Ezekiel & Figurative Language

Let the Bible Explain Itself

When asked the question, “How does one decide whether the language of the Bible is to be taken literally or figuratively?” the simple answer is that throughout the world in every language we take what is said literally. The exceptions to this rule would be when the speaker often uses nonliteral language or when taking the words literally twists or distorts what is said.

ezekiel provides much figurative language

Ezekiel provides much figurative language.

Look at the book of Ezekiel for a moment. The opening words speak of “the fourth month on the fifth day of the month.” Common sense makes it obvious that this is a historical narrative. Now, for someone to take the word and use his own imagination to make some profound affirmation about the numerical value of the numbers four and five violates the nature of the text. Ezekiel is simply establishing the date of the revelation God was giving to him.

However, in the verses which follow there is a description of the vision seen by the prophet. There is a whirlwind, raging fire, a great cloud, four creatures which look like a man, with each one having four faces, four wings, straight legs, calves’ feet, faces like lions, oxen, eagles and humans. Beside each of them were wheels, that had wheels inside wheels, that lifted the creatures up, and they flew. What on earth could this mean? We read the words describing these creatures, but what is this all about? The answer is simple. “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezek. 1:28).  Do the wings, feet, faces, and wheels have some figurative meaning? There is no way any man can give precise meaning to each of these, for God does not reveal them. Ezekiel saw a manifestation of the glory of the Lord. He wanted us to see that he uses words to tell us what he saw in the vision, and then God specifically describes the creature.

Some focus on the details of the vision and try to find some hidden meaning, yet Ezekiel tells us the precise meaning. Ezekiel talks about the Spirit in this book (3:12-13, 25; 8:4; 9:3, 11:23; 45:9). Common sense would lead us to spend far more time on the Spirit and where He is found in relation to the temple than to spend all our time trying to make too much of the description of the Spirit in the vision.

Hopefully, looking at these words from the early chapters of Ezekiel will help us more clearly see one principle of dealing with prophetical, poetic language. We must never place more emphasis on the figurative language in any verse than the Bible does. Let God emphasize what matters in the text. Be willing to stop short of assigning your own meaning to figurative language. Find God’s emphasis and then stop. Let the Bible explain itself.

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Ezekiel & Figurative Language

Keep It Holy

Keep It Holy

God has always given man instruction pertaining to what He expects.  From Adam and Eve to the acceptable sacrifice of Cain and Abel, to the details of the ark of Noah, to the glorious Scriptures contained in our New Testament, gives instruction to each of us, for today.  When we comes to the book of Leviticus, if we were to sum up this third book of Moses, it would be to, “be holy.”  Moses addresses the whole nation and communicates to them the divine instructions of common laws and duties and that they make themselves sanctified or set apart.  God shows that He is holy and He asked them to be holy: “Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2).

are you keeping your life holy

Are you keeping your life holy?

God shows here that all the commands given are based upon holiness and it is the goal of such commands to keep one holy.  This is no different than today.  Paul said, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).  Christians are never to be stumbling blocks to others.  We are not to seek our own advantages.  Instead, we are to be thinking of how we can best honor God.  For, isn’t that what it partly means to be holy?

What does it mean to you that, “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17)?  Being holy means that we do not merely turn over a new leaf at baptism, we begin a new life under a new Master.  The Master is our Lord, not the master of sin and bondage.  Therefore, “gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:13-16).

We should not be walking after the flesh, but after the spirit by focusing on holiness.  And, we want to live holy lives because God is holy.  He is absolute righteousness and purity.  We want to be holy because God ask us to be holy.  God wants people just like Him and who can live with Him eternally.  God does not want us corruptible and dying with the world.  Furthermore, we want to be holy because the Scriptures demands holiness.  “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (Lev. 11:45; 20:7, 26).  We have no choice.  Therefore, if we wish to be like God and we desire with all our hearts to be with God, then we must be imitators of God.  We must live lives that are different from the nations around us.  We must keep our lives holy/set apart for God.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Keep It Holy

Where is the Baptist Church?

Where in the Word is the Baptist Church?

All over our little town in front of certain homes, there are nice, neat little signs that read: “We Are First Baptist Cleveland.” In fact, there are not only several that I see daily on my drive home from the church building office, but even our neighbors more or less across the street from the parsonage where we live have one proudly displayed out on their front lawn.

