, in what union of a man and a woman could one not detect some crucial defect of original intention if one were to seek it? Moreover, if one looks at the criteria customarily used to prove that a marriage was never really a marriage, they scarcely differ at all from the criteria that the Orthodox Church—in principle, at least—is supposed to accept as legitimate grounds for divorce. And what is a divorce, after all, other than a recognition that the original marriage was contracted in ignorance and without full mutual commitment to everything a true marriage is?

It might make Catholics feel better about their Eastern brethren if the Orthodox Church called these separations “annulments,” and issued formal absolutions from wedding vows under such terms. I have to say, however, that I am glad it does neither. To my mind, the concept of annulment is not only specious and logically contradictory, but also somewhat insidious—in fact, often rather cynical and cruel. It is terrible enough when a marriage—something on which a man and a woman, at what is usually a fairly innocent moment in their lives, have staked their futures and their hopes for happiness—falls apart. It is somehow all the more terrible when, solely for the sake of avoiding institutional embarrassment, we are asked to indulge in the fiction that it was never a real marriage to begin with.

I know of a woman whose well-connected husband managed to obtain an annulment without her consent, and on grounds that would have scarcely qualified him as a plaintiff before a secular divorce court. And I happen to know that, of the two, he was the far more culpable in the matter. What she found bitterest of all in the final settlement was that, according to her church, no one was obliged to admit that her life as a wife and mother of twenty-six years—in a union freely contracted, sacramentally solemnized, physically and fruitfully consummated—had broken apart.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/divorce-annulment-communion

The Word Of Faith Movement Shares A Parallel With Gnosticism In Its Emphasis On Knowledge

The Faith theology exalts knowledge the same way that gnosticism does. Faith is preeminent for the Faith teachers, but they measure faith by the type and amount of knowledge one has. In the Bible, knowledge is not the measure of faith. Paul writes,

"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God." (1 Cor. 8:1, 2, 3; NIV)

Anyone who claims to have the knowledge of God must prove his knowledge by his love. As it is with knowledge, so also is it with faith. "The only thing that counts," proclaims Paul, "is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV). In his famous "love chapter," Paul teaches that without love, both faith and knowledge amount to nothing: "And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains. but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:3). Had the love ethic of Jesus prevailed in the Faith movement, many of the barbaric and tragic things done in his name-such as the fatal withholding of medication from young children-would never have happened.

D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, p. 110

Examining A Parallel Between Gnosticism And Word Of Faith Theology

The most obvious gnostic idea taught by the Faith theology is its dualistic definition of Revelation Knowledge as entirely spiritual in origin. Because it is spiritual, the physical senses are of no value in understanding it or using it. The Faith theology teaches the gnostic view that "man is a spirit being" who just happens to have a body. Only the "spirit man" has the capacity to receive revelation directly from the Holy Spirit. Because man's five bodily senses are physical, they are of no value in knowing God or his revelation. This view of revelation reflects the gnostic spirit-matter dualism that Kenyon learned from the metaphysical cults.

The Bible in no way justifies a dualistic view of revelation. Biblical revelation and salvation are physical as well as spiritual. The best proof of this is Jesus Christ himself, who is "the Word made flesh" (Jn. 1:14). In Jesus "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). We are saved "through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1:20) and are reconciled to God "in His fleshly blood through death" (Col. 1:22). In our treatment of the Faith theology's doctrine of redemption, known as "Identification," its gnostic spiritualization of the gospel will become further evident. Suffice it to say at this point, the Bible allows for no such spiritualization. The incarnation and death of Christ are the highest forms of revelation, and both are decidedly physical in nature.

Moreover, biblical revelation was not only physical in nature, it was perceived and understood through physical means. The apostles used their physical senses to understand the incarnation of the Word: "And we beheld His glory" (Jn. 1:14), wrote John. "We were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16), wrote Peter. "And we ourselves heard [God's] utterance...when we were with Him on the holy mountain" (2 Pet. 1:18). The apostles bore witness to what they had "seen and heard" and their "hands handled, concerning the Word of Life" (1 Jn. 1:1). The ultimate form of the Word of God-the incarnation and death of Jesus-was physical in nature and was perceived by physical means. This fact alone powerfully repudiates the gnostic spirit-matter dualism of Kenyon's Revelation Knowledge.

D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, p. 108

On The Meaning Of The Word Psalms

The English word “psalms” is a transliteration of the Greek title of the book. That is, this is the Greek word simply spelled in English or Roman letters. The Greek word psalmoi was first translated into Latin as Psalmi, and then into English as “Psalms.” The Greek word originally meant a striking or twitching of the fingers on a string. The related verb was used by classical writers for the “pulling of a bowstring.” From that came the idea of “pulling or playing a stringed musical instrument.” When the word took ons the extended meaning of a song, there was always the latent background of the stringed instrumental accompaniment tied to the singing. So the meaning of the Greek title of the book is “sacred songs sung to musical accompaniment.

 
Ronald B. Allen, And I Will Praise Him: A Guide to Worship in the Psalms, p. 21

Does The Roman Catholic Apocrypha Contain Historical And Theological Errors?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to rebut a handful of claims made by Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn in defense of the apocrypha against charges of it being historically and theologically unsound. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "Protestant apologist James McCarthy says the claim that these books are inspired must be rejected because “the author of 2 Maccabees says that his work is the abridgement of another man’s work (2 Macc. 2:23). He concludes the book by saying, ‘If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do’ (2 Macc. 15:38, NAB).”- But by McCarthy’s standard the Gospel of Luke would not be inspired, because it admits to being an adaptation of earlier sources (Lk 1:1-3). First Corinthians would likewise be uninspired, because Paul says he can’t remember whom he baptized (1:15). These passages only demonstrate the humility of the Bible’s human authors—not any lack of divine inspiration in their writings."

