Does God really exist? How can we know? If God made everything, who made God?

In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it

had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.
So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely “Where did God come from?”
The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end—He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.1
Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator?


How to recognize intelligence
Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence—a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents' heads on Mt. ushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design—the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence—in the man-made objects all around us.
Similarly, in William Paley's famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.2 Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position?
Design in living things
Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded:
'Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.'3
The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states:
'We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.'4
Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible's explanation that God created all.
However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added):
'All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind… It has no mind… It does not plan for the future… it is the blind watchmaker.'5
Selection and design
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selection6 and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.7
Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible's account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.
But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!
Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.
Can mutations produce new information?
Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:
'In this chapter I'll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased . . . But in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information.'9
'All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.'10
'The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can't make money by losing it a little at a time.'11
Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.
[For further information, see: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer]
More problems!
Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called 'biochemical machines'. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can't function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.
Since life is built on these 'machines', the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term 'irreducible complexity' in describing such biochemical 'machines'.
'…systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.'12
Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing 'machinery' to start with when he states:
'The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem.'13
A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex 'machines' of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start!
A greater problem still!
Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like 'BAT'.14 So given long time periods, why couldn't even more complex information arise by chance?
However, what would the word 'BAT' mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!
In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn't work either.
The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the 'letters' in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those 'machines' that needs to be fully-formed or life won't work.
Can information arise from non-information?
Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:
'A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.'15
'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.'16
What is the source of the information?
We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.
However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless .
Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn't this what the Bible indicates when we read, 'In the beginning God .'? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.
So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,17 created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?
he answer seems obvious, so why don't all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers:
'Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words . they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.'18
The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment.
But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord.
So who created God?
By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed—no one created God. He is the self-existing one—the great 'I am' of the Bible.19 He is outside of time; in fact, He created time.
You might say, “But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can't understand it.”
We read in the book of Hebrews, 'But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him' (Hebrews 11:6).
But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.
The Christian faith is not a blind faith; it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse:
'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20).
For a more in-depth article, read: Who created God?

References and Notes
1. Psalms 90:2; 106:48; 147:5. Notice that it is only things which have a beginning which have to have a cause. See J. Sarfati, 'If God created the universe, then who created God?' 12(1), CEN Technical Journal (1998), pp. 20-22. Return to text.
2. W. Paley, Natural Theology, 1802. Reprinted in 1972 by St Thomas Press, Houston, Texas. Return to text.
3. M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler and Adler, Maryland: 1986), p. 342. Return to text.
4. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co, 1987), p. 43. Return to text.
5. Ref. 4, p. 5. Return to text.
6. Natural selection—the concept that some variants in a population will be less 'fit' to survive and/or produce offspring than others in a given environment. Return to text.
7. See C. Wieland, Stones and Bones (Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1995), and G. Parker, Creation: Facts of Life (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1996). Return to text.
8. L. Lester and R. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Dallas Texas: Probe Books, 1989), pp. 175-6. Return to text.
9. L. Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press Inc.), pp. 131-2. Return to text.
10. Ref. 9, p. 138. Return to text.
11. Ref. 9, p. 143. Return to text.
12. M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), pp. 252-253. Return to text.
13. Ref. 4, pp. 139-140. Return to text.
14. Actually, generating words is far simpler than sentences or paragraphs. Simple calculations show that even a billion years would not be enough time to generate even one protein 'sentence'. Return to text.
15. W. Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, (Bielenfeld, Germany: CLV), pp. 64-7. Return to text.
16. Ref. 15, p. 79. Return to text.
17. Thus, capable of generating infinite information, and certainly the enormous, though finite, information of life. Return to text.
18. Ref. 12, p. 243. Return to text.
19. Exodus 3:14; Job 38:4; John 8:58, 11:25, et al. Return to text.
Author: Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo, 20(3):32-34, June-August 1998.
Copyright © 1998, 2003, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. Illustrations and layout copyright, 2003, Eden Communications




Read More...

Parables

by Matt Slick


The parables of Jesus are treasure houses of wisdom masterfully woven in story form. They are deep, theological, practical, sometimes confusing, but always worth the effort needed to unlock their mysteries.

Basically, a parable is a short story with a moral lesson. Jesus’ parables teach a series of moral concepts using the culture of the times. Though the parables have much to offer to us in the present day via a casual reading, they have even more to offer when we understand the culture of the time and examine them in that light. For instance, in the story of the Prodigal son, when the son asked for his father’s inheritance, that was equivalent to saying he didn’t care if his father lived or died. He just wanted his money. Why? Because a son never ever asked for an


inheritance until after the death of his parent. To do so prematurely was to imply he wished his parent’s death!




There are many such cultural gems waiting for us to discover. When laid in the rich framework of the parables, we can see the majestic beauty and power of Jesus’ living words reflected in the light of His truth... and we are not left unaffected.

In the presentation of these parables, I have gleaned heavily from the book Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, by Kenneth E. Bailey. This book forced open my eyes when reading the parables caused me to see things in them I had never thought of before.

It is important to know that the nobleman of ancient Israel did not run, but walked at a dignified pace. Then what does this mean when the Prodigal’s father runs to his son?

Isolation from impure food and people was especially crucial for the Pharisees when they sat down to eat. How do we consider this when the Pharisee asked Jesus to eat with him and provided no means for Jesus to wash?

A person’s ethnic background could be seen through his speech and his clothes. How does this bear upon the Good Samaritan parable where the man is left unconscious and naked?

A woman could be divorced for letting her hair down in public. What does this mean when the woman wet Jesus’ feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair?

The parables used familiar symbols so the listener could relate and, if need be, be shocked. Whatever the outcome in the hearer, the parables required a response. Either the hearer was to change a behavior, or a thought, or a belief, or something else. But change is the reason for the parables.

They were not simply stories. They were living words from the mouth of God.

Read More...

The Great Banquet, Luke 14:15-24

by Matt Slick

The Old Testament background for this parable is found in Isaiah 25:6-9:

6 "And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine.

7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, even the veil which is stretched over all nations.

8 He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken.

9 And it will be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the Lord for whom we have waited; let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation."



"A ritual banquet is one that marks some personal or interpersonal transition or transformation, held to give honor to those undergoing the important social change. As a ritual feature of hospitality, banquets indicate the transformation of a stranger into a guest (Gen. 19:3-14; Luke 5:29) or of an enemy into a covenant partner (Gen. 26:26-31; 2 Sam. 3:20). Banquets mark important transitional points in a person’s life, e.g., Isaac’s weaning day (Gen. 21:8); the weddings of Jacob (Gen. 29:22), Samson (Judg. 14:10), the Lamb (Rev. 19:9), and in the parable of Matt. 22:2-10; the birthdays of Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20), of Herod (Mark 6:21); or the victory banquet hosted by God in Rev. 19:17. At the Last Supper Jesus changes the ceremonial banquet of the Jewish Passover into a ritual banquet effectively symbolizing the meaning of his impending death (Mark 14:12-25 and parallels)."1

Setting: Jesus was at the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath. Jesus noticed that some of the invited guests at the house were seeking the more honored places to sit. Jesus spoke about being humble and seeking the lower position. He then spoke about inviting the poor and the crippled to dinner, even though they could not repay the host, because the host would be repaid in the resurrection. Then we have the following...