And as I am constantly seeing those signs on display, I can’t help but remember some similar signs back in my home state of Maine, posted by another Baptist Church which I’m sure must have preached and promoted doctrines very similar in scope to the four Baptist Churches that share our little town here. Their roadside signs proudly proclaimed to people not only who they were, but in some cases, what they believed and based their theology and hope of salvation on as well. The only problem was, those signs’ messages were completely and utterly untrue – intentionally misleading or not is not mine to say – but utterly untrue they surely were! And this, not according to me, but according to almighty God Himself in His holy and eternally perfect word (Psalms 19 and 119)! So please don’t blame or judge me for pointing this out, for I’m just following orders (Eph. 5:11). Instead, just simply go ahead and examine these statements for yourself.

For example, one sign of theirs I will never forget reading sometime after my being biblically and therefore truly converted to Christ, was the one that they had set out on the front lawn of a home just past the exit ramp from the interstate, and just before the intersection where the traffic light was, which, of course, being a tractor-trailer driver at the time, I had to see every day when I passed through there on my way back to the terminal – sometimes even as I sat in traffic waiting for the light to change. It read, in part: “Bible Believing Baptist Church.” With all due respect, that simply could not be true. That phrase was a complete contradiction in terms biblically speaking… and here’s why.

The Bible unequivocally states that baptism is specifically FOR the forgiveness of sins and that it absolutely precedes salvation – and there’s no legitimately getting around that (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-41). But what Baptist Church do you know of which believes, practices, preaches and teaches that though? Additionally, the Bible unquestionably says that “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). And once again I would ask, where is the “bible-believing” Baptist Church anywhere on this earth which preaches and teaches exactly what that passage says – that baptism is the precise process through which, and the precise point at which, an alien sinner is summarily cleansed, forgiven, and subsequently saved? Peter certainly said it was; read it again. The bible repeatedly and emphatically emphasizes that baptism is where one calls on the name of the Lord to have their sins washed away (forgiven) and to be saved (Acts 2:38, 22:16), as well as the exact point in time at which one becomes a child of God by accepting God’s grace through their faith in the first place (Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:12). What Baptist Church teaches the biblical doctrine of baptism as seen therein, instead of adamantly and militantly denying this very critical, biblical, and divinely-inspired doctrine through insistence upon a sinner’s reciting the so-called “sinner’s prayer” – a practice never even once seen amid the thousands of documented New Testament conversions to Christ – in order to be saved?

Do the research yourself – PLEASE. Look up any Baptist Church on the web. Explore their teachings at length on this. How could any one of them be considered truly “Bible believing,” when they deny the biblical doctrine of the absolute essentiality of baptism for salvation? Oh sure, some pay lip service to following God’s word… and many of them make it sound really good (Jesus dealt with some folks in His day who did the same thing: Mark 7:5-13; and so did the Apostle Paul: 2 Corinthians 11:3-15). But dig deep enough into this doctrine and you will find they don’t believe the bible enough to follow it at all.

For instance, just for research sake, I recently googled “First Baptist doctrine baptism” or some such, and found the following statement on some First Baptist Church website (very representative of so many Baptist Churches) under their heading, The Baptist Distinctives:

Baptist Churches are modeled after the New Testament Churches. Other denominations believe some of the basic New Testament doctrines; however, for the most part Baptists are the only ones who have held to all of the basic New Testament doctrines down through the years.

Really? I mean… it sounds really good… except for the fact that it’s blatantly, biblically, and unbelievably untrue. Ask yourself: If Baptist Churches are truly modeled after New Testament churches, then why don’t they refer to themselves by one of the New Testament terms which God authorized and utilized for His churches in divine writ – terms such as “the church of God” (I Cor. 1:1), or, “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16) – and not with a term of recognition completely contrary and foreign to what that New Testament they claim to be modeled after uses? For, “There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). And certainly the term “Baptist Church” never occurs in the New Testament – if so, where so? And after all, why should it? The Baptist Church wasn’t even in existence until 1607 when John Smyth finally founded it in Holland. It wasn’t even established until some 1574 years after Christ purchased (Acts 20:28) and established His church – the church of Christ, the one that carries His name by virtue of being His bride – in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 2.