          Nowhere do the authors of the biblical books write concerning the quality of their writing, "I have done my best in writing this and hope you do not find it to be lacking." That language is not the product of somebody being moved by the Holy Spirit. It cannot simply be explained away as being human characteristics of Scripture. Furthermore, the words in the Book of Maccabees can readily be contrasted with passages of Scripture that pertain to divine inspiration of revelation (Matthew 10:19-20; 1 Corinthians 2:1; 12-13; 14:37).

          "Moreover, the alleged errors in the deuterocanonical books, such as Judith identifying Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Assyria instead of as the king of Babylon (Jud 1:1), Tobit being described as having lived for more than 150 years (Tob 14:11), can be explained. Specifically, these statements are only errors if the author was asserting a literal description of history, but even Protestant scholars agree that the authors of Judith and Tobit were not writing in the genre of literal history."

          The problem with this argument is that the church fathers considered these kind of writings to not be mythical, but historical. If the authors of the apocryphal books intended them to be understood in the same way, then that means they are in error and therefore disqualify themselves from the Old Testament canon. 

          "Claims that the deuterocanonical books contradict theological truths in the protocanonical books also fall flat. One example is the claim that the teaching that honoring one’s father and almsgiving can atone for sin (Sir 3:3; Tob 4:11) contradicts the New Testament’s teaching that only Christ can atone for our sins. But the book of Proverbs teaches that “by loyalty and faithfulness [or what many Protestants would call ‘works’] iniquity is atoned for” (16:6). First Peter says that “love covers a multitude of sin” (4:8), and Acts records an angel saying to the Gentile Cornelius, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4)."

          The text from Proverbs speaks of us being merciful to others and faithfully serving God. The text from Acts speaks of God not passing over Cornelius because of his charity and prayer. He was searching for God with an earnest heart. The text from 1 Peter speaks of love covering sins in the sense of not holding wrongdoings against other people. We ought to forgive because we have been forgiven by God. These passages of Scripture have nothing to do with people performing good deeds in order that atonement be made for their own sins.

          "Other claims of theological contradiction are circular, such as the claim that Second Maccabees is not inspired because it records the “unbiblical practice” of praying for the dead. But Protestants only say the practice is “unbiblical” because they do not regard Second Maccabees as part of the Bible. If Second Maccabees is inspired, however, then praying for the dead is a biblical practice even if it is only described in one book of the Bible. To make a comparison, the Gospel of Matthew is the only book in the Bible that records a Trinitarian baptismal command (28:19), but that doesn’t make such a command unbiblical."

          The accusation is not circular reasoning, if it can be shown that the practice of praying to the dead is inconsistent with biblical witness on the matter. Does the Roman Catholic Church accept the inspiration of 2 Maccabees in order to justify its dogmas? That seems like a fair question to ask. Further, 2 Esdras 7:105 is an apocryphal text that expressly contradicts the idea of prayers for the dead. Why did that text not end up being included in the Roman Catholic canon?

          "Finally, some Protestant apologists say the deuterocanonical books are not inspired because they are inferior in style to the protocanonical books of Scripture. Raymond Surburg writes, “When a comparison is instituted of the style of the Apocrypha with the style of the Biblical Hebrew Old Testament writings, there is a considerable inferiority, shown by the stiffness, lack of originality and artificiality of expression characterizing the apocryphal books.”— But this is a wholly subjective criterion that, if taken seriously, would put Shakespeare in the Bible and take books like Numbers or Philemon out of it."

          Literary criticism alone is not sufficient to either confirm or deny the canonicity of any books of the Bible. Even so, Trent Horn's statement about adding Shakespeare or removing any text from the Bible upon deeming extra-biblical texts to be of inferior quality does not follow. It is the product of an extremely skeptical approach, which would render impossible the analysis of any written text. We cannot come to conclusions about anything without subjectively using our powers of reason to weigh evidence in ruling out competing truth claims.

Are Christians To Be Giving Tithes?

        Many pastors, one of which is Charles Stanley, believe that Christians are supposed to be giving weekly tithes to their churches. Some, including the aforementioned individual, go as far as to claim that believers ought to give ten percent of their income and that God will bless people who obey. Malachi 3:8-10 is cited as a proof text for this teaching. However, there is rationale against Christians tithing, namely, that it was an aspect of the Mosaic Law, which does not have pertinence under the New Covenant. It does not apply to us for the same reason that Sabbath observance does not apply to us. Such things have been rendered obsolete at the cross and so will fade away (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 8:13). Tithing is a biblical idea, but not something God expects believers to do in this day and age.

        Why did the Jewish people provide tithes? It was dedicated to the care of Levitical priests as they performed animal sacrifices in the presence of God (Numbers 18:21-26). They had no inheritance of land as did the rest of the tribes of Israel. Tithes were used for feasts and also given to assist the poor. People made pilgrimages to Jerusalem every couple of years to honor those tithes, but this is not required of us. The Jews gave crops and livestock for tithes (Leviticus 27:30; 2 Chronicles 31:5). It is ironic that we do not see pastors imposing these kinds of requirements on their audiences. If they are going to be consistent with their teaching, then they might as well throw away the New Testament and convert to Judaism. Tithes made up ten percent of one's income, but nowhere are Christians told to give that much to the church.

        What are Christians supposed to give? The Apostle Paul answered that question in terms of "according to the desire of their hearts" and "not under compulsion" (2 Corinthians 9:7). He makes no mention of a fixed amount of a person's income. The rest of the New Testament epistles are silent concerning tithing. God loves a cheerful giver because he is giving from the heart. That kind of giving finds its root in love. The moral dimension of the Law is applicable for all time, but tithes are not included. Levites and ordained ministerial priests are tied to the Old Testament system of animal sacrifices. Today, all Christians are priests under the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. God is not focusing on the earthly Jerusalem at this point in time, but the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:25-26). 

         Sometimes people will appeal to the examples of Abraham and Jacob giving tithes before the institution of the Law as proof that we must do the same under the New Covenant. This way of thinking is mistaken, however. Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek took place only a single time. We have no evidence of him giving God a fixed income on a regular basis. Jacob gave a tenth of his income as a way of expressing gratitude for God's continued presence and protection. There is nothing in this text telling us that we must do the same, either. These were unique situations. Jesus spoke of tithing and sacrifices, but that was only before the inauguration of the New Testament. Nothing indicates that tithing is for Christians.