15. And when one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!"

"To eat bread" is another way of saying, "To eat a meal."

The phrase "kingdom of God" occurs 66 times and it is found only in the New Testament.

Matthew’s Gospel frequently uses the term ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ while Mark and Luke always use ‘Kingdom of God.’ ‘Heaven’ in these instances is a circumlocution—a way of referring to God without using his name.2

There is both both a present and a future aspect to the kingdom of God. In the present aspect deals with the presence of Christ who is a king. Matt. 12:28-29 says, "“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house." The presence of Christ is the king means that the gospel is being preached as a result of the victorious sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

The future aspect of the kingdom of God deals with the return of Christ and the "age to come," the full redemption of the saved in a resurrected form, the remaking of the heavens and the earth, and all that is promised by God in the future.

The one who said "Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" is a Jew who expects that he himself will enjoy the blessings of the coming kingdom. Jesus takes the opportunity to teach that one enters the kingdom of God, salvation, not by birthright or by works, but by grace.

16. But He said to him, "A certain man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many;

It was the custom when giving a dinner, to invite a certain number of people. Those who accepted the invitation were then counted. The meal was prepared according to the number who accepted the invitation. The more people coming, the more food had to be prepared. For example, a chicken would be for 2-4 guests, a duck for 5-8, a lamb for 10-15, a sheep for 15-35, and a calf for 35-75. In other words, the amount and type of meat depends on the number of people who accept the invitation. Once an animal has been killed it must be eaten soon or else it will spoil. Therefore, to back out at the last minute would be rude. The invited guest is duty bound to attend the banquet.

Also, it was considered very rude to attend a banquet if you were not invited; after all, the meal had not been prepared with you in mind.

17. and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come' for everything is ready now.'

The second invitation is a notification to the guests that the meal is ready.

The Greek word "come" means literally, continue coming. This is consistent with the custom of a double invitation.

18. but they all alike began to make excuses. the first one said to him, 'I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.'

The meal has been prepared, the table set, and people notified. To back out now is an insult.

In the middle East, no one buys a field without first examining it thoroughly. The springs, wells, stone walls, trees, paths, and anticipated rainfall are all well-known long before a discussion of the purchase is even begun. The excuse is a lie, an obvious one, and the guest is stating in no uncertain terms that the field is more important than his relationship with the host. In a community where interpersonal relationships are very important, this strikes even harder as an offence.

19. And another one said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.'

Teams of oxen are sold in the Middle East in two ways. They are taken to the market place and a nearby field and there they plow the field. Anyone wishing to buy may then drive the oxen himself and examine the animals thoroughly to see if they work well as a team.

That is like calling your wife at home and saying you'll be late for the big dinner that's been planned for weeks because you need to go out an look at five cars you just bought without looking at them.

The other way to buy the oxen is to announce that the team is for sale and say what day the team will be working in the field. Prospective buyers can then come to the field, watch, examine, and test them for themselves. Only after the team is examined thoroughly is a price discussed.

This excuse, like the other one, is also an insult.

20. And another one said, 'I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.'

In the tightly knit community of the Middle East a wedding calls for a celebration. At a celebration is food, and lots of it. The community would have been aware of the wedding and many people would have been invited. Meals would have been prepared before hand. Therefore, the banquet would not have been scheduled for the same day as a wedding.

Also, if the man simply wants to be with his wife then why did he accept the invitation in the first place.

This one doesn't even say, "Please."

21. And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.'

Anger would be a natural expectation of the head of the household. He has been insulted three times.

The invited guests refuse to respond to the good news that the feast is ready. What then is the host to do? He cannot have a feast without guests. He then invites the unworthy, the poor, crippled, blind, and lame. He brings in the undesirables. So, he gives the command to bring in the poor, who aren't normally invited to banquets; the crippled, who cannot test oxen in the field; and the blind and lame who don't normally marry.

They have no way of repaying the host and he knows it. Therefore, he is being gracious, very gracious in light of the insults received.

* Matt. 9:36-38, "And seeing the multitudes, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and downcast like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then He *said to His disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 38 “Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.”

22. And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.'

Some have already been saved. But there is room for more.

23. And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house my be filled.'

Notice also, that the command is not carried out in this parable. It is given but no account of its fulfillment is mentioned. This is because those being compelled to enter in have not yet been all invited. Redemption is still going on.

24. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.

-------------------

With what would the original audience have identified in the parable?

* The Banquet = the messianic banquet that ushers in the age to come.
o Matt. 12:32, blasphemy of the H.S. will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30, we receive much in this age and in the age to come we will receive eternal life. Eph. 1:21, "(the power of God) is far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come."
o In this age We will receive 100 times as much, Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; People are given in marriage, Luke 20:34; The wisdom of this world is the wisdom of this age, 1 Cor. 1:20; The rulers of this age are coming to nothing, 1 Cor. 2:6; Satan is the god of this age, 2 Cor. 4:4; Jesus rescued us from the present evil age, Gal. 1:4; In the age to come we will receive eternal life, Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 1 Tim. 6:19; we do not marry, Luke 20:35
* The Original Guests = the leaders of Israel who are rightfully the first to be invited.
o Acts 3:25-26, “It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 “For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”
* The Lame and Poor of the City = the outcasts within the house of Israel.
o Matt. 10:5-8, "These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; freely you received, freely give."
* The Guests from the Highways and the Hedges = the gentiles.
o Acts 13:46, "And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles."

This parable teaches that no one may enter the kingdom of God without an invitation from God. An invitation by grace. It also is a warning to heed the invitation when it is heard; the invitation does not last forever.

In between two great banquet parables, each declaring pure grace (the Great Banquet and the Prodigal Son), is set a collection of sayings that speaks of the high cost of discipleship in clear and demanding terms (Luke 14:25-35).

The Banquet is free, the invitation by grace, but acceptance carries with it responsibility. Discipleship is our responsibility.

Luke 14:25-35:

"Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.; Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand. Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace. So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?"

1. 1. Achtemeier, Paul J., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.), 1985.
2. 2. Ibid.



Read More...

The Fig Tree, Luke 13:1-9

1. Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled [shed along with] with their sacrifices.

Josephus, the Jewish historian of the time of Christ and after, records a number of massacres during this period, but does not mention this one.

