On Christian Wars

Christians, God's children, have for years taken a beating by those who make the claim that Christians have been responsible for religious wars that killed thousands of people during the Crusades and in Europe itself during the Middle Ages. There never was any truth to it and never will be.

Just because a Catholic claims to be a Christian does not make him one. Just because a Protestant makes the claim to be a Christian does not make him one. Neither Catholics nor the majority of Protestants are Christians. Neither group has been willing to accept what the New Testament teaches that it takes for a person to become a Christian. I will deal with each group in this article in due time. Until then I ask the reader to use a little reason, a little common sense.

Name one passage in the New Testament that teaches that a Christian ought to organize with other Christians and go to war and kill those of another religion in order to establish or defend the faith in a geographic locality. Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36 NKJV) Servants of Christ do not fight physical battles on behalf of the kingdom, a kingdom not of this world.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12 NKJV) Christians battle with a spiritual weapon, the sword of the spirit which is the word of God (Eph. 6:17).

Jesus told the one who sought to protect him by physical force at the time of his arrest, the one who used his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, to "Put your sword in its place." (Matt. 26:52 NKJV)

And we all know the multitude of passages in the New Testament teaching us to love our fellow man, to be kind and tender-hearted, longsuffering and forbearing, and yet we seemingly are unable to put two and two together. Would true Christians in the tens of thousands voluntarily offer to go to war to destroy pagans? Do we not know the Bible teaches we are to teach and convert them rather than destroy them?

And yet what is so apparent is not seen by us for we have come to fully accept a perverted gospel as being the genuine thing. Paul dealt with a perverted gospel in the book of Galatians but we act as though that was a one-time historical event and the gospel has never been perverted since then.

What I have said above is simply reason and common sense. If you have ever read your New Testament you know these things are true. Do you really think a true Christian could call for such wars and true Christians answer the call to arms for such wars? Let us go kill the pagans. Do you believe that? You might subdue by force of arms those of another religion but you could not convert them that way, not convert them to Christianity. One can only become a Christian by genuine faith and sincerity of heart. Force of arms cannot change hearts.

The Catholic Church is not the New Testament church and the Catholic religion has nothing to do with Christianity. The Catholic Church cannot exist without going outside the pages of the Bible for authority and when they do so that authority comes from mere men. The New Testament knows nothing about Popes, praying to Mary, indulgences, burning people at the stake, authority residing in the church, or a thousand and one other things practiced by the Catholic Church either today or in days gone by. When you go outside the Bible, specifically the New Testament, for authority you are no longer a Christian.

I remind the reader it historically was the Catholic Church that sought to have the Bibles burned and kept out of the hands of the average man and woman. Now I ask you, do you think the God of heaven looked with favor on that and was behind it? Burn God's word! I am sure He approved that. Of course, when you exclude God that leaves you in charge, mere men exalting themselves as though they were God. Look at us; we are the authority now.

The Catholic hierarchy reminds one much of the scribes and Pharisees of New Testament times. "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:5-9 NKJV)

Verse 9 certainly has no meaning to a Catholic—"do not call anyone on earth your father." The Pope even makes the claim to speak for God when he speaks, as they call it, ex cathedra. When one researches the history of Catholic popes he will find many who were far, far from righteous by any standard you might want to use. But, when you can convince people that the Bible is an insufficient guide and that only you (the Catholic hierarchy) can lead them spiritually you can pretty much develop your religion any way you desire and if it profits you well you deserve it, don't you? You are worthy, are you not?

This is not an attack on the average Catholic man or woman. Catholicism is basically a religion one is physically born into, an inherited religion, and in that sense far more like Judaism than Christianity. One is not born again (John 3:3-5) into the Catholic Church. This is not to say one cannot be converted to Catholicism but when he is that is exactly what has happened—he was converted to Catholicism, not to Christianity.