         One must act in a manner that is financially responsible when it comes to making these kinds of decisions. For example, a man may have a family that he is obligated to take care of (1 Timothy 5:8). Further, Proverbs 13:22 says that a good man will lay up an inheritance for his descendants. Hence, there are factors that take precedence over financially supporting one's own church. While none of this should be taken as encouraging selfishness and greed, it would be arrogant of us to presume that God will catch us when we fail to act in our own best interests. Nor would it be right to guilt trip others into giving monetarily. The tithe was specifically associated with Israel and the old order of things. God promised Abraham that he would inherit the whole world, not just the land of Israel.

Answering Proof Texts Cited In Defense Of Baptismal Regeneration

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of proof texts cited in support of baptismal regeneration, which is the idea that baptism must be added to faith for obtaining a righteous standing before God. While not all who teach this doctrine would deny that justification is by faith alone, the idea is nonetheless erroneous. Excerpts from a Catholic source are cited in bold and followed by a critique of such claims:

          "Mark 16:16 – Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

          The act of baptism is associated with justification before God, but does not constitute that instance itself. Consider this reasoning from analogy: people may have experience driving a vehicle, but it does not follow that they acquire knowledge regarding its assembly. In the same vein, Mark 16:16 nowhere indicates that unbaptized Christians will be condemned by God. Baptism cannot be a condition for salvation because it is a work (Ephesians 2:8-9). As to the order of faith and baptism in the New Testament, the latter always follows the former. For example, Matthew 28:19 says, "teach...and baptize..." Acts 2:38 says, "repent...and be baptized..." Moreover, it is not sound practice to use a passage with questionable authenticity to support a theological position.

          "John 3:3,5 – unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation."

          The phrase "born again" is to be paralleled with "born of the spirit." This washing is a single act brought about by the Spirit of God. It is a new birth that renews us and transforms us to be more like Jesus Himself. In the Old Testament, water is usually associated with purification of the soul. Notable references to this would include Isaiah 44:3 and Ezekiel 36:25-27. That is the context by which we are to understand Christ's words to Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus said in John 3:7 that he should not be surprised by His teaching, implying it should already have been known. Nicodemus was, after all, a teacher of the Law. This act of changing the human heart is accomplished from a source from beyond this world. The source of regeneration is the Holy Spirit. We cannot visibly see Him, but can see the effects of His work in a converted person (John 3:8). Since baptism is a work done by human hands, that would disqualify it as the means of being born again. The context identifies this act as being something beyond the control of us and coming from outside us.

          The motif of being washed spiritually was known to the Qumran Community. Consider the following excerpt cited by Alex Deasley, The Shape of Qumran Theology, p. 232:

          "By the spirit of holiness which links him with his truth he is cleansed of all his sins. And by the spirit of uprightness and humility his sin is atoned. And by the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is cleansed by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance. May he, then, steady his steps in order to walk with perfection on all the paths of God." (IQS III 7b-10a)

           Water imagery is used to convey the necessity of spiritual cleansing. The Jews from Qumran would have gotten that idea from the Old Testament.

          "Acts 2:38 – Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual."

          In Acts 2:38, the Apostle Peter was calling upon his audience to identify themselves with Jesus Christ. In getting baptized, they identified themselves as being recipients of the grace and mercy of God. They aligned themselves with the cause of Christ. Baptism signifies His death and resurrection. It is a picture of an inner transformation of our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Another passage that has the same kind of imagery regarding baptism is 1 Corinthians 10:2. The Apostle Paul stated that the Israelites were baptized into Moses, meaning that they identified themselves with his mission and purpose. Baptism is not a condition for salvation, but an expression that one has been forgiven by God and granted citizenship into His kingdom. Moreover, it is repentance, not baptism, that is associated with the forgiveness of sin in Luke's theology (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 11:18).

          Roy B. Zuck, in his work titled Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 120, advocates for a different interpretation of Acts 2:38:

          "...An important observation, which can be seen only in Greek, is that the verb repent is in the plural, as is the word your which precedes the word sins. Interestingly, however, the words baptized and the first occurrence of you in the verse are in the singular. This seems to suggest that the words "and be baptized, every one of you (sing.), in the name of Jesus Christ," should be set apart as a parenthetical statement. The main thought then is, "Repent [pl.] so that your [pl.] sins may be forgiven. This is a command that corresponds with many similar commands in the New Testament. Then the instruction to be baptized is directed to individuals, suggesting that any individual who does repent should then submit to water baptism."

          "1 Cor. 6:11 – Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic."

          The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 does not refer to the ritual act of baptism, but to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:26 is another text that uses visually descriptive and figurative language regarding washing. Just because a text contains a reference to washing, does not necessarily mean that it is about literal water. If Paul believed in baptismal regeneration, then it would have been illogical for him to have spoken the way he had at the beginning of his letter (1 Corinthians 1:14-17). He clearly separated the events of baptism and justification before God. Thus, Paul did not believe doing such diminished the importance of that ritual.

          Romans 3-5 is the key passage explaining how one is justified in the sight of God. The constant object of emphasis there is faith to the exclusion of works of the Law. Therefore, justification is said to be by the grace of God alone through faith alone. If such a proposition were false, then the Apostle Paul must also be an incompetent minister, since he never mentions various requirements for justification in this crucial context. He only stresses faith.

          "1 Peter 3:21 – Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body)."

          The key to answering this argument lies in the phrase "...which corresponds to this" (or "The like figure...," as in the Authorized Version). Just as Noah and his family had entered the ark to escape judgment from God on this world through floodwater, so those who place their trust in Jesus Christ will be saved from eternal condemnation at the Final Judgment. He is the "ark" which protects us from the eschatological wrath of God. Baptism is a picture of the newness of life that we experience in Christ. 1 Peter 3:21 says that it is not the ritual which purifies our consciences (i.e. "not as a removal of dirt from the body..."), but that which baptism represents, namely, our changed identity and newfound union in Him.