Perhaps the people reporting to Jesus were seeking to get Him to comment politically on Pilate and thereby use Jesus as a means of rallying support for their cause. Remember, the Jews were under the rule of the Roman government and resented it. Ungodly gentiles were ruling over the house of Israel. Obviously, the people doing the reporting are interested in deliverance as well as justice. They want what is right; at least, right the way they see it.


Another way to look at the situation would be to imagine a church gathered one Sunday having communion. Then gunmen enter and shoot everyone present thereby mingling their blood with the wine of the supper. The natural reaction would be one of horror and hatred. This is the type of thing that is presented to Jesus.

Possibly could refer to Judas of Galilee in Acts 5:36-37: “For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 “After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered."

2. And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?

When Jesus was told about the slaughter in the temple, He responded not with indignant denunciation of Roman brutality, but with a warning to His own people to "repent".

This raises an important question: Why were they told to repent after Jesus heard about the indignity? Jesus is more concerned with the eternal than the temporal. This is not to say that the loss of the people wasn't serious, but Jesus' mission was not to settle political disputes, or fix people's personal problems. It was to atone for sin, to fulfill the promises of God concerning Israel and the Gentiles, and to usher in the Kingdom of God.

The people are too short-sighted.

The word "fate" is not in the original and is not here intended to support the belief of fatalism. The Greek says, "such things."

3. I tell you, no, but, unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

His statement that they repent or perish is a bold confrontation of sin; something the Jews did not appreciate Jesus pointing out, particularly when they are expecting Jesus to side with them about the slaughter of the Galileans. Apparently, they were looking for ways to get Jesus to agree with them politically. But Jesus would have no part of it. He is not to be parceled out in order to get his approval on different matters on which people are personally concerned whether it be political, social, or theological. He won't be used that way. Instead, Jesus gets to the heart of the matter.

He pulls a switch on them. Jesus doesn't comment on the atrocity of people killed in the act of sacrifice to the God of Israel, as terrible as it is. Instead He tells the multitudes they need to repent or perish.

We know that the judging hand of God fell upon the Jewish nation in the form of its destruction in 70 A.D. when Israel was scattered and the temple destroyed. The Jewish nation had not repented of its sins of legalism, self-righteousness, and ethnic pride, all of which, combined to bring about the murder of Jesus at their hands. The Jews reaped what they sowed. They sowed death. They reaped death.

However, there is not intended here a one to one correspondence on the relationship between sin and its consequences. Elsewhere Jesus denies such a correspondence. Please consider this: "And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind'? Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him," (John 9:1-3).

4. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits [debtors] than all the men who live in Jerusalem?

Jesus broadens the scope of the discussion by mentioning an incident where a tower fell and killed eighteen people. This may be one of the towers near the pool of Siloam in John 9.

He uses the word in Greek for "debtor," (opheiletes). This word stands in contrast to the word "sinners" in verse two.

We are in debt to God because we have broken His laws; we have sinned. A debt is what is owed. Matthew renders the Lord's prayer as "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." The Lucan account of the same prayer uses the words "forgive us our sins...". Debts are unfulfilled duties; sins are both purposefully and accidentally committed acts of rebellion.

The people speak of the slaughter and Jesus speaks of 18 who died long ago. The 18 were no worse than the Galileans. Why then were they all killed? Perhaps the better question might be, "Why were any left alive?" Nevertheless, there is no such thing as chance in a universe governed by God. The deaths under the tower and at the altar of sacrifice were all permitted by God. In this sense God ordained it. That is, He ordained it by permitting it.

But, this does not mean that God causes sin and suffering, but that in His sovereign plan, He ordains that they occur. Again, this means that He gives place in His divinely appointed history for all events to occur that do occur: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).

5. I tell you, no but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." But what is Jesus saying? He mentions the 18 and says they are no worse than those then living in Jerusalem. Jesus' declaration of the need for Israel to repent of their sins, in the light of the slaughter of the Galileans would almost seem to bring extreme anger, even revolt against Him by those listening. After all, the Jews felt oppressed and the incident of the Galileans would only cement their attitudes of persecution and self righteousness.

6. And He began telling this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it, and did not find any.

Leviticus 19:23-25 says, "And when you enter the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten. But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. And in the fifth year you are to eat of its fruit, that its yield may increase for you..."

The vineyard owner was ready to eat of the fruit. But there wasn't any. It was the 7th year of looking: the 5th year fruit would have been the first year he could have partaken. The 6th year would have been the second year he could have partaken, and the 7th year would have been the year spoken of here. Therefore, he says in verse 7...

7. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?'

The owner has the right to expect fruit from his vineyard. Symbolically, this parable seems to be teaching that the Jewish leadership has had enough time to repent of their sins. John the Baptist said to the multitudes going out to see him, "Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance..." (Luke 3:8).

Luke 13:34-35 says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! 35 “Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Years ago I came across a tract of which title alone struck me hard. It said, "No Fruit? Cut it down." This is the case with Israel. God had suffered long with them and the nation had grown cold, legalistic, and self-centered . Israel was not bearing the fruit of God's truth.

As Christians we are to bear the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Gal. 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. If these fruit (In Gal. 5:22, the word "fruit" is in the singular, not plural) are not manifested in your lives, should you be cut down? Apparently, the Jewish leadership were not manifesting the fruit of the Spirit nor the fruit of repentance.

You can ask yourself, "What fruit am I bearing for the Lord?" "Am I showing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and/or self control"?

These are internal characteristics, but what about external manifestations of those fruit? Ministry to others? Are you bearing fruit in furthering the Kingdom of God?

-------------------

Isaiah 5:1-7, "Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. 2 And He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it, And hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard. 4 “What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? 5 “So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. 6 “And I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.” 7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress."

Matt. 21:18-19, "Now in the morning, when He returned to the city, He became hungry. 19 And seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it, and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He *said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered."

John 15:1-2 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit."

8. And he answered and said to him, 'Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer;

Literally, "to put dung" around the tree in order to get it to bear fruit. The word occurs only here. Sometimes we need a little crud in our lives to get us to bear fruit.

9. and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.'"

Literally, remove it from the vineyard.

--------------

This section contains simple teachings:

1. The spiritual leaders of the household of faith are planted in "God's vineyard" and are expected to produce fruit.
2. God will not tolerate fruitlessness indefinitely.
3. Mercy and Grace are extended to those who do not bear fruit.

What is the expected response of the one who hears?

You should examine your own lives and look for fruit. Preferably the fruit of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23, for this is how you store up fruit for eternal life (John 4:36). You must also realize that it is not possible to bear fruit apart from the Branch, Jesus (John 15), for apart from Him you can do nothing.

There are many types of fruit that could be examined: giving, praying, righteousness, forgiveness, tithing, discipling, leading others to Christ, missionary support, etc. Each is different, but each is from the same Lord.

Each of us is different with different gifts and fruit, but we are all of the same body.

Use what God has given you for His glory, to bear fruit, and to further His Kingdom.