If one has never known anything else or been exposed to anything else, it is not a strange thing that he takes for granted what he has been taught from childhood. And who can help what he is born into? (This is not to say no one ever converts to Catholicism but only that the vast majority are born into it.)

However, when one gets older he or she does become responsible before God. John said, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV) There will be some, maybe many, who will say I am one of those false prophets because of the things I have written here but you know what, they will have to go outside of the pages of the Bible for their proof.

There is not a Catholic on earth that can take the New Testament and the New Testament alone and get today's Catholic Church out of it. I venture even further—they know better than try and will not try. They live not by what the Bible says but by what the Catholic hierarchy has handed down from one generation to the next, Catholic tradition, and that is outside the pages of the New Testament. They thus become their own authority and have convinced people it is God's will that it be so.

However, Protestants have their own problems and it centers primarily around one thing. The most of them are wedded to the idea that a man is saved by faith alone and that the new birth, born of water and the spirit, has nothing to do with becoming a Christian. The new birth involves baptism in water for the remission of sins. That they will not accept. Water to them is only symbolic.

It was not symbolic to Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38 for he said it was for the remission of sins. I have said it before and say it here again—you will search hard and long to find a denominational preacher (a Protestant) that will get up in the pulpit and preach what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and that only. He will not preach it because he does not believe it.

It doesn't matter what Peter said about baptism saving us (1 Peter 3:21), it does not matter what Ananias told Saul concerning arising and being baptized and washing away his sins (Acts 22:16), and it doesn't even matter what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (NKJV) We will just explain it all away. It does not matter, none of that will be sufficient for a Protestant immersed in the faith-only doctrine.

Modern Protestant doctrine, which I have been describing, evolved out of the Reformation but in the earliest days of the Reformation there was not that much difference between Protestants and Catholics on who was a Christian. Those early religious wars between the groups were more about heresy, which side was guilty of heresy. It was about that and about who got to rule, about power, and who had the authority. Each religious war had its own specific motivation.

My point though is that neither of the two parties involved were New Testament Christians based on what the New Testament teaches about the subject. Thus they were not Christian wars they were involved in. How can one be a Christian without obeying the gospel?

What does the New Testament teach a person must do to become a Christian? A person must come to have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. Heb. 11:6, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 8:24, John 11:26-27, and a whole host of other passages far too numerous to mention all teach this.

The Bible also teaches that a man must repent of his sins. Faith alone will not save one (John 12:42, James 2:19, James 2:24). The Bible teaches it is repent or perish, "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3 NKJV) "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Luke 5:32 NKJV) See the following passages—Acts 26:20, 2 Cor. 7:10, 2 Peter 3:9, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 17:30.

A man then must confess his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world. Rom. 10:9-10, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (NKJV)

Those in John 12:42-43 were condemned for this very failure, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (NKJV)

Timothy "confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." (1 Tim. 6:12 NKJV) Why? Because God required it and because no man can be baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) who is a non-believer. It cannot be known that you are a believer unless you confess it.

Jesus confessed his deity on more than one occasion but one such occasion was in Mark 14:61-62, "But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Jesus said, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (NKJV) This is the confession (that is the truth contained in the confession) upon which the church is built contrary to Catholic doctrine which says it was Peter.

When Peter made the confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) that foundational truth is that upon which the church was built. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) That foundation is solid only because Jesus was and is the Son of God. Jesus, not Peter, was the rock the church was built upon.

Finally, to become a Christian, or as the Bible sometimes phrases it, a new creation, one must be baptized into Christ. Outside of Christ there is no salvation for he is the Savior of the body and that body is his body, the church. (Eph. 1:22-23, 5:23) There is not a man on earth who can find a Bible passage that teaches how a man enters that body other than through baptism. "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV)

Rom. 6:3, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (NKJV) "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) What body, the body of Christ. Inside Christ there is salvation. Inside Christ there is the remission of sins. Thus Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38 told those believers in the crowd that day to "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (KJV)

This put them inside the body of Christ of which he is the Savior. The reader might ask himself one question. How is one baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38, if Jesus Christ never commanded it? It would be impossible. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV) Jesus also commanded it in Matt. 28:19-20. Protestants rephrase Mark 16:16 in their teaching to say he who believes and is not baptized will be saved, or at least that baptism makes no difference which is to say the same thing.