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

"Now let us speak briefly concerning sacrifice itself. “Ivory,” says Plato, “is not a pure offering to God.” What then? Are embroidered and costly textures? Nay, rather nothing is a pure offering to God which can be corrupted or taken away secretly. But as he saw this, that nothing which was taken from a dead body ought to be offered to a living being, why did he not see that a corporeal offering ought not to be presented to an incorporeal being?...There are two things which ought to be offered, the gift and the sacrifice; the gift as a perpetual offering, the sacrifice for a time. But with those who by no means understand the nature of the Divine Being, a gift is anything which is wrought of gold or silver; likewise anything which is woven of purple and silk: a sacrifice is a victim, and as many things as are burnt upon the altar. But God does not make use either of the one or the other, because He is free from corruption, and that is altogether corruptible. Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen."

Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chap. XXV

Debunking Karlo Broussard's Arguments For The Catholic Eucharist

• Discussion:

          -Karlo Broussard wrote an article providing two reasons as to why he believes the Roman Catholic view of the Lord's Supper is true. He makes his case by using typology. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "If the Eucharist were just ordinary bread and wine with no miraculous element to it, then the new manna would be inferior to the old. But that’s a no-go when it comes to Biblical typology. The New Testament fulfillment must always be greater than the Old Testament type."

          Jesus Christ, the new manna, is superior to the manna given in the desert because the nourishment that He provides is life everlasting. The manna given to the Israelites was designated to satisfy physical hunger. It was temporal. Christ is to be spiritually consumed by faith, not by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

          "...If real blood was used for the ratifying ceremony of the Old Covenant, then how much more need there be real blood for the ratifying ceremony of the New Covenant, which is the Last Supper?"

          The "real" and "substantial" blood of the New Covenant was shed on the cross. The bread and wine at the Last Supper simply pointed to that reality.

          The words of Jesus Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood are indeed to be understood in a non-literal fashion. He Himself set forth precedent for understanding His teaching figuratively, since He elsewhere spoke of receiving salvation in terms of food and drink (Matthew 5:6; John 7:37-38). The language of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense would not have been unknown to Jews who were alive during the first century.

An Argument For The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament

          One factor that supports the integrity of the New Testament is that its authors distinguished between the words of Christ and their own words. Thus, they did not just attribute random sayings to Him. The disciples were concerned with actually preserving His teaching. Consider as a first example the words of Christ about sacrificial giving:

          "I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ (Acts 20:35)

          The origin of this saying is unknown, but it must have been well-remembered and circulated in early Christian communities. Paul used the example of Christ to encourage others to engage in the kind of ministry that he himself had done.

          "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her." (1 Corinthians 7:10-12)

          The Apostle Paul was especially careful not to attribute words to the Lord that He did not say in giving advice on marriage and divorce. This goes to show that he respected the teachings of Christ enough to not distort them. He had no hidden theological agenda of his own to advance.

          "Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:8-10)

          Paul is once again careful to separate his words from sayings of Christ so as to not conflate them and mislead readers into giving him a wrongful sense of authority as an apostle.

          It can reasonably be inferred from the above cited texts that the earliest disciples of Jesus Christ reported history honestly. They took care to keep and protect the words of their Master. This factor increases the likelihood that the gospels faithfully and accurately record the teachings of Christ.

A Commentary On John 8:56-59

[1.] Christ asserts Abraham's prospect of him, and respect to him: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad, v. 56. And by this he proves that he was not at all out of the way when he made himself greater than Abraham. Two things he here speaks of as instances of that patriarch's respect to the promised Messiah:—

First, The ambition he had to see his day: He rejoiced, eµgalliasto—he leaped at it. The word, though it commonly signifies rejoicing, must here signify a transport of desire rather than of joy, for otherwise the latter part of the verse would be a tautology; he saw it, and was glad. He reached out, or stretched himself forth, that he might see my day; as Zaccheus, that ran before, and climbed the tree, to see Jesus. The notices he had received of the Messiah to come had raised in him an expectation of something great, which he earnestly longed to know more of. The dark intimation of that which is considerable puts men upon enquiry, and makes them earnestly ask Who? and What? and Where? and When? and How? And thus the prophets of the Old Testament, having a general idea of a grace that should come, searched diligently (1 Pt. 1:10), and Abraham was as industrious herein as any of them. God told him of a land that he would give his posterity, and of the wealth and honour he designed them (Gen. 15:14); but he never leaped thus to see that day, as he did to see the day of the Son of man. He could not look with so much indifferency upon the promised seed as he did upon the promised land; in that he was, but to the other he could not be, contentedly a stranger. Note, Those who rightly know any thing of Christ cannot but be earnestly desirous to know more of him. Those who discern the dawning of the light of the Sun of righteousness cannot but wish to see his rising. The mystery of redemption is that which angels desire to look into, much more should we, who are more immediately concerned in it. Abraham desired to see Christ's day, though it was at a great distance; but this degenerate seed of his discerned not his day, nor bade it welcome when it came. The appearing of Christ, which gracious souls love and long for, carnal hearts dread and loathe.

Secondly, The satisfaction he had in what he did see of it: He saw it, and was glad. Observe here,