Read More...

The Prodigal Son, Luke 15:1-2, 11-32

by Matt Slick


Theme: Great joy in the salvation of the lost.

1 A son is lost - "Give me my share"

| 2 Goods wasted in extravagant living

| | 3 Everything lost - "He spent everything-he began to want

| | | 4 The great sin - "feeding pigs for gentiles

| | | | 5 Total rejection - "no one gave him anything

| | | | | 6 A change of mind - "he came to himself-I

| | | | | | perish here"

| | | | | 6 An initial repentance - "make me a servant"

| | | | 5 Total acceptance - "his father ran and kissed him."

| | | 4 The great repentance - "I am no more worthy to be called your son.

| | 3 Everything gained - a robe, ring, and shoes

| 2 Goods used in joyful celebration

1 A son is found - "My son was dead and is alive, was lost and is found."


In the beginning of this chapter Jesus is with the self righteous. Yet, He eats with sinners. When the righteous men of Israel complained about his "obvious" error of eating with sinners, they voice there disapproval.


Jesus' reply was not one of rebuke, but of teaching; hence, several parables. The first two have three common threads running through each. 1) Something or someone is lost. 2) The lost is sought for. 3) Great joy is shared at the recovery of the thing (person) found.

The third parable mentioned is slightly different in the second thread only. In it, the one who is lost returns to where he came from.

--------------


1. Now all the tax gatherers and the sinners were coming near him to listen to Him.

2. And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them.

Those in need.

Eating was important in this culture because it implied fellowship, a sharing of something in common. To eat with sinners could be interpreted many ways. Here, Jesus is identifying, reaching out to the sinners.

Jesus is accused of eating with sinners. He does not rebuke; He does not revile; He teaches. So should our witness be. We should be loving of all who sin, accepting of all who repent, willing to humble ourselves before men and God. Trust Him to do what is right.

11. And He said, "A certain man had two sons;
12. and the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' And he divided his wealth between them.

The prodigal is shown as wishing for his father's death in his request because the estate was never divided among the children until after the father's death. The father should severely rebuke his son. Instead, the father shows incredible love by granting the request to his son.

13. And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.

He could not sell the land in the community during his father's lifetime. No one would buy it. So, he travels to a distant land and sells his property, thus losing the right of redemption of the land.

14. Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need.

Everything is lost.

15. And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

Swine is an unclean animal. It would seem this act was one of disdain by the pig owner, "Here Jew, feed pigs."

16. And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.

He was totally rejected by the people around him. (The Pharisees rejected the tax-gatherers and sinners.)

17. But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!

His motivation was poverty. Servants were an honorable class of people. He could live in the village. He wouldn't need to live under the same roof as the eldest son. He'd have to face the scorn of the community though. It is possible that he may have wanted to pay something back to his father, but, of coarse, it could not possibly be enough.

18. I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;
19. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.'"

Is the son truly repentant at this time?
It seems his goal is to become a servant, to earn money, and maybe to begin to repay what he lost.

20. And he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him.

The Father totally accepts his son.
In that culture, older men did not run; it was a sign of humiliation. (Phil. 2:5-8) The son should run to the father.

21. And the son said to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.

No bargaining is offered. He admits his guilt only. There is no mention of servanthood or earning anything.

22. But the father said to his slaves, Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;

Robe: sign of dignity and honor.
Ring: sign of authority.
Shoes: sign of not being a servant. Servants did not wear shoes.

23. and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry.

A whole calf is a lot to eat. The whole village would be invited. (Note: blood is shed)

24. for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found. And they began to be merry.

The lost son is found.

25. Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.

Another son is lost. The duties of the eldest son included reconciliation between father and son. A host at feasts. The older son is in the field and not in the house where he should be. This is a public disgrace to the father.

26. And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things might be.
27. And he said to him, "Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.

28. But he became angry, and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began entreating him.

The father went out to his son to entreat him. He did not rebuke as was customary. Again, the father goes to the son.

29. But he answered and said to his father, "Look! for many years I have been serving you, and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a kid, that I might be merry with my friends;

When addressing the father, it should be as 'Father,' not simply 'Look!' This is very disrespectful (unhumble).
The eldest son gives two complaints: one about the father, and...

30. but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him."

...the other about his brother, the sinner. (fornication, devoured your life, "ton bion" in the Greek means "the life". You killed the calf for him and not me.)

31. And he said to him, "My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.

Teknon, child, a Greek word/term of endearment.
All that is mine is yours, come join the celebration.

32. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.

And you were dead in our trespasses and sins, Eph. 2:1.

-------------------

There are mentioned here two types of sinners: the honest manifest one, the younger son, and the hypocritical sinner, the elder.

There are mentioned two types of repentance: sincere and pharisaical.

The younger son's initial repentance is not sincere, v. 17, because it was mtivated from hunger; but, in v. 21, he openly admits his sin. The older brother is anchored in self righteousness. His repentance is not sincere.

God's great love extends to all sinners, the honest as well as the hypocritical. It endures humiliation. It exults joyously when there is true repentance.

God desires sons, not servants.

The lessons in this parable are many; however, the two main ones are:

1. The unconditional love of God to everyone.
2. The gentleness of Jesus and His not striking back in word or deed.
3. May we learn to do as Jesus teaches. See Matthew 5:38-48.


Read More...

The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37

by Matt Slick

Theme: What must I do to inherit eternal life?

25. And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"


Lawyer: One who is an expert in the Law of Moses. Often this individual was called upon to settle legal issues. "He stood up." This is a social courtesy and a greeting of respect. Yet, in his heart he sought to test Jesus. This is a contradiction between his actions and his words.

26. And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"

Jesus asks the lawyer about what he knows best: the law. He knows that keeping the law is the appropriate answer. He brings the issue out into the open. This is probably best since the Jewish leadership were probably concerned about Jesus' teachings on the Law.




27. And he answered and said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

It is interesting that this man of the law would quote something regarding love and not some ritual or set of rules.

The standard set here is one which no one could keep.

Perhaps he was testing Jesus by quoting what Jesus had taught before: love.


28. And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; Do this and you will live."

Jesus, the man, instructs the man of the law, "You have answered correctly."


29. But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

The Lawyer does not show humility by saying something like, "How can I do this, since I am an imperfect and sinful man?" Instead, he seeks to justify himself.

This is often the case with experts in moral law; they think they have their own lives covered pretty well because they look at their actions, not their hearts.

The expected reply would be something like, "Your relative and your friend." Then the lawyer would be able to say that he has done this and thereby enjoy honor among the people there listening; However, Jesus said...


30. Jesus replied and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went off leaving him half dead.

Jesus expounds on the law of love. True love is put into action. It is not merely at concept or a feeling.

There is a road that goes down from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is 17 miles long and drops about 3,000 feet in those 17 miles. It has long been a hazardous trip due to thieves and robbers.