Yes, Catholics say they baptize—baptize infants. No infant has ever needed salvation for they have no sin nor are they conscious of such nor can they be. In Catholicism, you can be a Catholic and not have faith—the case with infants. You cannot be a Christian without faith. Furthermore, sprinkling is not now and never has been baptism, unless one wants to go outside the pages of the New Testament and get his authority for sprinkling from man rather than God. Baptism is immersion and the word itself means that very thing.

Yes, there were many religious wars killing thousands upon thousands in history but we ought to cease placing liability on Christians for them as Christians had nothing to do with them. Do not blame God's own people or else you may someday be held accountable for your false charges against his people.

Finally, I make this point. There is a difference between fighting to defend one's home and family from aggression and destruction versus starting a war to conquer and destroy and have your way politically, religiously, or any other way. Christians have never engaged in the latter.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Keep Your Heart With All Diligence

The battle to live the Christian life is a battle that is largely fought within. Win the battle with yourself, and you can deal with the external battles that the world brings your way. It is the battle of the human heart. It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). To have a pure heart and maintain it is a struggle. Our spirit draws us one direction, and our fleshly bodies another.

“For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.” (Gal. 5:17 NKJV) I think the TEV translation of the last phrase of this verse nails the meaning. It says, “This means that you cannot do what you want to do.” We all struggle with this. Even the apostle Paul said, “I discipline my body and bring it into subjection.” (1 Cor. 9:27 NKJV) It was something he had to do just like the rest of us, that is, if we want to go to heaven.

Yes, life is a struggle to do what is right and refrain from sin. Perhaps this is why I get upset with Christians of a liberal bent. They come across to me as saying, “You go ahead and struggle; I am depending on God’s grace.” Translated, that means I will do in my life what I want and let God’s grace cover me in the end. We are supposed to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12 NKJV) and have been given a sword (the word of God--Eph. 6:17) and a shield (faith--Eph. 6:16). Where is the fight in liberal Christianity (a misnomer)? Paul said he had “fought the good fight.” (2 Tim. 4:7 NKJV) It is a cop-out to live as you want, not being overly concerned about doing wrong (sinning), feeling that grace will take care of it all. It is a bad attitude toward God. But I digress.

In the book of Proverbs, chapter 23 verse 7, we read of man, “As he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (NKJV) Make no mistake about it--our struggle is with our hearts, a struggle within. “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man.” (Matt. 15:19-20 NKJV) Take special care here to notice that the first sin Jesus lists is “evil thoughts.” Paul says we are to bring “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:5 NKJV)

We are even told what to think about. “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things.” (Phil. 4:8 NKJV)

No wonder Solomon wrote, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life.” (Prov. 4:23 NKJV) The TEV translates this in a way that makes it even clearer, “Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts.” How true it is. How many times in our lives have we heard the words “If you think you can, you can”?

Everything we do in life first begins with a tiny thought that grows and matures. A seed is sown in our hearts by something we have seen, heard, read, or experienced, and a thought begins to take shape as we begin the thought process. That eventually leads to action. I do not know of anything we do where there has not first been the thought that then led us to act. Yes, we sometimes act instinctively, but I think the reader realizes I am not talking about instinctual reactions.

We say, myself included, it is so hard to control our thoughts, and I agree it is, but God would not give a command if we could not do it, do it at least to a major degree. The thought comes to mind from the book of James (James 3:1-10), where we are instructed to control our tongue, but it is also said that no man can tame it. I believe James is telling us we are commanded to give it our very best shot. The same is likely true with our thoughts.