In Christ’s one, New Testament church (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:1-6) congregations – or “churches of Christ” as God divinely inspired the Apostle Paul to refer to them in Romans 16:16 – we would also note that their “pastors” were not simply their “preachers,” but were their shepherds, or elders (which is what the Greek word translated “pastors” that one time in Ephesians 4:11 actually means); and that as such, these elders/shepherds/pastors absolutely had to meet a very specific list of God-given requirements in order to serve as such. Do Baptist preachers (“pastors” as they call them) meet those God-insisted-upon requirements for “pastors?” After all, is that not one of the “basic New Testament doctrines” they claim to follow?

We never see instrumental music in the New Testament churches either – but we sure do see it in Baptist Churches (as well as apostate, although once faithful, but now fallen away congregations of even some “churches of Christ” tragically)!

But once again: the New Testament doctrine on baptism is that baptism is the exact point at which one’s sins are forgiven (Acts 2:38), and that “baptism now saves you” (I Ptr. 3:21) – get that; look it up in your own New Testament: “baptism now saves you” according to 1 Peter 3:21! But the very same website that insists that the Baptist Church follows the doctrines of the New Testament, proudly proclaims of the First Baptist Church denomination and its doctrine on baptism:

Baptism by immersion and the Lord’s Supper are the ordinances of the local church…. Baptism by immersion of believers only pictures our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection… Neither ordinance has any saving merit…  (Emphasis added).

How on earth can it possibly even remotely be considered as following New Testament doctrine, to deny everything the New Testament emphatically states about baptism being the very point at which one is saved, and either insolently, arrogantly, or even ignorantly insisting instead, that baptism does not save you, and that it’s only purpose is symbolic and not saving?!?!?

And it’s not only when it comes to baptism’s essentiality for salvation that Baptist Churches can’t possibly be considered completely bible-believing. What Baptist Church is there that believes the God of the Bible enough, so as to teach and preach the full council of God on such eternal truths as the fact that… believers can fall from grace (Gal. 5:4); that “faith only” or “faith alone” will save absolutely nobody (Jms. 2:19-24) – ever; or, that teach that denominations such as themselves are somehow okay in the sight of that same God who divinely dictated the entire Bible, and in His New Testament, insisted on no divisions (denominations) in the church (1 Cor. 1:10; Jn. 17:20-21; Eph. 4:1-6; Phil. 1:27-2:2)?!?

No, I am not First Baptist anything, nor am I any other deceived denominationalist diligently paying lip service to, but only following maybe a very few select parts of God’s all-authoritative New Testament doctrine (including on baptism – Matt. 28:18-20). I am a humble, grateful, and biblically-studied member of the Lord Jesus Christ’s one, undenominated New Testament church, just as seen promised, purchased, established by, and belonging to, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; the one church opened up by Peter on the Day of Pentecost just as Jesus had prophesied (Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 20:28; Acts 2), instead of some man-made division never seen in Scripture, but established many centuries later by sinful men, insisting on doctrines other than Christ’s (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 4:1-4) such as the “sinner’s prayer” for salvation sake, which suddenly surfaced as “official church doctrine” in the relatively recent mid-17th century as an edict arising not from Christ’s divinely inspired apostles, but from the uninspired attendees of the Westminster Assembly in England!

I am – we are – the Lord’s church as seen in Scripture (Romans 16:16). Who are you? And who’s church do you want to be found in when you come face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ (who bled and died only for His church), come Judgment Day? John Smyth’s? The Baptist’s? The Pope’s? Martin Luther’s? Or the Christ’s? It’s up to you. “But as for me and my house…” (Josh. 24:15), we shall choose to be found “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15). And any biblically-informed person can’t possibly be in some church that doesn’t even appear or exist anywhere in God’s truth, and yet at the same time, be in the one church which both appears in, exists in, and upholds only His truth… can they? If so, how so? In other words, “Bible Believing Baptist Church” is a complete contradiction in terms. Because if they truly believed in and went by the bible – wherein the Baptist Church and many of its doctrines (such as the ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ for salvation sake which is never found in any New Testament conversion to Christ) – then they wouldn’t honestly, and couldn’t possibly, be a Baptist Church, but would have to be a “church of God”/”church of Christ” (Acts 20:28/Romans 16:16)!