Jesus intentionally leaves the man undescribed. The audience, being Jewish, would naturally assume that he was a Jew. Being in this half dead state he would be unconscious.

Since he is stripped, he then is unidentifiable. Historically, a person can be identified in one of two ways: his dress and his speech, i.e. dialect. The man is any person: void of ethnic background, void of stature, void of position


31. "And by chance a certain priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

Since, he moves to the other side, probably the priest did not actually see it happen. How can he be sure the wounded man is a neighbor since he cannot be identified? If the person lying there is a non Jew the priest could be risking defilement, especially if the person were actually dead. If he defiles himself he can not collect, distribute, and eat tithes. His family and servants will suffer the consequences with him.

Priests were supposed to be ritually clean, exemplars of the law. There would be immediate shame and embarrassment suffered by them at the expense of the people and their peers for such defilement. Having just completed his mandatory two weeks of service, he would then need to return and stand at the Eastern Gate along with the rest of the unclean. Furthermore, in addition to the humiliation involved, the process of restoring ritual purity was time consuming and costly. It required finding, buying, and reducing a red heifer to ashes, and the ritual took a full week. The priest is in a predicament. Moreover, he cannot approach closer than four cubits to a dead man without being defiled, and he will have to overstep that boundary just to ascertain the condition of the wounded man.


32. "And likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
"Levites were descendants of Levi but not of Aaron, and they assisted the priests (Aaron’s descendants) in the temple."1

The road spoken of here is a long one. It is very likely, according to those who have walked it, that a person traveling it, could see ahead of him a long way. The Levite, who is of a lower social class, may have been walking. He most probably saw the priest ahead of him and could have thought to himself, "If the priest may pass then so should I."

Perhaps they might fear for their own safety. What if someone saw them with the naked and wounded person and reported to the officials that the priest and/or Levite committed a crime against the injured person?


33. "But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,
The Samaritans were a mixed race between the Jews of captivity and the Samaritan people of the land they were captive in. The relationship between the Jews and Samaritans was one of hostility because of some bad things that happened in the past. According to the Mishna, "He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine" (Mishna Shebiith 8:10). The Mishna is the oral traditions that developed about the law, containing interpretations and applications to specific questions which the law deals with only in principle. Specifically, it is the collection of these traditions.

The Samaritan is not a gentile. He is bound by the same law as the Jews. The Samaritan would not be naturally from that area, so the half dead man would certainly not qualify as his neighbor.

"The Samaritan woman therefore said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)" (John 4:9).

"The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me,'" (John 8:48-49)


34. "and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
The Samaritan risks defilement. He approaches this unidentifiable man and helps him.

Oil and wine were poured out on the high altar before God. Note how the usage is mentioned after the Priest and Levite have failed to do their duty.

Blood revenge: "Mosaic legislation established cities of refuge for people under the threat of death from blood vengeance retaliation. This legislation provided an escape valve for a custom it could not eradicate."
Often when the guilty cannot be reached, vengeance may be administered to a member of his family. Often the vengeance would reach even to the most distant relations of the offending party.

"Irrational minds seeking a focus for their retaliation do not make rational judgments, especially when the person involved is from a hated minority community."


35. "And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you.'
The Samaritan forfeits anonymity when he stays overnight and then says he would return. This is an acceptance of the potential threat of blood vengeance.

The wounded man has no money. When it is time for him to leave, if he cannot pay the debt he can be arrested, Matthew 18:23-35. The Samaritan knows this and volunteers money (two danarri is two days wages) and whatever else is needed to see to the needs of this unidentified man. Additionally, the Samaritan had no way of insuring the return of his money. Therefore, it is safe to assume he did not expect it to be returned.


The Robbers Priest and Levite The Samaritan
Rob him Harm him by inaction Pays for him
Leave him dying Leave him unhelped Leaves him cared for
Abandon him Neglected him Promises to return


36. "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?"
Jesus refuses to define who a neighbor is. Instead He asks a question proving something greater than the exact answer anticipated. Being a neighbor to someone is not limited to family relations or proximity. It is showing the love of God to all who are in need, who ever they may be, where ever they may be.


37. And he said, "the one who showed mercy toward him." And Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."
The Samaritans were so hated by the Jews that perhaps this lawyer did not want to comment on a "Samaritan" and instead said, "the one who showed mercy toward him."

The discussion began with a question: what must I do inherit eternal life. The conclusion is answered with what must be done.
If we are to do this, we will quickly find that we are incapable of completing so perfect a love. Since the law requires perfect obedience, the doing of this lesson would be something most difficult for the lawyer.


This parable teaches the impossibility of earning one's salvation. The standard, which is perfect love, is too high.

It holds up an ethical level for us to strive for, see Matthew 5:48.

It attacks racial prejudices.

It teaches that love is something you feel and do.

----------

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.), 1983, 1985.


Read More...

The Unjust Steward, Luke 16:1-8

A. Now He was also saying to the disciples, 'There was a certain rich man

who had a steward, and this steward was reported to him as squandering

his possessions. Rich Man and Steward


B. And he called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you?

Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward." Problem


B. and the steward said to himself, "What shall I do, since my master is


taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to

dig; I am ashamed to beg. Problem




C. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the
stewardship, they will receive me into their homes." Idea

B. And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he began saying
to the first, "How much more do you owe my master?" And he said, "A
hundred measures of oil." And he said to him, "Take your bill, and sit
down quickly and write fifty." Solution

B. Then he said to another, "And how much do you owe?" And he said,
"A hundred measures of wheat." He said to him, "Take your bill, and
write eighty." Solution

A. And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly;
for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the
sons of light. Rich Man and Steward


Many commentators agree that this parable is the most difficult of all the parables to interpret. In fact, it is interesting to note that there are other "unsavory" characters in Jesus" parables: The unjust judge, the neighbor who does not want to be bothered in the night, and the man who pockets someone else's treasure by buying his field.

The seeming incongruity of a story that praises a scoundrel has been an embarrassment to the Church at least since Julian the Apostate used the parable to assert the inferiority of the Christian faith and its founder. We need a more precise understanding of the culture that affects this text.

The disciples are the primary audience, but the Pharisees are also included (v. 14).

Questions to ask:

1. Is the master assumed to be an honorable man, or is he a partner-in-crime with his steward?
2. Has the steward obliged the renters to sign bills for amounts greater than the actual debts?
3. Is his reduction of the debts merely a surrender of his dishonest cut?
4. Is the steward an estate manager dealing with land rentals or is he an authorized agent for a moneylender?

The most probable cultural setting for the parable is that of a large estate consisting of land divided into portions, where the steward is entrusted with carrying the business of that estate. The debtors are most likely renters who had agreed to pay a fixed amount of produce for the yearly rent. The steward was no doubt making extras "under the table," but these amounts were not reflected in the signed bills. He was a salaried official who, in addition, was paid a specific fee by the renter for each contract. The master was a man of noble character respected in the community who cared enough about his own wealth to fire a wasteful manager, and this is the key to understanding this parable.