It is hard to see how a person could be tempted without going through a thought process. What is the difference between an evil thought and a temptation? James says, “Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15 NKJV) Paul, like James, in 1 Cor. 10:13, teaches that temptation itself is not a sin. “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” (NKJV) Please note that Paul says temptation is “common to man.” That means, of course, that you and I are not alone when it comes to being tempted by evil.

Temptation, while not a sin, can lead to sin. On the other hand, evil thoughts are sinful in themselves (Matt. 15:19-20). The difference seems to be what we do with the negative or evil thought that enters our mind (heart). If it is transient, it would seem to fall into the category of being only a temptation. If it remains in the heart and we mull it around in our minds and do not let go of it, but entertain it, finding some satisfaction in doing so, then it would seem to pass into the realm of sinful thought. At least that is the only explanation I can see. You will have to decide for yourself.

Perhaps a few Bible examples would help us out. We read of Achan’s sin in Joshua 7:20-21. The Bible says, “And Achan answered Joshua and said, ‘Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and this is what I have done: When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them.’” (NKJV) We are aware of temptation when it occurs. Achan knew he was being tempted, but rather than immediately running away from the temptation, what did he do? He entertained the thought in his heart, gave it thought as to taking the items, and ended up doing so.

David’s sin with Bathsheba is another example. David’s adultery began when he saw the naked Bathsheba and began to think about it in his heart, to dwell on it. He was not keeping his heart with all diligence. One who did keep his heart and reacted properly was Joseph. Joseph, like David, was tempted to engage in sexual sin. We find the account in Gen. 39. His master’s wife was after Joseph day after day to lie with her, as Gen. 39:7 and 10 puts it. Joseph, however, unlike David, did not entertain the thought in his heart.

One who kept his heart with all diligence, as did Joseph, was Daniel. The Bible says of Daniel in Daniel 1:8, “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies … .” (NKJV) Later it is said to Daniel, by a heavenly visitor in a vision, “O Daniel, man greatly beloved … Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard.” (Dan. 10:11-12 NKJV) A man has some control over his heart. We are not forced to do what our fleshly nature leads us to do.

How a man reacts to a situation where he is tempted depends on how he has prepared his heart. David was at heart a good man, but he let his guard down. One must use all diligence in keeping his heart where it ought to be. This does not come naturally. Sin, other than sins of ignorance, originates in the heart. Of the Jews who came out of Egypt with Moses, God said, “They always go astray in their heart.” (Heb. 3:10 NKJV)

I used to hear it said that heaven was a prepared place for a prepared people. I believe that is true. Our preparation must begin within. We must gain control of our thoughts, which is just another way of saying we must gain control of our hearts, for as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7 KJV). Gaining that control begins first with a desire to do so. It then takes self-discipline. We need to give it our best effort, making heaven our treasure, for “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:34 NKJV) Our heart determines not only how our life here on earth will be lived and where we will be led (led by it), but also how our life in eternity will be lived and where. “Keep your heart with all diligence” is some of the best advice you or I will ever be given.

I close with this. Do not despair, thinking “I have failed in this. I have sinned because I failed to keep my heart with all diligence.” Remember this: Jesus came into the world to save sinners. We have all failed. All have sinned. Jesus is our redemption.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Jesus on Gay Marriage

Some people say Jesus never spoke on the issue of gay marriage. I believe Jesus did speak on the subject, albeit indirectly. Let us read Matt. 19:3-6:

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?' And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (NKJV)

There are some significant facts in this short exchange that need to be brought out.

(1) We learn from Jesus that God made mankind male and female and that for a purpose, the purpose of joining together to become one flesh. Now think about that. If the purpose of making mankind male and female was so they could become one flesh (obviously for godly purposes), then if a man mates with another man, has he not violated God's purpose for making him a man? If not, why not? God did not make man to become one flesh with another man.