a. How God gratified the pious desire of Abraham; he longed to see Christ's day, and he saw it. Though he saw it not so plainly, and fully, and distinctly as we now see it under the gospel, yet he saw something of it, more afterwards than he did at first. Note, To him that has, and to him that asks, shall be given; to him that uses and improves what he has, and that desires and prays for more of the knowledge of Christ, God will give more. But how did Abraham see Christ's day? (a.) Some understand it of the sight he had of it in the other world. The separate soul of Abraham, when the veil of flesh was rent, saw the mysteries of the kingdom of God in heaven. Calvin mentions this sense of it, and does not much disallow it. Note, The longings of gracious souls after Jesus Christ will be fully satisfied when they come to heaven, and not till then. But, (b.) It is more commonly understood of some sight he had of Christ's day in this world. They that received not the promises, yet saw them afar off, Heb. 11:13. Balaam saw Christ, but not now, not nigh. There is room to conjecture that Abraham had some vision of Christ and his day, for his own private satisfaction, which is not, nor must be, recorded in his story, like that of Daniel's, which must be shut up, and sealed unto the time of the end, Dan. 12:4. Christ knew what Abraham saw better than Moses did. But there are divers things recorded in which Abraham saw more of that which he longed to see than he did when the promise was first made to him. He saw in Melchizedek one made like unto the Son of God, and a priest for ever; he saw an appearance of Jehovah, attended with two angels, in the plains of Mamre. In the prevalency of his intercession for Sodom he saw a specimen of Christ's intercession; in the casting out of Ishmael, and the establishment of the covenant with Isaac, he saw a figure of the gospel day, which is Christ's day; for these things were an allegory. In offering Isaac, and the ram instead of Isaac, he saw a double type of the great sacrifice; and his calling the place Jehovah-jireh—It shall be seen, intimates that he saw something more in it than others did, which time would produce; and in making his servant put his hand under his thigh, when he swore, he had a regard to the Messiah.

b. How Abraham entertained these discoveries of Christ's day, and bade them welcome: He saw, and was glad. He was glad of what he saw of God's favour to himself, and glad of what he foresaw of the mercy God had in store for the world. Perhaps this refers to Abraham's laughing when God assured him of a son by Sarah (Gen. 17:16, 17), for that was not a laughter of distrust as Sarah's but of joy; in that promise he saw Christ's day, and it filled him with joy unspeakable. Thus he embraced the promises. Note, A believing sight of Christ and his day will put gladness into the heart. No joy like the joy of faith; we are never acquainted with true pleasure till we are acquainted with Christ.

[2.] The Jews cavil at this, and reproach him for it (v. 57): Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Here, First, They suppose that if Abraham saw him and his day he also had seen Abraham, which yet was not a necessary innuendo, but this turn of his words would best serve to expose him; yet it was true that Christ had seen Abraham, and had talked with him as a man talks with his friend. Secondly, They suppose it a very absurd thing for him to pretend to have seen Abraham, who was dead so many ages before he was born. The state of the dead is an invisible state; but here they ran upon the old mistake, understanding that corporally which Christ spoke spiritually. Now this gave them occasion to despise his youth, and to upbraid him with it, as if he were but of yesterday, and knew nothing: Thou art not yet fifty years old. They might as well have said, Thou art not forty; for he was now but thirty-two or thirty-three years old. As to this, Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage supports the tradition which he says he had from some that had conversed with St. John, that our Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for, Advers. Haeres. lib. 2, cap. 39, 40. See what little credit is to be given to tradition; and, as to this here, the Jews spoke at random; some year they would mention, and therefore pitched upon one that they thought he was far enough short of; he did not look to be forty, but they were sure he could not be fifty, much less contemporary with Abraham. Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num. 4:47), so that they meant no more than this, "Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham." Some think that his countenance was so altered, with grief and watching, that, together with the gravity of his aspect, it made him look like a man of fifty years old: his visage was so marred, Isa. 52:14.

[3.] Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself (v. 58): "Verily, verily, I say unto you; I do not only say it in private to my own disciples, who will be sure to say as I say, but to you my enemies and persecutors; I say it to your faces, take it how you will: Before Abraham was, I am;" prin Abraam genesthai, egoµ eimi, Before Abraham was made or born, I am. The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator; well therefore might he make himself greater than Abraham. Before Abraham he was, First, As God. I am, is the name of God (Ex. 3:14); it denotes his self-existence; he does not say, I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last, immutably the same (Rev. 1:8); thus he was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds, ch. 1:1; Prov. 8:23. Secondly, As Mediator. He was the appointed Messiah, long before Abraham; the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), the channel of conveyance of light, life, and love from God to man. This supposes his divine nature, that he is the same in himself from eternity (Heb. 13:8), and that he is the same to man ever since the fall; he was made of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, to Adam, and Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and Shem, and all the patriarchs that lived and died by faith in him before Abraham was born. Abraham was the root of the Jewish nation, the rock out of which they were hewn. If Christ was before Abraham, his doctrine and religion were no novelty, but were, in the substance of them, prior to Judaism, and ought to take place of it.

[4.] This great word ended the dispute abruptly, and put a period to it: they could bear to hear no more from him, and he needed to say no more to them, having witnessed this good confession, which was sufficient to support all his claims. One would think that Christ's discourse, in which shone so much both of grace and glory, should have captivated them all; but their inveterate prejudice against the holy spiritual doctrine and law of Christ, which were so contrary to their pride and worldliness, baffled all the methods of conviction. Now was fulfilled that prophecy (Mal. 3:1, 2), that when the messenger of the covenant should come to his temple they would not abide the day of his coming, because he would be like a refiner's fire. Observe here,

First, How they were enraged at Christ for what he said: They took up stones to cast at him, v. 59. Perhaps they looked upon him as a blasphemer, and such were indeed to be stoned (Lev. 24:16); but they must be first legally tried and convicted. Farewell justice and order if every man pretend to execute a law at his pleasure. Besides, they had said but just now that he was a distracted crack-brained man, and if so it was against all reason and equity to punish him as a malefactor for what he said. They took up stones. Dr. Lightfoot will tell you how they came to have stones so ready in the temple; they had workmen at this time repairing the temple, or making some additions, and the pieces of stone which they hewed off served for this purpose. See here the desperate power of sin and Satan in and over the children of disobedience. Who would think that ever there should be such wickedness as this in men, such an open and daring rebellion against one that undeniably proved himself to be the Son of God? Thus every one has a stone to throw at his holy religion, Acts 28:22.