Mishnah, a Hebrew term meaning "repetition" or "study," is the name given to the oldest postbiblical codification of Jewish Oral Law. Together with the Gemara (later commentaries on the Mishnah itself), it forms the TALMUD. Between 400 BC and the beginning of the Christian Era, the biblical laws (see TORAH) were intensively studied, applied to new situations, and supplemented by traditions of popular observance and by precedents established by prominent leaders. This material, long transmitted by word of mouth and known as the Oral Torah, defined the meaning of biblical laws. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the Jewish scholars and teachers called tannaim continued to elaborate and systematize the Oral Torah. About AD 200, Rabbi JUDAH HA-NASI promulgated a collection of the most reliable traditions. This work, the Mishnah, became the official text out of which further Jewish legal development occurred.

1. Now He was also saying to the disciples, 'There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions.
Someone apparently cared enough about the master to tell him something was wrong.
Often tenants disliked the landowners and would not voluntarily help him.


2. And he called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward."
The servant does not know how much the master knows and may be frightened into divulging information the master does not have. So, he remains silent.


3. and the steward said to himself, "What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg.
The steward remained silent. He does not defend himself. In the culture of the time, this is almost an admission of guilt. He thinks of a way to cover himself after he has been let go.
It is not known if the steward is fired now or later? Is he asked to get the books now or get them ready to be examined?


4. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the stewardship, they will receive me into their homes."
The steward acts as though he is not yet fired: he says, "when I am removed..."; yet, earlier, the landowner had said, "you can no longer be steward," present tense. So, it is most likely that he was fired on the spot. But, the word apparently isn't out yet.


5. And he summoned each one of his master's debtors, and he began saying to the first, "How much more do you owe my master?"
The steward does not say "Hello" or "Friend." He is in a hurry.


6. And he said, "A hundred measures of oil." And he said to him, "Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty."
f the renters know that the steward has been fired and they agree to the deal they would risk being thrown off the land by the landowner, not to mention sinning in their dishonesty. The relationship between the owner of the land and his renters is a significant personal and economic relationship. "Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty" is an attempt by the steward to finish before the master finds out what is going on.


7. Then he said to another, "And how much do you owe?" And he said, "A hundred measures of wheat." He said to him, "Take your bill, and write eighty."
If the renters did not think that the steward was acting with the approval of the landowner they would not have agreed; the risk would be too great.

In this account, the steward receives credit for having arranged such a good deal between the landowner and the renters.

The renters, would be very appreciative and indebted to the steward.
Generally, reductions of rent were expected if the conditions warranted it: a dried spring, fruit trees drying, drought, etc. But the renters would have to ask for the reduction and then proceed to haggle. Here, though, the reduction is unsolicited.


8. And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.

Why does the landowner praise the unjust steward?
It would be quite safe to assume that there is some sort of celebrating occurring in the homes of the renters as they rejoice in, what they think is, the generosity of the landowner.


Soon the whole community would be aware of the kind heartedness of the landowner and would be happy with the renters as well as thinking honorably of the generous landowner.

He has two alternatives: First, he could gather the renters and tell them that the reductions were unauthorized and thereby showing his stinginess and risking ridicule from them and the community. Second, he can keep silent, accept the praise that is even now being showered on him, and allow the clever steward to get away with the scheme.

Obviously, the steward knew the master was a generous person, otherwise he would not have taken such a risk; after all, he wasn't jailed to begin with.

In verse 9 Jesus is not praising the dishonesty, but the ability of the steward to recognize the generosity of his master, see what was coming, and use what he had at the time to obtain something far greater: self preservation.

This is significant. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. God can condemn you to eternal damnation. It is wise to seek a way out of that. In fact, the judgment of damnation is so terrible, that praise is offered to the one who, in desperation, seeks a way out of it.

If the unrighteous steward was praised for trusting the master, how much more will you be rewarded if you trust the true and holy Master, the Lord Himself.

Jesus uses the rabbinic principle of showing "how much more." That is, if the widow got what she wanted from the judge (18:1-9), how much more you and God? If the man got bread in the night from his neighbor (11:5-7), how much more you from God?

What, then, does the parable typify?

1. God (the master) is a God of judgment and mercy.
2. Because of his evil, man (the steward) is caught in the crisis of the coming of the kingdom.
3. Excuses will avail the steward nothing.
4. Man's only option is to entrust everything to the unfailing mercy of his generous master who, he can be confident, will accept to pay the price for man's salvation.

The steward was vindicated because he completely trusted the master to be generous, to be good. He was right in doing so!!!

This parable is an appeal to people to understand the nature of God.

1. The nature of God: He is merciful
2. The predicament of man: he is sinful
3. The ground for salvation: complete trust in God.
4. How much more dishonest to God are we?
5. How much more deceitful are we?
6. How much more do we owe to God?
7. How much more merciful is God than the rich man?

God (the master) is a God of judgment and mercy. Because of the steward's evil behavior, he is found out. This is representative of the coming kingdom of God and its associated judgment. Excuses will avail the steward nothing. Man's only option is to entrust everything to the unfailing mercy of his generous master who, he can be confident, will accept to pay the price for man's salvation. This clever scoundrel was wise enough to place his total trust in the quality of mercy experienced at the beginning of the story. That trust was vindicated. Christians need the same kind of wisdom.

Who is God to you?

What do you think of Him?

How do you perceive Him?

Is He mean? Loving? Kind? Impatient? Judgmental?

How you perceive God will determine

* how you respond to Him
* how you address Him
* how often you call upon Him
* How you view troubles
* .....and how much you trust Him.

How much more merciful is God than the rich man?


Read More...

Introduction to Colossians

Colossians focuses on Jesus as the Head of the Church and the Church living in submission to that Head. Paul’s purpose in writing this letter is to show that Christ is supreme and that the Christian’s life should manifest his/her union with the One who is above all things. It would be inconsistent for a Christian to live a life apart from Christ since Christ is the fullness of the Godhead manifested in the flesh (Col 2:9), the focus of the saving Gospel (Col 1:5).

Colossae was a minor city about one hundred miles east of Ephesus. It is by a mountain pass and was once a very populated city with a vibrant economy. By the time of the writing of this epistle, Colossae had withered economically due, in part, to the success of its neighboring cities.


There is some doubt as to whether Paul ever visited Colossae, and, apparently, the Colossian church was founded by Epaphras (Col 1:4-8; 2:1).

Colossians was probably written about the same time as Philemon and Ephesians when Paul was first imprisoned in Rome. If this is accurate, then Colossians was probably written around 60 A.D.