And so again I ask… Who (and who’s) are you? Can you find the church you attend in existence in the word of God or not? If so, in where is it’s “book, chapter, and verse” reference found? And wouldn’t you feel safer and more pleasing to God in the church that actually is in His word and is shown be the only one for which He bled and died? “The churches of Christ greet you” (Romans 16:16). And if we can help you in any way to truly become a New Testament Christian, and therefore a member of Christ’s one, New Testament, blood-bought and undenominated church which has been in existence for the past 2,000 years or so now, since 33 AD (Acts 2), then we stand both ready, willing, able, and anxious to study the Scriptures with you!

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Where is the Baptist Church?

Babylonian Captivity

Lessons from Babylonian Captivity

In studying the great book of Isaiah, one of the things that we learn from this rich study is the impending Babylonian Captivity that would come upon the people of God. As a means of summary, there are several lessons to learn from this major historical event.

* When Hezekiah, king of Judah, was in trouble (Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was threatening to invade Judah), he turned to the prophet, Isaiah (Isa. 36-37), but unfortunately, he forgot about doing so when Babylon later visited him in Isaiah 39, which opened the door for the forthcoming Babylonian Captivity.

* God intended for the nation of Israel to be a light to the rest of the world, but they failed in that. Yet, when they went into captivity, the remnant of the nation carried with them monotheism—the wor – ship of one true and living God. Pagan nations (i.e., Babylon) worshipped idols, but when the remnant of the nation went into captivity, they carried with them the one true and living God, which the book of Daniel emphasizes. Therefore, the remnant accomplished in exile what God wanted them to do all the while!

* The exile emphasized the importance of the individual (a lesson reinforced by Ezekiel). Within the nation, only the remnant would become vital and impor – tant, and the reason for this is because of the individual (cf. Isa. 27:12). Therefore, though they went into exile as a na – tion, they would come out as individual believers (such as Ezra and Nehemiah describe).

* The exile separated the political from the spiritual. When the nation desired a king to be as the other nations (cf. 1 Sam. 8), as time passed, the nation be – came more and more political, and they became less and less spiritual. The more that they emphasized the king; the less they appreciated the prophets and the importance of spiritual things. However, the remnant in exile will understand the difference. Their cities, temple and king were all gone; was God gone, too? Oh, no! Daniel still prays toward Jerusalem, although it has burned and was destroyed, but they knew that God still lives! This was a demonstration of his faith and that God still lives, although the city and temple were destroyed. Is their worship gone, too? No, their religion was just note in the ritual of temple sacrifices (cf. Isa. 1:11-15).

* Captivity taught them that the temple that God desired was their heart (Isa. 57:15; 66:1-2), not the one that Solomon built. Do we remember what God said to Da – vid when David proposed the idea of a temple (2 Sam. 7:4-16)? He essentially began His response to David through the prophet, Nathan, by stating that He never at any time complained about the current situation of meeting them in fellowship through the tabernacle. Unfortunately, through the years that would follow, the temple became a symbol of ritual and had no relationship to life at all. God only dwelt in the temple as a symbolic manner. This same principle is true today—God desires to dwell in our hearts, and because He is high and holy, He does so in the hearts of those who are contrite, humble and obedient (Acts 7:45-50; 1 Cor. 3:16- 17). In fact, Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 66 are in direct contrast as proper bookends of this book—the rituals of the first chapter by those whose lives were impure and unholy (1:11-15) are contrasted with what Isaiah says that God wants in the last chapter—hearts that are clean, pure, holy and upright (66:1-2), which is still true today!

* The exile gave meaning to their mission – ary purpose. In exile, they became what God wanted them to be. Some thought that without Jerusalem, the temple and their earthly king, that there would be no testimony or witness to the true and living God, but this was not true. Even in captivity, this is why there were prophets, such as Ezekiel and Daniel. They were a testimony to the missionary purpose of God’s people and were a witness to the world!

* Moreover, they were to learn once again in captivity of their relationship with other people—they were to be separate from them, yet they were to influence them. They were not to live as other people, but they were to be a godly, life- changing influence upon them. Such is true of Christians today!

* In captivity, the only advantage they had over Babylon was the revelation of God and the truth onto which they held. That is what made the difference! Therefore, the pagans met true religion and revelation when they were in captivity (cf. Ps. 102).

Therefore, here are some of the things that the exile accomplished, prepared by the prophet, Isaiah. The captivity did not thwart the divine purpose that God had with His people! May we learn much from our study of the Old Testament to the point that we may see principles of truth and righteousness that we may apply today (cf. Rom. 15:4)!