(2) The wife in this marriage scenario was a female. Jesus speaks of the wife and makes it clear the wife is female (see verse 9, where the reference is to "her"). Jesus and the Pharisees agreed on that. The marriage involved a male and a female. I do not know what a couple in a homosexual relationship will call their partner if gay marriage is allowed, but I know it cannot be "wife" and be the truth. If the relationship sours over time and there is a divorce, who will be divorced? It can't be a wife. Can you have a marriage without a wife? If so, where in scripture do you find such a marriage? I have never read of one in scripture, and neither have you, and Jesus never knew of any either.

(3) We learn what God joined together was a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Does God join together a man and a man? If so, Jesus knew nothing about it. If so, find the scripture that shows it, but I will tell you before you begin; it cannot be done. If God does the joining together of a male and female in a marriage, and the Bible not once indicates anything other than male and female, then who does the joining together of male and male? Is it God or man? This is an important point, for the text says God does the joining together. Is God under obligation to accept man's invention, one that opposes directly His purpose for making mankind male and female?

(This article was written, obviously, before the court made legal what is called "gay marriage." But bear in mind, if the court did it, the court was made up of men, which tells you where gay marriage came from, from men, not God.)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Philip The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church. He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need. The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be "men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom." (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40. Of Stephen it is said he "did great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6:8 NKJV) Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13. The people of Samaria "heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." (Acts 8:6 NKJV) Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip, "was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done." (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power? How was it granted to them and why? Was it by the laying on of the apostles' hands? We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18). Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6; read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology. However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us. Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit. We just don't know.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3). It was, on occasion, an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task, such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. I have always wondered how Philip's daughters who prophesied came to have that gift. Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, "I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17) He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this. See also Acts 2:18. Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer. It reads, "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them." (Acts 8:16 NKJV) That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands. I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts – Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32, and Agabus in Acts 21:10. Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles' hands? How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27? Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6), but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands? That is the question.

When Paul came to Ephesus in Acts 19 and found twelve disciples there, he asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (Acts 19:2 NKJV) If the only way to receive the Holy Spirit was by the laying on of the hands of an apostle, why ask this question? The answer would have automatically been no. Paul was the first apostle to ever come to Ephesus.

The Corinthians were to "desire spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and "earnestly desire the best gifts" (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26). But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them. How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them, if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted? Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to "pray that he may interpret." (NKJV) Interpretation of tongues was a spiritual gift, if it was to come, that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems. The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle. Again, so it seems to me.

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39). Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him. Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts? How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven? Did the eunuch have Philip's sermon memorized so he could teach others? He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized well enough without total recall, but one does wonder. It is certain he would have needed a spiritual gift to proclaim more than the first principles of Christianity to his countrymen.

The point I am getting at is that I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles, at his discretion, during the infancy age of the church. I am certainly not denying the apostles power to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18). The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact that the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed. Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age, and for all time, which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the Spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error? What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles? The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus' signs to create belief. "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31 NKJV) So, the signs Jesus performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm that the word preached was indeed the truth and from God. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today, for they are no longer needed. Once a truth has been confirmed, how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it? Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder. They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders, and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip's ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria. The biblical text says, "And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." (Acts 8:6 NKJV) And then, "When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." (Acts 8:12 NKJV) We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians. However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind, for Philip, not being an apostle, could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them, and God had not conveyed it to them directly. It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. "Through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given." (Acts 8:18 NKJV) Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit. Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria, the brethren there would have still been saved. However, without miraculous gifts, it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them. They were babes in Christ. There were no New Testaments. Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel. One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind. How well do we remember things? How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone? The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the Spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles, unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles. We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household, even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip's preaching life. Many think baptism is no part of the gospel. Philip did not think that way. He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God. How do we know? The text does not say he did. The text does say they were baptized, "both men and women were baptized." (Acts 8:12) How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it? Thus, we see to preach "the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials? He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today. You must remember, Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher. Think on that before belittling baptism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland, on the road to Gaza, and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (a reference to Isa. 53:7-8 – DS) he preached Jesus to him. And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?'" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached, baptism was preached, as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner. When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized. The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him about it? Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because, as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Without the remission of one's sins a person cannot be saved.