The letter was written in response to a heresy that was developing within the church. Though it is not known exactly what the heresy was, it apparently was a religious system that combined elements from Greek speculations (Col 2:4; 8-10), Jewish legalism (Col 2:11-17), and Oriental mysticism (Col 2:18-23).


Read More...

Messianic Prophecies

“Messiah” means “Anointed One”

Biblical prophecy specialists Peter and Paul LaLonde have noted that:

The Old Testament includes about sixty different prophecies, with more than 300 references, of the coming of the Messiah. It was through the fulfillment of these prophecies that Israel was told she would be able to recognize the true Messiah when He came. The four gospels record several times when Jesus said that He was fulfilling a prophecy of the Old Testament. Luke 24:27 records, for example,


“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” And verse 44 notes, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms, concerning me.” [Peter and Paul LaLonde, 301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Prophecy Partners, Inc., 1996).]
Jesus Christ himself said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46, NKJV). Likewise, Christ's disciples taught that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Acts 3:18; 17:2-3; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
Partial list of prophecies about the Messiah
• A prophet like unto Moses. This was prophecied by Moses, himself:
“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me: 'What they have spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him'.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, NKJV).
Like Moses, the Messiah would be a leader, a prophet, a lawgiver, a deliverer, a teacher, a priest, an anointed one, a mediator, a human and one of God's chosen people (a Jew) performing the role of intermediary between God and man—speaking the words of God—and like Moses, the Messiah would offer himself to die for the sins of the people. Both Moses and Jesus performed many miracles validating their message. As infants, both their lives were threatened by evil kings, and both were supernaturally protected from harm. Both spent their early years in Egypt. Both taught new truths from God. Both cured lepers (Num 12:10-15; Matt. 8:2-3) and confronted demonic powers. Both were initially doubted in their roles by their siblings. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to heal all his people who had faith; Jesus was lifted up on the cross to heal all who would have faith in Him. Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). And there are many other parallels between the lives of Moses and Jesus.
• The Messiah would be a descendant of Noah's son, Shem. Noah said, "Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant (Gen. 9:26-27). Chapter 10 goes on list descendants of Shem, noting that he was ancestor of Eber (Heber: Luke 3:35), the founder of the Hebrew race.
Noah associated Shem especially with the worship of Jehovah, recognizing the dominantly spiritual motivations of Shem and thus implying that God's promised Deliverer would ultimately come from Shem. The Semitic nations have included the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Persians, Syrians and other strongly religious-minded peoples.
…Shem was peculiarly His [God's] steward with respect to the propagation of God's will and plan for mankind, especially the transmission of His saving Word. (Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Bible)
• More specifically, he would be a descendant of Shem named Abraham ( Genesis 22:18; 12; 17; 22). Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1.
• More specifically, he would be a descendant of Abraham's son, Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17; 21). Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1.
• More specifically, he would be a descendant of Isaac's son, Jacob, not Esau (Gen. 28; 35:10-12; Num. 24:17). Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1.
• More specifically, he would be a descendant of Judah, not of the other eleven brothers of Jacob. Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1.
• More specifically, he would be a descendant of the family of Jesse in the tribe of Judah (Isaiah 11:1-5). Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38.
• More specificially, he would be of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4). Fulfilled: See Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1; Luke 1:27, 32, 69. Note: Since the the Jewish genealogical records were destroyed in 70 A.D., along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, it would not be possible for a Messiah imposter who was born later to prove his lineage back to David and thus fulfill this prophecy.
• He will be born in a small city called Bethlehem, specifically the one formerly known as Ephratah (Micah 5:2). Fulfilled: Luke 2:4-20. Note: Christ's birth in Bethlehem was apparently not by the choice of Mary and Joseph; it was forced upon them by Caesar Augustus' taxation decree which required Joseph to leave his home in the city of Nazareth and return to his place of origin to pay the tax.
• He will be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). Fulfilled: Matthew 1; Luke 1.
• The Messiah would be the “seed of of a woman” come to destroy the work of the Devil. Not long after Creation, God prophecied to the serpent Satan, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15). The implication was that Eve's descendant would undo the damage that Satan had caused.
The “seed of the woman” can only be an allusion to a future descendant of Eve who would have no human father. Biologically, a woman produces no seed, and except in this case Biblical usage always speaks only of the seed of men. This promised Seed would, therefore, have to be miraculously implanted in the womb. In this way, He would not inherit the sin nature which would disqualify every son of Adam from becoming a Savior from sin. This prophecy thus clearly anticipates the future virgin birth of Christ.
Satan will inflict a painful wound on the woman's Seed, but Christ in turn will inflict a mortal wound on the Serpent, crushing his head. This prophecy was fulfilled in the first instance at the cross, but will culminate when the triumphant Christ casts Satan into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
This primeval prophecy made such a profound impression on Adam's descendants that it was incorporated, with varying degrees of distortion and embellishment, in all the legends, mythologies and astrologies of the ancients since they are filled with tales of mighty heroes engaged in life-and-death struggles with dragons and other monsters. Mankind, from the earliest ages, has recorded its hope that someday a Savior would come who would destroy the devil and reconcile man to God. (Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Bible)
In the New Testament, Christ's apostle John confirms that this was His Master's purpose, “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work” (1 John 3:8). (Also see: Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:10.)
• He will be a priest after the order of Melchisedek (Melchisedec) (Psalm 110:4). Fulfilled: Hebrews 5:6
• The scepter shall not pass from the tribe of Judah until the Messiah comes. In other words, He will come before Israel loses its right to judge her own people. The patriarch Jacob prophecied this:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. (Genesis 49:10)
As Dr. Henry M. Morris' The Defender's Bible explains:
This important prophecy has been strikingly fulfilled. Although Judah was neither Jacob's firstborn son nor the son who would produce the priestly tribe, he was the son through whom God would fulfill His promises to Israel and to the world. The leadership, according to Jacob, was to go to Judah, but this did not happen for over 600 years. Moses came from Levi, Joshua from Ephraim, Gideon from Manasseh, Samson from Dan, Samuel from Ephraim and Saul from Benjamin. But when David finally became king, Judah held the scepter and did not relinquish it until after Shiloh came. “Shiloh” is a name for the Messiah, probably related to the Hebrew word for “peace” (shalom) and meaning in effect, “the one who brings peace.”
According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the Sanhedrin of Israel lost the right to truly judge its own people when it lost the right to pass death penalties in 11 A.D. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 13). Jesus Christ was certainly born before 11 A.D.
• He will come while the Temple of Jerusalem is standing ( Malachi 3:1; Psalm 118:26; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 11:13; Haggai 2:7-9). Fulfilled: Matthew 21:12, etc. (Note: The Temple did not exist at certain periods in Jewish history, and it was finally destroyed in 70 A.D.)
• He will perform many miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6). Fulfillment: See list of “Miracles Recorded in the Gospels”.
• He will open the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18). Fulfillment: Matt 9:27-31; 12:22; 20:29; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46; Luke 11:14; 18:35; John 9:1-7.
• He will speak in parables (Psalm 78:2). Fulfillment: Matthew 13:34, etc.
• The Gentiles will believe in Him, while His own people (the Jews) will reject him ( Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; 49:6; 50:6; 60:3; Psalms 22:7-8; 118:22). Fulfillment: 1 Peter 2:7, etc.
• A messenger (a man of the wilderness) will prepare the way for Him (Isa. 40:3; Malachi 3:1). See John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17).
• The exact day of His public revealment to Israel—and subsequent death.
The precise timing of Jesus' crucifixion was also given to the Jews when God revealed to the prophet Daniel (9:24) how the Jews could calculate the day of the revealing of the Messiah. Talking of a 490 year period, the prophet foresaw that it would begin “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” (9:25). In the book of Nehemiah we learn that this command was given "in the month Nisan [on the Hebrew calendar], in the twentieth year of the king" (2:1). The king was Artaxerxes Longimanus who ruled from 465 to 425 B.C. The prophet Daniel said that 483 years from that date, the Messiah would be revealed to Israel, but He would then "be cut off, but not for himself" (9:26). This prophecy refers to the crucifixion when Jesus died, or was cut off, for the sins of the world.
483 years later, to the day, was Sunday, April 6, 32 A.D. On that day, which we commemorate as Palm Sunday, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and revealed Himself as Israel's Messiah. He was killed four days later, thus fulfilling the prophecy that He would be revealed and then slain. [Peter and Paul LaLonde, 301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Prophecy Partners, Inc., 1996).]
• He will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey (the colt of an ass) (Zechariah 9:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 21:5; Luke 19:32-37.
• He will be hated for no reason (Psalm 69:4). Fulfillment: John 15:25.
• He will be betrayed (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
• More specifically, He will be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10; 26:47-48.
• The price of his betrayal will be thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
• The betrayal money will be cast onto the floor (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:5.
• More specifically, it will be cast onto the floor of the Temple (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
• The betrayal money will be used to buy a potter's field (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:6-10.
• He will not open his mouth to defend himself (Isaiah 53:7). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:12.
• He will be beaten and spit upon (Isaiah 50:6). Fulfillment: Matthew 26:67; 27:26-30.
• He will be “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Fulfillment: Jesus was crucified as a criminal in between two thieves (Mat 27:38).
• He will be pierced (Zechariah 12:10). Fulfillment: John 19:34
• His hands and feet will be pierced (Psalm 22:16; cf. Zechariah 12:10; Galatians 3:13).
• Crucifixion foretold. Psalm 22 graphically prophecies the Messiah's manner of death. At the time the psalm was written (and long after), the penalty for blasphemy was stoning. However, at the time Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin, it no longer had the legal right to put people to death. Thus, the case was taken to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate who crucified him according to Roman custom (see: Crucifixion).
• The Jewish Passover sacrifice and Jesus Christ's sacrificial death coincide exactly.
The dates on which Jesus was taken by the Roman authorities, and then slain, also coincided precisely with the Jewish Passover. Jesus became the Passover Lamb, “without blemish.” At the first Passover, described in Exodus 12, God instructed the Israelites to kill a lamb with no blemishes and to put its blood on their door posts. When the angel of death passed through Egypt where the Israelites were being held as slaves, it would pass by any house that had the blood of the a Passover lamb on its door posts. Jesus fulfilled Moses' prophecy of the Passover Lamb because it is through His blood that we can be saved from, or passed over by, death. [Peter and Paul LaLonde, 301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Prophecy Partners, Inc., 1996).].
• His bones will not be broken (Psalm 34:20; Exodus 12 states that the Passover lamb's bones are not to be broken.). Fulfillment: John 19:33.
• They will divide his clothing and cast lots for them (Psalm 22:18). Fulfillment: John 19:23-24.
• He will be given vinegar and gall to drink (Psalm 69:21). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:34, 48.
• He will say: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:46.
• He will be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9). Fulfillment: Matthew 27. According to Henry Morris,
This passage [Isaiah 53:9] could also be read, “they planned His grave (to be) with the wicked, but it was with a rich man [Joseph of Arimathea] in His death.” (Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Bible)
• He will not decay (Psalm 16:10). Fulfillment: Acts 2:31
• He will be resurrected from the dead (Psalm 16:10). Fulfillment: Acts 2:31, etc. See: “Resurrection of Christ”.
• He will ascend into heaven (Psalm 68:18). Fulfillment: Acts 1:9.
• He will be seated at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1). Fulfillment: Hebrews 1:3.
• He will be the Son of God (Psa. 2:7). Fulfilled: Matthew 3:17, etc.
Compiled by: Paul S. Taylor.