Secondly, How he made his escape out of their hands. 1. He absconded; Jesus hid himself; ekrybeµ—he was hid, either by the crowd of those that wished well to him, to shelter him (he that ought to have been upon a throne, high and lifted up, is content to be lost in a crowd); or perhaps he concealed himself behind some of the walls or pillars of the temple (in the secret of his tabernacle he shall hide me, Ps. 27:5); or by a divine power, casting a mist before their eyes, he made himself invisible to them. When the wicked rise a man is hidden, a wise and good man, Prov. 28:12, 28. Not that Christ was afraid or ashamed to stand by what he had said, but his hour was not yet come, and he would countenance the flight of his ministers and people in times of persecution, when they are called to it. The Lord hid Jeremiah and Baruch, Jer. 36:26. 2. He departed, he went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, undiscovered, and so passed by. This was not a cowardly inglorious flight, nor such as argued either guilt or fear. It was foretold concerning him that he should not fail nor be discouraged, Isa. 42:4. But, (1.) It was an instance of his power over his enemies, and that they could do no more against him than he gave them leave to do; by which it appears that when afterwards he was taken in their pits he offered himself, ch. 10:18. They now thought they had made sure of him and yet he passed through the midst of them, either their eyes being blinded or their hands tied, and thus he left them to fume, like a lion disappointed of his prey. (2.) It was an instance of his prudent provision for his own safety, when he knew that his work was not done, nor his testimony finished; thus he gave an example to his own rule, When they persecute you in one city flee to another; nay, if occasion be, to a wilderness, for so Elijah did (1 Ki. 19:3, 4), and the woman, the church, Rev. 12:6. When they took up loose stones to throw at Christ, he could have commanded the fixed stones, which did cry out of the wall against them, to avenge his cause, or the earth to open and swallow them up; but he chose to accommodate himself to the state he was in, to make the example imitable by the prudence of his followers, without a miracle. (3.) It was a righteous deserting of those who (worse than the Gadarenes, who prayed him to depart) stoned him from among them. Christ will not long stay with those who bid him be gone. Christ did again visit the temple after this; as one loth to depart, he bade oft farewell; but at last he abandoned it for ever, and left it desolate. Christ now went through the midst of the Jews, and none of them courted his stay, nor stirred up himself to take hold of him, but were even content to let him go. Note, God never forsakes any till they have first provoked him to withdraw, and will have none of him. Calvin observes that these chief priests, when they had driven Christ out of the temple, valued themselves on the possession they kept of it: "But," says he, "those deceive themselves who are proud of a church or temple which Christ has forsaken." Longe falluntur, cum templum se habere putant Deo vacuum. When Christ left them it is said that he passed by silently and unobserved; pareµgen houtoµs, so that they were not aware of him. Note, Christ's departures from a church, or a particular soul, are often secret, and not soon taken notice of. As the kingdom of God comes not, so it goes not, with observation. See Jdg. 16:20. Samson wist not that the Lord was departed from him. Thus it was with these forsaken Jews, God left them, and they never missed him.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

The Contrast Between Faith And Works In The Pauline Epistles

• Paul's Epistle To The Romans:

          -A freely received gift and an earned wage are mutually exclusive concepts (Romans 4:4).

          -Justification in the sight of God is not earned as a result of what one has done, but is received with the empty hand of faith (Romans 4:5).

          -Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith rather than his circumcision (Romans 4:9-12). Faith is contrasted with circumcision, which is a type of good work.

          -The promise of God to Abraham and his descendants comes not through the Law but by faith (Romans 4:13).
          -The promises of God to those who have faith would be made of no effect if righteousness came through the Law (Romans 4:14).

          -Faith is consistent with grace in order that the promises of God to Abraham and his descendants be brought to fulfillment (Romans 4:16). The Law brings forth condemnation (Romans 4:15).

• Paul's Epistle To The Galatians:

          -The Holy Spirit is received by faith and not by "works of the Law" or "the flesh" (Galatians 3:2-3).

          -Those who rely on faith, not the works of the Law, are regarded as children of Abraham in the sight of God (Galatians 3:6-9).

          -Dependence on works of the Law for salvation brings about a curse (Galatians 3:10-14).

          -The inheritance that we receive through the promises of God depends on His grace, not Law (Galatians 3:15-18).

• Paul's Epistle To The Ephesians:

          -We have been saved by grace through faith, not as a result of works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Paul's Epistle To The Philippians:

          -We serve God in the Spirit and place no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3).

          -Even though the Apostle Paul could point to the deeds of the flesh that he performed in his days as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:4-6), he gave all that up for faith in Christ (Philippians 3:7).

          -Paul regarded his fleshly works done under the Law as rubbish in order that he be known by Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8).

          -We receive righteousness from God on the basis of faith, not by deeds performed under the Law (Philippians 3:9).

• Paul's Second Epistle To Timothy:

          -We are saved and called to glorify God by His grace through our faith in Him and not because of our works (2 Timothy 1:9).

• Paul's Epistle To Titus:

          -We are saved by the grace and mercy of God, not on the basis of our works (Titus 3:5).

          -We become heirs having the confident expectation of eternal life on the basis of grace (Titus 3:7).