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Babylonian Captivity

Pope Peter?

Was Peter the First Pope?

With all of the recent news regarding the Catholic Church many have heard stated as fact by news media and others that Peter was the first pope. This is, of course, official Catholic doctrine. But what does the Bible say about Peter’s popehood? Is there one scripture that plainly declares that Peter was the first pope? There’s not one. In fact, the evidence in scripture is against Peter being the first pope. Let’s take a look at a few things in this regard.

is there any bibilical authority for a pope

Is there any Biblical authority for a pope?

Those who claim that Peter was the first pope state that Matthew 16:18 proves that Peter was given this title by Jesus himself. What does this verse say, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” These say that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus was going to build his church. However, the rest of scripture state otherwise. Jesus said that He was the rock in Matthew 21:42, when he said, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes”. To this, Peter himself agreed! Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:6, “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” Who is the chief corner stone? Peter or Jesus? It is Jesus. Inspired by the same Holy Spirit as Matthew, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The scriptures teach that Jesus was and is the foundation of the church, not Peter. Who then was the “rock” in Matthew 21:42? It was Jesus himself. It was upon the rock of Peter’s confession upon which Jesus would build His church, not upon Peter himself.

There are, however, other inconsistencies with the claim that Peter was the first pope. Peter, unlike the popes of our day, had a mother-in-law according to Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38. This meant that Peter (Cephas) was married. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul calls our attention to this fact when he says, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” This is entirely inconsistent with what the Catholic Church requires in a “pope” today. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood.” By and large, one must come up through the ranks of Catholic priesthood in order to become the pope. This would require celibacy for the pope. Too bad Peter didn’t know this.

Another inconsistency is that Peter didn’t allow anyone to bow down before him and worship him as those who fawn over the pope do today. In Acts 10:25,26 we have these words regarding Cornelius, “And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” The word “worship” in this verse refers as much to a position as to an attitude. It means to bow the knee toward or kiss toward another. The action of Cornelius’ bowing down to Peter was understood as an action of worship. Unlike the popes of modern day who accept such worship, Peter refused it. He told this man to stand up because he, Peter, was also a man. Strange behavior indeed, from a pope! Why don’t the popes of today follow Peter’s example in this regard, if he TRULY was the first pope. Hypocrisy comes to mind as at least one of the reasons. Another reason is simply that Peter wasn’t the first pope.

Perhaps the clincher is the situation in which Peter found himself at the church in Antioch. He had traveled there to visit and have fellowship with the brethren, but when his fellow Jews arrived, Peter stopped engaging in that fellowship and refused to eat with them. Paul called Peter down on this point. He states in Galatians 2:11 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.” This is strange behavior toward someone who was the first pope. Didn’t Paul know about Peter’s elevated status? Didn’t Paul know that the pope is beyond reproach? Didn’t Paul know that the pope makes the doctrine of the church? Who among the Catholics today would so act toward the pope if he were found to be in sin? Not any of them would so act. Yet, Paul treats Peter not as if he were someone special, but as if he were merely a brother who needed correction.

The fact of such matters is that Peter was never the first pope. Peter was not so elevated above the other apostles as to have a greater measure of authority than any of the others. Peter was a leader, of that there is no doubt. Peter was also a shepherd, but acknowledged that there were others who were on equal footing with him in this role (1 Peter 5:1). The Catholic Church would have us believe that Peter was the chief Shepherd of the whole church. They say, ” The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth” (The Pope). They also state regarding John 21:15-17, “�here [Jesus] makes [Peter] the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.” But to Peter, there was but ONE Chief Shepherd and that was Jesus himself. He makes this abundantly clear in 1 Peter 5:4 where Peter says, “And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Again, the Catholic Church would do well to listen to their “first pope.” Yet, sadly, they do not.

The scriptures plainly teach that Peter held no such role of prominence for which the Catholic Church argues. They argue this not based upon the facts of the scriptures, but merely upon their own traditions. And the traditions of men never outweigh the word of God (Mark 7:13). In fact, traditions have no authority whatsoever when it comes to doctrinal matters (Mark 7:13). Only the scriptures can provide the man of God with everything that he needs for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16,17). Our plea is for unity, not based upon the traditions of men, but upon the authority of the word of God. If we take that as the standard, then we will avoid such folly as attempting to twist the scriptures into confirming Peter as the first pope.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Pope Peter?