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS). Here in Acts 8:35-36, a few verses later, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result – baptism. This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him."

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching – first Peter and now Philip. In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached. They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it. Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted. Which do you believe?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Reconciling With a Brother

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

Can a man be saved who has contempt for and mistreats his fellowman? John says no when he says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10 NAS) Contempt for and mistreatment of a brother is the opposite of love and places one in the devil's camp. Four verses later John says, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death."

One is either a child of God or a child of the devil; there is no middle ground, and John declares that the man who does not love his brother is not of God. Such a man abides in death. Thus verse 23 of this passage begins with the words "if therefore" tying what is to come with what has just been said in verse 22 about various attitudes towards and words spoken against a brother.

One cannot on the one hand worship God and on the other hand mistreat his fellowman whom God created and gave a soul to and for whom Christ also died. God does not show partiality, "there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:11 NAS) "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NAS) "There is none righteous, not even one." (Rom. 3:10 NAS) The man whose vanity and pride have led him to see himself as being in a better position before God than others, say for example the Pharisee who went up to pray in Luke 18:10-14, fools only himself. Any and all who are saved are saved by grace.

Christians need to be very aware of the great danger they are in at all times as regards this matter. They try their best to be faithful and obedient in all things. There is much evil they would not think of partaking in. We see sin and protest against it as we should. The Pharisee that went up to pray to God and went back unjustified in Luke 18 was not wrong in saying there were swindlers, unjust, and adulterous people in the world for there were and always will be. The Pharisee saw that. He did not partake in those things. He seemed to be faithfully obeying the commands of God, so what was his problem?

He had lost sight of the fact that he too was but a mere mortal, a man in need of God's grace and forgiveness. His obedience in commandment keeping had blinded his eyes to the sins of his heart. He had forgotten or ignored what Jesus called the second greatest commandment of the Law of Moses, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mat. 22:39 NAS)

Pride had grown up in his heart so much so that he pitied other sinners needing forgiveness but was convinced he had no need for it himself. He had become his own judge. He would judge not only himself but also his fellowman. How did he know this tax-gatherer who was also praying was a sinner extraordinaire? He was ready to take God's place as judge of all. His outward commandment-keeping, the outward observances of such, had led him to judge himself a righteous man in need of no forgiveness.

God judges a man's heart. "But the LORD said to Samuel, '…for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.'" (1 Sam. 16:7 NAS) "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." (Jer. 17:10 NAS) "My shield is with God, Who saves the upright in heart." (Psalms 7:10 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). The Pharisee had a heart problem.

All Christians today who are trying to live faithful obedient lives need to beware of the tendency we all have to become like this Pharisee. If we are faithful in the outward observances of Christianity, the first thing we know, we can find ourselves finding fault in others rather easily. We become the standard by which people are to be judged. We can end up worshiping ourselves rather than God. The Bible says of that particular Pharisee that when he prayed he was "praying thus to himself." (Luke 18:11 NAS)

The man who would do such things as Jesus spoke of in our text in Matt. 5:22 seems to be a man much like the Pharisee of Luke 18 in his attitude toward his fellowman and towards himself. Jesus is telling us in verses 23 and 24 of our text if we have been this way toward our fellowman, have been disrespectful, hurtful, degraded him, or done him wrong in any way, go take care of that problem now. Go to him, own up to your sin, and be reconciled. That has top priority. Do not delay. What a wonderful world it would be if we would all obey God's golden rule—Matt. 7:12—(man gave it the name "golden" but the rule is God's).

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20 ESV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

One Church or Thousands

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me. One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it. I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her. Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor. Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist. I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion? Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects? There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth. I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with.