A Commentary On Shekinah Glory

Shechinah. This term is not found in the Bible. It was used by the later Jews, and borrowed by Christians from them, to express the visible majesty of the Divine Presence especially when resting or dwelling between cherubim on the mercy-seat in the Tabernacle and in the temple of Solomon; but not in Zerubbabel's temple, for it was one of the five particulars which the Jews reckon to have been wanting in the second Temple. The use of the term is first found in the Targums, where it a frequent periphrasis for God, considered as dwelling amongst the children of Israel, and is thus used, especially by Onkelos, to avoid ascribing corporeity to God Himself. In Ex. xxv. 8, where the Hebrew has "Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them," Onkelos has, "I will make my Shechinah to among them." In xxix. 45, 46, for the Hebrew "I will dwell among the children of Israel," Onkelos has, "I will make my Shechinah to dwell," &c. In Ps. lxxiv. 2, "for this Mount Zion wherein thou hast dwelt," the Targum has "wherein thy Shechinah hath dwelt." In the description of the dedication of  Solomon's Temple (1 K. viii. 12, 13), the Targum of Jonathan runs thus: "The Lord is to make His Shechinah dwell in Jerusalem. I have built the house of the sanctuary for the house of thy Shechinah forever." And in 1 K. vi. 13, for the Heb. "I will dwell among the children of Israel," Jonathan has "I will make my Shechinah dwell." In Is. vi. 5, he has the combination, "the glory of the Shechinah of the King of ages the Lord of Hosts;" and in the next verse he paraphrases "from off the altar" by "from before His Shechinah on the throne of glory in the lofty heavens that are above the altar." Compare also Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Ps. lxviii. 17, 18, cxxxv. 21; Is. xxxiii. 5, lvii. 15; Joel iii. 17, 21, and numerous other passages. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the Targums never render "the cloud" or "the glory" by Shechinah. Hence, as regards the use of the word Shechinah in the Targums, it may be defined as a periphrasis for God whenever He is said to dwell on, Zion amongst Israel, or between the cherubims, and so on, in order as before said, to avoid the slightest approach to materialism. Our view of the Targumistic of the Shechinah would not be complete if we did not add, that though, as we have seen, the Jews reckoned the Shechinah among the marks of the divine favor which were wanting to the second Temple, they manifestly expected the return of the Shechinah in the days of the Messiah. Thus Hagg. i. 8, "Build the house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the Lord," is paraphrased by Jonathan, "I will cause my Shechinah to dwell in it in glory." Compare also Ez. xliii. 7, 9; Zech. ii. 10, viii. 3. As regards the visible manifestation of the Divine Presence dwelling amongst the Israelites, to which the term Shechinah has attached itself, the idea which the different accounts in Scripture convey is that of a most brilliant and glorious light, enveloped in a cloud, and usually concealed by the cloud, so that the cloud itself was for the most part alone visible; but on particular occasions, the glory appeared. The allusions in the NT to the Shechinah are not unfrequent. Thus in the account of the Nativity, the words, "Lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them and, the glory of the Lord shone round about them" (Luke ii. 9), followed by the apparition of "the multitude of the heavenly host," recall the appearance of the divine glory on Sinai, when "He shined forth from Paran, and came with ten thousands of saints" (Deut. xxxiii. 2; comp. Ps. lxviii. 17; Ezek. xliii. 2; Acts vii. 53; Heb ii. 2). The "God of glory" (Acts vii. 2, 55), the "cherubims of glory" (Heb ix. 5), "the glory" (Rom. ix. 4), and other like passages, are distinct references to the manifestations of the glory in the O.T. When we read in John i. 14, that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory" or in 2 Cor. xii. 9, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me;" or in Rev. xxi. 3, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them,"-we have not only references to the Shechinah, but are distinctly taught to connect it with the incarnation and future coming of Messiah, as type with antitype. It should also be specially noticed that the attendance of angels is usually associated with the Shechinah. These are most frequently called (Ez. x., xi.) cherubim; but sometimes, as in Is. vi., seraphim (comp. Rev. iv. 7, 8). The predominant association, however, is with the cherubim, of which the golden cherubim on the mercy-seat were the representation.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 878-879

Hebrews 1:3 And The Deity Of Christ

        "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

        This text is very clearly supportive of the deity of Jesus Christ. It is packed with meaning. The phrase "exact representation" can be illustrated using an ideal cut diamond as an analogy. The glory of Christ transcends the effulgence of even the most precious gems. The imagery of "exact representation" carries with it the idea of an imprint on a coin.

        God the Son possesses the same divine nature as God the Father. He has the same divine glory as God the Father. Jesus Christ is the wisdom of God. He is wisdom incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24; 30; Colossians 2:3). As a side issue, if Christ is the wisdom of God, yet is a created being, would that not mean God had no wisdom prior to creating Him? 

        Jesus represents God perfectly in every way. That is because He is very God in the flesh. Christ makes known to us God the Father (John 14:9). No men or angels can say this about themselves without telling a lie and committing blasphemy. Christ makes known the Father to us because He shares the same divine nature.

        We know from the Old Testament that God will not give His glory to another (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; 48:11). Thus, Christ is again affirmed to be God in the flesh. This passage is one of the strongest affirmations of a High Christology in the whole New Testament. The author of Hebrews drew from the Wisdom of Solomon in asserting the divinity of Christ:

        "She is a breath of God's power—a pure and radiant stream of glory from the Almighty. Nothing that is defiled can ever steal its way into Wisdom. She is a reflection of eternal light, a perfect mirror of God's activity and goodness. " (Wisdom 7:25-26) 

        Wisdom is personified in the above excerpt. Wisdom is a prominent exhibition of the divine glory of God. This wisdom and glory shines forth in Jesus Christ. The way that such things show forth through Him is unparalleled. The author of Hebrews says, in effect, "Jesus is God." The fullness of deity is articulated perfectly in His person.

Is Mary The Mother Of The Church?

        One of the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church is that Mary is our spiritual mother. Pope Paul VI officially declared her to be so in 1964. The title is derived from Mary's role as the mother of Jesus, who is the head of the church. The title of Mother of the Church can be traced back to the 4th century writings of Ambrose of Milan. Roman Catholic Priest Edward Looney expounds on this Marian dogma in these words: 

        "Everyone has a mother. Yes, the mother who gave them birth in the physical order of life. But Christian believers have another mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the spiritual order of grace. Jesus willed to give Mary as a mother to the early Church, when, from the cross, he looked at his mother and said, “Woman, behold, your son” (John 19:26). And to the beloved disciple, “Behold, your mother” (John 19:27)."

        John was the disciple who Jesus loved (John 21:20). He was present at His crucifixion. Because John believed Christ to be the Son of God, he was considered a part of the true family of God (Luke 8:21). Christ's blood brothers did not believe at that point in time and hence were not a part of His true family (John 7:5). That is why Christ handing His mother Mary to John for care rather than one of His blood brothers can be viewed as appropriate. In so doing, He was being faithful to both the letter and spirit of the Law.

        The Apostle John says nothing about Mary in his letters to the churches and mentions her only twice in his gospel (i.e. the wedding at Cana and the crucifixion of Jesus). This is significant because he took Mary into his home after Jesus was crucified.