Read More...

What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit? How does a person receive it?

It's ironic that Christians have argued so much about the baptism of the Spirit, when the apostle Paul used it as one of his main arguments to prove that we are all united in Christ!

Some churches believe that the baptism of the Spirit is an experience different than initial salvation. They see it as a second experience that gives a person much greater spiritual power and boldness, and the ability to live a more victorious Christian life. Some groups teach that the baptism is accompanied by such signs as speaking in tongues.

The Bible does not actually use the term "baptism of the Spirit" very often. John the Baptist predicted that Jesus would come and baptize with the Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Acts 1:5, Jesus recalled


John's words, and told His followers that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from then. The spectacular events of the day of Pentecost ten days later seem to be the obvious fulfillment of His words (see Acts 2). The only other mention in Acts (11:16) refers back to Pentecost, explaining that Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, had an experience very similar to the Pentecost manifestations.

While these passages make it clear that the believers in Acts 2 experienced a baptism of the Spirit, we do not find a clear explanation of what that baptism means. Nor do we know whether there were other works of the Spirit that were happening at the same time.

The clearest explanation of the baptism appears in I Corinthians 12:13. Paul is dealing with a situation where the Corinthian church was splitting into factions over the issue of spiritual gifts. Overemphasis on certain spectacular gifts had led to the attitude that some people had the most desirable gifts, while others were deficient. In response, Paul exclaims, "We're all one! Don't divide up into cliques!" And to prove his point, he explains, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (I Corinthians 12:13).

His main point? All believers share the reality of being baptized by the Spirit.

What does it do? It makes us part of the body of Christ, the Church.

When did it happen? If every believer has been baptized in the Spirit, then it must happen at the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian.

Great Christians down through the years have often experienced dramatic encounters with God after salvation. There is no reason to deny that this is a genuine way that God works with His people. It is also true that equally devout, effective Christians have gone through life without such a “second work” of grace.

We may use whatever words we want to describe our experiences with God. But it is most accurate to say that the Bible uses "baptism of the Spirit" to refer to one of the wonderful things that God does for us the instant we trust Christ and enter His family!

Author: Dr. John Bechtle.

Read More...