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them. They will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning. Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O. J. it simply cannot be so. It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it. That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their minds that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: ‘Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.’ ” Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV)

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see? Had God done it? The text says "their eyes they have closed." Why would a person do that? Could it be they did not want to see? Could it be they did not want to know? Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know? Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing. Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV) It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear.

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will." Both could have heard. The only difference between the two parties was the heart. The Jewish heart had grown dull. The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull." The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will. Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV) The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them. It is hard to get a satisfied person to change.

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man. The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context). It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions. Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will. Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong. The eyes were deliberately closed.

This brings me to what I really want to talk about. I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present. The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology. In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide." In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000. The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another and the number is growing continuously.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty-some thousand? What kind of new math is that?

How is it we have in the Bible a plain statement of scripture, as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews, and yet the eyes are closed today, and the ears are hard of hearing, and the hearts are grown dull, so that the scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty-some thousand? Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old. We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church. Where do you read that in your Bible? What book is that in? It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said. That parable is found in John 15. Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations. There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time. When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it. Why? Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper. Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations? It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account. It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines. When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.). The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else, and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination, then the reality is truth no longer matters. Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error. Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus. That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means. What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock. Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV) Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men, or the same group of men, do the same thing after Pentecost. What then? They are believers that Christ is the Son of God. Is that all that matters? Are they then in the "one church"? Are they saved? The failure to confess Jesus is the same as failing to accept him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief. When you begin to define saving faith as something more than just intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are admitting that doctrine does make a difference after all. And if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church." The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built. God adds you when you obey the gospel. The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved? In Acts 2, in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted), we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached. It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter, via the Holy Spirit, preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach? He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV) Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached. Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful? Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation. If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened. He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter. So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says. That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus." There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example). No one wants that kind of faith. We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject. You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds. They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts. It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either. They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question. Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside. Here are some examples: the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc. These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of. These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question. Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which a person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or, on the other hand, that there is only one church? I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling. It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them? Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church. I include Catholicism as just another denomination. It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad). But this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost), or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets, and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built. That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine. Every congregation was to abide in it. There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine. It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church. It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church. If that church is not found in your community why not restore it? You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Tongue and Hell

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

In this article, I will be dealing with the last of the three declarations or warnings Jesus gave as found in Matt. 5:22 regarding man's attitude and speech toward his fellowman. Jesus says that to say to one's fellowman "you fool" puts him in danger of going to hell itself. That is a frightful thought that the words out of one's mouth are enough to condemn a man for eternity, and yet the Bible teaches that.

"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12:34-37 NAS)

It is important that we remember what was just quoted. If we did so, we would be slow to speak, thinking about what we are about to say before we say it. We would not just blather out thoughtlessly the very first words that come to mind. James tells us, "Let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger." (James 1:19 NAS)

Words not spoken ordinarily cause no trouble nor lead to condemnation. However, certainly, there are times and places where it is appropriate to speak up and sinful not to. But words spoken that would have been best left unspoken have resulted in murders, hatred, anger, strife, bitterness, and condemnation before God.

For the moment I want to put emphasis on what Jesus said in Matt. 12 quoted above when he said, "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." (Matt. 12:34 NAS) Elsewhere Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts." (Matt. 15:19 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). It is the heart that loves God and loves man that is blessed with eternal life and happiness. "He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14 NAS)

The words we direct to our fellowman are a reflection of how our heart feels towards the one to whom we speak. Do we love him/her? Are we kind to the person, compassionate, caring? The words that roll off our tongue are a reflection of the inner attitude we have toward that individual.

To call a man a fool reflects the speaker's heart and lack of love. Even if he was right about the man to whom he was speaking and that man was indeed a fool, it would not get the speaker off the hook for violating the law of love toward one's fellowman.

The Greek word translated "fool" in Matt. 5:22 has been and is highly debated as to its exact meaning. You and I know what the English meaning of the English word fool is without being told, but is that what the Greek word meant that lies behind the English translation in our Bibles? That is the debated question.