        The Apostle Paul says in Galatians 4:26 that the heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of the church:

        "But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother."

        Christianity is a product of Judaism. Both share a common heritage through the Old Testament, but the former religion expounds fully on the realities to which it points. The Apostle Paul in this context spiritualizes the history of the former covenant, but he never applies the concept of spiritual motherhood to Mary. Further, Paul alludes to virgin birth, but only refers to Mary as a woman: 

        "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law." (Galatians 4:4)

        In his epistle to the Romans, Paul mentioned Rufus' mother and said that she had been a motherly figure to him: 

        "Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine." (Romans 16:13)

        If Mary is the mother of the church, then it would seem ironic, and even disrespectful, for him to say nothing in regards to her.

        "The Fathers of the Church and early Christian writers did not so interpret the words of the dying Christ [John 19:25-27]. Development of the idea of Mary's spiritual motherhood was slow and did not enter the consciousnesses of the Church until medieval times. During those early centuries, the sacred text did not immediately convey the notion. Lengthy reflection was needed to reach it." (Michael O'Carroll, cited in Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, p. 44)

Early Church Evidence For Sola Fide

"Victorinus separates them [justification and sanctification] when he writes, "A man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith and the faith of Jesus Christ...It is faith alone that gives justification and sanctification."

Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther, p. 82

Early Church Evidence For Sola Fide

"In his treatise entitled "Concerning Those Who Think to Be Justified through Works," Marcus Eremita (fifth century, also known as Marcus the Ascetic) explains that "the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants."

Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther, p. 135

Does Romans 3:28 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of Roman Catholic claims regarding Romans 3:28 and justification by faith alone. The author resorts to the usual tactic of distinguishing between the meaning of works and works of the Law in Paul's letters. He even tries to make a distinction between the meaning of works in Paul and in James, which backfires in a way that is almost comical. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of those assertions:

          "Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

          Romans 3:27-28 contrasts between faith and works as two different paths of obtaining a just status before God. The latter is excluded by the Apostle Paul as being an available avenue of justification for man to use. While it is true that the exact word "alone" does not occur the Greek text of Romans, that does faithfully and accurately capture the thrust of Paul's argument. James 2:24 is part of a context about the demonstration of a saving faith. That text addresses justification from an evidential point of view. The contexts of Romans 3 and James 2 cannot be conflated.

          "Paul categorically excludes works from our salvation. But what kind of works is Paul talking about? If we believe the entire Bible, we need to see how Paul’s words fit together with James’s words, because James clearly says that “a man is justified by works.” If Paul and James mean the same thing by works, then they contradict one another. Since you and I both believe that the Bible cannot contradict itself, we must agree that Paul and James mean two different things by the word works."

          A distinction between the meaning of works in James and the meaning of works in Paul has been invented with no basis in fact or reality. The Apostle Paul undoubtedly had the Mosaic Law in mind when he wrote Romans. However, there is much more to it than customs such as circumcision. The Mosaic Law also had commandments to love God and love neighbor. For example, Paul brings up the prohibition against coveting, which is a part of the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7). James would indeed have these kinds of works in view. Moreover, Roman Catholicism regards these aspects of the Law as being necessary for justification before God, while rejecting other aspects such as circumcision and Sabbath observance. 

          "A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer especially to the law of circumcision. He is so strong about this that he says in Galatians 5:2, “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is fighting against, and they have no place in our justification. Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved."

          Paul's only point of emphasis when discussing the instance of justification before God in Romans and Galatians is faith. Hence, we see the reason for such contexts being appealed to as evidence for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Assume for the sake of argument that the Apostle Paul had in mind the ceremonial and dietary aspects of the Mosaic Law as opposed to good works in general when he speaks of works of the law. The Roman Catholic Church would still stand condemned according to his teaching. Paul's larger point is that any works, whether moral or ceremonial, cannot justify a person before God.

Does The Roman Catholic Church Teach That We Are Saved By Grace Alone?

        "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canon 1)

         Rome does not maintain that a man pulls himself up by his own bootstraps, but speaks in terms of "cooperating with grace." In Roman Catholic theology, a person has to do good works in order to get justified in the sight of God. One keeps his righteous standing before Him by that same means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must attain an inherent righteousness in order to be accepted by God. However, these ideas run contrary to the teaching of Scripture. 

         The grace of God does not come about as a result of the actions of man (Romans 11:6). Grace and works are at odds with each other in the context of justification. Simply put, to speak of grace being infused at the moment of water baptism (which is a work) and being maintained through good works is a contradiction of terms. Paul would have understood grace to be an unmerited favor of God. It is something in which man is passive while God takes the initiative.

         We have failed to meet the standard of moral perfection that God requires and so have incurred for ourselves condemnation (Psalm 14:2-3; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:9-23; Galatians 3:10). If He kept a record of our sins, then we could not stand and say that we are righteous (Psalm 130:3). No one could be saved if God chose not to be merciful toward us. We do not look to ourselves for righteousness. We look to Christ alone and the righteousness that He gives to us (Luke 18:9-14; Philippians 3:3-9). 

        The point of contention with Roman Catholicism is not whether our lives as Christians should be characterized by obedience to God. It does not center around whether we perform good works. They are a display of His grace in our lives. However, good works are not to be viewed as meritorious in the sight of God. Our grounds for justification before Him is the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:19). Good works are not to be added to faith as a condition for salvation.

        If justification is "not of ourselves" and "not as a result of works" (Ephesians 2:8-9), then that means faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification before God. It is not obtained by both grace and works because it cannot be done that way. There are no good deeds that can save us from eternal condemnation, including those done in a state of grace. The Roman Catholic Church views grace as being necessary for salvation, but not sufficient. 

        Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness..." (Titus 3:5). He is talking about anything righteous that we do. He continues on that thought with a stark contrast, "but according to his mercy he saved us." God did not save us because of any merit on our part; just the opposite is true. Thus, Paul condemns the sacramental system of justification taught by Rome. Some people ironically use this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, but that would be a self-contradictory interpretation.