Most of the old commentators I consulted (Barnes, Clarke, and Gill) believe it means a wicked reprobate man. Gill says, "The word 'fool' does not signify a man of weak parts, one that is very ignorant in things natural; this the word Raca imports; but a wicked reprobate man; in which sense Solomon often uses the word. The Persic version renders it here 'wicked'." (Gill's Commentary) The translation notes from the NET Bible say, "The meaning of the term moros is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, 'you fool,' although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term moreh 'rebel.'" Young's Literal Translation uses the word "rebel" rather than the word "fool."

I have no way of knowing the truth on this, but I suspect Gill was correct since Raca means fool, which Jesus had already addressed. Robertson's Word Pictures quotes Bruce as saying the word "more," "more" in the original language, "expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel".

Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "'Thou fool;' here the word means morally worthless, a scoundrel, a more serious reproach than 'Raca;' the latter (a reference to Raca--DS) scorns a man's mind and calls him stupid; moros (the word in question--DS) scorns his heart and character." (Page 444) Elsewhere, Vine says in reference to the word translated "fool" (in most translations) it means "a godless, moral reprobate." (Page 915)

Be all that as it may, Matt. 5:22 makes it clear that God has not relinquished his right to be God and handed that right over to me to make me the judge and make proclamation over others. When I call someone a fool, a reprobate, or whatever, I have proclaimed that I myself am not a fool and I am able to judge others, for I am superior. I know these things and you don't is the idea, and I know because I am superior. It is pride and it is arrogance and it is the placing of oneself on God's judgment seat.

Is it true there are no fools and/or godless reprobates on the earth? No, it is not. The book of Proverbs speaks of fools time after time (the word "fool" is mentioned in 40 verses in that book in the NAS and the word "fools" in 21 verses), and enough is said about them so that we can learn quite a bit about who is and who is not a fool. There are many who do not believe in God's existence. David, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms 14:1, 53:1 NAS)

God has not asked us to be naïve and go around acting like we cannot discern foolish things from things that are rational, and he has certainly not asked us to give up discerning righteousness from unrighteousness. We are not asked to live as though we are blind and see no evil and refuse to recognize evil or foolishness. We know there are evil men in the world; we know there are foolish men in the world. Jesus in the New Testament addressed a certain class of men as "fools and blind men." (Matt. 23:17 NAS) Paul did the same thing in Rom. 1:22. We are told by Solomon, "Do not be a fool." (Eccl. 7:17 NAS) Surely we can know what foolishness is.

That does not mean, however, that we are to take God's place and declare a man a fool, or worse, implying we are not. Have we not all played the role of the fool at one or more times in our life? I doubt I could find a man who would deny it if he has any honesty about himself at all. If we are, and always have been, so perfect, what need do we have for Jesus? Paul said, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NAS) We have no room to speak of others as being fools.

While the New Testament only uses the words fool and fools 3 times each in the New American Standard Bible (1977), it uses the word foolish in 25 different verses. The first instance is found in Matt. 7:26, "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand." (NAS) It is not hard to be foolish; not obeying the commands of Jesus will do it. Jesus and Paul both spoke of foolish men and foolish acts. One of the problems of the man who is inclined to call his brother, his fellowman, a fool is his failure to see that he too falls into the same category. His disregard for Jesus' words spoken in Matt. 5:22 clearly places him in the classification of being "a foolish man" according to Matt. 7:26.

What is needed is mercy and grace, kindness and love, and taking the speck out of our own eye. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3-5 NAS)

There is a "fiery hell." Jesus said so in the passage before us, and he told us of one personality headed there. It is our choice as to whether or not we make the decision to heed the teachings of Matt. 5:22 or disregard them. There is a path that leads away from the fiery hell. Jesus described it when he said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock." (Matt. 7:24-25 NAS) That is the rock that is higher than I.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]